.

The point has been missed here. I don't have problem with you posting ID's as long as the personal info. has been blacked out.

All I was saying is that you completely undermined your "potential stalker argument" by doing it.

Questions:

Do you think an ID with the personal details blacked out is an invasion of the models privacy?

Would you be prepared to send me, the webmaster - your customer, an ID with the personal details blacked out for content set I had bought from you?

Don't you think it would be wise to fall into line with the majority of other major content brokers/producers out there and provide an ID with the personal details blacked out to all webmasters who buy your content either during purchase or at the very least on request?

Don't you think if this had been WebLegal's policy in the first place, this entire issue would have been avoided?

And hence don't you think you should change your policy, and announce it here, in doing so avoiding this situation arising again in the future?

I have no doubt that you are entirely justified in questioning some of Newgrade's emails and actions.

I'm just saying changing your policy to providing ID's with personal details blacked out would keep everyone happy, you (anti-stalker argument) and your customer (satisfactory proof of ID).

:)

Putting images on a website falls under "publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter". The things mentioned in "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" only include "mere distribution" and "any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting or managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers involved", that is, mere distribution and things not mentioned before. Since making a website falls under publishing, you should be able to supply the 2257.

(Smile!) As I explained, the _only_ reason that I did what I did, and that was after removing _all_ ID info, was to simply show that I wasn't engaged in the activities that I was being publically accused of. The problem with accusations, is that if they aren't refuted, people tend to believe them. I've found that it's better to settle the issue than to let people stew on lies.

As far as the "majority" of content producers... No, I cannot agree with that. I deal or have dealt with 408 different content producers over the years, and only a handful have ever felt the need to provide this level of information. The law is quite specific in that such info is NOT needed. Those that are making an issue out of this, are doing so for one reason, in my opinion, and that's because they want to cast their competitors in a bad light, and themselves in a good light.

The vast majority of content producers know that legally speaking, they are not required to provide that info, and in fact, it could be dicey. Even the major film studios that shoot adult video don't provide model info to licensees using their material, they provide 18 USC 2257 certification statements. I have a stack of those from where one of my publishers picked up some film, and left those on file with me. Surely you don't think that the multi-million dollar companies who have attorneys for their CoR's aren't up on this matter?

Honestly, this really is a manufactured issue. The law is very specific on the matter, and the wording is very, very clear.

WebLegal has, what, 20,000 titles for sale or something? This is the first I've heard of any possible impropriety on their part in like 4 years of dealing with them. Stop acting like this guy is some pedo cp pusher. If she's underage, I am sure that WebLegal didn't know about it. All you guys acting like passport/document experts, give me a break. It's easy to point out discrepencies if the document is issued by your country or you live somewhere that puts you in contact with those documents on a regular basis. What if I show you a document from Zimbabwe or Nicaragua or Martinique or Suriname or Paraguay?

I don't know Dave, personally, but It seems to me that WebLegal took the proper steps. It isn't his job to hire a Ukrainian forgery expert to check out the documents and it isn't like the girl looked six years old. Questionable, yes, but as far as he knew he had legal documents proving her age.

SpaceAce

I disagree, and I think that anyone honestly looking at the law will disagree with you, as well. Using your version, the typesetter working on the printing press making the book would have to have copies of the records. The people assembling the tapes on the production line would have to have copies of the records. This is why the clause "or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers involved" was put in there. That clause specifically limits the CoR recordkeeping to those that would know it best... the people that hired the models.

(smile!) It's being kept alive, at least by some parties, simply because they are probably hoping for some free publicity for their own materials. Nothing else explains the dogged determination to stick by a point that obviously has no legal basis.

All this is stupid, you now question the records that you were originally 200% sure of.

You are now having to ask the supplier for new ones, are you still running with all his content? Or is it all suspended until you have seen the new IDs?

You have seen my copies Ukraine passports and how they differ from yours. So how many of the Ukraine Passports do you have on file that match mine and how many match the one you posted?

This is very important because as you can see they ARE different, and if all yours are the same and you are questioning one you have to question them all. If this one is different why were you 200% convinced about it?

Do you with your vast knowledge of US law know whether a contract is legal in the US, if the person signing it does not speak English as a native tongue or to High School standard?

Thinner and thinner.

OK, here's the deal...

Nothing more is going to be meaningful until I hear back from my publisher, and get a non-redacted copy from them. Since nothing more can be accomplished, and it's pretty darn obvious that I can quote the law until I'm blue in the face, and still some people won't get it, I'm going to leave and actually get some work done today. When I find out what is going on here, then I'll check back in.

By page three, this thread has become little more than one content provider bashing another in hopes of getting some extra business.

That's all you've done quote law -- hence my hiding behind it comment.

:Graucho

The sets in question taken on an obviously fake passport are still up...

that says alot.

What content am I trying to sell?

You seem to have missed some other good examples of why what you are saying is wrong:

Please note that it is explicitly said that "produce" does include publishing magazines. Now, what you are saying is similar to saying that because the magazine publisher doesn't hire the models (many magazine publishers buy content), he is exempt from the obligation to be able to present the records. Notice how that isn't the case.

"The people assembling the tapes on the production line would have to have copies of the records."
And indeed, the programmer or designer doesn't have to have copies of the records. However, the company publishing websites does. Just like the company reproducing films (something else that is explicitly stated).


"That clause specifically limits the CoR recordkeeping to those that would know it best... the people that hired the models."

compare this to:

"...and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter."

Obviously, companies duplicating, reproducing or reissuing the content do not hire the models.

I am no expert on this but...I remember reading this a few years ago...and said great.... so I put it out of my mind...the worry about releases....shit it was on the boards then....of course there was not very many boards then...

Now I have to do some research.... some :321GFY ass wipe has gotten me worried...

Got's to agree with you Mr.Fiction .... and well said...:thumbsup some people are just flat out stupid.... and think the world is no larger than the 5 city block area they never find time to leave...

For the last 5-6 years in Ukraine passports was changed 2-3 times, also every Ukrainian (and I think Russian also) citizen who travel abroad have two passports: one for internal use - one for travel .
That's why passports look different and on first photo left document is a driver license.
:2 cents:

A few things:

I have no dealings with weblegal, or any other content broker, and I certainly am not a wizz at US law but a few things that are clear to me are that:

1 Weblegal is confronted with a possibly fake ID. Now knowing the reputation of that company I do believe that in case we are really dealing with a fake ID steps will be taken to remedy the situation. So I see no point in going on about that subject. It's like beating a dead horse. (That goes for competetive content brokers too :winkwink: )

2 newgrade handled this wrong. A matter like this should be resolved privately and not on boards. Specialy because at the time this thread was postd no request for a refund had been made, so there really was no issue. The issue arose as this thread progressed. To me the way he decided to handle this seems very unprofessional.

3 It seems to me that wether or not ID's have to be provided when buying content is debatable. I read some good arguments for supplying it, I alse read good reasons not to. Personally I think supplying it with personal info blacked out would be the best way to go, because I doubt it can be called invasion of privacy if the "private" details are blacked out. But like I said I'm no law wiz. so I could be wrong :)

All considered I think weblegal is being bashed way to harsh which is uncalled for and for the above reasons I am amazed that not more people said something about the way newgrade has behaved.

nuff said.

Only dumb people run for the money to another country. Its called rich poverty. And :thumbsup :thumbsup for Mr. Thumbs, one of the most respectable people in this business.

Seems like this newgrader doesn't know too much about anything

i dont think that is true. Ukrainian passports were changed from Soviet to Ukrainian. Russian passports were changed universally only last year from Soviet to Russian Federation passports.

there are typically 3 passports.
there is a domestic passport
an international passport
and a seamans passport.

they all look different.

May be I am wrong :) - , but I think they change passport format one more time during post-Soviet time frame. at list this is what I heard

:)

Somehow, I think that if weblegal had been producing dodgy material it would have come to light <i>long</i> before now.

Oh, Mr Fiction - :thumbsup

I dont think that they are intentionally doing anthing bad.

however, i think that anyone who buys anything from Russia or the Ukraine should expect false documents and underage girls.

i dont think it is reasonable for anyone to buy content from the known mafia run, kiddie porn capital of the world and then expect that everything is on the up and up... or NOT expect people to have doubts when they are told that a girl is of legal age.

its a VERY dangerous game to play with the US Government and Boris from Kiev will not be the first one going to prison for the images you put on your site or sell access to.
:2 cents:

I hope you do not mean me!!

I have said before that webmasters should have the documents on the models they publish. Especially in the TEEN market and when the producer is overseas. even more so when from the old Soviet Block.

Don't believe me? Read this;

http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...threadid=78523

Dave is yet to answer the question of whether this passport matches the others from that supplier. If they do he has a problem, if they do not why was he 200% sure of it? The signature on the release is very different from the one on the passport.

He is asking webmasters to put their freedom into his hands and based on his judgement, which is doubtful. Then he as a layman quotes the law. Please this is not me attacking a competitor, this is me trying to protect webmasters.

This matter was first brought to my attention 3-4 weeks ago when Newgrade sent me a picture which I said was of an underage girl. He said the supplier has seen the IDs was satisfied and will not release them, which Dave agreed was the case in this thread.

This if anything is doing my company more harm than good. I have learnt on the NET it is better to keep quiet than stick by your principles.

Any of my clients will tell you my record keeping and supply of them is good.

Hey Dave aka Weblegal...
These slugs aren't going to get it. If you notice they either don't read, or they have some serious comprehension issues, and should go back to the 2nd grade for a refresher course.

PEOPLE.... WEB-LEGAL IS NOT A CONTENT PRODUCER!!!!!
GET THIS THROUGH YOUR THICK SKULLS!!!!!
WEB-LEGAL IS A CONTENT BROKER!!!!!
READ THE LAW AS POSTED BY NUMNUTTS EARLIER IN A 1/2 ASS ATTEMPT TO PROVE DAVE WRONG!!!

WEB-LEGAL IS RIGHT ON THIS. NUFF SAID!!!

Stop getting Brokers and Publisher/Producers confused. There is a HUGE difference!!!!!!!

Anyone who has looked at the laws concerning this subject will see that, at the very least, the law can be interpreted so webmasters have to have the records. Now, obviously, one who does not have the records, is taking a rather large risk - especially when using Czech, Ukrainian or other Eastern European content.


<small>Why is it that the stupidest posts are always in caps?</small>

Exactly. And even if it was their job to hire Ukrainian forgery experts: considering the quantity of content he's dealing with it's
plain logic a 'bad one' will slip through eventually.

Whether it's content you are selling that is not legit
or accepting a gallery on your tgp that turns out
to be 'bad' etc etc. If you deal with content or material
not produced by yourself that is bound to happen.

That the person receiving the content (the client) in this case accidently turned out to be a moron not capable handling the situation.. hey.. that's just bad luck.

Don't you hate it when we agree? It's more fun when we're brawling. :)

Yo pooky...
This has nothing to do with taking risk. The topic at hand is if Web-Legal has done right, and they have. WL DOES maintain those records! So get it straight. And NO, the law on this is NOT open to interpretation, it is very simple and to the point. Producers are obligated to keep these records. WL is not a producer. It isn't any simpler than that.

<small>Why do stupid comments always get posted in small letters? If you are going to post stupid comments about something totally off-topic... POST IT IN CAPS and be proud of your stupidity.</small>

So you missed the part where it says that "producing" in their definition also means stuff like publishing in magazines or books, or reproducing, reissuing etc.?

:1orglaugh This is funny as hell... Does anyone else think it seems awfully "convenient" that two of the three main posters (The purchaser of the images, and the content broker bashing Weblegal,) had already talked with each other previous to this post?

Why on earth would newgrade, more than a month later, decide to come on here and post about Weblegal not providing the IDs and the pics being underage, when he still has no proof that they are under 18? He questioned them when he bought them, so obviously that isn't it.

I smell a free content deal for any customers making Weblegal or any other reputable content brokers look bad, considering the quickness with which Paul Markham stepped in, like a vulture, waiting for it?s prey.

Well, you are definitely right on that point, I think I?ll be removing myself from your annoyingly often mailing list. But of course, I haven?t bought anything from you? But why would I? Your photos make me gag. Then again, there?s not many people I would buy from? Matrix, and a few of Weblegals publishers seem to be about all that are good anymore. I'm sure they're are more, but I haven't found them!

<STANDS BACK TO WAIT FOR THE VULTURE?S FEATHERS TO RUFFLE>

Bah....Now I'm wading in with my :2 cents:

Firstly, Having followed this thread from the beginning, I first want to say that it should be REQUIRED reading for anyone new to the adult industry.

Secondly, and this is more opinion that law, but I'm pretty sure that A S H C R O F T et al (meaning the entire criminal justice system) are going to apply a much more lenient interpretation of the whole gray area of the PRODUCER argument.

If the images ARE underage (which is still up for debate in this matter), being associated with ANY part of the process of profiting from Child Pornography is going to do serious harm to the reputation of WebLegal, as legitimate and as trusted as that organization seems to be. No matter what the law says, or what your photographer says, the general consensus among the public (and this is one of those issues that transcends the rule of law) is that child pornographers are a plague - and most people are going to steer clear of ANYONE who has even the slighest stigma of CP. I think the burden of proof is strong enough in this matter that those image galleries for sale should be REMOVED until this is resolved.

Thirdly, this is hardly the appropriate "forum" to discuss this matter. I'm fairly certain that GFY is going to be shut down one day as soon as somebody decides to yell "LIBEL" and sue the whole User list. WebLegal, I'm sure you had better things to do today then defend your reputation all day long. What a shitty waste of time, but I wish you good luck.

Again, only my :2 cents:, ignore if your veins start popping.

Jeez man! He doesn't PUBLISH it!!!! Do you understand that????? Does not PUBLISH it. He is a CONTENT BROKER. He does not display anything other than samples. The content producer provides the 18 U.S.C. §2257 Statement info to WL. That's as far as WL has to go by law. It is NOT WLs responsibility to INVESTIGATE these statements as WL is NOT the law, and does not have the authority to deem what is true or false. If the law has a problem with the content on the site, they will FIRST contact the PRODUCER (NOT WL) to discuss it....

The PRODUCER will PROVE that they have age verification. If they cannot, they will be shut down. AFTER that happens, WL may be notified of the happenings, and which sets must be removed.

It is NOT up to you or I to decide what is legal or not. If you question it... DON'T FUCKING USE IT! God damn! Get a freakin' life!

But, what does it matter. You just go ahead misunderstanding the law, and eventually, you will give up like a pussy because you try to interperate things that are not open to interpretation, and I will get all of your traffic.

So, whatever. I'm done with this stupid thread. You can't teach a fuck tard anything.

THAT's the $1.98 question, isn't it.

This thread has wondered away from the original complaint. That is the girl was underage and the IDs Model Release faked. Both these documents have been taken down, both looked highly suspect. 2257 is a smoke screen to get away from the CP complaint.

The reason why I backed Newgarade was he asked me first if I thought the girl was underage, then 4 weeks later, if the IDs looked real and compared with the real ones I had. The girl did look underage and the IDs and model release were clearly faked.

This follows Dave Clarks post that he was 200% satisfied with the documentation and his decision is good enough and he does not show documents to everyone who ask to see them. He does not have the time.

I've been in this industry many years, more than some of yoou have lived, and the easiest stick to beat us with is the CP stick. We have all to be on guard against it and fight it at every opportunity.

The facts are these, Dave Clark decides if documents are real and accurate not his clients, his judgement is poor as he now has asked the photographer to produce new ones.

The passport looked clearly faked, the model release signature in no way matched the one on the passport, nor did it match the writing above. Dave if you want to dispute this put those documents back up or do I need to get them out my cache?

The problem is, how did this faked ID match with the others he has from that supplier? Dave was 200% convinced it was genuine, why? It matches with all the other ones he has from that supplier is the only answer I can see. If that is so how much of that suppliers content remain on WLs site? If the document did not match, why be 200% satisfied?

The police in this case are not going to bother with 2257 they are going to knock on a door with a CP warrant. Anyone running that risk needs to make their own decisions, not have them made for them by someone who now questipns his decisions by asking for new IDs. Will you put your freedom into the hands of a Russian shooter and a guy who will not show you IDs?

Bret_c who the hell are you, your first post and why have you not emailed me to come off my list? Email me and you can come off right now. Would you be asking or giving free content for this kind of support?

Thinner and thinner

What I don't get is why the fuck did he buy pictures of a model he thought was underage? The professional thing to have done would have been to communicate his concerns to Dave and not have purchased the fucking pictures.. If he was dissatisfied with Dave's answer he could have not have purchased the fucking pictures and made whatever decision he felt appropriate regarding doing future business with Dave.

is a very lame statement, IMHO. By your logic anyone who choses to reconsider anything - to further investigate a previous decision - has poor judgement. Personally, I took it as a professional action - the documents have been questioned, he's re-evaluating.

why the fuck did he buy pictures of a model he thought was underage? Why the fuck did he feel the need to bring this to a board in the first place?

Things that make you go hmmmmm....

You are the one with the thin veneer and your phony concern shows very clearly. I would never do business with a person of your character. I don't know how many others that read this thread feel the same as I, but I am satisfied that there are more than a few. A nice shot in the foot for you, I am thinking.

is anyone accusing web-legal of breaking the law? not me.

i will still buy content there. no ID? who cares. i don't buy "teen" stuff.

charly, a private email to dave noting your concern and helpful insights would have been more appropriate and constructinve than the flaming. don't you think? geez

Smoke screen? I didn't see anyone trying hide behind 2257, I believe Dave's point was that he's not required to provide, (nor keep for that matter,) any 2257 information, if you actually read the law, he's not even required to verify the information is correct, which means that he's going an extra step by actually requiring his publishers to show him SOMETHING. I believe he said something about re-checking the paper work... That doesn't mean he's any less sure, that means he's tring to prove your whiny-ass wrong. :321GFY

As for wanting to see the paperwork, as a customer I can understand that, maybe he SHOULD consider providing that paperwork, but it's not like he owns anything he sells! He has, what, like 200 publishers, I know the list is damn big! Can you imagine trying to get all those people to give him the paperwork.

Let's not forget that as the webmaster, having the paperwork won't help you AT ALL. The only reason to get paperwork period is to make sure that it looks legit to cover your ass. Even if you have the ORIGINAL paperwork on file, I guarantee you, you will be in a jail cell for a long time (long enough for the court hearing) unless you have a.) A good atourney B.) Bail money C.) all of the above. And god help you if you're ignorant enough to put yourself down as the COR.

Hrmmm, I didn't see anything about him not having the time, all I read was about him not doing it as a standard business practice. Dave, as anyone who's purchased from him that is reasonable, will do anything for a customer that is within reason.

Now that's an excellent point! Maybe you should have made that your first point rather than attacking other peoples business practices.

Those aren't facts. His judgement being poor is an opinion, moron. He has asked for new docs to tell you where to stick it, since you keep saying they are fake. To me it looks like a case of someone wanting to remove info, but not wanting to just put a black line in it's place... Some of us are anal about things like that, I know I would have done the same thing.

I agree with you on looking clearly faked, but then again, so did the one you provided. As for signature, my signature changes nearly everytime I sign something.

I'll say it again, he never said he questions his judgement, he wants proof... You do know what proof is, don't you?

Ahhh, now to the real part of my post... Who am I?t I am Bret C, I thought my name made that obvious! :1orglaugh

Why is this my first post? I check this board and a few others once in awhile to see if there's anything I should know about, most things I don't feel pertinant enough to actually post to, so I had no need to create an account or post before this. I've bought stuff from Dave since 1992, (ran a BBS,) I live in the same city as he does, and when he had an actual store, I visited him on many occasions. Attacking a person of such great character just makes you look like a fool, not to mention that you keep changing your attack against him... Everytime one gets extingusihed, you find something else.

Why haven't I removed? I checked my Outlook to see how to remove myself from your mailings that I get, but then realized that I have a rule setup to move you to a box that is deleted on closing. I haven't bothered comming to your site to remove myself because it would take too much time, just like actually reading and posting to this topic has already done for many people.

I was almost wondering if this was part of your signature line... The only thing getting thinner and thinner around here is your reputation.

I know why Dave has been on here posting left and right, but why are you? Don't you have something better to do like drum up new sales? Oh wait... That's what you ARE doing by posting here... :1orglaugh :ak47:

Woo, this is fun, isn't it?

Well, first, to the point. My publisher has gotten back to me on
the matter, and provided me with new copies of the previous
documents, and some additional ones as well. When I looked at the new ones, I could see exactly what happened.. out of respect for the models privacy, he had himself "redacted" or edited out the embossed ID number from the top of the document. He did this by "cloning" a section of the paper from the rest of the document... which produced a document that would "look fake" to someone that was familiar with the general pattern of a Ukrainian passport.

The unadultered version that he has placed in my care, has the
embossed numbers, and the blue "anti-tampering" pattern that runs up the middle of the right page (and right through the numbers) is intact.

Add to that, the publisher has also provided me with another ID
set... a Student ID for a University that the model attends. Oh,
and before I forget it, for those that were making a scene out of
the fact that the contract was in English? He also provided me
with one in Russian.

So, what does that leave us to debate, besides Mr. Markhams
obvious attempt to cast himself in a good light, and others in a
bad light, even if the facts don't support that?

Well, lets address the "signature" issue. This is one that I
would have to classify as a "get real" issue. Perhaps Mr.
Markhams' signature has NEVER VARIED IN HIS LIFE... but real
people do tend to change their writing from time to time, due to
things like, oh, say, their mental state, the surface that they
are writing on, or how tired they are at the time. What about the time difference between when the model got their ID, and when they went in to model? Personally, I ended up getting a rubber stamp for my signature because when I was signing publisher money checks by hand, my signature would get _really_ bad by the end of the run. It seems amazing to beleive that Mr. Markham would paint such a ruinous picture on such a scant clue, but that seems to be his style.

I just _love_ it when Mr. Markham tries to quote me about things
that I have never said. I NEVER SAID that I was "200% sure"...
Mr. Van Varik has stated in an e-mail to me (long before this
began) that "as long as I was 200% sure," he was fine with my
holding the documents. My reply, as it would be to anyone about
such a matter, is that it's not possible to be 200% sure about
anything. The best you can do is go for 100%, and if you aren't
the one actually collecting the paperwork, even that isn't
possible.

Next, how about the "his judgement is poor" thing, because I chose to doublecheck the facts? Wow, I guess every person in the world can be accused of that... Who, save the egomaniac blowhards would never doublecheck info to make sure that they are doing things right? Oh, right, nevermind, I forgot who I was talking to... I'm sure you have NEVER needed to doublecheck anything, ever, in your entire life.

OK, where does this "I don't have the time" bit come from? I have NEVER told a customer that I didn't have the time to take care of them, EVER. Show me the e-mail to a customer where I have ever said that, since you were collaberating with Mr. Van Varik on this. For those that are joining this love-fest late, what I had said in this message thread, that it was obvious that some people weren't listening anyway, and that until I had the new
documentation, I was bowing out of the flame-fest, but that when I had more data, I would return. And Mr. Markham has managed to "interpret" this as "I don't have the time to take care of my customers"? Sheesh! Leaving the Flame-fest was allowing me to actually do some real work, and take care of my customers! Oh, wait, those are facts, please ignore that, Mr. Markham...

The fact of the matter, as has been attested to by many posters to this forum, is that we always take care of our customers to the
best of our ability. We have even paid for legal council before
when situations came up with our customers. We spend whatever time and energy it takes to get our customers out of whatever problem they are having if it is regarding content that they got from us.

The leaps of logic here, such as the automatic assumption by Mr.
Markham that a model is underaged, simply because he didn't like
the ID, is rather astounding, and obviously self-serving,
especially in light of the fact that the only thing wrong with the
ID was the fact that it was redacted in such a way as to be
"clean" instead of having an obvious blur on it.

Lets be frank: Mr. Markham has been using this "issue" as a way
to drum up business. When you take a look at his demeaner, and take a look at how he's conducting himself, and how spurious his charges are getting, it's pretty obvious that he's viewing this is a great way to bring attention to himself. His admitted collusion with the original complaintant (and continued attacks even after the complaintant dropped out of the scene long before) should make this apparent to anyone.

Now that I'm done (hopefully) with Mr. Markham, let me address a few points brought up by others in the next message.

OK, getting away from innuendo and slander, lets
go over a few points brought up here:

[1] What is a producer? 18 USC 2257 is pretty
clear on the concept, but it seems that some
people are taking the position that because
Magazines (which typically do not shoot their own
content, although sometimes they do) have their
own Custodian of Records, that Webmasters _must_
be covered. There are obvious cases where a
Magazine _must_ be a CoR under the law... when
they either employ in-house photographers and own
the work, or when they "commission" a body of
work (which would place them under the "caused
the model to be hired) or when they send a model
to the photographer for a layout. Legally
speaking, it wouldn't seem to cover when they are
simply buying "stock images" from a photographer.

I think that the reasons why they do function as
CoR has more to do with convenience and trade
secrets than it does with doing it under the law.

First, by being their own custodian, they only
have to list themselves, not five or six or ten
different photographers. Second, by not
publishing the photographers names & addresses,
they are "protecting their assets" and keeping
competing mags from seeing who is shooting for
them (and providing them with an easy way to get
ahold of them). Third, as I can attest to
personally, there are many photographers that do
glamour and family work as mainline businesses,
and don't want to be publically associated with
adult material. They shoot under alias names,
sell the material to others, and then keep their
"real life" preserved. I don't know how many
times I've had to explain to photographers that
if they want to sell on the web, they can't
remain anonymous, and that if they can't handle
that, they should either find someone to sell the
entire rights to, or just not go into the
business.

I'm still convinced (as are the five law firms
that I work with), that my interpretation is
correct, and the 10th Circuit repeal of the
"secondary producers" clause very much supports
my interpretation.

Now, I'm facing that fact here that some people
are just NOT gonna listen to me on this. My
response? No problem, talk to your attorney
about the matter. Pay them $125 an hour, and
then follow whatever _they_ tell you.

OK, now moving on to the last issue...

And the conclusion to this opus... What have I learned from this?

Well, besides the fact that some people are immune from the effects of logic and don't believe in "innocent until proven guilty", the thing that I have noticed, is that many people, despite the fact that there is scant legal reason to actually have records, seem to be comforted by having "redacted" records in the products that they pick up. Now, I'm going to be perfectly frank... my personal belief is that redacted (edited) records aren't really useful in the legal sense, and that their only real purpose
is to act as a security blanket. But, since a security blanket seems to be what some people are wanting, I'm going to bring the matter up to my publishers (all 300+ of them) and see if any of them wish to provide redacted records.

I've already discussed the matter with some of my larger publishers, and the results were favorable. It's not a thing that can be accomplished ovenight, nor will it be easy, but we will start distributing redacted records for those publishers that wish to participate in the program. It's their data, and if they want to do it, that's their decision to make.

You know, I'm still a bit bothered by the whole releasing records thing, because I do know of multiple incidents where these records have been misused in the past. However, if the publisher wishs to do this, that's their decision.

My in-house policy of the past was simple: If a webmaster had a problem with the law, and needed records, I got them as soon as I could and passed them on. If a webmaster simply wanted an independant verification of a content's legality, I would pull the records from the publisher, check them, and tell them "Yup, it's good". Webmasters have an easy way to tell if a product is bad... should that occur, I would have immediately offered
a complete refund, told them to destroy the product, and then taken _everything_ from that publisher down. I don't tolerate cheats or people that can't follow up on what they want to do, it's as simple as that.

My new in-house policy will be the same, but we will be distributing redacted records when the publisher wishs to do so. I think that it's legally silly, and it's going to be a lot of work, but if that is what my customers want, I most certain will make the time to accomodate them.

I buy content strictly at web legal x 2yrs and it's my content bookmark . Not ass kissing but the service has always been the best most reliable for me but realistically nothing is the same for everyone.

The content doesn't look questionable to me. I was actually thinking about buying a few of those sets for a site I'm working on. I guess I'll wait to hear the results on the passport thing.

I don't think Web Legal would be at fault if the content wasn't legal though. Documents are forged in this country as well, how else did Traci Lords become a porn start at such a young age?

Web Legal seems to be taking care of business. Nice work on responding to customers concerns (and trouble makers). I've bought from Dave in the past and I will continue to do so.

WebLegal should be applauded for handling this in a concise manner, I for one am convinced the matter is finished.

I don't know about anyone else, but this thread certainly caused be to knock at least one content provider from my list and it isn't Web-Legal.

I'm glad this thing is (apparently) settled.

SpaceAce

im not gonna go back through this and read it up to date but THANK YOU charly for proving my point that content producers should and DO provide blurred copies of the model's info.

it is now official that i will never buy content from weblegal now or in the future, and will not recommend it to others based ont he fact that asshole posted private email convo;s in a public board as well. and on the fact that he is a moron in general.

As an attorney explained it to me, sometimes when you undertake an unnecessary obligation, it becomes a real obligation. An example might be, if you walk by a lake and see someone drowning. The law requires you to do nothing and any attempt to sue you for not trying to save the person would be fruitless. By contrast, by attempting a rescue, you open yourself up to all kinds of legal risks.

The point being, taking on an obligation that's not yours under the law can get you into trouble. If they come knocking on your door and you don't have age ID (because after all you're not required to have it: the "producer" is), that sends them to the producer. On the other hand, if you produce a document, they may want to stick around to see more. In fact, they may drum up some "cause" to wade through your file cabinets.

I normally do no include age documents with the sets I sell, but I do supply age docs on a spot-check basis on request. Even so, they will be heavily edited. All the personal information you're likely to get is the model's photo and her birthdate. As Dave pointed out, the models are vulnerable and if you want models to work in this field, we need to respect their privacy as much as possible.

Most content suppliers do NOT provide age documentation to my knowledge, though some do.

However, I suggest you do not take on any obligations which are not yours.

This thread is very very very close to hitting 150.