How to handle 2257 as an affiliate - GoFuckYourself.com

Socks · 06-14-2005, 11:10 PM

I've been reading up on this 2257 issue, and realize that regardless of anything else, I need a plan for June 23rd, barring some good news. I hope I can get a few answers to questions I have.

Currently my site has 1,061 original adult site reviews, and I have never been shy with choosing hardcore images as samples to go beside the review.

As far as I understand, I could be considered a "secondary producer" if I'm "publishing" their photographs on my website. Due to the literally hundreds of affiliate programs I'm apart of, I could not feasibly contact each of these sponsors and get my site fixed within this time frame.

As such, I'm left with making a generalized rule to apply to my site for the time being.

This I'm not sure of. To be 100% safe with every possible sponsor, I should A> remove all hardcore images B> remove all images with any nudity or C> remove all images from the site?

Is there any way that my TEXT could be at fault? Can I still call a girl a filthy ass licking slutface, if she happened to be one?

Loki · 06-14-2005, 11:17 PM

Socks, as far as I understand text is 100% exempt from 2257

heres another option, have you thought about contact site owners and seeing if you could hotlink the images you use? Thus it then becomes free hosted content.

I for one would have no problem with you hotlinking images from SWR we would just need to put the pics you wanted to use outside the protected members area.

Yes it is alot of work, but in the long run sponsors listed on review sites benifit more from reviews with pics then without.

just my 2cents

-Loki-

Socks · 06-14-2005, 11:19 PM

Cool, thanks, that's an interesting take. If the images are hosted on their site, I'm completely exempt from this rule? I can then use hardcore?

If I have to contact sponsors one by one, I could easily do so with a ZIP of the files I needed.

Thanks for the response

GatorB · 06-14-2005, 11:20 PM

[QUOTE=Socks]This I'm not sure of. To be 100% safe with every possible sponsor, I should A> remove all hardcore images B> remove all images with any nudity or C> remove all images from the site?[/i]

A for sure, probally B. Might as well do C

Quote:

Is there any way that my TEXT could be at fault? Can I still call a girl a filthy ass licking slutface, if she happened to be one?

Ask yourself if you can get 2257 info on TEXT. Same answer to whether or not you need 2257 on anime.

Socks · 06-14-2005, 11:21 PM

Ask yourself if you can get 2257 info on TEXT. Same answer to whether or not you need 2257 on anime.

Ok I concede my idiocy.

Loki · 06-14-2005, 11:21 PM

well I'm no lawyer but from all I have read and seen my fellow sponsors doing, free hosted content does not put an affil under the role of a 2ndary producer. so thats the take I have on this.

PS I sent ya an email last week or so about our relaunch of SexualWorldRecords ;)

-Loki-

GatorB · 06-14-2005, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vdc-Loki

heres another option, have you thought about contact site owners and seeing if you could hotlink the images you use? Thus it then becomes free hosted content.
-Loki-

WRONG. If it can bee seen on your site YOU are publishing it and it falls under 2257.

Socks · 06-14-2005, 11:28 PM

Will check it out, thanks Loki.

So no go on the hotlinking.. Geeze do I really gotta remove all images? I guess I'll wait to see what happens on the 22nd and then start adding softcore images for allllllll the sites. uggh.

Paraskass · 06-14-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

WRONG. If it can bee seen on your site YOU are publishing it and it falls under 2257.

so google is gonna have to destroy google images service?

GatorB · 06-14-2005, 11:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paraskass

so google is gonna have to destroy google images service?

They are exempt.

MrChips · 06-14-2005, 11:46 PM

No gatorb - you are wrong - google are not exempt from US Law.

If they are, then essentially ANYONE doing the same thing could not be punished under that law.

No lawyer on the planet - even the thickest ones - would have a problem using Google as an example against the case.

BlingDaddy · 06-14-2005, 11:49 PM

Socks... text is fair game... you can call anyone a slut loving bald pussy whore... and that's not a problem.

Anything that displays within your domains, even if hotlinked - without paperwork is non-2257 compliant. Go FHG's brutha....

BlingDaddy · 06-14-2005, 11:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

They are exempt.

It makes me laugh so hard to see people say this... remember that big "google outage" like 2 weeks ago? My guess is they were getting ready to hit the switches on 2257.

The other thing that makes me laugh is "We're not in the US so we don't have to do 2257"...... remember where the top 200 SE's in the world are... and I'll give you a hint.... they're not in fucking Russia....

Socks · 06-14-2005, 11:55 PM

I'm in Canada, but still feel I'd be stupid to ignore the country that 90% of my cheques come from.

Next question - As an affiliate is it necessary to put some kind of legal mumbo jumbo or disclaimer on my site in regards to this?

GatorB · 06-14-2005, 11:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

No gatorb - you are wrong - google are not exempt from US Law.

If they are, then essentially ANYONE doing the same thing could not be punished under that law.

No lawyer on the planet - even the thickest ones - would have a problem using Google as an example against the case.

They are exempt as part of the "who reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the site" exemption.

Also if I'm wrong then I guess no one will be posting hardcore pics here anymore.

BlingDaddy · 06-14-2005, 11:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

WRONG. If it can bee seen on your site YOU are publishing it and it falls under 2257.

True.. and true.... by hotlinking you are a PUBLISHER... the only way around that is to post a link that redirects to someone elses site, thus making them.... the PUBLISHER!

BlingDaddy · 06-14-2005, 11:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Socks

I'm in Canada, but still feel I'd be stupid to ignore the country that 90% of my cheques come from.

Next question - As an affiliate is it necessary to put some kind of legal mumbo jumbo or disclaimer on my site in regards to this?

LMAO... 90% of my checks come from Canada... and my fuckin bank charges me for it... it's not ignoring anything... it's being compliant with a new internet law that affects EVERYONE regardless of where you live.

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

They are exempt as part of the "who reasonably cannot manage the sexually explicit content of the site" exemption.

Also if I'm wrong then I guess no one will be posting hardcore pics here anymore.

Gator... the pics on GFY had crossed my mind.... the problem one will run into is.... can "google with their billions of dollars a year" manage sexually explicit material? Sure they can! They manage everything else! (A lawyers line of thought) -----------Lawsuit - BANG.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlingDaddy

Gator... the pics on GFY had crossed my mind.... the problem one will run into is.... can "google with their billions of dollars a year" manage sexually explicit material? Sure they can! They manage everything else! (A lawyers line of thought) -----------Lawsuit - BANG.

And Google has billions of $$$$ to battle the governmnet in court. You and I do not. So who is the government going to go after? As far as Google I guess on June 23rd we'll find out who is right.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:03 AM

Oh man - Im not being funny gator - ive read loads of your posts on this topic - but fuck me in the fucking mouth - you "honestly think" that google cant manage content?????

If they put that forward as a fucking excuse having crawled and indexed 8 BILLION PAGES successfully - and its accepted - then the US LAW is more fucked up and sick than I thought.

Socks · 06-15-2005, 12:05 AM

Gotta say this is a pretty restrictive law for us, going to be more difficult to promote some of the more hardcore sites and reality sites. I *will* comply on that date unless something comes up. I'll also make sure I have the ability to switch right back if I'm able to. Customers will definitely suffer in the short term.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Oh man - Im not being funny gator - ive read loads of your posts on this topic - but fuck me in the fucking mouth - you "honestly think" that google cant manage content?????

If they put that forward as a fucking excuse having crawled and indexed 8 BILLION PAGES successfully - and its accepted - then the US LAW is more fucked up and sick than I thought.

It's REASONABLY manage. Can Google REASONABLY get the 2257 docs for all their sexulay explicit images they have on thier site? Also that means this site is in trouble

http://archive.org

Socks · 06-15-2005, 12:07 AM

Why would the US government mess with google? They would rather want Google to be their best friend on this issue. Plus their stock is doing so well, it would hurt the index.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:07 AM

Gator - Neither can I reasonably manage my content - we are all fine then?

Really - theres no way I can reasonably manage my content.

In your eyes - If I put up billions of porn pics, then Im ok cos I cant manage the docs?

Yes or No?

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:09 AM

Gator - seriously - what you are saying surmounts to :-

THE MORE PORN YOU PUT ON YOUR SITE - THE SAFER YOU ARE ????

WTF??

Everyone QUICK - upload as much smut as your bandwidth will allow - youll be fine cos its too much for you to handle the docs for.

Sorted yes?

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

And Google has billions of $$$$ to battle the governmnet in court. You and I do not. So who is the government going to go after? As far as Google I guess on June 23rd we'll find out who is right.

Gator sir, regrettably I agree.... the targets are going to be Google... Yahoo, and anyone else who does not comply with the law. People thought Napster was a big deal?

Seriously... you're right... Google has the cash, and many of us do not. That's not going to stop the US DOJ from going after anyone whether Google or Joe Schmoe. How many indictments were handed down because if silly ass RIAA shit?

I take this very seriously, and my site will be fully compliant on June 23rd. No papers? No photos... the surfers can join up and kiss my ass.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Gator - Neither can I reasonably manage my content - we are all fine then?

Well you able to put all those hardcore pics on your site in the first place didn't you? So you reasonably managed to do that.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:12 AM

So did Google.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:12 AM

And most of my uploads are automated.

BlingDaddy · 06-15-2005, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Gator - seriously - what you are saying surmounts to :-

THE MORE PORN YOU PUT ON YOUR SITE - THE SAFER YOU ARE ????

WTF??

Everyone QUICK - upload as much smut as your bandwidth will allow - youll be fine cos its too much for you to handle the docs for.

Sorted yes?

HAHAH... Chips.... you got it wrong.... check this -
ATTENTION SURFERS - Got to http://www.themasturbationstation.co..._reviews.shtml

and DOWNLOAD AS MUCH POSSIBLE PORNO AS YOU BANDWIDTH will ALLOW! After the 23rd you'll be looking at bitches in headdresses like they do overseas.
Thank you.
Bling Daddy.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:13 AM

Infact - I havent even seen most of the pics on my site - I am exempt?

I sure am.

NTSS · 06-15-2005, 12:13 AM

I'm going completely with softcore and text links...If my visitors want to see explicit sexual photos or movies they will have to click a text link that leads to my sponsors galleries.

broke · 06-15-2005, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Gator - seriously - what you are saying surmounts to :-

THE MORE PORN YOU PUT ON YOUR SITE - THE SAFER YOU ARE ????

WTF??

Seriously -- try reading the signed regs.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:15 AM

What am I looking for there blingdaddy?

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlingDaddy

Google has the cash, and many of us do not. That's not going to stop the US DOJ from going after anyone whether Google or Joe Schmoe. How many indictments were handed down because if silly ass RIAA shit?

Who were the targets of that RIAA shit? The LITTLE guy. Hell they went after a 12 year old girl. Little guys will take pleas and then the DOJ can say "Look at all the evil pornogrpahers we got". With Google they could be in court for YEARS. And Google could get an injunction which would open a whole nasty can of worms for the DOJ.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

And most of my uploads are automated.

So you hotlink content from other sites like google?

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:20 AM

Some are hotlinked yes.

I think we agreed that hotlinking is a NO NO

Didnt we? above? Or is it the HOTLINKING thats allowed now.

Really - Im not so certain - the only way is to not put hardcore up.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Some are hotlinked yes.

I think we agreed that hotlinking is a NO NO

Didnt we? above? Or is it the HOTLINKING thats allowed now.

Really - Im not so certain - the only way is to not put hardcore up.

No it's not. My point is that you do in fact manage at least some of your sites content.

Anyways here you go

Manage content means to make editorial or managerial decisions
concerning the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service,
but does not mean those who manage solely advertising, compliance with
copyright law, or other forms of non-sexually explicit content.

xxxice · 06-15-2005, 12:31 AM

All text here

Socks · 06-15-2005, 12:33 AM

Funny how they want us all to comply, but haven't put up a general rules and guidelines page to help us comply. Oh no. Just some legal stuff that hurts my head when I try to read it.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 12:42 AM

Hotlinking and Google.

I just uploaded an image to my server which is returned on google images.

Guess what - their image search is still showing the old pic.

So they dont only hotlink - they cache their own files.

Try it and see - locate an image in their image search which is yours, overwrite it on your server with a different picture, then re-do the search and see the old pic still there.

They are NOT compliant and they CAN control what they show.

I think they are going to get done big style.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 12:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Hotlinking and Google.

I just uploaded an image to my server which is returned on google images.

Guess what - their image search is still showing the old pic.

So they dont only hotlink - they cache their own files.

Try it and see - locate an image in their image search which is yours, overwrite it on your server with a different picture, then re-do the search and see the old pic still there.

They are NOT compliant and they CAN control what they show.

I think they are going to get done big style.

Thing is Google has lawyers and they can take care of themselves. Me thinks you need to think more about Mr Chips and less about Google.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 01:02 AM

Gator - i live in the UK and I can down my US hosted content anytime - just to be safe.

I feel sorry for you guys over there and the fact you live under dictatorship rule - and often dont realise it. A bit like the Jews didnt realise what was happening when they were put a train.

It must be awfull living under dictatorship rule. No free speech, war on a whim.

At least over here we only live under a secondary dictatorship.

Grim.

Fuckers.

GatorB · 06-15-2005, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

Gator - i live in the UK and I can down my US hosted content anytime - just to be safe.

Well all my talk has been mainly for US webmasters. Lots of them are looking for loopholes that may or may not exist( let the lawyers handle that ) and are seeing what they WANT too see in them and not what is in there. Playing cutesy with the law won't make the DOJ go any lighter on them.

Quote:

I feel sorry for you guys over there and the fact you live under dictatorship rule - and often dont realise it. A bit like the Jews didnt realise what was happening when they were put a train.

It must be awfull living under dictatorship rule. No free speech, war on a whim.

At least over here we only live under a secondary dictatorship.

Grim.

Fuckers.

Jan 20, 2009 America becomes free. Of course iditos voted for this guy once already. We all know what happened in 2000.

darnit · 06-15-2005, 01:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrChips

I feel sorry for you guys over there and the fact you live under dictatorship rule - and often dont realise it.

Believe us we realize it. At least those of us in the blue states.

MrChips · 06-15-2005, 01:16 AM

If I had a good way to help you out I would. Right away.

Jeppe · 06-15-2005, 06:25 AM

Socks, I can tell what we are going to do. Luckily we have always tried to select softcore samples for our reviews, so this week I am going to remove all galleries that contain even questionably explicit material.

Furthermore we are planning to make a 2257 statement saying that since all our content is non-expicit, it is exempt from the regulations. We will also be stating our business address in Denmark.

We have even considered linking to each reviewed site's 2257 statement in the bottom of each review.

Anybody got input on this solution? Is it overkill?

My biggest concern is the screenshots. Even though I try to avoid it, some show occasionally explicit content. Is it enough to white out the part of the screenshot containing the explicit image, or will the entire screenshot be considered explicit?

Jeppe · 06-15-2005, 06:33 AM

Another thing is that the word lascivious is not easily defined. Would an image is this be considered lascivious?

Vagisil · 06-15-2005, 06:34 AM

fuck 2257 and his mother

aleck · 06-15-2005, 08:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Jan 20, 2009 America becomes free.

Amen.

8 chars

06-14-2005, 11:10 PM	#1
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	How to handle 2257 as an affiliate I've been reading up on this 2257 issue, and realize that regardless of anything else, I need a plan for June 23rd, barring some good news. I hope I can get a few answers to questions I have. Currently my site has 1,061 original adult site reviews, and I have never been shy with choosing hardcore images as samples to go beside the review. As far as I understand, I could be considered a "secondary producer" if I'm "publishing" their photographs on my website. Due to the literally hundreds of affiliate programs I'm apart of, I could not feasibly contact each of these sponsors and get my site fixed within this time frame. As such, I'm left with making a generalized rule to apply to my site for the time being. This I'm not sure of. To be 100% safe with every possible sponsor, I should A> remove all hardcore images B> remove all images with any nudity or C> remove all images from the site? Is there any way that my TEXT could be at fault? Can I still call a girl a filthy ass licking slutface, if she happened to be one?

06-14-2005, 11:17 PM	#2
Loki Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 4,420	Socks, as far as I understand text is 100% exempt from 2257 heres another option, have you thought about contact site owners and seeing if you could hotlink the images you use? Thus it then becomes free hosted content. I for one would have no problem with you hotlinking images from SWR we would just need to put the pics you wanted to use outside the protected members area. Yes it is alot of work, but in the long run sponsors listed on review sites benifit more from reviews with pics then without. just my 2cents -Loki- __________________ MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS! Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them! Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki\|at\|gmail.com

06-14-2005, 11:21 PM	#6
Loki Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Michigan Posts: 4,420	well I'm no lawyer but from all I have read and seen my fellow sponsors doing, free hosted content does not put an affil under the role of a 2ndary producer. so thats the take I have on this. PS I sent ya an email last week or so about our relaunch of SexualWorldRecords ;) -Loki- __________________ MAKE MONEY WITH 3D TOONS! Need hosting? LokiCa$h Uses Amerinoc and love them! Skype: LokiPorn Or Email 3dloki\|at\|gmail.com

06-14-2005, 11:49 PM	#12
BlingDaddy Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2004 Location: Denver, CO ICQ 280-752-076 Posts: 6,343	Socks... text is fair game... you can call anyone a slut loving bald pussy whore... and that's not a problem. Anything that displays within your domains, even if hotlinked - without paperwork is non-2257 compliant. Go FHG's brutha.... __________________ Every Day... Bling Daddy's Masturbation Station! Bling Daddy's Masturbation Station! The Daily Bag of Douche - Humor at it's FINEST.

06-15-2005, 12:13 AM	#32
NTSS Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Da Hood Posts: 5,688	I'm going completely with softcore and text links...If my visitors want to see explicit sexual photos or movies they will have to click a text link that leads to my sponsors galleries. __________________ ICQ: 150-803-430 Email: marketing7(at)cox(dot)net

06-14-2005, 11:19 PM	#3
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Cool, thanks, that's an interesting take. If the images are hosted on their site, I'm completely exempt from this rule? I can then use hardcore? If I have to contact sponsors one by one, I could easily do so with a ZIP of the files I needed. Thanks for the response

06-14-2005, 11:28 PM	#8
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Will check it out, thanks Loki. So no go on the hotlinking.. Geeze do I really gotta remove all images? I guess I'll wait to see what happens on the 22nd and then start adding softcore images for allllllll the sites. uggh.

06-14-2005, 11:46 PM	#11
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	No gatorb - you are wrong - google are not exempt from US Law. If they are, then essentially ANYONE doing the same thing could not be punished under that law. No lawyer on the planet - even the thickest ones - would have a problem using Google as an example against the case.

06-14-2005, 11:55 PM	#14
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	I'm in Canada, but still feel I'd be stupid to ignore the country that 90% of my cheques come from. Next question - As an affiliate is it necessary to put some kind of legal mumbo jumbo or disclaimer on my site in regards to this?

06-15-2005, 12:03 AM	#20
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	Oh man - Im not being funny gator - ive read loads of your posts on this topic - but fuck me in the fucking mouth - you "honestly think" that google cant manage content????? If they put that forward as a fucking excuse having crawled and indexed 8 BILLION PAGES successfully - and its accepted - then the US LAW is more fucked up and sick than I thought.

06-15-2005, 12:05 AM	#21
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Gotta say this is a pretty restrictive law for us, going to be more difficult to promote some of the more hardcore sites and reality sites. I will comply on that date unless something comes up. I'll also make sure I have the ability to switch right back if I'm able to. Customers will definitely suffer in the short term.

06-15-2005, 12:07 AM	#23
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Why would the US government mess with google? They would rather want Google to be their best friend on this issue. Plus their stock is doing so well, it would hurt the index.

06-15-2005, 12:09 AM	#25
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	Gator - seriously - what you are saying surmounts to :- THE MORE PORN YOU PUT ON YOUR SITE - THE SAFER YOU ARE ???? WTF?? Everyone QUICK - upload as much smut as your bandwidth will allow - youll be fine cos its too much for you to handle the docs for. Sorted yes?

06-15-2005, 12:12 AM	#28
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	So did Google.

06-15-2005, 12:15 AM	#34
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	What am I looking for there blingdaddy?

06-15-2005, 12:20 AM	#37
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	Some are hotlinked yes. I think we agreed that hotlinking is a NO NO Didnt we? above? Or is it the HOTLINKING thats allowed now. Really - Im not so certain - the only way is to not put hardcore up.

06-15-2005, 12:31 AM	#39
xxxice Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2002 Posts: 5,042	All text here

06-15-2005, 12:33 AM	#40
Socks Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Toronto Posts: 8,475	Funny how they want us all to comply, but haven't put up a general rules and guidelines page to help us comply. Oh no. Just some legal stuff that hurts my head when I try to read it.

06-15-2005, 12:42 AM	#41
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	Hotlinking and Google. I just uploaded an image to my server which is returned on google images. Guess what - their image search is still showing the old pic. So they dont only hotlink - they cache their own files. Try it and see - locate an image in their image search which is yours, overwrite it on your server with a different picture, then re-do the search and see the old pic still there. They are NOT compliant and they CAN control what they show. I think they are going to get done big style.

06-15-2005, 01:02 AM	#43
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	Gator - i live in the UK and I can down my US hosted content anytime - just to be safe. I feel sorry for you guys over there and the fact you live under dictatorship rule - and often dont realise it. A bit like the Jews didnt realise what was happening when they were put a train. It must be awfull living under dictatorship rule. No free speech, war on a whim. At least over here we only live under a secondary dictatorship. Grim. Fuckers.

06-15-2005, 01:16 AM	#46
MrChips Confirmed User Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 1,504	If I had a good way to help you out I would. Right away.

06-15-2005, 06:25 AM	#47
Jeppe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 951	Socks, I can tell what we are going to do. Luckily we have always tried to select softcore samples for our reviews, so this week I am going to remove all galleries that contain even questionably explicit material. Furthermore we are planning to make a 2257 statement saying that since all our content is non-expicit, it is exempt from the regulations. We will also be stating our business address in Denmark. We have even considered linking to each reviewed site's 2257 statement in the bottom of each review. Anybody got input on this solution? Is it overkill? My biggest concern is the screenshots. Even though I try to avoid it, some show occasionally explicit content. Is it enough to white out the part of the screenshot containing the explicit image, or will the entire screenshot be considered explicit? __________________ AdultReviews.com PornReviews.com Submit your site for review here

06-15-2005, 06:33 AM	#48
Jeppe Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2002 Location: Denmark Posts: 951	Another thing is that the word lascivious is not easily defined. Would an image is this be considered lascivious? __________________ AdultReviews.com PornReviews.com Submit your site for review here

06-15-2005, 06:34 AM	#49
Vagisil Confirmed User Join Date: Mar 2002 Location: stank poona Posts: 399	fuck 2257 and his mother __________________ I fix your discharge.....