content provider/2257 problem

[abe]

Originally Posted by emmanuelle

There are many non-us webmasters who do not require documentation.
While I think that brokers will be squeezed, many of the actual shooters will move to exclusive only.

I'm a EU webmaster, so I don't care too much about this 2257 documentation debacle (I only care if the model is 18+).
But I will be looking at which providers misuse this situation in one way ore another. And those will not sell a single pic to me anymore.

[tickler]

Tightning up the ID requirements in the lastest flavor is probably playing havoc with what are valid sets also.

[Sarah_Jayne]

that is the same company that told me they hadn't decided if they were going to release un-blacked out ids or not despite it saying on their page they were new 2257 compliant and I believe they have now publicly stated they won't hand out unaltered ids.

[Ms Naughty]

Linkster, thanks for your opinion on the "may" thing.

I was wondering about that word because in the section about exemption statements they say a primary producer "may" provide proof to a secondary producer that the content is exempt from 2257. I wasn't sure what that "may" meant.

Yet another vague piece of wording to be challenged in court, I guess.

[Linkster]

I dont think that could really be challenged as the use of "should" "may" "shall" etc is all throughout the CFRs and has always had the same definitions - I do know of some old legal arguments years ago that blurred the use of the words, but in my "previous life" the use of these words was very strict and had very specific meanings. The writers of the CFRs have general guidelines to follow and some of them include the use of these words. "Shall" means a regulatory requirement, "may" means its allowable but not required, "should" is usually interpreted as "you better have a damn good reason for not doing it"

Hope that helps

[Ramster]

Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs.

guitar riff
I ain't pulling shit (other than some from my paysite if needed) since I'm in Canada and feel this will not reach me here.

Originally Posted by Ramster

Tommy
Good point. We should start a thread on June 24 that does nothing but list content providers that DO NOT provide docs or charge for them. No other posting in the thread at all, just post saying I bought from provider.com and they never gave me the docs or they charged me for the docs.

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

[spookyx]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

I think that it's more than fair to charge a reasonable fee in those cases.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Will I be listed for charging people who I gave the documents to in the first place and when asking for me to replace them didn't have our order number, the right name or email address to help us find their order and in one case was a content thief trying to get documents?

Trying to marry up some of the buyers with their order tookus hours and all becasue they threw away documents. These were the documents that proved our teen model was over 18.

It's not all a one way street.

Well paul, I'm sure your hands are full giving unblocked ID's out to all those who have purchased your content in the past....or, are you going to continue giving out blacked out contact info in the IDs?

Originally Posted by gigi

Well paul, I'm sure your hands are full giving unblocked ID's out to all those who have purchased your content in the past....or, are you going to continue giving out blacked out contact info in the IDs?

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

[gigi]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

No one needs NOK info...but addresses seem to be in debate....

[Mr. Blue]

Originally Posted by Paul Markham2

Can you show me where in the law, new or old it states removing an address of a Next Of Kin is not allowed?

Or even the address of the model?

Actually I asked a lawyer this question on another forum (I won't post the name of the forum out of respect for GG&J...if you want I can pm you the link Paul) and also asked my lawyer. Both told me that they would be wary to use id with anything blacked out. Not that it necessarily is written definitively in the rules, but it's a grey area and both told me that if I want to be 100% compliant with no doubt that I should use content with nothing blacked out.

Trust me I didn't want to hear this, lol, because I'll be losing over 100 sets because of it. So, I've decided to sit on that content and buy another $1k in content from providers that don't blackout any info.

[rollergirl]

If Lace is charging 25 an hour to look up the models docs that's opportunistic.
I'm still waiting to hear from Greg Gregory for the bulk of id's I'm supposed to have.
Last summer he said they were burried in storage so while I'm still hopeful, I'm seeing my 3 years worth of content club content going away. I haven't gotten any response for my requests.

I'm pulling my lace content anyway. I'm not even hoping for sponsors to provide, but for my content purchased... it's really important.

I could use a list of content providers who have been helpful. I plan on rebuilding in the aftermath with new compliant content. Bigger, better, stronger and compliant!

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by rollergirl

I could use a list of content providers who have been helpful. I plan on rebuilding in the aftermath with new compliant content. Bigger, better, stronger and compliant!

Photo Gregg has been the best for me on this issue. I sent him one email and he sent me back a link to grab every id and release I need. Whole process from asking to getting took maybe an hour.

Originally Posted by rollergirl

If Lace is charging 25 an hour to look up the models docs that's opportunistic.
I'm still waiting to hear from Greg Gregory for the bulk of id's I'm supposed to have.
Last summer he said they were burried in storage so while I'm still hopeful, I'm seeing my 3 years worth of content club content going away. I haven't gotten any response for my requests.

I'm pulling my lace content anyway. I'm not even hoping for sponsors to provide, but for my content purchased... it's really important.

Now that is fucked up because these guys have to get their own records in order. Once we know the customers name or email address or order number it's a 10 minute job to supply them. Some don't have that info though, we are talking about people who threw away proof that a teen in porn was over 18. Not the most organised of people.

[Sarah_Jayne]

I am happy to say that RBC sent me a bundle of non-santaized model ids today free of charge. There weren't unedited model releases but I do have them in blacked out form from the previous bundle. The ids are a great thing to have with less than a week to go.

[ponyman]

As far as banners and thumbs that link to sponsors, why not just censor them and leave them up? surfers will still click.

[gigi]

Originally Posted by ponyman

As far as banners and thumbs that link to sponsors, why not just censor them and leave them up? surfers will still click.

pony pony pony....where the hell have you been! |whip|

[tickler]

Originally Posted by ponyman

As far as banners and thumbs that link to sponsors, why not just censor them and leave them up? surfers will still click.

If the original image(s) are hardcore, then censoring, cropping, etc. won't get you out of it.

Promoting hardcore sites with softcore banners is going to be a real treat.

Seems even body fluids fall in the hardcore category. Bukkake was a result of Japanese censorship. So people just removed the actual act and ended up with the girl having 20 cum loads on her face.

As far as Canadian privacy laws, even providing the name might attract fines like $10k-100k per.

[rollergirl]

Just thought I'd post that Greg-gregory came through with my id's this morning. Right on.