Greenguy's Board - 2257 regs published in full

Greenguy's Board (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/index.php)

- General Business Knowledge (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/forumdisplay.php?f=10)

- - 2257 regs published in full (http://www.greenguysboard.com/board/showthread.php?t=19962)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

If I use softcore content it will be sponsor content in which they have indicated that the models are over 18 or licensed content indicating the same. Furthermore, since 2257 would not apply I would not have to prove the model's age, the government would if they wanted to prosecute me. In addition, the way this NON-LAWYER- reads the statutes one has to knowingly use cp in order to be guilty of using cp.

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

Yep I know, I've been advising people the same. But if Google for instance was granted an exception because they have no editorial control, then whats the difference.. It's not as if I have any say whatsoever if I frame a page full of text about oil painting, and then someone knocks on my door because a few weeks back, the site I'm framing put hardcore images on the page.
I'm ranting.

My comment about the supermarket was in response to someone elses apples and oranges comment. The burden is on us to prove the content is NOT illegal. Which I think would be similar to a supermarket having to prove their product was NOT expired when we buy it. Ridiculous. Again ranting.

PR_tom, I agree with you, it seems stupid but there are many things in life the same, like getting a smog inspection because you have to prove your legal before you can plate the car. We are on the permit side, not the law breaking side. Not innocent until proven guilty, more in violation unless we show we are conforming to the rules.

tickler: I think the whole back dating thing will be VERY VERY VERY hard for enforce, it's a well know that "The Constitution clearly forbids "Ex Post Facto" laws " - which is making something illegal after it has occurred, and then charging people. It is one of the many ways that this current screwfest of a rule set will probably get knocked over in court.

ardentgent: I wish you luck with it. If I was in the US I would not have a single image with naked anything without either model IDs or a notice from the sponsor that the content is not applicable to 2257. I wouldn't run naked in the middle.

Alex