Quote:
Originally Posted by sarettah
I did not read all your references but the very first one you had there (sundance) has been effectively canceled by congress with the passage of 4472 which amended the 2257 language to take care of the discrepancies that were revealed in sundance.
The current version requires that if you are responsible for a "sexually explicit" (as defined in 2256) image appearing on a web page than you must keep records. There are one or two exceptions but most of them do not cover most US webmasters.
.
The text of 4472: http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill...bill=h109-4472 Sections 502 and 503 amend the current 2257 requirements
Best advice was already given, get a lawyer!
Taking legal advice on GFY is stupider than Paris Hilton taking legal advice from her publicist. just my  |
Perhaps you can get a some legal advice sarettah ( from a professional ) before sounding stupid...
At the very least I have given case laws regarding the 2257 laws and practical examples...
The 4472 does not void the 2257 nor does it rewrite the term secondary producer. If there is a US law, I have not seen it... Please provide it !!!
The main issues is providing the information within the 2257 record(s) that gives a statement to where to find the "custodian of records" since "secondary producers" do not have the requirement as to have it themselves, but rather a statement on where to find such custodian of records statements.
If I'm not mistaken that is what I have indicated in my efforts on this thread...
I am not against being proven wrong, but rather waisting my time with those who can't bother to do proper research...
If you are an attorney or who has hired one as to take care of their legal requirements ... PLEASE clarify the subject of the 2256, 2257 or the 4472 and give working examples...
Later,
.