American Webmasters get ready for 2257 to fuck you
 

I'm not too clear on this legal mombo-jombo.... so does that mean that I need to have a link from my TGP to the sponsors 2257? or what do I need to do to my tgps?

Could anyone explain in plain English just what is it that we are required to do?:disgust

http://www.barrierislandgraphics.com...end-over-2.gif

IF THE LAW IS PASSED GET READY TO BEND ON OVER!!!!!!!!!

If you are hosting the conent it means that you have to have a copy of the 2257 info yourself. You also have to have a link somewhere that they can click that shows your name, business address, phone number and hours of operation so they can come and check your records if need be.

who fucking cares

What if your site is text with only links to galleries?

Web Sites

The court also accepted the government's construction that keeping "a copy of the URL associated with [a] depiction" means the textual information designating where the depiction can be found. Therefore, "a copy of the URL" simply means where the image is located, for example, www.abc.com/pictures/12345.

YOUR STILL RESPONSABLE:mad:

You mean if i link to the actual picture or to an html page with pictures on it?

If its your site within the U.S. boarders then you are RESPONSABLE for a URL to EVERY picture your sites text links represtent regardless

So it doesnt matter if you link to the picture

or your just linking to an html page with pictures on it

there is a difference.

If that goes into effect paysites will have to send 2257 docs to all US affiliates that simply link to them.

Please stop spreading false information.

Read that paragraph again. If it still doesn't make sense, read it again, and again, and again...

That's not true. You have to have actual content on your site.

A) Pic on your site hosted on your site you need 2257 info

B) pic on your site hosted elsewhere, you need 2257 info

C) text link on you site leading to pics not hosted on your site. No 2257 info needed.

If I'm wrong show me. Because a text link is not publishing content. That'd be like Penthouse needing 2257 docs before publishing one of thier Penthouse Letters.

Which paragraph?

You read that incorrectly,

When they are talking about being responsible for (copies) they are talking about copies of the actual pictures. Not the Link, I't is confusing....

If the galleries aren't hosted by you in anyway then your fine. It's the galleries owners who are responsible for the 2257 docs.

To fuck people? I don't know I'd say that those judgements bring a lot of clarification and relief.

This is not false information at all it mearly states you must have a copy of any URL for each depiction.

Read back and rethink on what the actual webmaster who runs such a site though is still responsible for:
a producer is in compliance so long as the records are accompanied by an identifiable copy of each depiction (such as one copy of an entire DVD library for a DVD manufacturer or one copy of the entire Web site for a webmaster).

Being a webmaster makes you a producer hence you are RESPONSIBLE!

Say you have 100 pcis on your site. Then the government wants to know specifically WHERE these pics are located. So if your site is a called XYZporn.com and you keep all your pics in a folder called "images" and your images are named pic01.jpg, pic02.jpg etc etc. Then the URLs they are looking for would be.

http://xyzporn.com/images/pic01.jpg
http://xyzporn.com/images/pic02.jpg

etc etc.

It is false, because if I have site that is all text and I'm not hosting ANY content, then I don't have to have any 2257 docs.

this is a new possible ruling not last years.

you are still a producer by means of the internet

I would think this will cause more problems for submitters than tgp/mgp owners?

"a copy of the >>>>URL <<<<associated with [a] depiction"
Nothing confusing here to me.

I've read it already. I'm one step ahead of you. Show me where I'm wrong.

Obviously it is.

Listen nitwit, if you are hosting the actual content then each pic is required to have a DISCRIPTION in your 2257 docs. It's that description that needs to be associated with url to the actual pic.

Look Im not saying you are all this 2257 stuff is really confusing you have to read between the lines.
I just wish they would give it a rest with this crap already!

yes. Except for those TGPs that show a thumb then they too are also required to have the 2257 info.

running an adult website is hosting actual content.

They are talking about VISUAL CONTENT not text. If I ran a "sex story" site I wouldn't need 2257 docs. According to you I would

If I'm just LINKING to conent I'm not HOSTING it.

So what your saying is that even though I run an adult website Im going to be totally exempt from any kind of new rulings as long as it is a text site .

Well in that case either we should all just switch over to text sites and not worry about any of this until they knock on our door and ask us for 2257 documentation.

At that point Ill refer them back to this thread and tell them that you said it was ok to do it without proper docs:thumbsup

Yes. 2257 is about making sure models in content are at least 18( supposedly that's what the law is about ) If you do not have any content then how are you responsible for anything?

They won't.

Go ahead I'm right.

Bloomer i think the way you understand the law 7-11 will need 2257 for every porn mag they sell and direct tv will need 2257 for the porn they offer.

Look Im not going to argue with you on what you say about it first of all because to a certain extent we are both right on this.
Secondly we dont make the laws in the U.S. and I strictly erge people that read this thread to read the law not what anyone on this thread has to say.
Thirdly if the law does in fact go through which it hasnt yet who the fuck is going to want to trade with american text sites when the rest of the world runs TGPs and Blogs?

I certainly dont see it in plain understandable english that they wont.
And oh you forgot about hosts and search engines.

What a crock of shit.


Workarounds:

1- Use text links
2- Use thumb that has no porn(only face of the girl or clothed)

This is seriously getting ridiculous.
I'm glad i'm not in the us.

My question is for non us citizens that host in the US...
If 2257 is not provided, could the hosting company be inspected for 2257?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but most of the porn is hosted in the US even the webmasters are from out of the country.

Thats the way I see it as well.
If you are a hosting company within the U.S. border then sure I think this would so apply.

Loads of confusion, I think it means:

If you show any pics/thumbs/vids on your site (your domain, your URL) you are a secondary producer. I think there is no doubt about this part.

As a secondary producer, you need to have physical (or digital?) copies of the 2257 docs and have them archived for inspection. A link to a page with a 2257 statement is not sufficient from what I read, but the primary producer "may obliterate from identification documents the performers' addresses, social security numbers and all but the year from their dates of birth."

So, you have to get the docs from the sponsor or content provider, but they blank out some data before.

You need to have a (digital?) copy of every image/movie you use archived somewhere and create a reference under which URL this picture/video can be found. Pretty much common sense, makes the inspection alot easier since they can check all pics/vids, see where they are on your site and have a look at the corresponding docs. Otherwise they'd end up with a nice "guess who and where" game.

The thing that really worries me is the "Foreign Identification": "shooting within the United States or its territories requires that same type of identification, but only issued by the United States or a state government."

So, does that mean you can only shoot foreign models outside the US because they have no United States or or a state government ID ? State government doesn't mean foreign country governement, right ?! I think so, shooting a czech model in prague is ok, shooting her in the US is not.

If this is the case, then be prepared for US hosting companies to BAN Adult content or charge way more for it.


Is there anyone here who really understands the 2257 implications here that could clarify this?

No, hosters are neither primary nor secondary producers because they didn't create (primary) or publish (secondary) the content, all they do is offering a platform for primary and secondary producers. :2 cents:

Hosting companies are exempt.