2257 regs published in full

[Mr. Blue]

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]

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

[kane]

Hi all,
I lurk a lot here and post occasionally.
I'll be talking to a lawyer in the next few weeks but want to get some peoples thoughts on this.

I don't shoot content, just build sites and tgp galleries so I would be a secondary producer. So it looks like I will have to have all 2257 docs for my content ( I have some of my own that I will have to get the docs for and then get some from sponsers however they plan to work this out.) and I will have to have some kind of a filing system showing the url associated with each pic/video.

These aren't a huge problem. It will be a pain in my ass but I can do it.

My questions are these: It said that this new filing system was only for sites/content produced after the active date. In this case june 23rd of next month ( oddly enough that's my birthday - a nice little birthday gift ) so does that mean I will only have to have this filing system for the sites I build after that date, or am I going to have to go back and do this for every site I have built before that date?

Also, they say the related url so can I just put the root www.domain.com and all the content on that domain or would I need to to put in the exact url of every site and every image?

just wondering what your thoughts on these things are.

[Greenguy]

From http://www.xxxlaw.net/

May 24 Update. Today's Federal Register publishes the eagerly-awaited final rule adopting revisions in the Justice Department's regulations in implementation of 18 USC Section 2257. We have compiled a preliminary table contrasting the existing regs, the proposals made last summer, and the final regulations promulgated today. We apologize for any formatting issues in lining up the parallel provisions. The regulations are surprising for both the changes that were made in response to numerous "Comments" submitted by the web community, and for the refusal of DOJ to change some of the most obnoxious provisions. The extensive commentary of Drew Oosterbaan, who heads CEOS, should be read carefully to understand DOJ's rationale. We were particularly troubled by the DOJ reliance on caselaw that is simply not on point to support the overreach of the provisions. Though we happy to see an expression - belated as it is - for the safety of the small businesses operating on the adult Internet, we are saddened that the rhetoric is not backed up by regulations that take the potential of harm into account. The regulations wholly ignore the massive economic cost of the warehousing of gigabyte upon gigabyte of streaming video. There is much more to say in careful analysis, but for the time being, it is important to quickly provide our clients, friends, and surfers with the information posted now. JDO