2257 for affiliates only??? - Page 2 - GoFuckYourself.com

slapass · 07-25-2006, 07:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

How do some of you come up with this?

Either an image is sexually explicit and requires 2257, or it's not and doesn't require 2257. A cropped image that is no longer sexually explicit does not require 2257 because 2257 is for sexually explicit content only.

If you people think otherwise, please point out the section of 2257 that covers "content that was once sexually explicit but is not anymore."

Do a search for this. If the origianl image was explicit you are screwed with a crop. I cannot find that version of 2257 that is easy to read but will keep looking. It was pretty darn clear in the actual language of the law.

slapass · 07-25-2006, 07:53 PM

here is the link - http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm

And I think this is the part that screws us on crops.

(2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).

Fire · 07-25-2006, 08:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by pocketkangaroo

How is Google and Yahoo exempt from this?

They are classified as an Internet Information Retrieval Tool and thus do not need the docs.

You can read the entire legislation here http://www.govtrack.us/data/us/bills.text/109/h4472.pdf
Sec 501. pertains to the 2257 record keeping requirements.

spacedog · 07-25-2006, 08:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by media

You run a business correct? You should have had your ducks in a row over a year ago when this stuff first hit the fan.. We went through everything you said above and we had to go through so many hoops to get it, including non disclosure agreements, 10's of thousands of hours of man labor with data entry and organization, you bitch like you have so much to worry about when chances are you use all free content, and have never invested in your own content to use on your own sites to manage your own 2257 like most should be doing. We lost tons of content had to redo tours to use compliant content if we could not find a models docs or were told we would not be supplied them, this is not just all about the affiliates being in trouble, it's also sponsors who are in a tough spot, and the producers who now need to deal with affiliates, affiliate programs, and also they will need to use judgement on who and who they should not give documents to..

This is a business, you will need to cut your losses and start fresh if you have to.. Sometimes that's the only option if you want to keep moving forward..

1) Actually, I as a "Secondary Producer", have been exempt from the record keeping requirements til now

2) I have invested in my own content

3) The only bitching is because of others unwillingness to be cooperative in sharing documentation so that all would be compliant. It is a partnership afterall, correct?

4) No losses on my end to worry about. I have my ducks in a row, except for sponsor content,, that's the only content I have to worry aout when it comes to 2257.

jayeff · 07-25-2006, 09:03 PM

oops5678

vanillaice · 07-25-2006, 09:19 PM

So does anyone have a good answer for the original question regarding secondary producers (affiliates)?

Will this kill free sites / galleries?

spacedog · 07-25-2006, 09:27 PM

It was so much simpler before to just list the sponsor(s) as the custodian of records, whereas now, the changes require "secondary producers" to be their own custodian of records.. (I think.. correct me If I am wrong.. this is more of a question, than a statement.. I am looking for clarification.)

Sexxxy Sites · 07-25-2006, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

It was so much simpler before to just list the sponsor(s) as the custodian of records, whereas now, the changes require "secondary producers" to be their own custodian of records.. (I think.. correct me If I am wrong.. this is more of a question, than a statement.. I am looking for clarification.)

Since last year "secondary producers" have been required to be the custodian of records. FSC members were supposedly exempt from this as the FSC filed a lawsuit. I do not know if the forth coming law witll override the FSC lawsuit or not. There seems to be different legal opinions about that.

What most people do not seem to understand that even if the FSC won their lawsuit it would only cover those that live within that courts district and would not be binding on another court district. Those in the pornography business are at risk, end of story. One is subject to legal prosecution for any number of things, community standards "defining obcenity" are still in legal play.

Stumps · 07-25-2006, 10:14 PM

oh man. wtf is going on. what the heck is wrong with a text link?

can someone tell me that if I host abroad, then I am exempt from this.

can someone hit me up please on icq and tell me what i need to do

Sexxxy Sites · 07-25-2006, 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Stumps

oh man. wtf is going on. what the heck is wrong with a text link?

can someone tell me that if I host abroad, then I am exempt from this.

can someone hit me up please on icq and tell me what i need to do

Text links are apparently safe at this point, but if you live in the USA it does not make any difference where your hosting is, if you are displaying images/videos served from your host.

NastyGodCash · 07-25-2006, 11:50 PM

hey thats really scary, i would like to see what all these thumb tgps will do...

phypon · 07-26-2006, 12:07 AM

With all of this, all I can say, and I know that everyone will agree, that this is FUCKED up. It is way too far, way too encompasing. People in this thread talk of protecting families, which is fine and true. It is like we are the mob and we are under attack. Like we are criminals. One morning we are businessmen and the next we are criminals. Think about that. That is totally insane.

Not only that, one morning we are fine. The next, we wake up and we are RETROACTIVE criminals. I say this is Internet Prohibition. Think about the control that is going to be illustrated here if the Gov pulls this off. It will be...monumental. How strong is this board? How strong are we as an industry? Are we one for all and all for one? Or are we, 'fuck, I'm jumping ship'?

I don't know guys. I don't know the answer to all of this. But it SMELLS! The whole thing just SMELLS!

Most of the above is just a rant. I just don't get it. It is all false bullshit.

BlackCrayon · 07-26-2006, 05:49 AM

so apparently cropping explicit images is out of the question. softcore is still safe though? you can show nudity as long as there is no penetration? thats not such a bad thing aside from fucking up what every one is currently doing. will less explicit images available for free make more people join sites? either way, i agree with the above poster.

Sarah_Jayne · 07-26-2006, 06:34 AM

Just account for every possible image and then don't worry about it AS much.

Bliz · 07-26-2006, 06:48 AM

Here's another question I like to hear some of your opinions on...

It seems some lawyers and armchair lawyers have based their interpretations of the new laws saying explict content can not be manipulated/cropped without making that person a secondary producer. Making them subject to all the 2257 record keeping requirments. From what I've read this seems to be what is being pushed forward by this fucked up administration.

Question:

What if a image or video cap was from an explict scene, but the image used by those consider "secondary producers" was non explict?

Example:

Using using a image from a shoot or scene before the sexualy explicit activity begins. In most shoots there are usually start out full clothed, lingerie, or topless posing.

I can see where cropping out the only the face of a girl whose actually getting double anal in a five man gangbang could be a problem.

I don't know, but I'm glad I began developing a solution for 2257 the first time around.

L-Pink · 07-26-2006, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FetishTom

That is absurd. If I take an image on a girl in the nude and photoshop a dress on then it is no longer a nude image. If I pass that amended image on to someone else who is unaware of the amendment then by this logic he can be done for not having the correct paperwork on a clothed image.

If what you say is true then the purpose of all this is to make sure people cannot reasonably comply and shut everyone down...oh wait sorry that is the intention!

Seriously though laws that are inherently flawed or designed to make sure people fail never have a long shelf life...

...fingers crossed

Stop. Look at your second sentence.

"If I take an image on a girl in the nude and photoshop a dress on then it is no longer a nude image."

So you are saying that if you take a photograph of a minor, photoshop a dress on her you haven't photographed a minor nude?

Your logic also means if you take a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass but crop out all but her face, you haven't taken a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass?

vanillaice · 07-26-2006, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sarah_webinc

Just account for every possible image and then don't worry about it AS much.

Affiliates can't though, that's the problem. Unless we start only using our own paid for content with just text links to sponsors. No more banners, logos, etc.

L-Pink · 07-26-2006, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanillaice

Affiliates can't though, that's the problem. Unless we start only using our own paid for content with just text links to sponsors. No more banners, logos, etc.

Correct, how would an affiliate know if the original image was altered?

KRL · 07-26-2006, 07:59 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 12clicks

I see creative text links becoming vogue again.

"help Sir Sexalot storm the hairy castle"

vanillaice · 07-26-2006, 08:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by L-Pink

Your logic also means if you take a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass but crop out all but her face, you haven't taken a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass?

Taking a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass is legal, the other example you showed is illegal. So a person can take a photo of the dildo girl, and as long as they have that full photo, they probably need some sort of ID although i'm not sure how the law works for personal photos. If they crop out everything and just show her face then put it on the web, I highly doubt they need to post 2257 information, especially if it's a posed face of her smiling and not looking in pain.

I also don't think they're going to go after people who even take a fully nude photo from the web and crop out the bad stuff, even if they can show the cropped photo came from a fully nude photo. There is no nudity, nor even any hinted nudity of a photo of just a girls face. They would have a real hard time busting people for that, so it won't happen.

As far as photoshopping blurs or stuff over nudity, i'm not sure how that works. That's something people would probably have to talk to a lawyer about, but the cropping issue seems like a non issue

jayeff · 07-26-2006, 08:26 AM

Debating whether the rules are fair and reasonable might be entertaining, but ultimately the only question which matters is what risks are you prepared to take. Given the relatively small resources being applied, you may feel that your chances of being inspected are minimal. But unless that is the basis on which your actions are decided, it's hard to see much sense in doing anything other than making sure you are in line with the strictest interpretation of the law.

I say that because even if some of the points being thrown around here might form part of a defense and even if that defense is ultimately successful, if matters go that far, your finances may be ruined. The reality is that most couldn't afford to defend a federal case, so despite the brave talk on here, if the FBI do come knocking and aren't satisfied, many people will be deep in the brown, smelly stuff.

Take the cropping issue as an example. The 2257 rules are ostensibly about making sure that minors are not used in porn production. If the FBI take the trouble to visit you and see on one of your pages from 6 months ago (you are keeping copies of changed pages as required, right?) a headshot of a young-looking girl, is it reasonable to imagine they will ignore it? Or is it more likely they will ask to see the whole image, perhaps the whole photoshoot?

In terms of where you life is imminently headed if their enquiries reveal hardcore material and no supporting documents, it is irrelevant whether 3 years later a judge rules that the headshot was all you were displaying and therefore the charges are dismissed...

basschick · 07-26-2006, 08:46 AM

spacedog - this has been the law since june 23, 2005.

according to several adult attorneys i talked to, you could be responsible for dressed or non excplicit pics that were from hardcore sets and very possibly an edited explicit pic will still require i.d. all the lawyers said that since there is no way to know how each judge would see it, so there is no ultimate right answer regarding cropped pics.

andrej_NDC · 07-26-2006, 09:08 AM

Thumbs tgps convert much worse than text tgps anyway.

btw anyone needs free hosting?

Rambozo · 07-26-2006, 09:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BlackCrayon

so apparently cropping explicit images is out of the question. softcore is still safe though? you can show nudity as long as there is no penetration? thats not such a bad thing aside from fucking up what every one is currently doing. will less explicit images available for free make more people join sites? either way, i agree with the above poster.

No, softcore is NOT safe anymore, according to FSC attorney Jeffrey Douglas-
" According to Douglas, the bill also mandates record-keeping for depictions of simulated sex act and exhibitions of mere nudity."
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/F...eview&coid=630

Another problem is that a lot of "Primary producers" have contractual obligations with the models which prohibit them from releasing 2257 info to anyone - including affiliates - without a court order.
So at this point, the only thing that seems safe is text links that lead to galleries that are hosted on other people's servers. And we all know how badly most free hosted galleries convert.
Time to face it - we are all fucked.

vanillaice · 07-26-2006, 09:23 AM

With these laws, how are people still able to make free sites and galleries? I want to start doing that again but not if i'm going to get screwed by stupid secondary producer laws. Assuming I don't buy my own content that is

L-Pink · 07-26-2006, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vanillaice

Taking a photo of a girl with a dildo in her ass is legal, the other example you showed is illegal. So a person can take a photo of the dildo girl, and as long as they have that full photo, they probably need some sort of ID although i'm not sure how the law works for personal photos. If they crop out everything and just show her face then put it on the web, I highly doubt they need to post 2257 information, especially if it's a posed face of her smiling and not looking in pain.

I also don't think they're going to go after people who even take a fully nude photo from the web and crop out the bad stuff, even if they can show the cropped photo came from a fully nude photo. There is no nudity, nor even any hinted nudity of a photo of just a girls face. They would have a real hard time busting people for that, so it won't happen.

As far as photoshopping blurs or stuff over nudity, i'm not sure how that works. That's something people would probably have to talk to a lawyer about, but the cropping issue seems like a non issue

My first example is illegal because of the original photo not the cropped photo. That is why cropping is irrelevant.

gleem · 07-26-2006, 09:50 AM

we should just pool our money and buy an Island where we can all work from.. that would solve everything

andrej_NDC · 07-26-2006, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

we should just pool our money and buy an Island where we can all work from.. that would solve everything

or you can just move to a different country

tranza · 07-26-2006, 09:58 AM

I thought this whole 2257 bullshit was over...

BVF · 07-26-2006, 10:12 AM

Any of y'all that aren't preparing to move completely offshore are missing out...

This will be my view in a little less than a year.

spacedog · 07-26-2006, 10:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

we should just pool our money and buy an Island where we can all work from.. that would solve everything

Do you know where there's one for sale?

gleem · 07-26-2006, 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spacedog

Do you know where there's one for sale?

Private ISland here.

you wanna go in on it with me? I Got about $500k

andrej_NDC · 07-26-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by gleem

Private ISland here.

you wanna go in on it with me? I Got about $500k

keep the money and move to Canada or Europe

Yze · 07-26-2006, 11:17 AM

So let me get this straight...

If the content (pic or video) is hosted on a different server and we show/embed it on our site, are we still held liable for it?

Can anyone clarify or know of anything about this situation?

gleem · 07-26-2006, 12:38 PM

if you display the picture on your site even if you hotlink, you are 100% responsible.. think of it this way:

if you setup a movie theater in your hometown and you have a computer there with a projector hooked up to it and you stream video from some super illegal CP site on your screen, you can't say that it's not coming from your theater just because the source is somewhere else.

fitzmulti · 07-26-2006, 06:05 PM

FUCK THAT!

The nearest PIZZA is 42 miles away! LOL!

check it out!!!

07-25-2006, 09:03 PM	#55
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	oops5678 Last edited by jayeff; 07-25-2006 at 09:05 PM..

07-25-2006, 10:14 PM	#59
Stumps Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: below the bails Posts: 363	oh man. wtf is going on. what the heck is wrong with a text link? can someone tell me that if I host abroad, then I am exempt from this. can someone hit me up please on icq and tell me what i need to do __________________ makingcoin.com - 100% payouts for August coinscuties.com Last edited by Stumps; 07-25-2006 at 10:15 PM..

07-25-2006, 11:50 PM	#61
NastyGodCash Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2005 Posts: 239	hey thats really scary, i would like to see what all these thumb tgps will do... __________________ http://www.nastygodcash.com - official sites of Silvia Saint, Evelyn Lory and Adriana Malkova

07-26-2006, 05:49 AM	#63
BlackCrayon Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: Ottawa Posts: 19,631	so apparently cropping explicit images is out of the question. softcore is still safe though? you can show nudity as long as there is no penetration? thats not such a bad thing aside from fucking up what every one is currently doing. will less explicit images available for free make more people join sites? either way, i agree with the above poster. __________________ you don't know you're wearing a leash if you sit by the peg all day..

07-26-2006, 08:46 AM	#72
basschick Confirmed User Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: el lay, ca usa Posts: 2,540	spacedog - this has been the law since june 23, 2005. according to several adult attorneys i talked to, you could be responsible for dressed or non excplicit pics that were from hardcore sets and very possibly an edited explicit pic will still require i.d. all the lawyers said that since there is no way to know how each judge would see it, so there is no ultimate right answer regarding cropped pics. __________________ Got Gay and For Women Traffic?

07-25-2006, 07:53 PM	#52
slapass Too lazy to set a custom title Join Date: Nov 2002 Location: Earth Posts: 14,625	here is the link - http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Tables5.24.05.htm And I think this is the part that screws us on crops. (2) When used in reference to a sexually explicit depiction means the sexually explicit image itself (e.g., a film, an image posted on a web page, an image taken by a webcam, a photo in a magazine, etc.).

07-25-2006, 09:19 PM	#56
vanillaice Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 512	So does anyone have a good answer for the original question regarding secondary producers (affiliates)? Will this kill free sites / galleries?

07-25-2006, 09:27 PM	#57
spacedog Yes that IS me. Bitch. Industry Role: Join Date: Nov 2001 Posts: 14,149	It was so much simpler before to just list the sponsor(s) as the custodian of records, whereas now, the changes require "secondary producers" to be their own custodian of records.. (I think.. correct me If I am wrong.. this is more of a question, than a statement.. I am looking for clarification.)

07-26-2006, 12:07 AM	#62
phypon Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2003 Posts: 440	With all of this, all I can say, and I know that everyone will agree, that this is FUCKED up. It is way too far, way too encompasing. People in this thread talk of protecting families, which is fine and true. It is like we are the mob and we are under attack. Like we are criminals. One morning we are businessmen and the next we are criminals. Think about that. That is totally insane. Not only that, one morning we are fine. The next, we wake up and we are RETROACTIVE criminals. I say this is Internet Prohibition. Think about the control that is going to be illustrated here if the Gov pulls this off. It will be...monumental. How strong is this board? How strong are we as an industry? Are we one for all and all for one? Or are we, 'fuck, I'm jumping ship'? I don't know guys. I don't know the answer to all of this. But it SMELLS! The whole thing just SMELLS! Most of the above is just a rant. I just don't get it. It is all false bullshit.

07-26-2006, 06:34 AM	#64
Sarah_Jayne Now with more Jayne Industry Role: Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Los Angeles Posts: 40,077	Just account for every possible image and then don't worry about it AS much.

07-26-2006, 06:48 AM	#65
Bliz Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: on da beach Posts: 316	Here's another question I like to hear some of your opinions on... It seems some lawyers and armchair lawyers have based their interpretations of the new laws saying explict content can not be manipulated/cropped without making that person a secondary producer. Making them subject to all the 2257 record keeping requirments. From what I've read this seems to be what is being pushed forward by this fucked up administration. Question: What if a image or video cap was from an explict scene, but the image used by those consider "secondary producers" was non explict? Example: Using using a image from a shoot or scene before the sexualy explicit activity begins. In most shoots there are usually start out full clothed, lingerie, or topless posing. I can see where cropping out the only the face of a girl whose actually getting double anal in a five man gangbang could be a problem. I don't know, but I'm glad I began developing a solution for 2257 the first time around.

07-26-2006, 08:26 AM	#71
jayeff Confirmed User Join Date: May 2001 Posts: 2,944	Debating whether the rules are fair and reasonable might be entertaining, but ultimately the only question which matters is what risks are you prepared to take. Given the relatively small resources being applied, you may feel that your chances of being inspected are minimal. But unless that is the basis on which your actions are decided, it's hard to see much sense in doing anything other than making sure you are in line with the strictest interpretation of the law. I say that because even if some of the points being thrown around here might form part of a defense and even if that defense is ultimately successful, if matters go that far, your finances may be ruined. The reality is that most couldn't afford to defend a federal case, so despite the brave talk on here, if the FBI do come knocking and aren't satisfied, many people will be deep in the brown, smelly stuff. Take the cropping issue as an example. The 2257 rules are ostensibly about making sure that minors are not used in porn production. If the FBI take the trouble to visit you and see on one of your pages from 6 months ago (you are keeping copies of changed pages as required, right?) a headshot of a young-looking girl, is it reasonable to imagine they will ignore it? Or is it more likely they will ask to see the whole image, perhaps the whole photoshoot? In terms of where you life is imminently headed if their enquiries reveal hardcore material and no supporting documents, it is irrelevant whether 3 years later a judge rules that the headshot was all you were displaying and therefore the charges are dismissed...

07-26-2006, 09:08 AM	#73
andrej_NDC Registered User Industry Role: Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 7,760	Thumbs tgps convert much worse than text tgps anyway. btw anyone needs free hosting?

07-26-2006, 09:23 AM	#75
vanillaice Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2004 Posts: 512	With these laws, how are people still able to make free sites and galleries? I want to start doing that again but not if i'm going to get screwed by stupid secondary producer laws. Assuming I don't buy my own content that is

07-26-2006, 09:50 AM	#77
gleem Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sunny Land Posts: 5,593	we should just pool our money and buy an Island where we can all work from.. that would solve everything __________________ Contact me: \\// E: webmaster /at/ unprofessional.com

07-26-2006, 09:58 AM	#79
tranza ICQ: 197-556-237 Join Date: Jun 2003 Location: BRASIL !!! Posts: 57,559	I thought this whole 2257 bullshit was over... __________________ I'm just a newbie.

07-26-2006, 10:12 AM	#80
BVF Black Vagina Finder Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: The Midwest Posts: 13,975	Any of y'all that aren't preparing to move completely offshore are missing out... This will be my view in a little less than a year. __________________ Black Pussy Click On Mr Cosby..CCbill, 60/40, 136 FHG's....The Cos Loves Black Ghetto Pussy!!

07-26-2006, 11:17 AM	#84
Yze Registered User Join Date: Mar 2006 Posts: 23	So let me get this straight... If the content (pic or video) is hosted on a different server and we show/embed it on our site, are we still held liable for it? Can anyone clarify or know of anything about this situation? __________________ TokenArcade \| All Dumps \| All Linkers \| Zyped! Daily Media \| Yoinkz! Daily Babes

07-26-2006, 12:38 PM	#85
gleem Confirmed User Industry Role: Join Date: Jun 2001 Location: Sunny Land Posts: 5,593	if you display the picture on your site even if you hotlink, you are 100% responsible.. think of it this way: if you setup a movie theater in your hometown and you have a computer there with a projector hooked up to it and you stream video from some super illegal CP site on your screen, you can't say that it's not coming from your theater just because the source is somewhere else. __________________ Contact me: \\// E: webmaster /at/ unprofessional.com Last edited by gleem; 07-26-2006 at 12:41 PM..

07-26-2006, 06:05 PM	#86
fitzmulti I Like Depth Of Field! Industry Role: Join Date: Jan 2003 Location: Las Vegas, NV, USA: 36.12318 N, 115.090219 W Posts: 14,861	FUCK THAT! The nearest PIZZA is 42 miles away! LOL! check it out!!! __________________ www.SexyGirlsCash.com CONTACT // FITZMULTI AT GMAIL.COM // {Please include a message so I know you are from GFY! I get too many spam "add requests"!}