in jail they throw cups of pee on you
-
-
That's an interesting question. Many of my publishers have their records on file with us now, and a few of them have already taken to putting up edited records on their products. For the others, we are working on a system to try to make it easy for them to do this, if they choose to do so.Originally posted by charly
Are you giving out the documentation to the webmasters now when you sell the set?
As of this writing, there are products out there that already have this feature on them, and a LOT of others that simply are awaiting my people getting the records edited and put on there so that they can have it as well. But, as you might expect, with about 17,000 products online, it's going to be slow going getting things updated.
Comment
-
Originally posted by WebLegal
Hey, lets repeat this _again_, since you didn't get the clue.
Ah hey Dave.. I spoke with you yesterday actually regarding some of the old Lauras's Lair content.
But we won't crack that nut here & now (though this does seem like the appropriate forum/time no?). Not just yet anyway
I can say that I am a bit upset about the number of titles (nearly 30%) that we have from you that are 'no longer supported' and wished you would have handled the situation differently.
Like I said in the earlier post... in this day & political environment, I think its best to steer clear of image/content brokers who aren't confident enough in their photographers recording keeping to maintain copies of the records on-site themselves.Comment
-
Holy fuck this is a old thread people, whats up with digging up old threads and then going to war? This is the info I have on Tom Davis
tom aka content provider / tgp builder
252-212-8278
I know he lives in NC give him a shout tell him he is a FUCK WAD he will get his,
to be honest Im glad I got ripped off, fucked, etc... It tought me one hell of a hard leasson that I WILL NEVER forget. Want to be safe? SHOOT YOUR OWN FUCKING CONTENT
Ps why the hate on charly? Charly is a standup guy
I use to hate him use to think he was scum reason I thought this because I COULDNT HANDLE THE TRUTH when he was telling it to me. I have the UP MOst respect for the man
TOM
Comment
-
I think thats your problem Dave... you give them the option.Originally posted by WebLegal
For the others, we are working on a system to try to make it easy for them to do this, if they choose to do so.
It should be a requirement for their records to be on file with you as well, as a backup, just in case they skip town. So your customers don't wind up with a bunch of questionable 'unsupported' content when the law comes around.
I understand there are issues of liability with this.. but if you want to be in the position you are in providing the service you do, maybe your business model should be revamped a bit - like now.
In the event that the publisher does go out of business, if a client has problems then you could quietly pass along the appropriate documents to the client in order to save their ass.Comment
-
OH one more thing do I WIN a dvd player now? 
Comment
-
Charly is a PimpOriginally posted by va2k
Ps why the hate on charly? Charly is a standup guy I use to hate him use to think he was scum reason I thought this because I COULDNT HANDLE THE TRUTH when he was telling it to me. I have the UP MOst respect for the man
.. hes like 92 with a 20yo wife
( just teasin charly)
Comment
-
I didn't think he was that young.Originally posted by goBigtime
Charly is a Pimp.. hes like 92 with a 20yo wife
( just teasin charly)
Comment
-
Originally posted by goBigtime
Ah hey Dave.. I spoke with you yesterday actually regarding some of the old Lauras's Lair content.
But we won't crack that nut here & now (though this does seem like the appropriate forum/time no?). Not just yet anyway
I can say that I am a bit upset about the number of titles (nearly 30%) that we have from you that are 'no longer supported' and wished you would have handled the situation differently.
I'm not happy with disappearing publishers, either, but it's a fact of life that people go out of business here and there. The titles that you are referring to were being sold five years ago, when the publisher was still in business. The publisher decided to go into the jewelry business, and I took the material down, as it was no longer active. I do everything that I can to keep people out of this business that are likely to not stick around... the number of people that I discourage from being a publisher is astounding. I get several people a week that are wanting to go into this business, and I do my best to talk them out of it when I find out that they don't know what they are getting into.
By the way, as I recall, when you called in, many of those "no longer carried" titles can still be handled, just not by us. The publishers are still out there, and we can help you contact them directly. They just chose not to deal with us any longer for whatever reason, so it's not within our realm to re-issue licenses for products that we no longer represent.
As far as you wishing that I had handled it differently, I don't see how I could have. I'm a broker, not the owner of what we have here, and when a publisher leaves, I cannot do anything further with their material. Asking me for a refund on material sold five years ago is a bit out of the ordinary, you must admit, nomatter what the circumstances.Comment
-
But if you do insist on giving them the option, maybe make it more lucrative for them to keep backup records on file with you as well. I.E... if you charge them 30% now, charge them 40% if they are unwilling to have you maintain backup records.Originally posted by goBigtime
I think thats your problem Dave... you give them the option.
This is something that you could sell your clients/customers on as well -- the fact that if there is ever trouble, and the photographer is unable to be reached, you have backup records for this set. NOT that you are the official custodian of records, but that if they are in a bind, at least you have the model release & ids.Comment
-
hey brotherOriginally posted by redshift
as a rule of thumb - if I dont get a pic of the model holding her ID I dont buy the content
Please contact me .... ICQ 122638232 or email
hungryman AT paysitedesign DOT com
Comment
-
We _are_ in possession of a great number of 2257 documents at this time. The issue is more one of getting them both edited to be safe for distribution (privacy issues), and making sure that they are actually attached to the right products. For this, we need the publishers' input in the matter, and remember, there are a lot more of them, than there are of me.Originally posted by goBigtime
I think thats your problem Dave... you give them the option.
Comment
-
Actually, I've been debating such a move for some time now. I think that the main issue will be not wether or not they want to provide the records, but wether or not they will do their own records scanning and editing... THAT's the real issue. Many of them send paper copies of the records with the products now, it's just a big honking hassle to try to scan them here and put them together. In many cases, we have the paperwork here already, it's just a matter of finding it.Originally posted by goBigtime
But if you do insist on giving them the option, maybe make it more lucrative for them to keep backup records on file with you as well. I.E... if you charge them 30% now, charge them 40% if they are unwilling to have you maintain backup records.
This is something that you could sell your clients/customers on as well -- the fact that if there is ever trouble, and the photographer is unable to be reached, you have backup records for this set. NOT that you are the official custodian of records, but that if they are in a bind, at least you have the model release & ids.
Even if that were the case, though, it wouldn't have helped you with your scenario. Your scenario wasn't one of needing records for legal inquiries, it was that you wanted to re-issue licenses because you were selling some properties. Even if I had full 2257 documentation for the products that you picked up many, many years ago, I still wouldn't have the rights to issue new licenses on the material.Comment
-
I don't like airing dirty laundry on the forums.Originally posted by WebLegal
Asking me for a refund on material sold five years ago is a bit out of the ordinary, you must admit, nomatter what the circumstances.
I didn't ask for a refund, I wouldn't expect a refund. I asked for a credit of some sort to compensate for the 30% or so titles we purchased that are 'no longer supported' by Web-Legal.
Even an offer to purchase X titles at your cost, or at some discount would have been something, (even though we wouldn't have been interested because we're moving away from adult these days).
But still for the position we could have potentially been in, your response was 'a bit out of the ordinary' as you put it.
Dave, heres a question- can you honestly say that in every event of a publisher turning up missing, or a product going to your 'unsupported' status, that all clients who purchased that product were made aware of the change in status?
And to clear things up here "unsupported" according to Web-Legal means "... it would be adviseable that you cycle this content (that you paid for) out of usage on your sites"Comment
-
Originally posted by WebLegal
We _are_ in possession of a great number of 2257 documents at this time. The issue is more one of getting them both edited to be safe for distribution (privacy issues), and making sure that they are actually attached to the right products. For this, we need the publishers' input in the matter, and remember, there are a lot more of them, than there are of me.
Right I hear ya.. maybe you should hire someone to do this then, or setup a system to where the publishers are forced to match up release/ids to titles/photosets. Keyword - FORCED, not an option, a REQUIREMENT.
You provide a valueable distribution system for them, if they want to be part of it, then they should be required to do their part in maintaining the records.
Sure you'll probably lose a few less serious publishers. But it sounds like you'll probably free up some time that you would otherwise spend "convincing photographers to not enter this business", because you could then point them to your policies and procedures and there ya go.
I'm sure if you spec up your system, or even just your requirements for the system & post an ad here on GFY for a php/perl programmer, you'll get someone who can set something up for you within a couple weeks. I know we could.Comment
-
However, that's exactly what you did here. I didn't bring up this subject, you did.Originally posted by goBigtime
I don't like airing dirty laundry on the forums.
Well, an offer that you wouldn't have been interested in seems a bit pointless then. If you are interested in some sort of thing like this, though, let me know, as I might be able to figure something out for you. I would suggest that we move back to private, though.Originally posted by goBigtime
I didn't ask for a refund, I wouldn't expect a refund. I asked for a credit of some sort to compensate for the 30% or so titles we purchased that are 'no longer supported' by Web-Legal.
Even an offer to purchase X titles at your cost, or at some discount would have been something, (even though we wouldn't have been interested because we're moving away from adult these days).
Comment
-
Look, if they DON'T - if they are unwilling, then DON'T FUCKING SELL ME THEIR CONTENTOriginally posted by WebLegal
Actually, I've been debating such a move for some time now. I think that the main issue will be not wether or not they want to provide the records, but wether or not they will do their own records scanning and editing... THAT's the real issue.
Pretty simple that.. no?
You just said how you try to talk people out of the content business who are not willing to take the steps needed to be in the business.
To me, after going through this BS, this is one of those steps. If they are unwilling to show you they have proper docuementation, why in the fuck are you selling their wares to us?
There aren't many tools REQUIRED to be in this business.
A camera or video camera of some sort, wad of cash to pay your models & your overhead, and a ($299) 4-in-1 color copier/scanner/pen-clock-radio thing to keep proper records, I spose an ounce of common sense doesn't hurt either.
And back it might not have been practical to have a copier in house. But I've see copiers in grocery stores as low as 5 cents a copy. If the photographer doesnt have a copier, It should be a requirement that the models bring a clear copy of their ID (as well as the original) to the shoot.Comment
-
ESP rocks no? I just saw this "ezESP" informercial.. I could probably save/make a lot of money if I purchase it I spose.Originally posted by WebLegal
Well, an offer that you wouldn't have been interested in seems a bit pointless then.
I think the point was, you could have made an effort to remedy the situation then (irregardless of our interest in purchasing more content), rather than now. Now it's like damage control.
And I had no intention of dealing with you, or this problem yet. I made mention of it a few posts before my first that acutally named you, but I wasnt planning on mentioning web-legal until I had another chance to talk with you (when I had some time), but then I saw your post to someone else.
I'll keep this in mind.Originally posted by WebLegal
If you are interested in some sort of thing like this, though, let me know, as I might be able to figure something out for you. I would suggest that we move back to private, though.
And at this point, I'm more flaming companies with business models like yours rather than yours specifically.
To me this is something that can be easily changed with a little code & new policies enforced for publishers.Last edited by goBigtime; 03-13-2003, 09:48 AM.Comment
-
Temper, Temper...Originally posted by goBigtime
Look, if they DON'T - if they are unwilling, then DON'T FUCKING SELL ME THEIR CONTENT Pretty simple that.. no?
You just said how you try to talk people out of the content business who are not willing to take the steps needed to be in the business.
To me, after going through this BS, this is one of those steps. If they are unwilling to show you they have proper docuementation, why in the fuck are you selling their wares to us?
my publishers _do_ have to show me their paperwork, I thought that this was established earlier. That still doesn't give me the right to issue licenses after a publisher has left the business.
The issue that I have with putting them online, is that there are 17,000 products and just a handful of us working here. Having the data, and having it online, are two different things.
An interesting point: I deal with a some of the larger video production companies, the people that are corporately owned and have shooting facilities in Chatsworth, California. They don't provide copies of model ID's with anything that they sell, either, they provide sworn 2257 statements with the products that they distribute. They are doing what their lawyers told them to do on that. Given your position, perhaps no one should deal with these large professional operations because they don't hand out paperwork with everything that they sell. Of course, no one else in the adult industry gets it either, not the adult store owner, nor the gas station that carries mags, nor the video rental store. But, I guess that we are special somehow, even thought the law does not support that.Comment
-
Well then, the bottom line is this is the achilles heel of the online adult industry - lack of proper documentation.
So I guess it boils down to what Tom said earlier, if you want to be SURE, then shoot your own content.
I wasn't saying that if the publisher disappears that you continue to licesnse the products, but more that you at least have the documents on file in the event that customers who had already purchased the content have something to fall back on if the law comes requesting documents for those images.Comment
-
I have a temper with you because we were one of the small percentage of adult companies that did things by the books and purchased our content (rather than stealing it), and now it comes to light that if certain images would have been questioned, we would have had to come out of pocket for legal expenses defending the content and tracking down the publisher etc.Originally posted by WebLegal
I deal with a some of the larger video production companies, the people that are corporately owned and have shooting facilities in Chatsworth, California. They don't provide copies of model ID's with anything that they sell, either, they provide sworn 2257 statements with the products that they distribute. They are doing what their lawyers told them to do on that.
Given your position, perhaps no one should deal with these large professional operations because they don't hand out paperwork with everything that they sell.
So yes, if a sworn 2257 statement alone isn't enough by itself to be in compliance if law enforcement starts investigating your business, then perhaps you should be insisting on documentation that IS compliant or you should stay away from the supplier/publisher completely.
On the other hand if that is all thats required, then get THAT from all of your clients.
My point here is, sell us products that are legal (as your name suggests) and will continue to be legal through the years irregardless of the current occupational status of the ex-photographer.
See, the problem is just because the photographer disappears, shouldn't mean that we should be no longer able to use the content.
It was purchased, and at some point in time - proper documentation did exist (or it wouldn't have been sold, right?).
I thought it was slick that Matrix Content gives a [blocked out] copy of the models ID with each photoset, I'm not sure if that's enough to fend off the law, but at least it suggests (to the customers) that THEY have the records on file.
I don't know the law when it comes to this stuff, all I know is the current system between: model <-> publisher <-> broker <-> client is broken.
Like I said before... at this point this is now more of an venting inquisition against your industry rather than your company specifically.Last edited by goBigtime; 03-13-2003, 10:13 AM.Comment
-
Anyway I'm done. Too much work to do today to sit and post on GFY all day long
Comment
-
This is total BS.Originally posted by goBigtime
Charly is a Pimp.. hes like 92 with a 20yo wife
( just teasin charly)
She WAS 20 when I met her, she's now 25.
That should carry a lot of weight if a policeman ever did call on one of your clients.The issue that I have with putting them online, is that there are 17,000 products and just a handful of us working here. Having the data, and having it online, are two different things.
"You see officer it's like this, Dave has a lot of work to do and he will get round to sorting and putting up the documents when he has time."
Totally reasonable. And a much better explanation than.
"Just a moment officer, I have all the documentation filed here"
I totally understand where you are coming from.
Silly of me not to see your side.
But then I come from a different school, stupid as I am.
You see I've been doing the double ID thing for a few years now. This girl was shot in 1990.
Took her name off the ID but as she is now 32 years old I doubt if anyone will recognise her.Comment
-
There is no end to your distortions, are there? You and I well know that if someone has a legal issue, they get top priority, period. The issue of "getting a project caught up on" has nothing to do with the matter.Originally posted by charly
That should carry a lot of weight if a policeman ever did call on one of your clients.
"You see officer it's like this, Dave has a lot of work to do and he will get round to sorting and putting up the documents when he has time."
Totally reasonable.
But that doesn't seem to honestly matter to you, so long as you can beat on the drum and hopefully convince people to buy from you, does it?Comment
-
I'm afraid that not only would that not necessarily work, but you would be opening yourself up to more headaches. Was it you that was quoting the Traci Lords fiasco earlier? If you do the shooting, then YOU are the one producing the content... which means that you have no deniability whatsoever for _any_ problems. And, you get to start putting your name & address on everything that you do, for the entire world to see.Originally posted by goBigtime
So I guess it boils down to what Tom said earlier, if you want to be SURE, then shoot your own content.
No, shooting your own isn't a panacea, by any means.Comment
-
Actually, I get both the sworn statements, and 2257 records. The issue has been making those _available to the licensee_, not their existance. People seem to keep glossing over that because it's not in their favor to acknoledge that point.Originally posted by goBigtime
So yes, if a sworn 2257 statement alone isn't enough by itself to be in compliance if law enforcement starts investigating your business, then perhaps you should be insisting on documentation that IS compliant or you should stay away from the supplier/publisher completely.
On the other hand if that is all thats required, then get THAT from all of your clients.
The law is very, very clear on the matter... only the original producers are required to keep 18 USC 2257 documentation. That's why the major video companies do business the way they do.Comment
-
Nope. Wasn't me.Originally posted by WebLegal
I'm afraid that not only would that not necessarily work, but you would be opening yourself up to more headaches. Was it you that was quoting the Traci Lords fiasco earlier?
Of course someone reading this thread, who was too paranoid to use other peoples content due to improper recording keeping (or unavailable records) would probably do all they could to make sure their records were impecable.Originally posted by WebLegal
And, you get to start putting your name & address on everything that you do, for the entire world to see.
And either way.. we all know who would be my custodian of records...
Comment
-
I would keep posting all day, but I've really had enough.
I think you should maintain backup copies of whatever infomation may be required by an inquery from law enforcement.
You are in a position where you need to find balance in serving your customers and your producers. Its a fact that producers go MIA once in awhile, if they do this, then your customers have to spend time removing their content (when it technically is LEGAL, and definately is paid for).
Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be a nice incentive to buy content from you if your customers knew you had backups of the information just in case. And I'm not talking "official" backups, but just CYA backups. That way for us to be at risk, both the publisher AND the broker would have to go out of business.
If the publishers go MIA, then you can't liscense their wares anymore.. but you can at least still support (to some degree) the customers who already purchased the content.
So maybe your producers/publishers don't like this -- then they don't get the exposure to your customer base.
Look, Nearly a third of content titles we purchased from you are now either no longer supported (throw them away) or questionable (I think we know how to get ahold of them still). They were purchased several years ago, but should this really matter? That is the big question here I guess... why should a legal product that was purchased through a broker be made unuseable simply because a publisher decided to move on.
I'm just hoping your seeing my side of this. If a customer can purchase content thats legal one day & then have to count their losses and abandon it another (even though its legal content) - something is wrong.Last edited by goBigtime; 03-13-2003, 02:33 PM.Comment
-
WRONG !Originally posted by WebLegal
I'm afraid that not only would that not necessarily work, but you would be opening yourself up to more headaches. Was it you that was quoting the Traci Lords fiasco earlier? If you do the shooting, then YOU are the one producing the content... which means that you have no deniability whatsoever for _any_ problems. And, you get to start putting your name & address on everything that you do, for the entire world to see.
No, shooting your own isn't a panacea, by any means.
Shooting your own content is the safest way by all means, you are in control, you keep your records.
Also, Buying form a reliable source meaning, someone that you know actually shoots the content, verifies IDs and provides with legals documents.
The worst, I am sorry to say that , is to buy from a content broker with thousands of photos, from hundreds of individuals in a dozen of countries, and no reliable system to hold and supply records fast.Comment
-
Unless of course that broker also serves another purpose -- unofficial backup/secondary record keeper. Then, it's not a bad deal at all.Originally posted by Praguer
The worst, I am sorry to say that , is to buy from a content broker with thousands of photos, from hundreds of individuals in a dozen of countries, and no reliable system to hold and supply records fast.
For instance, I would rather buy Praguer content through Web-Legal if I knew Web-Legal had backup copies of _all the documentation required by law_ for Praguer content and was also willing to provide me with a blocked out scan of the models ID, (matrix style) to prove that the records are probably *somewhere*.Comment
Comment