Thumb TGP Owners - Do you have a 2257 for EVERY thumb posted on your site?
 

If not and you have something illegal, guess who is liable for that content? Since the thumb is hosted on your site, you're just as guilty as the gallery owner in the eyes of the law. Would simply linking to the gallery using a text link be just as bad as having the image on your server?

This was discussed at one of the forums in San Diego and they are not responsible for this as long as the gallery they are taking the image from has proper 2257 info or the site they are linking to in the case of hosted galleries has this info. As long as there is documentation to show that the content is legit they are not liable.

But I agree they should make sure they are covered in some way shape or form.

Great question. I only run fake ones with all FHG's from sponsors so I just keep my fingers crossed. :helpme

Good point, I dont do Thumb TGPs so I dont know, but are they not just linking a thumb on the gallery?

I heard some discussion in ATL as well but missed the legal seminar. Do you guys archive the videos somewhere?

How many do though? I see a 2257 link in a gallery once in a while but it's still pretty rare. All it would take is one fuck up and the TGP owner could be in a lot of trouble. I'm really curious if a text link would still land you in jail. Surely it would but I would love to know for sure.

Yep, but imagine if that thumb that your script automatically created happens to be of a minor. That thumb then resides on your server and your ass is grass.

I'm not a lawyer but you can ask any of them, or police officers, or judges....they will all tell you the same.
ignorance is no excuse for breaking the law.....even if you dont know your breaking a law your ass is in the slammer.

if you have an explicit image being displayed on your domain of a minor you go to jail for kiddie porn....if you run a teen thumb tgp you better make damn sure any image you list has proper documentation. if there is no documentation its the same as their underage. same thing with the irs....no receipt....no expense...as simple as that....the 2257 documentation is REQUIRED so if the model is of questionable age and its not provided toss it.....if they arent of questionable age and its not provided.....its still REQUIRED....if you dont have the info then you need to know who does have the info.....if you cant prove the model is of legal age your up shit creek with nothing but your nose for a paddle

interesting topic, although it has been discussed before.

i dont think its going to deter anyone though, not many tgp owners consider this sort of thing as a problem

I olny use sponsors who list 2257 info on their sites... that makes me safe right?

Until I hear differently from the mouth of a lawyer who is qualified to speak about this I will continue to believe that sites & tgp's etc can link to whomever they want to link to, period, as it is up to the person actually using the pics to ensure that proper documentation is in order. That means the owner of the pics, re: THE SPONSOR is the one who needs to have the 2257 information on their site.

On my galleries, if I'm using say a maxcash site & their pics, I put some text at the bottom of my gallery that says "2257 information located on the sponsor's own site" and name the site (karasamateurs.com for example) but I don't link to the maxcash site. If someone wants to go looking for the 2257 information they can type in the domain and have at it. Many TGP's set a limit on the amount of outbound links you can have on your gallery, so I'm not going to waste one for this shit.

2257 is the sponsor's responsibility. I don't own the pics, THEY do. How I protect myself as an affiliate is by knowing for sure that the sponsors I promote all have their house in order.

Now if I was using my own content that would be different.

It's easy to add, and it should be there since the content is owned by the template owner.

one good reason that I tend to avoid teen niche

the thumbs that pull the most clicks just look young, to me

Guess I am getting old

I disagree with this line of thinking.
A thumb preview TGP is very similar to google's image search. While the preview images are hosted on google's servers, they are simply scaled down versions of full size images found on other sites that google provides as a convenience for their users.
Google isn't responsible for maintaining 2257 info for all the images contained in its image search.

Also, there was a lawsuit awhile back over whether showing a thumbnail on your site of someone else's copyrighted work was considered copyright infringement and the court ruled in favor of the website, saying that simply showing a thumbnail didn't violate the owner's property rights.
I'm thinking that would be used as a precedent for this type of case if it were brought to court.

:2 cents:

On another note, there is a 2257 link on every single gallery on my servers.
Any page with full size images and/or videos on my sites has links to the 2257 info, and I actually think it would be a good thing for this industry if TGP's required 2257 info from submitters. (i.e. not list galleries that don't have links to 2257 info)

Just because Google does it doesn't mean it's not illegal. If they have an image of CP on THEIR server, they will be liable. Same as a TGP. The image resides on your server, therefore you'd be liable.

As for copyright, that has nothing to do with this discussion.

I'm so glad I only run text TGP's right now :1orglaugh

I have no idea about the techincal legalities of the question, but I would be inclined to think that having a single over-the-line thumb on your server would be enough to attract just the wrong kind of attention. And if you let that slip, it's safe to assume something bigger has slipped, and they'll keep digging til they find it. "Them" being the policing agency, whatever it may be.

:2 cents:

Yes, yes I do. :(

All of mine do as well.

But I'm pretty sure you and I are in the minority.

It would be GREAT if tgp's required that link, instead of refusing them because you have one link too many.

if you know who the custodian of records for the 2257 info is and you know they actually have it then your good.....but if you have a thumb on your site of a 16 year old girl taking it anal your liable whether someone claims to have the info or not.

whether the authorites decide to prosecute you for it or not is another question.....but they can

No i dont, and no i dont care

If you actually have your own sites you will care someday. Trust me.

Until I hear the legal specifics about this from an actual lawyer who is net-savvy, I will continue to operate under the belief that I can hyperlink text or a small thumbnailed image to whatever or whomever I want. I choose to refuse links to anything I deem as illegal or unacceptable because that's the way I am, but linking is not the same as owning. If it were so, then Yahoo, google et al would already be out of business and their owners in prison.

And a thumbnail is commonly NOT considered as content.... it is considered to be a form of advertising, as in it advertises the content that is displayed at the destination link. Thumbs are typically less than 15% of the actual full-sized image they represent and I know that there were a number of cases several years ago regarding the legalities of thumbnails and their use which very likey can and will apply.

I think the TGP owners will be okay. It is the actual content owners that bear the most if not all of the 2257 responsibility here, as it should be.

old news...
Thumbnail images are considered fair use under copyright law.
Serving the full size image would require a 2257 or permission to do so.

i think the point being made is what if the thumb is underage?

i already do

And where did you get your J.D. from?

If you have something illegal on your site, then 2257 compliance would become a moot issue in that you wouldn't be in compliance..

If you have a text link to illegal content, you could possibly be looked at as assisting in the promotion of that content..

Either way.. 2257 wouldn't apply.. and further.. 2257 applies to those who actually produce or manufacturer the content..

from 18 usc, 2257
(3)

the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; and .....

The liquor store across the street.

Even better. :thumbsup

Back to the original point. If you run a thumb TGP and you don't know for a FACT that all of the girls that you have posted are legal, you are putting your freedom at risk...and probably rightfully so. If anyone has any doubts about this, contact someone who knows. Consulting with an attorney is inexpensive. I wouldn't wait until the police come knocking at your door to let you know that you have committed a felony. Claiming ignorance isn't a valid defense.

This has nothing to do with copyright so don't turn it into an argument about the legality of thumbnails in regards to copyright.

Agreed.

I agree as well.

Inaccurate.

2257 also applies to secondary producers, which would be the gallery maker.

Again, not entirely accurate.

There are some inconsistencies in the law that a good lawyer could probably use to your benefit, but I for one wouldn't want it to get to that point.
http://articles.ynotmasters.com/feat...al_briefs.html

A "secondary producer" is defined in 28 CFR 75.1(c)(2) as any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.

On the other hand, a person whose activities are strictly limited to distribution is specifically excluded from the category of a producer.

Under the definition of "secondary" producer as set forth above, it would appear that a web site operator who acquires graphic content of actual sexual activity created by others and includes that content as part of his web site would most likely be classified as a secondary producer under this definition.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
While the "primary producer" is required to create and maintain records which contain all the specific information required by 2257, the secondary producer may satisfy the record keeping requirements by:

1. Accepting a copy of the required records from the primary producer; and
2. Keeping a record of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records. (28 CFR 75.2 (b))
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How can anyone here call themselves an Adult webmaster and not have a clue about 2257?

You should get a lawyer to explain it to you.

I definitely agree.

The only problem is if you speak with 10 lawyers, you'll probably get 8 different interpretations, because that's all the law is. A lawyer's interpretation.

That's how they make their money. Hope and pray you've spoken to a lawyer who's interpretation is the same as your judge and jury.

Damn nice question, damn nice discussion ! This forum should be loaded with this kind of discussion! :2 cents:

:thumbsup