You don't publish the model's info on the internet.

The privacy issue was raised in regards to stalkers posing as webmasters wanting to purchase content or as affiliates wanting to use free content in order to promote a website.

I picked up on that also and wondered why someone that displays...lets say a sexually explicit video...on their host...would to have keep releases and ID's of the models/performers in the video...on file.

I've got 2 important question:

how do they plan to define whether the document/image/whatever was published before or after the regulations take power?

Will I have to prove that a document was published before the June 23 2005

I've read the text, but was'nt able to find the answers.

Maybe not, but how many of us did that when we started? How many would have if the rules required it back then? Newbies don't know shit. Just wonder are all these newbiw tutorial website goingto have articles on how to properly document content for 2257 compliance. To be honest I still don't have fucking clue to what exactly they want. thye want physical copies areanged ina certian ordr. They want digital copies but it doesn't have to be published on the web(ok?) but you have to have 2257 links on you site to the info(Huh???????). Does the government even know WTF they want?

I truely believe some guy following all the rules will get busted because even the feds won't know WTF the rules are and just assume he's in violation

Try July 3, 1995.

Because all that a store owner can do is sell the published work. While we can cut and paste, add text, add in other images, overlay URL's, splice other video.. we can produce, or reproduce the material.
Have you seen the extent that some people photoshop their images? Hell, you can't even tell it was a picture of a human at some point down the line! lmao.

You publish the address of the Custodian of Records who is keeping your documentation.

If you are a TGP gallery builder working out of your basement for example then you publish your home address on your galleries and keep all your documentation at your house (place of business in this case)

Oh I'm supposed to put my home address on the internet? Yeah fuck that.

This crap just keeps getting better.

Well...does having editorial control...include text links to FHG's?

What if you don't do any of that you are just showing the work just like a porno theater would show a movie? Doesn't a theater owner have creative license on how the movie is shown? Doesn't he pick what color the walls are the seats the carpet? How is that different than webpage?

From what I understood .... only members of the FSC.

This time a lot of you will have to pay to play instead of having others fight the battles for you on their money :)

Didnt got the part were it says that the minute you had the copy of the documents you became custodian of records. Is that so?

Also, since we are on the asking bandwagon, isnt this like a root scheme? meaning that if the primary producer keeps records, the secondary producer needs to keep his records AND the primary records, and vice versa? as a combined database?

Bookmark the link in my sig.... we'll get you sorted out.

It is apparent that if non US citizens do not comply with US law...the purchasers of non US content cannot legally use their content...thus they would lose their market in the US.

So, i still can't figure out if a TGP that doesn't have sexually explict material such as only having mugshots. These thumbs link to sexually explict material, is he still responsible to have the 2257 crap at his home/internet? I hope someone understands what i mean, because i sure as hell can't figure out this legal gibberish.

The primary producer keeps his own records as outlined in the guidelines, the secondary producer keeps his own records as outlined in the guidelines.

There are different requirements for each, the only connection is that the secondary producer gets some of his documentation from the primary producer.

We are still in conversations with our legal counsel as to the exposure on our end of working around this roadblock, we'll have info for both the content producers themselves and their customers very soon as mentioned earlier in this thread.

If you dont have sexually explicit materials on your hosting under your control, then it can't apply of course. In theory, everything on the internet links to everything else (or has a chance to), so yeah it would be impossible to carry documents for the entire contents of the internet, hehe.

If you have code on your page to hotlink sexually explicit material, then my understanding has been that you WOULD be required to have documents on the hotlinked image however. Anyone clarify that? Hotlinking is "causing to be displayed" on your page afterall.

i dont know if im reading this wrong, but is this saying that webmasters just have to list the records of the company who sells the content? Like we do now?

We dont have to list our own addresses if we post images, just the primary producers?

explain this to me

Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part.


So if the primary producer tells me that the images don't have to comply with 2257 then I can take him at his word and put a statement on my site that says the images don't have to comply with 2257? And if the pimary producer is LYING about that????????

Isn't that what google images does?

hmm.... aside from what gator was talking about with TGP's...

both the movie theatre and store owners ultimately make the decision about what individual movies or magazines are displayed or offered to the end user. Interesting.

In my non-legal opinion, I would think that a link-only TGP (no thumbnails, no banners requiring 2257) would be ok according to the COMMENTS made by the DOJ. There may be other things that contradict what was said there, but in that one comment.... a link-only TGP linking to offsite galleries sounds like distribution to me.

They are referring to having to keep the address of the primary producer along with the model's documentation. That has nothing to do with the online portion of the record-keeping requirements.

Thanks for clearing that up. So basicly the worst case scenario for a TGP owner would be to make sure that he doesn't have any nude thumbs or banners on his site. Doesn't seem to bad to me, i am probably missing something here though. :Oh crap

I dont mean to sound like a pussy, but why call it "Fuck 2257".
That name is like flipping them off. I wouldnt want to provoke the doj like that.
Can't you come up with a different name.
2257help
2257assist
2257news
whatever

Someone said there was an exemption added for google I thought.

If I put up a page on my server that iframes some hardcore image hosted on YOUR server, my understanding is that *I* would need the 2257 documentation for that image (and so would you of course).

as far as I could tell, there was an exemption adpoted that would cover google cache.

Uh... we do NOT sell IN the US market.. I dont ship DVDs there... Americans who buy memberships comes to ME.. NOt the other way around.. :2 cents:

Full indemnity. :thumbsup

The 'fuck2257.com' domain will be a community info-sharing portal.

§ 75.6 Statement describing location of
books and records.

(3) A street address at
which the records required by this part
may be made available. The street
address may be an address specified by
the primary producer or, if the
secondary producer satisfies the
requirements of § 75.2(b), the address of
the secondary producer. A post office
box address does not satisfy this
requirement.

It's pretty hazy I must say. The part that bothers me is where it states that "any model depicted in a manner that is considered sexually explicit..." bla bla bla. Who decides what is sexually explicit? I have seen pepsi commercials that could give me a hard on. Is that sexually explicit? Does the way a girl in a bikini stands constitute a sexually explicit type pose? And if so, even if she's not nude, but she is standing in a suggestive way, who decides if that's sexually explicit? Is it voted on? Is it up to some guy sitting in some office somewhere?

oh fuck.

How is that.. Where is it written ?

18yo Americans coming to Canada can buy beer you know.. US laws dont apply... If my site is on a foreign server and is administrated by a non-us citizen.. the american buying a membership is buying it on a canadian site..

IMO, here is the regulation exemption adpoted for google:


One commenter commented that the definition of a primary producer
as anyone who ``digitizes an image'' could be read to include anyone
who scans or digitizes a photograph or negative. The commenter
suggested that someone who performs that activity should be exempted
from the record-keeping requirements in the same way that photo
processors are exempt under Sec. 75.1(c)(4)(i). The Department adopts
this comment and has clarified in the final rule that someone who
solely digitizes a pre-existing photograph or negative as part of a
commercial enterprise and has no other commercial interest in the
production, reproduction, sale, distribution, or other transfer of the
sexually explicit depiction is exempt from the requirements of Sec.
75. As reflected in the phrase ``has no other commercial interest in
the production, reproduction, sale, distribution, or other transfer of
the sexually explicit depiction,'' this definition is intended to apply
to businesses that are analogous to photo processors in their lack of
commercial interest in the sexually explicit material, and who are
separate and distinct from the on-line distributors of pornography who
digitize the covers of videos, DVDs, etc., who are included in the
definition of secondary producer, as discussed above.


Hmmmm after a second read, maybe not.

Well aren't they special. Kind of like making law that says SOME people can rob banks everyone else does 20 years.

This is a moot point when you consider that records need to be maintained for 5 years after dissolution.

You are risking jailtime if ANY of your content providers close up shop which wouldn't shock me in this type of business environment.

Being your own official Custodian of Records listed on your sites is the best option since you have to keep the records at your place of business anyways.

It does not matter where your servers are located, it's where you run you're business that matters. :2 cents:

He was referring to US webmasters buying content as the 'market' not US surfers.

Yeah, and Republicans are supposed to be in favor of smaller government too. The real-world doesn't really work that way.

I'm not arguing "Republican vs. Democrat". Whether it is the environmental crusade of Democrats or the religious crusade of Republicans the effect on business is the same. Political beliefs change the business landscape through regulations, regulations which have the intention - from a particular point of view - of protecting someone (from pollution, from porn, from bad accounting).

Pornographers worry about Republican regulations just like miners worry about Democratic regulations. It's part of the cost of business. What can one do? Like I learned in boy scouts, "be prepared".

Anyone have a script that blocks out all US ip adresses? Redirect US traffic to a page that explains how Bush fucked up their access to porn.