2257 News

[RawAlex]

Hmmm... Toby, I would wait until the final deal is done. I think you will find that secondary producers may still be required to name a person who is their "custodian of records" even if the only records retained are statements of NOT being a primary producer. It really depends on exactly WHERE the courts, DoJ, and such cut the line, which words get removed / crossed out / erased and which ones are allowed to stand.

The whole deal will need another good reading once the whole deal is played out - and that doesn't even consider the amendments and such that certain members of the senate have put forward recently.

Toby, US law does work that way. They don't have to prove you as a primary producer, the presence of a website and no clear 2257 notification would be enough to allow them to, for purposes of a inspection, to come to you and inspect. Again, depending on exactly which words get crossed off, you may be OBLIGATED UNDER LAW to make such a statement, because you site has sexual images on it, even if you are not the primary producer on any of it. How else would they know? Think about it.

Alex

[lassiter]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Again, depending on exactly which words get crossed off, you may be OBLIGATED UNDER LAW to make such a statement, because you site has sexual images on it, even if you are not the primary producer on any of it. How else would they know? Think about it.

Alex

I agree it's all up to what the final wording is - but it seems to me that a secondary' producer's sole obligation would (should?) only be to link to the relevant sponsor or primary producers' 2257 info page, and of course to have signed licenses for any sponsor or non-sponsor content on hand if there ever was any question. But I'm not sure the idea of 2257-based "snap inspections" of people not defined as primary producers is gonna hold, since if the issue is indeed about potentially underage performers, a secondary producer clearly has no control over the knowledge of that. Not that primary producers ever did or ever will, either, given the Tracy Lords fake-ID type of scenario, but the burden is, and should be, on them to get and maintain the records and not to knowingly distribute content that doesn't meet the standards required of primary producers.

And of course, all the above could be a bunch of irrelevant horse pucks anyway if the dreaded Hatch bill gets any legs.