Got your 2257 documents?
 

If not you might like to think about getting them and organising them.

This was on another board that begins with the letter X, don't want to break the rules.

2257 is a sword to cut through this industry, if you do not have them you could be in big trouble.

Interesting thing is it could cut down on theft.

This could be good for the online adult industry.
Get rid of the k*ddie p*rn fuckers and cut down on content theft, making the content honest webmasters purchase more valuable.

The thing that concerns me is if the feds knock on my door are they going to want to see copies of the ID's for the girls on my site, or can I just point them to the provider I bought the content from?

damn ashcroft! :BangBang:

If you purchased content from somewhere, you need to be able to point them to the content producer. As a webmaster with secondary record keeper responsibilities of 2257, you do not need to have the driver's license and 2257 info of the models, unless you shot the content yourself.

Check out the writeup of my new venture 2257lookup.com and how it helps to solve some potential problems for webmasters:

http://www.xbiz.com/news_piece.php?id=3846

-brandon

I'm not worried. I can provide what they need online. No need for them to even knock on my door.

I can't imagine any US based photographer shooting underage models and thinking they're going to get away with it.

You have to be a complete and total idiot to even chance that in the US. Overseas is where the problem is and this is all happening.

4 more years !! 4 more years!!!



:1orglaugh

True, but i see 2257 statue as being the way to shutdown the frontline of "obscenity" not just about protecting children from being exploited.

It seems to be very simple... if a webmaster can't tell the prosecutor where a suspected underaged or "obscene" picture was purchased from, then they have violated 2257 statue and can have their website(s) shutdown and go to jail.

The current approach by the Justice Department is to equate 2257 with protecting children... a very emotionally charged subject that the RIAA has used to equate P2P with CP.

The testing of the secondary record keeping responsibiltities of the webmasters for 2257 hasn't been done yet, but it's very possible.


-brandon

Good, I agree this is more of a help to reputable people than it is any kind of hinderence

Do you know which producer sold you which set and do you know he has the documents.

We are also assuming Ashhahahahaha does not define websites as publishing.

You don't have the documents, you don't KNOW they exist, you only think they do.

all you need is one of these for every picture on your site.

http://www.knealandbob.com/0614/2257.htm

Tell that to the guys who shot Traci Lords, the guys who were recently pulled for shooting 17 year olds topless and don't argue they got off with it, ti cost them thousands to stay out of prison.

If you point the authorities to a producer and he can't come up with the documents, are you liable? Well we know you are if a girl is under age, but are you liable for pointing them to a guy who does not have the documents?

Also will Ashhahahahaha make websites liable? We do publish as in we alter images, add text, compile a page to be viewed. We are not straight resellers, like the local newstand.

Please do not take any notice of this guy, he clearly is not aware of the facts.

FACT, if the girl is 17 no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the girl did not sign a model release, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the guy selling the content is not the owner, no such notice will save you.
Fact, if the police arrive at your door and start asking for the IDs of a model, no such notice will save you. They only have to say she's under age and you're going with them to jail if you can't produce the documents.

What if Ashhahahahaha decides the website is the primary producer of the website, banners and tours, etc.

Aslo what is sexually explicit is debateble, in court with you paying your lawyers.

Don't fuck around with your business, liberty and future. Just keep some records.

Primary Record Keeping vs. Secondary Record Keeping Requirements of 2257


A quick summary:

If you are a content producer, you need to have full printed documentation that verifies the age of your model. This includes a copy of their driver's license and a signed model release that includes the listings of all names that the model uses (ie. stage name, professional name, legal name, nickname, etc). In addition, you need to be able to cross index models with the production (ie. photo shoot, film shoot, dvd, etc).

Two quick questions to self-answer for content producers:

1) If a prosecutor asks you to bring up records of all modesl by the stage name of Trixie, could you do it?

2) If a prosecutor asks you to pull up all model records for those that participated in a particular photo or film shot, could you do it?


-----------------------------------------------------------

If you are webmaster that licenses/purchases content from content producers, you are required to maintain pointers to where you purchased the content. You should have a 2257 statement on your website that lists the address of the content producers used on your site. Don't just copy someone elses' 2257 page that lists all content producers, only list the ones that you are using.

Webmasters have the secondary record keeper requirements of pointing to the primary record keepers.

The issue that I see is if you are asked about where you purchased a specific image from, then you may have trouble answering that question.

If a prosecutor ever challenges you on the question of where did this specific picture come from, remember 2257lookup.com

More info about 2257 statue can be found on JD Obenberger's article: http://my.execpc.com/%7Exxxlaw/primer.html

Given the recent AVNonline article about 2257 (http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=106504) it's not hard to see that all the warnings that the legal guys have been saying for years about federal intervention is coming closer.



-brandon

charly, it would seem to me that this is a concern for content producers/providers, not so much their customers.
There is an expectancy on the part of the customer/webmaster that all the content providers records are in order. Providing a link to the providers recordkeeping contact info is what the webmasters should do, and I cant imagine they would have to do much more to be protected.

I think the main thrust of this release is that theres been no recordkeeping checks done in something like 15 years, and they want to begin doing it.

Listen to the man :)

We provide complete 2257 info (model releases, model photo with 2 IDs, close-ups of IDs) to all our clients.

I guess biggest issue is with blowouts where you get tons of content with some/most of IDs missing. Most blowout result in the company going out of business so when "|the police|" knock on your door asking for IDs, you'll be in deep shit territory.

right so since all companies have that possibility of going out of biz. If it is possible shoot your own exclusive content and have all the proper docs. Buying conent from others may end up being the fuck all of this biz

Thats right don't listen. Keep posting images on your server with no 2257 labeling.

1. I don't worry about whether the girl was underaged since most of my content is well established adult entertainers, With full paperwork on file at Legend in California.

2. I don't buy content from no-name producers. My 2257 points to Legend Video Inc.

3. I don't worry about the police showing up at the door since my sites comply with the labeling requirements of 2257.


When your ready to put down the playstation and become a real webmaster, get a lawyer first! 300-500 bucks a month will save your ass.

Just an idea....

But someone should come out with a little program for content producers and buyers that could embed a little point of origin ID including 2257 Custodian of records info - into the picture or movie itself.

Content providers would run this app to encode their information into the content before it's released.

Then you would run a reader program against it, with a password or whatever and you could identify what came from where very easily.


That, or keep original filenames & a cross referenced db.. but that is sometimes not possible for various reassons I'm sure.


Edit: I guess this is kind of what digimark is all about.. and I suppose resizing/resampling the image would probably render an id like that useless as well.

Orginal file names are a problem for some of my scripts and editing programs. For example fireworks chokes on some file names from content providers when I use batch process to resize for thumbs or resize to conserve bandwidth.

I like the idea of content providers including the 2257 in the image file itself (each and every one). Can that be done easily with jpg?? Or would we need a new standard??

great idea, but some disadvantages:


1) you can embed text within the JPEG header, it takes up a little bit more disk space to the image. problem is that it can be automatically stripped out by resizing programs.

2) you can embed info within the EXIF header, but again, some programs can just wipe out that info

3) having content producers process their images with any kind of marking is a huge undertaking

4) having to pay for digital watermaking like digimarc or baytsp is not going to happen with most content producers

5) some clients may not want visible watermarks on the image.


My technology is based on image analysis, so doesn't require any pre-marking or any watermarking and is free for all content producers to participate.

One of my disadvantages is aggregating content producers as well as keeping up with updates, but it's not a problem as content providers are starting to find me as I begin my marketing campaign.

Content producers should use as many viable/practical ways to document their 2257 records, especially from a record keeping standpoint of having the right info on the models sitting in a filing cabinet at your offices.

Embedding a text pointer back to the content producer in the JPEG header is a great idea and if a content producer will take the time to do it, it could help to assist the webmasters with their secondary record keeping responsibilities.

Webmasters can help by pointing their content producers to my 2257lookup.com service. The more content producers that are in the database, the better the service that I can provide on matching images

-brandon

Mine 2257 are just fine:glugglug

You could do it fairly easily by just typing it up, save in binary, then do a copy/b to the end of the image or movie in DOS.

Then use a Batch file for multiples.

It's a sledghammer approach, but it wouldnt screw up the image or movie much. Just a blip.

Well the first thing they will have to go thru are the sites that are in violation on the front page of their site. Emails addresses and po boxes dont cut it . lol Also if you think its online they dont have to knock on my door you are very wrong. Also this is fishing for them, they come to look at records and its a house with kids in it. I think records wont be the only thing to worry about.