Is 2257 link necessary for galleries by affiliates, these days?

[MrMaxwell]

What ever happened with that??

[geirlur]

I just put the 2257 url at the bottom at the gallery without linking to it (since some tgp scripts count outgoing links). If anyone really cares about this anymore I don't know..

[Barefootsies]

You would want to ask you lawyer. The law enforcement on this has flippy flopped a few times on the law passed, then held up on enforcement, and so forth and so on.

I personally have continued to do it. I do not want to have to pull down 1000 galleries over 5 year just because they do not have some fucking footer on their with 2257.

[Quentin]

The short answer is "yes."

For the longer, more detailed and nuanced answer, you should speak to an attorney -- and not just any attorney; it's really best to go with one who is experienced and knowledgeable in laws that pertain to and regulate the adult industry, specifically.

I would also advise that people not post too much detail about what they are (or aren't) doing in order to comply with 2257. In that same spirit, it's probably best to state your questions about 2257 in hypothetical form. ("If I were to post galleries as an affiliate, would I need to....").

This might seem like paranoia-driven advice, but it's really just prudent practice when discussing anything you do that might create liability for you in any area of law, be it criminal or civil.

[brentbacardi]

add include files at the header and footer of things you mass produce like galleries, then you can always add and take off new shit easily...

[CIVMatt]

Speaking of, it really interesting how ignored 2257 is these days. Now that webcamming has become the mainstream thing to do and girls that otherwise have no dealings with adult other then finding out they can cam and make money. All these girls now put up stuff and promote with zero 2257 or any sort of compliance to anything.

[Dirty Dane]

It is required by the law. If you live in US, is a US citizen or operate in US. Not only a link, but also a correct statement.

[Klen]

Lol 2257?I dont remember seeing 2257 on any tube site yet a lot of them are operated in usa.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

Lol 2257?I dont remember seeing 2257 on any tube site yet a lot of them are operated in usa.

True... and it's also true that operators of such sites are playing a dangerous game.

[MrMaxwell]

It sure has been quiet ... the 2257 issue .. lately
That's why I brought it up

What's this about a link not being enough- there is language that specifies "secondary producers" keep the actual statement posted on every page or .. on the server somewhere or???

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by MrMaxwell

It sure has been quiet ... the 2257 issue .. lately
That's why I brought it up

What's this about a link not being enough- there is language that specifies "secondary producers" keep the actual statement posted on every page or .. on the server somewhere or???

Here is how the relevant section, 18 USC 2257 (e), of the statute reads, with some emphasis I've added to highlight the portion that is related to statements on web pages:

(1) Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located. In this paragraph, the term ?copy? includes every page of a website on which matter described in subsection (a) appears.

(2) If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.

The corresponding federal regulation pertaining to that section of the statute is 28 CFR 75.6:

§ 75.6
Statement describing location of books and records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, or picture, or other matter (including but not limited to an Internet computer site or service) that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995, and produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued after July 3, 1995, or of a performer in a visual depiction of simulated sexually explicit conduct or actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, shall cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing the location of the records required by this part. A producer may cause such statement to be affixed, for example, by instructing the manufacturer of the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter to affix the statement. In this paragraph, the term ?copy? includes every page of a Web site on which a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct appears.

(b) Every statement shall contain:
(1) The title of the book, magazine, periodical, film, or videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter (unless the title is prominently set out elsewhere in the book, magazine, periodical, film, or videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter) or, if there is no title, an identifying number or similar identifier that differentiates this matter from other matters which the producer has produced;
(2) [Reserved]
(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. A post office box address does not satisfy this requirement.

(c) If the producer is an organization, the statement shall also contain the title and business address of the person who is responsible for maintaining the records required by this part.

(d) The information contained in the statement must be accurate as of the date on which the book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter is produced or reproduced.

(e) For the purposes of this section, the required statement shall be displayed in typeface that is no less than 12-point type or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material. 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.

(f) If the producer contracts with a non-employee custodian of records to serve as the person responsible for maintaining his records, the statement shall contain the name and business address of that custodian and may contain that information in lieu of the information required in paragraphs (b)(3) and (c) of this section.

I hope this helps... but you really should speak to an attorney about the specifics of your sites, business and record-keeping/labeling protocols, though.

It's all well and good to read the statutory language for yourself, but at the end of the day as laymen we are bound to misinterpret a key term here or there, because (among many other reasons) statutory definitions and dictionary definitions often differ, which makes it hard to read the statute as a layman and have any real confidence that you are getting the full story.

[Barry-xlovecam]

12pt 16px 1em 100%

this size?

1em 100%? got this from a chart ...
The Internet is not a typewriter 10pt/12pt ...



**(not legal advice ...)

[topnotch, standup guy]

You're only permitted to ignore the 2257 regulations in instances where your site consists wholly of stolen content.

No exceptions.

Adapt or die.





.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

12pt 16px 1em 100%

this size?

1em 100%? got this from a chart ...
The Internet is not a typewriter 10pt/12pt ...



**(not legal advice ...)

Keep reading: ". . . or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material."

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by KlenTelaris

Lol 2257?I dont remember seeing 2257 on any tube site yet a lot of them are operated in usa.

Sure, I understand. This is the defense that other cars on the highway were speeding and didn't get stopped and didn't get a ticket. Let me know when that flies in court.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Keep reading: ". . . or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material."

Ah good, Joe has found this thread. I will hereby yield the floor to someone who knows one hell of a lot more than I do about any/all of this.

And.... since Joe is a very responsible guy, my bet is that he'll tell you that if you want specific and detailed advice about 2257 compliance tailored to suit your business, you will need to contact him offline to discuss your particular situation/sites/protocols. Some will doubtlessly interpret this as a money-driven suggestion, but the truth is, it represents exactly what you should expect from ethical and sensible legal counsel.

(Lawyers have rules to follow too, after all.)

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by MrMaxwell

It sure has been quiet ... the 2257 issue .. lately
That's why I brought it up

What's this about a link not being enough- there is language that specifies "secondary producers" keep the actual statement posted on every page or .. on the server somewhere or???

Quiet?

This is all during just the past three weeks!

http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...al-472961.html

http://www.xbiz.com/news/news_piece....l&q=obenberger

http://business.avn.com/articles/leg...57-474295.html

http://www.ynot.com/content/108900-o...257-rules.html



It's not quiet at all. You just need a hearing aid.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by Joe Obenberger

Keep reading: ". . . or no smaller than the second-largest typeface on the material and in a color that clearly contrasts with the background color of the material."

Great -- So <h2>ddd</h2> that might be the second largest typeface.

Maybe, like the cigarette warning label requirement ...

I am just pointing out how confusingly detailed these regulations are and sometimes they seem intentionally made that way.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Great -- So <h2>ddd</h2> that might be the second largest typeface.

Maybe, like the cigarette warning label requirement ...

I am just pointing out how confusingly detailed these regulations are and sometimes they seem intentionally made that way.

Barry, there are some parts of these regs that are so obtuse that they can't sensibly be undersood, but this is not one of them. One size for boxcovers and magazines that's absolute and linked to a point size - and another that is relative for electronic display should not tax or challenge anyone's brain.

[Barry-xlovecam]

OK -- How many pt is <h2>?

Fonts that are displayed can be relative on the web

http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_font_font-size.asp

h1 {font-size:250%}
h2 {font-size:200%}
p {font-size:100%}

12 pt is a print size.
CD boxs no problem for the web?

No one will resign their webpages so the second largest font size equal to their 2257 label or the reverse -- that is total idiocy -- take a look at some pages.

[Barry-xlovecam]

<font size="5"><a href="http://teenie-pics.com/flvs.html" target="_blank">Sponsors With Hosted FLVs</a> | <a href="http://teenie-pics.com/gfsites.html" target="_blank">Legal GF Sponsors</a></font>

<font size="4"><font color="Red">Go Fuck Yourself!</font></font> <img src="images/icons/xyxthumbs.gif" alt="" title="" class="inlineimg" border="0">
			</div>

4 is the second largest font size on this page

§2257

Looks good a blind man's seeing eye dog could find it ...

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

OK -- How many pt is <h2>?

Fonts that are displayed can be relative on the web

http://www.w3schools.com/cssref/pr_font_font-size.asp


12 pt is a print size.
CD boxs no problem for the web?

No one will resign their webpages so the second largest font size equal to their 2257 label or the reverse -- that is total idiocy -- take a look at some pages.

Redesign? This language has been on the books since June 23, 2005. How many pages are in current use in the adult internet that have been in unmodified use for seven years? This is not some recent change. Odds are close to 99% that any page you look at on the adult internet was designed after that date. I really would expect that any designer/developer in the adult sphere would know of this size and contrast requirement and design the notice to meet the law. If I paid a designer to create my site, I'd demand a design that complied with the law. If I ran adult sites, I would never take any unnecessary risk and compliant links would exist on every page with covered content that led to a notice using text with proper contrast and in the second-largest font used on the site. It seems to me to be far more idiotic to defy the statute because the risk is unnecessary.

Again, the fact that others violate the law will never amount to a defense that you can use. If, at sentencing, you told the judge what you wrote here, "take a look at some pages", it would likely hit you in the butt - the judge would likely respond that a stiff sentence is therefore most appropriate for you, so that the word gets out, and to deter others from breaking the law.

"Second Largest" is just not a difficult concept to understand or to implement.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Well, I really don't care of the details ...

Substantial compliance, as long as it is easily readable I'll roll with that.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Well, I really don't care of the details ...

Substantial compliance, as long as it is easily readable I'll roll with that.

Good luck to you.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Just as an aside ...

Did the AG ever report to the congress?

18 USC § 2257A

(k) On an annual basis, the Attorney General shall submit a report to Congress?
(1) concerning the enforcement of this section and section 2257 by the Department of Justice during the previous 12-month period; and
(2) including?
(A) the number of inspections undertaken pursuant to this section and section 2257;
(B) the number of open investigations pursuant to this section and section 2257;
(C) the number of cases in which a person has been charged with a violation of this section and section 2257; and
(D) for each case listed in response to subparagraph (C), the name of the lead defendant, the federal district in which the case was brought, the court tracking number, and a synopsis of the violation and its disposition, if any, including settlements, sentences, recoveries and penalties.

[VenusBlogger]

DMCA is the new 2257...

BTW, do people still submit galleries?

90% of TGPs and MGPs from year 2005 now show a SEDO PAGE or are 404 or expired domains.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam

Just as an aside ...

Did the AG ever report to the congress?

At least once, it did. I did a FOIA request, and I posted the first report on xxxlaw.com. Let me know if you can't find it. I have not done so since, but it's not a bad idea to ask for the subsequent annual reports to see what, if anything, they've told Congress and to maybe get some new data points. My sense is that they suspended the trial inspection program to let the dust settle on the litigation, not wanting to waste time and effort if the courts, in the end, determine it to be unconstitutional. If they win, they will be able to go back for many years under the statute of limitations.

[Joe Obenberger]

Originally Posted by VenusBlogger

DMCA is the new 2257...

BTW, do people still submit galleries?

90% of TGPs and MGPs from year 2005 now show a SEDO PAGE or are 404 or expired domains.

1. Nobody can go to jail for violating DMCA, become a convicted felon, lose the right to vote or the right to own firearms. There is no parallel at all.

2. All the laws must be considered by the smart webmaster who wishes to avoid risk, not just the laws that are currently hot on the boards. It's rare to find a post about child pornography laws on the boards, posts that talk about Knox and Dost and the other significant cases that define what child pornography is - and in fact what the scope of Section 2257's obligations are to _adult_ material. Whether they get attention here or anywhere doesn't matter. Try telling an FBI Agent that the law should not apply to you because no one ever explained it on GFY. He'll go back and tell that one to his co-workers in the office! A smart and careful webmaster/developer understands those cases and the statute they apply to and makes his plans and implementation to comply with the law. A webmaster/developer who depends on the law du jour of interest to the boards to make his plans may discover himself to be in violation of laws that can destroy him, and he cannot be called "smart".

[Barry-xlovecam]

I saw the one you had posted. So, the §2257 litigation started tolling of the statute of limitations (again) -- don't prune any records yet ...

[Joe Obenberger]

No, no limitation period is tolled by the pending litigation.

The general federal limitation is five years from the date of the offense.

[Joe Obenberger]

I've sent that FOIA request to obtain DOJ's Report to Congress, 2005 to date, on annual inspections. http://www.xxxlaw.com/news/DOJ_FOIA_Request_2012.pdf

Barry, you get credit for prompting me to request them.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Thanks for the effort. Be interesting to see what comes back ...