Updated 2257 statement wording?
 

I've just visited some of the top sites and looked at their current 2257/records statements hoping to see where the new wording is headed, and I noticed that quite a few sites which promote that they produce most of their own content are claiming to not be 'Primary Producers'.

Am I looking at old pages, or is this a legal tactic?

Some sites have a centralized page which is the destination of the 2257 link for the specific paysites, and while it my be true that the 'site' hosting the 2257 wording may not be a 'Primary Producer', someone following the link from the paysite gets the impression that the paysite is not a 'Primary Producer'.

I appreciate that there is a world of flux (and wait and see) going on right now, but because I have noticed this one several sites which I understood to have updated their 2257 protections, I thought I would ask.

Thanks,
-Dino

Just because they have exclusive content doesn't mean they shot it. The actual photog is probably the producer, them secondary.

a lot of companies are nothing more than sales and marketing people with a tech and/or programmer or two around.
You'd be surprised how few of them actually do any real "shooting" of their own.

I understand. The ones I'm looking at claim (to their affiliates) to shoot all their own content and that they have all the IDs/releases for.

I suppose claims like 'we shoot our own exclusive content' could be marketing statements and as you have pointed out, internally (legally) there may be separation between photographer and sponsor.

-Dino

Hmm, I went snooping myself and a big hardcore program had in their legal page that ALL of their content was exempt because it was non explicit, simulated, or just regular nudity.

:helpme :helpme :helpme

Say bye-bye to them.

i suspect if they are USA based they will be history shortly.