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.

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

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.

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.

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 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. :)

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.

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

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)

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.

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

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.

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

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|

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.

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

Has anybody read this article...

https://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=...ticle&sid=9459

and thoughts?

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...

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|

RDBMS backend (why go commercial when you can go free?)
 

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....whistles(yes, programming is something that is also on my list of skills)

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

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|

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

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.