2257 regs published in full

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

...a softcore image in a series of hardcore images could be contrued as being part of a sexuality explicit photoset.

Definitely some food for thought. Under that interpretation even if I had a 100% non-explicit adult site, I'd still need to have to a statement from the original producer of each "set" stating that it is non-explicit. That's where I begin to have constitutional issues with 2257. This quickly becomes a situation of guilty until proven innocent.

I wish the FSC success in getting the court to throw this out.

[RawAlex]

Heather, depends on who you are shooting for. If it is for your own website, then you are a primary producer or at worst secondary producer either way you have to have records at your place of business. No third party record keepers will be allowed.

SirMoby: I might be wrong, but my take is this:

1 - They don't require 2257 per image, but one 2257 document per session. In other words, shoot 100 images, you still only need 1 document - but you need a cross referenced list to all of those images.

2 - If there is sexually explicit content, you need a 2257 document.

3 - because of 1, the document in 2 would cover all the images and imply sexual content.

My feeling is that once you require 2257 for a set, all the images in it may be part of a sexually explicit production, and therefore cannot be seperated out.

Remember also that the image is defined by it's initial production. A girl getting fucked in a picture is getting fucked - even if you crop down only to her face, the initial image is sexually explicit and therefore subject to 2257 - and your records would indicate this.

Me thinks tough times ahead for thumb tgps.

Alex

[SirMoby]

RawAlex,

If the primary producer shot 101 photos and sells me 100 non-sexually explicit photos I have no way of knowing about photo # 101 and certainly have no way of knowing if it's explicit or not.

All I have is what the producer sent me. I'm not publishing or reproducing anything explicit even though that set could be sold to someone else as explicit.

I think the thumbnail TGPs might be in the same boat. If they crop explicit images to make thumbs then they would be required to keep records. If someone else submits a non-sexually explicit thumb then the TGP owner is not reproducing something explicit.

[guitar riff]

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

[guitar riff]

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

[RawAlex]

Sir Moby, I think ignorance is rarely an acceptable defence.

Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

The key is "other matter". A series of photo images is "other matter" - and this is doubly clear if the photoshoot was also videotaped.

Let me go a little further. Let's say you have a thumbtgp with 200 thumbs, all of them very softcore head shots, and one banner add with a girl suck a dick.

You have published a document with "one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct". You now need to have documentation for EVERY image on the page.

Worse, if any 1 of those 200 thumbs is in fact an explicit image (known or unknown) then you again fall in it for all of the images.

It's not funny.

Alex

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

[cellinis]

Just read it and can't make neither a head nor tail out of it! Another job for the lawyer I would say
A simple question to those more knowledgable... I post a gallery (video or picture) or a free site then I must have the physical 2257 records stored at my place and mentioned on my own domain, right?

[Emperor]

Hi guys,

I read a lot about softcore thumbs, cropped images, banners, etc.

But what about a text link site with no images ? That is to say not one single image on the entire page/site.

The text links would of course lead to hardcore galleries, external galleries that are not owned by the text link site.

What do you think ?

Emperor

[guitar riff]

You shouldnt need any info for text links because you are not diplaying sexually explicit content.

[guitar riff]

That brings to another point what is deemed as sexually explicit ??

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

Also wondering how these rules will be applied retro-actively...I know I'll have to go through some odd 300 galleries or so and make it complient (As I just 2257'ed to the sponsor 2257), but with the rules of most TGP that means blacklisting, lol.

The only thing I'm wondering about is that someone mentioned there might be a grey area where gallery makers / freesite designers wouldn't be secondary producers, but from my reading of it we are.

[Emperor]

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

I think that using sponsor-provided content is no different than using content you bought or even produced yourself. If you make a gallery with it and make that gallery available to the public you need the documentation.

I see what you're saying about posting the 2257 notification on the gallery page itself, man that will not only look ugly but it will have your personal information on it as well.

Soon we'll hear stories about people protesting (and probably getting violent) outside someone's home, and that they got their address from a sexy gallery.

Emperor

[kane]

Hi all,
I lurk a lot here and post occasionally.
I'll be talking to a lawyer in the next few weeks but want to get some peoples thoughts on this.

I don't shoot content, just build sites and tgp galleries so I would be a secondary producer. So it looks like I will have to have all 2257 docs for my content ( I have some of my own that I will have to get the docs for and then get some from sponsers however they plan to work this out.) and I will have to have some kind of a filing system showing the url associated with each pic/video.

These aren't a huge problem. It will be a pain in my ass but I can do it.

My questions are these: It said that this new filing system was only for sites/content produced after the active date. In this case june 23rd of next month ( oddly enough that's my birthday - a nice little birthday gift ) so does that mean I will only have to have this filing system for the sites I build after that date, or am I going to have to go back and do this for every site I have built before that date?

Also, they say the related url so can I just put the root www.domain.com and all the content on that domain or would I need to to put in the exact url of every site and every image?

just wondering what your thoughts on these things are.

[Greenguy]

From http://www.xxxlaw.net/

May 24 Update. Today's Federal Register publishes the eagerly-awaited final rule adopting revisions in the Justice Department's regulations in implementation of 18 USC Section 2257. We have compiled a preliminary table contrasting the existing regs, the proposals made last summer, and the final regulations promulgated today. We apologize for any formatting issues in lining up the parallel provisions. The regulations are surprising for both the changes that were made in response to numerous "Comments" submitted by the web community, and for the refusal of DOJ to change some of the most obnoxious provisions. The extensive commentary of Drew Oosterbaan, who heads CEOS, should be read carefully to understand DOJ's rationale. We were particularly troubled by the DOJ reliance on caselaw that is simply not on point to support the overreach of the provisions. Though we happy to see an expression - belated as it is - for the safety of the small businesses operating on the adult Internet, we are saddened that the rhetoric is not backed up by regulations that take the potential of harm into account. The regulations wholly ignore the massive economic cost of the warehousing of gigabyte upon gigabyte of streaming video. There is much more to say in careful analysis, but for the time being, it is important to quickly provide our clients, friends, and surfers with the information posted now. JDO

[PR_Tom]

Originally Posted by swedguy

The "associated" part makes it kinda vague.

Is associated the root of the domain? http://www.domain.com/
A site: http://www.domain.com/site1/
The page where the pics are linked from: http://www.domain.com/site1/page1.html
Or the picture itself: http://www.domain.com/site1/01.jpg

Well, it says "a copy of any URL associated with the depiction", so I would say if you use "01.jpg" on "test.html", then you'd list the full url to "test.html". If you cant see "01.jpg" from "index.html", then it's not associated with the depiction in my view. If it is, then the entire internet is associated also.

[bdld]

what are your thoughts about linking to a sexually explicit video? A simple text link leading to a .wmv file?
what about an image of a face leading to a movie file?

[Boogie]

Yeah I'm also interested in how sites like my link list, which only uses text, will be affected.

I dont see any specifics on that.

[Tommy]

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

[f69j69b]

Originally Posted by Tommy

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

sounds good to me

[HornyHeather]

Originally Posted by Tommy

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

I agree also

[flyeruk]

Originally Posted by Tommy

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

Good idea

[RawAlex]

Tommy, I love the idea. I have already in the past asked sponsor program to provide information regarding their sponsor content, and how they will handle this situation. I am sure that some will provided the needed documents, and others will ask for all content to be removed (effectively removing the right to use the content).

Boogie, text links, text based sites, and such have NOTHING to do with 2257, except possibly for images using in site design, advertising, and such (and advertising is questionable, as it is not "editorial" material).

bdld: Linking to a movie a picture, whatever, if you link to something on your own servers, then you need documentation for each performer and all the rest that goes with it. Image, movie, clip, flash, whatever... the rules are the same. If you publish it, you are responsble for it - no matter who actually created it.

The issue is most problematic when we talk about thumbtgps - even something like remotely served thumbs. If you publish them (make the integral to your site) are you in fact a secondary producer? I think that without proof to the contrary, everything that appears to be on your domain is going to be your problem.

We will see.

Alex

[SexVideoContent]

Originally Posted by Tommy

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

anybody else like the idea

This sounds like a very good idea to me.

[Tommy]

I wonder how google will deal with this