Collarspace Discussion Forums


Home  Login  Search 

I'm confused


View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest
 
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> I'm confused Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
I'm confused - 10/18/2007 7:00:38 PM   
Esinem


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
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?
Profile   Post #: 1
RE: I'm confused - 10/18/2007 7:06:36 PM   
SmokingGun82


Posts: 575
Joined: 6/19/2004
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

It frightens me, the awful truth of how sweet life can be.
- Bob Dylan

Proper capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse."

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 2
RE: I'm confused - 10/18/2007 7:08:57 PM   
DiurnalVampire


Posts: 8125
Joined: 1/19/2006
From: Nashville, TN
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

I will be your Dominate if you will be my submit - Fox

Snarko Ergo Sum
If you cannot change your mind, how are you so sure you still have one? -proverb

*Owner of Fox - collared 10/13/07*
VampiresLair

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 3
RE: I'm confused - 10/18/2007 7:16:04 PM   
Invictus754


Posts: 521
Joined: 12/16/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

You never know your limits, until you push them
If slavery is a gift, the Africans were pretty fucking generous in the 1700 and 1800s, weren't they?

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 4
RE: I'm confused - 10/18/2007 7:33:32 PM   
junecleaver


Posts: 1145
Joined: 4/6/2005
Status: offline
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. 


_____________________________


"No one will ever win the battle of the sexes; there's too much fraternizing with the enemy. "
--Henry A. Kissinger

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 5
RE: I'm confused - 10/20/2007 9:19:28 PM   
kc692


Posts: 3701
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

Anyone can overpower; not many can INSPIRE.....

This is only MY opinion. If it's not yours, let's agree in advance to agree to disagree, OR, you can just get the fuck over what I had to say:)

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 6
RE: I'm confused - 10/20/2007 10:03:27 PM   
BitaTruble


Posts: 9779
Joined: 1/12/2006
From: Texas
Status: offline
quote:

ORIGINAL: junecleaver

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



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



_____________________________

"Oh, so it's just like
Rock, paper, scissors."

He laughed. "You are the wisest woman I know."


(in reply to junecleaver)
Profile   Post #: 7
RE: I'm confused - 10/20/2007 10:33:04 PM   
iammachine


Posts: 1549
Joined: 1/25/2006
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

I still hear you scream... in every breath, every single motion

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 8
RE: I'm confused - 10/23/2007 11:41:21 AM   
Esinem


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to iammachine)
Profile   Post #: 9
RE: I'm confused - 10/23/2007 11:44:11 AM   
colouredin


Posts: 4279
Joined: 2/2/2007
Status: offline
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.

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 10
RE: I'm confused - 10/23/2007 11:49:07 AM   
RRafe


Posts: 2060
Joined: 8/29/2007
Status: offline
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.

_____________________________

I seem to be some wierd combination of Ren and Stimpy

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 11
RE: I'm confused - 10/23/2007 9:43:58 PM   
calicowgirl


Posts: 98
Joined: 9/5/2006
Status: offline
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


_____________________________

Let your dreams run wild... be brave enough to follow.


Anyone who can think of only one way to spell a word obviously lacks imagination. -- Mark Twain

(in reply to RRafe)
Profile   Post #: 12
RE: I'm confused - 10/23/2007 10:44:53 PM   
kc692


Posts: 3701
Joined: 3/24/2005
Status: offline
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....

< Message edited by kc692 -- 10/23/2007 10:48:43 PM >


_____________________________

Anyone can overpower; not many can INSPIRE.....

This is only MY opinion. If it's not yours, let's agree in advance to agree to disagree, OR, you can just get the fuck over what I had to say:)

(in reply to calicowgirl)
Profile   Post #: 13
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 1:35:22 AM   
KiandPhoenix


Posts: 205
Joined: 8/1/2007
Status: offline
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

(in reply to kc692)
Profile   Post #: 14
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 9:18:01 AM   
Esinem


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
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?!

(in reply to KiandPhoenix)
Profile   Post #: 15
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 9:20:24 AM   
Esinem


Posts: 156
Joined: 5/9/2006
Status: offline
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!"

(in reply to kc692)
Profile   Post #: 16
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 9:51:57 AM   
RRafe


Posts: 2060
Joined: 8/29/2007
Status: offline
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.............

_____________________________

I seem to be some wierd combination of Ren and Stimpy

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 17
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 9:58:02 AM   
Wildfleurs


Posts: 1650
Joined: 9/24/2004
From: Connecticut
Status: offline
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~


_____________________________

"Just because you've always done it that way doesn't mean it's not incredibly stupid." -despair.com

~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~
The heart of it all - http://www.wildfleurs.com
~~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~*~

(in reply to Esinem)
Profile   Post #: 18
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 10:09:00 AM   
bipolarber


Posts: 2792
Joined: 9/25/2004
Status: offline
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.)

< Message edited by bipolarber -- 10/24/2007 10:11:06 AM >

(in reply to Wildfleurs)
Profile   Post #: 19
RE: I'm confused - 10/24/2007 2:28:14 PM   
SmokingGun82


Posts: 575
Joined: 6/19/2004
Status: offline
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.


_____________________________

It frightens me, the awful truth of how sweet life can be.
- Bob Dylan

Proper capitalization is the difference between "I had to help my Uncle Jack off a horse" and "I had to help my uncle jack off a horse."

(in reply to bipolarber)
Profile   Post #: 20
Page:   [1] 2   next >   >>
All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> General BDSM Discussion >> I'm confused Page: [1] 2   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts




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

0.141