The hosting provider is not responsible or liable for 2257 violations.

Where hosting does matter (and not size) goes towards the issue of jurisdiction.

If the website is hosted with a provider within the US, the DOJ can make the hosting provider shutdown your website if they are not able to track you down to answer their 2257 inquiries.


-brandon

I played, and won :thumbsup I've made it a point to keep detailed records of every set, every producer, and where each image is located (including my hosted galleries, tours, etc.) I'm not using any content that doesn't have 2257 docs already. It really isn't that big of a hassle if you just stay on top of it.

My paysites aren't be as much of a problem as the free content sponsor galleries and TGP's will be though. I guess if worse comes to worse I'll just sell them and or turn the TGP's into text TGP's.

I need to breakdown your post into two parts.

This first part raises a yellow flag.

What does "license dvd content" mean? Does it mean that the content producer where you purchased a license, allowed you to sample the DVD, to create internet-viewable videso? Allowed you to take still shots from movies to show as images on a website?

You need to check the fine details of your licensing that specifically allows for sampling and use of DVD content into other mediums.

If you don't have explicit permission (granted via the license) then you have a potential copyright infringement issue.

-brandon

Assuming that you do have the rights to be able to sample a DVD and convert to internet mediums, then yes, you do have 2257 documentation issues.

The places that you got your DVD content from could be considered distributors, therefore they wouldn't have to hold or be in possession of any 2257 documents.

If you take the DVD content and use it on your website and the content was sexually explicit, then you would need to get the docs.

Your distributor would most likely blow you off and you would have to technically go to the actual content producer.. and good luck in getting video guys to give you model ID and releases.

At this point, the issue of having model ID is not part of the law. We'll have to see what happens after Sept 24th.. and if this part is rollled into 2257, then expect to see some premptive lawsuits filed to challenge the new changes.

If the proposed changes of having to have model ID in your possession as being a secondary record keeper does stick, then yes, you do have an issue (and most video content will have the same issue) of being 2257 compliant.

Images are easier to deal with since most content producers already have some form of model ID they hand out. Video is more difficult because there are could be multiple people in the video and clips.


-brandon

If your office is not in the US you only need to put up the 2257 statement, after that you are in the clear.

The DOJ has not authority to view my records and con go kiss my arse.

8/24 was the date the law was amended. 9/24 is the 30 days you have to get it into order. Don't believe me, ask a lawyer.

I think he means CD, as in licensing an entire collection that is deivered on CD instead of download etc.

I could be wrong though, but that's what I get from reading his post :2 cents:

Why would they do that as they are not responsible for what a non US affiliate posts?

Plus with all the US affiliates who might think it's easier to leave the business or just deal with hosted galleries, non US ones might be a very attractive proposition.

The sponsor who wants your traffic.

Current 2257 requirements to keep records are not terribly burdensome if you keep good records and make a point to document each time you add new content.

but the problem is human nature, to slack on documentation or complete ignorance of the what to do.

2257 statue has been a law for almost a decade and the requirements to be able to track and document your images is already in place.

The proposed 2257 changes made things harder, but the current 2257 statue is still very much applicable, despite the new changes.


-brandon

you had better read the law, the primary and secondary producers have to have records at their place of business

Why does it seem that the sky is always falling? Could it be Drama as always?

This is why change to ths law was needed. Some brokers were constantly telling us that clients did not need to see documents, in fact in law it was not required.

In some cases the broker even listed the content producer as the Custodian and had not seen the documents themselves, or had seen them and not realised they were a joke.

The biggest reason I had for rejecting content from suppliers was the quality of the documentation.

Leaving the client to trust the seller that the content was legal. Not a good situation.

yo, slang and colloquials are words

looking up words in the dictonary is valid for playing scrabble

hmmmm

:Graucho

-brandon

Hello together, I am looking for a link to the actual new 2257 regulations. Can somebody help?

Let's get this US and non US thing straight.

If you are in the US you should have all the documents, to prove the content is legal. You also need to comply with the new record keeping requirements of cross referencing and filing the documents, in case the DOJ decide to call on you. You also need a statement on your site that is compliant with the new regulations.

If you are not in the US you need the statement, then after that the US DOJ needs to come and inspect your records to verify you comply with the rest of the law.

For this they need a search warrant from your courts. Chances are they will not bother unless they can prove to the court you are doing something illegal, like CP.

But I would still advise EVERYONE to get the documents to show the content is legal when they publish porn.

www.2257.com

Thank you for the link.

The text there contain the new changes, correct?

names and proper nouns are not allowed in Scrabble . . . and you would never get away with a colloquialism playing against my dad :1orglaugh

Yes..this part is clear..I have legally licensed the DVDS which are signed by the distributor and publisher. Copyright infringements are irrelevant in our case. All our stuff is 100% legally licensed.

100 2257 updates...

100 IDS

Damn Woj beat me to it.

we fucked yet?
Just checking, going back to the back seat again.

That's exactly my point. There are TONS of sites out there that have licensed DVD content from a publisher which they got from distributors, not the publishers. The publishers basically allowed these distributors to license or 'broker' their dvds. And since as you said the distributor is not required to hold the 2257 documents, it is up to the site owners to get them from each and every publisher. And as you said, good luck getting those documents from the publisher.

Here is a practical example..

http://onlymovies.net/nopop/main.html

This is our 'archive' movie site. All the content we acquired thru legal licensing agreements which we paid for. But, unless the distributor gets the 2257 documents for us and other customers, sites like this are basically screwed if they can't acquire the documents..

The legal text which can be found on http://www.2257.com, is it the one with the recent changes?

I am sure this link is on 2257.com but here it is anyways.
http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm

It is a side by side comparrison.

might not be right for you, but I remember hearing on a radio show about http://www.keepmyrecords.com

I'm not affiliated w/ them and do not currently use them, but i am considering it. good luck.

Very nice, thank you!

I sale fake 2257 documents. :Graucho

http://www.Russian2257Fakes.com

There are a lot of "I'm outside the US so I'm okay" comments...

If you sell to US customers you become subject to US law. And it happens that Canada and several European countries have reciprocal arrangements with the US to help with cross-border prosecutions. I'm not suggesting that the risk of such prosecutions is high: I'm just trying to set the record straight and cut down on some of the misinformation this topic is generating.

And when people talk about what this court or that may one day uphold, they are forgetting that the majority don't have the resources to go that route. If the DOJ decide to go after easy targets - and they will surely go after someone because Congress won't accept the excuse a second time that the laws weren't adequate - it could be a long time before the niceties of the law are put to a serious test.

Until those issues are resolved, even if the odds of any one of us being prosecuted are tiny, those who are prosecuted face some serious expense at best and imprisonment at worst.

That is why my main concern is the unwillingness of many content producers to release uncensored model details. I understand all the reasons for this, and they may even be right that if someone (with sufficient resources) runs with this issue, such records may eventually be considered adequate. But how many webmasters can afford the risk that they will be one of the test cases?

You know how I know that I spend too much time on the boards? I'll tell you. I had a dream last night that some webmaster had some guy in China join his site. Now, since he was selling to a guy in China he was now subject to Chinese law even though he was in the US. Subject to Chinese law for selling porn sites he was put to death. Interesting drem.

yeah, I prorbably could tell someone where I bought each pic within about an hour but for me that isn't good enough because I need to make myself the spredsheet but I want to do it with all the information I am going to need. The last thing I want to do is go through this hellish process twice because I did it wrong the first time. I really do doubt I am going to be able to find every site I ever put out there. For one thing, I have been doing galleries and sites since 1998. At the start they were on free hosts, etc. So, that scares me a bit since if by some fluke one of those still is out there I won't have access to it. There is also those programs that helped with tgp submission by making you 100s of copies of your galleries. I mean, I have no clue how many of those are out ther but I will do my best.

I am more worried about some of the content I have from suppliers that have gone out of buisness. I have tracked down other suppliers that sell the same content is most cases so if I have to rebuy some of it afterwards to get the details then I guess I will have to if it is at all important content. However, on that I am going to wait for the final version to have better weight to get what ID I need from the supplier.

I will no doubt use your service at some point because some of the suppliers I have used are on there but there are still a ton that aren't and especially those that have stopped selling.

There is a part of the proposed 2257 about only applying to newly published images (after the effective date of the changes going into effect).

This would mean that you wouldn't have to go back to all of your content to get whatever is required for full 2257 compliance.

The issue would be to be able to prove that the content was acquired and "published" to your website prior to the effective date.

An area of debatable interpretation on the date of publishing could be that every page a surfer views is "published", therefore you would have to have documentation for every image.

There are many different legal opinions floating around, so it does get to be confusing and there aren't any hard facts (ie. prosecutions).

The safest approach, as with any law, is to abide by the law by best efforts. Be able to demonstrate that you are trying to comply with the law. Doing nothing will surely get you less sympathy in front of a judge since 2257 Recordkeeping Statue has been on a law for a decade.

And as the saying goes "ignorance of the law is no excuse", especially in a courtroom.

This might mean that webmasters have to make the hard business decision of throwing out content that can't be documented (either by date of license/purchase, whether it has atleast blackened out Model ID, etc).

Content Producers are in the same boat if the Model ID that they got from the model doesn't include a US driver's license or a passport. Some will have to toss out their content and if they are participating in 2257lookup, then we can let the webmaster know which sets need to come down.




-brandon

Bullshit.

If you don't have anything interresting to say, why don't you shut up ?

I host, buy content and process in the EU :Graucho

sell to only EU webmasters?

Samething here....

Just wanted to thank Brandon, Sarah and everyone else who provided some good input and insight..

You sound like the Borg.

Are YOU American? Do you LIVE in Alerica? Do you have your porn money in an AMERICAN bank account?