Link lists requiring 2257 custodian of records

[Danielle]

Just a heads up to any link lists that reject sites because of the lack of having a 2257 custodian of records.

Well I better say this first. "It's your site so run it the way you want to."

Not all content requires 2257 labeling. So please look at the content to see if it in fact requires 2257 labeling before you reject it.

Have had several link lists rejecting sites for no custodian of records when one is not required by law.

99% of our sites don't use content that 2257 covers so no 2257 label is required. We do use the optional 2257 exemption statement that the regs say can be used, even though we are not required to by law.

I love the idea of link lists listing on legal sites. Just please make sure you are not rejecting a site for not having something the law does not require.

Merry Christmas & Happy Holidays to all.

Hugs,
Danielle

[RawAlex]

Danielle, I never figured this out. Why would anyone care if you have 2257 documents or not? Yes, we want to see legal content (ie, models over 18, nothing specifically illegal, etc) but forcing a 2257 statement is pointless.

In my mind, the people with the most to hide are most likely to put up a 2257 statement that looks correct but is in fact total bullshit.

I am not the DoJ, I am not the FBI, I apply good common sense and that is that.

2257 not required... ever!

Alex

[Danielle]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

In my mind, the people with the most to hide are most likely to put up a 2257 statement that looks correct but is in fact total bullshit.
Alex

Very true. It would be very easy to just put up:

John Doe
123 Main St
Anytown, USA

Hugs,
Danielle

[Xeno]

When all this 2257 crap started in the past I was worried and had it part of my rules of submission...then I came to my senses:

1. Sites submitted are not mine;
2. Im a link directory much like google, etc..so it would mean they need records too if that happened
3. I'm Canada based and have nothing to do or to answer to the USA
4. Plus, many sites have fake, or misleading 2257 statements..etc..
5. To me, if I see content too young, I say no to it anyways...

[Linkster]

Id have to agree - Im not a 2257 enforcer by running a link list - as a matter of fact I would think that anyone requiring that is setting themselves up for more scrutiny and ought to re-think that position - I know I sure wouldnt be submitting to a LL that required anything like that

[MrYum]

When I first started accepting submissions, I had that rule up and enforced it. Haven't been enforcing it for some time now though...will be pulling it off my rules page in a few minutes.

You guys are absolutely right...I'm NOT the 2257 police...was a stupid idea in the first place...doh

[MadMax]

This topic came up once or twice when 2257 was big news a few months ago, and I'll say the same thing I said then.

I don't care, even a little bit, if any of my submitters comply with 2257. Honestly, it's none of my business. If they provide a 2257 link or URL I'm going to check it to make sure it's a real 2257 page with no advertising, and that's as far as I go. Your compliance is your business, as long as you're not trying to sneak in a link to a page full of ads under the radar

[Preacher]

Originally Posted by Linkster

Id have to agree - Im not a 2257 enforcer by running a link list...

I absolutely agree. I don't get the government benfits the DOJ employees do, so why should I do their job for them.

[LowryBigwood]

I agree on the not enforcing 2257, as that's not our job. However, I do use a statement in the long version of my rules like this:

16. By submitting your site, you are stating any images used in your site are properly licensed and in compliance with state 18 U.S.C. 2257.

That's as far as I take it, and don't plan on trying to enforce 2257 in the future either.

[Surfn]

If you read through the link list forum you will see I've never required it. I do think it sad that it takes months for others to come to the realization I've held from the beginning.

[Hellpuppy]

Yeah, 2257 really should be responsibility of only the site owners and those who are direct business partners like the processor.

I'm not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV, but historically the safe ground for link lists and search engine has been to completely avoid exercising anything that might be considered editorial control. If you require 2257 compliance, then you're putting yourself in the position of having your users assume that's responsibility when they're on your site, and perhaps assuming a bit of liability.

That's unlikely and a bit of a stretch, but I dont see any advantage or positive impact from requiring it.

[lassiter]

The only list sites that are gonna potentially have responsibility regarding 2257 data (so far) are thumbnail TGPs. If your links are text only you bear no 2257 responsibilities whatsoever (though you have an ethical, and likely a legal, responsibility not to even text-link link to things that are clearly CP). Like another poster said, if anything about the submission smells funny, a responsible TGP or LL owner isn't gonna list it anyway, 2257 warning or not.

[stuveltje]

i dont care if they have the 2257, btw i dont care if i have the 2257 on my own linksites, all i do care if they have the 2257 link up if it goes to a real 2257 page or a porn page.