2257 quote - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

besterman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 623
Share

Post
#1

2257 quote

06-23-2005, 11:01 AM

"The new rules would require anyone who posts a sexually explicit image or video on the Net to also publish the address where copies of the release forms and the model's photo identification can be located, so that the records can be checked by U.S. federal agents""

WHAT's the bottom line? Do affiliates have to post a link to 2257 of their sponsor or PHYSICALLY MAINTAIN THE MODEL RECORDS AT THEIR OWN ADDRESS???
Tags: None
NaughtyRob

Two fresh affiliate progs

Join Date: Nov 2004

Posts: 29602
Share

Post
#2

06-23-2005, 11:02 AM

Where have you been the past month?

[email protected]
Skype: 17026955414
Vacares Web Hosting - Protect Your Ass with Included Daily Backups
Comment
dopeman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2005

Posts: 294
Share

Post
#3

06-23-2005, 11:03 AM

Originally posted by besterman

"The new rules would require anyone who posts a sexually explicit image or video on the Net to also publish the address where copies of the release forms and the model's photo identification can be located, so that the records can be checked by U.S. federal agents""

WHAT's the bottom line? Do affiliates have to post a link to 2257 of their sponsor or PHYSICALLY MAINTAIN THE MODEL RECORDS AT THEIR OWN ADDRESS???

if YOU post the image, YOU are the secondary publisher. YOU need to have IDs and YOU need to post your address on your website.

yes.
Comment
StuartD

Sofa King Band

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 29903
Share

Post
#4

06-23-2005, 11:06 AM

This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter
Comment
besterman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 623
Share

Post
#5

06-23-2005, 11:13 AM

Originally posted by dopeman

if YOU post the image, YOU are the secondary publisher. YOU need to have IDs and YOU need to post your address on your website.

yes.

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?
Comment
basschick

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2001

Posts: 2540
Share

Post
#6

06-23-2005, 11:16 AM

it IS the law as of yesterday.... it is NOT being repealed today. the fsc has come to a temporary agreement with the doj which will apply to their members.

Got Gay and For Women Traffic?
Comment
Matt 26z

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Apr 2002

Posts: 18481
Share

Post
#7

06-23-2005, 11:16 AM

Depends who you ask.

Some believe 75.2 A as being for primary producers only, and 75.2 B as being for secondary only. Either way secondary still has to keep ID's on file no matter what (and have been required to for many years actually), but some other requirements would not apply if that is true.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#8

06-23-2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by besterman

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?

Have even READ the new regs? 3rd party record holders are FORBIDDEN.
Comment
StuartD

Sofa King Band

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 29903
Share

Post
#9

06-23-2005, 11:16 AM

Originally posted by besterman

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?

Must be a cozy rock you've been hiding under.

This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter
Comment
tranza

ICQ: 197-556-237

Join Date: Jun 2003

Posts: 57559
Share

Post
#10

06-23-2005, 11:21 AM

This is so funny...

I'm just a newbie.
Comment
besterman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 623
Share

Post
#11

06-23-2005, 11:22 AM

Originally posted by Matt 26z

Depends who you ask.

Some believe 75.2 A as being for primary producers only, and 75.2 B as being for secondary only. Either way secondary still has to keep ID's on file no matter what (and have been required to for many years actually), but some other requirements would not apply if that is true.

So to summarize, is it true that secondary publishers like say a sponsor, is in the *same boat* as an affiliate promoting that site or there are still some differences?

It is obvious that if the sponsor has the 2257 records and you are using the 2257 compliant images on your site, it should follow logically that your images which come from that sponsor's site (hardcore or softcore) are *also* compliant.

Why wouldn't it simply be required for affiliates to simply link to 2257 info and put the onus on the sponsor to get the record for that thumbnail, etc.. it would seem far simpler and the end result is exactly the same
Comment
whorehole

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2004

Posts: 299
Share

Post
#12

06-23-2005, 11:25 AM

youre talking about logic and simplicity- something the doj doesnt understand.

Welcome to hell, get used to it
Comment
besterman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 623
Share

Post
#13

06-23-2005, 11:28 AM

Originally posted by whorehole

youre talking about logic and simplicity- something the doj doesnt understand.

Welcome to hell, get used to it

I wonder how prosecutions would occur....Wouldn't they have to prove that your images are of people that are under-age, say even a 60 year old man or woman in a hardcore shoot? Who is going to stand in court and convict somebody for showing a 60 year old hardcore image when it is clear it is not illegal, even when the SPONSOR's website can show it because they have the record?

Seems to me this means sponsors have more power to show hardcore and affilaites will lose sales to the sponsor's own site.
Comment
StuartD

Sofa King Band

Join Date: Jul 2002

Posts: 29903
Share

Post
#14

06-23-2005, 11:36 AM

Originally posted by besterman

I wonder how prosecutions would occur....Wouldn't they have to prove that your images are of people that are under-age, say even a 60 year old man or woman in a hardcore shoot? Who is going to stand in court and convict somebody for showing a 60 year old hardcore image when it is clear it is not illegal, even when the SPONSOR's website can show it because they have the record?

Seems to me this means sponsors have more power to show hardcore and affilaites will lose sales to the sponsor's own site.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/search.php

Type in 2257 into the search field and you can follow up on the other 6000 times all this stuff has been discussed already.

This is me on facebook
This is me on twitter
Comment
besterman

Confirmed User

Join Date: Jan 2003

Posts: 623
Share

Post
#15

06-23-2005, 11:37 AM

Originally posted by NichePay - StuartD

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/search.php

Type in 2257 into the search field and you can follow up on the other 6000 times all this stuff has been discussed already.

Ok thanks, I'm just looking for the bottom line, I don't care about 6000 messages...
Comment
bdld

$100,000

Join Date: Dec 2001

Posts: 11452
Share

Post
#16

06-23-2005, 11:52 AM

the bottom line is you're fucked.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...