Quote:
|
Originally Posted by RawAlex
Again, depending on exactly which words get crossed off, you may be OBLIGATED UNDER LAW to make such a statement, because you site has sexual images on it, even if you are not the primary producer on any of it. How else would they know? Think about it.
Alex
|
I agree it's all up to what the final wording is - but it seems to me that a secondary' producer's sole obligation would (should?) only be to link to the relevant sponsor or primary producers' 2257 info page, and of course to have signed licenses for any sponsor or non-sponsor content on hand if there ever was any question. But I'm not sure the idea of 2257-based "snap inspections" of people not defined as primary producers is gonna hold, since if the issue is indeed about potentially underage performers, a secondary producer clearly has no control over the knowledge of that. Not that primary producers ever did or ever will, either, given the Tracy Lords fake-ID type of scenario, but the burden is, and should be, on them to get and maintain the records and not to knowingly distribute content that doesn't meet the standards required of primary producers.
And of course, all the above could be a bunch of irrelevant horse pucks anyway if the dreaded Hatch bill gets any legs.