nope not yet!!

So did he own the content or not? I see it all over the place...I bought it after he posted at Tuna Fish Bitch...thought I was being nice. I actually gave him $500(!) so I could give out this content as free content for an amateur pay site I was putting together. I never got around to using the content...still on my hard drive somewhere.

I took his content down, just to be safe.

I noticed a couple of months ago his domain was up like normal under www.xratedstudios.com/dirtydog or something like that.

I didn't post it again, because I didn't want to give the fuck any more publicity.

His dog ate his website as well

or maybe his girlfriend got towed again and he sold the site

I bought that piece of shit's content
deleted it

I'm a little confused here. Why would anyone even purchase, never mind post galleries with girls that you then question (after purchase) if they are of legal age.

It doesn't matter if the girls are or aren't 18. To the surfing customer, they appear underage..which should be just as wrong as posting REAL underage girls.

I usually don't have anything to add to a "pissing" post but I gotta say here:

1) What content provider doesn't have model release and photo ID on File? WTF?!!!!

2) Don't buy content where they don't give you some proof of age.


For those of you wondering what law applies:

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html

(Sigh).

Charley, Charley, Charley... why are you lying?

Or did you just forget? That ID was NOT faked, and it never was. You got pissy about it, because the photographer had edited the image sent to me, taking away the embossed ID number. THAT WAS IT. There was nothing wrong with that ID other than the fact that the photographer was attempting to protect the model himself.

Is business this slow for you, that you have to go beat the drumhead again?

Here's an original idea for you: Why not try to drum up business by offering people good service, rather than by trying to tell tales out of school about your competition? Especially when you have to lie about it in the first place.

Or, is this just your idea of entertainment?

Wow, you are on the roll today with the forgetfulness, aren't you?

I just read over your posted lawyers opinion, and you know what? It still didn't change a darn thing. Your paid legal opinion didn't address the issue of CFR75's "secondary producers" provisions being STRUCK DOWN by the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals in the only known case that the government has ever brought using the secondary provisions (the court determined it to be far outside of the scope of the original act, and as such, the Federal Regulation involved couldn't possibly be an interpretation, and was struck down). It also didn't mention the fact that, without CFR 75's secondary producers provision, 18 USC 2257 quite clearly does NOT require anyone but the original producer to maintain those records or be a Custodian of Records.

It's the same old, same old. Nothing new here.

MagicMan is fucking AWOL, bastard owes me a $250 refund and also money to many others.

I'm afraid that I have to disagree with you on that. Far from the "only needing a signed piece of paper", we require complete 18 USC 2257 documentation from new publishers, so that we can confirm that they know what is going on, and how they are to comply with the law. I don't want to be listing someone that is going to fall through in the pinch. I find it amusing how many people express an interest to be a publisher, and then disappear when I require them to provide paperwork before I get started with them.

I'm happy to report that there hasn't been one incident yet where a customer asked for paperwork for a legitimate purpose, and didn't get it sent back to them post haste. Period.

Oh, by the way, I love that "countries of dubious ethics and morals" bit. Everyone in the country gets painted with one big, broad brush, eh?

Well, I don' t know how far you "poked" into mine, but the fact of the matter is, we give publishers three different ways to have licenses issued, one of which is to have THEM send it out themselves. The other two both involve paperwork coming back to the photographer that was sent to the licensee by us. Any of these three methods would seem to make it a bit more difficult for us to "shave" anything, and option #3 makes it totally impossible, as the publishers can only send out the paperwork after they have been informed about the sale.

That would, of course, explain why we have never had anyone claim that we have shaved them. :)

One last thought: as far as the photographers being the easiest people to get the better of, I have to disagree. In my position, there are just as many photographers that play games, as people that play games with photographers. The most common things that I see in that regard are partnership breakups (where both sides claim sole ownership of all material), and photographers that sell "exclusive" rights to multiple people.

Could not resist it.

I think I've told you once and maybe even twice.

NEVER BUY CONTENT WITHOUT THE 2257 DOCUMENTS.
FUCK THE LAW, YOU DON'T WANT TO BE SUED BY A GIRL SHOT BY A BOYFRIEND OR UNDERAGE.

Let me guess, this guy was offering a deal?

Wow, I don't recall ever quoting ANYONE such numbers. Could you shoot me out a copy of that e-mail? I would really like to see where I said anything of the sort.

Don't I remember you posting up a picture of a Ukrainian passort that was so obviosly forged it was a joke. You took it down pretty quick when everyone started to laugh at it.

You had to go and ask the photographer, a regular supplier, for a new one. Which made me think; are they all like this or is this a one off? Either way strange.

I hope now you are giving 2257 documentation with all your sets, so the webmaster can check themselves.

However I would like to poing out that I found David very straight to deal with, when we were trying to go via the brokering route. He had about 15 (I think) of our sets and in 2 months send us $75. :)

Are you out of your fucking mind? You want him to post a possibly illegal pic in a public forum? I don't want that shit in my cache.

There other other companies like this -- BIG ones. We just ran into one. They're gonna pay soon. Argh.

All I can say is you better get the ID's from your content provider (Matrix Content style) and if the company is a broker between the photographer and yourself, that broker better have enough faith to maintain records locally in the event that the photographer skips town. That, or you go directly to the photographer & get copies of the ids & original release forms -- I know this exposes the models some, but fuck it.

WE are the ones who are ultimately feeding them, and these photographers decide they don't want to be in adult & anymore then we are left holding the questionable bag.

Hey, lets repeat this _again_, since you didn't get the clue.

NO, there was no forgery, and YOU KNOW THAT. The ID simply had the embossed number edited from it, and YOU got out the drumhead and started beating on it, claiming that it was forged. I got another copy from the publisher, one without any digital editing, and the ID number was quite clearly there. The publisher also provided a college ID to go with it, as I recall.

There never WAS a forgery, period. You like to keep trying to make it sound as if there were, but you know that there was not.

Find a new way to drum up business, would you? You are getting a bit old with this routine.

I'm honored, a backhanded complement from Charlie!

I can't dispute the low sales that your products generated. I do wish to point out that you only listed with us one time, put up a batch of products that were rather overpriced compared to the average sales price on my system, and had names on them that would bore people to death, with no publisher descriptions that I can recall given. When no one noticed after a couple of months, rather than try to revamp the content by giving the customers some descriptions, you elected to pull the product, which of course, is your right.

And now you have, the other side of the story. :)

Sorry I appolagise for getting it wrong. I'm some kind of fool.

I understand now. You are taking content from producers in countries like the Ukraine and they are altering those documents (I assme on all of them) by removing the girls embossed number and leaving her name on the Passport and the model release to preserve her annonimity. Thanks for clearing it up.

Are you giving out the documentation to the webmasters now when you sell the set?

(Sigh). You are still warping things, and you know it. First, leave out your silly assumptions. Second, I can't tell you why the publisher did that, but I already read them the riot act over putting me in that position. They apparently thought that they were doing it right by sending it that way. Why, I cannot say, but the documents passed muster, and you know that.

Logically speaking, if the documents _had_ been forged the first time, how on earth would the photographer have been able to produce the unforged ones the "second time around"? Sheesh. THEY NEVER WERE FORGED, YOU JUST DIDN'T LIKE THEM, BECAUSE IT WAS IN YOUR BEST INTEREST TO DISLIKE THEM. Period.

I also found it interesting that the person that brought up the matter in the first place, did so after "consulting" with you about the matter. Coincidence? I'll let people come to their own conclusion on that.

in jail they throw cups of pee on you

That's an interesting question. Many of my publishers have their records on file with us now, and a few of them have already taken to putting up edited records on their products. For the others, we are working on a system to try to make it easy for them to do this, if they choose to do so.

As of this writing, there are products out there that already have this feature on them, and a LOT of others that simply are awaiting my people getting the records edited and put on there so that they can have it as well. But, as you might expect, with about 17,000 products online, it's going to be slow going getting things updated. :)

Ah hey Dave.. I spoke with you yesterday actually regarding some of the old Lauras's Lair content.

But we won't crack that nut here & now (though this does seem like the appropriate forum/time no?). Not just yet anyway :winkwink:

I can say that I am a bit upset about the number of titles (nearly 30%) that we have from you that are 'no longer supported' and wished you would have handled the situation differently.


Like I said in the earlier post... in this day & political environment, I think its best to steer clear of image/content brokers who aren't confident enough in their photographers recording keeping to maintain copies of the records on-site themselves.

Holy fuck this is a old thread people, whats up with digging up old threads and then going to war? This is the info I have on Tom Davis
tom aka content provider / tgp builder
252-212-8278
I know he lives in NC give him a shout tell him he is a FUCK WAD he will get his,

to be honest Im glad I got ripped off, fucked, etc... It tought me one hell of a hard leasson that I WILL NEVER forget. Want to be safe? SHOOT YOUR OWN FUCKING CONTENT :1orglaugh


Ps why the hate on charly? Charly is a standup guy :thumbsup I use to hate him use to think he was scum reason I thought this because I COULDNT HANDLE THE TRUTH when he was telling it to me. I have the UP MOst respect for the man


TOM

I think thats your problem Dave... you give them the option.

It should be a requirement for their records to be on file with you as well, as a backup, just in case they skip town. So your customers don't wind up with a bunch of questionable 'unsupported' content when the law comes around.

I understand there are issues of liability with this.. but if you want to be in the position you are in providing the service you do, maybe your business model should be revamped a bit - like now.

In the event that the publisher does go out of business, if a client has problems then you could quietly pass along the appropriate documents to the client in order to save their ass.

OH one more thing do I WIN a dvd player now? :1orglaugh :helpme

Charly is a Pimp :thumbsup.. hes like 92 with a 20yo wife :1orglaugh


(:1orglaugh just teasin charly)

I didn't think he was that young.

I'm not happy with disappearing publishers, either, but it's a fact of life that people go out of business here and there. The titles that you are referring to were being sold five years ago, when the publisher was still in business. The publisher decided to go into the jewelry business, and I took the material down, as it was no longer active. I do everything that I can to keep people out of this business that are likely to not stick around... the number of people that I discourage from being a publisher is astounding. I get several people a week that are wanting to go into this business, and I do my best to talk them out of it when I find out that they don't know what they are getting into.

By the way, as I recall, when you called in, many of those "no longer carried" titles can still be handled, just not by us. The publishers are still out there, and we can help you contact them directly. They just chose not to deal with us any longer for whatever reason, so it's not within our realm to re-issue licenses for products that we no longer represent.

As far as you wishing that I had handled it differently, I don't see how I could have. I'm a broker, not the owner of what we have here, and when a publisher leaves, I cannot do anything further with their material. Asking me for a refund on material sold five years ago is a bit out of the ordinary, you must admit, nomatter what the circumstances.

But if you do insist on giving them the option, maybe make it more lucrative for them to keep backup records on file with you as well. I.E... if you charge them 30% now, charge them 40% if they are unwilling to have you maintain backup records.

This is something that you could sell your clients/customers on as well -- the fact that if there is ever trouble, and the photographer is unable to be reached, you have backup records for this set. NOT that you are the official custodian of records, but that if they are in a bind, at least you have the model release & ids.

hey brother

Please contact me .... ICQ 122638232 or email

hungryman AT paysitedesign DOT com :thumbsup

We _are_ in possession of a great number of 2257 documents at this time. The issue is more one of getting them both edited to be safe for distribution (privacy issues), and making sure that they are actually attached to the right products. For this, we need the publishers' input in the matter, and remember, there are a lot more of them, than there are of me. :)

Actually, I've been debating such a move for some time now. I think that the main issue will be not wether or not they want to provide the records, but wether or not they will do their own records scanning and editing... THAT's the real issue. Many of them send paper copies of the records with the products now, it's just a big honking hassle to try to scan them here and put them together. In many cases, we have the paperwork here already, it's just a matter of finding it.

Even if that were the case, though, it wouldn't have helped you with your scenario. Your scenario wasn't one of needing records for legal inquiries, it was that you wanted to re-issue licenses because you were selling some properties. Even if I had full 2257 documentation for the products that you picked up many, many years ago, I still wouldn't have the rights to issue new licenses on the material.

I don't like airing dirty laundry on the forums.

I didn't ask for a refund, I wouldn't expect a refund. I asked for a credit of some sort to compensate for the 30% or so titles we purchased that are 'no longer supported' by Web-Legal.

Even an offer to purchase X titles at your cost, or at some discount would have been something, (even though we wouldn't have been interested because we're moving away from adult these days).

But still for the position we could have potentially been in, your response was 'a bit out of the ordinary' as you put it.

Dave, heres a question- can you honestly say that in every event of a publisher turning up missing, or a product going to your 'unsupported' status, that all clients who purchased that product were made aware of the change in status?

And to clear things up here "unsupported" according to Web-Legal means "... it would be adviseable that you cycle this content (that you paid for) out of usage on your sites"

Right I hear ya.. maybe you should hire someone to do this then, or setup a system to where the publishers are forced to match up release/ids to titles/photosets. Keyword - FORCED, not an option, a REQUIREMENT.

You provide a valueable distribution system for them, if they want to be part of it, then they should be required to do their part in maintaining the records.

Sure you'll probably lose a few less serious publishers. But it sounds like you'll probably free up some time that you would otherwise spend "convincing photographers to not enter this business", because you could then point them to your policies and procedures and there ya go.

I'm sure if you spec up your system, or even just your requirements for the system & post an ad here on GFY for a php/perl programmer, you'll get someone who can set something up for you within a couple weeks. I know we could.

However, that's exactly what you did here. I didn't bring up this subject, you did.


Well, an offer that you wouldn't have been interested in seems a bit pointless then. If you are interested in some sort of thing like this, though, let me know, as I might be able to figure something out for you. I would suggest that we move back to private, though.

Look, if they DON'T - if they are unwilling, then DON'T FUCKING SELL ME THEIR CONTENT :) Pretty simple that.. no?

You just said how you try to talk people out of the content business who are not willing to take the steps needed to be in the business.

To me, after going through this BS, this is one of those steps. If they are unwilling to show you they have proper docuementation, why in the fuck are you selling their wares to us? :mad:


There aren't many tools REQUIRED to be in this business.

A camera or video camera of some sort, wad of cash to pay your models & your overhead, and a ($299) 4-in-1 color copier/scanner/pen-clock-radio thing to keep proper records, I spose an ounce of common sense doesn't hurt either.

And back it might not have been practical to have a copier in house. But I've see copiers in grocery stores as low as 5 cents a copy. If the photographer doesnt have a copier, It should be a requirement that the models bring a clear copy of their ID (as well as the original) to the shoot.

ESP rocks no? I just saw this "ezESP" informercial.. I could probably save/make a lot of money if I purchase it I spose.

I think the point was, you could have made an effort to remedy the situation then (irregardless of our interest in purchasing more content), rather than now. Now it's like damage control.

And I had no intention of dealing with you, or this problem yet. I made mention of it a few posts before my first that acutally named you, but I wasnt planning on mentioning web-legal until I had another chance to talk with you (when I had some time), but then I saw your post to someone else.

I'll keep this in mind.

And at this point, I'm more flaming companies with business models like yours rather than yours specifically.

To me this is something that can be easily changed with a little code & new policies enforced for publishers.

Temper, Temper...

my publishers _do_ have to show me their paperwork, I thought that this was established earlier. That still doesn't give me the right to issue licenses after a publisher has left the business.

The issue that I have with putting them online, is that there are 17,000 products and just a handful of us working here. Having the data, and having it online, are two different things.

An interesting point: I deal with a some of the larger video production companies, the people that are corporately owned and have shooting facilities in Chatsworth, California. They don't provide copies of model ID's with anything that they sell, either, they provide sworn 2257 statements with the products that they distribute. They are doing what their lawyers told them to do on that. Given your position, perhaps no one should deal with these large professional operations because they don't hand out paperwork with everything that they sell. Of course, no one else in the adult industry gets it either, not the adult store owner, nor the gas station that carries mags, nor the video rental store. But, I guess that we are special somehow, even thought the law does not support that.

Well then, the bottom line is this is the achilles heel of the online adult industry - lack of proper documentation.

So I guess it boils down to what Tom said earlier, if you want to be SURE, then shoot your own content.


I wasn't saying that if the publisher disappears that you continue to licesnse the products, but more that you at least have the documents on file in the event that customers who had already purchased the content have something to fall back on if the law comes requesting documents for those images.