How Strict Are You With 2257 Links?

[Mr Spock]

Originally Posted by LusciousDelight

And from the list owner's perspective, isn't a link which a list owner list on his/her linklist very different from actual content?

Certainly , a link list is in a similar position to Google - they don't have any 2257 duties nor do they police porn sites that are indexed. It would be ridiculous to have LL providing a policing function as suggested in this thread.

[horndog]

I don't run a linklist but as a submitter when I use sponser content I have been linking to the sponsers 2257 info. I didn't know I had been doing this all wrong! So when you say use the sponsers 2257 info on your own domain are you basically saying copy the producers that the sponser has listed on their 2257 page but host it on your own domain instead of making it another outgoing link?
Just want to make sure I'm doing this correct way.

[balls_deep]

Originally Posted by horndog

I don't run a linklist but as a submitter when I use sponser content I have been linking to the sponsers 2257 info. I didn't know I had been doing this all wrong! So when you say use the sponsers 2257 info on your own domain are you basically saying copy the producers that the sponser has listed on their 2257 page but host it on your own domain instead of making it another outgoing link?
Just want to make sure I'm doing this correct way.

Well to get down to the nitty gritty of the law... if you host any explicit material on your website you need to have the proper documentation at the place of business listed on your 2257 page. If you do not have the doccuments at the listed address you are in for a world of shit if you ever get inspected.

There have been inspections and I know of a TGP that got inspected and didnt have the required docs, they are in a wold of shit.

linking sponsors 2257 info or listing the person that took the pictures is not legal.

here's some good reading for you http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/2257.shtml

[Licker4U]

If I were making 100K/yr. from free sites I would do whatever it takes to be compliant with 2257. Since I'm seriously shy of that figure, I put the sponsor's 2257 info on a page and serve it from my host. As a small fry I seriously doubt any feds are going to come knocking at my door. That's not to say it can't happen, I just figure the feds are looking for bigger fish to fry. They want headlines. Worst case scenario, I'll hang my head and say "Im sorry your honor, I didn't know how serious this is and did what I thought would suffice".

If anyone is serious about being 2257 compliant, insted of spending 100's of $$$'s for an attorney, I'm sure there are several nationally known attorneys that have already spent the time to compile a list of what needs to be done to comply and can give that info for a fraction of what it would cost do do the research from scratch. If that's not good enough, most attorneys get 200-250/hr. Spend $500 and get the info first hand. The more you have to lose, the more you need to protect what you have.

An afterthought: Most sponsors know the importance of 2257 and should give you all the info you need to be compliant. Everything they have on file for every model if that's what you need. If you have at your place of business everything that they have, you should be compliant.

[LD]

Originally Posted by Mr Spock

Certainly , a link list is in a similar position to Google - they don't have any 2257 duties nor do they police porn sites that are indexed. It would be ridiculous to have LL providing a policing function as suggested in this thread.

And that gets to the heart of the question I think...is a link really content? And if it is not, how far do we have to go in being 2257 compliance officers?