definitive 2257 questions thread

[AOLGuy]

can anyone out there point to some articles written by LAWYERS or LEGAL EXPERTS which can shed light on some questions about compliance?


for instance:

my main site contains content I shot myself.

it also contains promotional content in the form of photos and videos from sponsors.

it also contains purchased content.

it also contains sexually explicit banners from sponsors.


what should my 2257 compliance page look like? do I specify which content I shot and also list the custodial information for the appropriate parties? do I have to spell out who shot what?

[iroc409]

i imagine this is out there somewhere, but instead of all the 2257 questions, why doesn't someone post a page with the definitive 2257 regs and clarifications of such for us law-challenged?

[AOLGuy]

so far, I've yet to read much of anything written by an attorney that elaborates much, or that was written recently.

[LadyMischief]

http://www.adultsitelaw.com/legalguide.html

[Probono]

I think you will find only generic comments from anyone in the legal community. The answers can be specific only where the statute is specific. To my knowledge there is no case law on 18 usc2257 yet.

My sincere advice is if you have an adult site you need a lawyer who understands and works in the industry. If you cannot afford a good lawyer for proactive work you might find yourself paying a lot more retroactively.

[iroc409]

Originally posted by AKFK
so far, I've yet to read much of anything written by an attorney that elaborates much, or that was written recently.

and that's what's needed here. i didn't read LM's page, but i'll get around to it. sounds like it might be promising

[iroc409]

Originally posted by Probono
I think you will find only generic comments from anyone in the legal community. The answers can be specific only where the statute is specific. To my knowledge there is no case law on 18 usc2257 yet.

My sincere advice is if you have an adult site you need a lawyer who understands and works in the industry. If you cannot afford a good lawyer for proactive work you might find yourself paying a lot more retroactively.

i'm just saying there should be a well-documented and easy-to-understand explanation of the regulations set forth by the lawmakers.

[AOLGuy]

I agree.

I think the DOJ probably enjoys having it vaguely worded.

Easier for us to slip up.

But really, the first prosecution will define what is 100% neccessary.

Just hope the first one isn't you, cause it will be "roll over and play dead" time for anyone who can't afford to take it to the Supreme Court.

By posting too much information on my sites, I am hoping I should be in the clear.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by iroc409

i'm just saying there should be a well-documented and easy-to-understand explanation of the regulations set forth by the lawmakers.

This would be nice for any law, but the chances of it happening or less than good. Think of all the days saved in court with lawyers arguing what the law really meant. then the appeals court.

A lot of lawyers earn to much money from the confusion to straighten it out.

Just include as much as possible, if you have girls that could be under age you need the documents to verify their age.

You need to see the model release to verify Internet use.

Be careful is the bottom line rule and spend some money on gettin a legal opinion.

At the bottom of my front page is my lawyers opinion. Paul Markham Content Store