2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

... and finally this:

the revisions and "administrative rule clarifications" of USC 18 section 2256 and 2257 are significant parts of your business. They have repercussions for you and your business that can greatly affect your life, not just you bank account. You could spend up to 10 years in a federal butt slammin' prison. You could end up with all of your assets, business and person, seized as evidence and locked up for years before you see the end of it.

You could be labeled as a CP provider, even if you think all your models are over 18. Think of the headline "Bob can't prove model age, feds shut down site" followed by a nice article about how it is likely some of your models were underage or using fake ID, or how you might helped them with fake ID, etc.

There is some potential you could become a registered sex offender.

Consult a lawyer, one that is versed in 2257 and the adult industry. Don't trust the lawyer down the street unless they have spent time on the subject. There is 15 years of history in this law, it isn't something you can pickup overnight and understand. Don't base your business on "software solutions" or "offshore hideouts" that people are offering without first getting a good and vlaid legal opinion about what it all means.

For individual webmasters, cam girls, and others... sorry, but in plain terms, sucks to be you right now. You are left with a few very poor choices, most of which involve revealing your home address, full name, and other materials to the public at large. I know that for many of you, this represents a hardship so high, that you are likely to leave the business or completely change the way you do business, which in the end will remove either the fun and/or profit you have been making in the past. The government is saying to you "either in the pool or out of the pool, no just dipping your toe in the water". For that, I am truly sorry, and I am sad for you.

I am sad that I am already getting emails, PMs, and ICQs from people either selling sites or telling me that stuff will go 404. Upheaval is not good for business, and people are getting hurt. It sucks in a most major way.

Chatboards, discussion groups, and such are a great way to share the pain and share the results of discussions with lawyers and others. But at the end of the day, the only sound (and bankable) advice will come straight from a lawyer, not anyone posting on a board. While I am confident that I understand the new 2257 rules fairly well, my answers are all IMHO stuff and not something to make your business decisions from. this is a great place to share so much, but your decisions must be based on facts, not rumors.

Careful out there!

Alex

[Tommy]

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws

[PhoneMistress]

Thank you, Alex. I have been reading bits and pieces on all of the boards and rarely do I post. I must say that your comments have been greatly appreciated.

[pornrex]

Originally Posted by Tommy

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws

Thanks Raw Alex...in this troubled sea of beaurocratic garbage, you have indeed been a beacon - at least to me.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by Tommy

I would like to point out to everybody here that we owe Raw Alex a huge thank you, and a huge favor

he has spent a lot of time and effort to help us out by anwsering questions and by reading and I am sure rereading the new laws

Sometimes we forget the most obvious things and the fact thta RawAlex deserves a big thank you (maybe even donations) is obvious.

Thank you RawAlex. Thank you Tommy for reminded me.

[cellinis]

Tommy,
I second that mate! Alex has really worked a lot on this for almost everyone else. (If I were a girl, I'd give you a big hug... but considering I ain't, it just might be contrued as homosexuality that in Christian America might label both of us heretics...) damn I am blabbing... going over and making inventory of free sites and galleries and other things seems to be getting to my head lol.

I am still unclear how they can apply the law backwards when the changed law only comes into effect June 23 2005. This just can't be legal!

[rollergirl]

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??

[SexVideoContent]

Originally Posted by rollergirl

I was wondering and it was mentioned earlier, is this retroactive in that images created after June 23 are under this revision. I can abide reasonably with new content, but retroactive seems unconstitutional. Things that were fine under the old version should not be problems under the revison. Is there any clarification on this??

I think the arguement they're going to make is that every time an image appears on someone's monitor, it is at that moment being 'republished' and subject to the new regs. So it doesn't really matter when it was uploaded to the server initially according to them.

[Linkster]

I guess the only real question I have in the back of my mind right now - I tend to think of Google and a thumb tgp as the same thing - as I never touch the thumbs - its all done by script when the submitter is submitting - seems that would be the exact same thing the Googleimage bot is doing
More importantly is the question of the Google/Yahoo/Archive.org caches of pages - I think these would have a bunch more implications than the thumb tgps as they are actually (although again by machine) storing copies of pages including images and serving those images from their servers - sounds like secondary publisher to me but then Im not a lawyer.

[Toby]

Katie, this includes anything produced after July 3, 1995

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by Toby

Katie, this includes anything produced after July 3, 1995

Thank you

Cleaning house, I have so many content providers that won't give me the docs I need. Nice! One told me they were in a box in his garage and it would take too long to find them for me. (That was last summer when I started getting my docs in order).

Sponsor content.. don't see us getting the docs for that either. Sigh

[abe]

Hey Alex. Tommy is right. You're doing a great job here. It's much appreciated

[cd34]

Another attorney representing three of my clients:

Larry Walters:
http://www.firstamendment.com/

[cellinis]

Hey Linkster
You can be sure they will not be affected. Before they go down for 2257, they should be indicted on copyright infringement. Storing (read Stealing) my content, publishing it on their own servers, without my explicit permission, and then selling it (as internet archives)... I can rant on but this is besides the point.
My lawyer says new 2257 can not be applicable to content produced/published before the changes in the laws were made. But again, it is just one legal opinion and there will be many other that will follow.
Retroactive application of law is both illogical and illegal in most parts of the world... take an analogy that comes to my mind. Age of marriage today, 18 years. Age of marriage a 100 years ago, 14 (or 16, I can't remember). Somebody go tell my grandpa he is a bastard lol You better be wearing a Kevlar jacket!
But the issue will only be clarified after a couple of court decisions... so we can only try and comply and then hope for the best. I know I can't fully comply with the new rules but well...

[Boogie]

Once again, I'm not entirely sure why we need docs as affilates of these programs.

I think a strong case can be made that says

The photographer is the primary publisher
Nastydollars is the secondary publisher

I am the small reseller similar to a news stand that sells the finished article.

Or is that too big of a stretch?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by Boogie

Once again, I'm not entirely sure why we need docs as affilates of these programs...

The 10th Circuit Court has already agreed with you once, in Sundance Associates v. Reno. They essentially said that entities which have no role in the "hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation" of the models or performers, are exempt from the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257.

I will be watching with great interest to see how the court rules this time.

[plateman]

Yeah and very good reading been keeping tabs on this thread and a big thank you for raw alex...

[RawAlex]

One last important note: This is not a new law, this is not a new act of congress. It might look like it, but in reality it is some sort of administrative clarification. That too is subject to a previous court decision shooting it down, but that is another issue.

As a result, this is a law that has an effective date of July 3rd, 1995. You didn't know it but you may have been breaking the law for 10 years.

Seriously. Ask a laywer.

Alex

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

One last important note: This is not a new law, this is not a new act of congress. It might look like it, but in reality it is some sort of administrative clarification. That too is subject to a previous court decision shooting it down, but that is another issue.

Alex

Hmm.. yes.. I see what you are saying, but third party doc holders are no longer allowed with this new revision. This would cover the sponsor content. Many purchased content providers just told us to LINK to their 2257 page or sent the address for the custodial of records for the content we bought from them. So everyone who was in compliance as it were might not still be. Cross referencing is new too right? Clarifications would seem more like revisions IMHO. BTW .. even upon asking for the right documentation (as I said before) for content we purchased from reputable and popular providers.. I got the 'no can do'. Only one provider we asked stepped up to the plate and sent over every thing we needed ASAP. We've been buying content since 1998. HELLOOOOOOOO

Thank you for taking the time to give insight though.

[ngb1959]

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

[rollergirl]

Originally Posted by ngb1959

OMG this is confusing as hell.

I only use sponsor content. I put a link to their 2257 on my sites.

So do I have to have actual paper documents (print out of sponsor's 2257 page?) in my possession?

Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me. Kind of having brain cramps after reading all of these pages.

Thanks.

Nina

Well, I think that is the boat that many of us are in. I believe that you need the models documents for all the performers,if you host any of the content. This is how I read it. Now, will the sponsors give that up so we can continue to use it?

[Toby]

Originally Posted by ngb1959

OMG this is confusing as hell...
...Can someone just put it in a nutshell for me.

I'm in the essentially same boat, my main site uses only sponsor content. One of the biggest things that is changing is the definition of secondary producer. Under the revision that takes effect next month we are now classified as secondary producers and must keep the same records as the primary producer, for each and every model in each and every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.

As Katie has already found out, very few sponsors are going to be willing to give out that information to every affiliate.

If the court allows this to stand as written, it will cause major changes within the entire adult industry.

[Barron]

Originally Posted by Toby

every photo set (or portion thereof) you host on your own site.

I'm seeing the phrase photo set used alot. Also, the word server is used alot by people that are posting.

...otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction

The regs are very specific about the word "depiction", that is singular, not plural.

The regs say "computer site or service". It makes no distinction between a "server" where its "located" or "who" the server belongs to or "who the domain belongs to".

If you have an image of sexually explicit conduct and crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction". If you create a banner from a hardcore image, your banner is now a "new depiction".

But, that is just my opinion, contact a lawyer for his/her opinion.


_

EDIT:

crop the image to just the girls face, you now have a "new depiction" with nothing sexually explicit in the depiction.


-

[Qon]

thanks for the replies alex... i just wanted to point it out for discussion but i will definitely see what my attorney thinks... i forwarded the full document to her & will of course get her opinion on what i asking. good luck everyone!



...

[terry]

Thanks Alex.