|
|
|
|
||||
|
Welcome to the GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum forums. You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today! If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. |
 |
|
|||||||
| Discuss what's fucking going on, and which programs are best and worst. One-time "program" announcements from "established" webmasters are allowed. |
|
|
Thread Tools |
06-06-2005, 12:18 PM
|
#1 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 294
|
secondary producers have always been required to maintain model IDs
according to the new regulations, secondary producers have ALWAYS been required to maintain model indentification.
" Finally, regarding personal information about performers that must be transmitted to secondary producers, the Department again notes, first, that such information is already required by the current Part 75 regulations, and, second, that none of the commenters presented any evidence that a hypothetically possible crime, such as the stalking of a performer, was in any way tied to the dissemination of the information about a performer provided to a producer in compliance with Part 75." so i've been reading many posts from gallery submitters, thumb-preview TGP owners and other affiliates that they are taking down all their hardcore images and going all text or softcore before june 23rd. but according to the regs, if they didn't have the model IDs up to this point, they've been out of compliance. (at least according to that part I just copied here). so, if the DOJ launches a major initiative, can affiliates be punished for posting all of that 'promo' material up to the point they took it down this month? does taking it all down today really exempt you from inspections and possible punishment? |
|
|
|
06-06-2005, 01:02 PM
|
#2 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 294
|
if this is true, sponsors are effectively hanging their affiliates out to dry by not providing documentation
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005, 01:05 PM
|
#3 |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: PEI, Canada
Posts: 6,924
|
They broadened the definition of secondary producer. Schwing.
|
|
|
|
|
06-06-2005, 02:03 PM
|
#4 | |
|
Confirmed User
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 294
|
Quote:
under this version, a secondary producer is: (2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing. that covers TGPs and gallery submitters. but earlier they say that a movie theater wouldn't be forced to comply. how is a movie theater NOT a secondary producer under these definitions? |
|
|
|
|
