2257 regs published in full

[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.


-