I'm confused (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion



Message

Esinem -> I'm confused (10/18/2007 7:00:38 PM)

OK, I read the guideline for posting pictures on profiles and it prohibits 'hardcore bondage'.  So I posted a very tasteful pic of my partner, shot from the rear and seated, with hands tied behind her head, considering it to be a mile short of 'hardcore' and it was rejected on the grounds that "Reason: Due to recent changes in U.S. law regarding adult content, many photographs containing persons in bondage cannot be approved at this time".  Can anyone explain what is acceptable or show me examples? 

I am very confused by this as this site has a whole BDSM movies section. Admittedly, I haven't checked out the content but I assume it is considerably more hardcore. Is video different from still photos in American law?



SmokingGun82 -> RE: I'm confused (10/18/2007 7:06:36 PM)

Don't look for logic or consistency. Just learn to accept that some things won't make sense and your CollarMe experience will be much more enjoyable.



DiurnalVampire -> RE: I'm confused (10/18/2007 7:08:57 PM)

The movies are pay per view things you have to have a special account for. Thats why they are different.
The freebie pictures here have to be VERY careful with what they put up. There are lots of people complaining, all the time. Browse through the site, there are examples around. Better they be a little overcareful and reject too much than be too lose and get in trouble, in my opinion at least.
Hope that helps

DV



Invictus754 -> RE: I'm confused (10/18/2007 7:16:04 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

OK, I read the guideline for posting pictures on profiles and it prohibits 'hardcore bondage'.  So I posted a very tasteful pic of my partner, shot from the rear and seated, with hands tied behind her head, considering it to be a mile short of 'hardcore' and it was rejected on the grounds that "Reason: Due to recent changes in U.S. law regarding adult content, many photographs containing persons in bondage cannot be approved at this time".  Can anyone explain what is acceptable or show me examples? 

I am very confused by this as this site has a whole BDSM movies section. Admittedly, I haven't checked out the content but I assume it is considerably more hardcore. Is video different from still photos in American law?


the video does not have different laws, but most likely you will go to a site different from CollarMe to view it, so it doesn't affect them as "producers of content".  Your picture would affect them, however. 

This is a disclaimer statement from another popular site and why their pictures are OK.  You can see that even if your picture was "simulated sexually explicit activity created after July 27th 2006", it could put the CM owners in jail.
 
Exemption Statement - Content Produced by Operators: With regard to all visual depictions appearing on this website, for which the operators of this website are "producers," such depictions are exempt from the provisions of 18 U.S.C. §2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because:
  1. they do not portray actual sexually explicit conduct as specifically defined in 18 U.S.C §2256 (2) (A)(i)-(iv);
  2. they do not portray depictions of the genitals or pubic area created after July 27, 2006;
  3. they do not portray simulated sexually explicit activity created after the effective date of Title 18 U.S.C. §2257A; or,
  4. they were created prior to July 3, 1995.

Exemption Statement – Content Produced by Third Parties: The operators of this website are not the "producers" of any depictions of any actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that any such content appears on this site, the operators' involvement with respect thereto is limited to the transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting and/or formatting of depictions posted by third party users, on areas of the website under the users' control. Pursuant to Title 18 U.S.C. §2257(h)(2)(B)(v) and 47 U.S.C. §230(c), the operators of this website reserve the right to delete content posted by users which operators deem to be indecent, obscene, defamatory or inconsistent with their policies and terms of service.



junecleaver -> RE: I'm confused (10/18/2007 7:33:32 PM)

I don't know.  I have a pic of the back of a chest harness in my profile.  (Our first one ever, yay!)

Being naked is bad!  I hear they are passing a law to prohibit being nude in the shower.  [8|]



kc692 -> RE: I'm confused (10/20/2007 9:19:28 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

OK, I read the guideline for posting pictures on profiles and it prohibits 'hardcore bondage'.  So I posted a very tasteful pic of my partner, shot from the rear and seated, with hands tied behind her head, considering it to be a mile short of 'hardcore' and it was rejected on the grounds that "Reason: Due to recent changes in U.S. law regarding adult content, many photographs containing persons in bondage cannot be approved at this time".  Can anyone explain what is acceptable or show me examples? 

I am very confused by this as this site has a whole BDSM movies section. Admittedly, I haven't checked out the content but I assume it is considerably more hardcore. Is video different from still photos in American law?



Helpful hint here....if the hands and/or lower arms are a different color than the other parts above/below the rope, it looks as though blood is not getting to all the extremities and that might mean the subject may be distressed and will be rejected.

Um, just guessing here, lol.



BitaTruble -> RE: I'm confused (10/20/2007 10:03:27 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: junecleaver

Being naked is bad!  I hear they are passing a law to prohibit being nude in the shower.  [8|]



Does that mean I'll have to start wearing clothespins in the shower.. you know, just to comply with the law so I'm not totally naked.

It's a sacrifice, but I would do it being as I'm such a law abiding citizen and all.

Celeste - asking not what her country can do for her.. but what she can do for her country




iammachine -> RE: I'm confused (10/20/2007 10:33:04 PM)

I had to edit a friend of mine in a kikkou out of a photo for the same reason. You can thank the 2257 regulations for that. According the the US, BDSM is naughty, and sexually explicit, therefore falls under 2257.

Since collarme really has no way of verifying/obtaining the needed records from it's users... we're relegated to vanilla photos.



Esinem -> RE: I'm confused (10/23/2007 11:41:21 AM)

Hmmm. So there are some advantages to the UK, after all. It's a lot more free here than in the Land of the Free in that respect. Although, the new Extreme Pornography laws look set to cause a few problems.



colouredin -> RE: I'm confused (10/23/2007 11:44:11 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

Hmmm. So there are some advantages to the UK, after all. It's a lot more free here than in the Land of the Free in that respect. Although, the new Extreme Pornography laws look set to cause a few problems.



From what ive read on the uk site of the rule change only very extreme images/films will be banned i dont think it will cause as much problems as people were initially worried about.



RRafe -> RE: I'm confused (10/23/2007 11:49:07 AM)

The people in the video are covered by the age reporting act.

Documented and observable to verify by the feds. Amatuers here-are not.

Collarme cannot go chasing down every free user here for that same documentation.



calicowgirl -> RE: I'm confused (10/23/2007 9:43:58 PM)

I've got a rope pic in my profile that was approved with no hassle and know of another who has a nude(on her tummy) pic where she is tied four poster to her bed that was approved with no problem so I say there is no rhyme or reason to what they accept or reject. I'd say wait a while and try it again... but that's just me. lol

cali



kc692 -> RE: I'm confused (10/23/2007 10:44:53 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: calicowgirl

I've got a rope pic in my profile that was approved with no hassle and know of another who has a nude(on her tummy) pic where she is tied four poster to her bed that was approved with no problem so I say there is no rhyme or reason to what they accept or reject. I'd say wait a while and try it again... but that's just me. lol

cali



If it was rejected, it was rejected.  Personally, I would advise him to pay attention to the hints I gave him, but again that is just me. 

edited to add:  There is a rhyme or reason....



KiandPhoenix -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 1:35:22 AM)

Things don't make any sense about the photos. I submited a cute pic of alice in wonderland bound up and being held by the mad hatter. No URL on it or anything, but ti was rejected for having a URL on it. Now I don't have the best of eyes, but I keep scanning the pic, and there isn't a URl on it anywhere. However, the policy is that a rejection can not be overturned. So be it, I just attach it to my messages instead.

~Ki



Esinem -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 9:18:01 AM)

quote:

"simulated sexually explicit activity created after July 27th 2006


Bondage in itself is sexually expilict? So if I were to tie up a family member, following that logic, it would be incest!! Umm, if you tie your dog's lead to something, you could be nicked for bestiality?! [8|]



Esinem -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 9:20:24 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: kc692

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

OK, I read the guideline for posting pictures on profiles and it prohibits 'hardcore bondage'.  So I posted a very tasteful pic of my partner, shot from the rear and seated, with hands tied behind her head, considering it to be a mile short of 'hardcore' and it was rejected on the grounds that "Reason: Due to recent changes in U.S. law regarding adult content, many photographs containing persons in bondage cannot be approved at this time".  Can anyone explain what is acceptable or show me examples? 

I am very confused by this as this site has a whole BDSM movies section. Admittedly, I haven't checked out the content but I assume it is considerably more hardcore. Is video different from still photos in American law?



Helpful hint here....if the hands and/or lower arms are a different color than the other parts above/below the rope, it looks as though blood is not getting to all the extremities and that might mean the subject may be distressed and will be rejected.

Um, just guessing here, lol.


Would a big cheesy grin from the model help to dispel the concern that she might be 'distressed'? Anyway, she likes being 'distressed', I quote  "Be mean to me!" [;)]



RRafe -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 9:51:57 AM)

Well, the bluenose censoring perspective of the moment goes something like this:

We won't allow depictions of rape-it's illegal and immoral. And we don't want to encourage things like that. anyone being restrained and having something sexual done to them-must be getting raped. And we don't want to encourage anything like that.............



Wildfleurs -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 9:58:02 AM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Esinem

OK, I read the guideline for posting pictures on profiles and it prohibits 'hardcore bondage'.  So I posted a very tasteful pic of my partner, shot from the rear and seated, with hands tied behind her head, considering it to be a mile short of 'hardcore' and it was rejected on the grounds that "Reason: Due to recent changes in U.S. law regarding adult content, many photographs containing persons in bondage cannot be approved at this time".  Can anyone explain what is acceptable or show me examples? 

I am very confused by this as this site has a whole BDSM movies section. Admittedly, I haven't checked out the content but I assume it is considerably more hardcore. Is video different from still photos in American law?



Logic in photo approval? That doesn't happen here.  Anyways they make money from the BDSM movies, not from your pictures - so really I wouldn't expect a lot of time spent on your pictures and approving them.

C~



bipolarber -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 10:09:00 AM)

Funny you guys should bring up 2257 right now.... It was just declared unconstitutional by the 6th circuit Supreme Court of Appeals on Monday. (synchronisity!)

The reason that they can market movies, but still deny you the opportunity to show off your own photographs is, the movies state that they have all the proper paperwork on file to prove that the models are over 18, consenting, yadda, yadda, yadda....

Don't feel alone though, they denied me posting photos of my own paintings, because they thought I was ripping the images off from someone else. (This is what I get for being good with an airbrush.)



SmokingGun82 -> RE: I'm confused (10/24/2007 2:28:14 PM)

If anyone's interested, you can read the opinion here:

http://www.ca6.uscourts.gov/opinions.pdf/07a0430p-06.pdf

It's a fairly big win for the First Ammendment, so it's safe to say I've been giddy as a schoolgirl for the last forty-eight hours.



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875