2257 Why does it affect affiliates???

[Ann-Angelcom]

Was just reading the 2257 laws. I'm not understanding why affiliates are so worried about what content to display on a site if they are say for example promoting my site.

The law says this:
The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture, or other similar matter and includes the
duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does
not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not
involve hiring, contracting for[,] managing, or otherwise arranging for
the participation of the performers depicted.

So basically if you are just advertising a chosen site, and you had nothing to do with the actual hiring of the talent, you are exempt. Am I understanding this correctly?

[BlackCrayon]

the way the law looks at is, is that when you upload pages to your server, that is 'publishing' digital content. i think its bullshit to consider affiliates secondary producers. if anyone is, its the sponsor who bought the content.

[Ann-Angelcom]

So as long as they are hosted galleries they are 100% fine, no matter what no? It's not like you are uploading that gallery to your server....

[Jakke PNG]

So as long as they are hosted galleries they are 100% fine, no matter what no? It's not like you are uploading that gallery to your server....

Yeah, hosted galleries are ok.
Thumbs + HC banners that are hosted on your domain NOT ok...assuming you run a TGP.

[FilthyRob]

This law wants to screw affiliates in the worst way. Out of biz

[mikeylikesit]

This law wants to screw affiliates in the worst way. Out of biz

as well as anybody else that they can get to leave also

[Ann-Angelcom]

I mean yea, I understand that some affiliates make more sales if they do not use hosted content, but if you use hosted content, that doesn't necessarily mean you will be going out of business.

I'm just trying to figure out what the best thing to do is here, in order to help out affiliates through this whole thing. Add more hosteds? That the only thing?

Unfortunately no one will be giving out models personal info to everyone. So...

[mikeylikesit]

I mean yea, I understand that some affiliates make more sales if they do not use hosted content, but if you use hosted content, that doesn't necessarily mean you will be going out of business.

I'm just trying to figure out what the best thing to do is here, in order to help out affiliates through this whole thing. Add more hosteds? That the only thing?

Unfortunately no one will be giving out models personal info to everyone. So...

add good hosted content, give affiliates some decent softcore stuff to promote with for now if possible, try to patch the holes that the new regs are causing until everything comes to a head and/or gets worked out

[Ann-Angelcom]

Well my sites are only softcore so I guess there should be no problem. Have they defined sexual acts and what softcore is? I heard that as long as the material does not show pubic areas it is ok to use. Does it mean that it is exempt from the compliance? Or do you still need to have the model ID's etc.?

[Alex]

Yeah, hosted galleries are ok.
Thumbs + HC banners that are hosted on your domain NOT ok...assuming you run a TGP.

Wrong. Not hosted on your domain, but displayed through your domain.

Hotlinked and frames are not okat as well.

[austinth]

text links are your friend.

[Elli]

It's not about hardcore, it's about lascivious exposure of gentials and sexual acts. Depending on the judge, homosexuality (girls kissing) could count as a no-no. It's going to get nuts.

[NTSS]

Honestly, I dont think this secondary producer bullshit has got a leg to stand on when this hits the courts. Just mho

[GotGauge]

Quick Link
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

I also have the full Pdf if you need it... ([email protected])

If you display explicit material on your HTML pages you need ID's

OR hehe good example,
http://www.top100girls.com/

I do not believe I have used Explicit material of you, so I do not require docs...

[Dirty Dane]

Hey Anna - I dont think you have to worry about affiliates, since your promotional material is not defined as sexual explicit in the law.

[GotGauge]

(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

(from 2257)

(2) ?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated- (A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; (B) bestiality; (C) masturbation; (D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

(from 2256)


From what I read, it Does NOT include (E) but that little "or" after (D) scares me...
But the Big one that I had to change on mine is
(C) masturbation; I even removed Hands down the pants, no private parts were showing, but, one could say she had an itch or was masturbating... LOL

[The Other Steve]

Honestly, I dont think this secondary producer bullshit has got a leg to stand on when this hits the courts. Just mho

Thankyou for your humble opinion - unfortunately it's worthless because the only opinion that is going to count is the Judge's opinion on the day.

Let's hope he got a bit that morning and is feeling rather mellow.

[Ann-Angelcom]

Thanks guys for helping clear this up for me a little bit.

I'm sure that once this is passed we will all find ways to get around this...it's just a little frusturating for now.

What a find so amazing is that one of the biggest industries in the world is getting its ass kicked like this by the govt. We make tons of $$$ for these fuckers. We should be telling them what to do!

[Ann-Angelcom]

Actually I have another interesting question. How does this relate to forums?? In a sense forums are a place to gather and talk to friends share pics even. How does it relate to forums, the owners of the forum, and the people actually sharing images on there. If this law applies to that isn't it crossing the line to acting against free speech? Does that mean if I want to hand my aunt Sally my Kodak photo album on Kodak's website I need a 2257??? Isn't a forum the same concept?

[mardigras]

Thankyou for your humble opinion - unfortunately it's worthless because the only opinion that is going to count is the Judge's opinion on the day.

Let's hope he got a bit that morning and is feeling rather mellow.

Well considering the supreme court only decided 4-3 that pornography was marginally protected by the first amendment let's hope that judge you refer to is not one Bush gets to appoint

[GatorB]

Actually I have another interesting question. How does this relate to forums?? In a sense forums are a place to gather and talk to friends share pics even. How does it relate to forums, the owners of the forum, and the people actually sharing images on there. If this law applies to that isn't it crossing the line to acting against free speech? Does that mean if I want to hand my aunt Sally my Kodak photo album on Kodak's website I need a 2257??? Isn't a forum the same concept?

A) forums are exempt like Google images under the "cannot reasonably controll the content of their sites" rule

B) As far as the Kodak scenario why would you give your aunt Sally sexual pics of you? And I'm sure Kodak has it's own rules reguarding content.

[Ann-Angelcom]

B) As far as the Kodak scenario why would you give your aunt Sally sexual pics of you? And I'm sure Kodak has it's own rules reguarding content.

LOL You know what I mean! HAHA

[GatorB]

LOL You know what I mean! HAHA

Not really, because 2257 only has to with sexually explicit content. Not to mention it has to be PUBLISHED. I do not think SHARING pics is PUBLISHING even if it was sexual in nature. I don't know how Kodak works if it's just sharing pic files or they are seen online.

[Ann-Angelcom]

It was just an analogy. It wasn't mean to be taken exactly for what it is. I could have said sending a naked pic of myself to my girlfriend or whoever. Just an analogy of sharing files and images.

[mrthumbs]

It was just an analogy. It wasn't mean to be taken exactly for what it is. I could have said sending a naked pic of myself to my girlfriend or whoever. Just an analogy of sharing files and images.

Never do analogies when youre dealing with moronies.. you should have known better