2257 regs published in full - Page 2

HornyHeather · 2005-05-24, 11:36 AM

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 11:54 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HornyHeather

Thank you Alex, I read it, but wanted to hear it from someone else...

Heather, more importantly, your business address must be published as part of your 2257 declaration online. It isn't just about telling the goverment (you don't actually have to register or anything) but you do have to have that valid address on your site(s).

Something tells me there is going to be a rush on business rentals this month.

Alex

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 11:28 AM

Mr Blue, you are correct. Sponsors will be required to either provide the documents of require that the content be pulled no later than June 23rd, 2005, and that for all images produced or published since July 3rd, 1995.

Effectively, we will all be required to go back to all sponsor content sites we have an either obtain sponsor content 2257 documents or remove the content.

Further, for those playing the "I am not in the US" deal, remember that "including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing." as a secondary or primary producer. Thus entering into a contract to promote a site (becoming an affiliate) os a US based program, or a program operated by a US citizen, or a site processed by a US company, or a site hosted by a US company makes you contractually obligated to follow the new rules. Basically, if any part of the production, distribtuion, whatever touches the US, you are obligated REGARDLESS OF WHERE YOU LIVE.

I am not clear on the implications for sponsor programs that accept traffic from sources that are not 2257 compliant.

Alex

HornyHeather · 2005-05-24, 11:57 AM

Alex maybe for the bigger guys, but us smaller webgirls are a bit different...

I am questioning the fact of keeping my records at a close friends? He actually does content with me, You think I could do that?

Sinistress · 2005-05-25, 01:33 PM

Okay, another question... this time about the exemption clause (around the very bottom of the document)

(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.

Isn't what this means that freesite builders etc simply have to affix a statement saying basically that we are exempt, and give a link to the primary producer's 2257 stuff?

I suppose it would still be in a webmasters best interest to ensure that they have the stuff on hand, but it would save a lot of us from having to actually publicize our home addresses, wouldn't it?

RawAlex, thoughts?

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 12:20 PM

Heather, depends on who you are shooting for. If it is for your own website, then you are a primary producer or at worst secondary producer either way you have to have records at your place of business. No third party record keepers will be allowed.

SirMoby: I might be wrong, but my take is this:

1 - They don't require 2257 per image, but one 2257 document per session. In other words, shoot 100 images, you still only need 1 document - but you need a cross referenced list to all of those images.

2 - If there is sexually explicit content, you need a 2257 document.

3 - because of 1, the document in 2 would cover all the images and imply sexual content.

My feeling is that once you require 2257 for a set, all the images in it may be part of a sexually explicit production, and therefore cannot be seperated out.

Remember also that the image is defined by it's initial production. A girl getting fucked in a picture is getting fucked - even if you crop down only to her face, the initial image is sexually explicit and therefore subject to 2257 - and your records would indicate this.

Me thinks tough times ahead for thumb tgps.

Alex

SirMoby · 2005-05-24, 12:40 PM

RawAlex,

If the primary producer shot 101 photos and sells me 100 non-sexually explicit photos I have no way of knowing about photo # 101 and certainly have no way of knowing if it's explicit or not.

All I have is what the producer sent me. I'm not publishing or reproducing anything explicit even though that set could be sold to someone else as explicit.

I think the thumbnail TGPs might be in the same boat. If they crop explicit images to make thumbs then they would be required to keep records. If someone else submits a non-sexually explicit thumb then the TGP owner is not reproducing something explicit.

guitar riff · 2005-05-24, 12:48 PM

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

guitar riff · 2005-05-24, 12:50 PM

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

ArtWilliams · 2005-05-26, 10:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Also with thumbtgp's i bet ya will see alot of them just have faces now .

Also if you didnt know it already but all .com domains are governed by the laws in the state of Georgia so ? is ok say ya live in germany and ya have a .com domain will this affect that certain site I mean since they wont be able to prosecute the offenders for non record keeping can it get yanked off line or ???

Is this true? I would be interested in a URL if you have one. I thought that all domain names were the property of ICANN and we has holders of the names have an exclusive right to use them. ICANN is a international private/public partnership according to my research. This is not to be confused with the contract you have with the company from which you bought the domain and the state of the contract listed in the terms of service or user agreement.

More info if you have it please. Thanks.

-- Art

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 12:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by guitar riff

Ok now what about sponsors that have free downloadable content if they are required to know where they are posted HOW IN THE FUCK will they be able to do that ???

I i didnt keep my hair short i'd prolly be yanking it all out right now with this reading LOL

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

Mr. Blue · 2005-05-24, 01:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RawAlex

They don't have to. They are not the publisher of the secondary website, you are. YOU need to have the documents and YOU need to be able to trace the models on YOUR site. You need to know who the primary producer is.

There is no requirement implied for a content producer to maintain a list of every url of every use of thier content as primary producers that I could see.

Alex

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

Also wondering how these rules will be applied retro-actively...I know I'll have to go through some odd 300 galleries or so and make it complient (As I just 2257'ed to the sponsor 2257), but with the rules of most TGP that means blacklisting, lol.

The only thing I'm wondering about is that someone mentioned there might be a grey area where gallery makers / freesite designers wouldn't be secondary producers, but from my reading of it we are.

Emperor · 2005-05-24, 02:14 PM

Quote:

Problem becomes if sponsors want affiliates to use sponsor provided free content then they'll have to provide all the necessary documentation for them to use that content...At least that what it appears to be by the first reading of it. So a 2257 link just to the sponsor won't be enough anymore? From the reading of the terms it looks to be that way.

I think that using sponsor-provided content is no different than using content you bought or even produced yourself. If you make a gallery with it and make that gallery available to the public you need the documentation.

I see what you're saying about posting the 2257 notification on the gallery page itself, man that will not only look ugly but it will have your personal information on it as well.

Soon we'll hear stories about people protesting (and probably getting violent) outside someone's home, and that they got their address from a sexy gallery.

Emperor

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 12:52 PM

Sir Moby, I think ignorance is rarely an acceptable defence.

Quote:

Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.

The key is "other matter". A series of photo images is "other matter" - and this is doubly clear if the photoshoot was also videotaped.

Let me go a little further. Let's say you have a thumbtgp with 200 thumbs, all of them very softcore head shots, and one banner add with a girl suck a dick.

You have published a document with "one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct". You now need to have documentation for EVERY image on the page.

Worse, if any 1 of those 200 thumbs is in fact an explicit image (known or unknown) then you again fall in it for all of the images.

It's not funny.

Alex

cellinis · 2005-05-24, 01:13 PM

Just read it and can't make neither a head nor tail out of it! Another job for the lawyer I would say

A simple question to those more knowledgable... I post a gallery (video or picture) or a free site then I must have the physical 2257 records stored at my place and mentioned on my own domain, right?

guitar riff · 2005-05-24, 01:43 PM

You shouldnt need any info for text links because you are not diplaying sexually explicit content.

guitar riff · 2005-05-24, 01:43 PM

That brings to another point what is deemed as sexually explicit ??

bdld · 2005-05-24, 04:36 PM

what are your thoughts about linking to a sexually explicit video? A simple text link leading to a .wmv file?
what about an image of a face leading to a movie file?

Boogie · 2005-05-24, 05:00 PM

Yeah I'm also interested in how sites like my link list, which only uses text, will be affected.

I dont see any specifics on that.

Tommy · 2005-05-24, 05:02 PM

maybe GG&J should consider making a 2257 section
I think theres gonna be a huge amount of topics on this

like sponsors posting info on their content and hosted gallerys
what webmasters are doing to comply etc etc
this is an important issue and webmasters should have easy access to infomation

anybody else like the idea

f69j69b · 2005-05-24, 05:05 PM

Quote: