Sponsors who are working on non-explicit content, please read! - GoFuckYourself.com

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 06:35 AM

As you probably know, if the content(banners, FHGs, etc) comes from a hardcore set, the affiliate still needs the documents. How are you going to solve this?

d00t · 06-08-2005, 08:29 AM

not if the sponsor hosts it!

Jace · 06-08-2005, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d00t

not if the sponsor hosts it!

dumbass

it doesn't matter who hosts it, if it appears on YOUR site, YOU have to have docs, cause YOU are the publisher

Theo · 06-08-2005, 08:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaceXXX

dumbass

it doesn't matter who hosts it, if it appears on YOUR site, YOU have to have docs, cause YOU are the publisher

true

_________

Trent Edison · 06-08-2005, 08:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

As you probably know, if the content(banners, FHGs, etc) comes from a hardcore set, the affiliate still needs the documents. How are you going to solve this?

Thats a good question..

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 12:29 PM

..bump..

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 04:15 PM

so none of the companies who promised to give non-explicit content to affiliates have a real plan?

Alex · 06-08-2005, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JaceXXX

dumbass

it doesn't matter who hosts it, if it appears on YOUR site, YOU have to have docs, cause YOU are the publisher

Last time i checked, sponsors host the FHGs.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-08-2005, 04:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

As you probably know, if the content(banners, FHGs, etc) comes from a hardcore set, the affiliate still needs the documents. How are you going to solve this?

I would respetfully disagree with this statement.

While it is clear that a hardcore image can not be altered to make it compliant.
Where would you get the idea that it can not come from a set of photo's?

Please enlighten me.

PS. my counsel also disagrees with you, so any info you can shore would be appreciated.

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 04:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Where would you get the idea that it can not come from a set of photo's?

I didnt say it will be easy to check. I was told that the source of the content is important, so the owner of a non-explicit gallery with 12 pictures need to have IDs, if this 12 pics are taken from a hardcore set. The easiest way to check this for the FEDS is to get access to the members area of the promoted paysite.

chase · 06-08-2005, 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

I would respetfully disagree with this statement.

While it is clear that a hardcore image can not be altered to make it compliant.
Where would you get the idea that it can not come from a set of photo's?

Please enlighten me.

PS. my counsel also disagrees with you, so any info you can shore would be appreciated.

Yup, what he said. I raised this issue on another forum, and the regs specifically call on each image, not each image set.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-08-2005, 04:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

I didnt say it will be easy to check. I was told that the source of the content is important, so the owner of a non-explicit gallery with 12 pictures need to have IDs, if this 12 pics are taken from a hardcore set. The easiest way to check this for the FEDS is to get access to the members area of the promoted paysite.

Check with your lawyer again. Who ever advised you is not correct. The set is not the issue. Original IMAGES can not be cropped, or censored and assumed compliant. The IMAGE will be judged for compliance based on the original IMAGE. the set in which it comes is not important.

I don't expect you to believe me. Hell I don't want you to. I would strongly suggest however you check with a LAWYER, who specializes in ADULT law or Free Speach.

and for gods sake stop with the misinformation.

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Check with your lawyer again. Who ever advised you is not correct. The set is not the issue. Original IMAGES can not be cropped, or censored and assumed compliant. The IMAGE will be judged for compliance based on the original IMAGE. the set in which it comes is not important.

I don't expect you to believe me. Hell I don't want you to. I would strongly suggest however you check with a LAWYER, who specializes in ADULT law or Free Speach.

and for gods sake stop with the misinformation.

well, the thing is, I have it from a lawyer who specializes in adult. But I would really love to be wrong on this one, would make things a lot easier.

basschick · 06-08-2005, 05:08 PM

the lawyer i talked to about this said the set is what matters, not just the image - and he is a well-known attorney. he explained it in a way that made sense, but i expect the other side could be explained just as well and make sense.

it was like this - the point of the law was supposedly to make sure that minors didn't participate in sexual activity. if the pic after the softcore pic showed her spread open, the entire shoot would be a sexual shoot, which the law is there to keep anyone from using or even shooting.

3piece chicken Dinner · 06-08-2005, 05:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by basschick

the lawyer i talked to about this said the set is what matters, not just the image - and he is a well-known attorney. he explained it in a way that made sense, but i expect the other side could be explained just as well and make sense.

it was like this - the point of the law was supposedly to make sure that minors didn't participate in sexual activity. if the pic after the softcore pic showed her spread open, the entire shoot would be a sexual shoot, which the law is there to keep anyone from using or even shooting.

I am certain the programs are doing exactly as their legal counsel has advised. And in the end it's the lawyer who advises what he feels the law is and what he could defend against if need be.

I can respect a difference in opinion. And I am just a guilty in this thread as anyone else.

But I do feel it is counter productive to imply someone is doing something that is not legal or will be doing something that is not legal.

Thats dangerous ground to tread on, and could potentialy damage someones business or reputation.

I am doing what my lawyer advised and I would hope everyone is doing the same.

andrej_NDC · 06-08-2005, 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

I am doing what my lawyer advised and I would hope everyone is doing the same.

And that is what makes me worried, if 2 lawyers explain the law in 2 different ways, where is the truth? I would love to hear also other people's opinions.

GotGauge · 06-08-2005, 06:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by andrej_NDC

And that is what makes me worried, if 2 lawyers explain the law in 2 different ways, where is the truth? I would love to hear also other people's opinions.

Just like most laws, it will take several cases, to define the grey areas of what the DOJ, has written. Everyone reads things differently, there will always be different circumstances
that affect the law as written. the Free Speech Coalition is attacking these laws, before
some people learn exactly what the DOJ means the hard way. Let us hope that none of us have to hear from a Judge, what the DOJ was really trying to say.
Look at the constitution, we are still going to court on what those lines of Text mean...

baddog · 06-08-2005, 06:32 PM

Ever consider replacing the banner with the hardcore content with a softcore banner or text link?

nico-t · 06-08-2005, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d00t

not if the sponsor hosts it!

hey doot, you guys are in aussie right? and im in holland, so there will be no probs in the future with content

jayeff · 06-08-2005, 06:54 PM

The last couple of days on email have been bloody silly. Most of the stuff coming through now references 2257 and claims to be softcore, but a majority shows the girl spreading her pussy with her fingers or even out-and-out masturbating. You really have to wonder how many of these guys read the regulations, let alone talked to anyone about them...

GatorB · 06-08-2005, 06:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Last time i checked, sponsors host the FHGs.

So that's not the same as banners dumbfuck. You LINK to FHGs you don't LINK to a banner. A banner, even hosted by the sponsor, still ppears on YOUR site. Who in the fuck LINKS to a banner? "Click here to see my banner!"

Doctor Dre · 06-08-2005, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by d00t

not if the sponsor hosts it!

Somebody is gonan get owned

Shooting_Manic · 06-08-2005, 07:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 3piece chicken Dinner

Check with your lawyer again. Who ever advised you is not correct. The set is not the issue. Original IMAGES can not be cropped, or censored and assumed compliant. The IMAGE will be judged for compliance based on the original IMAGE. the set in which it comes is not important.

I don't expect you to believe me. Hell I don't want you to. I would strongly suggest however you check with a LAWYER, who specializes in ADULT law or Free Speach.

and for gods sake stop with the misinformation.

He is 100% correct. So many of you really need to consult a Lawyer on these issues. Kinda pisses me off when several of us have spent thousands in legal fees to protect our business. Then the freeloaders come in, talking shit then benefit from the information we paid for.

Damn

Dirty Dane · 06-08-2005, 07:33 PM

I'm not a lawyer, but I can read:

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce...

Explain?

theking · 06-08-2005, 07:55 PM

It is not lawyers that decide what the law is and it is not even the DOJ...it is the Judge that is handling the case...and Judges if the case is appealed by either side.

In other words...a lawyer will tell you if you do this or that you should be safe...but he will not give you a written guarantee...because when he goes to court on your behalf...it will be the Judge's interpretation of the law that will prevail and not the lawyer's interpretation.

Virtually every law created has ambiguities...and are open to interpretation.

Alex · 06-08-2005, 08:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

So that's not the same as banners dumbfuck. You LINK to FHGs you don't LINK to a banner. A banner, even hosted by the sponsor, still ppears on YOUR site. Who in the fuck LINKS to a banner? "Click here to see my banner!"

. So clueless.

GatorB · 06-08-2005, 08:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

. So clueless.

Yes you are.

Mr.Fiction · 06-08-2005, 08:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shooting_Manic

He is 100% correct. So many of you really need to consult a Lawyer on these issues. Kinda pisses me off when several of us have spent thousands in legal fees to protect our business. Then the freeloaders come in, talking shit then benefit from the information we paid for.

Damn

You have no idea if he is correct or not.

Other lawyers, some who may cost more than yours, disagree with your lawyer's opinion.

This has nothing to do with freeloaders, it has to do with lawyers disagreeing on what the law means.

Alex · 06-08-2005, 08:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Yes you are.

Cluess troll. Must be exciting putting words in my mouth and then arguing with me on something i didnt say.

GatorB · 06-08-2005, 08:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Alex

Cluess troll. Must be exciting putting words in my mouth and then arguing with me on something i didnt say.

Me troll? Seems I've been here 3 years before you. Explain how I'm wrong dumbass.

Alex · 06-08-2005, 08:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Me troll? Seems I've been here 3 years before you. Explain how I'm wrong dumbass.

Whats the point. You wont admit to being wrong anyways. Troll.

I said that FHGs are hosted by the sponsor, and because of that the affiliate doesnt need 2257.

I dont know how you brought up banners or the other dumb shit you were saying, but i was clearly just talking about FHGs

Its okay, it was a misundertaning on your part. Apology accepted.

Jayson · 06-09-2005, 12:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dirty Dane

I'm not a lawyer, but I can read:

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce...

Explain?

My opinion is that this should really be read as:

... that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce...

and is the provision that creates federal jurisdiction for the laws to have any effect (along with the rest of the paragraph that talks about the product being shipped or intending to be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce.

Jayson

VeriSexy · 06-09-2005, 12:30 AM

Why not just have censored banners?

Mr.Fiction · 06-10-2005, 10:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by VeriSexy

Why not just have censored banners?

Do you mean blocking the hardcore parts? If you put bars on the hardcore, you probably still need 2257.

06-08-2005, 06:35 AM	#1
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	Sponsors who are working on non-explicit content, please read! As you probably know, if the content(banners, FHGs, etc) comes from a hardcore set, the affiliate still needs the documents. How are you going to solve this? Last edited by andrej_NDC; 06-08-2005 at 06:37 AM..

06-08-2005, 05:08 PM	#14
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	the lawyer i talked to about this said the set is what matters, not just the image - and he is a well-known attorney. he explained it in a way that made sense, but i expect the other side could be explained just as well and make sense. it was like this - the point of the law was supposedly to make sure that minors didn't participate in sexual activity. if the pic after the softcore pic showed her spread open, the entire shoot would be a sexual shoot, which the law is there to keep anyone from using or even shooting. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

06-08-2005, 07:55 PM	#25
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	It is not lawyers that decide what the law is and it is not even the DOJ...it is the Judge that is handling the case...and Judges if the case is appealed by either side. In other words...a lawyer will tell you if you do this or that you should be safe...but he will not give you a written guarantee...because when he goes to court on your behalf...it will be the Judge's interpretation of the law that will prevail and not the lawyer's interpretation. Virtually every law created has ambiguities...and are open to interpretation. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

06-09-2005, 12:30 AM	#33
VeriSexy Join The Royal Family Join Date: Apr 2002 Posts: 25,463	Why not just have censored banners? __________________ Looking for a KICK ASS TEEN SPONSOR? Check out ROYAL CASH - THE KING OF TEEN! Incredible webmaster tools FHGs, Morphing Blog and RSS Feeds, Embedded FLV & WMV Videos. With TOP RATIO Sites like TeenStarsOnly.com - Earn $$ with our New Site & Bonus Payouts!! ATMovs.com \| iTeenVideo.com \| TeenSexMovs.com \| TeenSexMania.com

06-08-2005, 08:29 AM	#2
d00t Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: In your mind Posts: 3,766	not if the sponsor hosts it!

06-08-2005, 12:29 PM	#6
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	..bump..

06-08-2005, 04:15 PM	#7
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	so none of the companies who promised to give non-explicit content to affiliates have a real plan?

06-08-2005, 06:32 PM	#18
baddog So Fucking Banned Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2001 Location: the beach, SoCal Posts: 107,089	Ever consider replacing the banner with the hardcore content with a softcore banner or text link?

06-08-2005, 06:54 PM	#20
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	The last couple of days on email have been bloody silly. Most of the stuff coming through now references 2257 and claims to be softcore, but a majority shows the girl spreading her pussy with her fingers or even out-and-out masturbating. You really have to wonder how many of these guys read the regulations, let alone talked to anyone about them...

06-08-2005, 07:33 PM	#24
Dirty Dane Sick Fuck Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: www Posts: 9,491	I'm not a lawyer, but I can read: Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records. (a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce... Explain?