Am I responsible for my Affiliates compliance?

[Alphawolf]

18 U.S.C. Û2257 compliance notice

Here's the scoop:

Before I ever saw this site I had the idea:

http://www.babes.net/default.asp

But, I'll be expanding on what is on that site exponentially with a web

forum and buying my own hi-res content to display for the top girls.

Now, I will want to feed traffic to the highest quality sites possible. I'd

say the owner of babes.net and I have very similar taste. Is he on this

board?

Anyways, what are MY responsibilities regarding my affiliates

content?

While this board was down I scanned another board searching about

the celebrity pics question i posted and came across a thread asking

how mrskin.com is legal.

In the thread someone pointed out this site where he said they clearly

have under age girls, but CCBill lets them go 'cos they make a lot of money:

<SNIP>

(Removed URL on my own.)

It's fairly defensive from the get go...

All models displayed on the site are 18 years or older. The

owners and operators of this Website are not the primary producer (as

that term is defined in 18 USC section 2257) of any of the visual content

contained in the Website.

Uh, if they are not the primary producers then how do they now all those girls are 18 or older???

You further acknowledge that our site only contains images

protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. If

you are seeking obscenity or child pornography, please leave our

site.

Isn't this a red flag? If all models are 18 or older and you have the

records then that's it. No need to explain.

They make a statement of fact then say they didn't make the content.

?

All that stated, there are some gorgeous pictures of legal teens and I do believe this site would convert well.

But, what is my responsibility as far as my affiliates being 18 U.S.C.

Û2257 compliant?

I certainly understand the importence of actually buying content and

displaying it on my own domain, the gist is can I get in trouble for an

affiliate that is not U.S.C. Û2257 compliant?

I know I took the long route to ask this question. Sorry. I know it's not

legal advice I'd be getting- I just want experienced opinions on this matter.

TIA

[Greenguy]

Alphawolf -

1 - never, ever post the URL of a site that you suspect has under age content (if it does, then we could be held responsible for linking to it)

2 - I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "affiliate" - to me, an affiliate is someone that's promoting a sponsor program (I have an account with ARS, so I am an affiliate of theirs)

[Alphawolf]

Greenguy,

>1 - never, ever post the URL of a site that you suspect has
> under age content (if it does, then we could be held
> responsible for linking to it)

Point taken- sorry!

>2 - I'm not 100% sure what you mean by "affiliate" - to me, an
> affiliate is someone that's promoting a sponsor program (I have
> an account with ARS, so I am an affiliate of theirs)

Sorry again. As I posted I was not entirely sure (at that point) if my site would be free or a pay site. Hence, I guess I wanted to know from both sides.

To be crystal clear- <g>

If a wesbite states they are compliant with 18 U.S.C. Û2257, then does that mean people who would like to join their rev share programs are safe from legal issues pertaining to *them*?

Simply put- if a web operation gets into a problem with the law, would those who are affilaited with them also have problems regardless of whether they stated they were 18 U.S.C. Û2257 compliant or not?

Thanks...

[Greenguy]

That's a tough one. I was once told by a lawyer that seeing as my site has been around for so long & that becuase it is popular, I could be held responsible for anything I link to - mainly because I am supposed to know what the fuck I am doing (being the professional that I am - LOL)

I would say that if they have the 2257 info posted & it is a legit 2257, then if anything ever did happen, you could plead ignorance - sorta like if you used a laundromat on a regular basis & they ended up busting the guy for selling pot out of the back room (assuming you were there to just do your wash - LOL)

But, I am not a lawyer, so all this is just speculation

[Alphawolf]

>>I would say that if they have the 2257 info posted & it is a
>> legit 2257...

Therein lies the rub though, eh? I'm really surprised this isn't asked more. I mean- being proactive is super important in anything. Moreso, dealing with the above sort of issue.

I don't know the in's and out's of the industry which is why I am here. :-)

Anyone can state they are compliant. "Teen" sites must have to think about this all the time. Unless, they just have enough money to not care and lawyer up if/when an issue arises.

Let me ask a better question:

What would be considered "best practices" WRT 2257 from a traffic pusher's point of view?

I noticed some foreign content providers are very thorough and go out of their way to explain they send an ID kit along with every model set you purchase. This was a really high end Brazillian studio that does custom shoots though.

<shrug> I guess if the "iffiest" domain they have has been registered since '99 and they are hosted by a US ISP like California.net and can get CCbill and state they are compliant, well- that's a lot of layers to get through.

But- ultimately who I feed traffic to is up to me.

[dareutwo]

I'm not a lawyer but Yes you are responsible.

It's your business, you are responsible.
If you hired me to progam you site, would you not be responsible it I added warez to your html headers?