2257 info in relation to TGP's
 

Please discuss any thoughts on this issue in relation to TGP's

How is Godaddy :-x

:mad: :feels-hot :1orglaugh

I was going to mention that thing but I better not.

?

Elaborate..

How are You're P.O BOX's :1orglaugh

Are you talking about putting a 2257 link on galleries?

no just a tgp

Juicy, has APIC ever gotten on your shit about the thumb previews?

You should only have to put a 2257 notice on a tgp if you have your own galleries hosted on that domain, or if you have logos with chicks in them etc. :2 cents:

Nope nothing

Should have a warning page and a 2257 page. And for good measure, a privacy page link if you are using smart cookies for clicking behavior profiling

Warning pages suck..surfers know what to expect and many close the page because they think 3 more are right after that one

the only thing warning pages are good for is if you put banners on em. otherwise i've seen a third of my surfers not even enter.

My thoughts exactly. :thumbsup

A 2257 statement is neccessary for any image displayed from your server that was taken during a sex or masturbation scene.

All those thumb tgps that actually host the thumbs on the site should have a 2257 for each thumb if that image is a part of a set that includes sex or masturbation.

For text tgps its easier and the webmaster should have an area for contacting sponsors that have images in thier banners. a simple here's the affiliate list click them for 227 information is usually enough.

This info is not completely accurate... You do not need 2257 records if you are not the producer of adult content. However, you should make a statement similar to :

In fulfilling its obligations under Section 2257, relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sundance, which states that entities who merely distribute content, and have no role in procuring models or producing content, are exempt from on-site record keeping requirements.

As for links to offsite 2257 records, that is a good idea, but I don't see any law actually requiring it because anybody trying to enforce it, YOU know it's legal so at that point you can easily dig up the 2257 link to the sponsor's site. I see the risk of any government enforcing a tgp 2257 list page as very small..

Yes you are correct about the "on-site" record keeping. You don't actually have to have the physical records. those records are kept by the custodian of records listed in your 2257 statement.

However you are require to have a 2257 "statement" listing the custodian of records for the images.

Heres one of mine.

Copyright 2002. Legend Video Inc. hereby certifies that all models, actors, actresses and other persons that appear in any visual portrayal of actual sexually explicit conduct appearing or otherwise contained in this Website were over the age of eighteen (18) years at the time the visual image was created.

All other visual depictions displayed on this Website are exempt from the provision of 18 U.S.C. section 2257 and 28 C.F.R. 75 because said they do not portray conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C. section 2256 (2) (A) though (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity, or are depictions of simulated sexual conduct. or are otherwise exempt because the visual depictions were created prior to July 3, 1995.

With respect to all visual depictions displayed on this web site, whether of actual sexually explicit conduct, simulated sexual conduct or otherwise, all persons were at least 18 years of age when said visual depictions were created.
The owners and operators of this Web site are not the primary producers ( as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. Section 2257 ) of any of the visual content contained in the Web site.

The images contained on this site were published, republished, reproduced or reissued on the date the site was accessed by the user.

Furthermore, the graphic images associated therewith are in full compliance with all labeling requirements of Title 18, U.S.C. Section 2257, US Federal Law, and C.F.R. 75. Any inquiries made under these laws must be directed to: B. Mendleson and / or J. Richman, LEGEND VIDEO INC. (a California Corporation) whose office is situated at 9145 Owensmouth Ave., Chatsworth, CA 91311, United States

WTF is 2257? :eek7

Cool! OK now that is as clear as it gets thanks!

Regarding 2257 information in relation to tgp's:

You're a gigantic window of pornographic opportunity. When the long arm of the law really starts reaching in the area of regulating Internet porn, you'll be among the first to get either stroked or smacked... right after the large affiliate programs get it ;)

The affiliate marketing model.. well, marketing adult in general, relies heavily on TGP's...

This statment from scorpion3600 would make affiliates exempt from onsite record keeping responsibilities...

"In fulfilling its obligations under Section 2257, relies on the plain language of the statute and on the well-reasoned decision of the Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals in Sundance, which states that entities who merely distribute content, and have no role in procuring models or producing content, are exempt from on-site record keeping requirements."

But affiliates are purveyors of porn, regardless of content origin... That implies an iherent resonsiblity to the general public to include the source of the Title 18 Section 2257 information for any graphical content that depicts an actual person.

Why?

Without a 2257 requirement for affiliates, it could be inferred that an affiliate advertising cp/underage porn is acceptable...'nuff said.

Same for tgp's.. without a 2257 requirment, it could be inferred that cp/underage porn is acceptable or obtainable via your tgp... after all, you don't have any legal information..

My forecast:

It's a slippery freakin' slope, and at the bottom, Title 18 Section 2257 sources will be a legal requirement for all porn/ porn related sites and anything that even gives the appearance of acceptable use by minors, like the absence of a warning/entry page, will be illegal.

Fyrflygrl

I can't believe that they could hold the TGP's responsible for holding 2257 info, on thumbs hosted for submitted galleries.. If so where is google's 2257 info and all the other search engines that you can search by image. None of them have it..

If it is true and this is required, a lot of changes will have to take place... as either the gallery submitters will have to submit 2257 info for every gallery or thumbs will have to be hotlinked. The only other option would be to use only sponser hosted galleries.

If you can be held responsible for cp, it stands to reason that you could be held responsible for having 2257 sources for the thumbs that are on your site... no matter who submitted them or how.

If I owned a tgp, I'd be adding a required field to enter the URL of the 2257 information for any galleries submitted.

For ANY site, even before considering sales goals, consider doing any and everything you can to avoid the acceptance of illegal use by minors and cp...a.k.a. cover your ass. You'll have to eventually anyway.

Fyrflygrl

Maybe that is because they didn't need to in the first place. That is what entry pages are for. Would you rather have had those possibly under age or fraudulent surfers enter your site to purchase memberships that would inevitably result in chargebacks?

the TGP thing has always been a problem
but until something bigger happens NOTHING will happen

sorry but I don't buy it... A TGP is only a linking point for mass amounts of galleries, lets put it in terms of a more mainstream example.. A TGP equals your local adult book and video store. Your local Adult store is not required to have 2257 info for every picture in every magazine or video they happen to sell.

But they would be required to have access to that information.. I see TGPs in this same way.. They are the Adult Book Store, I believe we are responsible to have access to 2257 info if requested for content that we have produced. Anything that we have not produced we do not have to keep records on hand. This is just my opinion but this is how I see it, I do not see how a website can be considered any different than a adult book store, when it comes to following the laws.

The other issue that I brought up about google.. it would be my guess that google is one of the biggest porn peddlers out there.. Of course they are not directly selling porn but they make tons of money by linking to sites that sell porn... hence the google Image search is probably the biggest TGP of them all... an example this search of "naked girls" on google using the image search brings up all kinds of nude photos hosted on googles servers, with no 2257 info..
http://images.google.com/images?hl=e...&q=naked+girls

so why would google be immune to these laws?

I think a lot of people confuse the "on-site" record keeping issue.

on-site record keeping refers to the actual physical location of the model releases and other hard copy records required by 2257.

It does NOT mean your website.

All you need for your website is a little link to a generic 2257 "statement". This statement should be in the form I posted above, which was recommended by AVN online a few months ago. The most important part of the statement other than its truth should be the current location of the custodian of records for the content.

You should have custodian of records contact information for any image displayed from "your" server. You have the file. You severed the image. You provide a link to the custodian of records information page. Thats why allowing webmasters to upload a thumbnail to your server for a thumbs tgp is a bad idea.

I do server my affiliate link banners from my server, but i also have a link to their site in my webmasters area. Every Affiliate you use content or banners from should be listed somewhere on your site for more information. Hell if your worried about posting all your sponsors just use you webmaster affiliate code so you get credit if they sign up.

there is no 2257 requirement for naked girl posing images unless she touches her genitels. Then its masturbation and required.

Your local Adult store is not required to have 2257 info for every picture in every magazine or video they happen to sell.

YES they are!!!
Look at the video boxes! everyone has a 2257 statement on the cover of the box (usually on the back at the bottom). Every magazine has a 2257 statement on the first page or last page but its there! better check your facts.

Its not my oppinion.
Its the law

The images are not ON Googles server. they appear on the page but are hosted on someones elses server. the person that hosts the image should have the statement.

I don't think you understand what I meant... they don't have 2257 for each and every person in a pic or vid listed on the back of a DVD cover or in a mag.. they have a 2257 statement that covers the entire video or magazine.. the 2257 info for each and every picture is kept by the content producer. Least that's what I get when I read the law.

Currently on my TGPs, my 2257 statements have links to the 2257 info pages of the programs that I use hosted galleries with..

I figure that should cover me for all the hosted galleries thumbnails, if that were ever in question.. I also have links to the 2257 pages of the places where I buy content..

For submitted galleries, if I required the thumbnails to be pictures of the girls face or upper torso but not allowing pictures of the girls touching their genitals. Would I still need the 2257 info for those thumbs, even if they contained nudity?

You are trying to win the digital cam for best thread of the day, aren't you Juicy? :Graucho

No actual sexual contact no 2257 needed, implied is ok just nudity is ok. Once there is real touching or non simulated sex then you need it.

If you serve the images you need it.

If you just link to a place that serves them then you do not but they do.

A thumb tgp that hosts the images would indeed need one for every single image that was from a different producer (records location). Yet this rule could and should be implied to banners you host as well if they show actual sexual contact.

Stores do not need them for every girl in every picture of a magazine because there is ussually only 1 custodian of records for the whole magazine which is indeed shown.

Yes this may become a big issue since the AG must report to congress once a year now (started this year) regarding how many times they investigates 2257 and how many prosecutions resulted from them.

Ok have fun.

No I don't think you understand the labeling requirements outlined by article 2257. The key word there being label.

When sexualy explicit media is manufactured, or made or shoot or what ever, the producers of the media must maintain all paperwork and requirements of 2257.

When this media is reproduced for distribution, the publisher of this vehicle of distribution must provide, in clear writing, a "label" stating certain things ( see my post above ) including the "current" name and address of the custodian of records.

This is called a 2257 "statement" or label which is required by law on the cover of every adult video and on the first page of every adult magazine manufactured in the US. I believe this to be true of Adult content imported into the US as well. (but thats another thread).

SO! if you have sexualy explicit media on the hard drive of your server and it is displayed on the website. You must "lable" that page with a 2257 "statement" stating the custodian of records for that media.

Don't take my word for it.



read section e


there are other rules to.

Well, what ever the real rules are, what a fucking mess. Say I have 15K galleries in my data base. Some of the content is hosted (thumbs or whatever) on my servers. I'm not the producer, the content was provide by sponsors, and some bought. For the art I bought, it's easy! The seller provided the 2257 info. For submitters and hosted galleries I do not have a whole lot of control.

It is always smart to error on the side of caution. Esp in light of the current administration's attitude about civil liberties and porn. Let's see, I have to ask each gallery submitter for 2257 info? Guess that would sure cut down on the number of galleries to review. What about those exit consoles? A submitter doesn't have control over his/her sponsor. A sponsor can add or change anything at any time (Thanks for the extra exits!!). That would change the 2257 info. For that matter a webmaster can change a gallery after it's approved (like that has never happened).

As you can quickly see, this could be a sticky mess for TGP operators. That would be good news for TGP haters of the world I guess.

What is needed is an authorative descrption on what to do. So you hire a lawyer. She gives you her OPINION. To be safe you get a second opinion. When it comes to lawyers, those two opinions are always different.

Thanks Juicy for stirring up the shit.

thumb tgps are a bad idea unless the thumb is served from thier server. otherwise you published it and you are resposible for the labeling requirement of article 2257.


Its in black and white look it up

hahahgo daddy

what about hosting pictures on a site that is canadian directly to mainly canadian.

non nude pics.

would i need a 2257?