I have a temper with you because we were one of the small percentage of adult companies that did things by the books and purchased our content (rather than stealing it), and now it comes to light that if certain images would have been questioned, we would have had to come out of pocket for legal expenses defending the content and tracking down the publisher etc.


So yes, if a sworn 2257 statement alone isn't enough by itself to be in compliance if law enforcement starts investigating your business, then perhaps you should be insisting on documentation that IS compliant or you should stay away from the supplier/publisher completely.

On the other hand if that is all thats required, then get THAT from all of your clients.

My point here is, sell us products that are legal (as your name suggests) and will continue to be legal through the years irregardless of the current occupational status of the ex-photographer.

See, the problem is just because the photographer disappears, shouldn't mean that we should be no longer able to use the content.

It was purchased, and at some point in time - proper documentation did exist (or it wouldn't have been sold, right?).

I thought it was slick that Matrix Content gives a [blocked out] copy of the models ID with each photoset, I'm not sure if that's enough to fend off the law, but at least it suggests (to the customers) that THEY have the records on file.

I don't know the law when it comes to this stuff, all I know is the current system between: model <-> publisher <-> broker <-> client is broken.

Like I said before... at this point this is now more of an venting inquisition against your industry rather than your company specifically.

Anyway I'm done. Too much work to do today to sit and post on GFY all day long :)

This is total BS.

She WAS 20 when I met her, she's now 25. :1orglaugh

That should carry a lot of weight if a policeman ever did call on one of your clients.

"You see officer it's like this, Dave has a lot of work to do and he will get round to sorting and putting up the documents when he has time."

Totally reasonable. And a much better explanation than.

"Just a moment officer, I have all the documentation filed here"

I totally understand where you are coming from.
Silly of me not to see your side.

But then I come from a different school, stupid as I am.
You see I've been doing the double ID thing for a few years now. This girl was shot in 1990.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/CJ-ID

Took her name off the ID but as she is now 32 years old I doubt if anyone will recognise her.

There is no end to your distortions, are there? You and I well know that if someone has a legal issue, they get top priority, period. The issue of "getting a project caught up on" has nothing to do with the matter.

But that doesn't seem to honestly matter to you, so long as you can beat on the drum and hopefully convince people to buy from you, does it?

I'm afraid that not only would that not necessarily work, but you would be opening yourself up to more headaches. Was it you that was quoting the Traci Lords fiasco earlier? If you do the shooting, then YOU are the one producing the content... which means that you have no deniability whatsoever for _any_ problems. And, you get to start putting your name & address on everything that you do, for the entire world to see.

No, shooting your own isn't a panacea, by any means.

Actually, I get both the sworn statements, and 2257 records. The issue has been making those _available to the licensee_, not their existance. People seem to keep glossing over that because it's not in their favor to acknoledge that point.

The law is very, very clear on the matter... only the original producers are required to keep 18 USC 2257 documentation. That's why the major video companies do business the way they do.

Nope. Wasn't me.


Of course someone reading this thread, who was too paranoid to use other peoples content due to improper recording keeping (or unavailable records) would probably do all they could to make sure their records were impecable.

And either way.. we all know who would be my custodian of records...


http://members.aol.com/vtcomedian/images/fallguy2.jpg

I would keep posting all day, but I've really had enough.

I think you should maintain backup copies of whatever infomation may be required by an inquery from law enforcement.

You are in a position where you need to find balance in serving your customers and your producers. Its a fact that producers go MIA once in awhile, if they do this, then your customers have to spend time removing their content (when it technically is LEGAL, and definately is paid for).

Maybe I'm wrong, but it would be a nice incentive to buy content from you if your customers knew you had backups of the information just in case. And I'm not talking "official" backups, but just CYA backups. That way for us to be at risk, both the publisher AND the broker would have to go out of business.

If the publishers go MIA, then you can't liscense their wares anymore.. but you can at least still support (to some degree) the customers who already purchased the content.

So maybe your producers/publishers don't like this -- then they don't get the exposure to your customer base.

Look, Nearly a third of content titles we purchased from you are now either no longer supported (throw them away) or questionable (I think we know how to get ahold of them still). They were purchased several years ago, but should this really matter? That is the big question here I guess... why should a legal product that was purchased through a broker be made unuseable simply because a publisher decided to move on.


I'm just hoping your seeing my side of this. If a customer can purchase content thats legal one day & then have to count their losses and abandon it another (even though its legal content) - something is wrong.

WRONG !

Shooting your own content is the safest way by all means, you are in control, you keep your records.

Also, Buying form a reliable source meaning, someone that you know actually shoots the content, verifies IDs and provides with legals documents.

The worst, I am sorry to say that , is to buy from a content broker with thousands of photos, from hundreds of individuals in a dozen of countries, and no reliable system to hold and supply records fast.

Unless of course that broker also serves another purpose -- unofficial backup/secondary record keeper. Then, it's not a bad deal at all.

For instance, I would rather buy Praguer content through Web-Legal if I knew Web-Legal had backup copies of _all the documentation required by law_ for Praguer content and was also willing to provide me with a blocked out scan of the models ID, (matrix style) to prove that the records are probably *somewhere*.