2257 Question

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • budz
    Disruptive Innovator
    • Sep 2003
    • 4230

    #1

    2257 Question

    Soo.. It's probably been answered before and I'm just too lazy to search.

    Has it been decided if you're allowed (legally in the U.S) to have static links to web sites containing nudity without having to have any 2257 documentation?

    The page with the static link to nudity will not have any nudity simulated or otherwise.

    Also, what about Iframing a page with nudity?


    thanks
    C:\Code\
    C:\Code\Run\
  • StickyGreen
    .
    • Oct 2003
    • 13076

    #2
    2257 requires you have documentation for anyone portrayed in sexually-explicit content hosted on YOUR SITE... Why would you be held responsible for images/content on other people's sites?
    Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

    Comment

    • budz
      Disruptive Innovator
      • Sep 2003
      • 4230

      #3
      Originally posted by StickyGreen
      2257 requires you have documentation for anyone portrayed in sexually-explicit content hosted on YOUR SITE... Why would you be held responsible for images/content on other people's sites?
      That's what I figured.

      no clue .. someone wanted me to ask so I did.

      However, I did throw in the I-Frame part tho because of secondary publisher shit.
      C:\Code\
      C:\Code\Run\

      Comment

      • Paul Markham
        Too old to care
        • Jun 2001
        • 52942

        #4
        Originally posted by StickyGreen
        2257 requires you have documentation for anyone portrayed in sexually-explicit content hosted on YOUR SITE... Why would you be held responsible for images/content on other people's sites?
        What he said. It's only for content you have control over, so other sites and FHG type content is fine.



        Blowout deal. 880 videos, 2,400 image sets, plus many RAW videos. $500.
        PM me for a deal. Skype Paulmarkham70

        Comment

        • teksonline
          So Fucking Banned
          • Jan 2005
          • 2904

          #5
          So Paul, say I link a advertisement (for example let's use a picture of the day image) on my web site......

          Now the picture is actually being hosting by you but its linked and fully displayed in my home page index.html

          US Webmaster is ok?

          Comment

          • StickyGreen
            .
            • Oct 2003
            • 13076

            #6
            If the image is displayed on your site then I don't think it matters where it is hosted. You still need the 2257 for it if you have control over the content...
            Refer Cam Girls and Take Home 10% of Everything They Make For Life

            Comment

            • Webby
              Too lazy to set a custom title
              • Oct 2002
              • 14956

              #7
              Originally posted by teksonline
              So Paul, say I link a advertisement (for example let's use a picture of the day image) on my web site......

              Now the picture is actually being hosting by you but its linked and fully displayed in my home page index.html

              US Webmaster is ok?
              Basically man, it's you who is "publishing" the image on your website - 2257 path is needed or your sponsor "supposed" to have the docs to cover your ass (and the sponsors ass if they are operational in the US).

              There may be minor exceptions, but generally as a webmaster, you are responsible for all content published on your website.
              XXX TLD's - Another mosquito to swat.

              Comment

              Working...