Where is the 2257 Statement for GFY
 

Can someone tell me if GFY needs to have a 2257 statement.

If so, where is the url?

If GFY doesn't need one, can someone explain why not?

I'm not trying to be an ass here... I just really want to know if there is an occasion that a 2257 statement is not required on a board, forum, blog, etc. and what would constitute a situation where an adult site does not need a statement.

If it doesn't need a statement... does it need an exemption statement?

To all of you that want to tell me to fuck off... I consider myself told already.

On the otherhand... maybe someone can enlighten some of use that have boards who want to know the real world facts and position of boards regarding this topic.

GFY typically is not posting it's own explicit content through the message boards.

But it is a adult oriented site.

So shouldn't it have an exemption statement.

Plus... if it moderates posts... then GFY would be required to remove anything that might be regarded as explicit.

Or?

GFY is a moral compass in the first place. moral compasses don't need any 2257.

GFY is an internet service with user generated content that does not directly financially benefit from said content.

:1orglaugh :1orglaugh :1orglaugh Haha well said...

miss gfy pic has tits out and hosted by gfy not that I care about 2257 as I'm exempt just thought I would mention

They sell ad space for banners that have explicit content - I just saw some.

So, I think they have a financial interest in their site.

It's a good question.

I am not a lawyer but, perhaps...

GFY is a discussion forum, and therefore GFY is acting as an ISP. Any content is user generated, not generated by GFY. GFY is not a primary producer of content, at least not in this context.

Its rules forbid posting of "pedo links."

Of course they have a financial interest in the site, but much like Google or the like, they sell adertising NOT porn.

Google hot links the images and it is the original site that is responsible for the content.

GFY lets you post images, and polices images... and therein is the problem.

Regardless, if a site is mature adult with even basic nudity, don't they have to have some kind of statement?

what the fuck! I fucking made a thread asking about this!


YOU FUCKS!

This shows how stupid 2257 is. People dont know or cant agree on what is required and what isnt. I bet even the prosecutors and FBI argue amongst themselves over what is and isnt compliant.

Sorry but your wrong here. Google does'nt hotlink the image from the original site but collects and stores copies of images it finds on the web on their own servers and then gives the surfer the chance to see the original image by linking to the site where Google found the image.

Since Google is in effect publishing content that is stored on their own servers, (and Google is a US company), then many people say that Google should in fact be in complience with the 2257 regs. Maybe the Feds just don't fancy tangleing with a big, wealthy company like Google ?

I wonder why the Google shareholders have not complained about all the porn on Google.

Anyway, even with Google, there is a mature filter.

Because quite simply it brings Google and their shareholders plenty $$$$$$

Both Brin and Paige are on recored as saying they don't like all the porn on the net but they know that if Google started trying to block it their mighty SE would be worthless.

Money talks - Bullshit walks.

Just lol, some replies on here! :1orglaugh

Well, GFY does host a lot of banners with porn images. It should have a 2257 statement, shouldn't it?

Mature filter blocks about 90% of adult images on google for me not all.
Google does as said above have a copy of the images on it servers. Its easy to show this as doing a search and clicking on an image and the image is not there anymore that thumbnail that you clicked on is on the google servers.

As for google making money with the images.. in a round about way they do .. Image search on google is a add on search tool for he users ther same users are the one that use google and click the paid for listings in google. Without adult in google users would need to use google to search for all things non-adult and slowly the users would leave and start using MSN/Yahoo/Mamma or any of the number of search engines out there.

Also most SE's with an images search use the same method as google. So really we are not just talking google but also Yahoo and MSN to name only a few. Also Alexa with is screen caps next to search results could be said to need 2257 and many many other cases. There are many problems and unclear areas when ut comes to 2257 and I for one hope that this helps to kill 2257

Google has a warning statement

Warning statement is for children or for the people who don't wanna see porn. On the other hand, 2257 is intended for the prosecutors to be sure all the models are 18+. So don't mix warning and 2257.

BTW, there should be no 2257 requirement only in case if the site server located outside of USA. Furthermore, many EU counties have a law which forbids exposing of personal info (such as model id's) and there is a serious prison time penalty for breaking that law.

GFY does not allow image uploading for posts... you have to host it remotely.

LOL good one, nothing to add :1orglaugh

what do the GFY admins and mods have to say about this?

The way that 2257 has been explained to me is that no 2257 doc is needed for Miss GFY as it is not sexually explicit, but the explicit ads hosted at GFY would need it.

There is disagreement as to the requirements for images displayed on one site and hosted by another because of the various provisions made for different entities.

2257, I thought that was a shame from the US government to scare people, but it was never followed through... or am I wrong?

afterall, how many sites have taken down their explicit content?

Just a thought...

I remember reading something to this effect, about public forums being exempt. I think it's different though if the site puts up images with pink either in the form of banners or a skin which may require the owners to have 2257 documents for all the depictions of sexuality in said banners and skins. :2 cents:

They (and anybody) don't need actual 2257 related docs as long as the model in question is posing/exhibiting non-sexually explicitly. Meaning no penetration, perceived penetration, et cetera. But, of course, they still need to keep records of age/use/etc.

I guess what some are saying is that adult boards feel they are exempt... but according to the law, if they post sexy pictures of topless models such as sponsor banners that are not explicit, then they are still required to have a statement - in that case an exemption statement explaining why the site is 2257 exempt.

Isn't the bottom line that an adult site must either have a 2257 complience statement or they have to have a 2257 exemption statement?

what a friend of mine put on his forum...

18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement

2257 EXEMPTION STATEMENT This site is a mere distributor of content

Exemption Statement: The Publisher of this website is exempt from the record keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 2257 and 28 C.F.R. § 75.

This Publisher is engaged in mere distribution of content, and does not take any actions involving the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of any persons in the depictions on this website.

This site is an electronic communications service, which is not managed by the Publisher of this website, but merely stands as a conduit of communication between its members. Accordingly, Publisher does not and reasonably cannot manage any actual sexually explicit content on this site as that term is defined by 28 C.F.R. § 75.

where is the note from your mother saying it is ok for you to post on the big grown up board?
back to telletubies with you.

I had hoped to get a statement from someone at GFY since they know the real answer

And with the $$$ that Lensman and Playboy have spent on attorney fee's over the years, you feel they should just hand out the same advice to you for free?

Come on now, get a clue...

and your own lawyer

GFY is exempt since most people in politics are unable to spell it.

I think they think they are exempt.

So, what's the problem with a statement?

Why not just spell it out and explain their position?