2257 regs published in full
 

Here is the full published version of the newly adopted 2257 regs.

I'm too tired to read em, hoping someone here can do that for us and summarize.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2...5/05-10107.htm

in 30 days she's law? I think.

just wish i could figure out what the law is :(

oh my god...
that's a lot of reading..... :S

! EDIT !

So far it doesn't look good.

I took out the part with keeping records. Just a pain in the ass.


One thing that will become another pain in the ass if you crank out a lot of sites a day is this:

laws are always written like this.... they should include a simplified version with key points bolded. then again, that would make it easy for u to protect yourself against it & thats probably not the point...




..

Ouchhhhhhhhhhhh |angry|

I'd imagine that you publish a freesite on YOUR server. Where you submit links should be something totally different IMO.. but I'm not a lawyer!

Ok.. I read about 1/4. Think I need nap or something.

The "associated" part makes it kinda vague.

Is associated the root of the domain? http://www.domain.com/
A site: http://www.domain.com/site1/
The page where the pics are linked from: http://www.domain.com/site1/page1.html
Or the picture itself: http://www.domain.com/site1/01.jpg

This is the same issue that was commented on in Asscrofts proposed regulations...these rules have been written by technologically bereft people who have no understanding of the realities of how the internet works, and are thus way too vague on many points...making it impossible to keep records satisfying every possible interpretation.

If my main business was thumbtgps, I would be looking for a new line of business starting today. It would appear that thumb tgps will require 2257 documents for every thumb they show.

At this point, there are two court judgements (sundance vs reno and American Library Ass'n v. Reno) regarding secondary producers. One (sundance) specifically nullifies the concepts in these rules. The other (ALA) vaguely accepts in passing the concept of secondary producers. You can understand why DOJ has gone with the vague ruling in their favor as opposed to the hard and direct ruling against thier ideas.

I am 100% confident that an injunction will be put in place directly, as there is clearly some contridictory rulings in the court system.

That being said, as of June 23rd, thumbtgps will be a VERY risky business.

Alex

Or make all the thumbs non-sexually explicit. Which could be quite interesting on a bukkake thumb ;)

I've been prepared for this since last Fall. The line below is from the submit page rules on both of my TGP's.

"No Sexually Explicit content on your uploaded Thumbnail.
Your gallery may contain Sexually Explicit content, but the featured thumb may not.
Nudity is OK, but no penitration, oral to genital, or genital to genital contact. If
your gallery contains this content then don't let the script create the thumbnail."

However, if the focus of either site were a hardcore niche it wouldn't be practical.

Actually, it doesn't appear to matter about a specific thumb - you could not, example, use a non-explicit image from a hardcore package and claim exemption. They appear to be specifying a single 2257 release per photoset or video made, with a requirement to cross reference every image from that set to the 2257 document to show it's use.

THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS IN THIS RULE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODEL RELEASES THEMSELVES, BUT WHERE THEY MUST BE. Third party custodians of records are OUT!

That means that the custodian of records for the ENTIRE INDUSTRY must be the actual places of business. It would appear that third party custodians will no longer be permitted after June23rd. It would also appear that this would apply to PRIMARY producers as well.

I think there is going to be some major screaming coming from California about this, as this would change almost everything in the porn industry.

Other interesting operating tidbits: It would appear that each person who works on the primary shoot of the content (camerman, lighting crew, gaffers, even craft truck operators) may be required to obtain, maintain, and cross reference all 2257 records themselves. The rule specifically declines to nominate a single "primary producer":

Thus, anyone in the scope of potentially being a primary or secondary producer:

Good luck everyone. I suspect there is going to be a few extra rooms available at internext now as many people will be gone on June 24th.

Alex

Toby, to go further on that, if the thumb you use is to link to a hardcore set, and that image is included or was shot during that hardcore set, it is part of a hardcore depiction and therefore likely to be subject to documentation requirements.

ThumbTGPS are a very likely first target... head to the highest traffic sites around and start whacking!

Alex

Reading over it...it's actually pretty strict :D
Some of the finer points look pretty fucked up.

From a secondary producer vantage point this is what I gather:

1. You have to have a digital record of the model's identification on hand. This will inevitably lead to sponsor content providers having to provide this information to their affiliates...I think. Either that or sponsor content will dry up as we know it :D

2. A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

3. 20 hours a week availability for inspection. No notice need to be given.

(f) Other law enforcement authority. These regulations do not
restrict the otherwise lawful investigative prerogatives of an
investigator while conducting an inspection.
(g) Seizure of evidence. Notwithstanding any provision of this part
or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any
evidence of the commission of any felony while conducting an
inspection.

Make sure you hide the |potleaf| before they come and make sure you hide all your bittorrent files :D

Yes, IF I were also hosting the galleries. As the TGP owner I'm only providing a link to content owned and hosted by someone else. Non-explicit thumbs are no different than text links in terms of how 2257 applies.

Mr. Blue, I was reading it also, and you say 2.) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. Since most of us work out of our house this pretty much will make us the talk of most of our communities.

Concerns me, So I am gathering on my website I have to have my address listed for the gov?

Mr Blue, you are correct. Sponsors will be required to either provide the documents of require that the content be pulled no later than June 23rd, 2005, and that for all images produced or published since July 3rd, 1995.

Effectively, we will all be required to go back to all sponsor content sites we have an either obtain sponsor content 2257 documents or remove the content.

Further, for those playing the "I am not in the US" deal, remember that "including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing." as a secondary or primary producer. Thus entering into a contract to promote a site (becoming an affiliate) os a US based program, or a program operated by a US citizen, or a site processed by a US company, or a site hosted by a US company makes you contractually obligated to follow the new rules. Basically, if any part of the production, distribtuion, whatever touches the US, you are obligated REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE.

I am not clear on the implications for sponsor programs that accept traffic from sources that are not 2257 compliant.

Alex

Heather, either you address or you will need to rent office space and use that as your primary place of business. I am not sure that this would stand up if you never actually used the place of business. However, I think if the city / county issued you an occupation license for a business for an address, then it could be argued to be your place of business. You would be required to keep your records there (so mail slot addresses are NOT acceptible, and PO boxes have be specifically excluded).

Alex

Toby, I think that is wishful thinking. Read carefully how they define the source material, and look VERY closely at how they group it together. Can you prove that the thumb you are using is NOT from a sexually explicit set? "Fair use" does not trump 2257. Because they exempt you from having 1 record per image (instead 1 record per session), this means that they can use the sexually explicit terms to apply to the session rather than an individual image. Thus a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

That is a knife edge that I don't think it worth basing your business (and chances of being Bubba's bitch in the federal butt slamming prison) on that fine distinction.

Alex

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

|angry| |angry| |angry|

Heather, more importantly, your business address must be published as part of your 2257 declaration online. It isn't just about telling the goverment (you don't actually have to register or anything) but you do have to have that valid address on your site(s).

Something tells me there is going to be a rush on business rentals this month.

Alex

Intersting. So if a model goes in for a softcore shoot and while changing clothes she touches her crotch and a single photo is taken then the entire shoot is considered sexually explicit? Secondary producers would have no way of knowing that happened.

Maybe in the morning she's doing face photos and that afternoon does a hardcore scene. The face images are now subject?

Alex maybe for the bigger guys, but us smaller webgirls are a bit different...

I am questioning the fact of keeping my records at a close friends? He actually does content with me, You think I could do that?

Definitely some food for thought. Under that interpretation even if I had a 100% non-explicit adult site, I'd still need to have to a statement from the original producer of each "set" stating that it is non-explicit. That's where I begin to have constitutional issues with 2257. This quickly becomes a situation of guilty until proven innocent.

I wish the FSC success in getting the court to throw this out.

Heather, depends on who you are shooting for. If it is for your own website, then you are a primary producer or at worst secondary producer either way you have to have records at your place of business. No third party record keepers will be allowed.

SirMoby: I might be wrong, but my take is this:

1 - They don't require 2257 per image, but one 2257 document per session. In other words, shoot 100 images, you still only need 1 document - but you need a cross referenced list to all of those images.

2 - If there is sexually explicit content, you need a 2257 document.

3 - because of 1, the document in 2 would cover all the images and imply sexual content.

My feeling is that once you require 2257 for a set, all the images in it may be part of a sexually explicit production, and therefore cannot be seperated out.

Remember also that the image is defined by it's initial production. A girl getting fucked in a picture is getting fucked - even if you crop down only to her face, the initial image is sexually explicit and therefore subject to 2257 - and your records would indicate this.

Me thinks tough times ahead for thumb tgps.

Alex

RawAlex,

If the primary producer shot 101 photos and sells me 100 non-sexually explicit photos I have no way of knowing about photo # 101 and certainly have no way of knowing if it's explicit or not.

All I have is what the producer sent me. I'm not publishing or reproducing anything explicit even though that set could be sold to someone else as explicit.

I think the thumbnail TGPs might be in the same boat. If they crop explicit images to make thumbs then they would be required to keep records. If someone else submits a non-sexually explicit thumb then the TGP owner is not reproducing something explicit.

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

Sir Moby, I think ignorance is rarely an acceptable defence.

The key is "other matter". A series of photo images is "other matter" - and this is doubly clear if the photoshoot was also videotaped.

Let me go a little further. Let's say you have a thumbtgp with 200 thumbs, all of them very softcore head shots, and one banner add with a girl suck a dick.

You have published a document with "one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct". You now need to have documentation for EVERY image on the page.

Worse, if any 1 of those 200 thumbs is in fact an explicit image (known or unknown) then you again fall in it for all of the images.

It's not funny.

Alex

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

Just read it and can't make neither a head nor tail out of it! Another job for the lawyer I would say :(
A simple question to those more knowledgable... I post a gallery (video or picture) or a free site then I must have the physical 2257 records stored at my place and mentioned on my own domain, right?

Hi guys,

I read a lot about softcore thumbs, cropped images, banners, etc.

But what about a text link site with no images ? That is to say not one single image on the entire page/site.

The text links would of course lead to hardcore galleries, external galleries that are not owned by the text link site.

What do you think ?

Emperor

You shouldnt need any info for text links because you are not diplaying sexually explicit content.

That brings to another point what is deemed as sexually explicit ??

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

Also wondering how these rules will be applied retro-actively...I know I'll have to go through some odd 300 galleries or so and make it complient (As I just 2257'ed to the sponsor 2257), but with the rules of most TGP that means blacklisting, lol.

The only thing I'm wondering about is that someone mentioned there might be a grey area where gallery makers / freesite designers wouldn't be secondary producers, but from my reading of it we are.

I think that using sponsor-provided content is no different than using content you bought or even produced yourself. If you make a gallery with it and make that gallery available to the public you need the documentation.

I see what you're saying about posting the 2257 notification on the gallery page itself, man that will not only look ugly but it will have your personal information on it as well.

Soon we'll hear stories about people protesting (and probably getting violent) outside someone's home, and that they got their address from a sexy gallery.

Emperor

Hi all,
I lurk a lot here and post occasionally.
I'll be talking to a lawyer in the next few weeks but want to get some peoples thoughts on this.

I don't shoot content, just build sites and tgp galleries so I would be a secondary producer. So it looks like I will have to have all 2257 docs for my content ( I have some of my own that I will have to get the docs for and then get some from sponsers however they plan to work this out.) and I will have to have some kind of a filing system showing the url associated with each pic/video.

These aren't a huge problem. It will be a pain in my ass but I can do it.

My questions are these: It said that this new filing system was only for sites/content produced after the active date. In this case june 23rd of next month ( oddly enough that's my birthday - a nice little birthday gift ) so does that mean I will only have to have this filing system for the sites I build after that date, or am I going to have to go back and do this for every site I have built before that date?

Also, they say the related url so can I just put the root www.domain.com and all the content on that domain or would I need to to put in the exact url of every site and every image?

just wondering what your thoughts on these things are.

From http://www.xxxlaw.net/