How many of you are chasing Content Providers for 2257 info?

[Paul Markham]

We have been getting a few requests from clients for 2257 documetation, a lot of them did not know we already supplied it with our content or were sending the same email to all their suppliers.

It seems that one Contet Broker has closed down and is just telling people he's in Canada so not covered by it. His clients might have to throw everything away now.

So who is collecting 2257 info and what results are you having?

[Paul Markham]

Is no one here trying to get their content records legal for the new 2257 laws?

[fusionx]

Does anyone have the actual text of the revised 2257 regs? The federal register web site is down.. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

[budz]

idk if this was updated or not..

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

[Paul Markham]

I think you guys should start tracking down 2257 info. One content provider announced he's closing and when asked if he's going to keep the documents 5 years he replied he in Canada.

Don't think he was keen at giving out documents in the first place.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by fusionx
Does anyone have the actual text of the revised 2257 regs? The federal register web site is down.. http://www.gpoaccess.gov/fr/

My continually updated FAQ with the proposed 2257 changes link in the first entry:

http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html



-brandon

[MaDalton]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
My continually updated FAQ with the proposed 2257 changes link in the first entry:

http://www.2257lookup.com/2257ForWebmasters.html



-brandon

Hi Brandon - i have some questions regarding 2257, may I hit you up on ICQ?

Stefan

[Lifer]

Yeah... I'm tracking down the 2257 documents that Cool Content said were included with the sets I bought... But they weren't all there. Since the Model release was not included, and the girls ID was produced when she was 15 years old... I don't know how old she was when the shoot took place.

Cool Content got the sets from Timifoto... Your Home Boy, by the way. I contacted him also... only to find his site down, and no answer to my email.

Needless to say, Cool Content lost my future business.

Excuses are like assholes... everyone has one.

[Rochard]

I don't care if a content provider is in Canada or any other country. If they are selling to US companies they need to include 2257 information. If not their content is worthless for US webmasters.

We once did an all buy - bought all the photos of a content providers content. They sent us a box with 500 model release forms and IDs.

I'm going through all of the content we have purchased through out the years. If I don't have 2257 information I'm going to ask for it. And if I don't get I'm taking the content down - and I'll make a stink about it on the boards.

[pussyluver]

Today most providers include the 2257 with the download or CD. It's the older stuff, some of which may have to go.

Some block addresses which may be required. The real requirement is still an open question.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
We have been getting a few requests from clients for 2257 documetation, a lot of them did not know we already supplied it with our content or were sending the same email to all their suppliers.

It seems that one Contet Broker has closed down and is just telling people he's in Canada so not covered by it. His clients might have to throw everything away now.

So who is collecting 2257 info and what results are you having?

STFU Paul.

Come back here and post when you know WTF you are talking about.

I like you but I am sick of your fucking scare tactics to sell content.

[KraZ]

Originally posted by RocHard
I don't care if a content provider is in Canada or any other country. If they are selling to US companies they need to include 2257 information. If not their content is worthless for US webmasters.

We once did an all buy - bought all the photos of a content providers content. They sent us a box with 500 model release forms and IDs.

I'm going through all of the content we have purchased through out the years. If I don't have 2257 information I'm going to ask for it. And if I don't get I'm taking the content down - and I'll make a stink about it on the boards.

So it's a good thing I sent you the forms with the tapes

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by Lifer
Yeah... I'm tracking down the 2257 documents that Cool Content said were included with the sets I bought... But they weren't all there. Since the Model release was not included, and the girls ID was produced when she was 15 years old... I don't know how old she was when the shoot took place.

Cool Content got the sets from Timifoto... Your Home Boy, by the way. I contacted him also... only to find his site down, and no answer to my email.

Needless to say, Cool Content lost my future business.

Excuses are like assholes... everyone has one.

Hit me up on ICQ and I might be able to sort it for you.

[Roger]

But I don't live in the US. Or does the fact that my host is in the US means that I need to comply with that new 2257?

[goBigtime]

Sounds like content providers better get smart and start talking to their favorite programmers as much as they should be talking to their attorneys.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by AaronM
STFU Paul.

Come back here and post when you know WTF you are talking about.

I like you but I am sick of your fucking scare tactics to sell content.

I do know what I'm talking about. Anyone who pulbished porn and relies on the word of a stranger that it's legal is a fool.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally posted by MaDalton
Hi Brandon - i have some questions regarding 2257, may I hit you up on ICQ?

Stefan

Sure... ICQ: 52741957

-------------------------------------------


For those that are sending out blackened-out IDs.. i talked to one content producer yesterday and what they do is only show the picture and the birthdate.

Some content producers leave the real name and birthdate.

And then there are those that don't provide any kind of identification currently.


The blackened-ID issue is certainly up for debate.

AaronM had a great idea about having a non-profit somehow manage or deal with these issues.. which ties into the idea of using DRM to encrypt the model ID and releases, so that the identity of the model is protected, and the webmasters have the full model ID/releases.. but without them being able to view it unless asked for it by DOJ.

Working on the logistics of the non-profit now as well as the DRM stuff.

-brandon

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by Roger
But I don't live in the US. Or does the fact that my host is in the US means that I need to comply with that new 2257?

Then you have nothing to worry about.

So long as all the models were over 18 at the time of the shoot, consented to having their content sold on the Internet and the content was not stolen.

Now how do you know all that without the documents?

[Kevin2]

Originally posted by AaronM
STFU Paul.

Come back here and post when you know WTF you are talking about.

I like you but I am sick of your fucking scare tactics to sell content.

I thought I was the only one that noticed this

[LadyMischief]

Amusing to see how words get twisted and things get taken completely out of context. Feels almost like watching the news or listening to George Bush give a speech.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by LadyMischief
Amusing to see how words get twisted and things get taken completely out of context. Feels almost like watching the news or listening to George Bush give a speech.

So you did not tell people that you are not responsible for keeping the 2257 documents for a 5 years of content you sold them or not?

Explain what happens to one of your clients in two years time if they are trying to find documents of content bought from you. If you are your producer has closed shop.

Remembering those outside the US are not governed by the US law.

[StuartD]

Originally posted by AaronM
STFU Paul.

Come back here and post when you know WTF you are talking about.

I like you but I am sick of your fucking scare tactics to sell content.

indeed

[rockbear]

Where can we see that the law passed?

I don't see anything about that. It was a proposal law for the moment. Maybe that I'm wrong?

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Kevin2
I thought I was the only one that noticed this

Nope....That's been his tactic for a long time now. He's right about buying from a stranger and that it is a good idea to get the docs but he has clearly either not read the new regs or he just is not capable of comprehending what they say.

LAw is law and he is using the fact that most webmasters do not understand the new regs to gain an advantage to peddle his shit.

The sad thing is that Paul's content sells itself without him having to do this.

For the record....Most past clients who comes to me and askes for these records will be told to go fly a kite. Just like they may not know me, I may not know them and I am not about to give those records out to a potential psycho.

I know the people that I currently shoot exclusive content for and I will have no problems giving them the docs as needed by the new regs simply because I fully trust them.....Although even the proposed regs DO NOT REQUIRE ME TO DO SO.

[Roger]

Originally posted by charly
Then you have nothing to worry about.

So long as all the models were over 18 at the time of the shoot, consented to having their content sold on the Internet and the content was not stolen.

Now how do you know all that without the documents?

I know who my content providers are. If I somehow got screwed, then it's certainly the content providers fault, not mine. All of a sudden it's my job? How do I know for sure that it's not a fake ID or the pics of drivers license and so on are not fake?

[Minte]

Originally posted by charly
I think you guys should start tracking down 2257 info. One content provider announced he's closing and when asked if he's going to keep the documents 5 years he replied he in Canada.

Don't think he was keen at giving out documents in the first place.

That's far from being accurate. The content supplier you are speaking of has always gone out of her/his way to supply the proper documentation.Along with that,they have proven to be upfront and honorable in the business dealings i've had with them.If they are required to provide 2257 documentation for their customers they will. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
So you did not tell people that you are not responsible for keeping the 2257 documents for a 5 years of content you sold them or not?

Explain what happens to one of your clients in two years time if they are trying to find documents of content bought from you. If you are your producer has closed shop.

Remembering those outside the US are not governed by the US law.

Again...

STFU Paul.

Jact was a RESELLER. The providers that he resold for have those records and they are required to keep them IF they are in the US.

Jact also never said that he did not have or was not going to keepo them...He only stated that he is not required to...AND HE'S RIGHT.

[Bryan Havoc]

Originally posted by Minte
That's far from being accurate. The content supplier you are speaking of has always gone out of her/his way to supply the proper documentation.Along with that,they have proven to be upfront and honorable in the business dealings i've had with them.If they are required to provide 2257 documentation for their customers they will. I have absolutely no doubt about that.

We've always gotten all the documents we've needed from them.
They're stand up folks.

[StuartD]

This thread is and was a farce from the very beginning.

Paul, sorry to say... but you should be ashamed of yourself on this one.

It's not right to try to drag jact's name through the mud for your own personal gain just because they're shutting themselves down.

Just because they won't be selling anymore, doesn't mean they don't care about their reputation.

And you know as well as everyone else in this thread that they've always upheld the letter of the law to the T.

[jact]

I'm touched that you'd start so many threads about me, Paul. I didn't realize just how badly you had a hardon for me or how much you needed the business. You assume far too much, but that's fine, a prime example of the blind leading the blind.

What did you hope to do, hurt my business?

[richrealm]

Paul - just our of interest, have you consulted anyone regarding your position in relation to EU Data Protection law? Not stirring, genuinely curious.

Richard

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by Roger
I know who my content providers are. If I somehow got screwed, then it's certainly the content providers fault, not mine. All of a sudden it's my job? How do I know for sure that it's not a fake ID or the pics of drivers license and so on are not fake?

Yes you have actually met them and KNOW where they are and not relying on their Internet information. You sound like a very careful guy.

So long as those guys do not get hit by a bus, decide to shoot someone who is underage, go out of business are not in the US and governed by US laws.

As for not keeping the documents becasue they may be forged that's a ridiculous excuse. And why is it your job to make sure the porn you publish is legal? Well that hardly needs answering.

As for the others who think I should shup up and not point out that things change and the only safe guard you have is yourself. Well OK. I'm off home anyway.

Jact it's nice to know that you will be keeping a copy of the documents form the producers you brokered for, but that was not what you said originally. You said others were Custodians and responsible.

I did not set out to hurt your business or promote my own, their are many who do provide 2257 documents. I set out ot tell people to assume that shit happens and they need to make sure they are covered, not relying on someone else.

[Paul Markham]

Originally posted by richrealm
Paul - just our of interest, have you consulted anyone regarding your position in relation to EU Data Protection law? Not stirring, genuinely curious.

Richard

Yes we have. We had our lawyer get us approved by the authorities to give out the information we do give out.

Not sure how that alters now we are in the EU, but our lawyer is looking into the new EU regulations and how they effect us.

[jact]

Originally posted by charly
Jact it's nice to know that you will be keeping a copy of the documents form the producers you brokered for, but that was not what you said originally. You said others were Custodians and responsible.

I did not set out to hurt your business or promote my own, their are many who do provide 2257 documents. I set out ot tell people to assume that shit happens and they need to make sure they are covered, not relying on someone else.

Just because I'm holding a copy of the documents, doesn't make me the custodian, I've never been the custodian for anything but what I've produced (And I'll hold those docs til I die, thank you very much). The custodian of records for material produced by persons other then ourselves have always been the producers or their assigned custodians, they hold the original documentation as has always been the case. As required by the law.

You may be claiming not to be trying to ride on someone's coat tails, but it's pretty evident that this is exactly what you're trying to do. Every word out of your mouth is an attempt at self promotion. You're a vulture and your spots will never change. Just because we're closing our site does not mean we're going out of business or leaving the industry. If you had half a clue, you'd realize this. Now kindly avoid threads trying to crucify myself or my company in future.

[richrealm]

Originally posted by charly
Yes we have. We had our lawyer get us approved by the authorities to give out the information we do give out.

Not sure how that alters now we are in the EU, but our lawyer is looking into the new EU regulations and how they effect us.

I just spoke to the Information Commissioner here in the UK and we need explicit permission from the model to pass on her information. I've passed this on to the all the photographers we resell for.

This is under Principle 1 of the Data Protection Act 1998. As you are in the EU, then I imagine you will be subject to similar EU law (our Act is the result of an EU Directive). Industry norms are irrelevant, implicit consent is irrelevant. I'd be interested to know if the Czech Republic does not require explicit consent, since some of our photographers shoot over there and it would save them some hassle.

Incidentally, Paul, you perhaps should be getting permission since you sell to UK magazines still? A model could complain in the UK in that case.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by charly
As for the others who think I should shup up and not point out that things change and the only safe guard you have is yourself. Well OK. I'm off home anyway.

Of course things change.....The safe guard we have is the fact that at least a few of us...Yourself not included....Are able to grasp the current 2257 as well as the proposed new regs....NEITHER OF WHICH require people to "chase content poroviders for 2257 info."

Going home huh? Good. Off with ya then you tosser.

Originally posted by charly
I did not set out to hurt your business or promote my own

[COUGH][i]bullshit[i][/COUGH]

[AaronM]

Originally posted by jact
You may be claiming not to be trying to ride on someone's coat tails, but it's pretty evident that this is exactly what you're trying to do. Every word out of your mouth is an attempt at self promotion. You're a vulture and your spots will never change. Just because we're closing our site does not mean we're going out of business or leaving the industry. If you had half a clue, you'd realize this. Now kindly avoid threads trying to crucify myself or my company in future.

I fully agree....Except for the part about vultures and spots.

[Lace]

Ive been trying to contact greg-gregory for all the licenses and what not. Havent got a response from them in over a month...

8k pictures..worthless to me.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by jact
Just because I'm holding a copy of the documents, doesn't make me the custodian, I've never been the custodian for anything but what I've produced (And I'll hold those docs til I die, thank you very much). The custodian of records for material produced by persons other then ourselves have always been the producers or their assigned custodians, they hold the original documentation as has always been the case. As required by the law.

You may be claiming not to be trying to ride on someone's coat tails, but it's pretty evident that this is exactly what you're trying to do. Every word out of your mouth is an attempt at self promotion. You're a vulture and your spots will never change. Just because we're closing our site does not mean we're going out of business or leaving the industry. If you had half a clue, you'd realize this. Now kindly avoid threads trying to crucify myself or my company in future.

Oh please dear. What could poor little Paul do for self-promotion without having something to vulture or someone to bash to do it? He's just be left with his content and his shining personality to work with. We can't have THAT, now, can we?

[NBDesign]

I didn't think this passed yet. Thought it was still on the table.

[jact]

Originally posted by NBDesign
I didn't think this passed yet. Thought it was still on the table.

Facts have very little place in threads like these, please keep your foolish truths to yourself!

[Lifer]

Originally posted by Roger
But I don't live in the US. Or does the fact that my host is in the US means that I need to comply with that new 2257?

Sure it will affect you.

The host in the US makes you have to comply with 2257.

If you have customers from the US, then you have to do business in accordance with US law.

The IPs and credit card processors will simply not process for your site. Pretty simple.

Here is an example: According to a DK webmaster, 16 year old HC is legal in Holland and Denmark. But DK webmasters do not market this niche simply because the only customers would be from NL and DK. The US has the most customers. Hence complying with US law.

It is better to be safe than sorry. As webmasters, it doesn't cost anything to download and archive the model photo IDs and Model releases. Remember, the photo id may have been made when she was 15 years old. In most cases, it is only good to establish her birth date. You need the Model Release to see that she was 18 on the day of the shoot.

Note to AaronM: Yeah, Aaaron... you don't need to comply with 2257. Okay. M stands for moron.

[NBDesign]

Originally posted by jact
Facts have very little place in threads like these, please keep your foolish truths to yourself!

??????

[gin]

Originally posted by FightThisPatent
ties into the idea of using DRM to encrypt the model ID and releases, so that the identity of the model is protected, and the webmasters have the full model ID/releases.. but without them being able to view it unless asked for it by DOJ.

they are making affiliate programs send all of the info to each webmaster!? and what if that webmaster you send it to, doesn't keep it? will they try to hold the affiliate program responsible if the affiliate looses or throws away the 2257 info and are still working for the affiliate company? sounds like if you got 500 webmasters goto all of their houses 1 of them is bound not to have it, who is at fault?

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by Lifer


Note to AaronM: Yeah, Aaaron... you don't need to comply with 2257. Okay. M stands for moron.

I'm going to take a shot in the dark and guess that reading comprehension wasn't your strong suit in school.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by NBDesign
??????

sar·casm ( P ) Pronunciation Key (särkzm)
n.

1. A cutting, often ironic remark intended to wound.
2. A form of wit that is marked by the use of sarcastic language and is intended to make its victim the butt of contempt or ridicule.
3. The use of sarcasm. See Synonyms at wit1.

[Lifer]

I think the process is like this:

The producer is level one and has to create the documents and distribute those documents with the content.

The webmaster is level two and has to have the documents because it is the webmaster that is offering the material to the public.

Affiliates and TGP and the like I would think would not have to have the documents since they are agents of level 2 webmasters. That means, if we consider affiliates as level three, the level three is not liable for the docs... since they are only the level 2 webmaster representatives.

Charly isn't trying to gain more business or ride anyone's coat tail. He is simply trying to tell those in this industry to watch for trends.

US law makers are not trying to make it easy for you to peddle porn. So, even if the law is outragous, if you want to do this business, you have to do it in a legal way.

Everyone except AaronM... and his typical entourage.

jact, you are very funny saying that Paul was trying to steal your customers. Your material is so ugly, it is little wonder why you are going out of business. So... try to blame yourself rather than someone that is successful...

to the three of you.

[jact]

Originally posted by Lifer

jact, you are very funny saying that Paul was trying to steal your customers. Your material is so ugly, it is little wonder why you are going out of business. So... try to blame yourself rather than someone that is successful...

I didn't once say that Paul was trying to steal my customers, you don't read so well, do you? Run along little boy....

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by Lifer


jact, you are very funny saying that Paul was trying to steal your customers. Your material is so ugly, it is little wonder why you are going out of business. So... try to blame yourself rather than someone that is successful...

to the three of you.

Yep, definitely not the strong point. How's your ass feel after you pulled this right out of it? :P

[AaronM]

Originally posted by BMI Lace
Ive been trying to contact greg-gregory for all the licenses and what not. Havent got a response from them in over a month...

8k pictures..worthless to me.

I thought you were smarter than this.