So if the Dutch law allowed 12 year olds to be published you would?

You're such a fucking piece of shit.

And about your annual turnover: that's fucking bullshit
you are a small dialer player using silly tricks like fake underage
girls to make some minutes and trick people into installing
a dialer.

Your annual turnover is lower than our monthly net profit
so shut the fuck up.

OKay, 1st, the CFR 75 was only struck down in one district. If you would like to test it out in your state, be my guest.

Secondly, once the feds come knocking on your door for child porn, if you cant produce the records that they want, your ass is in jail. Sure, you may be sprung out in 6 months at the trial when you show everything is correct, but to me, even 2 days in jail is too much for nudie pics.

For anyone dealing with questionable content, they need copys of the ID's, with all the information other than the date blacked out. For my picture trades with friends, I have the DL # and the address blocked out. If I get into releasing my own content, I might block out more. But, they still get a copy.

Yes, you did ask for a copy. And I explained why we don't give it unless there is a legal issue outstanding. And you said that this was fine, so long as we were "200% sure" of the matter.

And then, you go and make up a bunch of stuff, putting words in my mouth, and playing games like this.

Sorry, Mr. Van Varik, but you handled this entirely wrong. As far as "what you are interested in", I'm not in a position to judge that.

You are correct as far as the "struck down in one district" goes. That district happens to be the one that I'm in. In the years since that was struck down in court, not a single case has been brought up before the court that I'm aware of. If someone has another case to study, please let me know. In the meantime, I do discuss this matter here:

http://www.web-legal.com/needmodel.html#could

As far as anything goes about arrests... if the matter has already come to "officers at your door", it doesn't matter _what_ paperwork you pull out, they are going to take you in at that point. I've seen this happen before to a producer with impeccible records. He had everything possible under the sun, and he still had to deal with the B/S, so having scanned records at your location (especially redacted ones) isn't going to be a "get out of jail free" pass.

Competitor slamming SUCKS !

My :2 cents: :2 cents:

I couldn't have put it any better myself.

"As far as anything goes about arrests... if the matter has already come to "officers at your door", it doesn't matter _what_ paperwork you pull out, they are going to take you in at that point. I've seen this happen before to a producer with impeccible records. He had everything possible under the sun, and he still had to deal with the B/S, so having scanned records at your location (especially redacted ones) isn't going to be a "get out of jail free" pass."

The ID is fake. period. Weird you know you can get into legal trouble and still refuse to refund, and call us a lyer.

Accept the consequences. As so many ppl already have said here the US law regarding "having" records are clear. Even to you.

"Still Refuse to refund?" When exactly did that happen? Can you quote me back my e-mail where I ever refused to accept a return from you? Please, show that one to me.

Yes, I'm calling you a liar (and I can spell it, too). You know that you took this entire scene and blew it out of proportion. You know that you accused me of saying things that I _did not say_. Even this "refuse to refund" thing is a lie, as you damned well know.

As I've said before... I have asked the publisher to provide me with a set of records without the obvious redacting on it. I am awaiting their response now. I really cannot comment further on this until such time as I hear back from them.

However, I can comment no the "having records" issue. I'm going to have to assume that your comprehension of the English language is a bit fuzzy, as the quotes that I've made (multiple times so far) about the matter are pretty darn clear. Unless you are materially involved in procuring the models, you aren't legally required to have the records in question.

Heck, under 18 USC 2257, if you aren't the CoR, you aren't even required to try to identify wether or not the records are correct. For proof, I quote section (f)(4)(b) for your perusal:

"a statement describing where the records required by this section may be located, but such person shall have no duty to determine the accuracy of the contents of the statement or the records required to be kept. "

Again, that looks pretty clear to me.

I've bought a lot of content from Web-Legal in the past and never had any problems. Dave seems to be catching a lot of flaming but it doesn't seem to me that he deserves it.

That passport DOES seem questionable (missing number which should be at least partially visible directly above model's head, much shorter flag) but it seems pretty clear that Dave wasn't aware that anything was wrong. He's asked for more proof and posted what he has even though he didn't have to prove anything to the people on this board. 99.9% of people probably can't spot a fake ID from the next state (or province, not sure how it works in other countries) over, much less one issued by a foreign government.

SpaceAce

Thanks for the support. As far as the passport number goes, I think that it was just redacted out, and I have requested a new copy from the publisher. Since there is a little thing called a time zone difference at work, I don't know when I will see that, but as soon as I do, one way or another, something is going to happen... (smile!)

If I thought that the ID was hinky, I most certainly would NOT have posted it.. that would be rather silly, don't you agree?

All of that will be answered when I hear from the publisher again, though.

"Your annual turnover is lower than our monthly net profit
so shut the fuck up."

1. Hahahahahaha
2. Lol
3. Brfllllllllllllllllllllll :P

and seriously : yes youre dumb. Real people in this business use solutions to avoid huge turnover in countries where taxes are as high as in Holland. Dumbdumbdumb.

Dave : im waiting for our refund of *every* photobyag serie we bought, since we cannot know of these girls are legal or not.

[email protected] is the paypal addy you can use :)

All you need to do, is send me an e-mail from the last address that you used to order requesting that. Remember, you had best not have that content up when you do request this (including that one that you posted earlier), because I will let all of the publishers know that you have requested a refund, and if you have any photos up at that time, you will be a copyright violator.

Dear Dave,

we hereby request a refund of *all* content we bought at web-legal.com produced by photobyag.com, pls use our paypal adress [email protected]

best regards,

Newgrade B.V.

Bob van Varik
general manage

Again, your comprehension of the English language seems to be at fault. SEND ME AN E-MAIL REQUESTING THIS. Requesting the refund from the same e-mail address that was used to make the orders will confirm that you are, indeed, you, and you are wishing a refund.

I don't take orders or issue refunds on message boards. Get Real.

thats a copy of the email ive send thanks for insulting me wanna switch to dutch ?

I make no pretensions to speaking Dutch. As for "insulting" you, lets check out the track record, shall we? Who started this whole mess?

Web-Legal is NOT the "Producer" of the content. Web-Legal is the BROKER. The "Producer" is responsible for the burdon of proof. Web-Legal does it as a service to the customers on a "need" basis.

WHAHAHAHAHAHAHA....

ROFL

Exactly. Not only that, but only the PRODUCER is the producer... if you weren't hiring the models, you aren't a producer, it's as simple as that.

The fed _tried_ to broaden the scope rather seriously with CFR 75... but it was struck down due to it's overbroad reach.

We do everything that we legally can do in order to protect our customers. It's as simple as that.

along with s/e asia and denmark, holland was right in there as one of the top culprits in producing hardcore under 18 pornography... nothing to be proud of there

Hey man.. I was wondering if you knew of a comprehensive "guide" to the legallity of providing content? Is there a single volume that will outline everything one needs to know so they don't get into trouble? Drop me a line on icq if you would, 104600940.

I also noticed you were in Topeka, I lived in Overland Park and Lawrence for a total of 5 years.. haven't been back in 8 since I left, been meaning to return to see some friends from junior high.

I have dealt with web-legal about some ID issues for models, and they were very helpful. Showed electronic forms of ID right away (like hours).

I guess even good guys can go bad.

Rik

I have had dealings with Dave at Web-Legal since 1998, and have had nothing but good experiences with him.

Coming on this board, with hardly any posts ( character reference ) and Roasting someone known to most is very uncool...

If you thought the pics were underage why did you buy them, Dave usually has one or two pics of each girl on a CD, and once you did take delivery and decided you did not want them, why not just deal with Dave by email, or telephone.

Airing dirty laundry here should be a last resort to any problem, used when all other options are expired or you cannot reach the person in any other way.

Bashing you competition in a post like this is clearly an act of desperation. Need more customers/business ? Earn them.

just goes to show ya there's always two sides at least to every argument.

weblegal has been around for awhile and it would be insane to knowingly broker underage content.....

weblegal came in with cogent arguments to the point.

Game, set, match to weblegal.

btw you guys broker some great content. good luck

This message is simply to clarify a few points that have come up in this rather long and laborous discussion thread... I figure that by putting it like this, it will help people to understand what is going on with the law.

[1] The only people that legally have to have any Custodian of Records info... are the Custodian of Records for the product.

[2] The only people that are covered as "Producers" under 18 USC 2257 is the people that actually hired the performers.

[3] If you didn't hire the performers (or "cause them to be hired", say, a commissioned work), then you aren't a Producer, and therefore cannot be a CoR (Custodian of Records).

[4] If you are not the producer, you are not only not required to maintain those records, you aren't even legally required to insure the accuracy or even the _existance_ of the records... your only responsiblity is to make sure that the CoR statement is easily findable and can be connected to the images in question.

Rather than repeat any of the things posted to this thread already, if you wish, e-mail me about any questions about the above, and I'll point you towards the section of 18 USC 2257 that spells out the above info. Fair enough?

I love when people hide behind the letter of the law to make money off pedophiles!

:thumbsup

:321GFY

look up the laws on CP in america you dim witted fuckers. its totally legal to post a picture of a fully clothed(which he did) female, underaged or not.

look up the laws on CP in america you dim witted fuckers. its totally legal to post a picture of a fully clothed(which he did) female, underaged or not.

furthermore, if the guy wants a copy give him a copy. use photoshop(which im sure your aware of the usage for it as you deal with content) and block out the name and address. one thing in busines you havent learned yet in all your years of being around is that the customer is always right, they put food on your table. so give them what htey want. they come back, and this your fed another meal.

i know bought plenty of pics from web-legal
and never had any problems

Heylo!

Well, unfortunately, the laws that cover this vary from region to region, so you really aren't going to find "one" volume that will help you with this. I keep track of the Federal laws, and make sure that I'm not crossing any lines on the city, county or state levels, and that's what I go by.

YOU are a dimwitted fucker!

The pics in question are not up anymore... if you'd ACTUALLY read the thread you'd know those weren't the pics in question.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

And how on _earth_ do you come up with that statement? No amount of compliance with 18 USC 2257 will protect a pedo. I will have nothing to do with them, period. I've rejected publishers in the past because the photographer had a history of dealing with underaged models... EVEN WHEN THEY PROVIDED ME WITH COMPLETE SETS OF ALL OF THEIR DOCUMENTATION UP FRONT! I could _see_ that this material was legit... but with their prior record, I wasn't about to take the risks.

Last time I checked, that's not "making money off of pedophiles".

Sure, that's easy for you to say... would you be the one being sued by a model or by the photographer for releasing that info without consent?

Is the customer always right, when they are asking for something that can be illegal, or grounds for a lawsuit? You decide.

But a person shipping these pictures over state lines also needs this documentation. Is putting them on a website considered shipping them over state lines? Is producing a website the same as producing a magazine? Webmasters as publishers DO need it at an address where the attorney general can view it. The publisher is the guy who produces a book, magazine, film or website.

But let's look closer at the documentation. I live in the Czech Republic and 10% of the girls here understand written English, that's why they sign a model release in Czech as well as the English one. In the Ukraine, how many read English?

Do the two signatures look like they are from the same hand, one is very arty with a flourish, the other plain and simple. It does not even match the writing above. This would not be acceptable to any magazine editor we sell to.

And as for the guy saying a content producer knocking a broker :321GFY I have said many times that you webmasters should have the documentation. We buy from other professional photographers and are approached all the time by Eastern European shooters. Their documentation is rarely good enough, but they all say they're already being brokered in the US.

Protect yourself, never trust anyone until they have earned that trust.

No, No, and No. The only person that needs the documentation is the producer, the one responsible for hiring the performers, or who caused the performers to be hired. No one else is responsible for keeping that info. The law is VERY CLEAR on that subject.

If you feel otherwise, please point me to the section in 18 USC 2257 that supports your contention.

i would tell everyone here that just having a passport copy of a girl does not proove anything, since the scan of the passport can be altered in seconds.

the sex biz in these countries are not exactly controlled by choir boys. in fact, you can go to Moscow and see underage prostitutes on the streets both in town and outside of town. Ukraine is much worse. the people pimping these girls out are also selling photos and videos of them.

You are buying content from the child porn capitals of the planet (Ukraine and Russia) as well as some of the most corrupt and criminalized nations.

its fair to question the age of the girl as well as the validity of the proof of age they present.

Sorry, but I had to come back to this one again, because it's really rankling me.

Let me get this straight... I run my business in a manner that is actually _more stringent_ than what the law requires me to do, and this is "hiding behind the letter of the law"? Get Real.

I love the spins that people can put on things...

What makes you think that 18 years old is the "right" age where girls are supposed to do porn? Because you live in the U.S. and your government told you it's true?

You do realize that 18 is just an arbitrary age that the U.S. picked. And, in fact, the age of consent is lower in some U.S. states, right?

What if the age of consent is 20 in South Africa? Does that mean that you are a pedophile and a child porn peddler because you think 18 is the right age?

If you think Holland is bad for allowing sex with 17 year olds, then someone else thinks you're bad for allowing sex with 18 year olds. Who is right?

You need to open your eyes and look at the big picture. Just because your government tells you to do something, doesn't mean that's what's objectively right for the whole world.

Do you think that the speed limit on every road in the world should be 55 miles per hour, because the U.S. speed limit is 55 miles per hour? The sad thing is, some people probably do.

Obey the laws in your country, but don't slam other people just because you don't have same laws as them.

WebLegal,

I have to agree with others here, EVERYTIME I have bought content I have been provided with a scanned copy of some form of age ID for the model(s) concerned.

This ID is usually a passport or driving licence with all the personal details (name, address, etc) blacked out, exactly as you posted here on GFY on the last page.

Why does web-legal have to be different to the majority of other content producers I have dealt with. Why can't you provide ID on request, or better still during purchase, with all the personal details blacked out.

If you still consider providing ID ,with personal details blacked out, an invasion of the models privacy, then why did you post the afforementioned ID on GFY? Where several thousand webmasters and alike, who have not purchased the product can view it?

Whether the ID provided, with personal details blacked out, is enough to satisfy the authorities is a completely different matter, but what it DOES do is satisfy me, the webmaster, your customer.

You should have provided your CUSTOMER Newgrade with a photo ID , (with the personal details blacked out), with the ease that you posted it on GFY for thousands of non-customer webmasters to view.

Had this happened I have absolutely no doubt that Newgrade would had been satisfied of the proof of age, and you could have slept easy at night knowing that you had not provided a potential STALKER with a models personal info.

And hence this post would never have taken place, remember whoever wins this argument, mud still sticks.

My :2 cents:

That documentation that are so fake a monkey could tell the difference.

Dave is one of the most responsible and reliable people in the business. If you have an issue with content you've bought from Web-Legal, he'll deal with it promptly through email, and he always goes the extra mile. :2 cents:

Dave your argument is getting thinner and thinner.

Now you are worried that this little 18 year old from the Ukraine is going to come and sue you for releasing her model release and IDs. Even though she has already signed a waiver holding you as an asignee harmless!!!

This is what I supply to mags I think it's fair to say it's dificult to tamper with. I can supply 3-10 on every set I shoot, we repeat the shot many times. I would suggest Dave you get your suppliers to do the same.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/an-id

Yes another Ukraine Passport, yours is looking very suspect by now.

additionally, i can say for a fact that NO CONTRACT in russia is valid if it is in foreign language. Probably the same in Ukraine.

meaning an English contract (i.e. model release) in Russia is not a valid contract in Russia

Why did I post that up there? Simply because I was getting tired of all of the BS about the whole matter. I was tired of being lied about (which is what happened here), and I was getting tired of having words put in my mouth.

Since the original customer and complaintant has now withdrawn his issue, I have removed those images from my webserver at this time.

Also for your consideration: If Mr. Van Varik had simply asked for his refund in the first place, none of this would have happened, period. I do take care of my customers.

I cannot tell you if this is the only contract, of if he has the models sign two, one in their native language, one in English, so that he has no problems with sales in english speaking countries. I will have to ask the photographer about that issue.

So publishing a website is not "Producing"?

Putting it up on the World Wide Web, is not shipping it across State lines?

How many years since you pased your bar exams?

I suggest you read this again.
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

Webmasters, never buy anything from a content supplier unless you have the 2257.

Will Dave Clark pay for you to argue his defence in court?

I disagree. In fact, what this shows me, is that the publisher did redact out that embossed info. As soon as I get a new copy of the publisher, I will see about getting up a version that will show at least part of the numbers (although not all, for privacy's sake).

this is why I like to keep my pics mainly softcore and use girls within the 25-50 year old range. Old brawds give you a better return on your money. and nobody is going to question the age of a saggy tittied stretch mark and C-section scar having middle aged brawd.

OLD BITCHES RULE!!

You know, I love this... you quote the very section that says "but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;" and then act like it's not there.

Amazing.

How many years has it been since you passed YOUR bar exams?