2257 quote

[besterman]

"The new rules would require anyone who posts a sexually explicit image or video on the Net to also publish the address where copies of the release forms and the model's photo identification can be located, so that the records can be checked by U.S. federal agents""

WHAT's the bottom line? Do affiliates have to post a link to 2257 of their sponsor or PHYSICALLY MAINTAIN THE MODEL RECORDS AT THEIR OWN ADDRESS???

[NaughtyRob]

Where have you been the past month?

[dopeman]

Originally Posted by besterman

"The new rules would require anyone who posts a sexually explicit image or video on the Net to also publish the address where copies of the release forms and the model's photo identification can be located, so that the records can be checked by U.S. federal agents""

WHAT's the bottom line? Do affiliates have to post a link to 2257 of their sponsor or PHYSICALLY MAINTAIN THE MODEL RECORDS AT THEIR OWN ADDRESS???

if YOU post the image, YOU are the secondary publisher. YOU need to have IDs and YOU need to post your address on your website.

yes.

[StuartD]

[besterman]

Originally Posted by dopeman

if YOU post the image, YOU are the secondary publisher. YOU need to have IDs and YOU need to post your address on your website.

yes.

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?

[basschick]

it IS the law as of yesterday.... it is NOT being repealed today. the fsc has come to a temporary agreement with the doj which will apply to their members.

[Matt 26z]

Depends who you ask.

Some believe 75.2 A as being for primary producers only, and 75.2 B as being for secondary only. Either way secondary still has to keep ID's on file no matter what (and have been required to for many years actually), but some other requirements would not apply if that is true.

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by besterman

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?

Have even READ the new regs? 3rd party record holders are FORBIDDEN.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by besterman

But I thought it was common in the industry for a lawyer or 3rd party to hold 2257 records. Wouldn't the sponsor be the holder of record for the affiliate's publishing of the image/video?

In fact, is this law even in effect yet or does it have a good chance of being repealed as per the FSC argument today?

Must be a cozy rock you've been hiding under.

[tranza]

This is so funny...

[besterman]

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Depends who you ask.

Some believe 75.2 A as being for primary producers only, and 75.2 B as being for secondary only. Either way secondary still has to keep ID's on file no matter what (and have been required to for many years actually), but some other requirements would not apply if that is true.

So to summarize, is it true that secondary publishers like say a sponsor, is in the *same boat* as an affiliate promoting that site or there are still some differences?

It is obvious that if the sponsor has the 2257 records and you are using the 2257 compliant images on your site, it should follow logically that your images which come from that sponsor's site (hardcore or softcore) are *also* compliant.

Why wouldn't it simply be required for affiliates to simply link to 2257 info and put the onus on the sponsor to get the record for that thumbnail, etc.. it would seem far simpler and the end result is exactly the same

[whorehole]

youre talking about logic and simplicity- something the doj doesnt understand.

Welcome to hell, get used to it

[besterman]

Originally Posted by whorehole

youre talking about logic and simplicity- something the doj doesnt understand.

Welcome to hell, get used to it

I wonder how prosecutions would occur....Wouldn't they have to prove that your images are of people that are under-age, say even a 60 year old man or woman in a hardcore shoot? Who is going to stand in court and convict somebody for showing a 60 year old hardcore image when it is clear it is not illegal, even when the SPONSOR's website can show it because they have the record?

Seems to me this means sponsors have more power to show hardcore and affilaites will lose sales to the sponsor's own site.

[StuartD]

Originally Posted by besterman

I wonder how prosecutions would occur....Wouldn't they have to prove that your images are of people that are under-age, say even a 60 year old man or woman in a hardcore shoot? Who is going to stand in court and convict somebody for showing a 60 year old hardcore image when it is clear it is not illegal, even when the SPONSOR's website can show it because they have the record?

Seems to me this means sponsors have more power to show hardcore and affilaites will lose sales to the sponsor's own site.

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/search.php

Type in 2257 into the search field and you can follow up on the other 6000 times all this stuff has been discussed already.

[besterman]

Originally Posted by NichePay - StuartD

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/search.php

Type in 2257 into the search field and you can follow up on the other 6000 times all this stuff has been discussed already.

Ok thanks, I'm just looking for the bottom line, I don't care about 6000 messages...

[bdld]

the bottom line is you're fucked.