![]() |
A new 2257 Thought: Cam Shows
We are required to keep a list of every hardcore image produced, right? We are also required to note the date of publication of each image.
My webcam is not true streaming, so it uploads a new image every 3 seconds. So does this mean I need to keep lists of the thousands of images I upload every cam show as well? Even though each image is only viewable for a few seconds? Thoughts? |
A framerate of 0.333 is still video.
|
yes technically you would if the government ever decided to be an asshole about it
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
That sounded a little snippy. Beautiful. |
Quote:
Only a small percentage of these people are compliant or even understand the current law. Even fewer for the proposed regulations. I've decided to stop helping people with this issue for free. I pay good money to lawyers for this shit and so can they. If people can't afford an attorney who knows this shit then maybe they should not be fucking up this business for the rest of us anyway. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
We will all need lawyers by the end of this. BUT this is new to the lawyers, too. It would be interesting to see where they agree and where they differ, don't you think? |
Quote:
History repeats itself. Everybody panicked with the amber alert stuff as if 2257 was new then they all calmed down and chose to ignore it as usual....The same thing will happen again....Until prosecutions are made. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I should also stop the development of the new file system I am working on. I wanna be like the rest of the sheep. :glugglug |
Quote:
|
if you are the model, you only have to have 2257 once per model
you don't have to have seperate docs for each image, that is just stupid to think...by that rationale, when you buy a set of pics from matrix content, you will get 150-175 copies of the 2257 docs...ROFL if it is your site and your cam show, you just need the 2257 docs once for the whole site for you |
Quote:
|
I personally want to know what will happen to AVS network.. are theyr responsible for their members' sites..?
What about PPV sites like aben? Sites with ripped DVDs.. etc.. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Video and Images are both covered under 2257. You don't need a 2257 record per image. Since you are the same model, you have the same model release.. your production is most likely your continually running show.. whereas photographers have their works done in sets (and then hopefully registered at copyright office). The major problem for single/solo sites is that you would need to list your home address (since that is your place of business) for records.. which means stalkers and "fans" would know where you live. There are many nuances to this biz that the DOJ does not understand, and in addition, everyone's situation is different, that's why you do need to consult with an attorney about your specific situation. I think threads like these are a great place to gain information, and to allow you to formulate the right questions to ask your attorney, rather than act as a replacement. By doing as much of your research, you can reduce the amount of hourly time you spend with an attorney. People who run their cams through a cam network can be protected by having the cam network store their 2257 records so that arrangement protects your personal identity. -brandon |
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
The cross indexing function applies to primary record keepers, and applies to keeping track of a model with all their aliases, stage names, professional names, and production. Every time a photo shoot is done, the model release is needed that captures this info.. repeat.. EVERY time you do a shoot.... technically, if you shoot a girl on monday and you shoot her again on friday, you need another form filled out because her hair color could have changed, and it's a different production. For elli, as a webcam model, your "production" is that one continual stream, so you don't need to do this cross indexing stuff. You are the model and there is just one production. If you have people in your video that are doing stuff that require 2257, then you would include them with their model info. My focus is more on the webmaster side being a secondary record keeper. Primary Record Keepers have more things to do to comply with current and proposed regulations. So many content producers are not doing their 2257 record keeping properly and also don't consult with legal. -brandon ps. i think i was a TV attorney in another life |
Quote:
|
Quote:
This is correct from my understanding and consultations. If the DOJ asks for the records of a specific record, you need to be able to point to the primary record keeper and to the model info. (small plug - this is what 2257lookup.com service does). -brandon ps. in case anyone is thinking i have contradicted myself.. I have been replying in general to 2257 requirements along with trying to help answer Elli's specific questions. For her case, since the image is updated (ie. overwritten), it's not stored continually as a separate file (ie. a growing still image library). If you do have a growing image library (and thus a perfect example of why an attorney is needed to address your specific situation), then you would need to be able to cross reference the image, epecially if you have other "performers" in the still shots doing "sexually explicit" things. |
Quote:
I'm glad I wasn't totally off base there. I'm sorry if I came off sounding like a know-it-all. That was one of the parts of the document that really surprised me, so I thought I remembered it pretty well. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I don't want to come across as a "know it all" either... 2257 current statutes and the new proposed regulations are very complex, vague, and broad. I listen, talk, read, and learn as much as I can and try to distill the info into more simpler, laymen terms.... which I am sure may make me oversimply things.. but.. atleast it's a start to begin looking for the answers to your questions. -brandon |
Quote:
http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showth...hreadid=326698 http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=327790&perpage=50&pagen umber=1 http://www.gofuckyourself.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=327050&perpage=50&pagen umber=1 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
I think what would help if some graphic artists would draw a Madden style illustration that shows the webmaster or content producer as the quarterback, and the movement of the play that leads to the touchdown (ie. 2257 compliance). ok, corny imagery, but a pic is worth a thousand words. :1orglaugh -brandon |
Quote:
so, by the new laws, I need to have the same 2257 docs for every photo shoot of my wife? so, we have 250 sets, i need to have 250 duplicate 2257 docs in a filing cabinet? each referencing different shoots? |
Quote:
"this is you shooting anal sex. this is you not keeping records. This is you getting anal sex from your cell mate. Any questions?" :1orglaugh |
One of the things my lawyer did say was until it goes to court somethings are going to be murky. Thats where the big guns in our business are going to have to step up, I cant understand why they havent yet. with my 9000 images this sucks moosedick I cant image for a big company what the costs are going to be. IF I was a big dog I would had my lawyers filing suits and injunctions before the words finished coming out of Johnny A's mouth.
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
hahahaha..oh wow... |
Quote:
I don't know that info, either. Esp. for all the CDs and DVD's I have out. And even if I remove them from sale and start from scratch, does that really help much? Even if a picture is not currently online or available to surfers, if it's in my collection and has been previously published, should I have the records for it? Gah! |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -7. The time now is 01:33 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123