Models Privacy and 2257
 

Okay so your going to sell content with the Models id, (2 forms of PICTURE Id) and a copy of the image contract aka the Photographers contract in which the model he/she verifies by signature that they are 18 years of age or older.


You sell a set to billy bob from Billys Bib Tits website.

Billy likes one of the models and begins calling her and harrasing her.

The model asks Billy where he got her information and he says YOU the photographer.


Now the model is suing you.





Sound far fetched?


Might not be. :2 cents:



I have almost 2,000 different 2257 docs here, on digital and on paper, EVERY SINGLE ONE list on the contract their name, address, social security number, telephone number, contact emergency phone number.

What if someone pretending and posing to be a webmaster was using the new 2257 law specifically for the use of stalking a model?

Maybe content producers will have to change how and who they do business with?

Gee, this is the first time that this issue has been brought up.

Why didn't somebody think of this sooner?

Well Aaron let's hear YOUR "opinion"

In print photographers have been sending model info with bought pictures for years. Content providers are going to have to any do business with real companies.

the bush administration is absolutely fucking nuts.

What if you were not an idiot, oh the possibilities.

Lets break it down for slow people like you.
1. You do not need 2 forms of ID.
2. The contract they sign and the age verification can be two different forms.
3. If the photographer takes a PHOTO of the model holding her ID next to her face as the first picture in the set. Assuming said model signed your photo release giving you full ownership and copyright over the photo sets you took, and your release has distribution rights included. Said model will not win court case since you only gave out one of the photos in the set.
4. Your age verification does not need to include all that other personal crap like emergency phone, phone and so on.
5. May you die of acute lead poisoning.

Therein lies the problem, how would you know who a "real company" is and who isn't.


There are literally hundreds of thousands of small time adult webmasters, and every now and then a few break free to be a "real company", such as Epic Cash did.

So how would you even try to figure who was a "real company" and who wasnt.


I think content sales are going to be at an all time low for many content places.


Ounique is going to hate trying to get all their sets into downloadable 2257 zips.

So your telling me that Suze Randal, Max Candy and Paul Markham all do it wrong eh?
Let's put also Randy Shelly, Kevin Lawson and Jim Thompson (Before he died) all did their 2257 info wrong eh?

THe DOJ has already said the saftety of the models is of no concern to them.

Let me post a REAL 2257 and see how much you think it looks wrong...

Where did I say they did it wrong?

Nowhere in the law does it state that you are required to give all of that info. So you have the models SSN, phone number...All that shit written down on your own form...Big deal. Create a separate form for your customers as I have done.

This form includes what they need for compliance. If you don't want to give the SSN then don't include it as a secondary ID as the example shows. A second ID is not required by law anyway.

http://ampcontent.com/Pikz/2257Sample4.jpg

US producers could sell their content through a proxy broker to get away from being labeled the 'primary producer' since the content broker would then be the 'primary producer' and where the paper trail ends from the production of any given photograph or video clip.

MegaBondage = David Stodghill.

http://www.gfyboard.com/showthread.php?t=472422

He's got big ones for starting another 2257 thread after all the content he 'resold' to people over the last couple years.

:winkwink:

Read the law on what Constitutes ACCEPTABLE AGE Verification for 2257.


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...8----000-.html




2 PHOTO IDS
NAME
ADDRESS
TELEPHONE NUMBER
Social Security Number



Anything else ?

It is now, read updated:


http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...8----000-.html

A pimary producer has to give a secondary producer UNEDITED copies. All that blacked out crap won't fly. It's in the regs.

Yes your still an idiot and I do not have time to debate why you are so fucking wrong.

Just maybe, he was posting that as a sample and did not want everyone to have a models info?

That link has fuck all to do with what the DOJ just released.

I posted the law about it, if you know more then the law and choose to ignore it, then you should not be selling content.

No shit Sherlock. Do you think I am going to post unedited info on GFY?

You have been posting some really stupid shit lately. Try thinking then posting.

Damn boy, when did I even say I was selling content?
Next that law link you posted has zero to do with the current regs.

Look in the new 2257 regs, that is the legal definition of "Acceptable Identifying Records"

You'll see the link for it on the 2257 page.

It says

"...required to produce acceptable identifying records as pursuant to § 1028 ..."



Read it Aaron, just for once, shut your pie hole, pretend you don't know it all, and read it.

It's in black and white, page shows as updated within the last 2 weeks.


Maybe the people that copied it verbatim know more about it then you do?

Actually it does, just your not into content so you dont follow shit.

Exactly. I have a feeling that he's just trolling.

I'm done with him now.

I really think a village is missing their idiot right now.

You are exactly right.

(h) As used in this section?
(1) the term ?actual sexually explicit conduct? means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title;

--->

(2) ?identification document? has the meaning given that term in section 1028 (d) of this title;



(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
(4) the term ?performer? includes any person portrayed in a visual depiction engaging in, or assisting another person to engage in, actual sexually explicit conduct.

There is it Aaron, so now tell me that section 1028 doesnt mean shit to 2257.

I am into content, I just do not sell it to others. I happen to follow this shit very closely. Now may I suggest you do the same.

<-- has sold content for over 53 different photographers since 1996, what have you done.

fuck off dude. You CLEARLY state in a post that someone should only give a secondary producer only PART of the info and then you post a pic that has shit backed out. WTF is someone supposed to think you are saying? I'm surprised ANYONE does business with you with you "I know everything and if you disagree with me you're a moron" attitude. Fuck off buddy. WHO IN THE HELL ARE YOU TO COMMENT ON ANYONE?

Besides proving your an idiot, I do not need to post my resume.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

yer smert!

Gator, I understood what he was doing and meant.

Okay Henry, your "resume" is one page , one domain, using a plugin sex movie store.


Nuff said, your a no one.

Keep up your ignorance it suits you well.

BTW you will not get far with checking where my sig is hosted at sherlock. Henry is just a partner of mine and that was a decent place to host my sig.

Ummmm.......errrr. nevermind.

2257 section states new definitions of acceptable identification , citing section 1028 as the legal definition of acceptable identification for record keeping.

Choose to ignore it Aaron, doesnt matter to me. Might want to read it though.

fine he just hates me for whatever reason. I could say the sky is blue and he'd call me a moron and come up with some dipshit reason why it's not blue but purple with yellow polk-dots just to be disagreeable.

Been here since 3 days after this board was made, have 45 usernames now, and though people hate me, no one can deny that in 2002 I had more adult content then anyone else on the internet, almost 2 million images and 600 hours of movies.

Don't talk 2257 to me, you have no idea.





Aaron, man, just read the shit. I didnt write it. Its the law. You want to profess to being the 2257 god, then read it and know it by heart.

Fuck even on Walter's site he says 2 forms of id and he's your buddy, you think he's lying to ya?

Shh.. the people at evil angel, west coast, equisite and a few others also think I am a no one.

How ironic is it that David has questions about being sued over content?

http://www.turboface.com/vv/doc1big.gif

http://www.turboface.com/vv/doc2big.gif

heh I worked for Caballero and ClubLove get the fuck out of town man. You are lost. Nuff said. Simpsons are on.

It wasn't over any content, it was over a perl script and anyone that reads it can see it.

Want to post something new?

You can post defunct court orders I dont mind.

Good for you, so you also saw lensmans invite over at mayors board.
Time in this industry means jack shit though. I can easily find sites that have been up since 96 or earlier that are still not compliant with the old regs. Amount of content shot also means jack shit if you did not understand the regs to begin with.

Though one thing is very clear to me, you just admitted to having 45 usernames here which make it very understandable that you do not understand nor follow rules.

Hell I'll post Jenna Jameson's 2257 and picture id if it makes you hot for a few minutes.
Got her address and telephone number.










But just think, if you bought her content, you'd get it now according to the new 2257 laws.

Yes and about 6 of every shirt and gift that adult.com gives away.

Not ONE person on here only has 1 nic. Not one. I think Juicy admitting having close to 30.

What next Henry. :1orglaugh