I was trying to find the exact definition to quote to show why Lee calls it "Interpretation". Basically, the definition starts at explicit sexual conduct, travels down to genital contact, and there's some suggestion that genital display might fall under the definition. I hope someone else posts the excerpt from the code...
Consider these two scenarios: A - Boxcover image is comprised of non-nude, non-explicit photos taken on the set of the making of the movie where actual humans had actual sex.
B - Boxcover image is of one or more performers and was taken as part of a photo session separate from the making of the movie where no actual humans had any actual sex.
IMO, boxcover B doesn't require records. Boxcover A might. The new rules aren't clear.
As another example consider a boxcover depicting a starlet's face splattered with cum. This image doesn't fit the specific definition of "actual sex" in the rules but I bet the government would want to see documentation for it.
In regards to example A. How in the world would they know if that boxcover shot was taken on the same day as filming? I wouldn't think a studio would have to keep records for a person posing in clothes. So in reality, you couldn't possibly know when that picture was taken. Or do they have to have records for when they shot a person in clothes? When I watch behind the scenes, usually they shoot the front box covers before the actual sex (atleast that what it appears to me). I'm actually referring to just front cover shots. Because most back boxcovers have the actual deed going on, that's kind of self explanatory. As for cumshots on the girls face, I could understand either way. My concern was first about selling my used stuff here and on ebay, but I have taken some interest for self knowledge. So please bare with me if I'm asking to many questions and bothering people. I just want to understand what the boneheads in our government are trying to do to our rights.
Thanks Drew. For some reason it keeps slipping my mind that it's only A-D. Still, I'm sticking to my 'totality of circumstance theory' when it comes to interpreting box cover images.
Well, that's probably moot in my case since I'll be taking all the covers down by the 23rd, and I'll be out of business the month after that....
The model release would state where and when the image was taken and all they would have to do is bounce that off the documentation for the movie to see if they matched. Pretty easy to do in the database format they are mandateing.
If model release contracts are included in the filing system for inspectors a felony has been committed.Edited by - Drew Black on 6/14/2005 11:11:45 PM
[Link]
dvddude Deactivated User
45 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jun 14 2005 : 11:31PM
I didn't think about if someone was getting pictures taken in clothes needed to sign a release. Would the government actually have a right to that information, since it doesn't fall under sexually explicit images? I thought a release form would be used to give the company or person the right to use images of certain people for public display or use. Is that correct? I didn't think that was public information. I thought they only used that information if the person in such image didn't give permission to use them for public display, etc. I guess everything is up to interpretation.
I'll reiterate that the new rules are very specific about the types of documents that are to be maintained and how they are to be indexed. Model releases are not part of the documentation requirements. If a producer has model releases mixed in with their 2257 records for inspectors they have comitted a felony for each instance where a model release appears with the documents. Depending on the filing systems used this could be anywhere from one to twenty five or more violations just for one movie. This could land someone in jail for 245 years.
Yesterday I realized how important the cover art is. I was looking up a 'voluptuous' title -- and how do you know without the cover art if their idea of 'voluptuous' is Hannah Harper, or more like 300 lbs?
Any type of niche porn with unknown performers -- there's no telling what their idea of over 40 or hairy looks like.
If internet retailers can't display box cover art their sales figures will plummet.
We have a lot of very educated porn consumers using ADT. They are the execption rather than the rule. The vast majority of shoppers look for a star's name and then the box cover when making their purchasing decisions.
Poor Turkey running for her life with Christmas Hat 3713 Posts 9/01
Posted - Jun 15 2005 : 8:43PM
Even among educated porn buyers, we still need to see box covers or wait for reviews. Unless I see the box cover or have read reviews about the scenes, I would not buy the title. Only advantage I have is I do most of my shopping in brick and motar stores (mostly 1 store) in NYC.
Flash, Thanks for the kind thought. I really will be completely closed by July 23rd, though. I'm selling through all the stuff I have left on my shelves along side as many new releases as I can keep up with. (Now if I could just find someone that wants to buy my domain name...)
[Link]
dvddude Deactivated User
45 Posts 3/05
Posted - Jun 15 2005 : 9:03PM
That sucks! I guess with the new regulations, there's no way of showing your boxcovers and without boxcovers your stuff probably won't sell that well.
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Jun 16 2005 : 9:01AM
I realize you've made up your mind about closing shop, but, for what it's worth, I always found your descriptions to be more helpful than the covers. I think I only bought one video from you but that was primarily because the stuff I really wanted never were offered on DVD.
When I looked at the larger picture (forgive me) of selling on the 'net after the regulations take effect, I did not like what I saw.
I would be in a position of listing text titles and descriptions, in a world where customers have (since 1998 when I started) demanded more cover art, bigger cover art, screen caps, video clips and streaming video. And where a US producer can still offer these. I simply cannot compete under those conditions.
I wonder what your legal responsibilities would be if you contracted a European firm to publish the images on a server based in Europe and provided URL's to that on your site.
This has been asked and answered many times in this and its companion thread. If I display, or cause to be displayed, an explicit image, I become a secondary producer under these regulations.
Well, you wouldn't be displaying the image, and since the outfit would be in Europe, I think it could be arranged where the DOJ couldn't prove that you caused the image to be displayed. You can't be a producer if you're simply partaking of an existing service.
Scott, If the companies put up pages on the movie, with covers, screen shots, etc, so it was on their site, with a java coded back button to return to the previous site in the viewer's history folder would that get you around the regs? Just wondering since you obviously have a relationship with these companies so they might do that for you, that would allow you to link to the info and get the customer back after they have looked at the boxcover and the companies you do business with are located off-shore so they are exempt from 2257.
I like how they reference the labeling law for tobacco and other countries laws.
Funny I don't remember seeing the home address of Phillip Morris's President on those packs of cigarettes at Wal Mart. And I just love the "our laws are more important" approach to other countries privacy laws.
Scary thing I read but have not confirmed is that CCbill has told one of the overseas content providers that they would drop any client who was not 2257 compliant regardless of location.
I just wonder out loud where all those right wing members that were so prominent and vocal during the presidential campaign why they seem to be church mouses on this thread?
Kimi Lixx,Julie Night,Tina Tyler and then everyone else.
That kind of crappy logic is what you get when somebody isn't trying to be fair, they're advancing their agenda. But everybody here already knows that.
George W Bush's administration really sucks !!! welcome outside USA !!! the only country where you can wear a gun but not share a picture on a virtual network LOL they 've stolen you a part of your freedom, I hope you aren't sheeps
does this make sense? To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, producers must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less than twenty (20) hours per week.
There is your first mistake. Trying to make sense of a law whose purpose is to "prevent child abuse" by releasing the personal information and home addresses of adults.
Won't that be insanely costly for them? If it is like that for everyone, the market may diminish and it would be worth it for them, but it's still a heavy price upfront.
No shit. That's one of the reasons that everybody is so up in arms about this redefinition of the 2257 rules. They do nothing to ensure that there are no underage performers. They just make it more difficult for distributors and retailers to do business.
I have no idea how Steph and I are supposed to prevent children from being exploited when we are so far downstream from the production end of the business.
I sincerely hope the FSC is successful. We'll know more next week.
I don't know how they can release a law with a passage that reads so poor. if you work less than 20 hours then you have to be able to provide us with 20 hours of access to your records...
"sure, they're in a shoebox on the street outside my door"
Nothing says I love you so much as a tongue in the ass. 2884 Posts 1/03
Posted - Jun 19 2005 : 10:37PM
I think they're saying that regardless of how many hours you work, they demand a window of at least 20 hours a week to investigate you. They're just being bullies and the country gave them a mandate to trample on the Constitution when they voted these ignorant zealots back into office.
A rural area in Northeastern Bavaria, Germany 65 Posts 7/04
Posted - Jun 21 2005 : 5:06AM
This new law is just another act of ridiculous arbitrariness, which tightens my opinion on the recent polticial administration in the States. Those republican w***ers in Washington appear more and more stupid... but more than anything else, they appear dangerous to me. They talk about liberty and freedom, but actually they are killing freedom and liberty. America's face is changing, little by little; and not for its best!
A rural area in Northeastern Bavaria, Germany 65 Posts 7/04
Posted - Jun 21 2005 : 7:15AM
German minor protection laws are rather strict, but not in the way the US laws are. German "Jugendschutz" has more problems with violence and NAZI-stuff than with sex. Of course, sellling and advertising of pornographic material is handled strict. But there's no WASP prudency around it.
And CSU in Bavaria may be considered conservative in a German or European perspective. Compared to the US republicans, they are really liberal and more social oriented.
I dunno, Zartyr, if you are from Germany. If you are, than I can understand your prejudice. I am myself member of the liberal party, which means I am NOT a friend of the CSU. But being from Bavaria, now living in Saxony, I am used to the comments about the "Soooo-Conservative-Lederhosen-Beer-drinking-Bavarians". Being from Franconia, I don't feel affected by this.
But after all, even Bavaria is REALLY liberal compared to parts of the United States.
No, I am from a former on-lease protectorate of Bavaria, which is now a federal state of Austria with borders to the Free State of Bavaria, which while at lease fought the Bavarian suppressors. The war for freedom was sparked by a quarrel about the quality of beer between civilians and Bavarian soldiers, or so report our legends.
Now, the quality of beer is probably the only legitimate reason to start a war or even a serious discussion. But political authorities with their reality-disconnection worry about nifty little WMD and impose on us the necessity to discuss how photocopied ID-cards of some actors have to be stored. It seems, the world is doomed.
Going back to this early point... does this really make a difference? For example, I may have a browser plugin which makes all text URLs from a page into clickable links, so where should the line be drawn? My browser may come with some great AI and IR technology that makes context-sensitive links automatically just from the plain text within a page and without a hint of a URL. So if a page contains the text string "girl having sex with two guys" my browser might replace that text with a photo it automatically searched for and found which depicts that act.
Now, suppose I write and distribute my own web browser that functions just as any other web browser, but inserts a sexually explicit image into every page after each hyperlink. Then I visit some random website, say the whitehouse's webpge, where various 2257 problem images are now displayed (embedded). Will I be at fault? Will the whitehouse? (I know that HTML standards come into play here... bare with me.)
This is obviously a "silly" example, but the point I'm trying to make is that from one viewpoint, only hosting, not even embedding (using IMG tag to a remote URL) an image can reasonably be covered by such laws, since the interpretation and display of content is vastly determined by the capability of the user's browser and not the HTML code of the page.
Following this line a little further suppose that I want to embed an image in my post, where the image is hosted on another site. I know I can't use the traditional method to do this since the new 2257 will come after you for it. Instead I make up my own code for embedding images into pages. Lets say the string "MY_CODED_IMAGE_URL:" followed by a number, will indicate an image at a URL coded by the given number, so:
MY_CODED_IMAGE_URL:123456789
Will indicate a unique URL for an image. Everyone viewing the page just sees "MY_CODED_IMAGE_URL:123456789" somewhere in the page, but if you have downloaded and installed my special coded image URL plugin for your browser then you'll see the image just the same as if it were embedded in the page with a IMG HTML tag. Now will the 2257 people hold you responsible as a "Secondary Producer"? How will they even know? How about if I change the scheme I use to embed images every so often?
These are rhetorical questions... I kind of know the answers, but it emphasizes my point: There's no reasonable way for Y to prevent images from host X being displayed on host Y's web pages for those who actually *want* to see the images.
Chloe Temple Interview
Posted - Jun 14 2005 : 10:15PM
