2257 for dummies? - GoFuckYourself.com

TheDirt · 05-27-2007, 04:11 PM

This is my first post (see the 1 under my name). I have been looking at the business for a while now and mulling over some numbers and possibilities. But being a US resident has me a bit nervous.

I have read both of these and am still a bit confused: (cant post URLs yet bah..take out the space after www)
www .eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-adult.php
www .law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html

Being that i have 0 experience in the industry, and do not have a law degree....my eyes started bleeding by the time i finished these.

can anyone break down who the law does and does not pertain to? citing actual examples (humor bloggers like entensity.net, large companies like bangbros, etc.)? real world business scenarios?

or hell, point me somewhere that actually breaks it down in an easy to understand manner?

thanks in advance

spike911 · 05-27-2007, 04:49 PM

I'm a lawyer and work with regulations so my eyes bleed for a living - but I do intellectual property and IT contracts, and I'm also a newbie at this so I'll take a crack at giving you the basic version but this is in NO WAY iron clad legal advice about what you should and shouldn't do.

My understanding is that if you have original content on your site, you must comply with 2257, and so certify on your site, that models are over age 18 and etc. If you are WRONG you are SCREWED.

So if someone is just getting started -like me, maybe you - better to use content from an established sponsor and relying on their statements to avoid having to make those representations yourself. If however you want to proceed on your own then you ABSOLUTELY need a lawyer. Don't try to swim through it yourself. As you said you are not a lawyer that means you are at risk in this area.

With no personal experience I can't give you nasty real-life horror stories, maybe others here can.

TheDirt · 05-28-2007, 12:56 AM

it would make sense that if you were the producer you would need papers to prove legality.

But if you are simply stepping in as a middle man and advertising another site using ITS content you wouldn't necessarily have access to all those documents.

but what i find distressing is that the DOJ is looking to these 'secondary producers' to hold the papers as well. secondary producers being defined as someone "who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction"

this would imply that if you host media of anytype, even if provided to you from another source, that you would be responsible.

BUMPING for more input.

d-null · 05-28-2007, 02:11 AM

I'll bump for you too, as that is how I read it too....... it seems that it wouldn't be much of a defense to say "I am only hosting pictures from another producer, therefore it's up to him to have the 2257 docs in order."

Is there an onus to get copies of all relevant documents and physically have them available at a location for inspection to be 2257 compliant, even if we are just rehosting somebody elses ad's, banners, galleries or clips?

yahoo-xxx-girls.com · 05-30-2007, 01:00 AM

All adult webmasters are required to have a 2257 record.

Manufacturers (primary producers) must keep relevant personal data on the "actors" and provide such records on legal request. These records are confidential and not shared with the public... This is the custodian.

Webmasters (secondary producers) who do not manufacture any content however post others manufacturers content must still have the 2257 record, however there must be a statement pointing to the custodian of records location within their 2257 statement.

I have researched this, however legal aid on the subject is always a very good idea ! Each state will have different laws... I live in Canada and our laws are a bit different, however the 2257 is still a very good idea for all webmasters to follow.

Later,

.

Goodings Media · 05-30-2007, 03:23 AM

meh, get a UK host (..... wait up, thats me!

)

seriously, I don't think there are any freesite (i.e. just using sponsor content) webmasters who have any records.

All of them seem to just provide a mailing address of the custodian, and say that they(the webmaster) can be contacted if needed.

I havn't read many statements saying "I have on site records complying with 2257"

Obviously im not saying that makes it right for you to do the same, im saying either everyone else is wrong, or it's ok to do it like that. I don't expect sponsors to start mailing out copies of the 2257 docs for every piece of contet on their site to every webmaster!

adulthos · 05-30-2007, 01:17 PM

the way the government is imposing on the iternet more and more I would definitly say is a good idea to have all your ducks in a row

d-null · 05-31-2007, 12:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Goodings Media

I havn't read many statements saying "I have on site records complying with 2257"

Obviously im not saying that makes it right for you to do the same, im saying either everyone else is wrong, or it's ok to do it like that.

is 'others doing it' a good defense when one gets in trouble with the law?

divine116 · 05-31-2007, 06:44 AM

Am I responsible also if I'm just a minor webmaster, I mean below 18 webmaster?

rapmaster · 05-31-2007, 01:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by spike911

I'm a lawyer and work with regulations so my eyes bleed for a living - but I do intellectual property and IT contracts, and I'm also a newbie at this so I'll take a crack at giving you the basic version but this is in NO WAY iron clad legal advice about what you should and shouldn't do.

My understanding is that if you have original content on your site, you must comply with 2257, and so certify on your site, that models are over age 18 and etc. If you are WRONG you are SCREWED.

So if someone is just getting started -like me, maybe you - better to use content from an established sponsor and relying on their statements to avoid having to make those representations yourself. If however you want to proceed on your own then you ABSOLUTELY need a lawyer. Don't try to swim through it yourself. As you said you are not a lawyer that means you are at risk in this area.

With no personal experience I can't give you nasty real-life horror stories, maybe others here can.

It doesn't matter if it's original content or not - if you have sexually explicit depictions on your site or even a non explicit picture that was part of an explicit set, then you need to have a 2257 compliance statement

AzraelPrime · 06-02-2007, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by divine116

Am I responsible also if I'm just a minor webmaster, I mean below 18 webmaster?

Providing adult material to a minor is against the law... I don't know what the exact wording of that law is but you'd be charged with "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" ... find yourself a webmaster that's of majority age. You'll have enough to worry about when it comes to the models, don't screw yourself by hiring a minor to work with adult images.

Az

AzraelPrime · 06-02-2007, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AzraelPrime

Providing adult material to a minor is against the law... I don't know what the exact wording of that law is but you'd be charged with "Contributing to the Delinquency of a Minor" ... find yourself a webmaster that's of majority age. You'll have enough to worry about when it comes to the models, don't screw yourself by hiring a minor to work with adult images.

Az

PS -- Okay so what I wrote before may still be valid to some people so I'm leaving it up. However I just re-read the OP and it struck me that devine116 is basically saying that HE is a minor who is working on an adult website. Here's the deal devine116 -- you should wait until you turn majority age before you start working on adult sites. It will cause you and the site owners a lot of problems if someone finds out that your a minor and could lead to jail time for any adults involved with your project. Also since you are "acting" like an adult there is the possibility that you would be treated as one by the courts -- even if you tell the owners that you're over 18 there will be issues so help keep everyone out of trouble and wait. You'll have plenty of time to make money in this industry so keep your nose clean so you can enjoy it. If you are the owner of the site then the same things goes -- for gods sake WAIT-! Again, you will endanger the lively hood of everyone involved if you work on an adult project as a minor.

d-null · 06-02-2007, 12:07 PM

Is it possible his parents may run into some troubles with the law as well on behalf of his actions as being responsible for him

Domains_Broker · 06-07-2007, 08:29 PM

What if your adult site contains no pornographic images but just text? Do you still need to worry about 2257? What about AFF ads that contain explicit images?

ModelPerfect · 06-07-2007, 11:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Domains_Broker

What if your adult site contains no pornographic images but just text? Do you still need to worry about 2257? What about AFF ads that contain explicit images?

18 USC 2257 pertains to model ID record keeping. If all you have is text, then there's no models of which to keep IDs. However, (IMHO) 2257 is vague enough to make ANY explicit pic/vid on your site potentially problematic, regardless of the source.

beks001 · 06-08-2007, 07:16 AM

So basically what you're saying is that eitherway as a webmaster you must have 2257 records for every shoot that you use even if the images you are showing are non-explicit, providing the shoot contained explicit actions at some point? Wouldn't most shoots contain explicit actions at some point or another so the webmaster hosting pics that he is showing regradless of the explicity being shown is deemed to have those records on hand? Can somebody clarify this????

Domains_Broker · 06-08-2007, 09:17 AM

What a mess... I shoulda stayed in Curacao.

ModelPerfect · 06-08-2007, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by beks001

So basically what you're saying is that eitherway as a webmaster you must have 2257 records for every shoot that you use even if the images you are showing are non-explicit, providing the shoot contained explicit actions at some point? Wouldn't most shoots contain explicit actions at some point or another so the webmaster hosting pics that he is showing regradless of the explicity being shown is deemed to have those records on hand? Can somebody clarify this????

I won't say what IS required, but I will say anyone would be stupid not to keep records of any pics/vids that contain anything an ultra-conservative would consider pornographic...explicit or not. To be honest, I don't think ANYONE, including those that created 2257, really know the extent of 2257.

PbG · 06-08-2007, 06:21 PM

It is illegal for a minor to have access to adult content. Shit like this is the reason idiots envision piss poor legislation in the first place!

Quote:

Originally Posted by divine116

Am I responsible also if I'm just a minor webmaster, I mean below 18 webmaster?

PbG · 06-08-2007, 06:28 PM

The law pertains to images of explicit or simulated sex. Thus you would not be required to comply with 2257 for content absent explicit or simulated sex. Even if the content is soft core from an explicit shoot you would not be required to comply with 2257 because you are not displaying any imagery which requires compliance with the same.

Quote:

Originally Posted by beks001

So basically what you're saying is that eitherway as a webmaster you must have 2257 records for every shoot that you use even if the images you are showing are non-explicit, providing the shoot contained explicit actions at some point? Wouldn't most shoots contain explicit actions at some point or another so the webmaster hosting pics that he is showing regradless of the explicity being shown is deemed to have those records on hand? Can somebody clarify this????

05-27-2007, 04:11 PM	#1
TheDirt Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2	2257 for dummies? This is my first post (see the 1 under my name). I have been looking at the business for a while now and mulling over some numbers and possibilities. But being a US resident has me a bit nervous. I have read both of these and am still a bit confused: (cant post URLs yet bah..take out the space after www) www .eff.org/bloggers/lg/faq-adult.php www .law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/usc_sec_18_00002257----000-.html Being that i have 0 experience in the industry, and do not have a law degree....my eyes started bleeding by the time i finished these. can anyone break down who the law does and does not pertain to? citing actual examples (humor bloggers like entensity.net, large companies like bangbros, etc.)? real world business scenarios? or hell, point me somewhere that actually breaks it down in an easy to understand manner? thanks in advance

05-27-2007, 04:49 PM	#2
spike911 Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 8	As a lawyer maybe I can help... I'm a lawyer and work with regulations so my eyes bleed for a living - but I do intellectual property and IT contracts, and I'm also a newbie at this so I'll take a crack at giving you the basic version but this is in NO WAY iron clad legal advice about what you should and shouldn't do. My understanding is that if you have original content on your site, you must comply with 2257, and so certify on your site, that models are over age 18 and etc. If you are WRONG you are SCREWED. So if someone is just getting started -like me, maybe you - better to use content from an established sponsor and relying on their statements to avoid having to make those representations yourself. If however you want to proceed on your own then you ABSOLUTELY need a lawyer. Don't try to swim through it yourself. As you said you are not a lawyer that means you are at risk in this area. With no personal experience I can't give you nasty real-life horror stories, maybe others here can.

05-30-2007, 01:00 AM	#5
yahoo-xxx-girls.com Confirmed User Join Date: Jul 2006 Location: Canada Posts: 3,143	Hope this helps All adult webmasters are required to have a 2257 record. Manufacturers (primary producers) must keep relevant personal data on the "actors" and provide such records on legal request. These records are confidential and not shared with the public... This is the custodian. Webmasters (secondary producers) who do not manufacture any content however post others manufacturers content must still have the 2257 record, however there must be a statement pointing to the custodian of records location within their 2257 statement. I have researched this, however legal aid on the subject is always a very good idea ! Each state will have different laws... I live in Canada and our laws are a bit different, however the 2257 is still a very good idea for all webmasters to follow. Later, . Last edited by yahoo-xxx-girls.com; 05-30-2007 at 01:01 AM..

05-30-2007, 03:23 AM	#6
Goodings Media Confirmed User Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: UK Posts: 1,987	meh, get a UK host (..... wait up, thats me! ) seriously, I don't think there are any freesite (i.e. just using sponsor content) webmasters who have any records. All of them seem to just provide a mailing address of the custodian, and say that they(the webmaster) can be contacted if needed. I havn't read many statements saying "I have on site records complying with 2257" Obviously im not saying that makes it right for you to do the same, im saying either everyone else is wrong, or it's ok to do it like that. I don't expect sponsors to start mailing out copies of the 2257 docs for every piece of contet on their site to every webmaster! __________________ ICQ: 446-568-913 Email: liam\|\|goodingsmedia.com msn: [email protected]

05-30-2007, 01:17 PM	#7
adulthos Registered User Join Date: Jan 2007 Location: USA Posts: 33	the way the government is imposing on the iternet more and more I would definitly say is a good idea to have all your ducks in a row __________________ Dedicated Solutions at http://specialtywebservice.com hosting at http://prowebhoster.com

05-28-2007, 12:56 AM	#3
TheDirt Registered User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 2	it would make sense that if you were the producer you would need papers to prove legality. But if you are simply stepping in as a middle man and advertising another site using ITS content you wouldn't necessarily have access to all those documents. but what i find distressing is that the DOJ is looking to these 'secondary producers' to hold the papers as well. secondary producers being defined as someone "who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction" this would imply that if you host media of anytype, even if provided to you from another source, that you would be responsible. BUMPING for more input.

05-28-2007, 02:11 AM	#4
d-null . . . Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 13,724	I'll bump for you too, as that is how I read it too....... it seems that it wouldn't be much of a defense to say "I am only hosting pictures from another producer, therefore it's up to him to have the 2257 docs in order." Is there an onus to get copies of all relevant documents and physically have them available at a location for inspection to be 2257 compliant, even if we are just rehosting somebody elses ad's, banners, galleries or clips?

05-31-2007, 06:44 AM	#9
divine116 Confirmed User Join Date: May 2007 Posts: 1,152	Am I responsible also if I'm just a minor webmaster, I mean below 18 webmaster? __________________ Sexy Woman Upskirt Voyeur Web Developing Affordable SEO Services

06-02-2007, 12:07 PM	#13
d-null . . . Industry Role: Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: NY Posts: 13,724	Is it possible his parents may run into some troubles with the law as well on behalf of his actions as being responsible for him

06-07-2007, 08:29 PM	#14
Domains_Broker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Detroit Posts: 164	What if your adult site contains no pornographic images but just text? Do you still need to worry about 2257? What about AFF ads that contain explicit images? __________________ DomainsBroker at Gmail Premium Expired Domains

06-08-2007, 07:16 AM	#16
beks001 Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2006 Posts: 1,837	So basically what you're saying is that eitherway as a webmaster you must have 2257 records for every shoot that you use even if the images you are showing are non-explicit, providing the shoot contained explicit actions at some point? Wouldn't most shoots contain explicit actions at some point or another so the webmaster hosting pics that he is showing regradless of the explicity being shown is deemed to have those records on hand? Can somebody clarify this???? __________________ [B]341 people reviewed this!?!?! Blogging Thread! Teen Cams Gay Webcam Best Free File Storage

06-08-2007, 09:17 AM	#17
Domains_Broker Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2005 Location: Detroit Posts: 164	What a mess... I shoulda stayed in Curacao. __________________ DomainsBroker at Gmail Premium Expired Domains