Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RawAlex
DB Stuart, you purchased and accepts to take responsbility for the content refered to as "RBC".
You became the primary record keeper for the RBC content.
New regulations under 2257 require (not just suggest, but require) that you provide fll model IDs and other information to licensed users of the RBC content.
New regulations discuss the subject of blacked out, modified, or editing model information, and state it is not only not required, but can hinder model identification, which could render the 2257 documents you give to the secondary providers useless. This could put those secondary providers in violation.
I would highly recommend that you contact a lawyer that is fluent and has a clear understanding of 2257 law. this isn't an issue of copyright, ecrimes, or some governors panel on internet fraud. This is a very specific issue germain to our industry.
It is my opinion that your lawyer(s) either did not clearly understand the intent of this new rule clarification, or did not read the discourse that accompanied the publication of these new rules.
No, I am not a lawyer. But I have told more than one where to go and won.
Alex
|
Hi Everyone (and, hey, you too Alex).
Let's start at the beginning. Everyone is upset with the 2257 laws. Alex, I understand your frustration. I probably represent upwards of 2500 adult websites across the world and all of my clients--yes, all of them--are very concerned about the new rules. So, I want you to know that I have read your prior comments, and can appreciate the fact that you feel strongly on this issue. What your spirited comments show me is that you want to comply, and you are running up against the brick wall of 2257 regulations. I feel for you, and everyone in your situation. (And that is NOT a facetious statement).
Now, let me set the record straight about Rock Bottom Content, becasue there is a disjoint between what RBC has been saying, and what some of you
think RBC is saying.
A while ago, there was a company called Isis. Isis sold licenses to lots of content and, apparently, Isis sold licenses to you too Alex. Isis operated under the name Rock Bottom Content.
Now, for some reason that we are unaware of, Isis (operating as RBC) did not provide you with all of the 2257 information that you now need.
Years later, Stuart from the current RBC (which I will call "Current RBC") approached Isis and said, "We want to buy (not license, but purchase) your content. We also like your name--we want to use that too."
Isis said, "Fine."
And so, Current RBC began its operations, using the name RBC and possessing the content it purchased form Isis. Isis, to the best of anyone's knowledge, continued to exist as a corporation. We are not sure what they are doing today.
Current RBC, which is a separate and distinct company from Isis, did not purchase or receive any of the contracts between Isis and its customers. It merely became the owners of content previously held by Isis, and received the right to use the name "RBC" which was previsouly used by Isis.
Now, Alex, you are asking Current RBC to provide you with a plethura of information because, as described above, Isis failed to provide that material to you.
Stuart is saying, "Look, that is a ton of work, and Current RBC did NOT sell you anything. Isis did. We feel for you, and want to do the right thing, but we need to hire staff to help you, and that is a cost that we can not shoulder alone."
Alex, you are saying, "Hey--Isis, RBC,--same thing." But, in reality, they are NOT the same, and never were. They are different entities, with entirely different owners, officers, etc.
Put another way, Current RBC did NOT merge with Isis. Current RBC only received some images, and got the right to use a name. That's all.
I have read many posts on this thread that have agreed with Stuart that the price charged by Stuart is not a lot to charge for that kind of work--and I agree wholeheartedly.
I understand that this might have confused some people--especially since Isis was using the name RBC, and Current RBC is using that name. But rest assured, the company from which you bought your pictures is NOT Stuart's company, and it never was.
I hope this helped clear up this issue. I know it is frustrating for everyone, but hang in there.
At one time I was the prosecutor in South Florida who prosecuted people who engaged in filming underage models--in fact, I started the special investigation unit that oversaw such investigations in the Miami Dade State Attorney's Office almost 7 years ago. I know how the government works, and I know about the government's zeal to stomp out child exploitation. I think that the 2257 rules serve a great purpose, and some new rules were necessary. Nonetheless, the rules are somewhat ambiguous, and we must live with them for now. If you have questions, let me know.
I also suggest that everyone attend the Cybernet Expo June 13-15 in San Diego. I, along with a colleague of mine (Eric Bernstein) will be addressing the 2257 issues, among other things.
Good night to all, and thanks for reading.
Respectfully,
Brad Gross, Esq.
Chair, e-Business & Digital Content Practice Group
Becker & Poliakoff, P.A.
BGross@becker-poliakoff.com