I could care less if he has to be able to provide it or not. What I care about is if I have to be able to provide it.
And, since publishing a website to the public is considered publishing, this most certainly looks like I have to be able to.

It is indeed very clear about what is meant by "produce". And one of the things explicitly mentioned is publishing a magazine or similar matter.

However, if you people don't want to believe it, I could care less. I'll just continue following my lawyer's words, and at least be sure my ass is covered.

Voodoo, I think you will find that if you have a catalogue that you collate, edit and alter the pictures. Then show it, you are in fact a publisher.

This is definately the UK version on what a publisher is, it is irrelevent if you are charging for the catalogue, you still fall within the realms of a publisher. It does say in the 2257 law it's not exclusive to print.

This was explained to me by a London lawyer a 4-5 years ago. how different is it in the States and are you legally qualified to answer that.

However we get down to whether you want to shove the documents into the police mans hands when he calls or use your free phone call, for a lawyer to argue it out or phone your wife to get all the content providers to supply the 2257 info for you.

You put your trust in Content Providers, I advise you not to. Be it me Unseen, Aaron or Tom Dick & Harry.

Nice one Unseen never miss a chance. But you are right when you publish girls like we do it's safest to have the 2257 to hand.

It seems to me that what is in question is who produced the product. The "product" is an image and can only be produced once (I'd like to see a prosecutor argue that a specific, identifiable image can be produced more than once). Even if someone creates a website using the image, the image has already been produced and any use of it after that is not production but REproduction.

Maybe lawyers don't understand English. I think lawyers don't think judges understand English, either. Anyway, when you ask a lawyer a question, you will get the most extreme CYA answer possible.

However, if you really want to CYA, you're in the wrong field if you're in the adult business.

Now, all the examples given in the law, as I recall have one thing in common: they are produced in tangible 3-dimensional formats: photographs, magazines, videotapes, and suchlike.

The words "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" would be pretty difficult for a prosecutor to dance around. They seem specific enough to exclude website operators, unless they have a staff photographer or commission work on an exclusive basis.

When selling exclusive material, I always include good copies of the ID/age materials and model release with the product.

I agree with Redshift. If you buy content and do not get copies of the ID's you are not in compliance with 2257.

I think, however, that there was on Appeal Court ruling that said websites do not need the records. I am sure someone can dig up the case?

It is better to shoot your own content, then you know you are safe.

i've said it before and i'll say it again

MIDDLE AGED TO OLD BITCHES RULE!!

http://www.blackvaginafinder.com/sma...allcrooked.jpg

let somebody try to bring me up on child porn charges.......they ain't got nothing coming

good point !

Somehow I don't think I'm going to get an answer.

Your question is too logical to receive an answer:winkwink:

Should I have askes "How many ... " or "How much ... "?

:D

PornoDoggy
I told him not to post them, he had already bought them. I do not know why he bought them. Maybe he thought he could get the documents.

Unseen
And all those debating the 2257 law.
This is about a girl who looked very young and the documents either being refused to be shown to the buyer. Or/and those documents at best being altered at worse being forged. Not about whether the Webmaster should have these documents.

Having the documents or not, will not stop the police knocking on your door and asking for them.

Two ways this scene can play out.

One system has the Webmaster going to his filing cabinet and producing the documents, the police are now happier than they were. They may look further, but they have seen the Webmaster is legit, so far.

The other system has the Webmaster making frantic phone calls to different suppliers and praying/hoping the documents exist and are real. The police are not happy and more convinced the Webmaster has something to hide.

Webmasters, your call. Go with the system you feel more comfortable with.

THE MODELS RIGHT OF PRIVACY
I will not disclose her address to anyone. The magazines we work for do not get it as they have been known to send around a rival photographer. I will not disclose it to a Webmaster I do not know. We do our best to stop people knocking on her door. we do not sell to Czech magazines or websites.

But there it ends, she gave up some of her "privacy" rights when she took her clothes off in front of my cameras for money. Then signed a model release allowing me to sell those pictures and not prosecute who I sell them to.

The idea of a Ukrainian girl coming to the States to sue a Content Provider is slim. The chances of the police checking to see if a girl is of a certain age are far more likely.

GUARD AGAINST THE MOST LIKELY, NOT THE LEAST LIKELY

This topic, like any other, develops interesting sideroads. Whether the webmaster should have these documents became one of those.

Like I pointed out earlier, sometimes when you take on a responsibility that isn't yours, it becomes your responsibility. This is a good reason to let the person the law requires have the records do the records keeping.

So you are asking people who do not know you, to trust you? Have you ever mistaken a tampered document for an untampered one?

That's fine you shoot all your own content, the girls I believe are all US citizens and have US documents. And a webmaster if he needs to get hold of you, can within 24 hours and you can get the documents to him within another 24 hours? These are maximum times, unless you're on holiday. What do they do then wait the two weeks for you to come back?

I sell to billion $$$$ companies with big legal departments and people the authorities would love to get inside a jail on a CP charge. I DO NOT ASK MY CLIENTS TRUST ME. I tell them to trust themselves. not the fact that she is on the cover of some mag.

If you run an adult busines take responsibility. You are taking the risk.

What makes you think a webmaster who seldom looks at ID firsthand is a better judge of whether it is tampered than I, who examine them all the time? Especially since I am the one seeing the original and he will likely be looking at a JPEG?

So you are better qualified than a normal webmaster, agreed. Some content providers do not know the difference between an untampered and a tampered one. As has been shown.

So what happens if you are on holiday?

What kind of documents are you using?

US IDs should be comparable by US webmasters with the documents they have in their wallets. Pasport, SS card, Driving License. What are you using, that is so obscure?

If a case ever went to trial the real ones would be all that will suffice.

Persistant aren't we? :)

great question.

unanswered questions suck.

hey newgrade,

WHY DID YOU BUY PICTURES OF A MODEL YOU THOUGHT WAS UNDERAGE?