2257 regs published in full

[HornyHeather]

I don't like this grim forecast. In fact, it is the only message that I have read on five different message boards and pages and pages of messages that has scared me. If all of the above holds true, we should all close down NOW and never look back.

Linda

I second that..Its scary, its risky and I do believe this is to get us all off the net...They will win, we will go quietly into the night and be good little citizens.....

Strike 1 - Porn...what is next?

And screw there damned christianity, The way I look at it, My religion accepts nudity, we were born nude..Nude is beautiful, we just cover it up because they say we have to.

|bow| Uncle Sam - NOT

[Wenchy]

I finally found a minute to catch up on everything in detail and immediately felt like a heel when I came across Tommy's earlier post.

Thank you, Alex, for the time and effort you have put into this thread (along with others), and your patience with answering questions and approaching topics as they come up. For the last few days you've been the calm voice of reason in a tempest of uncertainty and fear, and we all owe you our thanks. |peace|

[HornyHeather]

Put yourself in the position of the inspector. You are looking at a picture of a guy and girl that is having sexual intercourse. The woman has breasts and pubic hair. Ok, the girl has reached puberty. The guy has pubic hair. Ok, he has reached puberty. But, since I cant see the faces, are the models 16 or 26?

Without a clear indication that the models are over 18, or at least an indication that a reasonable person could tell by looking at the faces, I would be looking for the 2257 info, wouldnt you?


-

Barron..Most of my pictures in my website are me on my knees and all you can see are legs and cocks, I do have compliances for these guys and they are all 40+ in age...Are they going to call these guys and line them up nude next to the photos and see who is who?

[HornyHeather]

Wenchy, I second that! Alex has been awesome and patient with all us nuts! |bananna|

[Barron]

Barron, To my knowledge there's never been so much as a knock on someone's door.

One thing that does need to be kept in mind, these new regulations allow the DOJ to appoint local law enforcement to perform the inspection. I'm not sure that will happen much since the Fed's tend to be pretty territorial and don't care much for sharing the spotlight.


I get this vision of the feds asking the local police chief, or the local sherriff, or the local district attorney to go out and inspect a certain individual and the reply is, "What the fuck are 2257 regulations?... Really, you guys have that?.... Sorry, we would rather chase murders, armed robbers and people doing drive-bys. You'll have to do the inspections, we dont have time for that non-sense... bye!" |waves|


_

[HornyHeather]

lol Barron

[Barron]

Barron..Most of my pictures in my website are me on my knees and all you can see are legs and cocks, I do have compliances for these guys and they are all 40+ in age...Are they going to call these guys and line them up nude next to the photos and see who is who?


No no, you missed my point. I'm only saying that, considering the resources and manpower available, they are only going to go after the most obvious offenses. I'm thinking it is more likely that you will be inspected if the they cant tell what the age of the model is from the get go.

However, if you get a rendigade inspector, and thats a big if, he just might become an asshole and make you jump through hoops to prove exactly who is in the photo! I'm thinking you dont want that either :)


-

[HornyHeather]

Well like I said hun, the only way I could really put a face with a cock, is have these guys get naked...I was just being blunt, and you made me think with your comment..I dont crop the pictures that is how we take them, that is what my members like, but I never thought about how it would twist on me...

[Useless]

Everyone calm the fuck down! Don't make me put you in leashes. This is a matter of record keeping. That is all. Are there some pretty big implications? Yes. Have you ever known anyone who has gone to jail for shitty record keeping? What's that? No? Of course not.

Slow down, catch your breath, and relax.

Do you do anything that would give the DOJ a reason to knock on your door? Do you plan on posting questionable content any time soon?

Yes, we're going to see a bunch of pages come down in the very near future, but I'll bet most of them coming down will be due to panic and fear.

Give your sponsors a chance to spend some money on attorneys. You helped them earn it, now it's time to see it get used for something other than stupid contests and Internext keggers. Soon enough, they will report back with the hard facts, not just bullshit speculation.

No one reading this is going to jail. You aren't going to be arrested in another month for being an adult webmaster, not even the month after that. You don't have anything to fear. You really don't. Let's be smart and patient. Just stay calm and stay tuned in here to good old Greenguy & Jim's Ultimate 2257 Resource Board. Besides, where else are you going to learn how to properly douche a gay midget?

[Barron]

Well like I said hun, the only way I could really put a face with a cock, is have these guys get naked...I was just being blunt, and you made me think with your comment..I dont crop the pictures that is how we take them, that is what my members like, but I never thought about how it would twist on me...


These new regs created as many questions as it did answers. Lets let the lawyers figure it all out. That will take a few days. Hopefully the answers will come more sooner than later and we all can get back to work.

So there is work out there for those of use over 40 huh? I may need a new line of work come June 23, is there a place I can sign up? |mml|


-

[LindaMight]

Put yourself in the position of the inspector. You are looking at a picture of a guy and girl that is having sexual intercourse. The woman has breasts and pubic hair. Ok, the girl has reached puberty. The guy has pubic hair. Ok, he has reached puberty. But, since I cant see the faces, are the models 16 or 26?

Without a clear indication that the models are over 18, or at least an indication that a reasonable person could tell by looking at the faces, I would be looking for the 2257 info, wouldnt you?


-
Well for once I guess I can say "thank heavens I look middle aged". Who would have thunk?

Linda |headbang|

[HornyHeather]

Everyone calm the fuck down! Don't make me put you in leashes. This is a matter of record keeping. That is all. Are there some pretty big implications? Yes. Have you ever known anyone who has gone to jail for shitty record keeping? What's that? No? Of course not.

Slow down, catch your breath, and relax.

Do you do anything that would give the DOJ a reason to knock on your door? Do you plan on posting questionable content any time soon?

Yes, we're going to see a bunch of pages come down in the very near future, but I'll bet most of them coming down will be due to panic and fear.

Give your sponsors a chance to spend some money on attorneys. You helped them earn it, now it's time to see it get used for something other than stupid contests and Internext keggers. Soon enough, they will report back with the hard facts, not just bullshit speculation.

No one reading this is going to jail. You aren't going to be arrested in another month for being an adult webmaster, not even the month after that. You don't have anything to fear. You really don't. Let's be smart and patient. Just stay calm and stay tuned in here to good old Greenguy & Jim's Ultimate 2257 Resource Board. Besides, where else are you going to learn how to properly douche a gay midget?


Wow Hun...Thank you...You outa be a Dom...I am submitting...LOL Thanks!

[HornyHeather]

These new regs created as many questions as it did answers. Lets let the lawyers figure it all out. That will take a few days. Hopefully the answers will come more sooner than later and we all can get back to work.

So there is work out there for those of use over 40 huh? I may need a new line of work come June 23, is there a place I can sign up? |mml|


-


LOL I am always looking for over 40 men! Anything younger than that is just to im-mature, No Pun intended to the younger guys here... |couch|

[Barron]

Everyone calm the fuck down! Don't make me put you in leashes. This is a matter of record keeping. That is all. Are there some pretty big implications? Yes. Have you ever known anyone who has gone to jail for shitty record keeping? What's that? No? Of course not.

Slow down, catch your breath, and relax.

Do you do anything that would give the DOJ a reason to knock on your door? Do you plan on posting questionable content any time soon?

Yes, we're going to see a bunch of pages come down in the very near future, but I'll bet most of them coming down will be due to panic and fear.

Give your sponsors a chance to spend some money on attorneys. You helped them earn it, now it's time to see it get used for something other than stupid contests and Internext keggers. Soon enough, they will report back with the hard facts, not just bullshit speculation.

No one reading this is going to jail. You aren't going to be arrested in another month for being an adult webmaster, not even the month after that. You don't have anything to fear. You really don't. Let's be smart and patient. Just stay calm and stay tuned in here to good old Greenguy & Jim's Ultimate 2257 Resource Board. Besides, where else are you going to learn how to properly douche a gay midget?


I think most people have gotten past "the sky is falling". From what I can tell, most people are have taken a deep breath, considered their options and are making decisions based on either personal or business reasons. At least I have.

I'm just waiting on the lawyers to sort out the details. The porn business will go on, there will be money to be made and once everyone gets the cross-indexing done, it will be business as usual.


-

[HornyHeather]

Your Right Barron, I think what most of us are concerned about is having our info published on the net...Indexing dont bother me, the compliances, not a problem...
Stalkers and antipornists scare me

[Barron]

Wow Hun...Thank you...You outa be a Dom...I am submitting...LOL Thanks!
LOL I am always looking for over 40 men! Anything younger than that is just to im-mature, No Pun intended to the younger guys here... |couch|

Woo hoo, A job doing what I do best! Doing what I like an get paid? To good to be true. |bananna| |pink |bananna| |pink

[HornyHeather]

See that! |thumb

[MrYum]

Everyone calm the fuck down! Don't make me put you in leashes. This is a matter of record keeping. That is all. Are there some pretty big implications? Yes. Have you ever known anyone who has gone to jail for shitty record keeping? What's that? No? Of course not.

Slow down, catch your breath, and relax.

Do you do anything that would give the DOJ a reason to knock on your door? Do you plan on posting questionable content any time soon?

Yes, we're going to see a bunch of pages come down in the very near future, but I'll bet most of them coming down will be due to panic and fear.

Give your sponsors a chance to spend some money on attorneys. You helped them earn it, now it's time to see it get used for something other than stupid contests and Internext keggers. Soon enough, they will report back with the hard facts, not just bullshit speculation.

No one reading this is going to jail. You aren't going to be arrested in another month for being an adult webmaster, not even the month after that. You don't have anything to fear. You really don't. Let's be smart and patient. Just stay calm and stay tuned in here to good old Greenguy & Jim's Ultimate 2257 Resource Board. Besides, where else are you going to learn how to properly douche a gay midget?
Agree with others, Alex thanks very much for all the solid input on these matters |thumb

Gotta give another big thumbs up to UW, the commments above are some of the most solid advice in this entire thread. The sky is not falling...at least not yet.

While I certainly don't agree with MANY things the US gov does, I also have a VERY hard time envisioning an honest webmaster being LOCKED UP for 5 years due to a CLERICAL problem. Hassled...possibly...annoyed probably...but locked the fuck up because you don't have all your ducks all lined up nice and pretty? Locked up because the folks on your site...that you CAN prove ARE over age...but you haven't shut down business for several weeks to go back to hundreds or thousands of sites...sites you built years ago...you haven't gone back and fulfilled these INANE documentation requirements??? Locked the the fuck up for a clerical issue? Sorry folks, perhaps I'm too naive (doubtful)...but I REALLY don't see ANYONE getting locked up over this...at least not anyone who is doing business above board in the first place.

Now, UW has given us some good advice. Let's let the sponsors and the FSC deal with this crap. I'd bet there WILL be injunctions...and BEFORE folks start selling off their businesses...or renting office space...or moving fucking hosting...let's see what the final version of this looks like. Get your ducks in a row...but common sense SCREAMS that what we see now...is not what will be enforced. IF any enforcement happens at all!

My plan is business as usual. I'm a business man...nothing more...nothing less. I certainly don't deal in cp, or be*st crap, or anything illegal. I'd challenge anyone to find anything illegal on my servers or my local drives. Hell, I even have a rule on my link list to keep the text friendly to women...no need to degrade women to sell sex. SEX IS FUN people!

IF the US gov wants to drag my ass into court (I look great in a suit btw :D)...the media would have a field day seeing an honest hard working business man in court over fucking clerical errors. And I have absolutely NO FEAR about being locked the fuck up. This is NOT 1950's Russia...it's just not gonna happen folks. At least not to those of us who are in this as a business and aren't involved in the seedy underside of this biz.

Geez, let's get some work done...there are horny surfers out there...and they WANT to use their credit cards :D

Oh, last comment...definitely support the FSC! They are our voice in this...a very worthwhile cause. And they very well may have a significant impact on what clerical requirements will be enforced.

Now, I'm off to sling some porn...I can just smell those surfer credit cards...mmm...yummy :D

[Boogie]

Well, here is my take on it all.

Its a waiting game.

Look, I have a handfull of sites on the internet that have actual content on them. This content as a whole is generlaly sponsor produced and donated.

With that said, all I really can do is wait. do I want to publish my home address on all the sites I create and have created? NO. and I do work for home.

I'm going to wait til the last minute to do it but even when I do that adress is already public via whois so whats it matter? Its been up there for 8 years and no one has knocked on my door yet, why will they tomorrow?

Most likely they wont.

So try my method. Be ready, be informed, keep tabs of whats going on but most of all relax. I think a lot of folks who are getting out dont really know why they're doing it they're just heading for the hills.

Good riddance to most of them though, with a few exceptions.

More room in the pool for me :)

[Barron]

I was nice about it the first time, but I refuse to be nice about it the second time.

EDIT:

scratch all that, I wont try to help anymore. good luck to all of you.


-

[RamCharger]

As a government employee [not law enforcement] I can tell you this much: the saying you can't fight city hall isn't entirely true, but it's damn close. What it boils down to is this: if someone has a big enough bug up their ass then they'll gladly piss away a day or more of their time (using your tax dollars) to come up with creative interpretation (see bastardization) of an existing reg to do what they damn well want. Then the problem becomes that you're going to have to defeat the twit using your time and your dollars while they're leaning back in their chair whistling dixie and not breaking a sweat since there's no personal liability in it for them either way. It really is an ugly thing.

[plateman]

I to agree with useless and if I have to I'll be sitting on my porch building porn with a shot gun inside the door if any of those mother fuckers want to mess with me :D and maybe in my boxers and also I live in a not so friendly part of town and if the protesters want to come over the more the merrier...

[RamCharger]

I to agree with useless and if I have to I'll be sitting on my porch building porn with a shot gun inside the door if any of those mother fuckers want to mess with me :D and maybe in my boxers and also I live in a not so friendly part of town and if the protesters want to come over the more the merrier...

Might I suggest an office in ever scenic Newark, NJ or Detroit or South Central LA or that part of Washington, D.C. where no one goes out at night? :D hmm 2257 violator or the crack house next door... decisions, decisions, decisions.

[RamCharger]

On a side note, what really amazes me is that so many sites start right out with a hardcore front page with the minors prohibited wording right beneath it. How's that work? Yes, we're all fishing for people, but that seems to be a recipe for fishing for a lawsuit since you've already displayed nudity including hardcore before they could even accept the legal disclaimer on the front page.

[digifan]

For those worried about foreign producer and model and IDs here is a helpful article
https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=9454&mode=thread&order=0&thold=0

[Useless]

On a side note, what really amazes me is that so many sites start right out with a hardcore front page with the minors prohibited wording right beneath it. How's that work? Yes, we're all fishing for people, but that seems to be a recipe for fishing for a lawsuit since you've already displayed nudity including hardcore before they could even accept the legal disclaimer on the front page.
It's a good point in it's intent, but unless the rest of your pages are behind .htaccess or some other blocking device, there's no telling which page a surfer is going to land on. Google is going to send them to which every page they deem worthy in conisdertion of the terms searched. The DOJ certainly doesn't seem to care. If they did, they'd be demanding better warnings, not total control of all content on every page. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in warning pages too, but my stats tell me that mine aren't seen very often.

[ardentgent]

If my main business was thumbtgps, I would be looking for a new line of business starting today. It would appear that thumb tgps will require 2257 documents for every thumb they show.

Alex

Whata about link lists with free sites. How is that different from tgps? Wouldn't the links lists have to have 2257 documents on every thumb they show from free sites?

Thanhs. |dizzy| |dizzy| |dizzy| |dizzy|

[Useless]

Whata about link lists with free sites. How is that different from tgps? Wouldn't the links lists have to have 2257 documents on every thumb they show from free sites?

Thanhs. |dizzy| |dizzy| |dizzy| |dizzy|
Link lists and text TGPs don't show thumbs or store anything except the link and it's description. They'd only have to account for their own content and adverstising.

[RamCharger]

It's a good point in it's intent, but unless the rest of your pages are behind .htaccess or some other blocking device, there's no telling which page a surfer is going to land on. Google is going to send them to which every page they deem worthy in conisdertion of the terms searched. The DOJ certainly doesn't seem to care. If they did, they'd be demanding better warnings, not total control of all content on every page. Don't get me wrong, I'm a big believer in warning pages too, but my stats tell me that mine aren't seen very often.

My concern about this (and why I'm putting it here) is that everyone is expressing grave concern over this new law, but the reality is that being on the receiving end of it would require the federal government to go after you. However, there are a number of more easilly pressed lawsuits that only require a screaming parent or other person to initiate that no one here seems to have on their radar and that alot of sites seem to be easy fodder for.

[juggernaut]

OK well I'm kind of baffled to this whole thing and how its going to affect my site as I have all the models ID's and I'm very strict as to not allow them to show one image until they provide me with that info. Being I'm providing live streaming video does this even affect me? I think I should be ok until I start to partner or have afiliates etc, then I would need to get more of those images. I will be removing all banners from my site and only placing up text links. But I will be reading this very carfully. Now on to the address part. There are two things you can do here. 1) go to mail boxes.ETC they provide you with a real address with a suite attached. IE 123 any street, suite 123 anytown blah blah. 2) you can go to your local college pay a $50 registration fee and tell them you need a mail box. They will give you one with the college address on it. Anyway I'm not letting this ruin my Florida trip I will read when I get home as Im sure the feds wont make it to anyones house very soon.

[WolfTexas]

Everyone calm the fuck down! Don't make me put you in leashes. This is a matter of record keeping. That is all. Are there some pretty big implications? Yes. Have you ever known anyone who has gone to jail for shitty record keeping? What's that? No? Of course not.

Slow down, catch your breath, and relax.

Here's the problem. The record keeping is going to handcuff many people. It's not the threat of going to jail, but the interuption of business. Couple that with some of the other nuggets of this revision, and small business folks will have hell trying to arrange their lives to be profitable.

The biggest nugget of trouble for the amateur section is that the DOJ has taken possible danger (small instances of underage photos taken through false ID or through mistakes we can't fathom) and replaced it with an imminent danger OR the death of a business for many small timers because their personal information is now posted for the creeps and ne'er-do-wells to abduct or victimize the good people that willingly expose themselves for these folks.

That's the one that gets us. We have a family. We have a child that we treasure and do what we can to isolate her from the "treacherous or lacivious" activity that we perform in. The feds, locals or whoever could threaten our family now.

That's the panic. I'm sorry, but when you threaten my family, or endanger those close to me, I don't panic, I react. I'm rational, but I'm also logical. It's still a crossroads for many of us that like to have the work, but not the notoriety of our neighbors knowing EXACTLY what we do for that living.

Wolf.

[RawAlex]

Juggernaut, no no and NO! You cannot use a mailboxes etc! You have to actually be there, and unless you can climb into that little box and work, you fail. That is a PO box, no matter how you want to play with it. DON'T SCREW AROUND AND TRY TO FIND EASY WAYS OUT. Remember, 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison is your reward.

No mail boxes - no drop boxes - no "suites"... just your real principle place of business.

As for your videos, you need a model release, you need all the cross referencing, and you will need to name and track each performance (unique identifying code unless it has a hard URL unique to that video). You will need to track every thumb, still image, and anything else. EVERY IMAGE, EVERY VIDEO, EVERY CLIP... you need a cross referencing entry for each item.

The DOJ wants to be able to say "This URL who are the models". or "this video who is in it" or "this gallery, show me all the model releases for the people on this gallery" or "this model, show me all the places you have images of her".

Don't fuck around. Don't play cute games. You are EXACTLY the type of person the DOJ will love to meet.

Alex

[WolfTexas]

LOL I am always looking for over 40 men! Anything younger than that is just to im-mature, No Pun intended to the younger guys here... |couch|

I'm not a 40 year old, but I could play one on WebTV. ;)

W

[WolfTexas]

And screw there damned christianity, The way I look at it, My religion accepts nudity, we were born nude..Nude is beautiful, we just cover it up because they say we have to.

|bow| Uncle Sam - NOT

The sad thing is that I thought I was Christian. Now, I find that the only way to be Christian is to be forcibly made to follow God's will.

The last I remember in my classes at the seminary, is that God is willing to forgive us of our sins. There was a little jezebel in the bible that was allowed into heaven when she took the Lord as her Saviour and repented her sins.

Maybe I have a different version of the Bible from the Christian Coalition. I really need to quit buying my books from Wal-Mart and discount stores. Apparently these publications have ghost writers that prepare extra text.

Ultimately, I am saying, "Heather...you go girl!"

W

[WolfTexas]

I don't like this grim forecast. In fact, it is the only message that I have read on five different message boards and pages and pages of messages that has scared me. If all of the above holds true, we should all close down NOW and never look back.

Linda

This is a grim forecast, Linda. But take it for what it's worth. There are some reasons to believe that our government will be as inept as they have always been, and life will proceed. June 24th will be the day I look to find out where we go from here.

We're preparing, and hoping for the best. But it's important that everyone understands that the risks of our rightwing brethren going to extremes is very real. If you don't vote, you might want to. If you vote without thought, you might want to change that.

No one saw Hitler in such a light until the smoke cleared Auschwitz. Let's not make the same mistake. We are in more control than we realize, but it's not going to happen without the lawyers, and our own rise to response.

Take heed. Action is privilege, no action is your circumstance. Ain't America grand!? Porn activists. Doesn't happen anywhere else.

Wolf. (stopping the W. response for fear of being lumped into a partisan position)

[RamCharger]

This is a grim forecast, Linda. But take it for what it's worth. There are some reasons to believe that our government will be as inept as they have always been, and life will proceed. June 24th will be the day I look to find out where we go from here.

We're preparing, and hoping for the best. But it's important that everyone understands that the risks of our rightwing brethren going to extremes is very real. If you don't vote, you might want to. If you vote without thought, you might want to change that.

No one saw Hitler in such a light until the smoke cleared Auschwitz. Let's not make the same mistake. We are in more control than we realize, but it's not going to happen without the lawyers, and our own rise to response.

Take heed. Action is privilege, no action is your circumstance. Ain't America grand!? Porn activists. Doesn't happen anywhere else.

Wolf. (stopping the W. response for fear of being lumped into a partisan position)

hmm... two words just jumped into my head when I read this: papers please. |shocking|

Why do I now have a bad feeling about starting my up and coming website? |cry|

[WolfTexas]

hmm... two words just jumped into my head when I read this: papers please. |shocking|

Why do I now have a bad feeling about starting my up and coming website? |cry|

Look, I know I've come across as a fatalist, and perhaps, on this subject I have that perspective, but honestly, if you're wise bout how you start, and go the right direction, there's no reason to believe that this won't work out for you, me and anyone else that is or wants to be a porn "producer."

I'm hoping to open eyes. The implications of our gov't in these matters is relevant to more than just the life we lead as adult webmasters and porn models.

There are so many things going on in and with our gov't that the loss of freedom looks like a small thing to deal with, as opposed to some of the other things.

I love this business, and I like most of you folks. Those I don't like, I haven't met or talked with.

Go forward with your site. There's no harm in it, and you have at least 28 days of freedom here. You are lucky to start it, the real pain in the arse is for anyone that has been in bidnezz since '95. Try to cross reference that long list of 10's or 100's of thousands of images and media.

Wow!

Good luck, don't be discouraged, but DO be careful!.

Wolf

[Useless]

No one saw Hitler in such a light until the smoke cleared Auschwitz. Let's not make the same mistake. We are in more control than we realize, but it's not going to happen without the lawyers, and our own rise to response.
Actually most of the world realized what Hitler was up to far before the war started. (We Americans failed to acknowledge the obvious truth.) I believe Churchill led the way in warning Europe about what was happening and about to happen. Everyone knew about the Jewish ghettos and that Jews were disappearing in the night a long time prior to the first howitzer blast. People invoke Hitler in a lot of really bad comparisons. You can't fairly compare the murder of six million Jews and the deaths of hundreds of thousands of soldiers to the demand for proper documentation on fuck pics.

[Tommy]

does anyone have any ideas about what kinfd of software they are gonna use for this

[cd34]

probably the same thing that SOD and Vice use.

Excel. :)

[SexVideoContent]

does anyone have any ideas about what kinfd of software they are gonna use for this

Someone over on GFY came up with something for this, don't have a link though.

BTW, if you read through the 2257 regs, there was a mention of one comment suggesting the ability to use software to keep the documentation instead of only hard copies - that was my comment :D

It's hard to believe that out of the entire adult industry, with all the big players involved, that only one person suggested that - did anyone else write in about this during the comment period last year?

[ardentgent]

Link lists and text TGPs don't show thumbs or store anything except the link and it's description. They'd only have to account for their own content and adverstising.

Ah. I was interpreting tgp and thumbtgp to be the same thing. So if my tgp has no thumbs of it's own and just links to someone else's server to display the gallery, I am OK?

[RawAlex]

ardentgent - you are responsible for what is published on your domain, and that will LIKELY include things like IFRAMES to other sites and images, banner, counters, and other things that are integrated into your page.

You cannot control what is on another site, you cannot edit it, therefore you are not producing it.

However, linking to illegal content (CP, whatever) is still a major no-no.

Alex

[Ann Omness]

does anyone have any ideas about what kinfd of software they are gonna use for this
I'm probably just going to write everything out longhand on paper. I have half a million images to document and cross reference. I can't even get all the images themselves into a thumbs database because my computer starts bombing out when the database file size reaches two gigs.

If I work 24 hours/day and document and cross reference 12 images/second, I can get the job done by June 23rd. Except that none of the content providers I've purchased from over the years has the info I need available for me yet. And I have the suspicion that I can't write fast enough to handle the 12 images/second pace. I might not even be able to stay awake for a whole month. I guess I'll be going to prison unless the stalkers get me first after I publish my address for the search engines to spider.

[ardentgent]

ardentgent - you are responsible for what is published on your domain, and that will LIKELY include things like IFRAMES to other sites and images, banner, counters, and other things that are integrated into your page.

You cannot control what is on another site, you cannot edit it, therefore you are not producing it.

However, linking to illegal content (CP, whatever) is still a major no-no.

Alex

And if I link to a gallery that does not posses the required 2257 documents, that is not my concern, correct?

[SirMoby]

This shows promise http://www.my2257.com/ but it's not scheduled to be released until July 1, 2005 :(

[Tommy]

will Excel do this
the files have to be cross linked and include the images and movies

I do not think this is possable to do with paper
because a small 15 pic gallery requries copys of the 15 pics and thumbnails
plus the model relaese and the 2 forms of id

[Tommy]

trying to find info in a 12 page thread is ridiculous

[docholly]

I'm using Excel and each tab is a different model, click on the tab and a list of sites with copies of the content. i mgiht have to split it by pages..

[abe]

I'm not sure if my idea about their crosslinking is right.
I understand this. For instance you have a set of 100 pics completely documented and filed.
Out of that set you make 2 gals of lets say 15 pîcs.
Each gal has a url. I think that now for each pic you have used in the gals, you have to update the original file of the set giving for each pic the url where you have used it.
If you have used eg pic245 on both galleries, then you will find 2 url's for that pic in the original set documentation.
And in the documentation of the gallery you will find a reference to the original set/picture.

If it is something like this, then I think that it is not to difficult to make something in MS Access to keep track of all this. Might be easier then Excel.

[Chop Smith]

will Excel do this
the files have to be cross linked and include the images and movies

I do not think this is possable to do with paper
because a small 15 pic gallery requries copys of the 15 pics and thumbnails
plus the model relaese and the 2 forms of id

Tommy, if you are good with Excel you should be able to come up with a routine to handle these requirements.

When this scare surfaced, I started writing a routine using a database structure. I need to take a long weekend and finish it.

[Tommy]

I opened up access which someone told me is like excel
all i see is a bunch of cells

I dont see how this would work

[Useless]

And if I link to a gallery that does not posses the required 2257 documents, that is not my concern, correct?That's my understanding. We have no way to know what they have or don't have. We might see a lot more good faith notices next the submit button that say something like 'By pressing submit you claim to have the proper documentation for the content used on the link being submitted'. Of course, I'm not sure if that's good or bad. One would think that having a Beware of Dog sign would show due diligence if you have an anti-social beast in your back yard, but legally it's considered an acknowledgement that your dog is a ferocious beast and opens you to lawsuits if he bites someone. Crazy, huh.

[Useless]

trying to find info in a 12 page thread is ridiculous
This is getting nuts. Lots of topics going on here and plenty of unfinished conversations. Maybe someone could add a new board while Jim is out on his moped.

[cd34]

Chop, I have to write this for a client this weekend -- I'd be more than happy to share work/ideas, etc. You have my email address.

Tommy, access is a database that requires definitions and forms to be defined.

There are two things in the law that make me think that a machine dedicated to the purpose of license tracking is a good thing. 1) the records must be present and searchable via name, stage name, depiction location, title. 2) if it is on a machine shared with other activities, things could turn into a fishing expedition.

I did find some very confusing reading regarding US Producers doing non-US shoots and have asked for clarification. For data recording purposes, I have what I need for this client, but, that is one confusing law as written.

[Cleo]

I don't see how any kind of automatic database search your server for pics is going to match up what pics belong to which 2257 document.

I figure I have over one million urls with pics. I would need a much lager monitor to view these spread sheets. I doubt that I would even remember what most of the models name's were or which content suppler they came from.

I am very happy that I don't touch the teen niche. :)

[Chop Smith]

I am getting a number of requests for documentation from Thumb TGP's. I suspect the "big" sponsors are flooded.

Honestly, I do not see how a sponsor, in good conscience, is going to be able to just hand out model info. I would not mind hosting the thumb, but that would not comply. Sure hate to lose the traffic and some of those guys have been with me from the beginning.

[Greenguy]

Jim & I have talked about opening a 2257 forum, but without a real live lawyer to moderate it, it's all just opinion....like this thread :)

You want good hard 2257 info? Get a lawyer :D

[Chop Smith]

I would need a much lager monitor to view these spread sheets.

For small operators, a spread sheet app might work, but I think any app to handle this is going to have to use a relational database. IMO, Access is not going to be strong enough either (but again I have only used Access a few times)

[abe]

Don't underestimate access though never tested it with over a million records. But there are other relational db's.
For the people with huge amounts and fixed procedures it might be a good idea to (let) make some customized stuff. Perhaps with Oracle or so.

[abe]

And about Excel. I'm not sure but I have the feeling that you will have a lot of redundancy.

[juggernaut]

Juggernaut, no no and NO! You cannot use a mailboxes etc! You have to actually be there, and unless you can climb into that little box and work, you fail. That is a PO box, no matter how you want to play with it. DON'T SCREW AROUND AND TRY TO FIND EASY WAYS OUT. Remember, 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison is your reward.

No mail boxes - no drop boxes - no "suites"... just your real principle place of business.

As for your videos, you need a model release, you need all the cross referencing, and you will need to name and track each performance (unique identifying code unless it has a hard URL unique to that video). You will need to track every thumb, still image, and anything else. EVERY IMAGE, EVERY VIDEO, EVERY CLIP... you need a cross referencing entry for each item.

The DOJ wants to be able to say "This URL who are the models". or "this video who is in it" or "this gallery, show me all the model releases for the people on this gallery" or "this model, show me all the places you have images of her".

Don't fuck around. Don't play cute games. You are EXACTLY the type of person the DOJ will love to meet.

Alex
Dude relax. You are jumping on me for asking a simple question. I got news for you. I worked for the government I'm sure allot longer then you and can bet you that the people they hire to over look this whole issue. will be hard chargers for about 3 months but after the long hours, little pay and major paper work and politics this whole issue will be the same as any other issue the government ever launched towards the adult industry. As far as my stuff on my box. It's all there. Every model is fully tracked. Images, video feeds, time online, thumbs, model release etc. is documented and saved. So it's been my personnal experience they will not be comming to your house to put you out of business, they will be comming to your house to make sure you are not promoting CP. Which if you have all the documentation in order should not have any issues. I understand many people here don't have control over much of this. But thats the way it is. Now everyone here can talk about how this affects them but fact is I would rather spend my time talking to an experienced internet laywer and getting my paperwork in order. No one here is remotely able to give legal advice on this subject. So don't freak out cause some people are givin their thoughts as to what this law means. Like Jim said talk to a laywer. That's the best advice in this whole thread.

[RawAlex]

juggernaut, I think you haven't read the 12 pages that have gone before this. I don't think you have read the regs as published... and that is a very important thing to do.

I don't have to go any further than the po box thing. That is a very basic thing covered clearly in the whole discussion from the DOJ. It is a serious issue that is causing endless stress to many people. I am not trying to jump on you, but I don't want anyone to get false hope or to take misguided suggestions as their solution for business, only to find out those solutions don't match up to the requirements of the law.

If you are running a cam business, then you have it worse than most. The new requirements for storage of the original content is going to be a challenge. I wish you luck with it.

Alex

[Wenchy]

I've actually been giving a lot of thought to expanding my current Excel/HTML databases that I use for keeping track of banners, photos, page URLs, etc. They only run locally now (never been uploaded to my server), but I don't *think* that will be a major issue.

I haven't worked out all the details yet, but if I come up with something efficient and functional, I might be persuaded to share |cool|

[SirMoby]

Jim & I have talked about opening a 2257 forum, but without a real live lawyer to moderate it, it's all just opinion....like this thread :)

You want good hard 2257 info? Get a lawyer :D
I'd pitch in to get a lawyer to moderate and the truth is even with a lawyer it's an opinion. 2 lawyers would very likely have 2 seperate opinions on this.

[HornyHeather]

SirMoby, You are 100% correct, I have spoken to 3 over the last 2 days, 3 different stories from each Attorney, And I refuse to pay for a forth opinion

[Sinistress]

Has anybody read this article...

https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=news_article&sid=9459

and thoughts?

[Sinistress]

I'd pitch in to get a lawyer to moderate and the truth is even with a lawyer it's an opinion. 2 lawyers would very likely have 2 seperate opinions on this.

I have a friend (he's difficult to reach though) who is a federal lawyer, works for the US Government. I plan on asking him about the 2557 regs when I see him again...

[LindaMight]

Here's a question...and I am not asking for legal advice here. What are you all doing about dates of photos, etc. I am going back to 1999 with my own pictures and based on the computer I have stored them in, and based on my logo which has the year, I have a month and year for my pictures. But what kind of dates do the rest of you all keep? I mean, it's bad enough that we have to track each and every depiction but we have to add the date too? I cannot even imagine what content producers are facing if I have just myself and George to track. What a headache I have....

Linda |cry|

[RamCharger]

Don't underestimate access though never tested it with over a million records. But there are other relational db's.
For the people with huge amounts and fixed procedures it might be a good idea to (let) make some customized stuff. Perhaps with Oracle or so.

Why is everyone always running for a commercial solution? There are how many sites using MySql that are fielding how many hits with how much data? If you're using Windows you also have the option of using MSDE as your RDBMS backend. MySql or MSDE plus a Perl or VBScript (if you're using Windows) would do wonders for making things easier. Of course that requires someone who can program in either language to make that type of a program....<me>whistles</me>(yes, programming is something that is also on my list of skills)

[emmanuelle]

Jim & I have talked about opening a 2257 forum, but without a real live lawyer to moderate it, it's all just opinion....like this thread :)



Most of the 1st Ammendment attorneys have no problem dispensing bits of advice on the boards- It gets their name out and ultimately expands their client lists.
I don't think that it would hurt to invite someone over with the bribe of a banner spot and a captive audience. I wouldn't expect a lot of time from them though, as I'm sure their business is booming at the moment

[RamCharger]

<shameless plug>
Among my talents I am also a programmer. I am considering writing a program in Java to fulfill common needs of finding where images files are being used in your html pages are constructing a resulting html/xml file for your reports. If enough people express interest in this type of a program I'll go ahead with it. I might even expand on that idea if enough people send me feature requests. And yes, I'll put a demo version of my program available on my server to show what I'm up to if I go ahead rather than "send me money."

For those interested: PM me directly <DON'T send this via the 'Post Reply' feature>.
</shameless plug>

[LindaMight]

This law has been in effect for some time and we have complied in it's entirety except for the changes lately that require references to actual depictions cross-referenced to names of performers. So, beyond the paperwork that everyone has to do, why is there such a panic? Other than the actual place of business has to be published? Wouldn't webmasters have this information by now anyway since this law has been around a while? I see "2257 compliance" on a lot of websites which tells me that ID's are in place, yet I see on here a lot of freaking-out because those same websites don't have the info? I'm not understanding this at all. |dizzy|

[RawAlex]

lindamight, many people had businesses with a (legal) registered address as a PO box or a mailboxes etc or similar. Basically, there was no way to get form the business address to their personal name. Now all of the people who work and run their businesses from home will be required to disclose THEIR NAME (as custodian of records) and THEIR ACTUAL HOME ADDRESS as their business address.

If you are a solo amateur girl doing nasty cam shows, anyone who wants can now find out exactly who you are and where you live. It will be a matter of hours in some cases before the freaks and weirdos start coming out of the woodwork, parking in front of the house, ringing the doorbell, and worse, hassling the family, kids, etc.

Even for you. Right now, your custodian of records is Bernstein & Feldman, P.A.. Well, Come June 23rd, unless they are your employees (ie, get a salary) they won't be able to hold your records. Instead, you will have to hold them at your principal place of business (likely your home) and you will have to name yourself or your spouse (if they are employed by you) to be your custodian of records.

Do you want your home address and your name on the internet?

Alex

[Toby]

Linda, here's the biggests issue for many of us here.

A large percentage of the webmasters on this board fall under the classification of secondary producer. We don't create any original content. We purchase content or use sponsor provided content. The regulations set to go into effect next month include a major change in that area, now requiring that secondary producers keep all of the same information as the primary producer, for all sexually explicit depictions produced after July 3, 1995.

I think you can see why that's a major concern. I'm in a holding pattern at this point. I have to wait and see what happens with the FSC's lawsuit, and what my sponsors are going to do in regards to providing the required information for their promo content.

[HornyHeather]

lindamight, many people had businesses with a (legal) registered address as a PO box or a mailboxes etc or similar. Basically, there was no way to get form the business address to their personal name. Now all of the people who work and run their businesses from home will be required to disclose THEIR NAME (as custodian of records) and THEIR ACTUAL HOME ADDRESS as their business address.

If you are a solo amateur girl doing nasty cam shows, anyone who wants can now find out exactly who you are and where you live. It will be a matter of hours in some cases before the freaks and weirdos start coming out of the woodwork, parking in front of the house, ringing the doorbell, and worse, hassling the family, kids, etc.

Even for you. Right now, your custodian of records is Bernstein & Feldman, P.A.. Well, Come June 23rd, unless they are your employees (ie, get a salary) they won't be able to hold your records. Instead, you will have to hold them at your principal place of business (likely your home) and you will have to name yourself or your spouse (if they are employed by you) to be your custodian of records.

Do you want your home address and your name on the internet?

Alex

You summed my concerns up precisley. Although I do have my real name on my site, and have for some time, I felt the need to do that because they are the government, they have a name, they will find you... |blowkiss|
And Even though I got my lil office, I still have to be there 20 hours a week.. |cry| so either way we are subjecting ourselves to the whacko out there.

[HornyHeather]

And yes I know if someone gets your name they will get your address...catch 22 I guess

[Barron]

Chop, I have to write this for a client this weekend -- I'd be more than happy to share work/ideas, etc. You have my email address.

Tommy, access is a database that requires definitions and forms to be defined.

There are two things in the law that make me think that a machine dedicated to the purpose of license tracking is a good thing. 1) the records must be present and searchable via name, stage name, depiction location, title. 2) if it is on a machine shared with other activities, things could turn into a fishing expedition.

I did find some very confusing reading regarding US Producers doing non-US shoots and have asked for clarification. For data recording purposes, I have what I need for this client, but, that is one confusing law as written.


I'm writing a script for "new" content. That is, as you upload content there will be a an admin panel where you can assign the various info and download in csv format.

Thats an easy import to Excel.

Am I missing something. Access seems like overkill?

-

[Barron]

You summed my concerns up precisley. Although I do have my real name on my site, and have for some time, I felt the need to do that because they are the government, they have a name, they will find you... |blowkiss|
And Even though I got my lil office, I still have to be there 20 hours a week.. |cry| so either way we are subjecting ourselves to the whacko out there.


The regs say you have to give "notice" of which 20 hours you'll be there. Has anyone figure out "how" to give "notice"? My knee jerk reaction is that it would need to be included with the statement on the website? but, I'm not sure.


-

[Cleo]

Just hang a sign on your front door.

Notice to wackos, starkers, religious fanatics, and all evil doers
Best to to catch me is from 9 AM to 1 PM Monday - Friday
Thank You

[RamCharger]

Just hang a sign on your front door.

Notice to wackos, starkers, religious fanatics, and all evil doers
Best to to catch me is from 9 AM to 1 PM Monday - Friday
Thank You

Keep a pot of fresh cofee onhand in case they stop by. :D

[RawAlex]

thank you come again.

[juggernaut]

Raw alex I just got finished reading this whole document and I have not found any section that states what you have told everyone here about suites. Heres what I have found and just to let you know. The house I'm sitting in right now is owned by a lawyer and have been talking with him over this the past day. He has read this whole document and I have asked him to post here. He refuses as his advice is to band together and pay for an experience expert in this area. He does not want go give false hope to anyone here. Besides he also stated he makes to much money a day to deal with an issue like this. Anyway what I have read pertaining to the P.O. Box issue is correct. But where is the issue about the suites? I could not find it anywhere. If you search the whole document it's not found. Heres what I have found and have posted it backwards the way it's ment to be read. Most laws are written that way.
Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.



2) The date of production, manufacture, publication, duplication,
reproduction, or reissuance of the matter; and, (3) A street address at
which the records required by this part may be made available. The
street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or,
if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b),
the address of the secondary producer. A post office box address does
not satisfy this requirement.

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.


(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.


Sec. 75.1 Definitions.


75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in
Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this
section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name
and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the
records.

Jugg..

[HornyHeather]

I was thinking maybe we are supposed to put those hours on our custodian? I dunno..

Cleo Now that was funny! :D

[RawAlex]

You left out the important one:

Sec. 75.4 Location of records.

Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business.

Unless you are doing business (for 20 hours per week) inside the mailboxes etc, they are not valid.

Alex

[juggernaut]

Here's the part that had me wondering if a 2nd producer even needs the records.

75.7 Exemption statement.

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part

[RawAlex]

juggernaut, very seriously, you need to read CLOSELY. You cannot take the rules out of context or ignore what they refer to. What is listed in 75.7(a)(1) through (a)(3)?

(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.

In other words, the rules only apply to sexual material (see usc 18 section 2256 for definition) or material produced before July 3rd, 1995.

Even then, you need a notice (possibly even notarized) that the content was produced before july 3rd, 1995.

Alex

[LindaMight]

lindamight, many people had businesses with a (legal) registered address as a PO box or a mailboxes etc or similar. Basically, there was no way to get form the business address to their personal name. Now all of the people who work and run their businesses from home will be required to disclose THEIR NAME (as custodian of records) and THEIR ACTUAL HOME ADDRESS as their business address.

If you are a solo amateur girl doing nasty cam shows, anyone who wants can now find out exactly who you are and where you live. It will be a matter of hours in some cases before the freaks and weirdos start coming out of the woodwork, parking in front of the house, ringing the doorbell, and worse, hassling the family, kids, etc.

Even for you. Right now, your custodian of records is Bernstein & Feldman, P.A.. Well, Come June 23rd, unless they are your employees (ie, get a salary) they won't be able to hold your records. Instead, you will have to hold them at your principal place of business (likely your home) and you will have to name yourself or your spouse (if they are employed by you) to be your custodian of records.

Do you want your home address and your name on the internet?

Alex

Alex: I completely understand the mess about the record holders and place of business. If you read my post all the way through you can see where I mentioned I understand the address part of the panic. And as of June 1st my record holder address is changing but it is not going to be my home and certainly not a post office box.

I didn't understand why people didn't have the ID information but now I see that it is because it falls under the secondary producer thing. The paperwork is insurmountable just for my little ol site, I cannot imagine what mega sites with tons of bought content are dealing with.
|shocking|

[RawAlex]

Lindamight: Unless the address where you hold your records is your place of business (at least 20 hours per week) or is business address of an employee (and I suspect they would have to be actually on payroll) then you are likely still in violation.

No third parties, no outside sources, no unusable or uninhabited offices, no broom closets, no empty store fronts or rental space. They use the term "principal place of business"... get it wrong, it's could be 5 years in the pen.

Secondary producer thing is the pain and it is also the stupidest part of all of this. It will not for a second stop CP, it does nothing to further the state's interest, rather it just forces adult home based businesses to have to declare themselves so they can be subject to harrassment, enforcement, and local bylaws.

The intent of these rule changes is clear, the government's stated intentions have never been so obviously trumped up, and I am sure the courts will be interested to rule on the matter.

Alex

[Barron]

The best advice given is "go ask a lawyer". I did an yeah know what, I'm finding out that even the lawyers cant agree.

This post opens and new can of worms, but I'm still not convinced that I'm wrong. I"m hoping someone, or several someones can "prove" me wrong. I really really want to be wrong, but I still cant get this out of my head.

It seems to me that the regs require that the date of production, and the keeper of records be watermarked on each image.

Before you say "No way!" Let show you how I came up with this. And please, show me in the regs where I am wrong.

First lets start with what is suppose to be in the cross-reference database(records) that we all must keep.

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human
being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in
whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in
interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is
intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign
commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the
following

The "matter " is the digital image.

So lets replace the word "matter" with "digital image".

This next part defines what should be kept in the records:


(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer,
(2) Any name, other than each performer's legal name, ever used by
the performer,
(3) Records required to be created and maintained under this part
shall be organized alphabetically, or numerically where appropriate, by
the legal name of the performer (by last or family name, then first or
given name), and shall be indexed or cross-referenced to each alias or
other name used and to each title or identifying number of the book,
magazine, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image,
digital image, picture, URL, or other matter.
(c) The information contained in the records required to be created
and maintained by this part need be current only as of the time the
primary producer actually films, videotapes, or photographs, or creates
a digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
of the visual depiction of an actual human

No where does it say "date of production". The only reference to time or date says "need be current only as of the time the primary producer actually".

But, how do we determine if it is current as of the time of production?

Now we step back a little further in the regs

Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or
picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet
computer site or services) that contains one or more visual depictions
of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct
made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published,
duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall
cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing
the location of the records required by this part. A producer may cause
such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the
manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter to affix the statement.

(b) Every statement shall contain:

(2) The date of production,


Replacing the word "matter" with "digital image" we get this:

cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing
the location of the records

turned into this:

cause to be affixed to every copy of the "digital image" a statement describing
the location of the records

The operative word is "affixed".

But, lets go back a little:

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or
picture, or other matter (including but not limited to Internet

Repharse to this:

Any producer of any digital image or Internet

So: If you have a digital image or you have a website you must affix the statement.

We all have both, the image and the website. With my train of thought, the statement needs to be affix to "both", which means watermarking all the images.

*****************

Someone please please prove me wrong.

Thanks :)


_

[RawAlex]

Barron, the first one is easy: The model release has terms and conditions on it, the model swears the information is true and current as of that time. Two pieces of ID, etc. What does is releive you of the need to go back to the model each time you use an image and ask for new ID and updated information. Basically, you don't have to follow the performed forward in time, only backwards.

You have to be careful in replacing words. By replacing matter with "digital image" you have changed significantly what the rules read. Matter is matter, and image is an image. Printed matter can be a book, magazine, paper, or other. Don't add or remove words to get the desired result or concern.

The DOJ said:


One commenter commented that the requirement that the statement
appear on the home page of a Web site is vague because many web sites
operate with subdomains, making the actual homepage or principal URL
difficult to identify. The Department declines to adopt this comment.
Subdomains, as the name implies, are URLs that share the top-level
domain name's basic URL and have additional identifying address
information to provide additional content on a separate Web page. Each
subdomain thus has its own homepage

[[Page 29612]]

and each homepage must feature the statement. For example, http://www.usdoj.gov
is the full domain name of the Web site of the Department

of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal is the Web page of the

Criminal Division, which is hosted by the Department's Web site. Under
this rule, http://www.usdoj.gov would be required to have a statement and that statement would cover anything contained on http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal.
However, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov is a

subdomain of the full domain http://www.usdoj.gov and would be required

to have its own statement on that page, which would then cover any
material on a Web page linked to it, such as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
, the Web page of the Office for Victims of Crime.


The rules are bad enough without trying to re-write them to make them worse.

Alex

[LindaMight]

Lindamight: Unless the address where you hold your records is your place of business (at least 20 hours per week) or is business address of an employee (and I suspect they would have to be actually on payroll) then you are likely still in violation.

No third parties, no outside sources, no unusable or uninhabited offices, no broom closets, no empty store fronts or rental space. They use the term "principal place of business"... get it wrong, it's could be 5 years in the pen.

Secondary producer thing is the pain and it is also the stupidest part of all of this. It will not for a second stop CP, it does nothing to further the state's interest, rather it just forces adult home based businesses to have to declare themselves so they can be subject to harrassment, enforcement, and local bylaws.

The intent of these rule changes is clear, the government's stated intentions have never been so obviously trumped up, and I am sure the courts will be interested to rule on the matter.

Alex

Alex: You seem to have a real handle on this stuff and I applaud you. I do have an appointment with my corporate attorney and am just trying to understand as much as I can so I can determine if HE understands as much as an attorney can.....since everyone seems to be getting different opinions from different lawyers. How safe do we feel with lawyers not even saying the same things?

Anyway, back to the place of business. I sucked in, and actually have a lease for office space, and as of June 1st, it is the major place of business for my company. Goodbye to home office and hello to a real office and it won't be a front either. I always wanted to get this out of my home anyway. Somewhat of a hardship yes, but so are the mega taxes I pay.

I am filling my brain with 2257 stuff in preparation of my appointment with the attorney.
|angry| |cry| |dizzy|

[Barron]

Thats where I am scratching my head, lol

Affixing the statement to the website is easy to understand.

I'm not trying to make it harder, I'm trying to make it less harder. Every response I have gotten privately has been "No way" they wouldnt requrie that. But I'm still scratching my head, lol.

I really want to think that cooler heads prevailed in all this. The AG and DOJ has to carry out Bush's policy. But, the guys that actually write this stuff are employees. Wouldnt be great if the guys that wrote this said, "Bush's policy sucks". And then, wrote the regs so they would be all screwed up and get thrown out it court, lol.

[RawAlex]

Barron, you really need to spend some time reading up on Sundance vs Reno - you will see how most of what is going on in the new 2257 rules has already been shot down at the federal court level. The DOJ basically has said "sundance isn't on point and the Amaerican Libraries case is" which is a major stretch IMHO.

Lindmight: You are doing something that probably 90% of home based internet people CANNOT do (either cannot afford or just cannot do), opening a real office. Remember that you really do need to actually be at that office...

As for lawyers not agreeing, well... all I will say is this: I wouldn't hire a criminal lawyer to form a company, I wouldn't hire a corpororate hack if I got charged with murder, and I would use a divorce lawyer to look at 2257 rules. While your lawyer may be a great corporate attorney, you need to understand that very few lawyers have a clue when it comes to the history of 2257, obscentity, and legal enforcement actions in the adult industry. If they give you an opinion that is unlike anything else you are seeing, you might consider that they are not truly on the ball.

Most truly capable and on the ball 2257 attorneys can be counted on a couple of hands with fingers to spare.

Alex

[Barron]

Barron, you really need to spend some time reading up on Sundance vs Reno - you will see how most of what is going on in the new 2257 rules has already been shot down at the federal court level. The DOJ basically has said "sundance isn't on point and the Amaerican Libraries case is" which is a major stretch IMHO.


Alex

I know should. But, when it comes to inspections, the DOJ is not paying attention to Sundance vs. Reno. And the FSC posted an article that essentially says, "Get compliant".

Right or wrong, I have to get compliant with the same regs the DOJ is going by. Unconstitional or not.

It would be just my luck, I will be the one arrested so the DOJ could have a test case. |dizzy|

Damn, the time I allow for boards is up already for today. Talk to ya'll tomorrow.


_

[Tommy]

ya know I have been think about the software thing

I would like to know what you guys think about this

I have a deadicated laptop on the desktop there will be a folder called 2257
in that folder will be subfolders for preformers and urls

I use super jpg to browse the folders and word to create whatever text documents i need

and then just use the advanced search in windows for cross refferencing
keeping the search within the 2257 folder

[RawAlex]

I know should. But, when it comes to inspections, the DOJ is not paying attention to Sundance vs. Reno. And the FSC posted an article that essentially says, "Get compliant".

Right or wrong, I have to get compliant with the same regs the DOJ is going by. Unconstitional or not.

It would be just my luck, I will be the one arrested so the DOJ could have a test case. |dizzy|

Damn, the time I allow for boards is up already for today. Talk to ya'll tomorrow.


_


Barron, understanding the legal atmosphere can help you understand how this may play out. There is all sorts of legal smoke and mirrors going on, how long it will last, well, who knows?

Get compliant. Read the DOJ comments (not just the rules as written) closely as they provide you almost all the guidance you will need to create the records. It can give you much but not all of the guidance you need to be compliant in all aspects of your business.

If you are in the US, make sure you have a lawyer on speed dial that understands what you do.

Alex

[cd34]

The one thing that many clients are finding difficult are the requirements for the secondary producer to have documentation for sets produced after 1995. With Garill going out of business, hope for getting compliant documentation there has pretty much gone out the window. Other producers are gone, some are stating 'research' fees to provide compliant licensing. I've read and reread the rulings, but, I see this as a dilemma for a few people. A lot of content becomes useless on June 23 unless I am missing something somewhere.

Tommy, If you keep a document in each directory with the URL where each depiction is used, that would probably be close. Each time I read the requirements and comments, I find something else. :)

[RamCharger]

ya know I have been think about the software thing

I would like to know what you guys think about this

I have a deadicated laptop on the desktop there will be a folder called 2257
in that folder will be subfolders for preformers and urls

I use super jpg to browse the folders and word to create whatever text documents i need

and then just use the advanced search in windows for cross refferencing
keeping the search within the 2257 folder

I'm actually working on building what I was talking about anyway. I decided that there's probably enough interest in it to warrant my building it and, at worst, I'll have a nice Java project that sharpens my skills. I've been working on it since last night, but it'll probably be another day or two before I get a beta out. It's not complete, but the attached JPG should, hopefully, show where I'm heading.

[wishmaster]

hey i know why dont we all just get content that was made befor 1995

any way i trying to understand all this but the one thing i dont get is this it's not a law but a rule if i'm understand right

later wish

[RawAlex]

wishmaster, too much hair... too many disco suits. :)

Alex

[ardentgent]

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know? |dizzy|

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/2257RegulationsPresentation(FSC)%201%20%201%20.ppt%20Read-Only%20.pdf

[Toby]

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage ...snip... It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004...
The copyright date on the bottom of each page is 2004, it's speaking about the existing regs, not the new ones.

[airdick]

The below url is a link to a power point presentation on the FSC webpage. In it it states that lascivious depiction of the pubic area is excluded from the definition of actual sexually explicit conduct and that nuduty itself does not implicate compliance.

It is unclear to me if this is applicable to the regualations that are going intol effect June 2005 or is speaking to the proposed rules originally made in 2004. Does anyone know? |dizzy|

Thanks.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/pdf/2257RegulationsPresentation(FSC)%201%20%201%20.ppt%20Read-Only%20.pdf

I have not seen anything that changes the definitions of "actual sexually explicit conduct". It is defined in Title 18 2257 (h)(1) as a subset of Title 18 2256 paragraph (2) that excludes simulated sexual conduct and "(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person"

from Title 18 2257:
(h) As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;


from Title 18 2256:
(2) “sexually explicit conduct” means actual or simulated—
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;


You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

[noooze]

damn this is crazy

I have allways said, and will allways say. USA is a fucked up country regarding laws.
bet there a christian wing of the party involved in this... trying to make life as impossible to adult webmasters as they can
I read that anything contacting the us, is req. to follow the law. I say bullshit. Let the us goverment come to denmark and try and look me up. I'll be the first one to kick em out of my house and piss on their fancy briefcases
I will allways comply to first danish law, seconf EU law. and no one else

this is why i'll never in my life move to the US

[Barron]

the 2257 regs require our address.

Look what happened to this women and she is "not" in the adult industry.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/internet/05/27/yahoo.nudes.ap/index.html


_

[wishmaster]

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/

[Chop Smith]

Damn sure has lots of altitude and will probably catch a good tail wind.

[Toby]

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/No, not for content you host yourself, regardless of the source. You'll now be required to maintain copies of all of the model records, just like the primary producer you purchased the content from, and your 2257 Compliance Statement would only include your own name and address (your primary place of business).

[RawAlex]

You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

Airdick, sorry, but you are hitting 3 different situations here.

Sears catalog - fully clothed. End discussion.

National Geographic - reporting news. Different rules.

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

[airdick]

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

[SirMoby]

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.
Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

[airdick]

Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

My comments was a bit flippant, perhaps it wouldn't have come off sounding rude if I'd included a smily. I don't harbor any ill will towards Alex or anyone else on this board, and I certainly have nothing against Canadians. If I hurt anyone's feelings I apologize.

[Chop Smith]

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

[HornyHeather]

I believe Alex has been the biggest help I have found on any forum, And everything he has said explains exactly what we are reading,Thank you again Alex!

I am thinking that some are trying like hell to find a "WAY OUT" of the 2257.

Plain and simple if you show nude explicit material, you need docs. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but we have to, look at it in a good way, you will know in your mind that a model you added to your website is Over 18...That would make me sleep better.

[HornyHeather]

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

I agree...I paid for 3 opinions and all 3 had different outlooks on it and didnt come close to what I have learned here.

[RawAlex]

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

Airdick, no offense taken. "Sexual conduct"... ahh, well... it's pretty hard to truly determine what is sexual. I agree with FSC in theory.... but a theory and $4 will get you a decent coffee at starbucks. I wouldn't bet my business, my (blank) criminal records, or my (virgin) ass on a theory.

If the girl shows the pink ANYWHERE in a photoset, there is potential that it could be considered sexual conduct, and as such, well...

A full clothed girl sucking on a dildo. Yes? No?

Fully naked girl reading the news? Yes? No?

Topless girl with cum dripping down her face (but no pink no penis). Yes? No?

The nature of the game is a judgement call. In the same way that obscenity was a judgement call, this is a judgement call as well. While the definition appears to be more clear, there is no way to know how a DOJ official or a southern district federal judge might look upon your content.

It isn't just about "getting around" or "just getting by" but about being bullet proof so if you get the knock on the door (and in theory, everyone is suppose to get a knock sooner or later) you won't be freaking out and trying to pack the anal lube.

Play too close to the line, you are VERY likely to fall over it by accident. 5 years for a single undocumented image... think about it.

Alex

[Linkster]

Alex - keep in mind that the inspections will not involve arrests - if the inspections yield that the proper documentation wasnt kept then they can go get a warrant but its not like they break down your door for the inspection and haul you off to jail with them if you dont have them

[RawAlex]

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?

Ask Mike Jones about inspections.

Alex

[Useless]

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?
The most they can get me on is allowing my dogs' licenses to lapse. What sort crimes could they possibly search for while in a webmaster's home? The regulations may allow them to pursue other investigations once they're in, but that doesn't mean that they can start scuttling your home. They still require a damn good reason to go beyond your desk and filing cabinets. Even in these trying times, we haven't lost all of our rights.

[RawAlex]

UW, if your records are on a computer, they could possible ask you for the licenses for your major (ie: microsoft) software on your computer, as an example.

I don't worry about MOST people, but a few people might get caught with a little mother nature on the desk or perhaps an unregistered firearm in plain site or something stupid like that. Basically the rules as written say that an inspection does not invalidate plain site rules nor does it mean that inspectors must ignore obvious felonies.

Your rights don't go away... but they play sort of even, ya know?

Alex

[pornrex]

Just finished reading the article from head to toe. |dizzy|

Being a freesite builder and a hubsite keeper, I find as long as I have hardcopy (disk or paper) evidence to support that I am using legal images as it pertains to 2257 and my purposes, then I should be ok. Also, as long as those hardcopy records are at my place of work and readily available for inspection then I should be fine.

Am I correct in my calculations or am I forgetting anything? |dizzy|

[RawAlex]

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex

[Sinistress]

There are going to be a lot of unhappy webmasters I think who are spending more time trying to fight/find a way out of this, than get their shit in order...

If people want to fight/find a way out of this, I get it, I'm not even in the US but I'm still going to act as if I am, because with hosting in the US its still a chance I'd rather not take. My traffic is largely US based, and so if I want traffic I'm going to have to comply. I'd rather try to fight the law from the compliant side of the fence.

[pornrex]

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex
Can you give me an example? Don't forget I just finished reading this article so my ability to understand plain english is a little strained at the moment.

[Pervy]

---Quote on---

One commenter commented that the requirement that the statement
appear on the home page of a Web site is vague because many web sites
operate with subdomains, making the actual homepage or principal URL
difficult to identify. The Department declines to adopt this comment.

Subdomains, as the name implies, are URLs that share the top-level
domain name's basic URL and have additional identifying address
information to provide additional content on a separate Web page. Each
subdomain thus has its own homepage
and each homepage must feature the statement. For example, http://www.usdoj.gov is the full domain name of the Web site of the Department
of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal is the Web page of the Criminal Division, which is hosted by the Department's Web site.

Under this rule, http://www.usdoj.gov would be required to have a statement and that statement would cover anything contained on http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal.

However, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov is a
subdomain of the full domain http://www.usdoj.gov and would be required to have its own statement on that page, which would then cover any
material on a Web page linked to it, such as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
, the Web page of the Office for Victims of Crime.

---end quote---

The way I read the above it seems that you only need one compliance notice per domain and one per subdomain.

So long as all the content contained on those domains is compliant.

[RawAlex]

Can you give me an example? Don't forget I just finished reading this article so my ability to understand plain english is a little strained at the moment.

Pornrex, it's hard to give an example of a relational database.

Basically, the DOJ wants to be able to look at your records, and find stuff by real name , stage name, alternate stage names, etc.

They also want to be able to say "this URL, there are 4 models in the picture who are they?"

It is something that while it could be done on paper, is better done on a PC, normally in a database type program.

Just having a stack of model releases doesn't make you compliant.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Pervy, that is why the requirements from some TGPs and link sites for there to be a 2257 disclosure on every gallery or free site is overkill. Even the DOJ knows how to get to the root of a domain.

Alex

[LindaMight]

I am almost in compliance .. I think....I suppose....I guess....I'm trying...almost there...lawyer meeting set up...office to be set up....documentation being worked on....all ID's accounted for......

I even changed my avatar so it wouldn't be construed as x-rated. Stupid yes, x-rated, no. Happy Memorial Day to all.

Linda |twinkle |twinkle |twinkle

[Barron]

Pervy, that is why the requirements from some TGPs and link sites for there to be a 2257 disclosure on every gallery or free site is overkill. Even the DOJ knows how to get to the root of a domain.

Alex


I completely and totally dis-agree.

Read this part again:

(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture,
shall contain the required statement on its homepage, any known major
entry points, or principal URL (including the principal URL of a
subdomain), or in a separate window that opens upon the viewer's
clicking a hypertext link that states, ``18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping
Requirements Compliance Statement.''

What Pervy posted was commentary, it gave an "example" of and was commenting soley on what they view as subdomain.

But, the reg plainly says "any known major entry point".

If you submit a free site to a link list, you are saying "This is the entry point".

This next part is a veery big stretch, but plausible. When you do a search in any search engine, the results are not retricted to the root of the domain. The url/s listed in the search engine results could be seen as "known entry points".

Yes, this is "the sky is falling" type of reasoning. But, I'm covering my ass just in case I get a pissy investigator looking at my domain.

Rawalex, I'm not sure what they do in Canada, but here in the US, a driver will get pulled over for having a tail light out. The express purpose is to check you for a DWI. Law enforcement here will fuck you if you give them the chance. They are devious fucks that will pull obscure laws out of their hat if they have a mind to. This is not saying they will when it comes to 2257 inspections, but I do believe they might.


-

[RawAlex]

Barron, doesn't matter what the entry point is. The DOJ clearly stated they want a 2257 disclosure ON THE ROOT OF THE DOMAIN (and the root of any third level sub-domains). They specifically said that the root of the domain covers subfolders.

Now, it would not HURT to have all of those subfolders link to the single 2257 document (rather than having seperate declarations for each one), but there appears to be no legal requirement (I quoted them earlier in the thread on this subject).

We have the same thing when it comes ot driving, and you would be a fool to think these 2257 things are anything but a way to trip people up, and to nail them for other non-related offenses (such as pirated software, movie files, of whatever other signs of a felony they find during the normal course of inspection.

Make all the 2257 declarations you want, but the DOJ has told you IN AS MANY WORDS exactly what you need. For me, a gallery or subfolder site isn't a major entry, it's a minor reference inside a site. Otherwise, technically, ALL folders, ALL html files are potentially an entry point.

Alex

[ardentgent]

Two quick questions for anyone who knows:

Was any disclaimer required prior to June 25, 2004?

If a gallery is completely softcore, no- nudity at all, is any disclaimer required?

[Dracula]

Today I gathered all the ids I need for my unused content (mostly shemale, imagine the fun |headbang| )

So now, on every free site I make, I have to put a link to a specific 2257 page with the text and the ids for that content).
I think I will make a new 2257 page for every new set...

And if I get an European host all those problems will be solved?

[RawAlex]

Dracula, it isn't where you host, it is where your principal place of business is. If you are american, you need to follow the laws no matter where you host your stuff.

Ardetngent: Technically, there was always a requirement for a 2257 notice. However, the DOJ never was very clear about what should be in that notice or where it should be. They are being MUCH better about it now.

Barron, I think you and I are actually closer to agreeing that you think. I feel that one 2257 notice covers the entire domain, but you can have your doorways or subfolder sites link to THAT 2257 document. I don't think you have to have a seperate 2257 PAGE (in html or txt format) for each folder. That would make a change of address into a full time job.

Alex

[Barron]

I should have phrased that better.

I agree, from a webmastering stand point, putting a statement on each free site or tgp is overkill.

I agree that one statement at the root of the domain is enough, or as they say, a link that opens a new window.

The link on the entry point would be to the statement.

I agree that the root of the domain is the entry point. I have no control over what urls the SE's list, they are not entry points.

I agree that the DOJ are smart enough to go to the root of the domain to find the statement.

I can see how my post might cause everyone to think that I'm saying there should be a statement for each free site or tgp. The link on the entry point would be to the statement at the root of the domain.

I agree that they could ask for all sorts or things. But, I'm thinking the simple request to see search warrant, for anything non-2257, would deter there requests. But then again, that would, EDIT: would not, stop them from coming back with one.

"At the place of business", I'm thinking I should setup the computer out in a shed, or maybe the garage, on the front porch? It gets damn cold in Minnesota. |devil|

What I disagreed with is that there is no need for a link to the statement on free sites and tgps. Hopefully I am completely wrong. But until a lawyer, an investigator or the courts tell me different, I'm will put the link on there.


_

[Barron]

Rawalex, you type faster than me. I didnt see your last post :)


-

[Dracula]

Dracula, it isn't where you host, it is where your principal place of business is. If you are american, you need to follow the laws no matter where you host your stuff.


My place of business is outside US (Europe) and the only thing that bothers me is giving away my address or phone number. But if I host in US I must have those info on my page, right? No matter where is my place of business.

[Toby]

...So now, on every free site I make, I have to put a link to a specific 2257 page with the text and the ids for that content...I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "ids for that content", but if you're referring to the model identification and proof of age information, that goes in your private files only, NEVER on a web page. Your 2257 statement should simply state your name and the location of your records (address of your primary place of business). That won't change so no need to make a custom 2257 page for each free site you build.

[SexVideoContent]

If a gallery is completely softcore, no- nudity at all, is any disclaimer required?

Don't quote me on this because I don't know for certain, but the regs only cover sexually explicit images, actual or simulated, so non-nude shouldn't require a statement at all AFAIK.

In fact putting a statement where there shouldn't be one could I suppose get you in as much trouble as not having one where there should be one, if they wanted to be really pissy about it - and keep in mind the AG was quoted saying "overcompliance is a felony".

That being said, I would be careful about using NN content if for instance the model had her hand in her panties... I suppose someone could argue that whatever she's doing there might be 'simulated sexual conduct' in an instance like that, if they thought (or thought they could convince someone) that the model was masturbating under her panties.

Softcore however could require it. Anything with penetration or even touching (whether by self, a device, or another model) of the nether regions would require it, and there's some debate as to whether a full nude would require it or not. I've read the law and it looks to me like nudes would be exempt so long as there is no touching going on, however others who've read the same laws think otherwise for some reason.

What you can be certain of though regardless of whether nudes are still legal without 2257 or not is that a nude image is going to cause an inspector to look closer at everything else.

No where in the regs does it mention anything about nude breasts requiring 2257 however (it only mentioned 'genitals' and the 'pubic region') so it looks like topless content is still fair game.

Hope that helps.

[Toby]

I've seen specifics on how the link to your 2257 page must be worded, sized, etc. but I don't recall seeing anything that specifies the same for the actual statement itself. What I'm wondering is if you can create a jpg or gif image containing text with the information. That way it won't get indexed by search engines.

[cd34]

In robots.txt, put the following:

User-agent: *
Disallow: /2257/

put your content in /2257/ like http://domain.com/2257/index.html

And then use something like this:

<center><font face="sans-serif" size="-1"><a href="http://domain.com/2257/" rel="nofollow" target="_new">18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement</a></font></center>

rel="nofollow" will not transmit PR to that page.

[Dracula]

I'm not exactly sure what you're referring to by "ids for that content", but if you're referring to the model identification and proof of age information, that goes in your private files only, NEVER on a web page. Your 2257 statement should simply state your name and the location of your records (address of your primary place of business). That won't change so no need to make a custom 2257 page for each free site you build.

I see now, I was really confused about the ids. Since I am in Europe, in a site investigation how the Feds will see my papers? I am pretty sure they will not come here. And what if the owner is an offshore company (Bermuda, Gibraltar etc).?

[Toby]

...Since I am in Europe, in a site investigation how the Feds will see my papers?...That's their problem. :D
I suppose in theory they could make arrangements for the appropriate European authorities to inspect your documentation, but they'd need to have some pretty substantial cause to believe they'd find something major to go to the trouble. There's more than enough fish for them to fry here at home.

[Toby]

In robots.txt.....
Yes, that will work, so long as the spider bot actually follows the instructions. Google, Yahoo, etc probably do, but I'm not so sure about some of the lesser known SE's or what about ones that may not yet exist.

[LindaMight]

CD: Wow that is way over my head.. |cry|

Linda

[guitar riff]

Im usure this will be a feeding frenzy for alot of counties that prohibit porn once they see yuor address on the page or site I bet they have a fucking field day goin to your house. Before ya could hide from it but now Hmm f ya have to put a physial addy down for it and ya live in a county with a law againt posessing porn wonder what happens. Will it be like shooting fish in a barrel for authorities ?

[Useless]

2257 is for pussies. ;)

Remember, porn is perfectly legal in most places. The function that we fulfill is NOT illegal and is NOT being made illegal by the updated regs. If you are not using content in which the age of the models is obviously questionable you really shouldn't have anything to worry about. If you promote teens with braces who pose with teddy bears, you may want to consider a safer niche.

Deal with this one step at a time so that you don't get stressed by something which is relativley minor. First, get your 2257 statement up on the root of your domains. I haven't done this yet either and I'm still searching around for one that everyone agrees to be legally correct. I'll probably just copy and paste GG's.|cool|

I realize that a great many of you find publishing your name on your sites to be a great burden, but unless you are hosting pics of yourself, it really isn't that big of a deal. For those of you who operate your own amateur sites and your content is indeed pics and movies of you, it is my god-like opinion that you should NOT publish your true name and address. Use either your attorney's name and office address or a company name and P.O. box. In your particular situation it is a huge breach of privacy which will undoubtly be proven to be a hinderance to your right to free speech.

Then start working on gathering your model releases and IDs. Much of this portion of the record keeping is still very hazy. You're still seeing a fair amount of bickering on what you have to have, how to get it, and where to keep it. Get what you can and don't lose sleep over that which you cannot obtain. Again, if you are using content which is obviously comprised of adults performing legal sex acts, you have much less to stress over. Those of you promoting things like implied r*pe or teens sites which use the word y*ung a lot, well, fuck you anyway. :D

I realize that my rather laid back attitude on dealing with 2257 may gather some criticism, but I think most you realize that I don't really care about that. What I do care about is getting us all through this, smoothly and sanely. Stop worrying that someone is going to raid your home and take you away. It's not going to happen. And stop listening to people who are promising you that it will.

[Toby]

UW, I'm not terribly concerned about a visit from the men in bad suits. There are lots of other sites that will draw their attention long before anything I have online.

If you'd like a slightly different spin on a 2257 statment take a look at mine. http://www.bevyofbabes.com/legal.php

[LindaMight]

UW: I am not sure I agree with your address theory. I have read the regs over and over and it plainly says a Post Office Box will not comply! In addition, neither will an attorney's office. It must be YOUR place of business. I am indeed the model of my site and no, I don't want to put my name and address out there. I have made other arrangements for a place of business. I have had guys trying their best to figure out where I am because they want to "catch up with me". Too scary a thought.

What I didn't see was anything in the regs that prevents me from using my company name which is a legal corporation and all that pertains to my site is under that corporation.

Linda |dizzy| |dizzy| |dizzy|

[Useless]

UW: I am not sure I agree with your address theory. I have read the regs over and over and it plainly says a Post Office Box will not comply! In addition, neither will an attorney's office. It must be YOUR place of business.
You shouldn't agree with it. It's not legal according to the regs, but let's face it, some laws get broken for damned good reasons. I think that anyone who hosts content of themselves would be a damned fool for publishing their name and home address on their site.

[Useless]

Just in case anyone else is confused, let me print my official disclaimer:

Useless Warrior is not an attorney, but he looks dead sexy in a suit.

|thumb

[pornrex]

Just in case anyone else is confused, let me print my official disclaimer:

Useless Warrior is not an attorney, but he looks dead sexy in a suit.

|thumb
What kind of suit?

[Toby]

What kind of suit?Blue pinstripe? Big ring? |couch|

[RawAlex]

The one with the arrows pointing up?

Alex

[cd34]

birthday suit

[pornrex]

birthday suit
I was when you were gonna pipe up :D

[LindaMight]

Love the suit comment....LOL |pokefun|

Linda

[RawAlex]

Sort of suits the discussion, no?

Alex

[koolkat]

Hopefully this hasn't been answered already in one of the other posts, but I have a question regarding some comments in the federal register...

Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others.Now if a movie theatre or store is not required to maintain this information, wouldn't that just make affiliated distributors like the theater?

The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(h)(3).
Doesn't accroding to the part "but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted", affiliates would be exempt since they are merely distributors?

[Vink]

Good point Koolkat.
If I have to keep records as an affiliate, I my as well start shooting my own content for my own paysites. Which I should do anyway. But the affiliate thing suits my lifestyle better. I go out of town alot, and don't work for weeks at a time.

[ngb1959]

Just in case anyone else is confused, let me print my official disclaimer:

Useless Warrior is not an attorney, but he looks dead sexy in a suit.

|thumb


LEISURE SUIT - POWDER BLUE

|pink |pink |pink

[tickler]

I think I still have one with black and white horizontal stripes somewhere!

[RamCharger]

Pornrex, it's hard to give an example of a relational database.

Basically, the DOJ wants to be able to look at your records, and find stuff by real name , stage name, alternate stage names, etc.

They also want to be able to say "this URL, there are 4 models in the picture who are they?"

It is something that while it could be done on paper, is better done on a PC, normally in a database type program.

Just having a stack of model releases doesn't make you compliant.

Alex

Quick update: yes, I'm busy building a program in Java (so the Apple and *nix crowd isn't left behind) to do just this. I was hoping to be done by today, but got snagged into a memorial day vacation by friends for the past few days and just got back. Should be done soon though (hopefully by next week [my friday through sunday this week are tied up]).

[ngb1959]

Got a quick question - what about links to sex store sites?

Is that going to be a no-no too?


|pink |pink |pink
Nina

[stev0]

I've been prepared for this since last Fall. The line below is from the submit page rules on both of my TGP's.

"No Sexually Explicit content on your uploaded Thumbnail.
Your gallery may contain Sexually Explicit content, but the featured thumb may not.
Nudity is OK, but no penitration, oral to genital, or genital to genital contact. If
your gallery contains this content then don't let the script create the thumbnail."

However, if the focus of either site were a hardcore niche it wouldn't be practical.

Good idea..

These regulations are intended to prosecute child pornographers, I highly doubt if they'd use it to prosecute legitimate webmasters just for the hell of it. As long as you can come up with the records, I don't see why they would have a problem.

[tickler]

Toby:
Unfortunately, that will not do anything for you under the new rules. Even if the gallery is softcore also, if the "content set" contains hardcore, it needs to be documented.

So basically Thumb Preview TGPs are going to need the documentation for the content on any galleries.

So a gallery/free site maker, would not only have to acquire all the IDs from the "producers", they would then have to turn around and hand them over to another group of people like the TGP/MPG/LL owners.

And since that probably ain't gonna happen, Thumb Preview sites may end up being dead ducks.

And anybody making galleries/free sites has to also have the docs for any banners, recips, counters, etc. on the page.

[Toby]

Toby:
Unfortunately, that will not do anything for you under the new rules...I'm aware of that, and if the new regs hold up in court it effectively overturns Sundance Associates v. Reno and we have a whole new ball game.

[Mishi]

Good idea..

These regulations are intended to prosecute child pornographers, I highly doubt if they'd use it to prosecute legitimate webmasters just for the hell of it. As long as you can come up with the records, I don't see why they would have a problem.

You're kidding, right?

These regs have absolutely nothing to do with prosecuting CP. NOTHING. This is bureaucratic red tape intended to tie the hands of legitimate business operators.

[SexVideoContent]

Toby:
if the "content set" contains hardcore, it needs to be documented.

Could someone please referance where there is anything mentioned about a content set in the regs? I've seen this mentioned several times on message boards but all I've seen a referance to in the regs was individual photos, not photosets.

[Barron]

Hopefully this hasn't been answered already in one of the other posts, but I have a question regarding some comments in the federal register...

Now if a movie theatre or store is not required to maintain this information, wouldn't that just make affiliated distributors like the theater?

Doesn't accroding to the part "but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted", affiliates would be exempt since they are merely distributors?


I agree with this train of thought, but when I asked my lawyer the same question, he said no. It does not apply.

I countered with, "The distributor for adult magazines places the magazine on the rack, its the retailer that sales the magazine. When the DOJ bastardized the word distributor and turned retailers into distributors, we should be able to apply that to affiliates because someone else is providing the finished product, ie the membership site."

He replied, "That might apply if you purchase a finished product, such as a plugin, and offer it for resale. But, the regs are calling the webmaster a producer. They are not calling the retailer a producer. They are calling the retailer distributor."

As it relates to FHG's and free content supplied by the affiliate program, I disagree with him. But, he is the one that has to defend me in court if I get arrested, so its a mute point.

Bottom line, no matter the source of the depiction, if you publish it, you have to have age docs.

I think the part we have to remember is that the regs are not statute. The regs only spell out how the statute is going to be inforced. And the say they arent going to enforce compliance on convienence stores or theaters.

Google and Yahoo dont have editorial control, but they do publish. It will be interesting in the coming months to see how that plays out.

EDIT:

One thing is for sure, not even the lawyers are in complete agreement when comes to interrupretation. I'm not a lawyer, but my best advice is listen to your lawyer a go with what he thinks he can defend in court.


_

[Barron]

Could someone please referance where there is anything mentioned about a content set in the regs? I've seen this mentioned several times on message boards but all I've seen a referance to in the regs was individual photos, not photosets.


I agree with you, the word "depiction" is singular, not plural.

But, when it comes to sets the regs say this:

Section 75.2
"Any producer... engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct in whole or part...that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce... or shipped or transported... or is intended for shipment...in commerce..."

If I go to the content provider, or the affiliate program and obtain depictions that are intended for commerce I have to have age docs.

Example: The content provider sells me 10 images, 5 of no explicit conduct, 5 with explicit conduct.(the regs say in whole or part) The content provider intended for all of the photographs to be used in commerce. Even though I only "publish" the 5 images of no explicit conduct I have to have the docs.

Example: I go to the affiliate program and download free content. The affiliate program shipped them to me with the intent that the depictions would be use for commerce, ie sell a membership.

I disagree with this, I only think that I should provide docs for the depictions I publish as it applies to other parts of the regs. But, can your lawyer defend that stance?

Best advice: Go with what your lawyer says.


_

[RawAlex]

Could someone please referance where there is anything mentioned about a content set in the regs? I've seen this mentioned several times on message boards but all I've seen a referance to in the regs was individual photos, not photosets.

Okay, you gotta read this carefully now:

Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human
being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in
whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in
interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is
intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign
commerce and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in
such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the
following:

The key words: contains one or more visual depictions

This is a double edged deal here. First off, if ANY part of your website is hardcore, you could be liable to have documentation for all of the images regardless of which is hard and which is soft.

Second, it can also mean that any image in the SET, because you have a model release / ID per photoshoot, not per photo. So if a girl is non-nude in 10 pictures and fucking her boyfriend in the other 10, you need documentation for the entire set because one or more of the visual depcitions is sexual.

You cannot crop a sexual picture and make it non-sexual. It is based on what is originally in that photoset.

Alex

|skyfall|

[Barron]

Commentary:


If you read my last two posts carefully you will see that I take two stances. In one post, I dont believe we should have age docs, but in the other I say we do.

As I write this post, the thread has 421 posts and 8702 views.(Is this a record?)

When you look at the two stances I took, and the number of people interested in this thread, its easy to see the new regs are so confusing that everyone is having a hard time interrupting them, even the lawyers.

This is not legal advice, this "cover your ass" advice:

1. Get a First Admendment Attorney
2. Get docs on all your content
3. Get your cross referencing database built
4. No matter what you believe to be true, want to be true, or talk yourself into believing what should be true, take your lawyers advice on how to get compliant, and have it done by June 23.

If you have to beg, borrow, steal, pick up cans, mow yards and take a temp job, get the money together and get a lawyer.

I say this for one reason only. I have regular submitters that I recognize. Its obvious that they have made the change with their 2257 statement to comply with the new regs. After several days and hundreds of posts in various threads, on various boards, they still have it wrong. If you are listening to people on the boards to get your legal advice, your getting started on the wrong foot. GET A LAWYER

Rawalex, what trooper you are. Thanks for all your help |thumb


-

[SexVideoContent]

The key words: contains one or more visual depictions

This is a double edged deal here. First off, if ANY part of your website is hardcore, you could be liable to have documentation for all of the images regardless of which is hard and which is soft.

Second, it can also mean that any image in the SET, because you have a model release / ID per photoshoot, not per photo. So if a girl is non-nude in 10 pictures and fucking her boyfriend in the other 10, you need documentation for the entire set because one or more of the visual depcitions is sexual.

You cannot crop a sexual picture and make it non-sexual. It is based on what is originally in that photoset.

Alex

|skyfall|

Thanks for the reply Alex, I agree about the cropping of a hardcore picture to make it appear softcore, that would be altering a hardcore image, however I think you're misreading another part of the statement, or perhaps we're speaking of different situations here:

that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in
such visual depiction

That would seem to indicate that this only affects the images that are actually sexually explicit, not all images from a 'photoset'.

That the model release gives the producer rights to all photos in a set has nothing to do with which of those photos - if any - are sexually explicit and are therefore subject to 2257. Ditto for the ID's. Model releases are not a 2257 form and the mere existance of a model release does not cause 2257 to be applicable, they merely indicate the model is transferring publishing rights to the producer.

So what I'm saying is, if as a 'secondary producer' I receive those 10 non-nude images you spoke of, and publish them, there is nothing sexually explicit in those images that I have published and it shouldn't be subject to 2257.

Now on the other hand if I publish one hardcore image along with those 10 non-nudes (whether the hardcore image is from the same photoset or not) all the images published on that page would have 2257 requirements.

BTW, depsite my nick, I am not a content producer so please do not think I know what I'm talking about any more than you do :) I just make tgp galleries - non nude ones at present, and this is only my interpretation.

[Ann Omness]

I agree with Mishi, these regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with child porn. The child porn folks couldn't care less about 2257. They're already facing long prison terms if they get caught. This is all about trying to shut down the domestic adult internet industry. They haven't been able to pass any laws to shut it down due to the Constitution, so they're just changing the rules in an existing law in such a way that it will be almost impossible for most webmasters to comply. What was lawful before will now be unlawful and they can go after all the legitimate webmasters who are unable to get all the documention ready by June 23rd. Most of us are waiting for the primary producers to get their end of things ready before we can even begin to index and cross-index all our images. And how long does it take to document and cross-index half a million images purchased from 50 different content providers and spread across a thousand websites? 30 days? A year? Does the government care that it's impossible to do it in the time frame they've ordered? Sure, they made it intentionally impossible so they can prosecute us for paperwork instead of things that involve Constitutional issues.

[RawAlex]

The problem is what is a depiction. All images that portray the same subject matter shot in the session could be part of the same depiction. While it is not clear how they slice it, the requirement to have ONE model release and ONE ID for the entire package of images basically implies that the images are together as a "work".

Model releases and 2257 info tend to be integral. You get both the rights to the images and a statement from the model that they are over 18. To fulfill 2257 you must have the required IDs. The model release is the document that attaches the 2257 items to the photoshoot in question. They are three parts of the same puzzle. When I say model release, for me there is a direct assumption that the model IDs are with it.

Read 75.7 more closely...

Alex

[Barron]

Rawalex, elaborate a little more on how the models release is relevant?


The models release does nothing more than give the photographer the right to distribute, or resell, the photography.

I know one content provider that will debate this all day and never run out of breathe.

You can own as many photos as you want, but the copyright belongs to the photographer, and the right to distribute is owned by the model.

Reference the last widely known legal challenge reported in the media. The model portraying Juan Valdez. He was awarded a ton of money.

The models release is a document that allows the photographer to make money on his/her photography useing the models image. Nothing more. If content providers were smart, they would keep their models releases under lock and key.


But, it would be interesting to hear the debate on how it applies to 2257.

_

[Barron]

You get both the rights to the images and a statement from the model that they are over 18.
Alex



"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

[airdick]

Okay, you gotta read this carefully now:



The key words: contains one or more visual depictions

This is a double edged deal here. First off, if ANY part of your website is hardcore, you could be liable to have documentation for all of the images regardless of which is hard and which is soft.

Second, it can also mean that any image in the SET, because you have a model release / ID per photoshoot, not per photo. So if a girl is non-nude in 10 pictures and fucking her boyfriend in the other 10, you need documentation for the entire set because one or more of the visual depcitions is sexual.

You cannot crop a sexual picture and make it non-sexual. It is based on what is originally in that photoset.

Alex

|skyfall|

"contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in
such visual depiction"

IANAL, but IMHO, the phrase "such visual depiction" limits this to only the portions of the work that contain "one or more visual depictions of an actual
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July
3, 1995" and not the whole website, magazine, or other work.

[RawAlex]

I wouldn't bet my business or 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison on a single letter "s".

Alex

[RawAlex]

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

Nope, you cannot imply transfer. The document clearly states agreement between "this photographer" and "this model"... all transfers beyond that are done contractually (content license or complete content sale) specified in a different document.

The model release is the place you have the model's signature, proof that the model was aware of the photoshoot, and usually proof that the model was paid (an important part of assigning rights is the recompense for doing so).

2 pieces of ID without other supporting documents would not be enough to do the job.

Alex

[SirMoby]

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_
I've read 100s if not 1,000s of model release documents and each one states clearly the parties involved. Just because I have a copy of it for 2257 does not mean that the agreement is noe with me.

On the other hand, the new regs require a date stamp. There's no mention that the stamp needs to be a model release. I think soon we'll start seeing a new document being used as a data stamp so the primary producers can keep the release.

[SexVideoContent]

The problem is what is a depiction.

They're using the word 'depiction' in the singular, not the plural. They could and should have used it in the plural if thats what they had intended, but they did not do that. They haven't set aside a separate definition of the word 'depiction' in the statutes to indicate the word means anything other than its accepted meaning in the dictionary, so I'm not going to assume it means anything else. Words have meaning and I would hope the people who wrote this statute are aware of that.


Model releases and 2257 info tend to be integral. You get both the rights to the images and a statement from the model that they are over 18. To fulfill 2257 you must have the required IDs. The model release is the document that attaches the 2257 items to the photoshoot in question. They are three parts of the same puzzle. When I say model release, for me there is a direct assumption that the model IDs are with it.
I agree that when people in this industry speak of a model release, the first thing that pops in their head is probably 2257. However that is not the purpose of a model release and it never has been. Model releases existed long before the first version of 2257, it is an entirely different document that grants the producer the rights to distribute the images of the model, and a model release is used in many publishing concerns other than pornography that are not subject to 2257.




Read 75.7 more closely...

Alex

OK

Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.


Well the exemption statement pertains to:
(1)Sexually explicit matter made before 1995
Not what I'm referring to...

(2)Simulated sexual conduct
I'm referring to non-nude images specifically here so that doesn't apply either (without getting into whether a hand down the panties etc would be considered 'simulated' masturbation - thats another topic)

(3) a combination of 1 and 2
Also not relevant...

I don't see how that affects non-nude images at all. It seems to only pertain to older real pornography, or simulated images.

Now if I'm misreading that, please inform me; however that seems pretty clear as to what it pertains to.

BTW I hope I'm not coming off as inflammatory here, its certainly not the intention.

[SexVideoContent]

I just noticed something: In 75.7 (a)(2) they do make use of the plural form 'depictions', which is a good indication that to the person writing this 'depiction' and 'depictions' have different meanings, and this was not merely an oversight on their part.

[Barron]

I've read 100s if not 1,000s of model release documents and each one states clearly the parties involved. Just because I have a copy of it for 2257 does not mean that the agreement is noe with me.

On the other hand, the new regs require a date stamp. There's no mention that the stamp needs to be a model release. I think soon we'll start seeing a new document being used as a data stamp so the primary producers can keep the release.

I agree with everything you said. But there is going to be that one dick head out there "presumes" a transfer of ownership and resell the imagery. Without a document explicitly transferring ownership of the models release, there is no transfer. But, if that person is in a different country than the content provider, getting that enforced in the courts will be expensive and very time consuming. Better for the content provider to hedge his bets.

As for the date stamp, I think your right. I'm not sure of the how or where they will do it, but content providers will need to include the date of production on the documention some where. Probably on the license, I would think.


_

[ardentgent]

Okay, you gotta read this carefully now:



The key words: contains one or more visual depictions


snip


Second, it can also mean that any image in the SET, because you have a model release / ID per photoshoot, not per photo. So if a girl is non-nude in 10 pictures and fucking her boyfriend in the other 10, you need documentation for the entire set because one or more of the visual depcitions is sexual.

You cannot crop a sexual picture and make it non-sexual. It is based on what is originally in that photoset.

Alex

|skyfall|


I would seem to agree with Alex here. However, the exemption statement in 75.7 states in part that one may be exempt if "the matter containes only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct". The matter seems to refer to images or pictures and not picture sets.

[tickler]

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".

[Toby]

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".Which is exactly why I find the whole concept of secondary producers maintaining records on the models completely preposterous. I hope that the court agrees.

[erasmo]

This is crazy. If all you post is one photo of a model, you should only be liable for that one photo.

[airdick]

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".

Other than what you might have read in webmaster forums, what makes you think that is so?

Can you point to any reference in the regulations to photo sets, photo sessions, or photo shoots?

I'm not trying to jump on anyone here or put anyone down, but I would like to try to understand by what reasoning you have arrived at this particular conclusion.

[Alphawolf]

Not sure if this article link was posted already, but it's really worth a read if you haven't seen it:

New 2257 Regs Dominate Free Speech Coalition Meeting (http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=228369)

[furrygirl]

I don't have any terribly insightful comments when it comes to 2257, but one of the books I've been reading might be worth a look for the rest of you. It's called "The Government VS Erotica", by Philip Harvey, the owner of Adam and Eve. It's a detailed account of his own court battle, and I find it interesting to look at the anatomy of a porn prosecution and fighting back against the government.

[Ms Naughty]

I found this quote from the AVN article to be kind of reassuring in a way:

“What this law, the rationale behind this law is that it is presuming that every film you make, every photograph you take is child pornography, and you have to prove to this irrational level that it's not. That is at the heart of any challenge that this organization is going to make, because the ideal way for us to deal with 2257 is, as Reed Lee was the first person I know to make this argument, destroy it altogether.

"Ultimately, we cannot live with this. It would be great if we can cut out most of the cancerous parts, but fundamentally, it needs to be destroyed, and there's a good reason it should be destroyed in its entirety because of the first thing I said: It is presuming that constitutionally protected speech is a crime, and you have to prove it's not. That is at the antithesis of everything that American jurisprudence is supposed to be about.”

The more I look at this new ruling, the more I see that it will be impossible to comply with. So much depends on interpretation. You can bust a gut to try and get everything perfect, but it won't matter if the inspectors knock on your door. You could be spot on with your records and you will still go to court because they're out to ruin your business, plain and simple.

As soon as the FSC fixes up their online ordering page (soon I hope) I'm sending them money. I'm not a US citizen, but I support what they're doing.

[Wazza]

So much depends on interpretation. You can bust a gut to try and get everything perfect, but it won't matter if the inspectors knock on your door. You could be spot on with your records and you will still go to court...
It's the "roadworthy" car law's evil cousin - if a cop looks hard enough they'll find something wrong with your car... same here :(

[RawAlex]

Wazza, you are correct. The law is written in such a way that nobody (and I mean nobody) will be 100% compliant, unless they spend their entire lives on only record keeping. Even then, I am sure they will slip up on something (typos, misspelled words, or one cross reference screwed up).

There appears to be no mechanism in the new rules to handle errors, ommissions, or problems. Your wrong, you go to federal butt slamming prison. I suspect this is ANOTHER area the rules can be attacked under, as they have no leeway in them, no administrative process for correcting issues... even the IRS has an appeal process.

Alex

[ardentgent]

Putting aside the issue of photosets that may contain harcore images even if one is using softcore images only from that photoset, does one need a compliance statement or exemption statement if the site containes no images of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity? |headbang|

[Alphawolf]

Can someone tell me or point me to a thread where it's discussed when this goes into effect?

TIA

[airdick]

Putting aside the issue of photosets that may contain harcore images even if one is using softcore images only from that photoset, does one need a compliance statement or exemption statement if the site containes no images of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity? |headbang|

No.

From what I can tell, the regulations state that you may include an exemption statement for "actual sexual conduct" (defined in 2257(h)) that predates the regulations, or simulated sexual conduct, or a combination of the two:

"Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part."

Additionally, the following comments from the DOJ were published in the Federal Register along with the new regulations:

"One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation.
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the
producer was exempt from the regulation."

[ardentgent]

No.

From what I can tell, the regulations state that you may include an exemption statement for "actual sexual conduct" (defined in 2257(h)) that predates the regulations, or simulated sexual conduct, or a combination of the two:

"Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part."

Additionally, the following comments from the DOJ were published in the Federal Register along with the new regulations:

"One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation.
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the
producer was exempt from the regulation."


My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

[RawAlex]

Can someone tell me or point me to a thread where it's discussed when this goes into effect?

TIA

It goes into effect July 3rd, 1995.

No kidding.

The actual "enforcement date" for these clarifications is June 23rd, 2005. But the July 3rd, 1995 date is important because all your records have to be good from THEN.

Alex

[RawAlex]

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Definition of sexual explicit here.

I would recommend that if the girl gets naked, you need to get ID.

Alex

[madleinx]

Hi Alex, you've been a tremendous help with this thread! |headbang| I have a lil question....The regs state that we only need records for the content described in 2256 sections A-D, right? That means "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is not included. Do we really need docs for simple nudity (no pink, no spreads)? Thanks!

[Alphawolf]

The actual "enforcement date" for these clarifications is June 23rd, 2005. But the July 3rd, 1995 date is important because all your records have to be good from THEN.

Alex

Thanks.

One thing that stood out from that article was the following:

Along the way, answers were given to questions such as the legality of using performers with foreign government-issued IDs in the U.S. (it's a no-no under the new rules); whether the government will try to apply the new ID rules retroactively (probably); whether the lack of privacy surrounding who must keep IDs will drive performers out of the business (that's the idea, Gelbard opined); the necessity of keeping separate records for compilations (yes, they're necessary); and whether the Justice Department is likely to be willing to compromise on some of the requirements.

So, US webmasters cannot use any content that was shot using a non US ID?

Sounds rather rediculous, but that is pretty much how I'm reading the above article.

[RawAlex]

Alphawolf, you appear to be correct. Y'see, the performer would be working without permission in the US, and didn't pay taxes on their earnings.

Now, this will once again be a point that will be argued in court, basically because the government adjusted the standards "after the fact". It could (and likely will) be argued that content producers had no way to know which documents were correct, that no guidelines were in place before June 23rd, 2005, and as such, all content shot before that date should be exempt from new ID rules.

They would likely win.

Alex

[airdick]

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

I understood that. Section 75.7 is the only place an exemption statement is covered, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that an exemption statement only applies to the cases covered in 75.7.

[Alphawolf]

Alphawolf, you appear to be correct. Y'see, the performer would be working without permission in the US, and didn't pay taxes on their earnings.

Now, this will once again be a point that will be argued in court, basically because the government adjusted the standards "after the fact". It could (and likely will) be argued that content producers had no way to know which documents were correct, that no guidelines were in place before June 23rd, 2005, and as such, all content shot before that date should be exempt from new ID rules.

They would likely win.

Alex

So, if model resides outside USA, but was involved in a USA production whether vids or pics and of course only has a passport- that's no good.

However, I'm thinking of all our European friends who shoot outside of the USA and supply content....

That would still be legal - to the best of your knowledge of course)?

Umm...how can one prove where the original shoot took place, especially if it's a set?

This is quite the clusterfuck, in general.

:(

[Useless]

This is why I'm sticking very strictly to fisting and scat purchased quietly from an anonymous broker in Russia. That way I don't have to play guessing games about whether or not my content is legal. I'm golden!
|pink

Hold on...someone is knocking on my door. Be right ba...

[ardentgent]

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html

Definition of sexual explicit here.

I would recommend that if the girl gets naked, you need to get ID.

Alex

I don't agree. 2257 uses 2256 to define sexually explicit as :

As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; E is not included.

[RawAlex]

Yeah, but read it backwards... if you don't have IDs for 2257... then there is no way to prove that the model ISN'T underage, therefore A through E would apply.

You could pass 2257 and FAIL 2256.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Alphawolf: It would appear that, providing the primary producer is outside the US, then government issued IDs in that country would be acceptable. That is what I read anyway, but that isn't a section I spent too much time on yet. I think they are trying to stop the "underground" porn movie trade, of bringing in models without valid work cards, having them shoot 10 - 20 movies in a month, and then go back to their country with what for them is a pile of cash - all without paying a cent of tax in the US.

It is things like this that reveal the true intentions of this sort of "rule" adjustment - they are attempting to use "law A" to fix "problem B".

Alex

[tickler]

Paul and Alex:
It's late, and maybe I am reading it wrong.

But, doesn't it indicate that if you are a US producer, and you shoot outside the US, the models have to have US IDs.

[ardentgent]

Yeah, but read it backwards... if you don't have IDs for 2257... then there is no way to prove that the model ISN'T underage, therefore A through E would apply.

You could pass 2257 and FAIL 2256.

Alex

So if I understand you correctly, one can make a gallery consisting of simulated sexual activity and therefore be exempt from the record keeping requirements of 2257 including having model ID's (according to section 75.7) but if one makes a makes a gallery of simple nudity one has to have model ID's.

Does not make sense to me so maybe you are correct as these regs are ridiculous.

[RawAlex]

Worse than that! There are situations where you would not require 2257 documents for a model for section 2257, but if you read section 2256, you need them anyway otherwise you have no proof of model age, which means, well, how many years in the federal butt slamming prison for being a CP producer?

It's a funny situation... you can have a model that technically doesn't require 2257 documents, but you can get it in the ass anyway.

Nice.

Tickler, you are correct, that is the screwed up way it reads. The way around this of course is to have someone in each country be the primary producer, who then sells all the rights to the content to the US producer, who is now a secondary producer.

It does make it harder for "porn tourism", where performers go to different countries to shoot.

Alex

[airdick]

Yeah, but read it backwards... if you don't have IDs for 2257... then there is no way to prove that the model ISN'T underage, therefore A through E would apply.

You could pass 2257 and FAIL 2256.

Alex

Worse than that! There are situations where you would not require 2257 documents for a model for section 2257, but if you read section 2256, you need them anyway otherwise you have no proof of model age, which means, well, how many years in the federal butt slamming prison for being a CP producer?

It's a funny situation... you can have a model that technically doesn't require 2257 documents, but you can get it in the ass anyway.


I think we can all agree that having IDs and/or a paper trail back to the producer has always been a good idea for copyright and legal issues other than 2257.

The appeal of sticking with softcore exempt content is to avoid all of the burdensome requirements of becoming a Custodian of Records - regular office hours, DOJ fishing expeditions, specific recordkeeping formats, maintaining an inspection location for years after going out of business, etc.

[RawAlex]

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

[Tommy]

you guys sound a bit paranoid

[SexVideoContent]

you guys sound a bit paranoid

Uhh, yeah. A bit.

Alex, There is no requirement for a secondary producer to have documentation for mere topless/softcore content that is not subject to 2257.

2257 is a rare instance that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser (the DOJ) to the accused (the producer).

The 2257 statute only requires you to make documents available for inspections for the matters covered in 2257, NOT for topless and mere nudes without sexual contact.

Now if someone was dealing in genuine CP there would be a whole bunch of other problems to deal with, but it doesn't look like people promoting 'mardi gras' type sites with girls flashing are going to need to do anything differently than they have been.

As far as softcore and nude goes, the justice system in this country is still intact and one is presumed innocent unless someone else comes up with somethign proving otherwise.

[RawAlex]

Actually, MArdigras style content is a whole different ball of wax - it falls under "reporting of an actual event / news". You are exempt from 2257 requirement provided no real sexual acts occur. Even then, providing you don't dwell, you are pretty much good to go.

I understand where you are coming from, but your splitting hairs. If you are in the US, and have anything to do with porn, you need to have a 2257 statement on all your sites, you need to have records (even if those records are just the affidavits that say the material is exempt from 2257), and you must have an office - otherwise you are in line to be investigate, my bet, especially if you rank well in SEs for any major terms or have a site with some profile (good or bad).

Tommy, paranoid? Not really. I am hoping that nobody chooses to shift their business from "a" to "b" because someone suggested that "b" is somehow exempt from 2257 - sort of like people who drive without a license because the police only check 1% of the cars a year.

Alex

[airdick]

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

The mere lack of ID in the case you describe wouldn't be enough prove guilt, but having the ID would be a good defense. Like I said, I think it's a good idea to have documentation to cover your ass for your content, regardless of whether or not the content is exempt from 2257, but being able to defend yourself against charges of using underage softcore content is lot different than following all of the Custodian of Records requirement in 2257.

[RawAlex]

Airdick, the question is: How do you prove she is over 18? I think the answer "ask igor in buttslamovia" isn't going to float anymore.

Alex

[airdick]

Tommy, paranoid? Not really. I am hoping that nobody chooses to shift their business from "a" to "b" because someone suggested that "b" is somehow exempt from 2257 - sort of like people who drive without a license because the police only check 1% of the cars a year.

Alex

Here's another analogy: Why should someone get a drivers license when all they want to do is ride a bicycle? ;)

Bicycles riders are exempt from having drivers licenses, just like anything that is not covered by 2257(h) is exempt from the record keeping requirements of 2257.

BTW, 2257 has been in place since 1988 and I have yet to ever see a R-Rated movie with nudity and sexual themse in a theater or on cable where there was a 2257 Statement presented.

[airdick]

Airdick, the question is: How do you prove she is over 18? I think the answer "ask igor in buttslamovia" isn't going to float anymore.

Alex

I'm afraid we're going to chew up too much bandwidth on ggj going around-and-around on this. Doing enough CYA to prove that a model in a softcore shoot is over 18 (provided the matter ever came to court) is not the same as following all of the requirements of 2257. You would be innocent until proven guilty, and not having an ID on hand for inspection wouldn't a crime.

[Toby]

The whole premise of secondary producers having to prove a model is over 18 is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the justice system to prove that a model is under 18. That's not going to change no matter how much the authors of 2257 want it to be so.

Proof of age on model release forms has as much to do with proving the model is of legal age to be able to sign a binding contract as it does proving she's old enough to do adult content modelling.

DOJ can rewrite 2257, but they can't rewrite the 1st, 4th and 5th Constitutional amendments. Until these new regs have their day in court, I'm not going to get too excited about changing how I'm currently doing things.

[RawAlex]

Toby, is it up the courts to prove you sold beer to a minor, or is the assumption you sold to a minor unless you asked for ID?

Many states have an ID under 25 rule, if the person appears to be under 25, you have to ask for ID to sell beer or smokes. Failure to ask for the ID is an offence all it's own.

Alex

[Toby]

Toby, is it up the courts to prove you sold beer to a minor, or is the assumption you sold to a minor unless you asked for ID?You're comparing apples to oranges. A point of sale transaction where the consumer is the one who's age is at issue is far different than a supplier to distrubutor transaction where the age of the "merchandise" is at issue.

[PR_Tom]

Then wouldnt it be like making a supermarket keep records stating that all of their food is NOT expired at the time I purchased it? lol

This whole thing is a mess. Chances are that for my personal websites, I'll pull every image and block the web archive bot.

Surely there will be lawsuits because these regs are a huge mess.

[PR_Tom]

Also, if having "editorial control" is a key to whether or not records need keeping, wouldnt hotlinking or zero framing be exempt? If I full page frame a sponsor tour, I have absolutely no control whatsoever. But I need records of every image on the tour, right? Ridiculous :(

[RawAlex]

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

[tortus32]

What if a site has no nudity. I would think I am in the clear with shoekittens.com as there is no nudity or sexual acts.

I might have to just dump my TGP's tho.
Uhg!

Bill

[tickler]

Tickler, you are correct, that is the screwed up way it reads. The way around this of course is to have someone in each country be the primary producer, who then sells all the rights to the content to the US producer, who is now a secondary producer.

It does make it harder for "porn tourism", where performers go to different countries to shoot.

Alex
Alex THX. Probably makes a ton of current content invalid also if they get away with back dating.

Next question is if the 5 year rule is gonna fuck people, so that even pulling non-compliant content may not remove them from 2257 requirements?
If I was the DOJ, I would have been "scraping" the internet for the last few years and not just start the day everything gets active. Not counting google images, archives, ISP caches, etc. They do keep saying "clarifying".

As somebody mentioned about model IDs and ages and stuff. "Traci Lords would have been able to make every movie she made because she had California ID and she had a U.S. passport that were 100 percent valid; fraudulently obtained, but valid. "

BTW Paul, re. another thread, I found the reference for her again here:
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?Primary_Navigation=Web_Exclusive_News&Action=View_Article&Content_ID=228369

[ardentgent]

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

If I use softcore content it will be sponsor content in which they have indicated that the models are over 18 or licensed content indicating the same. Furthermore, since 2257 would not apply I would not have to prove the model's age, the government would if they wanted to prosecute me. In addition, the way this NON-LAWYER- reads the statutes one has to knowingly use cp in order to be guilty of using cp.

[PR_Tom]

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

Yep I know, I've been advising people the same. But if Google for instance was granted an exception because they have no editorial control, then whats the difference.. It's not as if I have any say whatsoever if I frame a page full of text about oil painting, and then someone knocks on my door because a few weeks back, the site I'm framing put hardcore images on the page.
I'm ranting.

My comment about the supermarket was in response to someone elses apples and oranges comment. The burden is on us to prove the content is NOT illegal. Which I think would be similar to a supermarket having to prove their product was NOT expired when we buy it. Ridiculous. Again ranting.

[RawAlex]

PR_tom, I agree with you, it seems stupid but there are many things in life the same, like getting a smog inspection because you have to prove your legal before you can plate the car. We are on the permit side, not the law breaking side. Not innocent until proven guilty, more in violation unless we show we are conforming to the rules.

tickler: I think the whole back dating thing will be VERY VERY VERY hard for enforce, it's a well know that "The Constitution clearly forbids "Ex Post Facto" laws " - which is making something illegal after it has occurred, and then charging people. It is one of the many ways that this current screwfest of a rule set will probably get knocked over in court.

ardentgent: I wish you luck with it. If I was in the US I would not have a single image with naked anything without either model IDs or a notice from the sponsor that the content is not applicable to 2257. I wouldn't run naked in the middle.

Alex