A Site for Photographers by Photographers

Community > Forums > Business > Legal (excluding Copyright) > US Statute 18 U.S.C. sc 2257

Featured Equipment Deals

Introduction to Lightroom Tabs: Develop (Video Tutorial) Read More

Introduction to Lightroom Tabs: Develop (Video Tutorial)

Learn how to use the Lightroom Develop Tab to ensure your image is just as you want it to be, including presents, tone curve, lens correction, and more!

Latest Equipment Articles

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer Read More

Choosing a Mobile Photo Printer

In today's mobile, digital world, we carry hundreds or even thousands of pictures around on our smartphones and tablets. Tom Persinger looks at 4 different mobile photo printer options for getting...

Latest Learning Articles

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial) Read More

Advanced Printing with Lightroom (Video Tutorial)

Building upon last week's Basic Printing with Lightroom video tutorial, this advanced printing tutorial will teach you to print contact sheets, print multiple images at a time, use Lightroom's present...


US Statute 18 U.S.C. sc 2257

Mark Lawrence , Jan 21, 2011; 10:43 p.m.

I posted something about this the point was completely missed. If you want to post full nudity on any site on the internet you need to become familiar with this law specifically how it applies to "Secondary Producers" which are people that post images on the internet that have nudity and are explicit. Now the Justice Department's definition of explicit should be researched. Their are 6 categories that the US Justice Department uses as criteria to classify images as explicit in its efforts to prevent Child Pornography. You are welcome to ignore this as it won't affect me but if it falls within its guidelines you have to verify age, archive ids, document the shoot, etc. If you fail to follow the regulations you could see federal prison time.

Responses


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Michael Axel , Jan 22, 2011; 02:05 a.m.

Thanks Mark. Seems like it is becoming easier, every day, to land in federal prison.

Gary Mayo , Jan 22, 2011; 04:12 a.m.

If you have the number 2257 on your web site pages, good luck getting the page to load past porn protection filters. Most businesses will filter out your site.

(can you read this post at work? lol)

John H. , Jan 22, 2011; 03:49 p.m.

If you want to post full nudity on any site... ...the Justice Department's definition of explicit should be researched. Their are 6 categories that the US Justice Department uses as criteria to classify images as explicit in its efforts to prevent Child Pornography.

Has your own research on the Dost test developed any citations showing that this actually applies to mere "nudity" and to "any" site including non-commercial or is this a declaration made out an abundance of caution?

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html
http://www.eff.org/issues/bloggers/legal/adult

Jeff Spirer , Jan 22, 2011; 04:55 p.m.

The links in John's post show the original post here to be wrong and inflammatory. Far better to cite legal references than stir up hysteria with inflammatory posts.

Mark Lawrence , Jan 22, 2011; 06:17 p.m.

I simply wanted to be of help to those that post nudity. Whatever you do with the information is up to you.

John H. , Jan 23, 2011; 12:12 a.m.

I think you were trying to say that those who post nude imagery online or allow it on their sites should be familiar with the statute and associated cases to determine if it applies to their situation since the penalties for violation are high. While that is good, the way you phrased it suggested it was an all encompassing situation which, in turn, might cause people unnecessary alarm.

Mark Lawrence , Jan 23, 2011; 03:52 a.m.

I will simply say the following to all the people on the forum that disagree with my opinion and that is I am correct on this. I was going to take the time to elaborate and I said that I really don't need to because I don't think anyone would believe me anyway. If people choose to think I am trying to cause hysteria, I am an alarmist, I don't know what I am talking about, etc. that isn't my intention. I am trying to be of help and I am sorry that anybody got any impression otherwise. I wish all of you the best and hope that nothing happens to anyone on this site.

John H. , Jan 24, 2011; 08:03 a.m.

While help is appreciated and commendable, it isn't clear if you are telling us if the law applies very broadly to nudity or to certain distinct situations or something else. If you can cite some legal authority, as was asked, then people believing or even understanding you won't be an issue.

Mark Lawrence , Jan 26, 2011; 12:25 a.m.

Hello John and everyone else on this discussion,
My involvement of this discussion ends here and I won't post anything further. Please do what you like and post what you want. I have additional information and proof but I did this as a favor to all of you and if you don't want to listen and think I am crazy best of luck to you. I took the time to warn you but I have been laughed at in effect, made fun of, thought of as being a hysteria causer. I am done and won't discuss it any further.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Protection_and_Obscenity_Enforcement_Act
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1998/0responses/98-1156.resp.pdf
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1998/0responses/98-1156.resp.html
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1998/0responses/98-1156.resp.pdf
http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/vc_majorthefts/cac/2257-program
http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=browse_usc&docid=Cite:%2B18USC2257
http://www.godivatgirls.com/2257.htm


    1   |   2     Next    Last

Back to top

Notify me of Responses