2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

xxxjay: You are correct. Any advice given around here is on a "what I think it is" point of view. Contacting a lawyer and getting their advice and working within guidelines they provide is always the best thing.

That being said, there are a ton of questions out there that can be pretty much answered by a plain reading of the rules as published, and this can encourage people to start to work on the things they will need to get things done.

grandmasscrotum: You said "I also think this is one of the bits the lawyers will fight over. "A prudent secondary producer"??" - you have to remember that while there is a whole preamble and discussion of comments received as so on, that is truly not the rules just commentary. The real rules are further down the document and those are the things you need to truly be concerned with. The rest is a narrative that can help you understand what the rules say, but the rules themselves and the wording of those rules are the only things that can truly matter. The guidance provided by the preamble is great, however, at making it easier to understand the DOJ's intent regarding this new rules.

Alex

[Ms Naughty]

Gramma? Me? I don't see any mail

[Gramma]

nah .. GRAMMA .. me

[swedguy]

RawAlex, Thanks

I read through most of it and didn't see anything specific that could be interpreted as a SE and those kind of services. So I figured they want to exempt them in some way, but I guess they didn't. That answered many questions. If they would exempt them in some way, as you said, it could and would get exploited.

[Greenguy]

Those amateur submit sites are technically illegal under the old law (which is why I never started one)

[LowryBigwood]

A lot of good info in this thread, but I'm still not clear on a couple of points.

I've got about 500 freesites online, mostly all sponsor content... I either have to go to every page of every freesite and get 2257 docs on all banners and content, or yank them by june 23rd?

If I was to remove all sexual related images from my servers, I do not have to worry about 2257 or inspections at all? Is that correct?

And, what about hosted galleries, hosted freesites, etc, I can link to them, and not have to worry about 2257 regs, right?

Sorry, if these questions have been answered in detail, I am somewhat confused by all this taking place.

Thanks in advance.

[sue-fl]

My head is spinning! I've only been doing this for a year. Have a little over 100 free sites that I have submitted. Just got my link list site online. Am working on my tgp text site now.

I don't make the bucks like a lot of you do. I do this at home hoping to earn a few extra bucks a months.

Get an office, lawyer wtf?? No way I can make sense of doing that. I don't make enough from doing this to even begin to pay for that.

I'm afraid that the best advice I'm going to be given is to give up all I've done and paid for in the last year.

I also have other people who live with me and my husband works at a very high security job.......so I guess I'm screwed as posting my house address online I don't want to do.

I'm just ranting as I understand very little of this. I don't and would never consider putting anything illegal on line. How the f***k can the goverment get away with screwing up my mind like this?

I guess I'll be out of here by June 23 and that really sucks, because I feel like I'm just starting to get some where and make a few bucks....

[SexVideoContent]

Originally Posted by LowryBigwood

I've got about 500 freesites online, mostly all sponsor content... I either have to go to every page of every freesite and get 2257 docs on all banners and content, or yank them by june 23rd?

If I was to remove all sexual related images from my servers, I do not have to worry about 2257 or inspections at all? Is that correct?

I'm not sure about that for certain but that's what I'm doing. The regs only mention sexually explicit images and video, they don't mention anything at all about html pages and text links without images.

I just hope I don't end up getting my partner accounts all shitcanned after removing the images. Even if I do though it's better by far than the alternative.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by SexVideoContent

I'm not sure about that for certain but that's what I'm doing. The regs only mention sexually explicit images and video, they don't mention anything at all about html pages and text links without images.

I just hope I don't end up getting my partner accounts all shitcanned after removing the images. Even if I do though it's better by far than the alternative.

Here is one other issue: Even if the images on your site are no sexually oriented (IE: you select only the topless images from a photoset) you may still need the documentation unless the primary producer declares the images to be exempt. Basically, if you have an image on your site, you should have documents.

SVC: I don't think any partner account situation will ban you if you contact them with a list of sites you are removing or modifying. I think everyone at this point will be very sensitive to the situation.

Alex

[LindaMight]

So I link all of my images which are thousands, to me and George, and ditch the two other updates that feature anyone else. Now everything, images, mpegs, etc., are strictly the two of us. I get an office, I maintain records for George and myself linking to all images on lindamight.com, including banners, etc. The office space not only is "space", but there's electricity, phone lines, etc. to consider. And I have to be there 20 hours a week? I haven't looked to see if swastikas are appearing on our flags...cuz I thought I lived in the "freedom rings" USA. The USA I was born in is NOT the USA I live in today. Sorry...didn't mean to go on a rant.

Linda

[RawAlex]

Lowry, Sue: First off, remember that there is still 27 days before these new "rules" (I use the term lightly) go into effect. In between now and then, it is likely that someone (probably FSC) will seek and be granted an injunction, as there are contradictory court rulings at play here that need to be resolved. The government is using one ruling that may not be entirely on point versus another ruling (sundance vs reno) that very specifically addressed the type of wording at work here. In case you missed it, Janet Reno as AG attempted to get similar rules and restrictions put in place on secondary producers... the court were not impressed.

That being said, let me try to give you my opinion on your questions, I hope they help:

Lowry, first and foremost, if it isn't on your servers, then you didn't publish it. If you didn't publish it, it isn't your problem. Hosted galleries, hosted free sites, whatever - those are the responsilbity of those people who made and published them, not you. In a similar fashion, a text link list or tgp is pretty much a safe bet at this point from what I can see. Thumbtgps are going to be a whole other kettle of fish I think.

All your sponsor content free will require 2257 documents, and you will need to list urls per image, cross reference as per the regulations etc. Sponsor content, purchased content, or content you shoot yourself - the rules appear to be all the same in all cases as the publisher.

Basically, if you don't have the documentation for these things by June 23rd, you are technically breaking the "rules"...

Sue, sadly you are exactly the type of person these new rules are aimed at. The DOJ appears to be attempting to shame you out of business. It is attempting to get individuals to declare their homes as their "business address" for their adult business. If you are unable or uncomfortable providing this information, then I am afraid that you might be sol. I wouldn't run out and shut everything down on the 23rd, but I would be seriously spending the time looking for potions.

I am starting to get a sneaky feeling that this information may be used in other ways to drive people out of business. Once the address is published, could they not turn around and provide that info to local authorities, which could collection buisness taxes and apply zoning laws to your "adult" business?

I am seeing a really weird trend here.

Alex

[Robbo]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

I am starting to get a sneaky feeling that this information may be used in other ways to drive people out of business. Once the address is published, could they not turn around and provide that info to local authorities, which could collection buisness taxes and apply zoning laws to your "adult" business?

I am seeing a really weird trend here.

Alex

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer.

[LindaMight]

Originally Posted by Robbo

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer.

I don't think the video surveillance is the answer to a home office. There are many other considerations regarding the home address other than a possible stalker. Kids being home, the feds visiting, having every spam/advertising/freakazoid out there knowing your address, etc.

Linda

[eksites]

Understanding that this is just "armchairing" at this point, has there been any prelim consensus on purely PG rated cropped thumbs? For example, the top entry at the moment on my anal blog http://www.analsexblog.info/anal-sex-blog is a slightly smart ass commentary on an anal FHG, and the cropped thumb is part of the punchline. I've been planning to go to that type of entry (or thumbs of just a girl's face, etc) as a link to an FHG.

If the pic on my server is pg rated... and not "of an actual human doing actual sex stuff", what's the armchair verdict?

Also... I guess I'll be starting with "story galleries" sooner than anticipated.

[Wenchy]

I've been thinking on this a lot since yesterday (who needs sleep anyway?), and I've come up with the following observations:

1) I would like for someone to explain to me just exactly how in the hell ANY of this is going to protect children!! This isn't about them, it's about legal porn and the fact that a specific group of right-wing politicians don't like the fact that it's so readily available and there's nothing they can do to stop it.

2) IMHO, the US government has finally hit upon a way to do the impossible... police the internet. They've been wanting to do that since Al Gore was around and just hadn't been clever enough to put it all together; thus these changes in the regs.

3) I can't help but notice the irony of the fact that Carl's Jr. can put a commercial on prime-time network TV of a scantily clad P*ris H*ilton all but masturbating and the government doesn't even raise an eyebrow, but credit-card-carrying adults are being told what they can and can't do on the internet (when you get right down to it, the new rules have implications far beyond just WMs - they slap the hands of the over-21 crowd on a global level).

4) Personally I blame the email spammers, the BBSs, the chat rooms (and yes this includes those that are supposedly "monitored"), and Google et al for a lot of this. Unfortunately, WMs who consider themselves businesspersons and who take this seriously are but a small percentage of those tossing porn around on the Net, and now we're paying for the indiscretions and lack of concern of the rest of the group. Anyone who moves forward with these new regs in place may find they have a lot more traffic and revenue in the coming months as the bottom feeders get tossed out and/or arrested (can you say "test case"? I knew you could).

As I said, just my observations. With time I think I've gone from being freaked out and worried to being so pissed off I can't see straight... and something tells me I'm not alone.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Robbo

Of course they`ll take the backdoor approach. Why else would they call it getting fucked up the ass?

And to anyone worried about posting thier home address. Simple solution. Set up video surveillance of your home and or signage declaring so. It`s pretty cheap and easy with a cam and video recorder or even your computer.

And I was thinking a wood-chipper under a trap door on the front step!

On the comment about paying someone a $1 to maintain the records. How about if we hired the content providers to maintain the stuff as they already have it?

[RawAlex]

Airdick, I am not really sure, but I suspect this would mean that you cannot mix your model releases with your accounting information, or mix it with other non-related stuff. In other words, you need a file / cabinet / or database area specifically assigned to the job of model releases 2257 information, and cross reference materials. I know some people who put their model releases with their account stuff (file the model release with the payment info, the production costs, etc, all in one folder). That wouldn't be acceptable anymore I don't think.

Also, read the whole new 75. It is VERY specific as to what needs to be in each record.

Alex

[SirMoby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

In other words, you need a file / cabinet / or database area specifically assigned to the job of model releases 2257 information, and cross reference materials.

I'm thinking about purchasing 2 laptops just for the purpose of maintaining records. Having a backup of the database may not be good enough if you can't get it loaded within a few minutes.

[Sinistress]

Okay nvm that's my misunderstanding (or wishing to read loopholes where there don't seem to be any)

[Sinistress]

I'm all for turning on my cam, but I'm not keen on the idea of video surveillance 24/7... I think if anything that would be even more an invasion of privacy than giving out the address would...

[RawAlex]

1) wasn't the intention. The intention is to drive people out of business.

2) it is the same as using zoning laws to shut down adult businesses. The material is legal (and the DOJ admitted it in the news) but using other laws in agressive ways has the same results as rendering it illegal.

3) we are all stinking pornographers lumped in with the morons that do cp and such. I warned about this many times before, and now it has come true.

4) you are blaming the right people except you forgot the spyware / adult redirect / adult popup people.

Sadly, none of this changes the facts that june 23rd is coming.

Alex

[swedguy]

I just went through my stuff and this is how many pages I found that are associated with one or more than one image: 304,759

Anyone want a job as a 2257 URL Mapping Documentation Specialist?


I think I need to go see the

[Jel]

Another thought - I was in the process of subbing a free site and gathering recips - all those freesites out there that have a recip with an image on them - I'm of the assumption they are also all covered by the new regs, and as such we have to either get the 2257 info, which is impossible, or change a hell of a lot of recips to text based ones

[Barron]

GRRR.... I just stumbled on to a new wrinkle. The definition of "Picture identification card" was changed.

All the content that I have were the model used a foriegn passport, which was legal at the time, is now unuseable. The id card has to be issued in the United States.

There is one more thing I have to weed out because of all this!

When is the injunction going to be filed, I think we are really going to need that.


_

EDIT:

There is a provision for the producer AND the performer if BOTH are not from the United States. But in my case, the producer is in the US so the provision doesnt count. Damn it!

_

[Robbo]

Barron ditto on that! I don`t have photo ids for but a freaction of my content. And I don`t reasonably expect all these content "primary produders" will be stepping up to share all that info with every person that has obtained said content.