I have an idea how to fix the gallery problem with 2257

everybody work together?

living in a fairy tale

How do you propose affixing the requirements to the gallery design wise ect. White background, 11pt font, all that shit?

The attorney on YNOT today, said that the white background part applied to videos, and that there is a second sentence that says the surfer would need to be able to see the info in a normal and reasonable fashion, thus not needing the white background, though he does reccommend that the font be 11pt. at least.

Find me where they say videos please.

bullshit it will never work..

i tell u right now more then 80% of webmaster will ignore thise new law!

that's a very conservative estimate

This is the part he's referring to:

(e) For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no
smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers,
director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in
black on a white, untinted background. For any electronic or other
display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be
displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be
capable of being read by the average viewer.


It does not specify video, but it's what he said, and he said it as if it was common knowledge. To me the fact that it mention that it be the same typeface as the performers, director, producer or owner, indicates a movie, as there are no performers or directors on a webpage, only models and producers/secondary producers. He then went on to say that the second sentence was intended as an or, and that it refers to webpages, though honestly, 'displayed for sufficient duration' seems to refer to movies again, but again, just saying what his interpretation was.

Also, for the html that you add with the required info, just make it in a table with a white bgcolor and the required font size. Use the same table on all of your pages. So, even if the attorney interprets that part incorrectly, it's still easily doable.

I think you are correct, but I also believe that hosts will be required to close down accounts that are not compliant (if that's not already a requiremetn)... if not immediately, then someday.

bump

This will never work!

Sorry for responding next day (last night got insane).

Ok this is the fucked up part. Noted adult lawyer Dewitt thinks it also applies to websites. So do my personal attornies (I got 2nd opinion to see how they may interpret it differently). There is no such thing as "common knowledge" when it comes to law. It is how it is written and how arguing parties in a trial can use legal definitions to interprete it.

Couple of points now:

"For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall
be displayed in the same typeface as the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, whichever is larger, and shall be no smaller in size than the largest of the names of the performers, director, producer, or owner, and in no case in less than 11pt type, in black on a white, untinted background."

It is speaking of the format in which 2257 must be displayed (on all previously listed rules).
Web site content does have "performers" (models), directors (camera person), "producer" (see secondary producer & or whom arranged or paid for production), "owner" (copyright holder & or owner of website). These are not just limited to video production as you can see. Not to mention video is a big part of web sites.

"For any electronic or other display of the notice that is limited in time, the notice must be displayed for a sufficient duration and of a sufficient size to be capable of being read by the average viewer."

Key words are "Any" "Electronic" "Other". All of which clearly would cover web sites as they are not excluded. "That is limited in duration" meaning assuming it is limited in duration it must be displayed long enough to be read by a typical person.
Yes parts are intended for video's but it does not exclude the others and just gives a display time rule if it is a video. See our point?

good points. but like I said in the next post, it's also easy to do. Sure it will look bad in some designs, but eventually the surfer will recognize the required info for what it is, and tune them out just like the 'Parental Advisory' warnings on cds. Personally, I think how it will look is the least of our worries.

A possible better solution is to use the wording of the regs against them.

the regs state that the location of the statement for a website is on its homepage or mainpage.

"(d) A computer site or service or Web address containing a
computer-generated image, digital image, or picture, shall contain the required statement on its homepage or principal URL."

So, since most galleries do not use the mainpage (index.htm, index.html, default.htm, default.html) and many of us have that page set up as our warning page (which of course gets bypassed when they click from the tgp/linklist/whatever) to the gallery. May I suggest that you place all your 2257 statements on your warning/home page.

I don't know if it would fly, but usually, if you interpret a law literally, you have a good defense in the courts.


And no, I am not a lawyer and FUCK NO, I will not pay your fees if you do this and it doesn't fly

That's exactly what my boss said yesterday, but I told her what Eric said on the rasio show yesterday:

If the page is accessible without having to go to your main mage, then it's a main page as well. I'm not saying he's right, just that it makes sense to me in a way. Actually, I'd prefer it if Eric was wrong on this one, because that would take care of half of the problem.

The law still hasn't gone in to affect and we still do not know what we will be required to do. The lawyer on Ynot said yesterday.. that once the comment period is up if they decide to not change anything it will go into affect in 30 days from that point.. However if they do decided to change things it will have another comment period for the changes made..

So all in all we still have at the very least another month after the regulation is approved.

Yes and I am fully aware of that. I am just attempting to get everything up to speed assuming these changes take place as they are currently worded. A 30 day grace period is not long when you have so many things to bring into new compliance. In the event things are further altered, it will be back to the attornies and again handled before it is finalized. I do not want nor desire to fall behind and end up non compliant for even a day.

This can be interpreted legally by deffinition of course (thankfully laws are done that way). I would reason that if you did force yourself to use a root index.html page on any gallery domain that in turn linked to all of your galleries and your gallery clearly had a homepage link on it then by all means you should be in the clear. You would end up with one massive friggen index.html page in your root though.

yes but the lawyer said it's very unlikly that the govt will just ignore the comments. If they did it could mean the regulations changes might not hold up in a court of law. So there will very likey be another comment period pluss the 30 days to comply.

Why put more work on yourself if you don't know what the regs will be, just get yourself as prepared as you can and wait to make changes untill the rules are confirmed.

how about every porn URL ads a 2257.html page and it should be known to law enforcement to check that too

Because one day I will be right and I do recall porns dark period. I just am getting everything pre set in order to make it easier to comply with future changes which we all know some will occure.

man 80% of gallery submitter arent' in th eUS and they dont give 2 flying fucks about what US thingkkS!

Curious to know what % of sponsors do you think are in the US?