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.

Just thought I'd post that Greg-gregory came through with my id's this morning. |waves| Right on.