2257 doesn't even serve it's supposed purpose...

[StickyGreen]

Let's say the DOJ goes to a TGP with say 1,000 thumbnails on the front page alone. They see a single thumbnail in which the model's age looks questionable. How in the hell would they find the specific record regarding that particular thumb? Most people just list their sponsor's 2257 info and that's it. It isn't like each thumbnail has a number or a name so how could they possibly find the information for a specific image?

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

Let's say the DOJ goes to a TGP with say 1,000 thumbnails on the front page alone. They see a single thumbnail in which the model's age looks questionable. How in the hell would they find the specific record regarding that particular thumb? Most people just list their sponsor's 2257 info and that's it. It isn't like each thumbnail has a number or a name so how could they possibly find the information for a specific image?

Ever thumb/pic/banner etc. on your site can be uniquely identified via the path and file name... So that's what you would have to cross reference in your records.. but.. on top of that, I re-read 75.6 (b)... and I don't know that anyone has actually talked about that yet... everyone has been talking about all the records they have to keep in their office, and mistakenly talked about having model IDs and stuff available on the web site..

[Scootermuze]

I don't think it was meant to serve it's real purpose.. With all that is going on with it, the cp aspect is a guise..

They can't even keep up with the cp networks that are in no way related to affiliate/sponsor type sites..

These underground networks are growing and they can't deal with it all...

This new reg. stuff is nothing more than a sly way of doing just what they're doing.. Giving the adult industry a hard time..

[StickyGreen]

Originally Posted by Tempest

Ever thumb/pic/banner etc. on your site can be uniquely identified via the path and file name... So that's what you would have to cross reference in your records.. but.. on top of that, I re-read 75.6 (b)... and I don't know that anyone has actually talked about that yet... everyone has been talking about all the records they have to keep in their office, and mistakenly talked about having model IDs and stuff available on the web site..

ok you're right, each image does have a unique name, it's filename. so let's say you have 25,000 thumbnail images...your records are gonna have identification information for each model in each little thumbnail? that is ridiculous. i think it is very obvious that this law is meant to fuck over porn as a whole instead of check for underaged models.

[xxxice]

Thank gosh i use only text

[Tempest]

Originally Posted by StickyGreen

ok you're right, each image does have a unique name, it's filename. so let's say you have 25,000 thumbnail images...your records are gonna have identification information for each model in each little thumbnail? that is ridiculous. i think it is very obvious that this law is meant to fuck over porn as a whole instead of check for underaged models.

In your office database you have the urls cross-referenced to your physical records..

i.e. http:/domain.com/image/thumb/girl1.jpg -> photo set lm34124 image img01239.jpg performer 8734

The record keeping only applies to sexually explicit images... But the fact is, there's a number of contradictions that make it confusing... Like one set that says you don't need records.. but that you do in order to say you don't.. that sort of thing... it's a piece of shit document... still means we have to figure out how to comply..