Sponsors, Please help! 2257 and Free Content

[Cleo]

Sponsors are not going to start releasing talent's personal info. Doing this would violate other laws in many places.

Angel asked me about this today as she had a few affiliates wanted IDs for the talent in the free content. We both agreed that some affiliates are going to pull her stuff but she is not going to betray the trust of the models she uses by publishing their personal information that was given to her at the time of the shoot with the understanding that this was going to be kept confidential.

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by Cleo

Sponsors are not going to start releasing talent's personal info. Doing this would violate other laws in many places.

It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.

Most of those privacy laws are state, not federal. Since federal law overrules state law in the event of a conflict, 2257 now potentially carves out a major chunk of exception to state privacy laws. But since the only people affected are eevul pornographers and porn talent, state legislators aren't gonna raise any objections.

Remember last year when porn attorney JD Obenberger reported that he had specifically brought this up to Justice Dept. officials? They told him the revealing of private info of models was simply not their concern at all.

The fundamentalist wackos in the Ashcroft/Gonzalez Justice Dept. view all porn models as if they were street hookers, and simply have less than zero concern for their privacy or safety. They hope to dry up the pool of porn talent by deliberately creating a potentially dangerous situation for them.

Hell, how many sponsors really check their affiliates' legitimacy anyway - not that it's really possible, I'll admit. Under the new 2257 rules, any frat boy with $15 for a domain and access to a free or cheap webhost could slap up a temporary page, sign up with 2 dozen sponsors in an afternoon, download tons of free sponsor content, and the sponsors would be required to give him access to the private data of every model on their sites. This clearly is not viable, but aside from the remote possibility of getting the entire thing chucked out of court, it's a situation primary producers are gonna have to deal with for now.

[emmanuelle]

[quote=lassiter]It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.

[quote]


Not when so many people have purchased content from producers located outside of the US. Those producers are under no obligation to hand over the ids, (or are forbidden to) thus leaving the site owners scrambling for replacement content.

[lassiter]

[quote=emmanuelle][quote=lassiter]It's between a rock and a hard place for primary producers then, since the new regs indeed require them to release that info, since secondary producers are required to have it on file.

Not when so many people have purchased content from producers located outside of the US. Those producers are under no obligation to hand over the ids, (or are forbidden to) thus leaving the site owners scrambling for replacement content.

Well, actually, I misspoke, in that NO producer is "required" to hand over any content to an affiliate under 2257. It's just that US-based affiliates won't be able to legally use any content, from either US- or non US-based sponsors, unless the sponsors voluntarily agree to supply the model documentation.

[Linkster]

I dont understand about this private info thing - that has always been required - its just that most secondary producers took the exception so they didnt notice the requirement was already there - there was no change in that part of the statute

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Linkster

I dont understand about this private info thing - that has always been required - its just that most secondary producers took the exception so they didnt notice the requirement was already there - there was no change in that part of the statute

No, but now they deemed that secondary producers should also record it.