important 2257 info - GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

X

brandonstills

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 1964
Share

Post
#1

important 2257 info

01-18-2008, 05:25 PM

Read this article recently. Some very interesting information.

http://www.xbiz.com/articles/legal/88985

Some of what I got out of it was that the 6th circuit only applies to a small handful of states. California not being one of them.

The other point was that a hyperlink on each page for 2257 is no longer good enough, you have to have the full 2257 on each page.

Here's a link to the code for those of you that actually want to read it.
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text...75_main_02.tpl
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...6----000-.html
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/1...7----000-.html

Brandon Stills
Industry and programming veteran
[email protected] | skype: brandonstills | ICQ #495-171-318
Tags: None
Socks

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 8475
Share

Post
#2

01-18-2008, 05:28 PM

The new rules are so ridiculous there's no way they'll stick. Think, a TGP with 100 models on the page is supposed to also list the 2257 for all 100 models - on the same page as the thumbs? ;)
Comment
brandonstills

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 1964
Share

Post
#3

01-18-2008, 05:32 PM

Originally posted by Socks

The new rules are so ridiculous there's no way they'll stick. Think, a TGP with 100 models on the page is supposed to also list the 2257 for all 100 models - on the same page as the thumbs? ;)

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it only means you have to have the custodian of records listed, not their actual confidential information.

Brandon Stills
Industry and programming veteran
[email protected] | skype: brandonstills | ICQ #495-171-318
Comment
L-Pink

working on my tan

Join Date: Mar 2005

Posts: 39151
Share

Post
#4

01-18-2008, 05:40 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it only means you have to have the custodian of records listed, not their actual confidential information.
Comment
brandonstills

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 1964
Share

Post
#5

01-18-2008, 05:43 PM

Only one copy of each picture of a performer's picture identification card and identification document must be kept as long as each copy is categorized and retrievable according to any name, real or assumed, used by such performer, and according to any title or other identifier of the matter.

Someone explain to me what this means. It doesn't make any sense.

Brandon Stills
Industry and programming veteran
[email protected] | skype: brandonstills | ICQ #495-171-318
Comment
stickyfingerz

Doin fine

Join Date: Oct 2005

Posts: 24984
Share

Post
#6

01-18-2008, 05:48 PM

Advantage to being in Tennessee I guess.
Comment
L-Pink

working on my tan

Join Date: Mar 2005

Posts: 39151
Share

Post
#7

01-18-2008, 05:50 PM

Originally posted by stickyfingerz

Advantage to being in Tennessee I guess.

What? That you don't have to understand it or comply with it
Comment
Socks

Confirmed User

Join Date: May 2002

Posts: 8475
Share

Post
#8

01-18-2008, 05:51 PM

Obviously not the models confidential information, the custodian of records.. In an affiliates case like a TGP, it could be 100 different custodians.. That's what I was attempting to blabber out.
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#9

01-18-2008, 05:51 PM

Originally posted by Socks

The new rules are so ridiculous there's no way they'll stick. Think, a TGP with 100 models on the page is supposed to also list the 2257 for all 100 models - on the same page as the thumbs? ;)

actually you are a little off

1-that particular tgp would need to have the docs for all the models
2-the tgp's custodion of records would be listed
Comment
BV

wtf

Join Date: Sep 2001

Posts: 10914
Share

Post
#10

01-18-2008, 05:52 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Someone explain to me what this means. It doesn't make any sense.

makes perfect sense to me

what part exactly don't you understand and i will help?
Comment
Barefootsies

Choice is an Illusion

Join Date: Feb 2005

Posts: 42635
Share

Post
#11

01-18-2008, 05:59 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Moreover, the legal effect of the ruling is, unfortunately, limited to the federal courts located in the states within the jurisdictional boundary of the 6th Circuit: Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Tennessee. The Connection Distributing decision will only be binding on the federal courts in those states unless and until the ruling is modified or reversed by the U.S. Supreme Court or the 6th Circuit through an en banc decision (discussed below).

Should You Email Your Members?

Link1 | Link2 | Link3

Enough Said.

"Would you rather live like a king for a year or like a prince forever?"
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#12

01-19-2008, 02:53 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Someone explain to me what this means. It doesn't make any sense.

what this means is that for each of the assumed names the model uses, her 2257 must be filed under that name and for each and every publication, meaning if model suzy B goes by the name rebel, juicy and sugar etc she needs 3 separate 2257s filed under each of these names and then if it exists for 2 sites or 2 different movies for example, she then must be filed under both publications or sites in 3 categories. meaning 6 times. Sucks but that is 2257 for you.

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#13

01-19-2008, 02:54 PM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Someone explain to me what this means. It doesn't make any sense.

It means you know fuck all about 2257 and should not be posting threads about it.
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#14

01-19-2008, 02:58 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

It means you know fuck all about 2257 and should not be posting threads about it.

Are you directing this at what I said? Not sure....the comment from teenrevenue?

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#15

01-19-2008, 03:05 PM

Originally posted by CleopatraoftheNile

Are you directing this at what I said? Not sure....the comment from teenrevenue?

You tell me.
Comment
commonsense

So Fucking Banned

Join Date: Feb 2007

Posts: 1790
Share

Post
#16

01-19-2008, 03:07 PM

Originally posted by CleopatraoftheNile

Are you directing this at what I said? Not sure....the comment from teenrevenue?

Was he quoting you? NO

See how your words are above mine? It's means I am directing this towards you
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#17

01-19-2008, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

You tell me.

not sure honey....when i was directing for 2 porn companies and the big kick on 2257 just happened, we had to redo all the paperwork and that was what we were asked to do on all the talent. I personally don't see the point on reitterating the same info over and over. It should be all listed on one form under the performer's real name and then filed under each publication. However, we were doing it that way and then had to change the filing system because the clause stated that a performer needed to be filed under each assumed name. We had to go in and re-file everybody....if I am wrong, then we basically were made to do a whole bunch of unnecessary filing!!! LOL

Regardless...if 2257 is such a bother, just cover your bases and make sure you have them on each and every model used. It is tedious but definitely worth it.

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#18

01-19-2008, 03:13 PM

Originally posted by commonsense

Was he quoting you? NO

See how your words are above mine? It's means I am directing this towards you

You are correct. Not only did I not quote her but she didn't start the thread either.

Although my post was not about or to her, she's also wrong with her 2257 info but I'm not about to go into yet another 2257 debate on GFY.

Fuck em.

Last edited by AaronM; 01-19-2008, 03:14 PM.
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#19

01-19-2008, 03:14 PM

Originally posted by commonsense

Was he quoting you? NO

See how your words are above mine? It's means I am directing this towards you

hehe ....got it

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#20

01-19-2008, 03:21 PM

[QUOTE=AaronM;13671393]You are correct. Not only did I not quote her but she didn't start the thread either.

Although my post was not about or to her, she's also wrong with her 2257 info but I'm not about to go into yet another 2257 debate on GFY.

Fuck em.[/QUOTE

Like I said regardless of whom it was directed towards, when the 2257 debate came about more than 2 years ago. This was the system adopted by porn companies. Sorry....this is what was done and according to their attornies, what had to be done. Everyone's always complaining about 2257 regulation but all the complaining on the internet hasn't changed the fact that you need to ensure you have all your 2257 info in order. If I am wrong so sorry but I have been involved in it first hand so if you are producing porn regardless of where you post this porn you will have had to deal directly with the 2257 requirement.

Whether I am intelligent or not really isn't the argument
No-one else seems to be worrying about my intelligence. You think I am wrong anyway but since you don't want to continue the debate about 2257 requirements lets talk about something lighter for you to handle....How 'bout them Dodgers!!???

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#21

01-19-2008, 03:25 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

You are correct. Not only did I not quote her but she didn't start the thread either.

Although my post was not about or to her, she's also wrong with her 2257 info but I'm not about to go into yet another 2257 debate on GFY.

Fuck em.

Besides,
Don't get aggravated about my comments. This is just conversation that is interesting. At least on GFY people actually say things I find interesting Nothing I say is really directed at anyone personally. The guy who started this thread is a good friend of mine and I could just call him and talk about 2257 but who wants to do that??? Not as much fun

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#22

01-19-2008, 03:39 PM

Originally posted by CleopatraoftheNile

....Like I said regardless of whom it was directed towards, when the 2257 debate came about more than 2 years ago. This was the system adopted by porn companies. Sorry....this is what was done and according to their attornies, what had to be done. Everyone's always complaining about 2257 regulation but all the complaining on the internet hasn't changed the fact that you need to ensure you have all your 2257 info in order. If I am wrong so sorry but I have been involved in it first hand so if you are producing porn regardless of where you post this porn you will have had to deal directly with the 2257 requirement.

Now you are even more incorrect.

"the 2257 debate came about more than 2 years ago...."

That particular round also included what was referred to as a "paperwork reduction act." That made the filing systems MUCH easier and way less bulky than the system you described. Companies may have chosen to do things as you mentioned but according to AVN, most companies were not compliant back then in the first place.

Working for a porn company doesn't mean you know how 2257 really works.

I don't care to discuss the Dodgers either.
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#23

01-19-2008, 03:43 PM

Originally posted by CleopatraoftheNile

Besides,
Don't get aggravated about my comments. This is just conversation that is interesting. At least on GFY people actually say things I find interesting Nothing I say is really directed at anyone personally. The guy who started this thread is a good friend of mine and I could just call him and talk about 2257 but who wants to do that??? Not as much fun

For what it's worth, I'm not aggravated by your comments. I'm pre-judging you because of your connection with that idiot Donny Long and the way you perpetuated his ego problem when introducing him to people back in November.

You may very well be a great person but that whole "first impressions" thing is a mother fucker.
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#24

01-19-2008, 03:50 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

Now you are even more incorrect.

"the 2257 debate came about more than 2 years ago...."

That particular round also included what was referred to as a "paperwork reduction act." That made the filing systems MUCH easier and way less bulky than the system you described. Companies may have chosen to do things as you mentioned but according to AVN, most companies were not compliant back then in the first place.

Working for a porn company doesn't mean you know how 2257 really works.

I don't care to discuss the Dodgers either.

Hell I know nothing about the Dodgers except they look good in those pants!!!
was hoping you had something cool to say about them
hehe

Yes like I said I may have been wrong but when the 2257, which was already in existence, was reinforced on production companies. This is what they were doing. It may have been designed as a paper reduction ploy but since hardly ANY company was correctly following the 2257 requirements. Here we go....more and more paperwork. I am not trying to debate YOU my friend...the subject was about whether or not Internet sights needed to have 2257s on all the talent even if it is TGP. Since so many companies were not compliant in the first place, wouldnt it make sense just to have these documents correct and compliant so that you don't fall into that pothole?
You don't have to respond if you don't want to...this isn't a debate I am directing at you personally. Especially since we have never met

I don't know everything but I was shown a clause by a production company a looooonnnngggg time ago which basically referred to having a 2257 filed under each assumed name. I saw it written in the law itself...Once again I could be wrong and when I have the time, I will ask that person who showed me this document. They showed it to me because I didn't believe them and basically didn't want to do all that paperwork in the first place

Last edited by CleopatraoftheNile; 01-19-2008, 03:51 PM.

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#25

01-19-2008, 03:59 PM

Originally posted by AaronM

For what it's worth, I'm not aggravated by your comments. I'm pre-judging you because of your connection with that idiot Donny Long and the way you perpetuated his ego problem when introducing him to people back in November.

You may very well be a great person but that whole "first impressions" thing is a mother fucker.

LOL Thats ok. Donny isn't me and also for what its worth so many more difficult people than Donny work with me because I have a way with difficult people

You don't have to like me at all. No-one is expecting your friendship or acceptance. You don't owe it to me. I really only worry about those personally close to me. There are very very few people who really know me and I keep my connections very tight.

I am wondering if we ever did meet. First impressions to me are a waste of my time anyway. If I really want to know someone, I do my research....besides I judge people based on how they treat me to my face.

If they have done others wrong I am in no place to judge. I just watch their moves and I play Chess so to speak.

You don't know who I know and you don't know who really knows me

Mysterious little thing I am! hehe

Too many secrets but a very powerful source for things....depending on what you need my sweet

I bet you are very cool One day I may come to find out

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
Gerco

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2005

Posts: 2052
Share

Post
#26

01-19-2008, 06:58 PM

I live and work in Kentucky. So, no more 2257 for me.

Http://www.extremehole.com

**** CLOSED ****

400 HOURS of exclusive custom extreme content, already on external HD in Raw DV ready to encode.
over 150,000 exclusive images and more.
Comment
CleopatraoftheNile

Confirmed User

Join Date: Dec 2007

Posts: 284
Share

Post
#27

01-19-2008, 07:01 PM

Originally posted by Gerco

I live and work in Kentucky. So, no more 2257 for me.

Lucky Bastard
lol

CLEOPATRA OF THE NILE ICQ: 389679974
http://www.cleosoasis.com sales, mkting, PR
Comment
Gerco

Confirmed User

Join Date: Nov 2005

Posts: 2052
Share

Post
#28

01-19-2008, 07:44 PM

Originally posted by CleopatraoftheNile

Lucky Bastard
lol

Don't get me wrong... I STILL maintain all records, but for myself. I have all the ID, passport scans, model releases etc for every single shoot I do or have done, but these are for my personal protection.

BUT that said.. 2257 in itself is dead to me.

Http://www.extremehole.com

**** CLOSED ****

400 HOURS of exclusive custom extreme content, already on external HD in Raw DV ready to encode.
over 150,000 exclusive images and more.
Comment
pornlaw

Confirmed User

Join Date: Feb 2007

Posts: 1902
Share

Post
#29

01-19-2008, 10:28 PM

To answer the original question...

Some of what I got out of it was that the 6th circuit only applies to a small handful of states. California not being one of them.

The other point was that a hyperlink on each page for 2257 is no longer good enough, you have to have the full 2257 on each page.

You are correct on both points.

Michael

www.AdultBizLaw.com
Comment
Paul Markham

Too old to care

Join Date: Jun 2001

Posts: 52942
Share

Post
#30

01-20-2008, 12:24 AM

The industry needs a 2257 type law. It needs to be workable and practical. The idea that you should be able to publish porn without documents to prove it's legal is beyond me, the idea that you can point to a person on the other side of the world you have never met and know fuck all about and say "He has the documents is beyond me as well." is also beyond me.

2257 should not be something "voluntary"

So what would be the results?

Less porn on the Internet with the same number of surfers. Hoops I would gladly jump through to achieve this result.

Yes I understand about countries not having to comply. Does not mean it's not a good idea that you should have the documents and billers should make sure you have them.

The free for all we have today is not helping the industry.

And I do not know how to work it out. But clearly there are people in the business who don't care if the content is legal, model legal or who owns the content. So long as they make a buck.

Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70
Comment
AaronM

GFY Royality ;)

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 46923
Share

Post
#31

01-20-2008, 12:39 AM

Originally posted by Gerco

I live and work in Kentucky. So, no more 2257 for me.

No 2257 AND you get to fuck your sister.

Some states have all the luck.
Comment
GatorB

The Demon & 12clicks

Join Date: Oct 2001

Posts: 18208
Share

Post
#32

01-20-2008, 01:05 AM

Originally posted by brandonstills

Correct me if I'm wrong but I think it only means you have to have the custodian of records listed, not their actual confidential information.

Yes and most 2257 pages I see on sites that have them list the actual prodcuers of the content. Which actually makes sense but that's not what the law requires. If it's YOUR site then YOU have to have the records and YOUa re the custodian of them and it's YOUR name and address and phone number that has to be on your 2257 page. Fuck that. I'm not putting my name and address and phone number on a publicly accessable page.

If the feds want me to have a page where I list who produced each movie and where to contact them that's fine I have no issue with that. How am I supposed to know if some bitch is over 18? Even if I have the docs they could be forged.
Comment

Previous template Next

Working...