|
As a primary producer, there is little good news here. Conner apparently wasn't a very convincing witness, and FSC didn't seem to bring enough artillary to the table. They failed to show how the increase in burden (compared to existing 2257 rules) would not at all serve the government's interest (child protection), so now it is likely that those rules will be enforced directly.
My suggestion (not a lawyer, I don't even play one on TV) would be to seperate out the ownership of the content from the web business. Contract out the operations of the website(s) and the like to a second company. That secondary company can provide web services and such on a contractual basis to the primary producer. By this ruling, Primary producers should never operate websites or perform any secondary producer activities that would be exempt.
As a secondary producer, I find this ruling to be good and supportive of those parts of my business. It clears up who is in the boat and who is out of the boat.
However, I did notice a hook in there: Contracting for performance. If I pay for exclusive content, or pay for specific content (such as "I need 20 minutes of video of Model Angel playing with a dildo") would I slip back into primary producer on that content because I contracted for it to occur?
The overall best news in this ruling is that it takes away the privacy issues. If secondard producers are not required to keep detailed records, it would appear that model information (beyond potentially a ID card that shows picture and date of birth) would not have to be distributed. Basically, back to where we all were 2 years ago.
Not a great day for primary producers, but a pretty good day for secondary producers and models alike.
Alex
|