Actually it all boils down to.......

You are 100% responsible for what you post on your site.

So do whatever you need to do to protect yourself and satisfy what your lawyer wants to see. After all, your lawyer is the one that will be defending you if the shit hits the fan.

Hugs,
Danielle

Do yourself a favor and brush up on recent legal cases. Sundance vs. Reno comes to mind.

NEXT!

LOL!

Do yourself a favor and read my post again! You are showing your ignorance big time!

You are acting like the olmighty 2257 expert! Guess what? You are not! You are not even a lawyer!

I stand by what I have said. Do exactly as your lawyer tells you! He or she is the one that will be protecting your ass. Not me! Not AaronM!

Danielle

Opps I forgot!

NEXT!

LOL!

Danielle

To be fair, that isn't a very good comparison. When you go to McDonalds and buy their product you are not planning to redistribute it to other people.

A fact of this business is that it's risky. No matter what we think 2257 tells us and no matter what our lawyers say, if we get caught with underage models on our websites, telling the feds, "It isn't my fault, I don't keep the records," probably will not be the end of the problem. Even if you win in the end, the time lost and the potential damage to your business is great. For many webmasters, it's a case of better safe than sorry. I don't generally insist on having the models' IDs on file for myself but I wouldn't do business with anyone who refused to give them to me if I did ask.

SpaceAce

Yes that case is about primary and secondary producers.

But that court decision only effects secondary producers that live in the 10th court governd area which includes Colorado, Kansas, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Utah & Wyoming.

I don't live in any of those states. The court in my area does not have to go by what the 10th court has ruled.

Plus all I am saying is to ignore people like you and me and do what your lawyer says to do.

Danielle

Damn right I consider myself some sort of a 2257 expert. I understand the law and you clearly do not.

I fully agree with the lawyer thing but the rest of it is way off base.

LOL :thumbsup

Most of this is very true.

So you are giving out legal advise and you are not a lawyer. Am I correct?

Danielle

fitty

No, I am giving personal advice and telling people to seek appropriate legal council as well.

50 BIATCH!

Fucker.

Make that"Personal advice" based on legal facts.

:winkwink:

Then what the hell is wrong with my post? All I said was take your fucking lawyers advise! LOL!

Danielle

AaronM,

Lets just do a little test on your expert 2257 info you have in your head.

Take a look at the following picture.

http://www.trueamateurs.com/tony/nude0002.jpg

If it is on a site all by itself and the publisher of the site is the primary producer does that site need to list a custodian of records for 2257?

Danielle

Unless you live outside of the US.

I just re-read your reply.

I initially misread your post. I admit when I am wrong. Please accept my apology.

On a similar note...Telling people to ignore those who are trying to educate them is not very kind. I ALWAYS tell people to get a competent Internet attorney.

As you stated in another reply..The case I mentioned only covers certain states, BUT...That was a groundbreaking case that has set a precedent that can pave the way for future cases in other courts.

From first look, I would say no...Unless her heel is stuffed up her snatch. There may be other things going on then what we see in a single photograph. Tis better to be safe and comply with 2257 even if it is not required. Nobody will question a producer for being too careful.

by itself?

Ahaahaahaaha

The most sensible words I have ever read here. :2 cents:

This I agree 100% with. I am on your side. My husband and I have been in this business since 1996 and are primary producers. We have a very good lawyer and follow his advise to the tee.

I agree with you that everyone has to follow this law. It has been around for quite some time and looks like it will finally be used.

Hugs,
Danielle

Yep :) And I live in Australia. My lawyer advised me that I should obtain copies of model releases and IDs for all of my content. That's why I was mighty pissed-off when Sobe reneged on our agreement to provide docs.

Very interesting.

My advice???

Stick with producers who live in Australia.

Correct! That is why I tell everyone to use softcore images on FREE sites only.

2257 LABELING laws do not cover:

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

2256 does. But 2257 does not.

Shoot! we 2257 label sites that don't need it just to put our sites one notch below the radar.

Danielle

In terms of playing things conservatively, I think that's good advice. But in terms of practical reality, it would mean that I had to confine my purchases to an extremely small pool of content. It's a matter of balancing risk against commercial viability.

Gee, I am glad I passed your test. I will sleep better tonight. :)

I understand this...And I am sure that there are a lot of content providers who would not mind helping you.

Feel free to set up some models and send a few of us some plane tickets so we can produce for you and be subject to your laws. :)

Could you explain this better. How would you define lascivious exibition of the genitals.....?

Just curious...

So you advise US webmasters not to buy from Czech Content?

Yes, it's a comfort thing. That's what it all boils down to.
I like to have the model IDs so I can both prove to myself that the girl is of age *and* so that I can trust the content provider.

Just because they have put 2257 info on their site doesn't mean they follow the law - they might just be doing it to look more lawful.
Now before you say that's their problem, not mine, because they are the primary producers... think of the repercussions to me and my business if I suddenly found out that my content wasn't legal.

It *would* present a problem to me because then I'd have illegal content on my sites that I paid money for, and I'd have to take it down. Now I don't know about you, but I use my content as much as possible, and that would mean a LOT of work hunting the different sites down and changing things out, plus risking getting banned because something had changed (think TGP gallery where if anything changes after submissin or acceptance, you're banned for life).
That *would* be my problem, and it would cost me a lot of lost time (money), it would cost me content that I had paid for (money), and it would cost me a lot of extra work (money).

So no, by the LAW, I don't need to see the model IDs.
But as a businesswoman who plans to be here for a while, it puts my business on much more stable ground when I know that this content is legal and I don't have to worry about having to go into panic mode one day ripping my sites apart and costing myself money.

Make sense?

So long as you have *all* of the legal documentation that your own lawyer tells you that *you* need to run your business you are fine. Run an adult business any other way would be just too stupid to think about no matter where you are. :2 cents:

I suggest that if they really want to play it safe that they not buy from anybody outside of the US.

Indeed, it does.

Makes cents. ;)

:thumbsup

I don't think it's how we would define it, it's how a court would define it - and that's just as subjective as our opinions.
To *me*, it's something like spread pussy lips.
To an 80-yr old priest, it could be seeing a camel toe through a tight bathing suit.