TheDoc

Wondering if someone could help me answer these questions. It seems different lawyers have different answers. So I figured I would get a wider range of opinions.

1) If I have purchased content from other countries and that producer tells me he will not provide the 2257 info because of privacy laws within that country, what can I do? Do I have to remove that content? Can I state who has the records if I don?t have it?

2) Some of our exclusive content was shot out side the U.S. While we have driver?s licenses for the person we don?t have passports for 95%. Does the ID have to be U.S. issued/passport or will the licenses from another country be enough?

3) Some major U.S. producers (exp: vca, etc) have stated that they will not be giving out 2257 info. Even after showing them the law and explaining it to them. Much like the first question, do I remove it or just link who has it?

4) Can I store records on a local PC and not keep the hard copies?

5) If I provide a Webmaster with free content and the 2257 info. Do I have to list the URL?s he places my content on?

6) Do I have to match URL?s for each picture or will an overall listing of URL?s that a model is displayed on?

7) If I receive 2257 info on content I purchased, for a model, but it doesn?t look like the model in her picture. It would seem that the record is not correct. Who is held liable for providing improper information?

Thanks

__________________

SykkBoy

should have posted a pic of some tits....

everyone seems to have an answer for everything else...

__________________
Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

FightThisPatent

i am not an attorney, but here's my opinion:


1) If you don't get the 2257 info for content you put on a website then you do open yourself up for 2257 prosecution, for which you won't have a defense, since you don't have the documentation.


2) If someone shot exclusive content for you, you are the primary record keeper, and you are required to have model ID, which for out of the country is a passport that you can read the birthdate and name. if you don't have this, then the content will no good to you in the US.


3) along with answers above, Sundance vs. Reno was one case that showed that secondary record keepers don't have to have actual records. The new regulations specfically say otherwise. It will have to be tested in court. I feel it is quite burdensome and a serious privacy issue for content people to hand out model ID info.. some won't do it and i don't know the consequences of it, since it doesn't exactly say they HAVE to do it.. it just says you CAN accept. So DOJ may look at it and feel that IF you cannot get the docmentation, then you made the choice to use the content anyways, and that content be of under 18 models, and that you recklessly disregarded the law.

4) the new regulations specifically state that digital versions are acceptable. paper is always good as a backup, as is having an electronic backup


5) given what the new reg says yes, but's just impossible to comply with that and most likley that one will get thrown out.

6) yes, and that's where 2257lookup.com comes in to help websites out with that problem.

7) being on the frontline, they come to you first.. you have bad records, you get to deal with DOJ and prosecution charges. DOJ could say to you that you could have looked at the model ID to verify the age and that the informaiton presented matched the model in the pictures. If convicted, you really won't have much way to sue a content producer for the bad records... DOJ would go to them next and they would have to answer them on the bad records.




The current 2257 statue provides for a way to record your content, and overall, is not that bad.. it does require spending some time and money to record everything, but it's no different than a warehouse or store that has to catalog their inventory.

The new regs put in alot of specific and vague new things, that do make it much more burdensome for both webmasters and content producers.

You can sit back and hope you are not the first case, and wait for attorneys to challenge this all the way to the supreme court, or, you can attempt to comply with EXISTING 2257, as well as best you can with the new regulations.

Compliance with CURRENT 2257 is a must.

This is where you do need an attorney who can look at how you specifically do business, and give you guidelines as to what you need to do.

If you need a 2257 attorney referral, let me know.



-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

tony286

Anthony J. Comparetto, Esq. Chartered

727-328-7900

Talk to a lawyer, AJ is a good guy and he will work with you.

Jace

someone needs to hire a lawyer, i think most of the people on the board with answers are sick of helping people now because it is getting old....

gfy members can not play lawyer all the time, there comes a time when you have to hire your own and take care of your own shit. you get piece of mind that you did things the rigth way, and you also make sure you don't get fucked because you decided to listen to joe schmoe instead of a legal expert

If you don't have the money, then you should not be in the biz

i personally was helpful at first, but now I find it troubling to even bother with threads like this for two reasons:

1. i may not have a full time lawyer, but I do have someone that I consulted with and paid the fee to make sure I am up to date...and unfortunately I am not rich, so that money was very budgeted and i feel like I am getting ripped if I just turn that info over to people on here

2. call this my greedy side, but i feel somewhat happy about the new laws, cause it will thin the heard...and thinning the heard is always good

so, go get yourself a nice lawyer, even if it is just for consultation, and learn all this first hand from a legal expert

FightThisPatent

I know what you mean.... and i try to offer my opinion on things, to point people in the direction of knowing what things to ask their attorney, so they don't waste time things like "what is a secondary producer?", and go straight to: this is how i run my business, and what steps do i need to do to be compliant.

I always tell people they need to consult with an attorney with 2257 experiences. I'm always pimping out my attorney (who is general counsel to 2257lookup.com)

Almost this time last year, i was talking to so many webmasters about acacia, and i always ask if they are incorporated.. and most said no.

Same group of people that didn't invest in an attorney to incorporate themselves are many of the same that haven't talked with a 2257 attorney.

Board opinions are varied, but sadly, so are attorney opinions. My observations are based on talking to many different people, and along the way, i am looking at the common ground, somewhat of a common sense approach, to atleast comply with the spirit of the law, rather than just completely ignore it.


-brandon

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

mardigras

You can answer all the questions in the world and invariably someone will announce their brilliant plan to to avoid 2257 by simply "moving their site offshore"

__________________
.

tony286

I got a better one guy asked me what about saying all my pictures where taken before 1995 ? lol

TheDoc

Thanks Brandon and Tony..

JaceXXX.. We have talked to 3 lawyers so far, each have given a bit of direction on the questions I asked but each had a different opinion for us to take. So I figured I would get more opinions on my questions.

We are a US company that does 95% of our business outside of the US. Most of our employees and webmasters are non-American. 95% of our content is from non American companies / persons. I feel that our company is in a unique situation so getting as many different directions and opinions as possible is best.

__________________

Jace

hahahaha


that is a great one!

FightThisPatent

The Simpsons already did it, so i won't need to cover that one





Fight the Boob Tube!


ps. for those die-hard simpson fans, it was episode #2257: The one with the record keeping headache

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

Tom_PMs

Wheres all the content providers advertising non-explicit non-2257 applicable content?

Buyers are waiting

__________________

You've read it, you can't unread it.

FightThisPatent

ah, i think you have just defined the new niche .. kinda coming full circle in the history of porn... just showing a bare shoulder back then, was scandalous.





Fight the Sexual Revolution!

__________________

http://www.t3report.com (where's the traffic?) v5.0 is out! |
http://www.FightThePatent.com | ICQ 52741957

Tom_PMs

If I use all text now and make sales, why not?
I've heard various opinions on what would be considered sexually explicit as a minimum. When I see content that is certified(?) as not ruled by 2257, I'll buy it if the license is reasonable.

Besides, showing so much hardcore is just a crutch to actually being able to sell.. (ohhhhh now I've gone and said it!)

__________________

You've read it, you can't unread it.

TheDoc

Anyone have any other 2257 lawyer contact information?

__________________