Sponsors, Please help! 2257 and Free Content
 

Dear Sponsors,

I have literally hundreds of galleries and sites using your free hosted content.

I know that this boards readers do as well.

On June 23rd, less than 19 days from now, I must make a decision.

Either I choose to remove the content you've provided me, or i incorporate 2257 data into my business model.

The problem is, few if any sponsors have given official word about their plans to release 2257 data with their provided promotional material.

This does not affect me but it affects hundreds upon hundreds of your affiliates.

We have 19 days to comply with this law and most sponsor programs have been decidedly silent on this point.

We need to know soon what your plans are so that we can work on becoming compliant with the material you have provided us.

Either shut it down or get 2257 data from you.

I hope that this thread provides a place for sponsors to make their decision and post it.

Please take the time program reps to post here your intentions on 2257 and your sponsor content.

I hope that you good folks realize the seriousness of the situation and have plans to help your webmasters comply.

For those of you who choose not to make 2257 data available literally thousands of websites who provide you traffic will be dissapearing on the 23rd. Many of us will 404 that traffic and if you are counting on webmasters to 404 that traffic to your sites instead of someone else who helped them comply I believe you may be dissapointed come that day.

Thanks in advance for those who plan to help us comply,

Boogie

If the sponsor is hosting the content, you do not need documentation.

Hi Emmanuelle,

this is true however most sponsors do provide downloadable content and zips and movie files for use in building your own galleries, which many of us have done.

That is specifically what i meant for this thread and sorry i wasnt more clear :)

Wouldn't TGPs which use sponsor links and host an image be required to get this info?

Remember, even if the sponsor host the image (like sunnydollars does with thumbs) you still need documentation because you are the one publishing it.

Good luck everyone.

Sponsors, climb out from under your rocks and start talking... the pressure is building, otherwise you guys are going to find out what it's like to lose an assload of traffic.

Alex

Yes, of course
I read your post literally :-)

Many interpretations of the regulation state that any image that depicts a sexual type situation or sexually explicit content requires 2257 data be on file!

That goes for sponsor created and produced and released content, thumbs, banners, creatives and more!

Whats more even if you crop out the sexually explicit part of the image you still need to maintain data, according to a fair number of interpretations.

Sponsors need to figure out what they're doing or else the june 23rd blackout is going to be a blackout for a lore more than just surfers :(

Traffic is going to make a major switch from those who would not provide this information to those who readily did.

Alex - I would tend to disagree with the statement that if the sponsor is hosting it that you still need docs - I can link to anything I want (including imbedding images hosted other places just as Google does with their image search) as long as I am not actually physically putting it onto my server I dont believe that would be covered.

Then again - I guess this means that any newstand that carries Hustler and little fast-stop that carries magazines will have to have 2257 docs for every magazine they sell - sorry - just doesnt wash out right - Im just an affiliate not a producer - I dont care what all the psuedo lawyers have to say

you'd still needs the docs if you're hotlinking images because you hold editorial control over the site's content, iframing also.

I think you are reading way too much into this - here's what the DOJ said when these type comments were made:

"Two commenters commented that the definition of producer in the
proposed rule was too broad and would encompass a convenience store
that sold sexually explicit magazines or a movie theater that screened
R-rated movies. The Department declines to adopt this comment. As the
rule makes clear, mere distributors of sexually explicit material are
excluded from the definition of producers and under no plausible
construction of the definition would a movie theater be covered merely
by screening films produced by others"

I do believe this would be exactly the same thing that say a link site doing some advertising would be doing by using the sponsors advertising - since you are not "digitizing" anything - just adding a link to it

Linkster, I think in this case you are mixing two things. You don't control what is on someone else's site, but once you code it into your pages, you have chosen to publish it.

Extreme example: A CP site puts up a picture of disgusting and illegal CP. You go to a domain and iframe that page into your site.

Did you break the law?

Good fun, no?

Alex

This past week I talked via phone to a couple of my favorite sponsors. The impression I have is they don't want to release model docs unless they absolutely have to. They are waiting to see if there is an injunction before the date. I am sure many other sponsors are probably feeling the same way.

Steve

Alex - then by your example - Google, Yahoo and Altavista as well as numerous other sites will have to be in compliance since there is no exception for them by the new rules?

Re-reading the comments, I think that this can actually be turned in to a good thing - but Im not gonna disclose how just yet :)

I would be interested in seeing what sponsors would post here. I doubt any will, as I doubt many will be supplying the neccessary documentation. Why lose weeks of traffic before this goes into effect by giving people advanced warning? :D

Some sponsors are going to get pretty hard hit traffic wise once these galleries and freesites are pulled.

This comment is unfair. The decision has just come down a few days ago and sponsors are consulting with legal counsel I'm sure. While I know that affiliates do need to get their own houses in order, it only makes sense for companies to make well-thought out decisions.
There are literally lives at stake on this turn of events, and people are weighing the risks versus rewards. Not an easy one for some of the larger companies I'll bet.

Nobody wants the death of a performer on their conscience, that's for sure...

Sponsors are not going to start releasing talent's personal info. Doing this would violate other laws in many places.

Angel asked me about this today as she had a few affiliates wanted IDs for the talent in the free content. We both agreed that some affiliates are going to pull her stuff but she is not going to betray the trust of the models she uses by publishing their personal information that was given to her at the time of the shoot with the understanding that this was going to be kept confidential.

It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.

Most of those privacy laws are state, not federal. Since federal law overrules state law in the event of a conflict, 2257 now potentially carves out a major chunk of exception to state privacy laws. But since the only people affected are eevul pornographers and porn talent, state legislators aren't gonna raise any objections.

Remember last year when porn attorney JD Obenberger reported that he had specifically brought this up to Justice Dept. officials? They told him the revealing of private info of models was simply not their concern at all.

The fundamentalist wackos in the Ashcroft/Gonzalez Justice Dept. view all porn models as if they were street hookers, and simply have less than zero concern for their privacy or safety. They hope to dry up the pool of porn talent by deliberately creating a potentially dangerous situation for them.

Hell, how many sponsors really check their affiliates' legitimacy anyway - not that it's really possible, I'll admit. Under the new 2257 rules, any frat boy with $15 for a domain and access to a free or cheap webhost could slap up a temporary page, sign up with 2 dozen sponsors in an afternoon, download tons of free sponsor content, and the sponsors would be required to give him access to the private data of every model on their sites. This clearly is not viable, but aside from the remote possibility of getting the entire thing chucked out of court, it's a situation primary producers are gonna have to deal with for now.

[quote=lassiter]It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.

[quote]


Not when so many people have purchased content from producers located outside of the US. Those producers are under no obligation to hand over the ids, (or are forbidden to) thus leaving the site owners scrambling for replacement content.

[quote=emmanuelle][quote=lassiter]It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.


Well, actually, I misspoke, in that NO producer is "required" to hand over any content to an affiliate under 2257. It's just that US-based affiliates won't be able to legally use any content, from either US- or non US-based sponsors, unless the sponsors voluntarily agree to supply the model documentation.

I dont understand about this private info thing - that has always been required - its just that most secondary producers took the exception so they didnt notice the requirement was already there - there was no change in that part of the statute

Alex, as you mentioned before about a magazine ad, as a publisher I would get to see it, approve it long before it is plated and put on paper.

On the other hand are the TV companies responsible because Janet flashed her boob?

If somebody has a BJ by a bank machine, is the bank responsible 'cause the camera caught it.

In the world of dynamic content, I'm not so sure how it will end up. Will wait for the lawyers to decide.

No, but now they deemed that secondary producers should also record it.

Linkster, I honestly don't know exactly how they are exempt, except perhaps that they don't apply editorial control over the material - they list it all.

I understand what you are trying to say, but in the end, you choose to put those SPECIFIC thumbs on your page. You select, edit, and control the content of your site.

Put another way, show me where you would be exempt.

Alex

Alex,
I beg to differ. Anyway you look at it, google applies editorial control over the materials they publish. Albeit, the editorial control is applied over an algorith, which in turn applies editorial control over the content published.
Remember, google doesn't list it all. It just lists what they consider to be pertinent to the search term. Besides which, they host thumbs (and create thumbs, which makes them a secondary producer, as they are indeed manipulating the images) on their own servers.

Most sponsors have already made their decision regarding what they'll do. I know of at least 5 sponsors that for fact will not supply the needed information. Why are they waiting? Just say it already and be done with it. Most sponsors will wait till the day before this rule comes into being...eventhough they know exactly what they're going to be doing right now.

Reading another forum (MP Shemps forum) Lightspeedcash.com posted what they plan on doing. I'm going to signup with them because they were upfront and gave their affiliates plenty of time to make the needed adjustments. Kudos to them and I hope by the end of this week most sponsors will post similar statements.