Legal: Wrong custodian of records info? - GoFuckYourself.com

uterpie · 07-30-2005, 04:33 PM

This morning I got a registered letter from a lawyer on behalf of a woman claiming ?Unauthorized Appropriation, Use and Publication of Name? for publishing her name on my sites? 18 USC 2257 pages as the legal custodian of records for content from a sponsor that I won't name here. In the letter, the lawyer states that this woman USED to be the legal custodian of records, but she has not been the legal custodian of records since February of 2001 (when her employment was terminated). Included with the lawyers letter were printouts of my 2257 pages where her name was listed, with her name highlit in marker. This woman is basically demanding that I compensate her for the unauthorized publication of her name since February of 2001, and requesting I pay her $40,000 total as retroactive compensation.

I obtained her information (name, address and the understanding she was the custodian of records) from the unnamed sponsor, specifically their 18 USC 2257 webpages. I copied and posted this information on each of my sites in an attempt to comply with the law to the best of my abilities on May 12, 2004. I have removed this woman's information from my sites as of this morning per her request. In fact, I removed all custodian info and only left links to sites.

Her lawyer charges that:
A) My company has published her name without her knowledge or consent for more than four years. This can not be true since I have not owned the domains mentioned in the letter for that long, and so could not have possibly published her name for that long. Again, I only published it starting on May 12, 2004.
B) I am violating the 18 USC 2257 requirements by failing to publish the proper custodian of records. I don't see how this is possible since there is NO nude/non-nude model content published on my sites, no pictures of any humans at all, and so I don't fall under 18 USC 2257. This is not about actual model content being called into question under 18 USC 2257, because there is none! Its about me simply getting inaccurate contact information from a sponsor and then posting it to my own site. (BTW I have contacted the sponsor about this already, but haven't heard back).

I Googled the woman's name and came up with over 300 hits, all listing her as the legal custodian of records on 18 USC 2257 pages just like I did. My guess is she and her lawyer spammed all these site owners with the same type of letter I got, hoping someone would get scared enough to give her money.

What does everybody make of this?

Thanks,

- uterpie

theking · 07-30-2005, 04:36 PM

Cluster fuck.

Harmon · 07-30-2005, 04:40 PM

Get a lawyer. Refer your lawyer to said sponsor. Counter sue sponsor if need be. Cross fingers and hope it goes away. Rinse & repeat as necessary

After Shock Media · 07-30-2005, 04:42 PM

Toss in trash until you get an actual summons or something more official than a legal scare tactic.

SGS · 07-30-2005, 04:42 PM

I see the future and its not going to be nice.

The Sultan Of Smut · 07-30-2005, 04:46 PM

Isn't the custodian supposed to maintain records for 5 years after the point when he/she is no longer managing the content? Maybe just report her to the DOJ or tell her lawyer to bone up on the current regulations.

After Shock Media · 07-30-2005, 04:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

Isn't the custodian supposed to maintain records for 5 years after the point when he/she is no longer managing the content? Maybe just report her to the DOJ or tell her lawyer to bone up on the current regulations.

No that would be the producers. A custodian can be any person in a company placed in charge of the records. This person can be fired or replaced at any time.

Dirty Dane · 07-30-2005, 04:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Sultan Of Smut

Isn't the custodian supposed to maintain records for 5 years after the point when he/she is no longer managing the content? Maybe just report her to the DOJ or tell her lawyer to bone up on the current regulations.

I think the problem was that she was not custodian.

The Sultan Of Smut · 07-30-2005, 04:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

No that would be the producers. A custodian can be any person in a company placed in charge of the records. This person can be fired or replaced at any time.

Ahhhh, good point.

Jayde · 07-30-2005, 05:36 PM

This is exactly the reason why the current regulations state the primary producer must be also the custodian of records and not some third party.

07-30-2005, 05:38 PM

Can you post her name here, or at least initials. I want to make sure I don't have her listed on any of my sites.

LOL.

07-30-2005, 04:33 PM	#1
uterpie Registered User Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 26	Legal: Wrong custodian of records info? This morning I got a registered letter from a lawyer on behalf of a woman claiming ?Unauthorized Appropriation, Use and Publication of Name? for publishing her name on my sites? 18 USC 2257 pages as the legal custodian of records for content from a sponsor that I won't name here. In the letter, the lawyer states that this woman USED to be the legal custodian of records, but she has not been the legal custodian of records since February of 2001 (when her employment was terminated). Included with the lawyers letter were printouts of my 2257 pages where her name was listed, with her name highlit in marker. This woman is basically demanding that I compensate her for the unauthorized publication of her name since February of 2001, and requesting I pay her $40,000 total as retroactive compensation. I obtained her information (name, address and the understanding she was the custodian of records) from the unnamed sponsor, specifically their 18 USC 2257 webpages. I copied and posted this information on each of my sites in an attempt to comply with the law to the best of my abilities on May 12, 2004. I have removed this woman's information from my sites as of this morning per her request. In fact, I removed all custodian info and only left links to sites. Her lawyer charges that: A) My company has published her name without her knowledge or consent for more than four years. This can not be true since I have not owned the domains mentioned in the letter for that long, and so could not have possibly published her name for that long. Again, I only published it starting on May 12, 2004. B) I am violating the 18 USC 2257 requirements by failing to publish the proper custodian of records. I don't see how this is possible since there is NO nude/non-nude model content published on my sites, no pictures of any humans at all, and so I don't fall under 18 USC 2257. This is not about actual model content being called into question under 18 USC 2257, because there is none! Its about me simply getting inaccurate contact information from a sponsor and then posting it to my own site. (BTW I have contacted the sponsor about this already, but haven't heard back). I Googled the woman's name and came up with over 300 hits, all listing her as the legal custodian of records on 18 USC 2257 pages just like I did. My guess is she and her lawyer spammed all these site owners with the same type of letter I got, hoping someone would get scared enough to give her money. What does everybody make of this? Thanks, - uterpie __________________ Trade quality hentai traffic with me here!

07-30-2005, 04:36 PM	#2
theking Nice Kitty Industry Role: Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: The good old USA!!! Posts: 21,053	Cluster fuck. __________________ When you're running down my country hoss...you're walking on the fighting side of me! FOR THE LYING LOWLIFE POSTING AS PATHFINDER...https://gfy.com/fucking-around-and-pr...athfinder.html

07-30-2005, 04:40 PM	#3
Harmon ( ͡ʘ╭͜ʖ╮͡ʘ) Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 20,010	Get a lawyer. Refer your lawyer to said sponsor. Counter sue sponsor if need be. Cross fingers and hope it goes away. Rinse & repeat as necessary __________________ [email protected]

07-30-2005, 04:42 PM	#4
After Shock Media It's coming look busy Join Date: Mar 2001 Location: "Ph'nglui mglw'nafh Cthulhu R'lyeh wgah'nagl fhtagn". Posts: 35,299	Toss in trash until you get an actual summons or something more official than a legal scare tactic. __________________ [email protected] ICQ:135982156 AIM: Aftershockmed1a MSN: [email protected]

07-30-2005, 04:42 PM	#5
SGS Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Mallorca - Nottingham Posts: 5,176	I see the future and its not going to be nice. __________________ See sig...

07-30-2005, 04:46 PM	#6
The Sultan Of Smut Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: Vancouver Posts: 4,325	Isn't the custodian supposed to maintain records for 5 years after the point when he/she is no longer managing the content? Maybe just report her to the DOJ or tell her lawyer to bone up on the current regulations.

07-30-2005, 05:36 PM	#10
Jayde Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2003 Location: USA Posts: 108	This is exactly the reason why the current regulations state the primary producer must be also the custodian of records and not some third party. __________________ Jayde http://www.hotindianbabe.com

07-30-2005, 05:38 PM	#11
evildick Guest Posts: n/a	Can you post her name here, or at least initials. I want to make sure I don't have her listed on any of my sites. LOL.