2257 regs published in full

[Barron]

the 2257 regs require our address.

Look what happened to this women and she is "not" in the adult industry.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/TECH/interne....ap/index.html


_

[wishmaster]

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/

[Toby]

Originally Posted by wishmaster

does everone think this 2257 would fly ?

http://www.4pornsex.com/2257/

No, not for content you host yourself, regardless of the source. You'll now be required to maintain copies of all of the model records, just like the primary producer you purchased the content from, and your 2257 Compliance Statement would only include your own name and address (your primary place of business).

[Chop Smith]

Damn sure has lots of altitude and will probably catch a good tail wind.

[RawAlex]

You should check with your attorney, but as far as I can tell R-Rated movies, Playboy Magazine, National Geographic, and the Sears Catalog will still be exempt from the Recordkeeping Requirements of 2257.

Airdick, sorry, but you are hitting 3 different situations here.

Sears catalog - fully clothed. End discussion.

National Geographic - reporting news. Different rules.

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Playboy - paying models to get naked including showing the area of pink - 2257.

Don't spend time trying to DODGE it. Your reward for failing is 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison.

ALex

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by airdick

I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by SirMoby

Please DO NOT show disrespect to RawAlex here.

My comments was a bit flippant, perhaps it wouldn't have come off sounding rude if I'd included a smily. I don't harbor any ill will towards Alex or anyone else on this board, and I certainly have nothing against Canadians. If I hurt anyone's feelings I apologize.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by airdick

You're mistaken - the definition is very specific and I've cited the relevant portion of the regulations to support my claim. Is there a portion of 2257 where the definition of "actual sexual conduct" is expanded beyond what is spelled out in (h)?

It would seem that the FSC agrees as well. I'm not even sure why I'm bothering to argue US Law with a Canadian webmaster.

Airdick, no offense taken. "Sexual conduct"... ahh, well... it's pretty hard to truly determine what is sexual. I agree with FSC in theory.... but a theory and $4 will get you a decent coffee at starbucks. I wouldn't bet my business, my (blank) criminal records, or my (virgin) ass on a theory.

If the girl shows the pink ANYWHERE in a photoset, there is potential that it could be considered sexual conduct, and as such, well...

A full clothed girl sucking on a dildo. Yes? No?

Fully naked girl reading the news? Yes? No?

Topless girl with cum dripping down her face (but no pink no penis). Yes? No?

The nature of the game is a judgement call. In the same way that obscenity was a judgement call, this is a judgement call as well. While the definition appears to be more clear, there is no way to know how a DOJ official or a southern district federal judge might look upon your content.

It isn't just about "getting around" or "just getting by" but about being bullet proof so if you get the knock on the door (and in theory, everyone is suppose to get a knock sooner or later) you won't be freaking out and trying to pack the anal lube.

Play too close to the line, you are VERY likely to fall over it by accident. 5 years for a single undocumented image... think about it.

Alex

[Linkster]

Alex - keep in mind that the inspections will not involve arrests - if the inspections yield that the proper documentation wasnt kept then they can go get a warrant but its not like they break down your door for the inspection and haul you off to jail with them if you dont have them

[Chop Smith]

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

[HornyHeather]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

I don't care if Alex lives in Bumfuck, Mississippi. He has spend considerable time researching this crap and should be appreciated. Never once has he professed to be giving a legal opinion. Personally, I think his opinion is more accurate than the one I paid for.

Keep posting, Alex.

I agree...I paid for 3 opinions and all 3 had different outlooks on it and didnt come close to what I have learned here.

[HornyHeather]

I believe Alex has been the biggest help I have found on any forum, And everything he has said explains exactly what we are reading,Thank you again Alex!

I am thinking that some are trying like hell to find a "WAY OUT" of the 2257.

Plain and simple if you show nude explicit material, you need docs. I know it is a hard pill to swallow, but we have to, look at it in a good way, you will know in your mind that a model you added to your website is Over 18...That would make me sleep better.

[RawAlex]

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?

Ask Mike Jones about inspections.

Alex

[Useless]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Linkster, the inspectors will come, and if you don't have the documents, I suspect in round 1 they will sit with you while a warrant is drawn up. Remember also that they can use that time to look for other felonies... so who knows what they might find?

The most they can get me on is allowing my dogs' licenses to lapse. What sort crimes could they possibly search for while in a webmaster's home? The regulations may allow them to pursue other investigations once they're in, but that doesn't mean that they can start scuttling your home. They still require a damn good reason to go beyond your desk and filing cabinets. Even in these trying times, we haven't lost all of our rights.

[RawAlex]

UW, if your records are on a computer, they could possible ask you for the licenses for your major (ie: microsoft) software on your computer, as an example.

I don't worry about MOST people, but a few people might get caught with a little mother nature on the desk or perhaps an unregistered firearm in plain site or something stupid like that. Basically the rules as written say that an inspection does not invalidate plain site rules nor does it mean that inspectors must ignore obvious felonies.

Your rights don't go away... but they play sort of even, ya know?

Alex

[pornrex]

Just finished reading the article from head to toe.

Being a freesite builder and a hubsite keeper, I find as long as I have hardcopy (disk or paper) evidence to support that I am using legal images as it pertains to 2257 and my purposes, then I should be ok. Also, as long as those hardcopy records are at my place of work and readily available for inspection then I should be fine.

Am I correct in my calculations or am I forgetting anything?

[RawAlex]

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex

[pornrex]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

pornrex: don't forget the cross referenced by url by model name real name stage name etc.

Alex

Can you give me an example? Don't forget I just finished reading this article so my ability to understand plain english is a little strained at the moment.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornrex

Can you give me an example? Don't forget I just finished reading this article so my ability to understand plain english is a little strained at the moment.

Pornrex, it's hard to give an example of a relational database.

Basically, the DOJ wants to be able to look at your records, and find stuff by real name , stage name, alternate stage names, etc.

They also want to be able to say "this URL, there are 4 models in the picture who are they?"

It is something that while it could be done on paper, is better done on a PC, normally in a database type program.

Just having a stack of model releases doesn't make you compliant.

Alex

[RamCharger]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Pornrex, it's hard to give an example of a relational database.

Basically, the DOJ wants to be able to look at your records, and find stuff by real name , stage name, alternate stage names, etc.

They also want to be able to say "this URL, there are 4 models in the picture who are they?"

It is something that while it could be done on paper, is better done on a PC, normally in a database type program.

Just having a stack of model releases doesn't make you compliant.

Alex

Quick update: yes, I'm busy building a program in Java (so the Apple and *nix crowd isn't left behind) to do just this. I was hoping to be done by today, but got snagged into a memorial day vacation by friends for the past few days and just got back. Should be done soon though (hopefully by next week [my friday through sunday this week are tied up]).

[ngb1959]

Got a quick question - what about links to sex store sites?

Is that going to be a no-no too?



Nina

[Sinistress]

There are going to be a lot of unhappy webmasters I think who are spending more time trying to fight/find a way out of this, than get their shit in order...

If people want to fight/find a way out of this, I get it, I'm not even in the US but I'm still going to act as if I am, because with hosting in the US its still a chance I'd rather not take. My traffic is largely US based, and so if I want traffic I'm going to have to comply. I'd rather try to fight the law from the compliant side of the fence.

[Pervy]

---Quote on---

One commenter commented that the requirement that the statement
appear on the home page of a Web site is vague because many web sites
operate with subdomains, making the actual homepage or principal URL
difficult to identify. The Department declines to adopt this comment.

Subdomains, as the name implies, are URLs that share the top-level
domain name's basic URL and have additional identifying address
information to provide additional content on a separate Web page. Each
subdomain thus has its own homepage
and each homepage must feature the statement. For example, http://www.usdoj.gov is the full domain name of the Web site of the Department
of Justice. http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal is the Web page of the Criminal Division, which is hosted by the Department's Web site.

Under this rule, http://www.usdoj.gov would be required to have a statement and that statement would cover anything contained on http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal.

However, http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov is a
subdomain of the full domain http://www.usdoj.gov and would be required to have its own statement on that page, which would then cover any
material on a Web page linked to it, such as http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/ovc/
, the Web page of the Office for Victims of Crime.

---end quote---

The way I read the above it seems that you only need one compliance notice per domain and one per subdomain.

So long as all the content contained on those domains is compliant.

[RawAlex]

Pervy, that is why the requirements from some TGPs and link sites for there to be a 2257 disclosure on every gallery or free site is overkill. Even the DOJ knows how to get to the root of a domain.

Alex