2257 regs published in full

[Boogie]

Here is the full published version of the newly adopted 2257 regs.

I'm too tired to read em, hoping someone here can do that for us and summarize.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

in 30 days she's law? I think.

just wish i could figure out what the law is

[mOrrI]

oh my god...
that's a lot of reading..... :S

[swedguy]

! EDIT !

So far it doesn't look good.

I took out the part with keeping records. Just a pain in the ass.


One thing that will become another pain in the ass if you crank out a lot of sites a day is this:

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction

[Qon]

laws are always written like this.... they should include a simplified version with key points bolded. then again, that would make it easy for u to protect yourself against it & thats probably not the point...




..

[HornyHeather]

Ouchhhhhhhhhhhh

[PR_Tom]

Originally Posted by swedguy

For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include
(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction

I'd imagine that you publish a freesite on YOUR server. Where you submit links should be something totally different IMO.. but I'm not a lawyer!

[wolfie]

Ok.. I read about 1/4. Think I need nap or something.

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by PR_Tom

I'd imagine that you publish a freesite on YOUR server. Where you submit links should be something totally different IMO.. but I'm not a lawyer!

The "associated" part makes it kinda vague.

Is associated the root of the domain? http://www.domain.com/
A site: http://www.domain.com/site1/
The page where the pics are linked from: http://www.domain.com/site1/page1.html
Or the picture itself: http://www.domain.com/site1/01.jpg

[MadMax]

This is the same issue that was commented on in Asscrofts proposed regulations...these rules have been written by technologically bereft people who have no understanding of the realities of how the internet works, and are thus way too vague on many points...making it impossible to keep records satisfying every possible interpretation.

[RawAlex]

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.

At this point, there are two court judgements (sundance vs reno and American Library Ass'n v. Reno) regarding secondary producers. One (sundance) specifically nullifies the concepts in these rules. The other (ALA) vaguely accepts in passing the concept of secondary producers. You can understand why DOJ has gone with the vague ruling in their favor as opposed to the hard and direct ruling against thier ideas.

I am 100% confident that an injunction will be put in place directly, as there is clearly some contridictory rulings in the court system.

That being said, as of June 23rd, thumbtgps will be a VERY risky business.

Alex

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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.

Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb

[Toby]

Originally Posted by swedguy

...Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb

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.

[RawAlex]

Actually, it doesn't appear to matter about a specific thumb - you could not, example, use a non-explicit image from a hardcore package and claim exemption. They appear to be specifying a single 2257 release per photoset or video made, with a requirement to cross reference every image from that set to the 2257 document to show it's use.

THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS IN THIS RULE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODEL RELEASES THEMSELVES, BUT WHERE THEY MUST BE. Third party custodians of records are OUT!

Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy

That means that the custodian of records for the ENTIRE INDUSTRY must be the actual places of business. It would appear that third party custodians will no longer be permitted after June23rd. It would also appear that this would apply to PRIMARY producers as well.

I think there is going to be some major screaming coming from California about this, as this would change almost everything in the porn industry.

Other interesting operating tidbits: It would appear that each person who works on the primary shoot of the content (camerman, lighting crew, gaffers, even craft truck operators) may be required to obtain, maintain, and cross reference all 2257 records themselves. The rule specifically declines to nominate a single "primary producer":

One commenter commented that the definition of producer is too
broad, such that one depiction may have multiple primary producers,
including, e.g., the photographer and a different individual who
digitizes the image. The commenter argued that the definition should be
written so that each depiction has only one primary producer. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department does not
believe that logic, practicability of record-keeping or inspections, or
the statue dictates that there be one and only one primary producer for
any individual sexually explicit depiction. Any of the persons defined
as primary producers has easy access to the performers and their
identification documents and should therefore each have responsibility
individually and separately of maintaining the records of those
documents.

Thus, anyone in the scope of potentially being a primary or secondary producer:

(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.

Good luck everyone. I suspect there is going to be a few extra rooms available at internext now as many people will be gone on June 24th.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

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.

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

ThumbTGPS are a very likely first target... head to the highest traffic sites around and start whacking!

Alex

[Mr. Blue]

Reading over it...it's actually pretty strict
Some of the finer points look pretty fucked up.

[Mr. Blue]

From a secondary producer vantage point this is what I gather:

1. You have to have a digital record of the model's identification on hand. This will inevitably lead to sponsor content providers having to provide this information to their affiliates...I think. Either that or sponsor content will dry up as we know it

2. A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

3. 20 hours a week availability for inspection. No notice need to be given.

(f) Other law enforcement authority. These regulations do not
restrict the otherwise lawful investigative prerogatives of an
investigator while conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence. Notwithstanding any provision of this part
or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an
inspection.

Make sure you hide the before they come and make sure you hide all your bittorrent files

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

[HornyHeather]

Mr. Blue, I was reading it also, and you say 2.) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

Concerns me, So I am gathering on my website I have to have my address listed for the gov?

[RawAlex]

Mr Blue, you are correct. Sponsors will be required to either provide the documents of require that the content be pulled no later than June 23rd, 2005, and that for all images produced or published since July 3rd, 1995.

Effectively, we will all be required to go back to all sponsor content sites we have an either obtain sponsor content 2257 documents or remove the content.

Further, for those playing the "I am not in the US" deal, remember that "including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing." as a secondary or primary producer. Thus entering into a contract to promote a site (becoming an affiliate) os a US based program, or a program operated by a US citizen, or a site processed by a US company, or a site hosted by a US company makes you contractually obligated to follow the new rules. Basically, if any part of the production, distribtuion, whatever touches the US, you are obligated REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE.

I am not clear on the implications for sponsor programs that accept traffic from sources that are not 2257 compliant.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by HornyHeather

Mr. Blue, I was reading it also, and you say 2.) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

Concerns me, So I am gathering on my website I have to have my address listed for the gov?

Heather, either you address or you will need to rent office space and use that as your primary place of business. I am not sure that this would stand up if you never actually used the place of business. However, I think if the city / county issued you an occupation license for a business for an address, then it could be argued to be your place of business. You would be required to keep your records there (so mail slot addresses are NOT acceptible, and PO boxes have be specifically excluded).

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

[HornyHeather]

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by HornyHeather

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

Heather, more importantly, your business address must be published as part of your 2257 declaration online. It isn't just about telling the goverment (you don't actually have to register or anything) but you do have to have that valid address on your site(s).

Something tells me there is going to be a rush on business rentals this month.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

Intersting. So if a model goes in for a softcore shoot and while changing clothes she touches her crotch and a single photo is taken then the entire shoot is considered sexually explicit? Secondary producers would have no way of knowing that happened.

Maybe in the morning she's doing face photos and that afternoon does a hardcore scene. The face images are now subject?

[HornyHeather]

Alex maybe for the bigger guys, but us smaller webgirls are a bit different...

I am questioning the fact of keeping my records at a close friends? He actually does content with me, You think I could do that?