That depends on the final attorney review.

Right now, the attorneys worth their salt are getting to the bottom of exactly what these new regs say. Once that is done, we will sit down together and review everything we are doing.

I'll be honest with you, I don't expect to be the first to market with a solution for 2257 but I do expect to have one of the best solutions available. I'm not going to launch something half assed because if I fuck it up, many people will not even consider it after V2.0 fixes whatever was wrong. V2.0 will focus on additional features as we expect to nail the compliance requirements down the first time.

Now, I've got to get back to work. If you wish to be contacted about this once it's ready, just leave a note here or hit me up on ICQ if you have my number. As you can imagine, I am very busy working on this since the new regs were posted...Plus I have other businesses to tend to as well as client orders to shoot and deliver.

Yes, I have all of that. And the site is already designed and in place. But I'm not about to start linking to something that is not ready yet.

OH don't worry about us we already have everything on hard copy in folders all organized in full color as well as scanned into a computer database, and have DVD's burned containing the content at various residences.

We are more than prepared, the only pain in the you know what now is finding and documenting every single URL where our models are displayed.

That will be the hardest for a lot of sites, and offcourse unless they have been producing their own content like us or at least maintaining their records the whole time, they are going to have 4 horrible weeks.

The changes in the comments are allowing the use of electronic files (ie storing the files on a computer) So paper copies are no longer required. Being the webmasters will have to have copies of the full set of images in question to go along with the 2257 info. I think storing them as "hard copies" will not be a big hit with most webmasters.

A webmaster can go to the store and buy a 200 gig hard drive or two to store all their records with the matched digital content. Why on earth would anyone want to store them as paper documents that would quickly fill several filing cabinets and probably a room or two of a med to large scale operation.

Thanks for the info...

Let me know if there is ANYTHING at all I can do to help launch. Programming, design, marketing, promotions... whatever...

Products like yours are going to keep us all alive in the coming months... I'd love to help out.

excellent - we have scheduled 2 months upfront - and have orders for about 2 or 3 months more. can't hardly be better. now i just need to clone myself. :1orglaugh

Yeah, that definitely sucks. I know this system inside and out, have always been compliant, and am ready...BUT....Implementing everything into a new system is very time consuming. Unless you only have a few models and very limited content, I honestly don't see how anybody could be compliant under any of these possible solutions withing 30 days even if it were released today.

Your best bet is to get with the right attorney and nail it down now by amending whatever system you already have in place. Changing to a new system is always a heavy workload.

i don't have your ICQ unfortunately - but i hope you already put me on the list of people to notify... :upsidedow

You are thinking inside the box.

The ability to print a hard copy is not limited to a physical piece of paper. Things can also be "printed" as a Acrobat (.pdf) file and then stored electronically.

The new regs implemented a paperwork reduction act...Not a paperwork elimination act. I for one will still maintain hard copies in a file cabinet.

The biggest problem with 2257 compliance is the lack of education that the average webmaster has on the topic. Our product educates them first and foremost. Then it gives them a set of tools to streamline the process for them, along with step by step directions. When they are done, we gather all of the relevant info and give them the ability to output it in an easy to review and file way. This can be done electronically or with paper copies.

gotcha. my bad for not reading the entire thread before posting.

i'm sure that you are 100% ON TOP of your game anyhow.

:thumbsup

thats what i was thinking

aaronM, i have a question

do you need to have the exact set of images or videos stored combined with the docs, or will the docs just itself do? If you do galleries and run thumbsites there is no chance in hell you will be able to have all sets of images submitted to your site stored with the docs... but if your new system works well, it WILL be possible to have all docs ....

Ahh I gotta yea now.. I didn't think of PDF's

Aaron,

You are so very right.
My advice to anyone is to read the legal documents yourself, not all the bs with people commenting, but first 29619 of the legal documents, thats where the actual changes are. Then from there you need to comply with everything so much that no one can question your motives.
Whatever you don't understand or even question your understanding of, immediately call an attorney.

Are two forms of ID really needed? I didn't see that in the new Regs... :question

Like I said...We've put a lot of thought into this project. :winkwink:

Sorry Spewie, I'm not giving any advice about this. As it stands, I am waiting to hear from attorneys about some of these very issues. The law is complex now and I am not leaving anything up to my own interpretations.

i understand mate

No, only 1 is required if it fits the criteria. Many people request a second piece though. This is why we have included the Secondary Identification fields.

Aaron, Please let us know when this is up and running. We will be using it as soon as we can to double check what we already have, and to augment that. It is a great system. If there is anything we can do to help, please let us know.

and that surprised me the most - but it makes a lot of stuff i originally put away cause i thought i couldn't sell it suddenly very valuable again.

:glugglug

no, he's not going to let you know when it's up and running. he's going to wait around for awhile after it is completed, and let other people launch similar services first.

you stupid bastard! :winkwink:

Anything?

You wanna cover my legal fees for this project? :winkwink:

Wow Aaron, sounds great man.

looks JUICYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYYY

Thank you and thank you. :glugglug

I love that webmaster use what they know best to nutralize threats. TECHLOLOGY and INNOVATION. The system looks fantastic . :thumbsup It would be great to see a broad based system that content producers could feed data into and WM's could pull out of.

The electronic storage clause would certainly faciliatate that type of system -producers upload their dbs and wm's could download zips, pdfs etc as Aarons system allows by searching and selecting content in their portfolio - it could also notify wm automatically of new available content based on their purchassing habits thus adding an incentive for 2257 compliant clients to use the system (read more sales all fully integrated into the system).

Anyway glad to see people using tech to the advantage of the community.

Aaron, would you ICQ me? 12005327.

-b

And, because of what Aaron says in this post, when he is ready, we will be at his door, check in hand....because he won't launch something half assed or non compliant.....he will make sure it is a worthy tool.

looks really nice.

let's us know when it is ready for roll-out!

can it do a server wide scan? ex: i code jpg names to a model id---can it scan every jpg on the server, and then cross reference every html page on which that jpg appears and build the database?

seems like this is the fast way to get it handled.

(not a geek, just thinking on this for a sec)

i applaud the effort :thumbsup

How do you propose that a script find 001.jpg and know to cross reference that image to Jane Doe's profile?

not mocking the idea, but I'd need to know how to have a script go through all the files in directories such as /home/mygalleries/J8Hs8fs9a/images/001.jpg and somehow know who's image that belongs to, in which set and from what date.

until I get specs to do this, I just can't come up with it.

well, as an example:

let's say you do a shoot and you name the model "jjal4" then every jpg you ever produce for this photo session this date is named jjal4-1.jpg, jjal4-2.jpg, etc. etc.

now how build your html pages with these (and presumably other) images, each jpg having a unique name linking it to a model ID.

now the script does multiple searches on your server, looking at the source code of the html files, and matches the jpg names to the html file.

am i missing something here, someone pick this idea apart. seems pretty fuckin' simple.

LOL...That means "No." :1orglaugh

Actually, it's not simple at all. The reason it's way more complex than that is because there is no industry wide standard format for file and /or directory names and structures. Everybody does things a different way. As I see it, it is not possible simply because there are infinite ways of doing things.

HOWEVER....I'm not a programmer....That's Stuart's area. :winkwink:

BTW....You may be onto something here for a future update. Not quite the way you are suggesting but your idea has given me some ideas.

Thank you for your input.

It's plausible to program a user side image reference correct. Not an industry wide standard, but you should be able to write an interface that would collect the model name from user input, and the scour a server for reference points all from user input, and generate a link list for compliance...

Just another 2 cents from the munki

look, just thinking off the top of my head.

let's suppose that a guy produces his own content, and uses his own content on his own servers.

there there's a several hundred thousand different images, and a hundreds of different models.

IMO the most onerous part of the revised 2257 regs is the requirement that you setup a database providing a every URL for each image.

not the model ID record-keeping per se, that is a piece a cake---it's finding FAST where EVERY URL is, that each image is on.

now as a practical matter, the primary producer can visually identify the vast majority of his models.

so just thinking now...

suppose there was a utility that would scan every jpg on a server and then build a visual database something like thumbs4 for example.

now the producer (who knows his models) can immediately see the people and put the images in separate folders.

now he takes folder A which has been (fairly quickly visually sorted to a specific model) and has the script do a search on these jpg names within the server, and it compiles an html list of all the pages this particular model in on.

i can see this in my mind, but i may not articulate it properly.

this utility is a doable deal for a competent coder.

I just read this:

J.D. Obenberger, principal in the Chicago law firm J.D. Obenberger & Associates, noticed a number of things ?sidestepped? by the Justice Department when it drafted the final regulations. Obenberger went so far as to call the issues ?ignored.? Among them is the economic burden imposed on Web cam operators by the requirement that they archive and include with their records a copy of every live broadcast. The legality of collecting and filing multiple, redundant IDs ? often encouraged when dealing with new models ? is another gray area Obenberger feels should have been addressed for the benefit of both the adult industry and the government. ?Producers are prohibited by law from having more than one form of ID with any one record,? Obenberger says. ?You can go to jail for [violating] that. It just makes sense for a producer to copy more than one ID, because [an underage] girl might have a fake driver?s license saying she?s 21, but it?s unlikely she?d have two IDs that match.?


No idea if it's valid, but as an FYI...

Here's the source:

http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=227704

9th paragraph down

Use the EXIF or IPTC info that is stored within the JPEG image. Software can easily read the data during a scan.

Every JPEG can contain it's own data linking back to a database.

Unfortunately, GIF doesn't support this.. but who cares about gifs anyway :)