that is the same company that told me they hadn't decided if they were going to release un-blacked out ids or not despite it saying on their page they were new 2257 compliant and I believe they have now publicly stated they won't hand out unaltered ids.

Alex - I dont know where you found that in the regs but if you could point it out Id appreciate it
The only thing I can find is that the secondary producer "may" obtain the documentation from the primary producer - and in fed reg talk which is defined in another reg - "may" means they can but are not required to and would not be in violation if they didnt
Now if they used the word "shall" or "will" then it becomes a reg requirement - again this is all definied in another reg on how to write regs :)

It was in the comments but not in the actual regulations.

Linkster, thanks for your opinion on the "may" thing.

I was wondering about that word because in the section about exemption statements they say a primary producer "may" provide proof to a secondary producer that the content is exempt from 2257. I wasn't sure what that "may" meant.

Yet another vague piece of wording to be challenged in court, I guess.

Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs.

guitar riff
I ain't pulling shit (other than some from my paysite if needed) since I'm in Canada and feel this will not reach me here.

I dont think that could really be challenged as the use of "should" "may" "shall" etc is all throughout the CFRs and has always had the same definitions - I do know of some old legal arguments years ago that blurred the use of the words, but in my "previous life" the use of these words was very strict and had very specific meanings. The writers of the CFRs have general guidelines to follow and some of them include the use of these words. "Shall" means a regulatory requirement, "may" means its allowable but not required, "should" is usually interpreted as "you better have a damn good reason for not doing it"

Hope that helps :)

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18. |dizzy|

It's not all a one way street.

If Lace is charging 25 an hour to look up the models docs that's opportunistic.
I'm still waiting to hear from Greg Gregory for the bulk of id's I'm supposed to have.
Last summer he said they were burried in storage so while I'm still hopeful, I'm seeing my 3 years worth of content club content going away. I haven't gotten any response for my requests.

I'm pulling my lace content anyway. I'm not even hoping for sponsors to provide, but for my content purchased... it's really important.

I could use a list of content providers who have been helpful. I plan on rebuilding in the aftermath with new compliant content. Bigger, better, stronger and compliant!

Photo Gregg has been the best for me on this issue. I sent him one email and he sent me back a link to grab every id and release I need. Whole process from asking to getting took maybe an hour.

Now that is fucked up because these guys have to get their own records in order. Once we know the customers name or email address or order number it's a 10 minute job to supply them. Some don't have that info though, we are talking about people who threw away proof that a teen in porn was over 18. Not the most organised of people.

I think that it's more than fair to charge a reasonable fee in those cases.

|waves|

Well paul, I'm sure your hands are full giving unblocked ID's out to all those who have purchased your content in the past....or, are you going to continue giving out blacked out contact info in the IDs?

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

No one needs NOK info...but addresses seem to be in debate....

Actually I asked a lawyer this question on another forum (I won't post the name of the forum out of respect for GG&J...if you want I can pm you the link Paul) and also asked my lawyer. Both told me that they would be wary to use id with anything blacked out. Not that it necessarily is written definitively in the rules, but it's a grey area and both told me that if I want to be 100% compliant with no doubt that I should use content with nothing blacked out.

Trust me I didn't want to hear this, lol, because I'll be losing over 100 sets because of it. So, I've decided to sit on that content and buy another $1k in content from providers that don't blackout any info.

Another content provider:

Most of their stuff is softcore as is, I doubt it would even raise to the level of sexually explicit, but I'll most likely pull their sets as I'll be the one left twisting in the wind if the DOJ decides they are :D There goes 20 more sets.

I know what it says in the law and some lawyers are going by what it says in the comments.

Point is I'm not giving out documents with addresses of models or their relatives in the case of a UK passport which has the next of kin on the facing page to the holders details. The law does not require it so they can't prosecute you for it, full stop. Comments are not law.

The Czech one does not have this so it's not a problem.

NOK wouldn't be needed, but I'm going to take what my lawyer and another one said regarding blacked out id.

I know lawyers have debated minutia in some areas and there's a lot of grey areas. Ask different lawyers you get different answers, but what mine said made sense. It's far cheaper for me to buy new content that I know for fact will be 100% compliant then pay for a lawyer to defend me against the DOJ if they decide blacked out ids aren't good enough.

Agreed. |lovers|

If I were in your place, I'm not sure I would give out contact information, either.

Then you should be okay, Paul....in one of the other (many) 2257 threads here someone actually called the DOJ and apparently only ONE ID is necessary.

BTW, you are not alone with giving out blacked out IDs. I have many sets from several different companies who have been giving out blacked out IDs for years...

However, according to an AVN article I read yesterday, the FSC's lawsuit states:

" That last point, as well as the prohibition on foreign performers, points up the fact that the new regulations appear to violate several international treaties.

"By excluding foreign-issued identification cards from the list of approved documents to verify a performer’s age and identity, 28 C.F.R. §75.1(b) eliminates the ability of foreign nationals to create expressive works depicting sexually explicit conduct in the United States," the lawsuit argues. "In addition, by requiring the disclosure of personal information without a performer’s consent, 28 C.F.R. §75.2(b) violates the Canadian Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act and the European Union Data Protection Directive of 1998."

Link: http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=231124

It really is confusing as hell, I tell ya...

Yep Gigi, each lawyer comes up with a different grey area for us to worry about. In the end you just have to be as compliant as you can be and hope for the best.

I am happy to say that RBC sent me a bundle of non-santaized model ids today free of charge. There weren't unedited model releases but I do have them in blacked out form from the previous bundle. The ids are a great thing to have with less than a week to go.

As far as banners and thumbs that link to sponsors, why not just censor them and leave them up? surfers will still click.

pony pony pony....where the hell have you been! |whip|

If the original image(s) are hardcore, then censoring, cropping, etc. won't get you out of it.

Promoting hardcore sites with softcore banners is going to be a real treat.

Seems even body fluids fall in the hardcore category. Bukkake was a result of Japanese censorship. So people just removed the actual act and ended up with the girl having 20 cum loads on her face.

As far as Canadian privacy laws, even providing the name might attract fines like $10k-100k per.