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.

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.

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 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.

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.

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

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

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

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.

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

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|

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

Alex

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.

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.

---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.

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

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 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

I completely and totally dis-agree.

Read this part again:

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.


-

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

Disclaimers
 

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?

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?

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

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.


_

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


-

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.

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.

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.

Does your 2257 statement have to be plain text?
 

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.

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:

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

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

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).?

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.

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.

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

Linda

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 ?

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.

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

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|

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.