New rules on 2257

2004-06-30, 04:30 AM

This was posted by on elsewhere today and is VERY IMPORTANT.

What is different? What are the new requirements?

Full text can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

Here are some major points that pertain to webmasters as secondary record keepers:

a.. Internet Definitions. To bring the regulations up to date with the 2003 Amendments, the definition of a producer has been modified in proposed 28 CFR 75.1. Persons who manage the content of computer sites or services are considered secondary producers.

a.. A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

a.. 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.

You best keep up with this.

Ms Naughty · 2004-06-30, 05:07 AM

Is this a law yet?

I guess it soon will be since apparently US congressment don't read any of the bills.

spazlabz · 2004-06-30, 06:05 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by grandmascrotum
Is this a law yet?

I guess it soon will be since apparently US congressment don't read any of the bills.

Not yet, but you can bet it will be. I love the part where if you run or manage an internet site you are considered a secondary producer. This is a little gem which means that everyone who has a single image on their sites better have a copy of their drivers license handy in case the men in black show up to inspect.. Just another example of how the justice department is aggressively going after the industry, and it's pretty hard to argue with this one since its sole purpose seems to be legitimizing whats being marketed.

spaz

2004-06-30, 07:09 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by spazlabz
Not yet, but you can bet it will be. I love the part where if you run or manage an internet site you are considered a secondary producer. This is a little gem which means that everyone who has a single image on their sites better have a copy of their drivers license handy in case the men in black show up to inspect.. Just another example of how the justice department is aggressively going after the industry, and it's pretty hard to argue with this one since its sole purpose seems to be legitimizing whats being marketed.

spaz

The only ones who can argue with this are those who want to run an Amateur business. Let's face it we are pornographers, we put up pictures of people having sex, we need to be responsible.

Not just saying we have the address of someone who is the Custodian. How do we know the documents are there, how do we know we can get them and how do we know the models are 18+?

I know of photographers who have people selling their content on the net, content we rejected because of the documents.

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

Ms Naughty · 2004-06-30, 07:24 AM

Quote:

Did you know one content provider gives a dead person as the Custodian of Records?

Can you name names?

So does this essentially mean that content providers will have to photocopy and send out copies of every model's driver's licence to every single webmaster that has purchased sets of that model? Isn't that a bit of a breach of privacy for the models?

And it's a lot of mail to catch up on, for all the content I own.

Is there an industry advocate who goes to the US congress and lobbies about the effect this kind of legislation will have?

2004-06-30, 07:36 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by grandmascrotum
Can you name names?

So does this essentially mean that content providers will have to photocopy and send out copies of every model's driver's licence to every single webmaster that has purchased sets of that model? Isn't that a bit of a breach of privacy for the models?

And it's a lot of mail to catch up on, for all the content I own.

Is there an industry advocate who goes to the US congress and lobbies about the effect this kind of legislation will have?

Assume it's everyone. Not sure if I should give it out.

Yes I think it means you will have to get the documentation for all the content that requires it.

If your lawyer told you not to bother, blame him. If you did not ask a lawyer blame yourself.

Greenguy · 2004-06-30, 07:51 AM

Paul - do you know if this will be retroactive? I have a shitload of content & I have all the licenses & whatnot that were required by the old law - but it'd be a huge pain in the ass to go back & get the new documentation that is now required on all this content.

Also, here's a thought - my local cable company has a few porn channels - if I'm reading this correctly, they'd now be required to maintain records on all the movies & shows they rebroadcast - that'd be a huge pain in the ass.

2004-06-30, 08:21 AM

GreenGuy, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as fact. But as I see it it will not retroactive. But any icontent you publish after the date of the change will be effected, regardless of when you bought it or it was shot.

So if you do not have the 2257 docs. go and get them, if you cannot get them take the content down.

If you published adult content without 2257 docs on the advice of a lawyer, blame him. If you did not ask a lawyer look in the mirror and blame HIM.

Your cable company have the documents, it's only the Internet that runs itself like this.

Useless · 2004-06-30, 08:43 AM

As someone who used to work for a major TV listings company, I can tell you, the cable companies do not have the 2257 documentation. They do the same thing we do when there is a problem. Point to the folks who produced the porn in the first place. The bill's intention is to force all 'secondary producers' to ensure that we are dealing with legit producers who themselves gather this data. Obviously we can't meet the models (as nice as that would be) so our responsibility is to deal only with those we are absolutely positive are doing business by the letter of the law. We must be able to produce the records in a timely manner if requested, but no one is going to kick down GreenGuy's gilded door and demand the records on the spot.

The sky in not falling. The clouds are just shifting a bit to the right.

Greenguy · 2004-06-30, 08:53 AM

I'm gonna have to get with a lawyer on this, because if it's like the original 2257, which has this disclaimer:

"Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or owned by Greenguy Marketing contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 USC 2257 and CFR 75."

The I'd have to assume that any content produced before today (or whatever day) would have a similar rule.

Now, with the cable company thing - the movies/programs they show have basically the same 2257 that we have on the websites & it's displayed before and/or after the show. So the cable company doesn't have the actual 2257 material, just a license & the info, as required by the old law.

So now, they'd have to have copies of all the performer's ID's & whatnot, which is a lot of paperwork

Greenguy · 2004-06-30, 08:54 AM

Oh yeah - everyone should read this:

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/#news

2004-06-30, 08:55 AM

Well I sold to Adult Cable TV and they insisted on having the documents.

Ask a lawyer and see what he says.

airdick · 2004-06-30, 08:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenguy
Also, here's a thought - my local cable company has a few porn channels - if I'm reading this correctly, they'd now be required to maintain records on all the movies & shows they rebroadcast - that'd be a huge pain in the ass.

Does your cable company actually show any hardcore?

The rule talks about "visual
depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct " and exempts "visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct"

It seems to me that softcore and mere nudity aren't subject to the recordkeeping rules.

2004-06-30, 09:02 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenguy
I'm gonna have to get with a lawyer on this, because if it's like the original 2257, which has this disclaimer:

"Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or owned by Greenguy Marketing contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 USC 2257 and CFR 75."

The I'd have to assume that any content produced before today (or whatever day) would have a similar rule.

Now, with the cable company thing - the movies/programs they show have basically the same 2257 that we have on the websites & it's displayed before and/or after the show. So the cable company doesn't have the actual 2257 material, just a license & the info, as required by the old law.

So now, they'd have to have copies of all the performer's ID's & whatnot, which is a lot of paperwork

GreenGuy, how do you know the content was produced before a certain date without documents?

I forgot the content provider told you it was. LOL

They may list someone else as the document holder, but to assume they publish without seeing the documents is so ludicrous it beggars belief. Please show an organisation run that badly, my lawyer is looking for work.

2004-06-30, 09:13 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by airdick
Does your cable company actually show any hardcore?

The rule talks about "visual
depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct " and exempts "visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct"

It seems to me that softcore and mere nudity aren't subject to the recordkeeping rules.

They would have the 2257 documents to make sure they had the rights to publish. If it was erotic they would want proof the models were allover age. These companies have in house lawyers, do you really think they run such a loose operation?

Model release to prove the models/actors gave their permission.
IDs to check the ages of anyone in an Adult Movie.

Greenguy · 2004-06-30, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Markham2
GreenGuy, how do you know the content was produced before a certain date without documents?

I forgot the content provider told you it was. LOL

They may list someone else as the document holder, but to assume they publish without seeing the documents is so ludicrous it beggars belief. Please show an organisation run that badly, my lawyer is looking for work.

99.44% of the people reading this board don't have ID's for the models they have on their websites. They buy a set of content & get a license to use it, along with the providers 2257 info so that they can publish it on their website. Like I said, I have a shitload of content - I think only one producer have ever offered to send me the model's ID info.

This also seems like it'd be a huge invasion of privacy for the models by sending copies of their ID's to 1000's of webmasters.

I should really shut the fuck up & see if I can get JD from XXXLaw.net over here

Alphawolf · 2004-06-30, 09:57 AM

Quote:

any content you publish after the date of the change will be effected, regardless of when you bought it or it was shot.

Publish meaning 'upload' or publish meaning when the material was produced- as far as secondary producers are concerned?

The date is effective as of 6/29/04?

As a side curiosity, what about dating/matchmaking sites and picture rating sites like hotornot?

If it's not nude, it doesn't fall under 2257 does it?

If it's a nude pic then it is subject to 2257. So, sites like adultfriendfinder will need solid 2257 info on every person who submits a naked pic *and* a link to that documentation. Whoa.

What about people who use free content? Paysites will be required hence forth to include 2257 documentation in the free content downloads?

Basically, if you publish naked content on the 'net and live in the US, then you need to become a secondary custodian of records.

It's simply putting more liability (hence responisibilty) on every single free site out there. Say goodbye to the part timers based in the US.

As a broad stroke, I sorta think it's good to force 'us' to be more responsible. It will weed out those who aren't serious about the business and take things very casually.

Will Link Lists now require links to 2257 info for every submission?

Quote:

a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

So, every model's 2257 info has to be linked to from each page the model appears on?

How will models feel about sharing their drivers license or passport photo with the entire world?

Wouldn't blocking out their address be a modification on the document? Meaning, is there verbage in the law that allows one to black out their address?

Has to be for seconday producers. I would think.

Where is the link to the actual code? Where are you quating that from, Paul?

Alphawolf · 2004-06-30, 10:04 AM

Quote:

I should realy shut the fuck up & see if I can get JD from XXXLaw.net over here

That would be like REALLY REALLY good.

matrix includes a license pic, but that doesn't include the model release form.

But, if one needs to link to it, then every content producer must link to all the required 2257 info whether it is purchased or not.

So, from now on every content provider and paysite that provides free content must link to all 2257 info. Model ID's and release forms are public domain. |badidea|

airdick · 2004-06-30, 10:22 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Alphawolf
If it's a nude pic then it is subject to 2257. So, sites like adultfriendfinder will need solid 2257 info on every person who submits a naked pic *and* a link to that documentation. Whoa.

What about people who use free content? Paysites will be required hence forth to include 2257 documentation in the free content downloads?

Basically, if you publish naked content on the 'net and live in the US, then you need to become a secondary custodian of records.

Am I missing something in my understanding of the 2257 rules? My reading has always been that sexually explicit content is covered, but mere nudity and simulated sexual acts are exempt.

Of course, it's easy to see that it's a good practice to have model releases/contracts/licenses/etc on hand for any sort of content, but this is seperate issue from the specifc recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 2257.

Useless · 2004-06-30, 10:25 AM

Yes, get someone who truly understands the law to give us some interpretations. I think these threaded conversations by laymen only serve to spread hysteria and false assumptions are stated as law. Pedantic assertions will get us only so far...

Greenguy · 2004-06-30, 11:14 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by airdick
Am I missing something in my understanding of the 2257 rules? My reading has always been that sexually explicit content is covered, but mere nudity and simulated sexual acts are exempt.

Of course, it's easy to see that it's a good practice to have model releases/contracts/licenses/etc on hand for any sort of content, but this is seperate issue from the specifc recordkeeping and labeling requirements of 2257.

2257 covers both hardcore stuff as well as proof of age.

Alphawolf · 2004-06-30, 11:25 AM

Here is the full thing:

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

Alphawolf · 2004-06-30, 11:33 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Greenguy
2257 covers both hardcore stuff as well as proof of age.

And consent, right? The model knowlingly was paid to have pictures taken with the understanding those pictures were to be licensed/sold to others for diplay.

2004-06-30, 11:54 AM

My last piece of advise on the matter.

GO SEE A LAWYER

I've shown you the problem and some seem to want to avoid keeping a few records.

As I read it and I'm not a lawyer, you publish porn you need to know the model is over age, consented to be published and ready to show the documents when/if the authorities ask for them.

I've been 2257 compliant over 15 years and it really is not a problem doing it. Assuming you buy from a content provider who will supply them.

Alphawolf · 2004-06-30, 12:42 PM

I agree Paul.

I think webmasters who deal with building free sites, LL's and TGP's are wondering about how to provide the information in practice.

On free sites with banners that are explicit, there may need to be a link to 2257 info on the model(s) of the banner.

Voyeur sites will look pretty silly linking to 2257 info.

Basically, even if someone has bought content from just you for everything there will be a lot of work to do and specifics to sort out.

Putting 2257 info in every instance where there is a model will take away from the fantasy.

What about video box covers and print screens?

On Demand video (AEBN), web cam sessions, MPG's, WMV's, etc...

How much money would it take for someone like AEBN to become compliant in practice?

The proposal even covers USENET transmissions.

Even if one is 100% 2257 compliant in *their* content, to actually comply with this code in practice will be a bitch and a half.

2004-06-30, 04:30 AM	#1
Paul Markham2 Guest Posts: n/a	New rules on 2257 This was posted by on elsewhere today and is VERY IMPORTANT. What is different? What are the new requirements? Full text can be found at: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm Here are some major points that pertain to webmasters as secondary record keepers: a.. Internet Definitions. To bring the regulations up to date with the 2003 Amendments, the definition of a producer has been modified in proposed 28 CFR 75.1. Persons who manage the content of computer sites or services are considered secondary producers. a.. A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, a computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of, actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. a.. Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors. a.. 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. You best keep up with this.

2004-06-30, 05:07 AM	#2
Ms Naughty old enough to be Grandma Scrotum Join Date: Aug 2003 Location: Australia Posts: 1,408	Is this a law yet? I guess it soon will be since apparently US congressment don't read any of the bills. __________________ Promote Bright Desire

2004-06-30, 07:51 AM	#7
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,754	Paul - do you know if this will be retroactive? I have a shitload of content & I have all the licenses & whatnot that were required by the old law - but it'd be a huge pain in the ass to go back & get the new documentation that is now required on all this content. Also, here's a thought - my local cable company has a few porn channels - if I'm reading this correctly, they'd now be required to maintain records on all the movies & shows they rebroadcast - that'd be a huge pain in the ass. __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2004-06-30, 08:43 AM	#9
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	As someone who used to work for a major TV listings company, I can tell you, the cable companies do not have the 2257 documentation. They do the same thing we do when there is a problem. Point to the folks who produced the porn in the first place. The bill's intention is to force all 'secondary producers' to ensure that we are dealing with legit producers who themselves gather this data. Obviously we can't meet the models (as nice as that would be) so our responsibility is to deal only with those we are absolutely positive are doing business by the letter of the law. We must be able to produce the records in a timely manner if requested, but no one is going to kick down GreenGuy's gilded door and demand the records on the spot. The sky in not falling. The clouds are just shifting a bit to the right. __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2004-06-30, 08:53 AM	#10
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,754	I'm gonna have to get with a lawyer on this, because if it's like the original 2257, which has this disclaimer: "Some of the aforementioned depictions appearing or otherwise contained in or owned by Greenguy Marketing contain only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, and, as such, are exempt from the requirements set forth in 18 USC 2257 and CFR 75." The I'd have to assume that any content produced before today (or whatever day) would have a similar rule. Now, with the cable company thing - the movies/programs they show have basically the same 2257 that we have on the websites & it's displayed before and/or after the show. So the cable company doesn't have the actual 2257 material, just a license & the info, as required by the old law. So now, they'd have to have copies of all the performer's ID's & whatnot, which is a lot of paperwork __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2004-06-30, 08:21 AM	#8
Paul Markham2 Guest Posts: n/a	GreenGuy, I'm not a lawyer so don't take this as fact. But as I see it it will not retroactive. But any icontent you publish after the date of the change will be effected, regardless of when you bought it or it was shot. So if you do not have the 2257 docs. go and get them, if you cannot get them take the content down. If you published adult content without 2257 docs on the advice of a lawyer, blame him. If you did not ask a lawyer look in the mirror and blame HIM. Your cable company have the documents, it's only the Internet that runs itself like this.

2004-06-30, 08:54 AM	#11
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,754	Oh yeah - everyone should read this: http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/#news __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2004-06-30, 08:55 AM	#12
Paul Markham2 Guest Posts: n/a	Well I sold to Adult Cable TV and they insisted on having the documents. Ask a lawyer and see what he says.

2004-06-30, 10:25 AM	#20
Useless Certified Nice Person Join Date: Oct 2003 Location: Dirty Undies, NY Posts: 11,268	Yes, get someone who truly understands the law to give us some interpretations. I think these threaded conversations by laymen only serve to spread hysteria and false assumptions are stated as law. Pedantic assertions will get us only so far... __________________ Click here to purchase a bridge I'm selling.

2004-06-30, 11:25 AM	#22
Alphawolf Don't come to Florida for vacation. We're closed. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 1,874	Here is the full thing: http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm __________________ Regards, AW Weekly Pay. Sites That Convert. Start Pimpin' Today!

2004-06-30, 11:54 AM	#24
Paul Markham2 Guest Posts: n/a	My last piece of advise on the matter. GO SEE A LAWYER I've shown you the problem and some seem to want to avoid keeping a few records. As I read it and I'm not a lawyer, you publish porn you need to know the model is over age, consented to be published and ready to show the documents when/if the authorities ask for them. I've been 2257 compliant over 15 years and it really is not a problem doing it. Assuming you buy from a content provider who will supply them.

2004-06-30, 12:42 PM	#25
Alphawolf Don't come to Florida for vacation. We're closed. Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: Orlando, Florida Posts: 1,874	I agree Paul. I think webmasters who deal with building free sites, LL's and TGP's are wondering about how to provide the information in practice. On free sites with banners that are explicit, there may need to be a link to 2257 info on the model(s) of the banner. Voyeur sites will look pretty silly linking to 2257 info. Basically, even if someone has bought content from just you for everything there will be a lot of work to do and specifics to sort out. Putting 2257 info in every instance where there is a model will take away from the fantasy. What about video box covers and print screens? On Demand video (AEBN), web cam sessions, MPG's, WMV's, etc... How much money would it take for someone like AEBN to become compliant in practice? The proposal even covers USENET transmissions. Even if one is 100% 2257 compliant in their content, to actually comply with this code in practice will be a bitch and a half. __________________ Regards, AW Weekly Pay. Sites That Convert. Start Pimpin' Today!