Sponsors who are working on non-explicit content, please read!
 

As you probably know, if the content(banners, FHGs, etc) comes from a hardcore set, the affiliate still needs the documents. How are you going to solve this?

not if the sponsor hosts it!

dumbass

it doesn't matter who hosts it, if it appears on YOUR site, YOU have to have docs, cause YOU are the publisher

true



_________

Thats a good question.. :glugglug

..bump..

so none of the companies who promised to give non-explicit content to affiliates have a real plan?

Last time i checked, sponsors host the FHGs.

I would respetfully disagree with this statement.

While it is clear that a hardcore image can not be altered to make it compliant.
Where would you get the idea that it can not come from a set of photo's?

Please enlighten me.

PS. my counsel also disagrees with you, so any info you can shore would be appreciated.

I didnt say it will be easy to check. I was told that the source of the content is important, so the owner of a non-explicit gallery with 12 pictures need to have IDs, if this 12 pics are taken from a hardcore set. The easiest way to check this for the FEDS is to get access to the members area of the promoted paysite.

Yup, what he said. I raised this issue on another forum, and the regs specifically call on each image, not each image set.

Check with your lawyer again. Who ever advised you is not correct. The set is not the issue. Original IMAGES can not be cropped, or censored and assumed compliant. The IMAGE will be judged for compliance based on the original IMAGE. the set in which it comes is not important.

I don't expect you to believe me. Hell I don't want you to. I would strongly suggest however you check with a LAWYER, who specializes in ADULT law or Free Speach.

and for gods sake stop with the misinformation.

well, the thing is, I have it from a lawyer who specializes in adult. But I would really love to be wrong on this one, would make things a lot easier.

the lawyer i talked to about this said the set is what matters, not just the image - and he is a well-known attorney. he explained it in a way that made sense, but i expect the other side could be explained just as well and make sense.

it was like this - the point of the law was supposedly to make sure that minors didn't participate in sexual activity. if the pic after the softcore pic showed her spread open, the entire shoot would be a sexual shoot, which the law is there to keep anyone from using or even shooting.

I am certain the programs are doing exactly as their legal counsel has advised. And in the end it's the lawyer who advises what he feels the law is and what he could defend against if need be.

I can respect a difference in opinion. And I am just a guilty in this thread as anyone else.

But I do feel it is counter productive to imply someone is doing something that is not legal or will be doing something that is not legal.

Thats dangerous ground to tread on, and could potentialy damage someones business or reputation.

I am doing what my lawyer advised and I would hope everyone is doing the same.

And that is what makes me worried, if 2 lawyers explain the law in 2 different ways, where is the truth? I would love to hear also other people's opinions.

Just like most laws, it will take several cases, to define the grey areas of what the DOJ, has written. Everyone reads things differently, there will always be different circumstances
that affect the law as written. the Free Speech Coalition is attacking these laws, before
some people learn exactly what the DOJ means the hard way. Let us hope that none of us have to hear from a Judge, what the DOJ was really trying to say.
Look at the constitution, we are still going to court on what those lines of Text mean...

Ever consider replacing the banner with the hardcore content with a softcore banner or text link?

hey doot, you guys are in aussie right? and im in holland, so there will be no probs in the future with content :pimp :pimp

The last couple of days on email have been bloody silly. Most of the stuff coming through now references 2257 and claims to be softcore, but a majority shows the girl spreading her pussy with her fingers or even out-and-out masturbating. You really have to wonder how many of these guys read the regulations, let alone talked to anyone about them...

So that's not the same as banners dumbfuck. You LINK to FHGs you don't LINK to a banner. A banner, even hosted by the sponsor, still ppears on YOUR site. Who in the fuck LINKS to a banner? "Click here to see my banner!"

Somebody is gonan get owned

He is 100% correct. So many of you really need to consult a Lawyer on these issues. Kinda pisses me off when several of us have spent thousands in legal fees to protect our business. Then the freeloaders come in, talking shit then benefit from the information we paid for.

Damn

I'm not a lawyer, but I can read:

Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce...

Explain?

It is not lawyers that decide what the law is and it is not even the DOJ...it is the Judge that is handling the case...and Judges if the case is appealed by either side.

In other words...a lawyer will tell you if you do this or that you should be safe...but he will not give you a written guarantee...because when he goes to court on your behalf...it will be the Judge's interpretation of the law that will prevail and not the lawyer's interpretation.

Virtually every law created has ambiguities...and are open to interpretation.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh . So clueless.

Yes you are.

You have no idea if he is correct or not.

Other lawyers, some who may cost more than yours, disagree with your lawyer's opinion.

This has nothing to do with freeloaders, it has to do with lawyers disagreeing on what the law means.

Cluess troll. Must be exciting putting words in my mouth and then arguing with me on something i didnt say. :1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Me troll? Seems I've been here 3 years before you. Explain how I'm wrong dumbass.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh

Whats the point. You wont admit to being wrong anyways. Troll.

I said that FHGs are hosted by the sponsor, and because of that the affiliate doesnt need 2257.


I dont know how you brought up banners or the other dumb shit you were saying, but i was clearly just talking about FHGs

Its okay, it was a misundertaning on your part. Apology accepted.

My opinion is that this should really be read as:

... that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce...


and is the provision that creates federal jurisdiction for the laws to have any effect (along with the rest of the paragraph that talks about the product being shipped or intending to be shipped in interstate or foreign commerce.

Jayson

Why not just have censored banners?

Do you mean blocking the hardcore parts? If you put bars on the hardcore, you probably still need 2257.