A thought - what will archive.com mean to the new 2257?
Guess they wouldn't count not being a primary or secondary source. BUT, they will link to your illegal site. Also prove that you weren't legal on time etc.
Guess they wouldn't count not being a primary or secondary source. BUT, they will link to your illegal site. Also prove that you weren't legal on time etc.
Just another brain fart.
ops, they would link to their copy of your illegal site and banners.
There is no on time, everyone is actually illegal currently if they don't have at least an ID. Remember the crazy rules are for June 23 but there are rules that have been in effect since 1995. This is also why all the sponsors refusing to send model ID's are breaking the current law because even though they want you to take it down, if it was up anytime after 1995 you need whatever is called for on that content. One big clusterfuck.
There is no on time, everyone is actually illegal currently if they don't have at least an ID. Remember the crazy rules are for June 23 but there are rules that have been in effect since 1995. This is also why all the sponsors refusing to send model ID's are breaking the current law because even though they want you to take it down, if it was up anytime after 1995 you need whatever is called for on that content. One big clusterfuck.
This is not entirely accurate. Yes the 2257 regs have been on the books in a slightly different format for a number of years. But, in the past, if you were not the primary producer of the material, then you simply needed to have a 2257 link on each page, which would then list all of the content supplier custodians of records. In the past, adherance to 2257 was actually quite easy.
This is not entirely accurate. Yes the 2257 regs have been on the books in a slightly different format for a number of years. But, in the past, if you were not the primary producer of the material, then you simply needed to have a 2257 link on each page, which would then list all of the content supplier custodians of records. In the past, adherance to 2257 was actually quite easy.
The law has been there for years. It was stated that all content since 1995 requires X amount of documentation (1 ID I think) and that the law is RETROACTIVE all the way back to 1995. That means if they come knocking about an image you had up 5 years ago you better have the ID for it.
The law has been there for years. It was stated that all content since 1995 requires X amount of documentation (1 ID I think) and that the law is RETROACTIVE all the way back to 1995. That means if they come knocking about an image you had up 5 years ago you better have the ID for it.
Wrong about the ID requirement in the existing 2257 regs, unless you were the producer of the content.
But anyhow, I too am interested in this txt file that will remove sites from archive.com
Pages shown on their archive are on their server.. not yours..
It may show what you had in the past, but if the current content on your server is ok, then shouldn't be a problem..
Unless the feds really wanna mess with someone..
I have a feeling they're gonna be checking the tgps and sites with lots of pics and even then on a random basis..
Comment