Just a thought I am having.

RawAlex is saying that cropping an image doesn't help because the original was hardcore.

But that section about DVD boxcovers that I quote earlier says that if you publish an image of a boxcover, it's considered to be a whole new image. Well, wouldn't publishing a cropped photo constitute creating a "new image". If it doesn't depict sexually explicit behavior, then it's not under the 2257 laws.

I was pondering this because I found myself wondering about my sites where I'm selling DVDs and I've copied the boxcover from the online store - "republishing it" according to the DOJ. If I censor the boxcover so that it is no longer explicit, I've just published a softcore photo...

So this becomes one of those unenforceable laws like Cleo talked about. How are the people at the DOJ going to KNOW that the softcore pictures you're using are really softcore or were originally hardcore. They can only go on what they see.

Again, just vague speculation on my part.

I don't know if Steve Workman is still a gun for hire -- he is in Ft. Lauderdale and had been working with CEN almost exclusively a while back, but, still had his practice.

SexBizLaw.com/Fred Lane has a section on 2257 and has a listing of attorneys behind lock & key ($29.95 membership for a month)

When I was looking for an attorney and accountant, I grabbed the yellow pages and said:

I work with legal adult entertainment sites, before I waste any more of your time or mine, do you have a problem with that? You don't want an attorney that will drop you because he doesn't want his name associated with an undesirable case.

After knocking out 85% of the attornies and accountants, I interviewed a few until I found someone that I liked working with.

Or, recommendations from other people. I'll try and find out who a few clients have retained. I know a few have recently signed retainers.

Ok, I've changed my strategy. I am going to ask my attorney (the one who now holds the ID's for my two guests and George and I), if he would like to be on our Board of Directors. Then I am going to ask him if I can pay a small fee to house a computer and all of the documents relating to my website. He is the attorney I sought when we incorporated and he runs things strictly by the books when it comes to corporations. So, what better person to be on my Board of Directors? This might solve the problem of someone having to be at the office all the time in case of inspection. Then again, I haven't asked him yet either.

And as I work on this computer updating my website, and as I work for my "real" job on this computer from home, I am going to each day link all of the lindamight images to models, (again, all four of us), an hour a day until done.
|angry| Linda

lots of work ahead, for err'body....

BTW - I missed you all!

That is probabley your best bet, House your PC? You will have to go there everytime you want to update?
I have been linking my galleries to my 2257 since I heard this may happen months back and already have a jump on my urls to pictures, although I have a long way to go, I think your strategy might work, an hour a day till its done..Yeah I think I may not go insane from that! LOL

Question, I had a model that I do have a copy of her id, and she signed releases, however I lost contact with her months back, Do I have to have her current location? Cause I dunno where she is now? She split and left her husband Ugh!

Wait a sec... Now being my Members Area is locked from the public..I still have to do it in there? That doesnt even sound right, nobody can see them except for paying members. Although the asses that made these damned laws are idiots

Yep an hour a day....every f**king day...til it's done....every single f**king day...:)

I am not sure about the model who moved, BUT, it seems to me that a lot of people move and don't notify every single person they have been associated with, but then we're dealing with Big Brother here too. I would think that as long as it was the address where she lived when she modeled and you have her ID, if the Feds want to find her, they will.

|dizzy| |dizzy| |angry|

You have a point there...LOL

I have never seen anything that would require you to keep up to date information on a model - only information up to date at the time of filming. However, that is one of the reasons why it is important to execute a new model release each time you film (plus is shows consent for each episode you shoot). It means that if address info changes, you will get the latest info.

MORE PAPER! :)

grandmascrotum: The problem is you are required to store the original image. The model release traces back to the original HARDCORE image, not to your new "cropped" image. Under that logic, a CP image of a naked 14 year old cropped would suddenly jump the fence and be legal... even if the underlying image isn't. Not exactly sure how that would work.

DVD box covers as a whole are a work of themselves, but they too have models and source images and so on... I am really not sure where the line gets drawn, but I can say without a doubt: When you are not sure, err on the side of being sure.

Alex

Alex

Don't the regulations clearly state that the url will be required for images published AFTER June 23, 2005? I've read section 75.2 (a) 1 a few times it it seems that

"For any performer portrayed in such a depiction after June 23, 2005, the records shall include"

(ii) Where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site
or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction or, if no
URL is associated with the depiction, another uniquely identifying
reference associated with the location of the depiction on the
Internet.

I'm prepared to go back to every url I have but it seems this paragraph means that we don't have to.

Driver's licenses with some stuff blacked out is legit to use as proof? It has name, dob, and picture.

Also, umm, inspection of the records...if you just kept this stuff burned on a dvd and when they came for an inspection you just gave them that...would that suffice or would they need a way to access the files at your residence? Honestly the idea of tossing them a dvd with all the info and telling them to fuck off (in a nice way of course) sounds less intrusive.

Sir Moby I am thinking the same thing..at least that is what it looks like

SirMoby, you have to read further. The no URL thing is for dynamically generated pages or scripted pages where you cannot always say that the image will appear on such and such a page - or that the image on that page may be different on each visit (picture a daily gallery page, example). Otherwise, it is URL to IMAGE records, from what I could see.

Mr Blue, it's your place of business. Please read the whole section that describes exactly how a visit will happen.

... and they will happen, I am sure.

Alex

Alex do you think there is a slim chance in hell anything will be changed by then? Just curious

Heather, I feel that one or more groups will move to get an injunction in court before the effective date. There would appear to me to be enough items of interest within the rules as well as "on point" judgements to merit some time before the courts.

That being said, I would not base my business entirely on hoping the courts do the right thing. Depending on the venue, injunctive relief could be refused but an appeal put in line for a later date.

I am hoping. I wouldn't count on it.

Alex

how does this affect companies who are based in the us but have foreign offices where their records are stored?

damnq, us based means that it is likely the rules apply to you - and doubly important, you need to think about model IDs for your overseas models.

Alex

Hmm, you've got me thinking. So... (merely conjecture here and a ton of wishful thinking) if I use a banner rotator that would make me exempt by virtue of the "dynamic" nature of the page, provided I'm interpreting this correctly. Interesting... veddy interesting |devil|

That having been said, in further ponderings over the course of the day, I've almost decided that this whole debacle could turn out to be a good thing (provided they drop the retroactive shit!).

And before you all decide to come after me with pitchforks, hear me out...

I've been screaming for years that giving away free hardcore porn was tantamount to shooting ourselves in the foot. Furthermore, I'm also an advocate of text over banners whenever, wherever, and as often as possible. I have absolutely no doubt that softcore content providers will be coming out of the woodwork in the very near future which will provide us with "safe" and "compliant" filler for our pages. Sponsors will also begin creating "2257 compliant" ad tools, merely to save themselves the agony of mountains of paperwork.

If we're smart we can use this whole stinking mess to our advantage. "Hey, Joe Surfer... you want hardcore? Your freeloading days are over, pallie... too bad, so sad. Cough up the green or do without!" We could all see a HUGE jump in revenues if we're smart enough to seize the opportunity in front of us.

Trust me... anybody who knows me will tell you I'm certainly no Pollyanna and I realize there are still questions about what is deemed "obscene" and whether or not "censored" pictures fall into that category, but things are what they are and I for one am open to exploring alternatives that will keep me in business for a long time to come. If we are forced to change, surfers will be forced to change with us and that could be a good thing IMHO.

(Pardon the long post... I'm working a ton and a half of overtime lately and I don't have the luxury of posting my thoughts one at a time! ;) )

alex, wasn't asking if the rules apply... i know they apply. it just doesn't say anywhere in the law that my records keeping location has 2 b in the US. if my primary place of business is not my US location, but my foreign location, technically that's the place i would keep them housed anyhow... its not breaking the law, just makes it more difficult for them to enforce it on those who keep records outside of the continental US.



...

Definately in for this! |thumb

damnq, I agree, nothing says you have to have the records in the US, but remember this:

Where exactly do you do the business of producing websites. As a primary producer, you might have your records is thailand or where ever it is you shoot your stuff, that could be the place of business for the primary producer. However, as secondary producer (actually putting the stuff on websites) if you do that business from within the US, then your records as secondary producer likely need to be there.

I wouldn't build, create, or operate websites in the US without having the 2257 info in the office. That's my take, anyway.

Your domain is registered in Florida. That is where they are going to go looking.

Alex

i'm not saying this applies to me, btw.... i'm just asking a question :). but if the person creates websites, manages websites & conducts the production of all of it overseas even though the principle physical office is in the US, then they are entitled to store them & make them available at either location. i know most people will not be able to do this, but for those who can..... interesting option.



...

damnq, it's pretty unavoidable - a US based company better have records in the US. I wouldn't want DOJ knocking on my door (It's a bit far for them to go, but that is another story) and asking for records, and all I can say is "no, they are in XXXXXXXXXXXXna". I think you can see how that really wouldn't fly, especially if the US company or individual is the beneficial owner of the content or the websites.

Some people are suggesting stuff can be done with offshore trusts, holding companies, double blind trusts (a trust, held be a trust) etc. Besides some practical issues, everyone needs to spend time looking at the tax code to see what would do to them, and what you would have to declare anyway.

If you are a US citizen running porn sites, well, I think every lawyer would say "keep the records".

Alex

ok, you're missing my point.... i'll leave it @ that ;)




..

NO, actually, I think I understand completely - but I think you are confusing primary and secondary producer. If the person or company in the US is involved in the publication of a website then they are secondary producer and need records, even if most of the work is done outside. If the US company is the beneficial owner of the websites in any way, then they are likely secondary producers and need records.

The only way this works is if everyone involved is outside the US, the company is outside the US, and all the people who work on, produce, or pay for production of the content are outside the US. Once you get a solid connection to the US, someone is keeping records.

I know some people are going to try putting it all offshore, but unless they put themselves offshore too, they are running a huge risk (google for tax evasion offshore trust and similar terms). The DOJ ain't joking! ;)

Alex