underage pics by web-legal.com
 

Hey,

we needed new pics for a site we have, russian amateurs alike, went to web-legal.com and ordered some sets.

Guess what, along with the sets came several pics i REALLY think arent 18+, not even 16+ if you ask me. So : $120 gone and the owner who REFUSES to show 18+ ID, "cause he cant show IDs to just anyone who ask" and "get a court order".

Nice. Russian pics by photobyag.com (yes the series weve bought arent on their site anymore guess why...) from the Ukraine AND a guy who refuses to proof theyre legal. So : forget web-legal.com

Newgrade B.V.

Bob van Varik

PS If you wanna judge, weve put the pic online WITH a login/pass protection, mail me at [email protected]

Hey, thats definitely not on...

Very suspect if you ask me.

If your looking to change your content provider,
then check us out: http://www.jfteroticcontent.com

No illegal bullshit.

cheers,

nice first post newgrade.
right on time jft

:321GFY

thanks.

i try...

I just scanned that site's content real quick like, and didn't see anything questionable. Is the set that you have a problem with on their main content pages?

Web-Legal has been around A LONG TIME. I doubt they would knowingly provide illegal images.

I would just be careful posting statements like "forget web-legal.com" and your message title "underage pics by web-legal.com" could lead to some issues for you. Just be careful man.

talkin bout yukky pics : forget http://www.exactmedia.com/ as well :)

We ordered a custom shoot some time ago and this is what we got (watch the url you cant read the brrrrrr girl and what the #$%# is that on the ceiling... not bad for $500 right)

http://www.thinkx.tv/gfy/www.exactmedia.com_sucks.jpg

hey voodoo : does this look 18+ do you ? besides why would he refuse to show ID ?

http://www.thinkx.tv/gfy/weblegal.jpg

she doesn't look questionable to me. She DOES look high on drugs though.

Actually, no she doesn't look 18. I didn't see that set on their main content page.

Interesting. From my understanding, the content provider must supply proof of age. You may be able to forward your receipt to them, and get proof of age with that. I'm not sure.

But, you are right... That one is definitely suspect.

I was just saying, to flame the content producer, not Web-Legal, as they are a fairly trusted source. Maybe contact Dave Clark...
orders(at)web-legal.com, and forward that image to him with your concerns. He is a good guy, he'll help you as much as he can.

Your half right... she looks fucked up -- but she also looks to be about 13.

Woah crap NewGrade! That's a shitty pic! LOL... The URL on the T-Shirt is even bleeding down the shirt! YUCK! I think you should ask for your money back + interest! LOL

Turn the pictures over to the FBI or what ever let them decide if they are illegal but dont post them unless you want to be up for promoting child porn

Brian

if he is worried about the girls information tell him to black out everything but the age and picture of their id.

well we learned since then ... just a shame ppl rip you off for $500 and dare to send pics like these yes... ive seen amateur better then these... maybe we'll send the photobyag pics to the police yes... theyre not illegal here in holland, but sold as us 18+ so they should be, she sure looks underage to me yes... oh and do me a fav and check my new posting :)

I hate to be one to rain on any ones party but ukraine women look lot younger then they are and i know WEB LEGAL would fuck around over some shit like that ,

they have been there along time and as the other said you shouldnt be sayin ghtat about them and lets say it is CP well fuck then why the fuck are you posting on here dip shit

but i belive it isnt for i shoot there and they have no make up and that makes them look younger
think you better take a better lok man :2 cents: :2 cents: :2 cents:

newgrade,

If you call or e-mail web-legal and speak to Dave or Korene and tell them the producer won't produce proof of age I think that they will then be happy to give you a refund or credit towards another order.

Web-Legal is a very professional company to deal with and thats one reason they have been around so long. Chances are good they'd also drop this producer immediately for failing to provide such proof.

farbie

weblegal wont produce proof not the producer...

Pardon my saying so, but what a load of crap... this story, that is.

This is Dave Clark. You would have been talking to me should this have been true. Here's how the story plays out in real life:

When a customer inquires about the legality of a product, I ALWAYS pull the records from the publisher, ALWAYS. I then look over the records myself to make sure that everything is on the up-and-up. Once I have made this determination, I relay this information back to the original inquirer, letting them know that the records checkec out, and that if there was a legal inquiry, I do have copies of the records so that I can get it to them then.

Now, here's the catch... I do NOT hand over model ID's to any Tom, Dick, and/or Harry that says that they want them. Why? It's simple enough... first, it's a violation of the models right to privacy to do that (and I've actually had cases where people tried that so that they could find out model info), and second, it's not legally required to do so.

So, looking at the purported story above, I also see another very silly thing... being "out $120.00". Get real. I have NEVER refused a return FOR ANY REASON, let alone someone that was paranoid about the content for any reason. If you aren't happy with it, for whatever reason, all you have to do is let me know, and we can work it out, it's as simple as that.

You know, I just looked up my exchange of e-mails with you, and you certainly didn't sing this tune then. You asked, I researched, assured you of the age was proper, you asked for a copy, and I of course didn't give it to you, as there was no legal need for it, you then told me that this was OK, "so long as I was 200% sure" of the data. Quite a different story than the one that you present here, wouldn't you say?

If anyone wants to see the original series of e-mails detailing this incident, please feel free to e-mail me and I'll shoot those out, so that you can see how this REALLY went down.

Oh, another weak plank of this story... the "they aren't selling those anymore" BS. Bob, you picked up titles 11650, 11631, and 11627. Anyone that cares to look, go to my search engine and type in each of those numbers. You _will_ come back with active products.

Newgrade, the simple fact is that you are lying about what happened, and you know it. I can bring out the e-mails to anyone to prove my version. And hey, if the admin or webmaster of gofuckyourself.com wants to settle the matter, I'll provide THEM with a copy of the 2257 paperwork for the disputed title. I would have no reason to believe that they would be stalkers, so I have no problem doing that to put this whole issue to rest.

The condensed version: We support our customers, period. I don't deal with publishers that can't support their paperwork, period (I require 2257 paperwork before I will consider listing a product), and I conduct random checks against their products to make sure that they are doing things right. If someone is uncomfortable for any reason, we offer a no-hassles money-back guarantee. What more could you ask for, other than making it easy for stalkers by giving away the most sensitive personal info of the models?

So what am I saying, Bob? Next time, why don't you stick to the truth, and quit playing stupid games like this? I support my customers, I always have, and I always will.

[QUOTE]Originally posted by newgrade
[B]hey voodoo : does this look 18+ do you ? besides why would he refuse to show ID ?

Does that model look 18? As per my conversation with you, she was 18 years, four months, and 29 days old as of the date of the shoot.

As I have said... I have these records here, and I'll gladly show them to the webmaster or admin of this board, so that they can put this matter to rest, once and for all.

You know, something just clicked here... if you really think that these images are underage, what kind of stoneheaded moron are you for posting them?

Sheesh!

Either you do NOT believe that they are underaged, and are simply trying to stir shit, or you really have some neurons misfiring upstairs. Which is it?

What is your game here, Mr. Van Varik?

She's probably 18. BTW don't buy content with penetration unless the seller will give you IDs and releases.

It's the law.

Bullshit. Simple, utter bullshit. I have the records here, as I told Mr. Van Varik the first time.

You know, I think that I'll just block out the contact info from the material, and post them up where I can show the world just what a liar Mr. Van Varik is about this matter. Fair enough?

I agree..Why post these pics?
Pull them now if you think these are underage photos.....

OK, here you go, boys and girls... the moment you have all been waiting for...

http://www.web-legal.com/2257proof/11627-2257-01.jpg

http://www.web-legal.com/2257proof/11627-2257-02.jpg

I have removed any contact info from the records in question, but the birthdate, the date of the shoot, and the face of the model are all quite visible.

Mr. Van Varik, you may now eat your words.

Isn't that the way it's supposed to be done? Whenever i've bought content, the pics have come with the model's ID's, with everything except the date of birth blacked out. I always assumed that's how it was done..

By the way, not trying to imply any wrong doing. I just assumed that's the way things were always done.

Actually, that's a bit hinky legally speaking. Check out my long-winded and wordy disseration on the matter here:

http://www.web-legal.com/needmodel.html

I really doubt web-legal or any legitimate business would take the risks newgrade suggests for so little gain and indeed so much loss. As Dave said. Simple, utter bullshit.

Dave,

before you tell me to shut up, you should verify how a REAL passport from the ukraine looks like.

Anyone can tell this is a homemade scan. Where's the passport number on the right above side ? If you wanna know how a real Ukraine passport looks like here you go...

I dont think we're gonna purchase any more pics at web-legal. Maybe others should considerate switching to a provider who takes legal issues seriously as well.

Excuse me now, i have inform some people about the fake IDs :) Oh and typing "sorry" here would be nice.

http://www.thinkx.tv/gfy/pass.jpg

i also like the way they made the flag shorter :P

:eek7

Typing "Sorry" with the way you have been lying about the matter? No way. My guess is that the publisher blocked out the ID number (just as I would have done) before sending it. I will ask the publisher for a new copy, however, because I _do_ take the matter seriously.

You are still lying about the way this happened, and you _know_ it.

Personally I?m not going to buy content unless I can have 2257 info in my possession. I dont care what the law says. If the feds come knocking on my door I want to be able to produce 2257 info on the spot. Period

the providers that I buy from give me a pic of ID plus a pic of model holding the ID.

It's called covering my ass

Sure Dave,

ill send the copies of weblegal and the IDs to the concerning auth. They will deal with this. Thanks for calling me names. Hope your producer comes up with a *real* passport, stating this girl was legal at the day the pics were taken.

Looking forward to my refund.

Here is a real one.

http://www.paulmarkham.com/temp/vika2

How do they compare Dave?

Remember under the law it is the person publishing who has to have the documents. Some one altering, resizing, collating, editing the pictures. Who's door will the police knock on Web Legal or the publishers?

Ask your lawyer
"If I have pictures of a girl that looks under age and the documentation is suspect or the seller, of that picture, refuses to show me the documentation, should I publish them?"

Silly question really not worth paying a lawyer to ask something you know the answer too.

Just a question here: Do you post yourself as the 18 USC 2257 custodian of records for your site, or do you post the publisher? If you are in possession of the records, and are posting yourself as the Custodian, that makes you legally responsible for the accuracy of those records. If that's what you want to do, more power to you... but 18 USC 2257 is quite specific about the fact that only those "involved in hiring or procurement of the models" are CoR's, and the secondary producers clause of CFR 75 were struck down some years back.

If you feel like subjecting yourself to legal scrutiny for no apparent reason, that's your decision, of course.

If Dave refuses to show the IDs of his models, how many more are covered? Just a thought.

He is obviously more concerned about protecting a Russian girl from being stalked by a Russian surfer than his clients staying out of prison. Split loyalties, I doubt it.

When the feds come knocking, it will be for underage models, and saying to them, "Oh, that info is at Web-legal.com" will not be the response that will stop them from tossing your place like a cheap prison cell.

As stated before, the secondary producers portion of CFR 75 has been struck down in court. What is left, is pretty clear... 18 USC 2257 quite specifically states "but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted". That's pretty darn clear language to me.

I have requested a new set of documents from the publisher in question, and I'm awaiting that info now.

What BS, you are exempt if you are posting pictures of 16 year olds because you do not have the records:321GFY

See the records, check that they are real and then quote the publisher as the holder. Simple really when you think of it.

My, My, Mr. Markham, bending things a bit here today? You _know_ that I'm not a photographer, I'm a broker. I don't _have_ any of "my models".

What I'm concerned with, is the law. Giving out ID's without cause is most definately a problem. I get at least one request a week from people who have no legit need to have that info. It's as simple as that.

I happen to know Bob.. and Bob knows me..

He used to have banners for his euroteens.nl site that
stated "click here for 15 year old girls' and shit.

Although there actually wherent any 'underage' girls on his site
Bob is still a piece of shit in my book because of that.

He raised the age fo the girls he claims to be on his
site to 17 but that still makes him an asshole..

Why dont you change that to 18 bob before you start throwing
in bullshit about child pr0n and web-legal?

Damn Charly. Nice line.

I think someone could easily provide proof to a questioning webmaster. Why not?

He doesnt have to give it to everyone who buys his content, but if someone asks man, at least show it to them.

:thumbsup

I've bought the vast majority of my content from web-legal in the past, all products have been supplied with full 2257 documentation

I don't think anyone in their right mind, would deal with photos with a potential license problem, age related or whatever, let alone for $25 a set


I'm with web legal on this one


your story sounds 100% bizzare newgrade

A nice line, but disingenious to say the least.

Here's the facts: When I have a licensed customer that comes to me and tells me that they need the records because of a legal inquiry, THEY GET THE RECORDS. It's as simple as that. I have NEVER refused a request when someone said that they were being questioned.

HOWEVER, when someone simply says "because I want to have it", I routinely turn that down. It's simply not good business to be passing that data around. I have had cases of stalkers trying to get that info before, so I am very paranoid about the matter.

If some photographers don't care about their models privacy and security, that's a matter between them and their models. I, however, want to try to keep from being hauled into court on some silly lawsuit for invasion of privacy.

october 1st we will, the age of concent changes to 18 then in holland, guess you didnt know :)

Guess youre still mad at us having an annual turnover 154.654.764.354 higher then yours hahahaha :P

Section (a) Paragraph (1) states:

(a)

Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which -

(1)

contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

(2)

is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;


shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.



Now Visual depictions of sexually explicit conduct is in defined in section 2256. it states in section (E):

(E)

lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

so it's not just penitration that 2257 info is needed

heres link to the text of the law:
http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html


for those of you that have 2257 questions please read the law
it's very straight forward - not much gray area here

web legal your full of SHIT!!!

I really dont want to piss you off but you are putting webmasters at risk.

the law states that the "producer" of the publication MUST keep the records - not the copyright owners

Dave,

we *DID* ask for a copy, do you really think that after 13 yrs of adult business im personally interested in a girl thats like 10.000 miles away from us ? *sigh*

Besides i never ask for anyting twice. Expect a call :)

ok here again the law states:

(c)

Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times


what about the part "shall maintain the records required by this section AT HIS BUSINESS PREMISES"

huh? what about that

You know, right up until the "producer" versus "copyright holder" thing, you are correct. Lets continue where you left off, though...

Section (h)(3) states: "the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted; "

Did you catch that? "But does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting or managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers involved".

Pretty clear, don't you think? I just did a text search on 18 USC 2257, and I didn't even _find_ the word copyright in there, so I'm not really sure how that crept in here...

One thought for you... do you really think that I would "put webmasters at risk" when I share the same risk (if not greater, due to the size of my offerings)? I live in Kansas, for crying out loud... the state that doesn't like to teach evolution in school, preferring to go with creationism!

Any "risk" that I would be "subjecting webmasters to"... I'm in for a lot more than they are. Get Real.