Sponsor content...2257 and Watermarks Question

MrYum · 2005-05-22, 11:34 AM

Good morning GG&J'ers!

When a submitter is using sponsor supplied content...2 questions...

If the submitter links directly to the sponsor 2257 info, there is no real way to determine that the 2257 being used is relevant to the domain/site actually being submitted.

Personally, on the few ocassions where I use sponsor content...I'll either add that sponsors 2257 info to my own 2257 page on my domain. Or, if the sponsors 2257 page is too large...I'll add a link to that sponsors 2257 on my 2257 page.

What are other link list owners thoughts on this? Do you accept 2257 info hosted on another domain that has no discernable connection to the site being submitted?

I'm seeing more and more sponsors that watermark their images with something other than the name of the specific site being promoted. They'll use their company name or something else. So, as a reviewer...I hit the site being promoted...hit the webmaster link...and see if THAT matches up with the watermarks. Sometimes it does...sometimes it doesn't...makes it tough to tell if the submitter is using one sites' content to promote another site entirely.

Again, link list owners thoughts on this issue?

Thanks much for the assist!

Stever · 2005-05-24, 05:51 PM

bump

I've been running into this with the first Free Site I've built and been submitting the past few days. Hense the reason for MrYums post (thanks for listing me!). I am now adding a note to the reviewers about the watermarks to let them know the connection to the sponsor. Been o.k. so far.

Greenguy · 2005-05-24, 06:15 PM

No one can truly answer the question until the new law is enforced.

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 06:36 PM

I think that regardless of watermarks or other (and the new rules specifically discuss that sort of thing) if you publish a website that contains sexually explict material, you need to have records.

The good news? They will accept DIGITAL copies of records, which means instead of paper this can all be done on computer (but you better back that sucker up!). There is some debate if the computer need to be in your place of business, but unless i see otherwise, the most narrow interpretation is the best way to go, which means records at your place of business - not just available remotely over the net.

Your 2257 disclosure has to mention your company your address your contact info a publisher and secondary producer of the content. Sad but true, no way around it that I have seen (unless you have a corporation and hire someone else to do it... more on that later I think!)

Gotta love the US government.

Alex

RawAlex · 2005-05-24, 06:37 PM

Mr Yum, I should add this: Unless the goverment and courts specifically say so, text based link lists should not be playing enforcement games on you. They don't pay me to enforce the law.

Alex

Stever · 2005-05-24, 06:44 PM

Watermark was a seperate question unrelated to 2257.

Also, 2257 question had to do with how people link to it, either their own 2257 page or the sponsors. Not the regulations.

I know that the news aboutt 2257 regs has everyone thinking about it but these questions have nothing to do with the regs. Just reviewers opinions on these two seperate questions.

MrYum · 2005-05-24, 10:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stever

Watermark was a seperate question unrelated to 2257.

Also, 2257 question had to do with how people link to it, either their own 2257 page or the sponsors. Not the regulations.

I know that the news aboutt 2257 regs has everyone thinking about it but these questions have nothing to do with the regs. Just reviewers opinions on these two seperate questions.

Yep, spot on Stevers. Glad that's working out for ya

Thanks GG and Alex...I know the 2257 news is on everyone's mind...for good reason. But, wasn't really asking about the new regs. Was more looking at how people are currently handling providing 2257 on sites using sponsor content.

Now, that the new regs are in place...perhaps all bets are off. But, I can't imagine that anyone is going to try to comply with this lunacy by posting home addresses on sites

So, business goes on...we get our ducks in a row...and see how this thing shakes out over time. In the mean time, we keep building and go about our business...it is a business after all and must be fed to grow.

So, back to the question at hand...how are folks currently handling providing 2257 for sponsor content?

Useless · 2005-05-24, 10:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrYum

So, back to the question at hand...how are folks currently handling providing 2257 for sponsor content?

When I remembered to do so

, I linked to the sponsors 2257 page from the index of my free sites. I've had to copy the info onto my own page a couple of times when the sponsor had links and ads on their 2257 page.

When I review free sites and galleries, the extent of my involvement with 2257 has been the occasional 'good for you' when I notice a 2257 statement.

Toby · 2005-05-24, 10:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrYum

...So, back to the question at hand...how are folks currently handling providing 2257 for sponsor content?

I've found that many sponsors 2257 info is often on the same page as their Terms and other legal info, sometimes even with links, banners and who knows what else. I make a copy of just the 2257 compliance statement and save that as a page named 2257.htm in the same folder as the other html pages of each free site.

If submitting a gallery to a TGP that requires a 2257 link, I just link to the sponsors page. Most of the time I don't include a 2257 link on TGP galleries, as it gets counted as an external link by many submission scripts. I have a "2257" link at the bottom of the index page on the domain used for hosting those galleries that links to the 2257 info for each sponsor.

spookyx · 2005-05-25, 12:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

Most of the time I don't include a 2257 link on TGP galleries, as it gets counted as an external link by many submission scripts.

I hope that changes,

Mefo · 2005-05-25, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Toby

If submitting a gallery to a TGP that requires a 2257 link, I just link to the sponsors page. Most of the time I don't include a 2257 link on TGP galleries, as it gets counted as an external link by many submission scripts. I have a "2257" link at the bottom of the index page on the domain used for hosting those galleries that links to the 2257 info for each sponsor.

just don't link the page and just put http://www.domain.com/2257/ as text there, everybody accepts that

RawAlex · 2005-05-25, 11:02 AM

Actually, the new laws require only a 2257 statement from the root of the domain, so having a 2257 on every tgp page is overkill for the law. I am not in the business of enforcing federal standards, so 2257 statements are up to you in my world.

Alex

MrYum · 2005-05-25, 11:47 AM

Thanks much for the responses folks

Looks like it's one of those up to the individual thangs

Alex, I'm liking your world more and more...lol!

2005-05-22, 11:34 AM	#1
MrYum Arghhhh...submit yer sites ya ruddy swabs! Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sunny Florida! Posts: 5,108	Sponsor content...2257 and Watermarks Question Good morning GG&J'ers! When a submitter is using sponsor supplied content...2 questions... If the submitter links directly to the sponsor 2257 info, there is no real way to determine that the 2257 being used is relevant to the domain/site actually being submitted. Personally, on the few ocassions where I use sponsor content...I'll either add that sponsors 2257 info to my own 2257 page on my domain. Or, if the sponsors 2257 page is too large...I'll add a link to that sponsors 2257 on my 2257 page. What are other link list owners thoughts on this? Do you accept 2257 info hosted on another domain that has no discernable connection to the site being submitted? I'm seeing more and more sponsors that watermark their images with something other than the name of the specific site being promoted. They'll use their company name or something else. So, as a reviewer...I hit the site being promoted...hit the webmaster link...and see if THAT matches up with the watermarks. Sometimes it does...sometimes it doesn't...makes it tough to tell if the submitter is using one sites' content to promote another site entirely. Again, link list owners thoughts on this issue? Thanks much for the assist! __________________ Porno Flixxx Submissions SOTI Site Submissions Free Porn Resource Submissions

2005-05-24, 05:51 PM	#2
Stever Ahhh ... sweet pity. Where would my love life be without it? Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 208	bump I've been running into this with the first Free Site I've built and been submitting the past few days. Hense the reason for MrYums post (thanks for listing me!). I am now adding a note to the reviewers about the watermarks to let them know the connection to the sponsor. Been o.k. so far. __________________ <a href="http://www.fioramall.com/click/sponsor.php?kw_userid=Stever"><img src="http://www.steverslinks.com/images/fiora.gif"</a>

2005-05-24, 06:15 PM	#3
Greenguy The Original Greenguy (Est'd 1996) & AVN HOF Member - I Crop Pics For Thumbs In My Sleep Join Date: Feb 2003 Location: Blasdell, NY (shithole suburb south of Buffalo) Posts: 41,929	No one can truly answer the question until the new law is enforced. __________________ Promote POV Porn Cash By Building & Submitting Galleries to the Porn Luv Network

2005-05-24, 06:44 PM	#6
Stever Ahhh ... sweet pity. Where would my love life be without it? Join Date: Feb 2005 Location: British Columbia, Canada Posts: 208	Watermark was a seperate question unrelated to 2257. Also, 2257 question had to do with how people link to it, either their own 2257 page or the sponsors. Not the regulations. I know that the news aboutt 2257 regs has everyone thinking about it but these questions have nothing to do with the regs. Just reviewers opinions on these two seperate questions. __________________ <a href="http://www.fioramall.com/click/sponsor.php?kw_userid=Stever"><img src="http://www.steverslinks.com/images/fiora.gif"</a>

2005-05-25, 11:47 AM	#13
MrYum Arghhhh...submit yer sites ya ruddy swabs! Join Date: May 2004 Location: Sunny Florida! Posts: 5,108	Thanks much for the responses folks Looks like it's one of those up to the individual thangs Alex, I'm liking your world more and more...lol! __________________ Porno Flixxx Submissions SOTI Site Submissions Free Porn Resource Submissions

2005-05-24, 06:36 PM	#4
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	I think that regardless of watermarks or other (and the new rules specifically discuss that sort of thing) if you publish a website that contains sexually explict material, you need to have records. The good news? They will accept DIGITAL copies of records, which means instead of paper this can all be done on computer (but you better back that sucker up!). There is some debate if the computer need to be in your place of business, but unless i see otherwise, the most narrow interpretation is the best way to go, which means records at your place of business - not just available remotely over the net. Your 2257 disclosure has to mention your company your address your contact info a publisher and secondary producer of the content. Sad but true, no way around it that I have seen (unless you have a corporation and hire someone else to do it... more on that later I think!) Gotta love the US government. Alex

2005-05-24, 06:37 PM	#5
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Mr Yum, I should add this: Unless the goverment and courts specifically say so, text based link lists should not be playing enforcement games on you. They don't pay me to enforce the law. Alex

2005-05-25, 11:02 AM	#12
RawAlex Took the hint. Join Date: Mar 2003 Posts: 5,597	Actually, the new laws require only a 2257 statement from the root of the domain, so having a 2257 on every tgp page is overkill for the law. I am not in the business of enforcing federal standards, so 2257 statements are up to you in my world. Alex