One uses an "AI and the other uses a real person(plus scripts) to do the editing, maybe.

Also there seems to be an indication that they don't want to persure dynamic generated pages. Might be a hole that people can exploit. If so, TGPs/MPGs/LL might have to start allowing it if they want any WM content for their sites.

I don't have a problem with the record keeping for the most part, except, for the putting addresses on the web pages part where the general public can access them.

UMM where did everyone get the rule must be in office 20 hrs a week I seem to be reading things diferently maybe

this says 10 hrs a day

(b) Advance notice of inspections . Advance notice of record inspections shall not be given.

(c) Conduct of inspections.

(1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in § 75.4. For the purpose of this part, ‘‘normal business hours’’ are from 8 a.m. to 6 p.m., local time, and any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

I don't worry so much about this, I think it's good actually. Takes away a bit of the Wild West in this business.

The only thing that will be a gangstah dick in my ass, is to map each set with every URL they're on. Give me a year and I might finish it. But a month? It's just not possible.
If someone came to me and asked what set it is and show me the papers, it would take me couple of minutes and I could show it to them.

Hey Guys - Raw Alex is probably one of the most knowledgeable 2257 guys that you will see and he is very helpful, but nothing (I repeat nothing) is going to help you more than hiring your own lawyer and seeing just how this new 2257 effects YOUR business model.

Gramma, You have mail.

xxxjay: You are correct. Any advice given around here is on a "what I think it is" point of view. Contacting a lawyer and getting their advice and working within guidelines they provide is always the best thing.

That being said, there are a ton of questions out there that can be pretty much answered by a plain reading of the rules as published, and this can encourage people to start to work on the things they will need to get things done.

grandmasscrotum: You said "I also think this is one of the bits the lawyers will fight over. "A prudent secondary producer"??" - you have to remember that while there is a whole preamble and discussion of comments received as so on, that is truly not the rules just commentary. The real rules are further down the document and those are the things you need to truly be concerned with. The rest is a narrative that can help you understand what the rules say, but the rules themselves and the wording of those rules are the only things that can truly matter. The guidance provided by the preamble is great, however, at making it easier to understand the DOJ's intent regarding this new rules.

Alex

There is a discussion in there about distribution. It is specifically aimed at the companies that transport adult material and the retailers that sell the "packaged good". Basically, it exempts stores from having to get 2257 documents for every model in every magazine.

Alex

Gramma? Me? I don't see any mail :(

Google image is a producer. If you read through the entire text, there was some attempts made to make exceptions for certain types of activities, but that the DOJ stopped short of creating exceptions because they knew us sneaky little bastards would drive a truck through any little hole they created.

For a thumbtgp, it's pretty clear. You have images on your website, thumbs you have created (a new image!), and therefore you need 2257 documents for any sexually explicit image.

Now if you think going softcore will help you out, your not entirely right. If the image was originally hardcore (you have to store and indentify the original image) or came from a hardcore set, it may be subject to 2257. If any other images on your site are hardcore (even on banners) they could consider your publication to sexually explicit, and as such, require 2257 for all images.

Basically, you need a model release for every image, every time, without exception.

Thus, thumbtgps are really in the shit.

Alex

nah .. GRAMMA .. me :)

Fonz, I don't see anything that specifically exempts advertsing, but I think there is a way around that one. I am waiting for some comments from outside before I can add anything on that.

Alex

Just a thought, but how does all this effect the amateur exhibitionist type site of business model. Currently, from what Ive seen, the site owners only ask that the posters declare they are over 18. Some of those sites have thousands of individual submitted pics

RawAlex, Thanks |thumb

I read through most of it and didn't see anything specific that could be interpreted as a SE and those kind of services. So I figured they want to exempt them in some way, but I guess they didn't. That answered many questions. If they would exempt them in some way, as you said, it could and would get exploited.

They would be, well, FUBAR... especially if the images are sexuality explicit (which includes pussy pictures, spreads, heck, might even include shots where you see some hair for all I can tell!)

Many many business models are non-functional as of june 23rd unless otherwise advised by a lawyer.

Alex

Those amateur submit sites are technically illegal under the old law (which is why I never started one)

That's the old, here's the new:

Inspections shall take place during the producer's normal business hours and at such places as specified in Sec. 75.4. For the purpose of this part, ``normal business hours'' are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, producers must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less
than twenty (20) hours per week.

A lot of good info in this thread, but I'm still not clear on a couple of points.

I've got about 500 freesites online, mostly all sponsor content... I either have to go to every page of every freesite and get 2257 docs on all banners and content, or yank them by june 23rd?

If I was to remove all sexual related images from my servers, I do not have to worry about 2257 or inspections at all? Is that correct?

And, what about hosted galleries, hosted freesites, etc, I can link to them, and not have to worry about 2257 regs, right?

Sorry, if these questions have been answered in detail, I am somewhat confused by all this taking place.

Thanks in advance.

|cry| My head is spinning! I've only been doing this for a year. Have a little over 100 free sites that I have submitted. Just got my link list site online. Am working on my tgp text site now.

I don't make the bucks like a lot of you do. I do this at home hoping to earn a few extra bucks a months.

Get an office, lawyer wtf?? No way I can make sense of doing that. I don't make enough from doing this to even begin to pay for that.

I'm afraid that the best advice I'm going to be given is to give up all I've done and paid for in the last year. |cry|

I also have other people who live with me and my husband works at a very high security job.......so I guess I'm screwed as posting my house address online I don't want to do.

I'm just ranting as I understand very little of this. I don't and would never consider putting anything illegal on line. How the f***k can the goverment get away with screwing up my mind like this?

I guess I'll be out of here by June 23 and that really sucks, because I feel like I'm just starting to get some where and make a few bucks.... |angry|

So I link all of my images which are thousands, to me and George, and ditch the two other updates that feature anyone else. Now everything, images, mpegs, etc., are strictly the two of us. I get an office, I maintain records for George and myself linking to all images on lindamight.com, including banners, etc. The office space not only is "space", but there's electricity, phone lines, etc. to consider. And I have to be there 20 hours a week? I haven't looked to see if swastikas are appearing on our flags...cuz I thought I lived in the "freedom rings" USA. The USA I was born in is NOT the USA I live in today. Sorry...didn't mean to go on a rant.

Linda

I'm not sure about that for certain but that's what I'm doing. The regs only mention sexually explicit images and video, they don't mention anything at all about html pages and text links without images.

I just hope I don't end up getting my partner accounts all shitcanned after removing the images. Even if I do though it's better by far than the alternative.

Lowry, Sue: First off, remember that there is still 27 days before these new "rules" (I use the term lightly) go into effect. In between now and then, it is likely that someone (probably FSC) will seek and be granted an injunction, as there are contradictory court rulings at play here that need to be resolved. The government is using one ruling that may not be entirely on point versus another ruling (sundance vs reno) that very specifically addressed the type of wording at work here. In case you missed it, Janet Reno as AG attempted to get similar rules and restrictions put in place on secondary producers... the court were not impressed.

That being said, let me try to give you my opinion on your questions, I hope they help:

Lowry, first and foremost, if it isn't on your servers, then you didn't publish it. If you didn't publish it, it isn't your problem. Hosted galleries, hosted free sites, whatever - those are the responsilbity of those people who made and published them, not you. In a similar fashion, a text link list or tgp is pretty much a safe bet at this point from what I can see. Thumbtgps are going to be a whole other kettle of fish I think.

All your sponsor content free will require 2257 documents, and you will need to list urls per image, cross reference as per the regulations etc. Sponsor content, purchased content, or content you shoot yourself - the rules appear to be all the same in all cases as the publisher.

Basically, if you don't have the documentation for these things by June 23rd, you are technically breaking the "rules"...

Sue, sadly you are exactly the type of person these new rules are aimed at. The DOJ appears to be attempting to shame you out of business. It is attempting to get individuals to declare their homes as their "business address" for their adult business. If you are unable or uncomfortable providing this information, then I am afraid that you might be sol. I wouldn't run out and shut everything down on the 23rd, but I would be seriously spending the time looking for potions.

I am starting to get a sneaky feeling that this information may be used in other ways to drive people out of business. Once the address is published, could they not turn around and provide that info to local authorities, which could collection buisness taxes and apply zoning laws to your "adult" business?

I am seeing a really weird trend here.

Alex

Here is one other issue: Even if the images on your site are no sexually oriented (IE: you select only the topless images from a photoset) you may still need the documentation unless the primary producer declares the images to be exempt. Basically, if you have an image on your site, you should have documents.

SVC: I don't think any partner account situation will ban you if you contact them with a list of sites you are removing or modifying. I think everyone at this point will be very sensitive to the situation.

Alex

Where do read this in the regulations? Can you provide any citations to back this up?


While most model releases I've seen include some of the information required under 2257 like stage names and a written description of the ID cards that are included, isn't the bulk of the typical boilerplate adult model release "other records" that are required to be segregated (28 CFR 75.2 (e)) under the regulation?

28 CFR 75.2 (e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain other records, and shall not be contained within any other record.

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer. ;)

Airdick, I am not really sure, but I suspect this would mean that you cannot mix your model releases with your accounting information, or mix it with other non-related stuff. In other words, you need a file / cabinet / or database area specifically assigned to the job of model releases 2257 information, and cross reference materials. I know some people who put their model releases with their account stuff (file the model release with the payment info, the production costs, etc, all in one folder). That wouldn't be acceptable anymore I don't think.

Also, read the whole new 75. It is VERY specific as to what needs to be in each record.

Alex

Okay, another question... this time about the exemption clause (around the very bottom of the document)

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

Isn't what this means that freesite builders etc simply have to affix a statement saying basically that we are exempt, and give a link to the primary producer's 2257 stuff?

I suppose it would still be in a webmasters best interest to ensure that they have the stuff on hand, but it would save a lot of us from having to actually publicize our home addresses, wouldn't it?

RawAlex, thoughts?

Okay nvm that's my misunderstanding (or wishing to read loopholes where there don't seem to be any)

I don't think the video surveillance is the answer to a home office. There are many other considerations regarding the home address other than a possible stalker. Kids being home, the feds visiting, having every spam/advertising/freakazoid out there knowing your address, etc.

Linda

I'm all for turning on my cam, but I'm not keen on the idea of video surveillance 24/7... I think if anything that would be even more an invasion of privacy than giving out the address would...

forget softcore, what about pg?
 

Understanding that this is just "armchairing" at this point, has there been any prelim consensus on purely PG rated cropped thumbs? For example, the top entry at the moment on my anal blog http://www.analsexblog.info/anal-sex-blog is a slightly smart ass commentary on an anal FHG, and the cropped thumb is part of the punchline. I've been planning to go to that type of entry (or thumbs of just a girl's face, etc) as a link to an FHG.

If the pic on my server is pg rated... and not "of an actual human doing actual sex stuff", what's the armchair verdict?

Also... I guess I'll be starting with "story galleries" sooner than anticipated. ;)

I've been thinking on this a lot since yesterday (who needs sleep anyway?), and I've come up with the following observations:

1) I would like for someone to explain to me just exactly how in the hell ANY of this is going to protect children!! This isn't about them, it's about legal porn and the fact that a specific group of right-wing politicians don't like the fact that it's so readily available and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

2) IMHO, the US government has finally hit upon a way to do the impossible... police the internet. They've been wanting to do that since Al Gore was around and just hadn't been clever enough to put it all together; thus these changes in the regs.

3) I can't help but notice the irony of the fact that Carl's Jr. can put a commercial on prime-time network TV of a scantily clad P*ris H*ilton all but masturbating and the government doesn't even raise an eyebrow, but credit-card-carrying adults are being told what they can and can't do on the internet (when you get right down to it, the new rules have implications far beyond just WMs - they slap the hands of the over-21 crowd on a global level).

4) Personally I blame the email spammers, the BBSs, the chat rooms (and yes this includes those that are supposedly "monitored"), and Google et al for a lot of this. Unfortunately, WMs who consider themselves businesspersons and who take this seriously are but a small percentage of those tossing porn around on the Net, and now we're paying for the indiscretions and lack of concern of the rest of the group. Anyone who moves forward with these new regs in place may find they have a lot more traffic and revenue in the coming months as the bottom feeders get tossed out and/or arrested (can you say "test case"? I knew you could).

As I said, just my observations. With time I think I've gone from being freaked out and worried to being so pissed off I can't see straight... and something tells me I'm not alone. |angry|

Right on Wenchy! Let's get the bottom feeders out of here. The Feds should clamp down on those that steal the "legit" stuff, pirate the pics, and then "toss them around" and end up making money on copyrighted material! I know because I have caught many and have lived to see a reimbursement. I've had my fill of pirates and thieves....and if this law, Big Brother as it is, and as against it I am, is enforced, I hope the thieves are too stupid to even know what 2257 is. |headbang|

Linda

1) wasn't the intention. The intention is to drive people out of business.

2) it is the same as using zoning laws to shut down adult businesses. The material is legal (and the DOJ admitted it in the news) but using other laws in agressive ways has the same results as rendering it illegal.

3) we are all stinking pornographers lumped in with the morons that do cp and such. I warned about this many times before, and now it has come true.

4) you are blaming the right people except you forgot the spyware / adult redirect / adult popup people.

Sadly, none of this changes the facts that june 23rd is coming.

Alex

I just went through my stuff and this is how many pages I found that are associated with one or more than one image: 304,759

Anyone want a job as a 2257 URL Mapping Documentation Specialist? |pink


I think I need to go see the |pink |pink

Well put Wenchy! I was freaked out earlier also but now just plain pissed. What I do is all legal and there is no way I shouldn't be able to do it if I want. I'm going to forget for today. I'll just print it all out and read it till I can figure out what I need to know. And keep doing what I am now. For the simple reason I like what I do..... |peace|

Another thought - I was in the process of subbing a free site and gathering recips - all those freesites out there that have a recip with an image on them - I'm of the assumption they are also all covered by the new regs, and as such we have to either get the 2257 info, which is impossible, or change a hell of a lot of recips to text based ones :(

GRRR.... I just stumbled on to a new wrinkle. The definition of "Picture identification card" was changed.

All the content that I have were the model used a foriegn passport, which was legal at the time, is now unuseable. The id card has to be issued in the United States.

There is one more thing I have to weed out because of all this!

When is the injunction going to be filed, I think we are really going to need that.


_

EDIT:

There is a provision for the producer AND the performer if BOTH are not from the United States. But in my case, the producer is in the US so the provision doesnt count. Damn it!

_

Barron ditto on that! I don`t have photo ids for but a freaction of my content. And I don`t reasonably expect all these content "primary produders" will be stepping up to share all that info with every person that has obtained said content.

I think the "retroactive" aspects of these new regulations are going to be one of the major reasons the court tosses them back at the DOJ. That simply isn't legal. One of the basic concepts we learned in Jr. High Civics class, ex-post facto laws are not constitutional.

wondering about programs
 

What is the likelyhood of sponsor programs handing out their docs for the free content they distributed so freely to their affiliates over the years.

Last summer, I had tried to get docs from FTV and a few others and got blown off.

While I can see 'why' they don't want to hand over that info to affiliates it's a catch 22 down the food chain line. Without the docs we can't promote, we lose, they lose.


I'm not expecting anything, but to remove content. |shocking|