Hotlinking and Google.

I just uploaded an image to my server which is returned on google images.

Guess what - their image search is still showing the old pic.

So they dont only hotlink - they cache their own files.

Try it and see - locate an image in their image search which is yours, overwrite it on your server with a different picture, then re-do the search and see the old pic still there.

They are NOT compliant and they CAN control what they show.

I think they are going to get done big style.

Thing is Google has lawyers and they can take care of themselves. Me thinks you need to think more about Mr Chips and less about Google.

Gator - i live in the UK and I can down my US hosted content anytime - just to be safe.

I feel sorry for you guys over there and the fact you live under dictatorship rule - and often dont realise it. A bit like the Jews didnt realise what was happening when they were put a train.

It must be awfull living under dictatorship rule. No free speech, war on a whim.

At least over here we only live under a secondary dictatorship.

Grim.

Fuckers.

Well all my talk has been mainly for US webmasters. Lots of them are looking for loopholes that may or may not exist( let the lawyers handle that ) and are seeing what they WANT too see in them and not what is in there. Playing cutesy with the law won't make the DOJ go any lighter on them.

Jan 20, 2009 America becomes free. Of course iditos voted for this guy once already. We all know what happened in 2000.

Believe us we realize it. At least those of us in the blue states. :(

If I had a good way to help you out I would. Right away.

Socks, I can tell what we are going to do. Luckily we have always tried to select softcore samples for our reviews, so this week I am going to remove all galleries that contain even questionably explicit material.

Furthermore we are planning to make a 2257 statement saying that since all our content is non-expicit, it is exempt from the regulations. We will also be stating our business address in Denmark.

We have even considered linking to each reviewed site's 2257 statement in the bottom of each review.

Anybody got input on this solution? Is it overkill?

My biggest concern is the screenshots. Even though I try to avoid it, some show occasionally explicit content. Is it enough to white out the part of the screenshot containing the explicit image, or will the entire screenshot be considered explicit?

Another thing is that the word lascivious is not easily defined. Would an image is this be considered lascivious?

fuck 2257 and his mother

Amen.

8 chars

im not removing shit :)

Legal Dictionary
las·civ·i·ous (lhahaha601;-`si-vhahaha275;-hahaha601;s)
adj.
Reflecting or producing sexual desire or behavior esp. that is considered indecent or obscene (lewd and lascivious behavior).

Personally I just find that erotic and do not see emphasis on the pubic region. Though when your sitting in that church like structure reffered to as a court, in some hot humid southern state. They will bring out the good old dictionary on ones ass and clearly point out that not only is homosexuallity indecent but it is also obscene thus clearly making it lascivious.

I have to agree. Not that I like it, but it does ring true.

Jeppe - Re: censored members area screencaps--that's not allowed either. Even if you censor a hardcore image and display it on your site, you still need the 2257 docs. I also run a review site and we're in the process of pulling all members area screencaps (even though they WERE censored). Luckily, our sample pics are all non-explicit already, however, we're in the process of going through all of those as well and getting rid of anything remotely explicit. We've also always linked to the 2257 statement for each site we review, just for the hell of it. We might go the no-nude route; we haven't decided yet. As of now, the most explicit pics that we display are kissing and topless, bu we are definitely going to pull all kissing pics. It's a ridiculous world we live in, that's for sure.

Wow, this is seriously butchering our business. Thanks for your replies guys, I hadn't even considered screenshots.. Oh my.

Is it necessary to disclude explicit content IF you DO have the models docs? As I contact sponsors, if I do get the necessary documents, I am then free to post the pictures the sponsor has given me?

If for some reason this sponsor comes under legal scrutiny and they find a small problem in how they documented, or perhaps a fake ID or something, and I have a picture of that girl on my site, am I then responsible for that sponsors mistake?

Socks -- On the bright side, taking away screenshots doesn't appear to have hurt our conversions....yet, at least, we just started the removal a week ago. I think that surfers trust review sites implicitly (for better or for worse) and if a site scores well, then they're going to join regardless of if they see screenshots or not. I also truly do not believe that just using no-nude pics will impact conversions. I can't help you with the more detailed questions though...I still have a slightly tenuous grasp on 2257 myself.

If you have the docs you can use the pictures.
If a sponsor made a mistake and or had a fake ID that was not reasonably able to spot as a fake then no harm no foul, everyone destroys that content and moves on (at least thats what has happened before). Problem is they could start with you in regards to legal scrutiny well before they even considered checking out the sponsor.

Ok next question. As a Canadian, if I choose to ignore the ruling for the time being and "test the water" to see what happens in the days following the deadline, am I putting my US sponsors that I promote at risk?

Yes/No (Wish I could be clear)

Some sponsors have clearly given out their new TOS in regards to 2257. Some have said explicit content is a no go and you will get termed if you use it. Others have said it is fine and they will get you ids, and so on.
Technically you would only be putting yourself at risk. Though hidden within the new regs is the word "conspiracy". This conjures up many issues that I will not go into. It does however mean it could effect a sponsor.

You do still have the possibility of an injunction (you did donate to the FSC didnt you?)
You do happen to be Canadian so you would be a very low priority.
You do also have the capability of switching screen caps without much concern over dropping ratios.
You could find a loophole in the law by staying as a review site and trying to pull a google if you can get a script made up to take new snapshots all the time.

Hrm there's an interesting idea too.. Also it would be a good way to replace all our explicit screenshots anyways, most tours will be compliant I'm imagining.

Another question.

On the 23rd, let's say I remove ALL sample images from my site.

Let's also say I start a "members only" area for people who sign up, in a password protected area, with the old images? Do I still need the docs? I'm guessing yes.. sigh.

Yeah I guess that is how you have to consider it. Thanks for the advice.

Actually it is my experience that many sites have explicit material on the tour as well. It may only be a small thumb from a recent update, but it is still there - such as in this review. On some sites it is even part of the navigation bar such as here. So unfortunately this means serious overtime for me finding non-explicit tours the next week :(

I think so too.

Sounds like that is a reasonable solution. I guess it's better to be safe than sorry especially in this case.

I am a bit worried to completely remove all our screenshots though - I think it gives a very good impression of the site, but if our readers don't mind, then I guess it doesn't matter - will have to go through them and see how many contain explicit content before deciding on that.

It's truly fucked up - don't even get me started on that :) I spent the first week being pissed about it, but then started finding out how we could comply. Even though we are not in the US, I still want to be able to travel anywhere I want and be sure I can go home as well :winkwink:

you're kidding right?

screenshots of paid sites are still content of that web site
it should be treated as a banner