Programs: Where can I get my 2257 documents?
 

I have many sites using sponsor content. By the new 2257 rules, I will need complete 2257 documents for each image. How do you propose to comply?

Program owners?

thanks

Alex

good question....

:1orglaugh
























just forget it

right now im happy im in europe.....

Server in the US?

Nicky, bad news - if you are using any US payments and US servers, or any US produced content, who knows if they are going to apply the rules to you.

I am in Canada. I am still asking.

Alex

What? are you a moron or something? :)

just kidding...what I mean is if you are outside usa who gives a shit about 2257 :)

Because my business is still dependant on US companies, US processing, and so on.

Nobody knows the scope of this... could anyone dealing with a US company be subject to the US law in this matter? Will sponsors only deal with companies that are 100% 2257 compliant even on free feeder sites and TGPs?

Sponsors? Anyone?

Alex

Hey Alex... I will ask Lens about this... Honestly no one has ever asked though :helpme

I think it's too early to tell exactly how affiliate programs would react. I think it depends on exactly what gets passed. I see one solution for affiliate programs to not allow affiliates to download & host their own content, but to rather only link to images hosted by the program. That would allow affiliate programs the ability to track where each piece of their content is. The next step would be to provide the locations to some type of 2257 file that is password protected & somehow manned by someone in cases where affiliates are legitimately contacted & requested to provide 2257 info.

That solution above has some issues, but I see it as being a quick fix if all the regulations pass as proposed.


~Alli

This sounds obvious and logical. if we all link the sponsor approved 2257 link then how can we have an issue?

I think issues arise more from the sponsor having to host all the content. Will the sponsor want to do that? What happens when the webmaster wants to alter the image, does the sponsor then host that too?

Other issues I see are, affiliates not fully understanding the rules & requesting physical copies of 2257 information.

I think an additional solution would be a 3rd party 2257 auditing service that checks on sponsors free content 2257 compliance, so affiliates can feel secure that their sponsor has everything 100% in order.

~Alli

The way I read it, copies of the information (including ID's, releases, etc) must be on site.

I was wondering the same Alex.

Affiliates outside of the US... Don't get too smug. As Alex said, when you are dealing with US companies, processing, etc, you may have to deal with some heat. I'm not a lawyer, so I may be incorrect, but it sounds logical.

Alli.. I love hearing possible solutions, rather than grim attitudes. There will be a solution to this, just as there has been for every other issue thrown our ways.

Agreed. I have a feeling we'll all have a temporary quick fix solution & then come up with something more optimized for longterm.

I believe, and maybe some lawyers can confirm this, but the proposed regulations just say that you must have a way to access the 2257 files from your location. So if you could do that through an online interface that is secure & protected, you'd meet the requirements.

~Alli

The easiest solution is for tgp to only use thumps of like Girls faces, or fully clothed. Then they would not be required to comply.

LOL.... look. These options would be fine and dandy if they were interested in playing fair and this was REALLY about protecting children. They aren't & it's not.


You'll be required to have everything cross referenced with lists of URLs where each image is and your custodian of records willl need to be able to pull up the corresponding paperwork in a moments notice.

If I remember right, the custodian of records supposedly needs to be AT THE SITE where the content is produced. This means people operating webcam sites out of their homes are fucked by stalkers and the like - since the 2257 information (your home address) will need to be public information. IIRC, a post office box may not be used.


You should probably read the regulations before you propose solutions to them. Especially when they really aren't concerned with your soultions at all. You don't think they know how fucked it is going to be for the industry? You do't think they INTENDED to make it that way? :1orglaugh

No, I agree, the new regulations only punish professional business people who operate legitimate business. It doesn't prevent anything regarding underage exploitation & therefore I also conclude it was done to make all of our lives harder.

I have read the regulations & reviewed them with attorneys, I'm just a little more optimistic that there will be viable solutions for the various obstacles that will present themselves.

~Alli

Does not matter where the server is.

They are record keeping requirements, you are guilty if you keep them wrong or not at all. The only way the DOJ can prove this is to examine my records in the Czech Republic. For this they will need a couple of plane tickets, a local lawyer to get a court order.

Then they will find my records are in order and they will be shown up for the fools they are.

This is not a war that involves killing people, they have to follow the law on this one.

they wont if you aren't a valuable enough asset. programs will analyze each affiliate and weigh the value of each one. the ones that are not valuable will not be given records. i can assure you this. if you don't make them enough loot to warrant the time and man hours to get the records, they will cut you loose at their discretion and surely within their terms. most proggies have in the tos that they can cut you at anytime.

i'm not saying this will happen to you. this is for everyone.

Thanx for that mind-buggling discussion guys!!

I may be wrong, but don't think so, if the scene involved sexual activity you need the 2257.

Cropping and selective use of content will not cut it.

Paul... let me restate that... Only use face shots or fully clothed thumbnails and then only like them to a FHG. Then you are not producing a sexually explicite website... Nothing on the site you create would deam you to keep records.

Go read the law, but I'm pretty sutre you are wrong. It's definitely about what the original image was, not an altered one.

That is kind of a gray area in the regulations. If the photo you used to create the thumbnail was sexually explicit or even if the work as a whole (say a video) contained sexually explicit material you still may be required to have 2257 docs even though the sexually explicit portion of the material does not appear on your site. If what appears on your site depicts actual sexually explicit activity even though the contact cant bee seen on your site IMO you would need to keep 2257 records.

Consider this....

You run a program tht has 101 affiliates.

1 of them generates 100 signups per day.
the other 100 each generate 1 signup per day.

They all ask for 2257 information.

What do you do?

I hope they do something quick! These are some stiff times you can do . You could do less time for man slaughter....


"Pornography producers who violate the new requirements would be subject to prison terms of up to five years on the first offense and up to 10 years for subsequent offenses."

And yet again Thehun.net has the perfect business model

All I know is it is going to be interesting... And who knows if this mess will hold up to the lawsuit that will be file to challenge the new regs... It could take years to sort it all out...

This is a fucking mess. An absolute fucking mess. These new regulations will just hassle content producers and site owners, and ultimately waste a lot of everyone's time. Stuff like this isn't what keeps child pornography down. How about, for once, the feds actually spend some of the manhours they would have spent auditing 2257 on cracking down on the pedophiles in the first place :rolleyes:

So, since a list of content producers is no longer acceptable, and existing 2257 compliance links may be insufficent, does anyone have a simple guide to compliance? Essentially, as someone who doesn't produce content, what does it take to keep me legal?

Tell them to use the free galleries or to go buy content that has the 2257 documents.

This law will not cost us a single surfer, it's the number of surfers that makes us monet, not the number of affiliates. This could just be a good pruning of a lot of dead wood.

kernelpanic it makes you responsible that you have the documentation and stops you from getting out of keeping it by saying "This guy in Russia has it and he says it's legal!!"

What about sponsor provided banners, buttons, FPAs, and HPAs? Will these also require 2257 docs? I would assume so.

I with Alex on this one. Weather you are in the US or not - this effects you. From what I've heard, a company making affiliate payment from within the US is even a liability.

Since the current powers that be think that it is cool to "spread the seeds of freedom" to other parts of the world -- don't you think that they would also think it is their moral imperatives to as well??and we won?t even have to kill anyone to do it.

Raw Alex ? I will be speaking to our lawyer for OCCash next week to determine what we need to do to make sure that our webmaster?s asses are covered in the 2257 game.

Also, my guess, is there will be an injunction before any of this can go forward.

Alli is right. The DOJ is FULLY aware that these regulations (if they are published as peviously worded) are damn near impossible for anyone to comply with. That way be a quick fix, but the only real quick fix is a prolonged legal injuction from the 1st amendment folks till we get this right wing pinkos out of office.

you assume correctly.

i've talked to several people who very confidently told me that they were ready for the new regs. they spent time and money getting the i.d. cross referenced and so on.

the thing is, if the proposed regs go up pretty much as they were, those confident and calm webmasters overlooked the fact that the listed custodian needs to be available during ALL possible business hours. not to mention that as acting custodian, you can't just quit. you are obligated to continue as custodian for a period of years even after you quit the business.

other businesses that must provide some sort of documentation are not forced into a similar situation...

The larger programs will all likely have spent the time and money to get their records in order, but I think you will see nearly all the programs take a wait and see approach to releasing the docs to the affiliates. Giving out all the model ids and releases to our affiliates is something we will do IF its clear to us that its needed and we have no choices left. Here is the main problem: if we release this information prematurely we give away very important info (specifically model names and addresses) and in the meantime, the regs get tied up in litigation and eventually die in court, we cannot recover the info we released and prevent its distribution and disclosure to the wrong people (both competitors and stalkers). We can't unring the bell once its been rung.

These regs will be good for some (mostly lawyers) and significantly worse for others. For example, while paysites and freesites have alot of problems, places like premium newgroup providers like Easynews.com or Yahoo Groups will have to dramatically change their policies. Much of their business model relies on non documented postings. We could see these companies just phase out adult content altogether. This could result in a higher demand for adult product if the US Govt passes regs that restrict the proliferation of adult content in free areas. I think no matter what happens here you will see the better sites survive and grow stronger from all this.

You are in the content selling end of the industry... I'm sure you would love for this to be the solution. :winkwink:


Anyway... by telling them to use free galleries, you are implying what exactly? Just linking to the affiliate companies free hosted galleries?

That would mean no banners on affiliate sites.

Heh.. this is going to be a mess. Err...this IS a mess.

But yeah, when it's all said and done, people in the non-exclusive content business will probably get to get a huge bump out of this.

Exactly. We've got every models ID and release on file and I'm more then happy to share it with affiliates. Thing is there are EU laws as well forbidding to reveil these IDs. So its complicated. But since we're US hosted its gotta be there. And it is.

Plus every potd and gallery is gonna get a 2257 page now as well.

Exactly.

So if you are an affiliate and your sponsor is now offering a LINK to their records and only allowing you access as you need them (when DOJ is standing in front of you saying... "Show me the records for X").... you, the affiliate, need to trust your sponsor program like never before to have their shit together in that case... or it's your ass.

And if you don't think they'll come after the small guys.... just remember the 'low hanging fruit example' back when Acacia first popped up on the scene.

Allison, with due respect to your learned lawyers, I think that the DOJ intention is to make the rules as difficult to comply with as possible. The cross reference requirements, the single image to model release matching, the secondary producter provisions, etc, are all created specifically to make it somewhere between hard and impossible for people to have complete records AT THEIR BUSINESS LOCATION. I read no provision for remote access to third party locations for those documents.

It is clear also that they have made no provision for "custodian of records" this time around. You can't have your lawyer, your buddy, or some guy selling his services be your custodian of records - you have to have the records. This is another reason why I am not sure that electronic access would pass muster.

The idea is good, but I am not sure of the reality of the situation.

Scoreman, thanks for that info. I would like to see what more programs are considering doing here.

Alex

true, ppl will become more n more careful promoting teens who look too young. Ill put my hand in the fire (dutch saying sorry) thats everythings 2257 compliant.

Luckely most content providers and photographers supply headshots with 2 IDs nowadays, makes it a lot easier.

the amount of workload something like this means is scary...shiiiittt

That's why it can be challenged as an undue burden.

We can hope. In the mean time, what are programs planning to do about free content?

Alex

Certain types of companies have been generally held non-liable for the actions of their customers. AOL or Yahoo is probably not going to be held responsible if some user posts a naked photo without 2257 info, the same as they aren't going to be held responsible if someone posts a death threat.

There was a thread yesterday saying that forums like GFY would have to keep 2257 information. That's ridiculous - Lensman cannot be held responsible if a GFY member posts a death threat on this board, and he will almost certainly not be held responsible if someone posts a photo without 2257 info.

There is a difference between a porn company posting movies to make a profit and a hosting company, ISP, or adult forum, where users may make their own posts or post their own content.

There would be serious free speech issues if Yahoo was suddenly legally responsible for all of the content posted or created by their members.

i'd like to know the answer to that too

This is a great thread. Serious issues, serious discussion and hopefully soon some serious solutions.

I don't believe even sponsor hosted content and/or galleries would help if its passed in its current form... meaning if the site giving access to the SHG must have compliance on their access site. (even sponsors offering links to compliance on each of their galleries would still leave the originating feeder site in non-compliance.)

Converting all the feeder sites to text-based-only still leaves the issue of banner ads etc.

We definately need some clarification on this before we can truly brainstorm for solutions.

Heck .. even consider Googles image search, as I see it even they would be liable to provide 2257. They certainly can't provide onsite compliance for all the naught pictures they show.

makes me glad that none of my site have got a single picture on them

best thread i've read in awhile