Just in case anyone else is confused, let me print my official disclaimer:

Useless Warrior is not an attorney, but he looks dead sexy in a suit.

|thumb

What kind of suit?

Blue pinstripe? Big ring? |couch|

The one with the arrows pointing up?

Alex

birthday suit

I was when you were gonna pipe up :D

Love the suit comment....LOL |pokefun|

Linda

Sort of suits the discussion, no?

Alex

Hopefully this hasn't been answered already in one of the other posts, but I have a question regarding some comments in the federal register...

Now if a movie theatre or store is not required to maintain this information, wouldn't that just make affiliated distributors like the theater?

Doesn't accroding to the part "but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted", affiliates would be exempt since they are merely distributors?

Good point Koolkat.
If I have to keep records as an affiliate, I my as well start shooting my own content for my own paysites. Which I should do anyway. But the affiliate thing suits my lifestyle better. I go out of town alot, and don't work for weeks at a time.

LEISURE SUIT - POWDER BLUE

|pink |pink |pink

I think I still have one with black and white horizontal stripes somewhere!

Quick update: yes, I'm busy building a program in Java (so the Apple and *nix crowd isn't left behind) to do just this. I was hoping to be done by today, but got snagged into a memorial day vacation by friends for the past few days and just got back. Should be done soon though (hopefully by next week [my friday through sunday this week are tied up]).

Got a quick question - what about links to sex store sites?

Is that going to be a no-no too?


|pink |pink |pink
Nina

Good idea..

These regulations are intended to prosecute child pornographers, I highly doubt if they'd use it to prosecute legitimate webmasters just for the hell of it. As long as you can come up with the records, I don't see why they would have a problem.

Toby:
Unfortunately, that will not do anything for you under the new rules. Even if the gallery is softcore also, if the "content set" contains hardcore, it needs to be documented.

So basically Thumb Preview TGPs are going to need the documentation for the content on any galleries.

So a gallery/free site maker, would not only have to acquire all the IDs from the "producers", they would then have to turn around and hand them over to another group of people like the TGP/MPG/LL owners.

And since that probably ain't gonna happen, Thumb Preview sites may end up being dead ducks.

And anybody making galleries/free sites has to also have the docs for any banners, recips, counters, etc. on the page.

I'm aware of that, and if the new regs hold up in court it effectively overturns Sundance Associates v. Reno and we have a whole new ball game.

You're kidding, right?

These regs have absolutely nothing to do with prosecuting CP. NOTHING. This is bureaucratic red tape intended to tie the hands of legitimate business operators.

Could someone please referance where there is anything mentioned about a content set in the regs? I've seen this mentioned several times on message boards but all I've seen a referance to in the regs was individual photos, not photosets.

I agree with this train of thought, but when I asked my lawyer the same question, he said no. It does not apply.

I countered with, "The distributor for adult magazines places the magazine on the rack, its the retailer that sales the magazine. When the DOJ bastardized the word distributor and turned retailers into distributors, we should be able to apply that to affiliates because someone else is providing the finished product, ie the membership site."

He replied, "That might apply if you purchase a finished product, such as a plugin, and offer it for resale. But, the regs are calling the webmaster a producer. They are not calling the retailer a producer. They are calling the retailer distributor."

As it relates to FHG's and free content supplied by the affiliate program, I disagree with him. But, he is the one that has to defend me in court if I get arrested, so its a mute point.

Bottom line, no matter the source of the depiction, if you publish it, you have to have age docs.

I think the part we have to remember is that the regs are not statute. The regs only spell out how the statute is going to be inforced. And the say they arent going to enforce compliance on convienence stores or theaters.

Google and Yahoo dont have editorial control, but they do publish. It will be interesting in the coming months to see how that plays out.

EDIT:

One thing is for sure, not even the lawyers are in complete agreement when comes to interrupretation. I'm not a lawyer, but my best advice is listen to your lawyer a go with what he thinks he can defend in court.


_

I agree with you, the word "depiction" is singular, not plural.

But, when it comes to sets the regs say this:

Section 75.2
"Any producer... engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct in whole or part...that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce... or shipped or transported... or is intended for shipment...in commerce..."

If I go to the content provider, or the affiliate program and obtain depictions that are intended for commerce I have to have age docs.

Example: The content provider sells me 10 images, 5 of no explicit conduct, 5 with explicit conduct.(the regs say in whole or part) The content provider intended for all of the photographs to be used in commerce. Even though I only "publish" the 5 images of no explicit conduct I have to have the docs.

Example: I go to the affiliate program and download free content. The affiliate program shipped them to me with the intent that the depictions would be use for commerce, ie sell a membership.

I disagree with this, I only think that I should provide docs for the depictions I publish as it applies to other parts of the regs. But, can your lawyer defend that stance?

Best advice: Go with what your lawyer says.


_

Okay, you gotta read this carefully now:

The key words: contains one or more visual depictions

This is a double edged deal here. First off, if ANY part of your website is hardcore, you could be liable to have documentation for all of the images regardless of which is hard and which is soft.

Second, it can also mean that any image in the SET, because you have a model release / ID per photoshoot, not per photo. So if a girl is non-nude in 10 pictures and fucking her boyfriend in the other 10, you need documentation for the entire set because one or more of the visual depcitions is sexual.

You cannot crop a sexual picture and make it non-sexual. It is based on what is originally in that photoset.

Alex

|skyfall|

Commentary:


If you read my last two posts carefully you will see that I take two stances. In one post, I dont believe we should have age docs, but in the other I say we do.

As I write this post, the thread has 421 posts and 8702 views.(Is this a record?)

When you look at the two stances I took, and the number of people interested in this thread, its easy to see the new regs are so confusing that everyone is having a hard time interrupting them, even the lawyers.

This is not legal advice, this "cover your ass" advice:

1. Get a First Admendment Attorney
2. Get docs on all your content
3. Get your cross referencing database built
4. No matter what you believe to be true, want to be true, or talk yourself into believing what should be true, take your lawyers advice on how to get compliant, and have it done by June 23.

If you have to beg, borrow, steal, pick up cans, mow yards and take a temp job, get the money together and get a lawyer.

I say this for one reason only. I have regular submitters that I recognize. Its obvious that they have made the change with their 2257 statement to comply with the new regs. After several days and hundreds of posts in various threads, on various boards, they still have it wrong. If you are listening to people on the boards to get your legal advice, your getting started on the wrong foot. GET A LAWYER

Rawalex, what trooper you are. Thanks for all your help |thumb


-

Thanks for the reply Alex, I agree about the cropping of a hardcore picture to make it appear softcore, that would be altering a hardcore image, however I think you're misreading another part of the statement, or perhaps we're speaking of different situations here:

That would seem to indicate that this only affects the images that are actually sexually explicit, not all images from a 'photoset'.

That the model release gives the producer rights to all photos in a set has nothing to do with which of those photos - if any - are sexually explicit and are therefore subject to 2257. Ditto for the ID's. Model releases are not a 2257 form and the mere existance of a model release does not cause 2257 to be applicable, they merely indicate the model is transferring publishing rights to the producer.

So what I'm saying is, if as a 'secondary producer' I receive those 10 non-nude images you spoke of, and publish them, there is nothing sexually explicit in those images that I have published and it shouldn't be subject to 2257.

Now on the other hand if I publish one hardcore image along with those 10 non-nudes (whether the hardcore image is from the same photoset or not) all the images published on that page would have 2257 requirements.

BTW, depsite my nick, I am not a content producer so please do not think I know what I'm talking about any more than you do :) I just make tgp galleries - non nude ones at present, and this is only my interpretation.

I agree with Mishi, these regulations have nothing whatsoever to do with child porn. The child porn folks couldn't care less about 2257. They're already facing long prison terms if they get caught. This is all about trying to shut down the domestic adult internet industry. They haven't been able to pass any laws to shut it down due to the Constitution, so they're just changing the rules in an existing law in such a way that it will be almost impossible for most webmasters to comply. What was lawful before will now be unlawful and they can go after all the legitimate webmasters who are unable to get all the documention ready by June 23rd. Most of us are waiting for the primary producers to get their end of things ready before we can even begin to index and cross-index all our images. And how long does it take to document and cross-index half a million images purchased from 50 different content providers and spread across a thousand websites? 30 days? A year? Does the government care that it's impossible to do it in the time frame they've ordered? Sure, they made it intentionally impossible so they can prosecute us for paperwork instead of things that involve Constitutional issues.