|
2005-06-17, 06:22 AM | #26 |
I hustle for Hustler
|
that is the same company that told me they hadn't decided if they were going to release un-blacked out ids or not despite it saying on their page they were new 2257 compliant and I believe they have now publicly stated they won't hand out unaltered ids.
|
2005-06-17, 07:30 AM | #27 | |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
Quote:
The only thing I can find is that the secondary producer "may" obtain the documentation from the primary producer - and in fed reg talk which is defined in another reg - "may" means they can but are not required to and would not be in violation if they didnt Now if they used the word "shall" or "will" then it becomes a reg requirement - again this is all definied in another reg on how to write regs |
|
2005-06-17, 08:06 AM | #28 | |
Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,706
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-17, 08:12 AM | #29 |
old enough to be Grandma Scrotum
|
Linkster, thanks for your opinion on the "may" thing.
I was wondering about that word because in the section about exemption statements they say a primary producer "may" provide proof to a secondary producer that the content is exempt from 2257. I wasn't sure what that "may" meant. Yet another vague piece of wording to be challenged in court, I guess.
__________________
Promote Bright Desire |
2005-06-17, 09:01 AM | #30 |
Life is good
|
Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs. guitar riff I ain't pulling shit (other than some from my paysite if needed) since I'm in Canada and feel this will not reach me here. |
2005-06-17, 09:14 AM | #31 |
NO! Im not a female - but being a dragon, I do eat them.
|
I dont think that could really be challenged as the use of "should" "may" "shall" etc is all throughout the CFRs and has always had the same definitions - I do know of some old legal arguments years ago that blurred the use of the words, but in my "previous life" the use of these words was very strict and had very specific meanings. The writers of the CFRs have general guidelines to follow and some of them include the use of these words. "Shall" means a regulatory requirement, "may" means its allowable but not required, "should" is usually interpreted as "you better have a damn good reason for not doing it"
Hope that helps |
2005-06-17, 09:42 AM | #32 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18. It's not all a one way street. |
|
2005-06-17, 11:49 AM | #33 |
I'm going to the backseat of my car with the woman I love, and I won't be back for TEN MINUTES
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 82
|
If Lace is charging 25 an hour to look up the models docs that's opportunistic.
I'm still waiting to hear from Greg Gregory for the bulk of id's I'm supposed to have. Last summer he said they were burried in storage so while I'm still hopeful, I'm seeing my 3 years worth of content club content going away. I haven't gotten any response for my requests. I'm pulling my lace content anyway. I'm not even hoping for sponsors to provide, but for my content purchased... it's really important. I could use a list of content providers who have been helpful. I plan on rebuilding in the aftermath with new compliant content. Bigger, better, stronger and compliant! |
2005-06-17, 12:47 PM | #34 | |
I hustle for Hustler
|
Quote:
Photo Gregg has been the best for me on this issue. I sent him one email and he sent me back a link to grab every id and release I need. Whole process from asking to getting took maybe an hour. |
|
2005-06-17, 02:48 PM | #35 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-17, 03:45 PM | #36 | |
Kodak Ghosts Run Amok
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Hobbs End
Posts: 1,718
|
Quote:
I think that it's more than fair to charge a reasonable fee in those cases. |
|
2005-06-18, 03:58 AM | #37 | |
Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer?
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-18, 04:08 AM | #38 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Or even the address of the model? |
|
2005-06-18, 04:19 AM | #39 | |
Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer?
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-18, 04:21 AM | #40 | |
Searching for Jimmy Hoffa
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 771
|
Quote:
Trust me I didn't want to hear this, lol, because I'll be losing over 100 sets because of it. So, I've decided to sit on that content and buy another $1k in content from providers that don't blackout any info. |
|
2005-06-18, 08:12 AM | #41 | |
Searching for Jimmy Hoffa
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 771
|
Another content provider:
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-18, 08:18 AM | #42 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
Point is I'm not giving out documents with addresses of models or their relatives in the case of a UK passport which has the next of kin on the facing page to the holders details. The law does not require it so they can't prosecute you for it, full stop. Comments are not law. The Czech one does not have this so it's not a problem. |
|
2005-06-18, 08:28 AM | #43 |
Searching for Jimmy Hoffa
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 771
|
NOK wouldn't be needed, but I'm going to take what my lawyer and another one said regarding blacked out id.
I know lawyers have debated minutia in some areas and there's a lot of grey areas. Ask different lawyers you get different answers, but what mine said made sense. It's far cheaper for me to buy new content that I know for fact will be 100% compliant then pay for a lawyer to defend me against the DOJ if they decide blacked out ids aren't good enough. |
2005-06-18, 09:50 AM | #44 | |
Guest
Posts: n/a
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-18, 02:05 PM | #45 | |
Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer?
|
Quote:
Then you should be okay, Paul....in one of the other (many) 2257 threads here someone actually called the DOJ and apparently only ONE ID is necessary. BTW, you are not alone with giving out blacked out IDs. I have many sets from several different companies who have been giving out blacked out IDs for years... However, according to an AVN article I read yesterday, the FSC's lawsuit states: " That last point, as well as the prohibition on foreign performers, points up the fact that the new regulations appear to violate several international treaties. "By excluding foreign-issued identification cards from the list of approved documents to verify a performer’s age and identity, 28 C.F.R. §75.1(b) eliminates the ability of foreign nationals to create expressive works depicting sexually explicit conduct in the United States," the lawsuit argues. "In addition, by requiring the disclosure of personal information without a performer’s consent, 28 C.F.R. §75.2(b) violates the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the European Union Data Protection Directive of 1998." Link: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124 It really is confusing as hell, I tell ya... |
|
2005-06-18, 02:09 PM | #46 |
Searching for Jimmy Hoffa
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Long Island, NY
Posts: 771
|
Yep Gigi, each lawyer comes up with a different grey area for us to worry about. In the end you just have to be as compliant as you can be and hope for the best.
|
2005-06-19, 10:28 AM | #47 |
I hustle for Hustler
|
I am happy to say that RBC sent me a bundle of non-santaized model ids today free of charge. There weren't unedited model releases but I do have them in blacked out form from the previous bundle. The ids are a great thing to have with less than a week to go.
|
2005-06-20, 11:03 PM | #48 |
Nobody gets into heaven without a glowstick
|
As far as banners and thumbs that link to sponsors, why not just censor them and leave them up? surfers will still click.
|
2005-06-21, 12:42 AM | #49 | |
Are you sure you're an accredited and honored pornographer?
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-21, 12:51 AM | #50 | |
If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,177
|
Quote:
Promoting hardcore sites with softcore banners is going to be a real treat. Seems even body fluids fall in the hardcore category. Bukkake was a result of Japanese censorship. So people just removed the actual act and ended up with the girl having 20 cum loads on her face. As far as Canadian privacy laws, even providing the name might attract fines like $10k-100k per. |
|
|
|