A new 2257 Thought: Cam Shows - GoFuckYourself.com

Elli · 07-20-2004, 09:33 PM

We are required to keep a list of every hardcore image produced, right? We are also required to note the date of publication of each image.

My webcam is not true streaming, so it uploads a new image every 3 seconds.

So does this mean I need to keep lists of the thousands of images I upload every cam show as well? Even though each image is only viewable for a few seconds?

Thoughts?

Fabuleux · 07-20-2004, 09:38 PM

A framerate of 0.333 is still video.

Digipimp · 07-20-2004, 09:40 PM

yes technically you would if the government ever decided to be an asshole about it

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
We are required to keep a list of every hardcore image produced, right? We are also required to note the date of publication of each image.

My webcam is not true streaming, so it uploads a new image every 3 seconds.

So does this mean I need to keep lists of the thousands of images I upload every cam show as well? Even though each image is only viewable for a few seconds?

Thoughts?

Get an attorney.

Elli · 07-20-2004, 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
Get an attorney.

Obviously. I was wondering what the rest of the folks thought about it, though. You know, free exchange of ideas and all that claptrap.

InsaneMidget · 07-20-2004, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Obviously. I was wondering what the rest of the folks thought about it, though. You know, free exchange of ideas and all that claptrap.

That sounded a little snippy. Beautiful.

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Obviously. I was wondering what the rest of the folks thought about it, though. You know, free exchange of ideas and all that claptrap.

On this board...That's as useless as tits on a boar.

Only a small percentage of these people are compliant or even understand the current law. Even fewer for the proposed regulations.

I've decided to stop helping people with this issue for free. I pay good money to lawyers for this shit and so can they.

If people can't afford an attorney who knows this shit then maybe they should not be fucking up this business for the rest of us anyway.

Elli · 07-20-2004, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by InsaneMidget
That sounded a little snippy. Beautiful.

I am only human. I've heard "get a lawyer" so much lately that it's getting on my nerves. The neccessity of a lawyer is obvious in this case. But that shouldn't stop me from asking what the general population thinks about the problem. Maybe my thought will help someone else? Who knows?

SleazyDream · 07-20-2004, 09:51 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
On this board...That's as useless as tits on a boar.

Only a small percentage of these people are compliant or even understand the current law. Even fewer for the proposed regulations.

I've decided to stop helping people with this issue for free. I pay good money to lawyers for this shit and so can they.

If people can't afford an attorney who knows this shit then maybe they should not be fucking up this business for the rest of us anyway.

sometimes those that think they understand it don't look forward either

Elli · 07-20-2004, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
On this board...That's as useless as tits on a boar.

Only a small percentage of these people are compliant or even understand the current law. Even fewer for the proposed regulations.

Good point.

Quote:

I've decided to stop helping people with this issue for free. I pay good money to lawyers for this shit and so can they.

Another good point; though it sounds rather selfish, I can see where you're coming from.

We will all need lawyers by the end of this. BUT this is new to the lawyers, too. It would be interesting to see where they agree and where they differ, don't you think?

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
I am only human. I've heard "get a lawyer" so much lately that it's getting on my nerves. The neccessity of a lawyer is obvious in this case. But that shouldn't stop me from asking what the general population thinks about the problem. Maybe my thought will help someone else? Who knows?

The general population around here are idiots. 2257 has been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death too many times to count yet these stupid bastards are still not compliant. That's not about to change.

History repeats itself. Everybody panicked with the amber alert stuff as if 2257 was new then they all calmed down and chose to ignore it as usual....The same thing will happen again....Until prosecutions are made.

Elli · 07-20-2004, 09:55 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
The general population around here are idiots. 2257 has been hashed, rehashed, and beaten to death too many times to count yet these stupid bastards are still not compliant. That's not about to change.

History repeats itself. Everybody panicked with the amber alert stuff as if 2257 was new then they all calmed down and chose to ignore it as usual....The same thing will happen again....Until prosecutions are made.

Call me a foolish optimist, then. I like to think sometimes I can be helpful to someone or that I can learn something here.

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 09:56 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SleazyDream
sometimes those that think they understand it don't look forward either

Damn...Maybe I should bury my head in the sand and forget all about those phone conversations with my attorney and Brandon today.

I should also stop the development of the new file system I am working on.

I wanna be like the rest of the sheep.

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Call me a foolish optimist, then. I like to think sometimes I can be helpful to someone or that I can learn something here.

I fully appreciate that. But my advice still rings true. No matter what anybody on GFY says, you should take those questions to an attorney.

Jace · 07-20-2004, 09:58 PM

if you are the model, you only have to have 2257 once per model

you don't have to have seperate docs for each image, that is just stupid to think...by that rationale, when you buy a set of pics from matrix content, you will get 150-175 copies of the 2257 docs...ROFL

if it is your site and your cam show, you just need the 2257 docs once for the whole site for you

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:01 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
if you are the model, you only have to have 2257 once per model

you don't have to have seperate docs for each image, that is just stupid to think...by that rationale, when you buy a set of pics from matrix content, you will get 150-175 copies of the 2257 docs...ROFL

if it is your site and your cam show, you just need the 2257 docs once for the whole site for you

No. Each hardcore image's filename must be kept in the database, cross indexed with the publication date of the image and all the model's names.

xxxdesign-net · 07-20-2004, 10:01 PM

I personally want to know what will happen to AVS network.. are theyr responsible for their members' sites..?
What about PPV sites like aben?
Sites with ripped DVDs.. etc..

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:02 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by AaronM
I fully appreciate that. But my advice still rings true. No matter what anybody on GFY says, you should take those questions to an attorney.

I have no problem with that. I agree with you whole heartedly there.

FightThisPatent · 07-20-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli

So does this mean I need to keep lists of the thousands of images I upload every cam show as well? Even though each image is only viewable for a few seconds?

Thoughts?

Video and Images are both covered under 2257.

You don't need a 2257 record per image. Since you are the same model, you have the same model release.. your production is most likely your continually running show.. whereas photographers have their works done in sets (and then hopefully registered at copyright office).

The major problem for single/solo sites is that you would need to list your home address (since that is your place of business) for records.. which means stalkers and "fans" would know where you live.

There are many nuances to this biz that the DOJ does not understand, and in addition, everyone's situation is different, that's why you do need to consult with an attorney about your specific situation.

I think threads like these are a great place to gain information, and to allow you to formulate the right questions to ask your attorney, rather than act as a replacement.

By doing as much of your research, you can reduce the amount of hourly time you spend with an attorney.

People who run their cams through a cam network can be protected by having the cam network store their 2257 records so that arrangement protects your personal identity.

-brandon

Jace · 07-20-2004, 10:06 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
No. Each hardcore image's filename must be kept in the database, cross indexed with the publication date of the image and all the model's names.

rofl, that ain't what our lawyer said....but what does he know

toddler · 07-20-2004, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
rofl, that ain't what our lawyer said....but what does he know

you might rofl less. A smart man/woman checks with more than one. Ignorance of the law is not an excuse that stands up. Speaking as someone with 5 lawyers in my family, I know.

AaronM · 07-20-2004, 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
We will all need lawyers by the end of this.

"We" should all have them already.

FightThisPatent · 07-20-2004, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
No. Each hardcore image's filename must be kept in the database, cross indexed with the publication date of the image and all the model's names.

The cross indexing function applies to primary record keepers, and applies to keeping track of a model with all their aliases, stage names, professional names, and production.

Every time a photo shoot is done, the model release is needed that captures this info.. repeat.. EVERY time you do a shoot.... technically, if you shoot a girl on monday and you shoot her again on friday, you need another form filled out because her hair color could have changed, and it's a different production.

For elli, as a webcam model, your "production" is that one continual stream, so you don't need to do this cross indexing stuff. You are the model and there is just one production. If you have people in your video that are doing stuff that require 2257, then you would include them with their model info.

My focus is more on the webmaster side being a secondary record keeper. Primary Record Keepers have more things to do to comply with current and proposed regulations.

So many content producers are not doing their 2257 record keeping properly and also don't consult with legal.

-brandon

ps. i think i was a TV attorney in another life

Kimmykim · 07-20-2004, 10:20 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
rofl, that ain't what our lawyer said....but what does he know

I'd talk to another lawyer, I've heard at least 5 so far directly take it to mean that.

FightThisPatent · 07-20-2004, 10:23 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Each hardcore image's filename must be kept in the database, cross indexed with the publication date of the image and all the model's names.

This is correct from my understanding and consultations.

If the DOJ asks for the records of a specific record, you need to be able to point to the primary record keeper and to the model info.

(small plug - this is what 2257lookup.com service does).

-brandon

ps. in case anyone is thinking i have contradicted myself.. I have been replying in general to 2257 requirements along with trying to help answer Elli's specific questions. For her case, since the image is updated (ie. overwritten), it's not stored continually as a separate file (ie. a growing still image library). If you do have a growing image library (and thus a perfect example of why an attorney is needed to address your specific situation), then you would need to be able to cross reference the image, epecially if you have other "performers" in the still shots doing "sexually explicit" things.

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
This is correct from my understanding and consultations.

If the DOJ asks for the records of a specific record, you need to be able to point to the primary record keeper and to the model info.

(small plug - this is what 2257lookup.com service does).

-brandon

Thanks for the info, Brandon! You seem to be quite on top of things.

I'm glad I wasn't totally off base there. I'm sorry if I came off sounding like a know-it-all. That was one of the parts of the document that really surprised me, so I thought I remembered it pretty well.

tony286 · 07-20-2004, 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Kimmykim
I'd talk to another lawyer, I've heard at least 5 so far directly take it to mean that.

I see alot of copying and pasting of links in Jaces future. Too bad we couldnt hire the mexican guys who hang by home depot in the morning looking for work. Get 10 of them in here copying and pasting links for me . I would be done in no time lol.

FightThisPatent · 07-20-2004, 10:30 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Thanks for the info, Brandon! You seem to be quite on top of things.

I don't want to come across as a "know it all" either... 2257 current statutes and the new proposed regulations are very complex, vague, and broad.

I listen, talk, read, and learn as much as I can and try to distill the info into more simpler, laymen terms.... which I am sure may make me oversimply things.. but.. atleast it's a start to begin looking for the answers to your questions.

-brandon

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:31 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
I see alot of copying and pasting of links in Jaces future. Too bad we couldnt hire the mexican guys who hang by home depot in the morning looking for work. Get 10 of them in here copying and pasting links for me . I would be done in no time lol.

I have a few so far:

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=326698
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=327790&perpage=50&pagen umber=1
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=327050&perpage=50&pagen umber=1

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:32 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent

I listen, talk, read, and learn as much as I can and try to distill the info into more simpler, laymen terms

I'm just trying to do the same thing over here.

FightThisPatent · 07-20-2004, 10:35 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
I'm just trying to do the same thing over here.

I think what would help if some graphic artists would draw a Madden style illustration that shows the webmaster or content producer as the quarterback, and the movement of the play that leads to the touchdown (ie. 2257 compliance).

ok, corny imagery, but a pic is worth a thousand words.

-brandon

Jace · 07-20-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
I see alot of copying and pasting of links in Jaces future. Too bad we couldnt hire the mexican guys who hang by home depot in the morning looking for work. Get 10 of them in here copying and pasting links for me . I would be done in no time lol.

hey now, i am simply referring to a single girl site with only that girl featured in the site..which from my understanding, is what she runs

so, by the new laws, I need to have the same 2257 docs for every photo shoot of my wife? so, we have 250 sets, i need to have 250 duplicate 2257 docs in a filing cabinet? each referencing different shoots?

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:37 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
I think what would help if some graphic artists would draw a Madden style illustration that shows the webmaster or content producer as the quarterback, and the movement of the play that leads to the touchdown (ie. 2257 compliance).

ok, corny imagery, but a pic is worth a thousand words.

-brandon

Or one of those "this is your brain on drugs" style photos.

"this is you shooting anal sex. this is you not keeping records. This is you getting anal sex from your cell mate. Any questions?"

tony286 · 07-20-2004, 10:37 PM

One of the things my lawyer did say was until it goes to court somethings are going to be murky. Thats where the big guns in our business are going to have to step up, I cant understand why they havent yet. with my 9000 images this sucks moosedick I cant image for a big company what the costs are going to be. IF I was a big dog I would had my lawyers filing suits and injunctions before the words finished coming out of Johnny A's mouth.

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:38 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
hey now, i am simply referring to a single girl site with only that girl featured in the site..which from my understanding, is what she runs

so, by the new laws, I need to have the same 2257 docs for every photo shoot of my wife? so, we have 250 sets, i need to have 250 duplicate 2257 docs in a filing cabinet? each referencing different shoots?

Not different forms. They want a database, like in MS Access. Cross referenced by fields: model's name, date of shoot, filename, date of publication, URL of publication. As far as I know.

tony286 · 07-20-2004, 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
hey now, i am simply referring to a single girl site with only that girl featured in the site..which from my understanding, is what she runs

so, by the new laws, I need to have the same 2257 docs for every photo shoot of my wife? so, we have 250 sets, i need to have 250 duplicate 2257 docs in a filing cabinet? each referencing different shoots?

No but you need the url of each image going back to a model release, name, aliases ,production date cross indexed.

Jace · 07-20-2004, 10:40 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
Not different forms. They want a database, like in MS Access. Cross referenced by fields: model's name, date of shoot, filename, date of publication, URL of publication. As far as I know.

or a filing cabinet, which is what I use....stupid shit if that is true...I have NO CLUE when half this was taken or the date published....

Jace · 07-20-2004, 10:41 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by tony404
No but you need the url of each image going back to a model release, name, aliases ,production date cross indexed.

haha, so i need 22,000 urls referencing 22,000 images????

hahahaha..oh wow...

Elli · 07-20-2004, 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by JaceXXX
or a filing cabinet, which is what I use....stupid shit if that is true...I have NO CLUE when half this was taken or the date published....

If you are keeping all this cross-indexing in a file cabinet, then holy cow man. Why do it the hard way? Keep it all in one database and it'll keep itself in order.

I don't know that info, either. Esp. for all the CDs and DVD's I have out. And even if I remove them from sale and start from scratch, does that really help much? Even if a picture is not currently online or available to surfers, if it's in my collection and has been previously published, should I have the records for it? Gah!

rowan · 07-20-2004, 11:04 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
ps. in case anyone is thinking i have contradicted myself.. I have been replying in general to 2257 requirements along with trying to help answer Elli's specific questions. For her case, since the image is updated (ie. overwritten), it's not stored continually as a separate file (ie. a growing still image library). If you do have a growing image library (and thus a perfect example of why an attorney is needed to address your specific situation), then you would need to be able to cross reference the image, epecially if you have other "performers" in the still shots doing "sexually explicit" things.

Don't forget that there are both websites and consumer apps that will automatically archive this sort of cam "show." This may affect your interpretation...

Elli · 07-20-2004, 11:09 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rowan
Don't forget that there are both websites and consumer apps that will automatically archive this sort of cam "show." This may affect your interpretation...

Yeah, I know.I even repost archives of my chats monthly.

rowan · 07-20-2004, 11:13 PM

Random thought, knock me down if I'm way off base.

Elli, you are based in Canada, so technically you're not bound by the USA 2257 law, correct? Unless you actually sell your webcam show images (or let affiliates use them for promotion), there is no need to keep these records - since you'll never have to pass them onto anyone in the USA who is considered a secondary producer...

(Side thought: I wonder how 24/7 voyeur cams fit into this? One continuous video production over an indefinite period?)

Elli · 07-20-2004, 11:17 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by rowan
Random thought, knock me down if I'm way off base.

Elli, you are based in Canada, so technically you're not bound by the USA 2257 law, correct? Unless you actually sell your webcam show images (or let affiliates use them for promotion), there is no need to keep these records - since you'll never have to pass them onto anyone in the USA who is considered a secondary producer...

(Side thought: I wonder how 24/7 voyeur cams fit into this? One continuous video production over an indefinite period?)

I am in Canada, but my site is hosted, processed, etc etc and items are shipped from the States. So I am thinking it's better to be compliant than not.

Kimmykim · 07-21-2004, 01:43 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
If you are keeping all this cross-indexing in a file cabinet, then holy cow man. Why do it the hard way? Keep it all in one database and it'll keep itself in order.

Eh, there is something to be said for having such an overwhelming mass of paperwork as your database that after the first inspector you wouldn't get another inspection until they hired a different inspector.

Digipimp · 07-21-2004, 01:50 AM

i have a copy of 2257 taped to my penis to make all my ladies feel more confident

Digipimp · 07-21-2004, 01:56 AM

oh and if it matters, regardless of laws and lawyers and whatever other bullshit. you're about as likely to get convicted on a 2257 violation for pictures of yourself as saddam hussien is at getting set free.

you might get charged on a technicality but no one would ever convict you on a 2257 violation of pics of yourself because it goes against the whole point of the law itself. you know unless you were 18 and maybe they thought some of the pics were when you were 16.

Paul Waters · 07-21-2004, 03:34 AM

Is it not time to domicile web sites in Canada, so that they are subject to Canadian, and not US, law?

LadyMischief · 07-21-2004, 05:31 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Paul Waters
Is it not time to domicile web sites in Canada, so that they are subject to Canadian, and not US, law?

The only problem being that many people use US incorporations to assist in getting billing options... This makes many Canadians subject to 2257 that might not otherwise be (say if they hosted only in Canada).

Elli · 07-21-2004, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Digipimp
oh and if it matters, regardless of laws and lawyers and whatever other bullshit. you're about as likely to get convicted on a 2257 violation for pictures of yourself as saddam hussien is at getting set free.

you might get charged on a technicality but no one would ever convict you on a 2257 violation of pics of yourself because it goes against the whole point of the law itself. you know unless you were 18 and maybe they thought some of the pics were when you were 16.

I would love to agree with you, but that is just plain common sense, and the government, I think, is not too keen on common sense.

Digipimp · 07-21-2004, 08:37 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Elli
I would love to agree with you, but that is just plain common sense, and the government, I think, is not too keen on common sense.

Yes but they would have to bring the case before a jury of real people, who wouldn't be able to convict you on it. No one is going to bring that bullshit charge against you on that unless it's packed in with other violations and they are targetting you on purpose.

07-20-2004, 09:33 PM	#1
Elli Reach for those stars! Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2003 Location: Vancouver, BC Posts: 17,991	A new 2257 Thought: Cam Shows We are required to keep a list of every hardcore image produced, right? We are also required to note the date of publication of each image. My webcam is not true streaming, so it uploads a new image every 3 seconds. So does this mean I need to keep lists of the thousands of images I upload every cam show as well? Even though each image is only viewable for a few seconds? Thoughts? __________________ email: [email protected]

07-20-2004, 09:38 PM	#2
Fabuleux Confirmed User Join Date: May 2003 Location: The Netherlands Posts: 2,543	A framerate of 0.333 is still video. __________________

07-20-2004, 09:40 PM	#3
Digipimp BP4L OT DL Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BP4L Swap Meet Posts: 13,481	yes technically you would if the government ever decided to be an asshole about it __________________ Still Hosting at Webair and You Should Be Too

07-20-2004, 09:58 PM	#15
Jace FBOP Class Of 2013 Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2004 Location: bumfuck, ky Posts: 35,562	if you are the model, you only have to have 2257 once per model you don't have to have seperate docs for each image, that is just stupid to think...by that rationale, when you buy a set of pics from matrix content, you will get 150-175 copies of the 2257 docs...ROFL if it is your site and your cam show, you just need the 2257 docs once for the whole site for you Last edited by JaceXXX; 07-20-2004 at 09:59 PM..

07-20-2004, 10:37 PM	#34
tony286 lurker Industry Role: Join Date: Aug 2002 Location: atlanta Posts: 57,021	One of the things my lawyer did say was until it goes to court somethings are going to be murky. Thats where the big guns in our business are going to have to step up, I cant understand why they havent yet. with my 9000 images this sucks moosedick I cant image for a big company what the costs are going to be. IF I was a big dog I would had my lawyers filing suits and injunctions before the words finished coming out of Johnny A's mouth. Last edited by tony299; 07-20-2004 at 10:41 PM..

07-20-2004, 10:01 PM	#17
xxxdesign-net My hips don't lie Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2002 Posts: 10,129	I personally want to know what will happen to AVS network.. are theyr responsible for their members' sites..? What about PPV sites like aben? Sites with ripped DVDs.. etc..

07-20-2004, 11:13 PM	#42
rowan Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: Australia Posts: 17,393	Random thought, knock me down if I'm way off base. Elli, you are based in Canada, so technically you're not bound by the USA 2257 law, correct? Unless you actually sell your webcam show images (or let affiliates use them for promotion), there is no need to keep these records - since you'll never have to pass them onto anyone in the USA who is considered a secondary producer... (Side thought: I wonder how 24/7 voyeur cams fit into this? One continuous video production over an indefinite period?)

07-21-2004, 01:50 AM	#45
Digipimp BP4L OT DL Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BP4L Swap Meet Posts: 13,481	i have a copy of 2257 taped to my penis to make all my ladies feel more confident __________________ Still Hosting at Webair and You Should Be Too

07-21-2004, 01:56 AM	#46
Digipimp BP4L OT DL Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: BP4L Swap Meet Posts: 13,481	oh and if it matters, regardless of laws and lawyers and whatever other bullshit. you're about as likely to get convicted on a 2257 violation for pictures of yourself as saddam hussien is at getting set free. you might get charged on a technicality but no one would ever convict you on a 2257 violation of pics of yourself because it goes against the whole point of the law itself. you know unless you were 18 and maybe they thought some of the pics were when you were 16. __________________ Still Hosting at Webair and You Should Be Too

07-21-2004, 03:34 AM	#47
Paul Waters Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Toronto, Ontario Posts: 4,402	Is it not time to domicile web sites in Canada, so that they are subject to Canadian, and not US, law? __________________ Paul