i don't think you will need to give out ID's to affiliates are only using your material to advertise... sure, this 2257 law says that but if anything doesn't stand up in court, that shit won't IMO :2 cents:




..

you my friend, have earned the "MASTER BRANDER" award for today. that shit was hot. want to be one of my promoters?
:thumbsup

For it not stand up in court it has to go to court . Who pays the affiliates legal bills?

I understand what you are saying. However, us as US webmasters have to obey the US law, meaning, we either send out the id's, regardless of where the models are from or change the focus of our free content to affiliates. Thats obeying the law here in the US. Now, in Canada, sending out ones id is against the privacy laws, but a US citizen, we can not break Canadian law, while obeying US law. See what I am saying?

Total catch 22 for sure. Im not at all in favor of sending out ids of either pros or amateurs. Theres solutions for sure and all of this has yet to play out. Its a really tough situation for the big hardcore programs though. Damned if you do, damned if you dont I guess.

Oh btw... I want a nickle for everytime Gator has posted in a 2257 thread and not made sense. :)

The difference is your wife signed a release that allows them to give out the information. If she didn't they could not pass the information on to others.

If you buy a house, it has a part that allows them to give out private info. Same with credit cards, cars, etc.. Often they ask if they can pass your private info along..



Everyone seemed to get super pissed off when a content company passed info along to Acacia.. How is this different?

exactly. most affiliates are small operations who can't afford to the big names in this industry. added to this, the pool of lawyers savvy in this type of court fight is limited and the ones out there are being saturated by the big guys who have them on retainer. if a bunch of small time affiliates start getting popped, who's going to step in?

how many monthly sales makes someone a full time webmaster?

My ID doesn't have my current address either. I'm no model. :-)

Thats personal , this is business. My lawyer said you have to give it, we decide to end our very very small program I think he would tell me if giving it out would get me sued. Considering besides being my lawyer he is my friend.The privacy you are talking is for personal transaction. Being a model isnt a private transaction.

legal bills? :1orglaugh any attorney would LOVE to get a case like that. its so obviously wrong to give out people's personal info to any tom dick & harry that's joins some program. 2nd of all, i'd LOVE for them to try that shit with me cuz i'd be sending out so many press releases to PROFIT from them trying to get me on the shit cuz i'm in compliance & NONE of my models is underage! :1orglaugh :1orglaugh


PLEASE TAKE ME TO COURT FOR SOME PAPERWORK BULLSHIT SO I CAN GET MILLIONS OF PEOPLE TO VISIT MY SITE AFTER CNN MENTIONS ME ON NATIONAL TV!


..

Probably noone ,these guys who are the big fish of today for the most part were smart nerds. The pornographers of old were rough and tumble guys with a fuck you attitude toward authority. Today these guys arent the same breed, if they were Acacia wouldnt of been as successful. These guys want to make no waves and dont want to spend money unless its for see how big my dick is parties or show off toys. Im not blaming them but they come from a different world. Larry F. is getting old but I bet 20 yrs ago he would of been in the fight hard.

Your lawyer is incorrect.. The model release is a private contract between the producer and the model. A lot of releases say that they can transfer the rights, models sign with no idea what they are doing..

Many many releases, don't say that though.

I have to respectfully disagree my model release si between a company and a model who is private contractor, paid with a company check. It is not a private contract. If you know for sure give the link so we can read the law.

I love Lensman's threads

Sure I can show you the law, soon as you can hunt down the law for what you are saying.. Which is exactly what I said.

It doesnt mater if it's between a company (THE PRODUCER) and a private contracted employee, model, building inspector, etc, it's still a private contract.

What law school did you got to? I got mine from a lawyer, who is also a Judge.

Then what is a model release? Please ask your judge to expand my mind.

this going back and forth is boring if you had the law you would post it to beat me over the head with it but you dont know and are going on misinformation.

The pornographers of today in the video world are the same guys that were prosecuted 20 years ago. Or in some cases, their children.

The first time someone gets pinched with some video content that doesn't have the correct documentation on it, regardless of whether it's a studio's own site or one their content is just sitting on, shit will start to flow uphill. Any good lawyer can make the case -- especially with an internet company that is very close to compliant and has made a good faith effort to do so, that if there is an error in compliance that is the direct result of a studio either not giving out the information or giving out incorrect information -- that there is non-compliance on the part of the primary producer as well.

Every one of the video guys I referred to in my earlier post is still alive, kicking, and in business today. They've all been shitting their pants over this situation since last summer.

WTF?

It's not like you can backup what you are saying either..


And, our lawyer stated that a model release is a private contract between the producer (a company) and the model. Many people have posted the same thing here on the board.

Maybe you should ask a different lawyer, one that knows contracts maybe.

I m talking about our world , during Meese a bunch of them got together put up large sums of money to fight. You dont see the online guys doing that. Everybody posting to join the fsc (which we did) so they could fight it. The fight should been there already by the big fish online but we both know unless its thier ass actually in the fire that wont happen.

How come your assuming my lawyer is wrong maybe yours in wrong. Ever think of that?My lawyer know first amendment and adult and mainstream entertainment industry law.Which involves a few contracts.

I don't know which ones you are talking about, but the 4 I mentioned didn't get together with anyone. They paid their own hefty legal bills and the guy that did his time did it all by himself lol...

Which lawyers would you like me to ask?

The Canadian lawyers or the American lawyers, how about our 2257 lawyer?

I know law rather well, oddly enough I have been in legal fights for the last 5 years. Do your research, you will see we have a case currently in the Supreme Court of Canada and are the leading company fighting GST in Canada, and winning. Others settled and we spent our own $1m+ to prove we don't owe just because we are an Internet Company.

I have been hearing the same from a few seperate attorneys. You can not give out private information unless they have signed off on it. Kind of like sites when they have to post about their privacy statement and what they are going to do with the info they collect on you.

This is going to get real sticky.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/01/14/news-cromer.php

This is an interesting article from '01 regarding the old Meese Commission days.

I read it a article I dont remember it talked about that and that adam and eve spent 1 million dollars. Also you know I love you but I know you make your living from big fish so it wouldnt be wise to agree with me lol :)

but what happens of these guys just start sniping at small time affiliates who are making a few hundred bucks a month while working full time? those guys have zero clout in the industry and not nearly enough money for proper representation. low hanging fruit to appease the Religio-Nuts.

Was Adam and Eve prosecuted? or did they gain something from contributing from another prosecution? I don't deal with A&E other than a couple of conversations here and there with some of their marketing folks.

Figure out who was prosecuted, who went to jail, and you'll know who I'm talking about :)

They fought for themselves
http://indyweek.com/durham/2001-06-06/cover.html

The irony :upsidedow

it's not a catch 22, it is rather simple actually, sponsors can go at it one way or another, they have a choice.

Choice #1 all nude content stays on the sponsors servers and you link to their pages for free hosted galls, tours, etc, to show the nudity. (IMO nudity is only *required* to sell on TGPS and FHG's can fix that problem.) Don't see why sponsor wont let you "Build your own Gallery" on their server, you upload graphics or select layout, select the pics you want to use and publish it on their server, make your own FHG.

With choice #1 a sponsor could respect the privacy of all the models, which i am sure he told that their info would remain private. At the same time the sponsor still takes care of their affiliates. If the affiliates needs to use nude content in ways that the sponsor can not provide, then whats the big deal in buying your own from a content provider? Someone who has models who are cool with their info being given out to people who purchase their content, not given out freely to thousands who signup as an affiliate.

Choice #2, just do it, give out all the info and say the DOJ made you do it.. which is incorrect and I think opens you up to lawsuits from the models who info you gave out. When the model sues you and your defense is " the DOJ made me do it" the model is going to own your site. Just wait till one of these girls is killed and the guy confesses he got the info by pretending to be an affiliate and signing up to the site. Choice #1 is a pretty obvious choice and not to hard to see that you do have options other then violating the privacy of a model who did not agree to disclosing her info inthe first place.

How can you begin to compare one person selling a business and passing the 2257 docs onto the new owner = giving the model's info to thousands of webmasters because you *think* you need to do it.

In your situation the new owner *needed* the info to continue selling the product her purchased. In the current 2257 situation, it is easy, don;t give your affiliates nude content to use. If they need to use nude content let them link to it on your server.

It is a privacy issue. In your situation (which was a poor comparison) it was pretty obvious that your wife understood the owner of the company needed to have access to her information to keep on file, and just as obvious that would transfer to a new owner. The models who did a photo shot for you were under the same assumptions, that only *you* the owner, would be the only one to see the info, or for that matter *need* to see her info.

NOW if that adult mag gave your wife's info to every gas station and coner store who sold the mag, now that would be a good comparison.

[QUOTE=Lensman]Also, we will not hand it out to any old surfer that joins our program, we will only give it to known long-term webmasters who do this shit for a living.
QUOTE]

I'm afraid you will, because that's what the law requires. It doesn't differentiate between short and long-term Webmasters, nor does it differentiate between those that get sales and those that don't. As soon as a WM puts a Reality Cash picture or banner online, he/she is required to provide documentation. If you as the producer fail to provide said documentation, you could be held liable as well.

Amen to that, will look forward to getting the ID's. :thumbsup

[QUOTE=APN Philip]Thats incorrect. If someone does not have permission to use his nude content, and they download it and use it anyway, he is not required to say "oh well i didn't want you to use it but since you did anyway let me send you those docs so i don't get in trouble."

The law differentiates between people use nudity and people who don't. What lensman was saying was that he would choose who he allows to use the nude pictures. That is his right, and if someone uses it unathorized with his docs, their ass is on the line not his. It is the person who puts the nude picture on their server responsiblity to have the docs, if you don't have the docs then don't use the nude pic, pretty simple guys.

im behind ya lens :)
duke

Makes a lot of sense

Actually he won't.....because he gets to decide which webmasters are allowed to use the hardcore content and promotional materials and which ones aren't.
You are given a limited implied license to use a sponsor's free promotional content and advertising materials, and that license can be rescinded at any time.

If they don't want to give you content and ID's they don't have to, simple as that.

This 2257 is a shit storm. Personally I could never give out ID info on girls that we have shot. It just seems so risky. That is just my take on it though.

I know everyone is trying to figure out the best route to take in a situation with no real good choices... :2 cents:

KK your right the only ones who win are the scum sucking attorneys like always. damn bottom feeders

good thread and good move lens

2nd Pearl in the wrong damn place!

So true...and I'm willing to bet you can count on Lens and the Adult.com team to make it happen :thumbsup

[QUOTE=will76]I think you misread my post or perhaps I worded it incorrectly.

First of all, it's not nudity vs. non-nudity...softcore content for the most part is exempt from the regs (you might want to read up on 2257). As of now, every affiliate has the right to use RC promotional content, softcore or other. I'm obviously not talking about some surfer who downloads RC content and puts it up on the Web. But a surfer isn't a surfer if he joins the program and throws up a gallery...he's an affiliate now. And Lensman is talking about determining which AFFILIATES get access to model documentation and which don't. I was more curious as to what sort of system he will put in place to determine which Webmasters are worthy of hardcore promotion and which aren't. What will be the threshold? 1 sale a week, 2 sales a week, 50?

My point is, where does it say that the more successful you are, the less of a psycho stalker you are? I know pleny of big traffic guys that would probably love to get their hands on a hot model's home address. :(

Look, I have a lot of respect for him and anybody else trying to circumnavigate the system. These new regs suck and I don't think anybody can argue that! :2 cents:

See my last post. I agree, the right can be rescinded at any point. But you can't rescind the right AFTER the fact. I'm assuming Lensman would look at his current affiliate base and determine which can promote hardcore and which can't. Subsequently, all future affiliates would go through a more scrutinized application process. I think it's a great idea, but was just curious whether or not one's level of signups can accurately determine one's level of sanity. Like I said above, I know some big players that are obsessed with some of these models. Conversely, I know some small guys that wouldn't dream of sitting outside a model's window with a pair of binoculars.

Gosh I hope you're right Kimmy. That would make my affiliates' lives a whole lot easier...

You have obviously never seen a real live model release. They sign thier lives away. Try asking them all to comeback to your studio, give the cash back & give em thier ID's back. Not a chance. If the talent was so protective of thier privacy, T H E Y W O U L D N ' T L E T U S T A K E T H I E R P I C T U R E ! ! !