My, My, Mr. Markham, bending things a bit here today? You _know_ that I'm not a photographer, I'm a broker. I don't _have_ any of "my models".

What I'm concerned with, is the law. Giving out ID's without cause is most definately a problem. I get at least one request a week from people who have no legit need to have that info. It's as simple as that.

I happen to know Bob.. and Bob knows me..

He used to have banners for his euroteens.nl site that
stated "click here for 15 year old girls' and shit.

Although there actually wherent any 'underage' girls on his site
Bob is still a piece of shit in my book because of that.

He raised the age fo the girls he claims to be on his
site to 17 but that still makes him an asshole..

Why dont you change that to 18 bob before you start throwing
in bullshit about child pr0n and web-legal?

Damn Charly. Nice line.

I think someone could easily provide proof to a questioning webmaster. Why not?

He doesnt have to give it to everyone who buys his content, but if someone asks man, at least show it to them.

:thumbsup

I've bought the vast majority of my content from web-legal in the past, all products have been supplied with full 2257 documentation

I don't think anyone in their right mind, would deal with photos with a potential license problem, age related or whatever, let alone for $25 a set


I'm with web legal on this one


your story sounds 100% bizzare newgrade

A nice line, but disingenious to say the least.

Here's the facts: When I have a licensed customer that comes to me and tells me that they need the records because of a legal inquiry, THEY GET THE RECORDS. It's as simple as that. I have NEVER refused a request when someone said that they were being questioned.

HOWEVER, when someone simply says "because I want to have it", I routinely turn that down. It's simply not good business to be passing that data around. I have had cases of stalkers trying to get that info before, so I am very paranoid about the matter.

If some photographers don't care about their models privacy and security, that's a matter between them and their models. I, however, want to try to keep from being hauled into court on some silly lawsuit for invasion of privacy.

october 1st we will, the age of concent changes to 18 then in holland, guess you didnt know :)

Guess youre still mad at us having an annual turnover 154.654.764.354 higher then yours hahahaha :P

Section (a) Paragraph (1) states:

(a)

Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which -

(1)

contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

(2)

is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;


shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.



Now Visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct is in defined in section 2256. it states in section (E):

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

so it's not just penitration that 2257 info is needed

heres link to the text of the law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html


for those of you that have 2257 questions please read the law
it's very straight forward - not much gray area here

web legal your full of SHIT!!!

I really dont want to piss you off but you are putting webmasters at risk.

the law states that the "producer" of the publication MUST keep the records - not the copyright owners

Dave,

we *DID* ask for a copy, do you really think that after 13 yrs of adult business im personally interested in a girl thats like 10.000 miles away from us ? *sigh*

Besides i never ask for anyting twice. Expect a call :)

ok here again the law states:

(c)

Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times


what about the part "shall maintain the records required by this section AT HIS BUSINESS PREMISES"

huh? what about that

You know, right up until the "producer" versus "copyright holder" thing, you are correct. Lets continue where you left off, though...

Section (h)(3) states: "the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, 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; "

Did you catch that? "But does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting or managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers involved".

Pretty clear, don't you think? I just did a text search on 18 USC 2257, and I didn't even _find_ the word copyright in there, so I'm not really sure how that crept in here...

One thought for you... do you really think that I would "put webmasters at risk" when I share the same risk (if not greater, due to the size of my offerings)? I live in Kansas, for crying out loud... the state that doesn't like to teach evolution in school, preferring to go with creationism!

Any "risk" that I would be "subjecting webmasters to"... I'm in for a lot more than they are. Get Real.

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