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?

.

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

:)