2257 and Adult Dating Sites

[Chimmy]

My apologies if this has already been covered in another thread.

The new 2257 regulations make repeated reference to the term 'sexually explicit". This term is defined as:

?sexually explicit conduct? means actual or simulated?
(A) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(B) bestiality;
(C) masturbation;
(D) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

Many of the ads and "live member streams" appearing on adult dating sites, including iwantu, sexsearch, adultfriendfinder, and others would fall under the definition of (C) masturbation and (E) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.

And, under the new regulations, I would interpret the adult dating site to be a primary producer of this "sexually explicit" material. But, even if they are by definition a secondary producer, the 2257 regs will still apply.

So, I interpret this to infer that each adult dating site will now be responsible to require a copy of the id of each member who publishes "sexually explicit" images, and to keep such records in the manner provided in 2257.

Any adult dating site reps out there want to discuss how you are planning on dealing with the new regs?

[Odie]

interesting ...I am curious as well..

[College Downtime]

Government intervention on the internet is gonna be the worst thing that ever happened to it

[Chimmy]

Definition of lascivious: Entertainment whose primary function is to arouse the libido or sexual sensation, people who are not married and are living together, open solicitation of prostitution, indecent exposure of genitalia.

[Furious_Male]

Interesting point. This could turn into a cluster fuck.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Furious_Male

Interesting point. This could turn into a cluster fuck.

Webcams are just as bad if not worse. Virtually impossible to get all of those releases organized even if the main companies were willing to turn over the documents.

[Chimmy]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Webcams are just as bad if not worse. Virtually impossible to get all of those releases organized even if the main companies were willing to turn over the documents.

I'm not sure about webcams being "worse". With sites like AFF claiming 19 million active members, that amounts to a tremendous amount of records to be kept. Even if only 1 in 50 ads have pics, that's still approx 400,000 records.

Plus, I would imagine that the conversions and renewels will drop considerably, if a condition of membership is the submission of legal picture ID.

[chadglni]

Originally Posted by Chimmy

I'm not sure about webcams being "worse". With sites like AFF claiming 19 million active members, that amounts to a tremendous amount of records to be kept. Even if only 1 in 50 ads have pics, that's still approx 400,000 records.

Plus, I would imagine that the conversions and renewels will drop considerably, if a condition of membership is the submission of legal picture ID.

They own the content in 300,000 of those ads.

Seriously, EVERY webcam model does explicit shows. On all of the free cam previews I would say you will pretty much see at least 1 with an explicit pic. Nightmare.

[Varius]

Without speaking to a lawyer (so don't take this as legal, it's just my opinion), I would have to say from what I know this only affects companies based in the US or sites hosted there.

Seeing as we are hosted in Canada and our operations based in Costa Rica, I think that for now, the 2257 regulations cannot affect us.

As I said though, we would find out for sure from 2257 lawyers and such; this is only my opinion.

[Chimmy]

Not surprisingly, once again a thread regarding the adult date site industry is lacking in one crucial element. ... the contributions of any of the industry giants. (Except for the previous post by iwantu).

And Chadglni, I believe you have misinterpreted the 2257 regs. The date site companies clearly note that they approve all member images before posting to a profile. This would mean that they do in fact have complete control over the imagery appearing on their sites, and are in fact publishers of this material. Thus, they too will be subject to the full scope of the new 2257 regulations.

[Chimmy]

No replies? I am sure that the dating sites do not have this same "head in the sand" approach behind closed doors.

But, I do feel that my question is in fact very valid. The dating industry provides a significant (if not the largest) portion of the income paid out to adult industry affiliates. So, I would think those same affiliates would also want to ensure that the dating site affiliate programs will be able to weather this storm, and continue to pay out at the current income levels.

[TheSenator]

bump....we need an official response to the current situation

[ry0t]

What you said makes me furious. I can't believe such a thing would happen. What are they trying to do make us bankrupt? I am speaking blindly of course. FUCK THAT! grrr

[DatingGold]

I will post what our lawyers advise, this is something we have been preparing for for over two years.

However there have been past court cases, one involved a swinger magazine and they were found not liable because the content was user submitted.

However new legislation may affect this.

Worst case scenario, users cannot have hardcore profiles unless verified. They would be able to send hardcode photos directly to other members, therefore making the user the publisher/producer and not the dating site.

For our sites, conversion would not be affected without hardcore photos on profiles and I don't see it as much of a problem.

Thats just my opinion. We pay our lawyers for the *best* answer.

[DatingGold]

Also...

I am curious how yahoo will handle this with their adult profiles.

[TheSenator]

Originally Posted by DatingGold

I will post what our lawyers advise, this is something we have been preparing for for over two years.

However there have been past court cases, one involved a swinger magazine and they were found not liable because the content was user submitted.

However new legislation may affect this.

Worst case scenario, users cannot have hardcore profiles unless verified. They would be able to send hardcode photos directly to other members, therefore making the user the publisher/producer and not the dating site.

For our sites, conversion would not be affected without hardcore photos on profiles and I don't see it as much of a problem.

Thats just my opinion. We pay our lawyers for the *best* answer.

thanks ....makes sense

[psyko514]

Originally Posted by Chimmy

Definition of lascivious: Entertainment whose primary function is to arouse the libido or sexual sensation, people who are not married and are living together, open solicitation of prostitution, indecent exposure of genitalia.

The term "lascivious" is pretty broad, as isthe concept of "indecent exposure", unfortunately.

[DatingGold]

Originally Posted by psyko514

The term "lascivious" is pretty broad, as isthe concept of "indecent exposure", unfortunately.

If they want to get you they will...

[Chimmy]

Originally Posted by psyko514

The term "lascivious" is pretty broad, as isthe concept of "indecent exposure", unfortunately.

I should add, this definition was not taken directly from the government legal archives, so their interpretation may be somewhat different.

And in regards to the industry responses,

Makes sense, to a degree.

This approach could cover all future members, as you will be able to control the images that you allow to be included with a profile.

But, I still see a very significant job ahead of you (and all date sites), when you are also tasked with (a) directing all current members to remove any explicit images. And, as these images are posted to "arouse" other members, I would infer that any images depicting nudity can be defined as sexually explicit.
and (b) going through each profile to ensure that members have complied.

Just playing devil's advocate..but also trying to look at the 2257 issues with attention to how the "leaders" are going to respond to this issue.

[psyko514]

Originally Posted by DatingGold

If they want to get you they will...

Yep, that's the point I was kinda getting at.

These are broad terms that can be interpreted in so many different ways.

[CafeLuck]

Best rev stare in the business, with a 50% recurring revenue.

View site

If you choose to add the banners to your site please use my affiliate code

Affiliate code

Trust me, it is well worth the effort

[ry0t]

Originally Posted by CafeLuck

Best rev stare in the business, with a 50% recurring revenue.

View site

If you choose to add the banners to your site please use my affiliate code

Affiliate code

Trust me, it is well worth the effort

Go work at mcdonalds.

[Donny]

[Dirty F]

[Chimmy]

I am confident that the new 2257 regs will not mean it will be "business as usual". A big selling feature for any "adult" dating site is the ability to search and view "explicit" images of potential partners. Take away this feature, and suddenly it is just a dating site, with some raunchy text.

This is why I am specifically questioning the adult dating industry. The new 2257 rules will likely have more effect on you then any other large player in the industry. Other porn sites will still be able to show "sexually explicit" images. They will simply need to keep the records on hand for all of their models. (Which most have already been doing). And in the case of content that they buy from other producers, their buying power is significant enough to ensure easy access to the records for this purchased content.

But for dating sites, it is quite a different matter. You either (a) ask for the removal of all explicit images or (b) ask for a faxed copy of all ID. Both factors would likely casue some resistance from your members.

But this is just the way I see it. And I could be wrong. Which is why I am asking for clarification.

[Kevsh]

Originally Posted by chadglni

Webcams are just as bad if not worse. Virtually impossible to get all of those releases organized even if the main companies were willing to turn over the documents.

Yep, but studio-based sites (the few left) will be better off than the "community" chat sites I would think.

[Chimmy]

Well, looks like this thread will be relegated to the " do not touch with a 10 foot pole" pile. I see that some of the major "leaders" in the dating industry have found the time to post in other "non-2257" posts this evening. I would have thought that they would be a bit more responsive.

[Varius]

Hey Chimmy,

In my opinion, if I am right and this only affects us-based or us-hosted websites, then I feel that 2257 would work as you have explained.

Any adult dtaing company in the US would be forced to ask their members for valid ID verification before allowing any image uploaded by them to appear on the site. This would, obviously, affect conversions on many sites.

As DatingGold said though, because it is user-submitted, their may be different laws surrounding this. At present, it may not be the site's liability due to that fact, though I would assume 2257-pushers will try to go after those sites and change that ruling

As for lack of replies, you can see it two ways:

One, they don't have a proper answer approved by "legal" to give you, or Two, they just want to avoid this issue until the last possible moment....again, just my humble thoughts

[DatingGold]

Originally Posted by Varius

Hey Chimmy,

In my opinion, if I am right and this only affects us-based or us-hosted websites, then I feel that 2257 would work as you have explained.

Any adult dtaing company in the US would be forced to ask their members for valid ID verification before allowing any image uploaded by them to appear on the site. This would, obviously, affect conversions on many sites.

As DatingGold said though, because it is user-submitted, their may be different laws surrounding this. At present, it may not be the site's liability due to that fact, though I would assume 2257-pushers will try to go after those sites and change that ruling

As for lack of replies, you can see it two ways:

One, they don't have a proper answer approved by "legal" to give you, or Two, they just want to avoid this issue until the last possible moment....again, just my humble thoughts

You guys might not be opertaing in the US, but that doesn't help affiliates promoting you really, because they are in the US.

I feel that both non US and US based will have to change things to meet 2257 regulations, if it comes to be fact that user submitted images are 2257 mandated.

[Chimmy]

Yes, I'm rehashing an old thread. Why you ask? Simple. The very same questions I raised on this thread almost 1 month ago still remain completely unanswered today.

So AFF..what's your game plan? Or are you going to wait until after the 23rd of June, and leave all of your affiliates scrambling.

[Chimmy]

Still awaiting an answer. Most of the other large affiliate programs have sent out emails or posted on GFY as to their intent on how they will handle the upcoming 2257 regs. AFF, you continue to remain silent. Have some respect for the affiliates who keep your company prospering and deal with these very real 2257 changes.

Or are you going to let your affiliates continue to use your current 'sexually explicit' banners right up until the last moment..then screwing the affiliates by pulling the banners after June 23rd. Some of your affilaites have 100's if not thousands of your banners hosted on pages on their own servers. I don't know about you, but it would take me more then a few hours to substitute all the banners

Plus, there is also the very real possibility outlined at the start of this thread that your business could plummet drastically, if ID from all customers is required. But then again...maybe not...but that is the only assumption we have to go on right now, as no supporting or opposing info. is forthcoming from AFF.

[Chimmy]

Still waiting....

[Chimmy]

Patience is my biggest virtue. So, still awaiting an answer.

And, do you mean to tell me that none of you other affiliates are at all concerned? In the mainstream world, a company would be raked over the coals for failure to communicate on such an important issue as this.

AFF...I ask again, WHAT ARE YOUR PLANS FOR 2257? In the past couple weeks, EVRY MAJOR program has sent out emails with direction on how they are looking after affiliates, and how the 2257 regs will affect them.

The rest of you, quit being such absolute pansies, and demand answers. You deserve to know how your income may be seriously affected in the very near future!

[ShellyCrash]

There will still be nude contend on adult dating sites.

Within the current 2257 regulations right now the user submitted content makes us, as an adult personals site, a secondary producer. The updated regulations on the table right now that enforce stronger regulations on secondary producers would definatly have an effect on the online industry as a whole. Yahoo for example does not only have a problem with their personals, but also their groups, and geocities pages, etc.

We have a validation feature on our site in which users who want to validate their profile pics can send in a copy of their ID. It's actually more popular than you would think, but it's my understanding (and I say this not as a lawyer) that just a photocopied ID alone will not qualify as proper documentation for the pending 2257 regulations.

If these pass, yes, there will be a loss of some of the more hardcore user submitted content- but many members use pics that they have taken themselves, full frontal shots, etc, that are not considered hardcore content.

Because we have both user submitted content and professionally produced content (photo galleries, videos, etc) we're already familliar with the work involved with becomming 2257 compliant. The user thumbnails for the rank me tool and integrated personals features are already compliant with the pending legislation, and the geotargeted ads are in the works. It is important, especially with the volume of user submitted content we posess, that we are proactive in our approach to dealing with this topic.

Sorry for the late response, but I'm just adjusting back to the eastern time zone from Cybernext.

[camcutie]

I just opened a swingers dating website www.sexyplaytime.com a few months ago and plan on sending a notice to all members about new 2257 regs tommorrow. I will offer them the option of complying by sending id's and signing releases or the explicit photo's will be deleted. I am also going to open the option of pic attachements through internal mail so that they can send pics among themselves. For new members the policy will be explained as a way to comply to the law as well as the benefit of all members being certified "real".

Since sexyplaytime.com is not a huge website I should only have about a day of hard work and be done. It is going to be interesting to see what happens with the big guys. I am a member of several large dating websites and have gotten no notices yet about my personal pictures posted. If I do I will post here for other webmasters to see.

XOXOXO
*Krystal*

[tranza]

Part (e) is out of the new 2257.

[Chimmy]

Thanks for the responses eroticy and sexplaytime. The only response that is still no where to be found is AFF...the very company that will affect the most affiliates, due to their size. How 'bout AFF...we're still waiting!!!

[VeriSexy]

Originally Posted by College Downtime

Government intervention on the internet is gonna be the worst thing that ever happened to it

Yeah things get tougher and tougher, need to do so much more now.... Can't be lazy anymore

[Matt 26z]

2257 makes it very clear that it's for the commercial distribution of xxx material. This is why sites such as Yahoo are exempt.

Dating sites sell the right to contact the person in the profile. Any user xxx photos are not there for commercial purposes.

[Mr.Fiction]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

2257 makes it very clear that it's for the commercial distribution of xxx material. This is why sites such as Yahoo are exempt.

Dating sites sell the right to contact the person in the profile. Any user xxx photos are not there for commercial purposes.

Have you talked to your lawyer about that? It's possible they could look at it in that way, but I wonder what a good lawyer would say about it?

[wimpy]

The geoIP adverts are served from the sponsor's server. This probably exempts affiliates from paperwork because it is not hosted by them nor is the content under the affiliate's control.

Of course, whether the advert is there at all IS under affiliate control, so not a solid exemption.

[Chimmy]

Still no word from AFF?? Here's why a response is so important.

If you are a larger affiliate and depend on AFF for significant parts of your income, the new 2257 regs. could have a very big effect on the marketability of sites like AFF. The way I see it, ALL!!! members that already have explicit pics up would need to take them down, or submit copies of their ID and sign a release. And ALL!!!! new members would have to go through the same process. So, the obvious result...members will leave, and others will choose not to go thru the hastle and give up their privacy.

And remember, if fewer people sign up, your income will also show a compariable decrease. Which could be very significant indeed.

So....AFF...there's questions that need to be answered.

[newbreed]

Originally Posted by ShellyCrash

There will still be nude contend on adult dating sites.

Within the current 2257 regulations right now the user submitted content makes us, as an adult personals site, a secondary producer. The updated regulations on the table right now that enforce stronger regulations on secondary producers would definatly have an effect on the online industry as a whole. Yahoo for example does not only have a problem with their personals, but also their groups, and geocities pages, etc.

We have a validation feature on our site in which users who want to validate their profile pics can send in a copy of their ID. It's actually more popular than you would think, but it's my understanding (and I say this not as a lawyer) that just a photocopied ID alone will not qualify as proper documentation for the pending 2257 regulations.

If these pass, yes, there will be a loss of some of the more hardcore user submitted content- but many members use pics that they have taken themselves, full frontal shots, etc, that are not considered hardcore content.

Because we have both user submitted content and professionally produced content (photo galleries, videos, etc) we're already familliar with the work involved with becomming 2257 compliant. The user thumbnails for the rank me tool and integrated personals features are already compliant with the pending legislation, and the geotargeted ads are in the works. It is important, especially with the volume of user submitted content we posess, that we are proactive in our approach to dealing with this topic.

Sorry for the late response, but I'm just adjusting back to the eastern time zone from Cybernext.

(From Ben at Newbreed, while Bill is in the air...)

There are a couple of things that people are not realizing here...

First, and absolutely foremost... The new 2257 regs have ALREADY been approved. The June 23, 2005 date is the date they actually go into effect. (30 days after publication in the Federal Register).

Second, according to the FSC attorneys at the CybernetExpo in SD this week, the government is absolutely going to be moving forward with investigations, etc. The best posture, according to them, is not to take a wait and see position as to whether they are able to get an injunction against the enforcement. You need to get your shit together now! Unless you want to take the gamble of being the some of the first to take the 2257 arrows. The FSC attorneys were very emphatic in that there WILL be some 'examples' made in the industry and there will be 'martyrs' (euphemistically regarded as heroes) at the outset.

Thirdly, even if there is an injunction awarded, it may be very limited in scope and it will most certainly ONLY apply to members of the FSC.

Now, I'm not a lawyer, but I have read the 2257 regs many times and have studied some law in college .... </disclaimer on> This is NOT a legal opinion! </disclaimer off>

In order to 'qualify' the image(s) must be produced by the primary (or secondary) producer in a COMMERCIAL effort, this is one of those key statements in the law.

If Jane Jones from Kokomo, IN wants her husband or boyfriend to take pics of her for their own use, they do not come under the regs. However, that being said, since the primary interest of the dating sites IS a commercial one they DO fall under the aegis of the 2257 regs and would certainly have to obtain the appropriate Photo ID from the 'model'.

HOWEVER!... the regs also stipulate that the producer must 'authenticate' that the model's information is also actually the model's information and as a secondary producer the dating site would be absolutely foolish to allow any supposed subscriber to simply upload an image of a photo id and take it for granted that the photo id received is actually the photo id of the model. This issue will be rife with hazards...

It will certainly be interesting to see how this particular issue falls out...

My recommendations to all of you would be, make sure your membership with the FSC is paid up and that you have corporate and individual memberships so you can protect your interests with the results of the injunction (if they are awarded).

2257-Ben from Newbreed

[BrainCash JF]

from that definition I'll say yes ....

The record-keeping requirements apply to ``[w]hoever produces'' the
material in question. 18 U.S.C. 2257(a). The statute defines
``produces'' as ``to produce, manufacture, or publish any book,
magazine, periodical, film, video tape, computer-generated image,
digital image, or picture,

if we are talking about sexually-explicit digital images on the dating site server ...from my opinion , I would say yes they have keep the records , tough we do not run Dating site and we didn't talk with our lawyers about this specific issue