How to comply with 2257/4472
 

The title is actually a question, not a statement, but hopefully it'll keep this thread active for a while.

For the nitwits that are going to reply with "consult with an attorney", skip it for now, even one of the most prominent first amendment attorneys has stated that this law is confusing to him so it's likely going to be a while before the lawyers can tell us anything definitive. If you walk away with nothing else from this post, perhaps it will at least stimulate some questions to ask your own attorney.

In the meantime perhaps a discussion can bring about some intelligent consensus; at least it's a starting point.

Do not take anything in this thread as legal advice; it's just webmasters like you trying to work through this - if you don't have something to contribute, please don't post. Let's keep this a serious thread.

My approach as an affiliate to comply with these new regs, is that it might be best to simply avoid any activities that fall under their reach.

I promote mainly softcore nudes (that were previously exempt from 2257) and use only sponsor FHG's and linkcodes for other types of content.

1. I assume if I use only textlinks to sites or FHG's, that should place me well out of reach of the new regulations since this does not place any image or video content on my sites/servers. However there is a section in 4472 addressing text content as well. At first glance it appears to deal only with "misleading" text used to entice children, however I wonder how this would deal with a description such as "Hot blonde inserts toy" since the description contains the word "toy". Any comments?

2. Now for a question regarding thumbnail images; if I crop face & tit shots from softcore images for thumbs on my sites, is that exempt?

3. If the original image was "softcore" but displayed the pubic region, and all I crop is the face & tits from it, is the face & tits thumbnail image then exempt?

4. If the source FHG contains multiple images some of which are hardcore or display the pubic region, and others images from the same FHG are NOT explicit, can I safely crop thumbnails from the non-explicit images and remain exempt from record keeping requirements?

5. When do these regulations go into effect? Right now? 90 days from now?

I suspect this isn't really going to affect my own sites as much as it will most due to the type of content I promote and the way I promote it. However it's an issue that we all need to address, and quickly.

We need some answers here. Anybody have any, or have any other questions to contribute?

I am wondering a few things myself..


for example, couldn't I just write up the records for each image/page & list the respective sponsor as the custodian for the identification & documents?

For example, on one of my sites, it's all text links to off site galleries, but there are 10 hardcore thumbs from HoDough, Slickcash, Wildcash & I think 2 other sponsors, so couldn't I Just list them as the custodian of records?

why not just play it safe.

i don't use any photos myself. i use the sponsors logo with a description and link to their galleries with 2257 links at the bottom.

works just as fine and you'll get more clicks. most surfers only click thumbs they like and skip the rest.

and I suppose using plugins & Iframes is now going to have to be no good anymore due to it will be difficult to catalogue & make records for rotating &/or dynamic content.

and what about free sites? Can't build those without images?

I'm just going to replace all my thumbnails with Red X's. I figure it will not only spur surfers interest's by giving them a grab bag style of free porn.. But it will greatly reduce my B/W costs.

i only do free sites.
i only have 1 pay site.

there are all kinds of FREE sites where there are NO images needed.
i was 2257 compliant even when i didn't know about 2257. :winkwink:

blogs, review sites, link list etc....

been doing it for 8 years.
six figures consistent 6 years in a row.

Just because the law is in place with something like that, they would have to prove you had intent to mislead.

That's just my opinion, but I believe the intent behind that part of thew law is to stop people from starting some site that uses a name close to something kids would search for.

For example "policeman.net" IMO was a bad name to pick for a porn site. Of course they are not in the US but if they were I'm sure they would soon have issues with that site.

IMO it couldn't hurt to have an "adult" keyword in your domain. Personally I've always done that, I would say at least 80% of my domains have an adult keyword in them.

Add a warning page and I think it would be pretty reasonable that you didn't have intent to mislead anyone, especially if the domain has an adult keyword.

when i first started online there was a whitehouse domain name that pissed alot of parents off because they thought it was a government website when it was really a porn site. those are the types of names that are misleading.

Yes but in that particular case the site wasn't made about the US while house but rather to piss off Mary White house whom was a big time anti porn drama queen.

Still irrelevant to adult, nonetheless.

2. Now for a question regarding thumbnail images; if I crop face & tit shots from softcore images for thumbs on my sites, is that exempt?

3. If the original image was "softcore" but displayed the pubic region, and all I crop is the face & tits from it, is the face & tits thumbnail image then exempt?

I believe this would make it exempt from 2257 record keeping as it does not display the pubic region or a penetration thereof. I could be wrong but I believe only showing the face & tits would not require documentation.

But then again, I'm just as confused as you are.

Good luck with getting some answers. I hope this thread stays relevant.


later
c-lo

everyone is fucked, so fucked, and now all you thumb tgp owners will have to make text tgps, and say goodbye to hardcore blogs!

The text is available here: http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-...2enr. txt.pdf

Page 39/40 for actual sexual conduct; 40/41 for simulated.

Looks to me like the only current backdoor is an iframe.

Good luck with that. If the feds don't agree (and I'm damn sure they won't) I hope you have the funds to get your case in front of a judge to see whether he shares your view. Oh and enough money to live on while your business is shut down...

Escape to freedom or start becoming a clerk for the govt - or, look over your shoulder on a daily basis. The one thing that is free, is a choice.

A lot of webmasters will go offhore now. You'll have to go all the way though. Including moving your company and your domain registrations.

If you choose to interpret the rules in any but the strictest way, you run the risk that the FBI will charge you. Then you will need to find the money to for a decent lawyer, otherwise it really won't matter whether your defense has merit. Your site(s) may be closed down pending your trial, so expect to lose your income too.

It is up to the individual, but so much talk about pushing the envelope makes me wonder how many people have really thought about the implications of turning themselves into potential test cases.

As to your specific point, these rules are ostensibly about ensuring that minors are not used in the production of porn. So ask yourself, if the agents inspecting your site(s) see a headshot of a young-looking girl, are they going to skip past it, or are they more likely to require to see the whole picture, even the whole photoshoot? I haven't seen anything to suggest they cannot ask for the whole set and it would surely be logical to do so.

I mean wtf!!! If the goddamned thumbnail on MY page links to the FHG on THEIR page, & on that FHG right there at the bottom is the 2257 link...

So why the fuck do I need the records!! WTF!! fucking half ass shit,, ballbusting fucks... This is SOOOOOoooooo dramatically going to reduce our incomes....

What year are you living in? The main rules came into effect last summer, so it's a little late to be debating whether it's all fair or not. And BTW you are required to keep copies of all changed pages, so if they come along 2 years from now and ask to see what your site(s) looked like in January 2006, you had better be able to show them.

its all a bit much

and the part that most don't think they NEED to do...moving themselves offshore with application of citizenship in another country.

I mean look at that Muir spammer case where they guys living in the US had cyprus companies, other offshore accounts, etc...and they still got bagged.

If you're going to go offshore, like you mention, you have to go 'all the way'.


The way I look at it people have 3 choices now.

1) Comply with the regs completely and hire someone to do this full time if they're large enough.

2) Don't host nude material period.

3) Go offshore 100% and get a new citizenship somewhere

Glad I made my choice years ago.

:pimp

Agree! There is no point in any US citizen thinking of simply forming a corp and moving OS for several reasons:

(a) There is a requirement for a declaration of that corp to the IRS - once that is done, it opens up the can of worms. Again, if it is not admitted, then there is a possibility of tax evasion. That also defeats the whole concept of OS in that the privacy element is gone.

(b) US law will follow a citizen, no matter where they are resident - plus there is still the requirement for annual IRS filings.

Totally agree there is *no* option but to either move out totally - and genuinely move out :) OR comply with whatever legislation exists or is implemented in future.

PS If it was almost any other country - that would not be such a big deal, but the US is very much an exception.

Actually the problem would most likely be that you would have to prove that you DIDN'T intend to mislead anyone to a jury that would probably consist of 12 parents in some very religious anti-porn area.

The intent of the law seems obvious, however it is vague enough (perhaps intentionally so) that it could give some wack job prosecutor the tools to simply harass webmasters with frivilous lawsuits.

Notice that they did not specify what language is not supposed to be used; the FCC has clear guidelines about what is acceptable language and what is not (they give broadcasters a list of words that are forbidden). We have not been given this courtesy.

people can move their stuff offshore completely but even then sites based in the US that have all their 2257 stuff in order are more than likely not going anywhere. they'll still want you to comply when using their material. so i guess all we can use is foreign sponsors...

hmm, perhaps you're right jayeff, headshots or even non-nudes may be technically exempt but I suppose it is "pushing the envelope" a bit.

The prospect of writing 9000 variants of "hot broad posing seductively" for every gallery in the DB is a bit unpleasant though - as is deleting 100's of hours worth of cropped thumbs from sites that are doing very well in their current form :Oh crap

heres my one step fix for it

http://www.impunidad.com/img/maps/brazil_map.jpg

:thumbsup :thumbsup :thumbsup

I am so confused by all of this. The ironic part is that I have a site dedicated to mature women, so even though it should be obvious that they're 18, I still have to make these changes.

Quick question from scottybuzz.

I am from uk, my website is regsitered in uk. I am english.
The girls I promote are american. My hosting is american.

I use only softcore images. please take a look and confirm this for me someone please www.foxyreviews.co.uk

Do I need to have copies of the 2257 law. Also I would love to know when this comes into effect.

Also how the fuck will a webcam site be able to give out all its model data to affialiates. what a complete mess of wires that would be
..

Cropping a 2257 image DOES NOT EXEMPT YOU from record keeping on that image. Altering the image does not change it's original 2257 status. If you post nothing but the face shots of girls getting obviously fucked, you still need records on those girls.

Here's mine...and it ain't Puerto Rico

http://www.blackvaginafinder.com/misc/paradise1.jpg

Congratulations, you and your site could be the poster-boys of how wrong/stupid laws can be.

The advise to ask a lawyer is another problem. If industry specialists are unsure, imagine how most lawyers will react.

NOTE: About a year ago my friend had to close his "cigar bar" when smoking bans took effect. Governed right the fuck out of business.

See I can understand that for an image that actually shows intercourse - but for simple nudes, which were previously exempt, the logic just falls apart - NOT saying that the gov't wouldn't see it otherwise btw...

Either you can see someone's privates in an image or you can't, after all everyone is naked under their clothing so what difference is it if fabric is obscuring the view or cropping is obscuring the view? Or maybe they're standing naked behind a bush with only their head showing? For that matter how do we know that a sponsor image wasn't cropped previously and the model is actually naked but it's out of the view in the photo we're given? Suppose they're naked but turned to the side so the genitals aren't visible?

These are the types of very stupid point by point questions we need answers to.

You do business in the US, therefore you are governed by US law. Remove your hosting and you are still left with the potential consequences of selling to US customers and any other business you do in the US. But the more you distance yourself, the more you limit your risk.

Although the US has (for want of a better word) "friendly" law enforcement arrangements with a lot of countries, it seems impossible that your risk is not dramatically lower than for a US-based webmaster. But right now we cannot quantify the risk to anyone because we do not know what kind of webmaster the FBI will target, nor how many cases they can/will pursue.

AFAIK there were no prosecutions under the original 2257 law, but Ashcroft excusing himself to Congress by claiming that the original law wasn't tough enough, is exactly what caused the flurry of activity over the past 18 months or so. In the present political climate and after two sets of amendments, I don't see an Attorney General being able to go back (he has to report to Congress once a year on how many investigations have been done and how many cases are in progress) and report no activity. But whether 100 cases or 10,000 cases will be deemed sufficient is anyone's guess.

The amended 2257 laws putting obligations onto "secondary" producers came into effect last summer...