2257 regs published in full

[swedguy]

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

[Sinistress]

Originally Posted by swedguy

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

Yeah exactly, and the way that they define "Manage" ....technically would a lot of us not fall under "those who manage solely advertising" ????

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by swedguy

Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

The way I read it - the thumb TGP would be publishing the thumb. If they publish the thumb then they are also considered a producer. Therefore they must have the proper documentation in their files.

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

The way I read it - the thumb TGP would be publishing the thumb. If they publish the thumb then they are also considered a producer. Therefore they must have the proper documentation in their files.

Google Images also publishes the thumb. Both could be considered "electronic communication service providers" (traffic sources). Google Images and a thumb TGP is basically the same thing, except Google Images has more ads than a thumb TGP.

But this part may be where a thumb TGP get included as publisher:

snipped from the section Sinistress posted: "...editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service"

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

[cellinis]

Originally Posted by swedguy

Google Images also publishes the thumb. Both could be considered "electronic communication service providers" (traffic sources). Google Images and a thumb TGP is basically the same thing, except Google Images has more ads than a thumb TGP.

But this part may be where a thumb TGP get included as publisher:

snipped from the section Sinistress posted: "...editorial or managerial decisions concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service"

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

Doesn't google (or any other search engine) make an editorial decision (based on their algorithms if not human intervention) on what kind of content from what site they publish?

As it is google uses our content (without any regards to copyrights) to sell its own advertisments around and now they should be exempt from a law that nearly puts half of us out of business?

Okay, I may sound pretty cheesed about it. I just paid a fortune to my lawyer |shocking|

[Chop Smith]

Originally Posted by swedguy

A thumb TGP makes editoral decisions regarding what they post, SE's don't.

So if you were on the jury, you would conclude that the Thumb TGP made an editorial decisions to publish the thumb supplied to him by a submitter?

I have a few sites with thumbs from free hosted galleries and hosted free sites. I bet I will take them down by 06/23.

[swedguy]

Originally Posted by Chop Smith

So if you were on the jury, you would conclude that the Thumb TGP made an editorial decisions to publish the thumb supplied to him by a submitter?

I have a few sites with thumbs from free hosted galleries and hosted free sites. I bet I will take them down by 06/23.

I don't know anything about this really, I'm just trying to understand it a little bit better before I get some news from the lawyer. So don't take anything I say seriously, I'm just a pronographer

To me there is no real difference between Google Images and a thumb TGP. Both provides the same service, both stores the images locally.

But if there is a difference (legally) between for example Google Images and a thumb TGP, I would say that it is because we choose what we want on the site. Google spiders the web and just adds what it finds, with no editing.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by swedguy

To me there is no real difference between Google Images and a thumb TGP. Both provides the same service, both stores the images locally.

But if there is a difference (legally) between for example Google Images and a thumb TGP, I would say that it is because we choose what we want on the site. Google spiders the web and just adds what it finds, with no editing.

One uses an "AI and the other uses a real person(plus scripts) to do the editing, maybe.

Also there seems to be an indication that they don't want to persure dynamic generated pages. Might be a hole that people can exploit. If so, TGPs/MPGs/LL might have to start allowing it if they want any WM content for their sites.

I don't have a problem with the record keeping for the most part, except, for the putting addresses on the web pages part where the general public can access them.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by swedguy

Sinistress, I've been stuck on that part for the last 10 minutes too

Taken from xxxlaw's http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm :

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

(ii) Mere distribution;

(v) A provider of an electronic communication service or remote computing service who does not, and reasonably cannot, manage the sexually explicit content of the computer site or service.


Doesn't it sound like it could make Google Image not a producer?

If it is, why wouldn't a thumb TGP be included there too? The only thing they are doing is distributing.

Google image is a producer. If you read through the entire text, there was some attempts made to make exceptions for certain types of activities, but that the DOJ stopped short of creating exceptions because they knew us sneaky little bastards would drive a truck through any little hole they created.

For a thumbtgp, it's pretty clear. You have images on your website, thumbs you have created (a new image!), and therefore you need 2257 documents for any sexually explicit image.

Now if you think going softcore will help you out, your not entirely right. If the image was originally hardcore (you have to store and indentify the original image) or came from a hardcore set, it may be subject to 2257. If any other images on your site are hardcore (even on banners) they could consider your publication to sexually explicit, and as such, require 2257 for all images.

Basically, you need a model release for every image, every time, without exception.

Thus, thumbtgps are really in the shit.

Alex

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

If any other images on your site are hardcore (even on banners) they could consider your publication to sexually explicit, and as such, require 2257 for all images.

Where do read this in the regulations? Can you provide any citations to back this up?

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Basically, you need a model release for every image, every time, without exception.

While most model releases I've seen include some of the information required under 2257 like stage names and a written description of the ID cards that are included, isn't the bulk of the typical boilerplate adult model release "other records" that are required to be segregated (28 CFR 75.2 (e)) under the regulation?

28 CFR 75.2 (e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain other records, and shall not be contained within any other record.