2257 Faq

[FightThisPatent]

My new venture has recently come into good timing with Ashhahahahaha's proposed new changes to 2257.

2257lookup.com was originally created to allow webmasters to be proactive in being 2257 compliant. With the new proposed changes (that could go into effect in 120 days), 2257lookup looks to now be a reactive service to comply with 2257.

I have started a 2257 FAQ at:
http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html

Since there are alot of great questions being asked on various boards, I have pulled them all together on one page that i will continually update.

I am sorting through the 2257 issues with various attorneys and will post and answer any questions that people have to help generate awareness to the issues.

-brandon

[Halcyon]

Great info. Thanks!

[Giorgio_Xo]

FTP,

You should replace the AG's real last name with AssClown to avoid the filters.

[born]

Good info!!

Thanks for this post!

B-

[Kingfish]

Your definition of sexually explicit is incorrect. On your site you have:

''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;

Which was taken from 2256, but you have to read 2257 first which states:

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;

So in other words E is out and so is simulated.

[clickhappy]

Is there a page somewhere showing the correct way that the govt wants you to format your 2257 statements, and the correct way to go about it?

If I ask a lawyer theyre going to want like $500 or something just to tell me the right way to do it, thats too much.

[zanycash Pete]

Best advice, get a good attorney to look it over!

[digifan]

Thanks for posting it.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Kingfish
Your definition of sexually explicit is incorrect. On your site you have:

my bad, i actually copied from your post, but i had left out the clarification part you wrote.. i will update my page (with your name credit) to the post for the clarification.

thanks.

-brandon

[txl]

What good does this do -- the new rules require physical copies of the model releases and associated identification to be stored at the secondary producers location. Are you providing copies of the model releases as well?

[Doc911]

Originally posted by txl
What good does this do -- the new rules require physical copies of the model releases and associated identification to be stored at the secondary producers location. Are you providing copies of the model releases as well?

model releases and identification need only be held by the custodian of records.

secondary producers need only conform to the labling requirements of 2257. these models are over 18 blah blah blah shot prior to July 3, 1995 blah blah blah the custodians name and address.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by txl
What good does this do -- the new rules require physical copies of the model releases and associated identification to be stored at the secondary producers location. Are you providing copies of the model releases as well?

I'm working on that angle as well.. 2257 is certainly a complex thing.. even more so with the new regulations.

-brandon

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by Doc911
model releases and identification need only be held by the custodian of records.

secondary producers need only conform to the labling requirements of 2257. these models are over 18 blah blah blah shot prior to July 3, 1995 blah blah blah the custodians name and address.

You must not be reading the new 2257 regulations.

http://www.regulations.gov/freddocs/04-13792.htm

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records. (3)(b)


(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in Sec.
75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and
maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in Sec. 75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records.



Secondary producer is now defined as the webmaster who has the content on their website (not the exact language, but it's in there).

-brandon

[Kimmykim]

Originally posted by txl
What good does this do -- the new rules require physical copies of the model releases and associated identification to be stored at the secondary producers location. Are you providing copies of the model releases as well?

Physical copies do not have to be paper copies, fyi.

In Section 3, Analysis of the Proposed Rule, there is the following:

"Accordingly, proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1)
would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard''
physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the
identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession
information, such as each URL used for that depiction."

[Doc911]

those are just proposed rule changes. they will never be approved as they are.

[txl]

By physical i meant any form whether its a scan, on paper, etc. Just because you know where the images are from do us no good unless the documents are there for us to download and store at our offices for possible inspection.

[Imageauction]

Doc911 wrote

"those are just proposed rule changes. they will never be approved as they are."

Untrue. The proposed rule changes are as sure to become the regulations unless somebody sues to stop them.

you also wrote

"model releases and identification need only be held by the custodian of records"

model releases are a totally tangential matter and have nothing to do with 2257. Unfortunately many producers combine a model release with their 2257 compliance documentation.

I would suggest seperating it, in fact the new regulations suggest seperating it.

75.2 (e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain any other records and shall not be contained within any other records.

[Lykos]

Originally posted by Halcyon
Great info. Thanks!

[Doc911]

Untrue. The proposed rule changes are as sure to become the regulations unless somebody sues to stop them.

Not likely. But even if they are they will have to have some back ruling like the june 3, 1995 rule for the original 2257.
"this media was produced prior to "insert date" and does not require the secondary producer to maintain records blah blah blah the custodian of records is "blah blah blah at blah city in blah state."

I would suggest seperating it, in fact the new regulations suggest seperating it.

75.2 (e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain any other records and shall not be contained within any other records.

Again there is "NO" paragraph (d) or (e) in the current 28 CFR 75. These are only "proposed" rules and not likely to be approved as they are.