GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum - View Single Post

Oberon · 05-28-2005, 11:24 AM

So, to this point, areas of greyness I've identified that really need a legal opinion, or many legal opinions, from actual lawyers.

1. Content produced before 1995.... grandfathered as excluded...BUT... if you put it on a new web page, are you in effect publishing it anew, and then have to comply?

2. it says 'you can't be the record holder in the us and shoot a model with non-us id'..Now, being as elsewhere they've said secondary producers have no obligation to check the validity of primary producer info... Anyone located outside us can shoot anyone anywhere, and need gov't id to be legit...gov't id for the model from one presumes her country of residence...Since the primary record holder is then outside the US, no issue. Now, sell that content to a US company, and as a secondary producer they have no obligation to challenge the validity of the documentation, as far as I read. So.. can so any US company then use that content, they just cant be the primary producer? Or by being the 'record holder', are they barred from using it?

3. The definition of production date as applied to a webpage, which probably has legal precedent in copyright case law, if nothing else.

4. The definition of 'not able to control content' , which is an exclusion for things like google, but probably not BBS owners, and this one probably already has legal precedent..

5. The question of what, exactly, happens if as a non-compliant company based outside the US you make direct sales to US based consumers.

6. To what extent must a primary producer make the effort to track usage of the content by secondary producers and have records for that usage?

05-28-2005, 11:24 AM
Oberon Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2003 Location: Calgary Posts: 190	So, to this point, areas of greyness I've identified that really need a legal opinion, or many legal opinions, from actual lawyers. 1. Content produced before 1995.... grandfathered as excluded...BUT... if you put it on a new web page, are you in effect publishing it anew, and then have to comply? 2. it says 'you can't be the record holder in the us and shoot a model with non-us id'..Now, being as elsewhere they've said secondary producers have no obligation to check the validity of primary producer info... Anyone located outside us can shoot anyone anywhere, and need gov't id to be legit...gov't id for the model from one presumes her country of residence...Since the primary record holder is then outside the US, no issue. Now, sell that content to a US company, and as a secondary producer they have no obligation to challenge the validity of the documentation, as far as I read. So.. can so any US company then use that content, they just cant be the primary producer? Or by being the 'record holder', are they barred from using it? 3. The definition of production date as applied to a webpage, which probably has legal precedent in copyright case law, if nothing else. 4. The definition of 'not able to control content' , which is an exclusion for things like google, but probably not BBS owners, and this one probably already has legal precedent.. 5. The question of what, exactly, happens if as a non-compliant company based outside the US you make direct sales to US based consumers. 6. To what extent must a primary producer make the effort to track usage of the content by secondary producers and have records for that usage?