2257 for affiliates only???
 

so, coming from an affiliate only point of view here, the new changes in 2257, does this mean that each affiliate is to get 2257 records from each sponsor & maintain those records if that affiliate uses sponsor images on their server/host/domain?

Considering that an affiliate could be determined to be considered a "secondary producer"

The proper terminology is an affiliate is a secondary producer, in place of "could be determined".

Yes an affiliate must have all 2257 documentation (the requirements are complicated) available at his/her place of business for a mininum of 20 hours per week of any image that is displayed from their server/host/domain. This applies to any image displayed that is not considered to be softcore and the definition of softcore becomes legally arguable.

Someone will correct me if I am wrong.

BTW many, if not most affiliates will not supply the correct documentation as a search of this board will verify.

bump for answers!

I totally agree. Good assessment of that. HOSTED gallery pages on the sponsors server are not affected, since they are on the server of the sponsor...but if you host the images on your server/site - then the affiliate would have to have the 2257.

Fitz

i think that needs clarification. if you host an image or video that is served up on your sposers server, if the surfer is getting access to that content via your site, i am pretty sure that you must maintain 2257. please correct me if i am wrong? and i am not talking about text links...

Read the analysis of Article V of HR 4472 - AKA the Adam Walsh Child Protection and Safety Act of 2006 - posted on the FSC website. The analysis was prepared by attorney Reed Lee, and is summarized in bullet points for the reading-averse.

The analysis is posted here

An excerpt from Mr. Lee's analysis of the effects on section 2257 as amended under the language the 'Adam Walsh Act':

"Not only must an original producer gather, create, cross-index, and store all of these records, but all re-publishers must also obtain and store the records themselves. So the regulatory scheme not only requires substantially burdensome record-keeping requirements, it also mandates widespread record-shifting, as copies of the required records are made and transferred to each subsequent re-publisher. And since federal law does nothing to protect the privacy of this information as it shifts among re-publishers, current law exposes performers to the dangers of identity theft, stalking, and worse. Naturally enough, this has a chilling effect on the creation of constitutionally protected expression."

- Q.

If you are not talking about text links what are you talking about? One provides a text link to FHG's and the FHG is not displayed from your server, thus it is my understanding that one is not required to have 2257 documents as the images on the FHG's are not served from you server.

BTW, it is my understanding that one crops a hardcore imgage into a softcore image one must still have 2257 documentation on the original image. Someone will correct me if I am wrong.

i am talking about things such as videos that are served from the sponsor, but can be played on an affiliates site...

also, i would include images that are served from the sponsor but viewable on the affiliates site..

this fucking blows..


And really, do you think fucking sponsor programs are going to just hand out their records to affiliates?? Christ, what a fucking mess... So, for the many sites, hundreds of galleries, blogs, tgp, etc., I need to chase down all the sponsors & get damn id & release form for every single fucking image on my domains & then fucking organize all this in an orderly fashion.. fuck that.. fucking godamnit. This is such bullshit.,,

Help FSC


Mr. Romance

That is my understanding as well.

If you have a text link to a video that is being hosted on a server other than your own, it is my understanding that this is exempt from any 2257 documentation. 2257 only requires documentation for images/videos hosted on your server not someone elses server. Some one will correct me if I am wrong.

fucking cross referenced 4 different ways too?? WTF.. ballbusters,,,

You are correct. If the image created falls under 2257 regs, ANY use, including cropping to just a head shot must have documentation.

That is what I was meaning in my post above. If the image/video is on the sponsors server, they hold the docs...if it is on your server, you need them. It's pretty simple, so I am unsure what marketsmart meant by I needed clarification.
:-)
Fitz

How is Google and Yahoo exempt from this?

yeah, no shit.. they host millions of porn pics & movies

Goodluck on getting the proper documentation from sponsors. If you will do a search of the board about this subject this has been hashed over and rehashed and many if not most sponsors will not do this and some will only offer partial documentation which does not protect the secondary producer. Using text links to others servers is the only safe way to go because of the complicated 2257 documentation requirements. At least until or unless secondary producer requirements are changed. I personally am not satisfied that text links will always be safe to use.

i am saying that if an affiliate makes the image or video available for viewing on the affiliate site, regardless of who is ultimately serving the image or video, the affiliate must also maintain 2257 docs...

Which includes every page that any image is displayed on. Some one will correct me if I am wrong.

It is my understanding that this is not currently the case, if the image/video is not on your server. In other words, text links are currently safe. Some one will correct me if I am wrong. BTW, as I have already stated, I am not satisfied that the use of text links will always be safe.

These are questions that seem like they should be simple enough, but they aren't. As such, they are questions that need to be posed to an attorney - preferably someone who can offer insight into the subtle technicalities of the record keeping requirements, either personally or by way of a colleague.

Congress doesn't consult much with techs during the crafting of legislation (or consult much with constitutional law experts either, it would appear), and so the language of their laws frequently fails to address such specifics.

Unfortunately for everyone involved, by legislating alterations to 2257 at this point in time - while there's major litigation in progress concerning a previous iteration of the regulations - Congress has taken us all several steps backward.

Clarification of the highly problematic and hideously vague aspects of the regulations will likely only come through litigation. Fighting it out in court will lead to 'narrowing construction', language that provides greater detail and specificity as to the law's scope and how to comply with it - something the record keeping requirements are in desperate need of.

so, suppose I make a password protected directory, & have a page with thumbnail of image linked to the documentation, so, if ever questioned, I give fbi password & they can click all the images to see the docs? would that work?


You know what? Another question comes to mind here.. all those webcams programs... many webmasters promote them via Iframes..,, they constantly change,,, it is 100% impossible to crossreference & maintain those records.,,because they're never the same images on my own pages...

I will let someone else answer that question. but I will remind you that every page that every image that you use of the model has to be documented. Someone will correct me if I am wrong.

and since fucking toons fall under simulated sex, should I go hire a fucking artist to draw a fucking Identification card & release form of the toon,,, :1orglaugh

Ok, so I have a web page, and on that page I have an I Frame ad from AFF with photos, served from AFF, I would need 2257 documents also?

It has been my understanding that if an image is displayed on your site then you must have the doc. It does not matter where the image is hosted. So, if you display a banner or thumb hosted by a sponsor you must comply. Text links to FHG's do not require doc.

I have been told the answer is yes.

Guess I'm going all text.. this is going to be one big fucking pain in the ass to keep up with,,, it'll take longer to maintain the records for one site than it would to build 500 new sites,,,

It is scarey that this is shaping up to be the same discussion as last year, because the 2257 regs came into effect then. Although FSC members are protected for as long as the injunction is in place, there has never been anything to prevent a retro-active inspection the day after it is dropped.

That's because as part of the record keeping procedures, copies of all changed pages are required. So if you do not have a copy of a page from, for example, September 2005, along with the records for all images on that page, you have broken the law as it stands now.

No matter how optimistic you are about their chances, it's a heck of a risk to stake everything on FSC winning. But this thread gives the impression that a lot of people have done exactly that.

Allot of site are gonna be in deep doo doo if this is true.

does 2257 only apply to US hosted websites? for instance if i hosted my websites in the UK but still live in the US could i get away with not having all docs on hand?

all persons /businesses operating & conducting business in the united states..

If you work from the us, yes, you need to comply

I am confused on this too, cuz by this text link reasoning we could (without moral guidlines and blacklisting being an issue) link to CP CMs and scat from US sites?? I dont think we are safe with text really either?

Content which is illegal by virtue of other laws remains illegal via those laws. The 2257 rules are very specific in their scope (ie that they relate to record-keeping requirements in respect of images).

You run a business correct? You should have had your ducks in a row over a year ago when this stuff first hit the fan.. We went through everything you said above and we had to go through so many hoops to get it, including non disclosure agreements, 10's of thousands of hours of man labor with data entry and organization, you bitch like you have so much to worry about when chances are you use all free content, and have never invested in your own content to use on your own sites to manage your own 2257 like most should be doing. We lost tons of content had to redo tours to use compliant content if we could not find a models docs or were told we would not be supplied them, this is not just all about the affiliates being in trouble, it's also sponsors who are in a tough spot, and the producers who now need to deal with affiliates, affiliate programs, and also they will need to use judgement on who and who they should not give documents to..

This is a business, you will need to cut your losses and start fresh if you have to.. Sometimes that's the only option if you want to keep moving forward..

How do some of you come up with this?

Either an image is sexually explicit and requires 2257, or it's not and doesn't require 2257. A cropped image that is no longer sexually explicit does not require 2257 because 2257 is for sexually explicit content only.

If you people think otherwise, please point out the section of 2257 that covers "content that was once sexually explicit but is not anymore."

It isn't in section 2257, but it is well documented.. and no, I'm not looking it up to prove it to you. Do your own research or pay a lawyer to do so. In a nutshell though, cropping, blurring, blocking out, etc. DOES NOT exempt an image.

time to move my hosting to canada i guess :/

time to move my hosting to canada i guess :/

That is absurd. If I take an image on a girl in the nude and photoshop a dress on then it is no longer a nude image. If I pass that amended image on to someone else who is unaware of the amendment then by this logic he can be done for not having the correct paperwork on a clothed image.

If what you say is true then the purpose of all this is to make sure people cannot reasonably comply and shut everyone down...oh wait sorry that is the intention!

Seriously though laws that are inherently flawed or designed to make sure people fail never have a long shelf life...

...fingers crossed

I see creative text links becoming vogue again.

"help Sir Sexalot storm the hairy castle"

to many guessing games guys.

if you have a family, you need to protect yourselves.

see sig!!!

AMEN!! :thumbsup

Alot of "affiliates" forget they're still running a "business"

What you say is completely logical - but since when did the law become logical, especially this one?
You simply CANNOT crop an explicit image and be exempt from the requirements. All the industry lawyers agree on this.
You can't follow the law by just using common sense. If there was any logic or common sense involved here, this whole law for secondary producers would never have passed.

"Well documented" yet I've never seen it, it's never been posted anywhere and I don't know of any lawyer who said that cropped images specifically fall under 2257.

The only lawyer(s) who may have said this was the fear monger pushing his grossly overpriced 2257 software "to keep you out of prison."

Its for the children.. The children man.. :disgust

You're right - I shouldn't have used the term "well documented". Maybe "well defined" would have been better. I can not quote what related title / section / subsection / paragraph / subparagraph it is in, but it is there in plain English. I did this research and sought legal advice on this long ago.

Hey FSC! Whats the deal?
 

It seems like there is some differences between the opinions of the different FSC lawyers I've read. One seems to say that since this is a new law, it changes everything. Another says that nothing has changed since the underlying law is already is under challenge and Judge Miller has issued an injunction.
Does the new law - HR 4426 - trump Judge Millers injunction and make it moot or not? Are secondary producers who are FSC members still exempt from inspections or not?
I know that some lawyers are saying that they won't comment since it hasn't been signed into law yet. Do you really think for 1 minute that Bush will not sign it? So for the sake of argument, ASSUME that he will.
Will the FSC challenge this new law? Or do they think that is unnecessary because of the appeal to the current law?

A lot of webmasters joined the FSC so that they could be exempt from inspections during the appeal process. Does the new law affect their status?
I for one would like to know the status BEFORE the new law is signed and goes into effect, not afterwards.
If there is some differences of opinions, then I think the FSC should make that clear and give us a best case/worse case scenario.
I was happy to pay my dues to the FSC for a membership but think it's time for their lawyers to step up a bit.

fuck this.....