2257 thoughts

[dirtygeek]

Is it ok to have program members that use "free content" to just lists us (the company) as the person that has the paperwork for the 2257 stuff?

[Chilihost]

Andrew, under current regs yes, but under new regs anyone with a website with sexually explicit content must have the docos available at their primary place of business and those are subject to inspection with no notice whatsoever.

Lee, yes you will still need release forms but I don't believe those are not required to be maintained at every webmaster's place of business, since it is not sexually explicit content.

isn't this fun!

cheers,
Luke

[dirtygeek]

Seems like they are trying to make it just as complicated as possable to make companeis just not give away free content.

Almost makes you wonder, if we give people free content to use, without the paperwork needed, would we (the company) be in trouble, ot the site that uses the content?

[Lee]

Originally posted by Chilihost
Lee, yes you will still need release forms but I don't believe those are not required to be maintained at every webmaster's place of business, since it is not sexually explicit content.

From what i know the model releases will be required to be at the place of business address or an appointed councils address for that specific law.

Regards,

Lee

[Chilihost]

oh, bugger, well I guess if that is the case then affiliate programs will have to include 2257 docs with their banners too.

makes me feel sorry for models, their details are going to be splattered across every adult website in existence!


cheers,
Luke

[dirtygeek]

What about stalkers? When I was at my old job we had people follow models arround, and when they would come to the studio they would follow them. Some tried to get in, and a few made attempts on the models for bodly harm if they did not "like them".

What is to stop a stalker from doing very little research about the adult biz, getting a small little website and joining our programs. If he see's a model he likes, he would have access to their contact info. So it would make that something that companies would have to think about before giving away content to free sites.

These new rules only apply to sites that allow the webmaster to download and use the content on their sites? Not to sites that offer hosted galleries. Companeis that offer hosted galleries should be ok with the normal way they handle their records. Or am I wrong thinking that?

[Gary-Alan]

Originally posted by Chilihost
Lee, yes you will still need release forms but I don't believe those are not required to be maintained at every webmaster's place of business, since it is not sexually explicit content.

isn't this fun!

cheers,
Luke

This is one point that a couple of lawyers I've spoken to are in disagreement on.

I have one who says if the photos are of the face or the model in clothing, it doesn't fall under 2257. Then the other says if the clothed model image is part of a series that leads to nudity then 2257 is necessary. And yet another says, to be 2257 model compliant for all images on any adult site, not matter what.

And until something happens (like a law suits) to set a precedents, it's only going to get 'funner'! I'm hoping basschick is right, that this is an election year ploy... with little to come out of it.

GA

[basschick]

you know what no one on this thread has brought up? banners! banners with sexually explicit or suggestive pics will ALSO require full documentation.

seems like this is seriously going to change the way we do business.

i would like to make a suggestion. maybe we could all chip in and buy an hour or two of time of one of the big name attorneys that work within our fields. maybe we could either have a list of q&a's or an online chat or something...

[Lee]

Originally posted by basschick
i would like to make a suggestion. maybe we could all chip in and buy an hour or two of time of one of the big name attorneys that work within our fields. maybe we could either have a list of q&a's or an online chat or something...

You know that is an excellent suggestion.

Let me ask a couple of lawyers we use as to the costs involved for a few hours of their time and if they would be willing to do this

Will get back to you on this in the next couple of days :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee

[basschick]

great! please keep us informed...

[gaystoryman]

That is a great idea about getting an actual lawyer to answer some questions.

Banners > I think it would be assumed that any depiction of a model used to lead to any nude images would be needing the 2257 info..

I think it will indeed make it harder for people to sign up to affiliate accounts simply due to the cost to the producer to funnel all that information to them, in a hard copy as I understand it, not to mention the way it is to be sorted and stored.

Problem is, as I understand these new 2257 regs is that they are clarifications and become valid on the 24th or something of August this year, i think.. but could be wrong. So in essence this is pretty well upon us now I think.

[basschick]

the i.d.s do not have to be supplied as hard copies.

this DOES apply to banners.

aug 24 is correct, although as i recall, they are giving us a 30 day grace period to get it together.

[gaystoryman]

how generous of them, a 30 day grace period.

There is something else about all this, what about those who sell dvds, books, magazines etc say from amazon... can you see the paper nightmare here, every month say blueboy puts out a new magazine and you try to sell it thru amazon... when and how and who is gonna supply the webmaster with the 2257 info?

Question here, does anyone know if 2257 applies to just the internet?

As I understood it, it orginally was not for the internet but made to apply.. so?

I mean what about the video outlets, book stores, magazine stalls? If this rule applies or doesn't differentiate between online and brick n mortar, i can see the field day this is gonna be in some communities to shut down the xxx video stores etc.

Sure hope all you american webmaster go vote in November, assuming the election is held.

[Lee]

Check out the new sticky thread at the top of the board :thumbsup:

Regards,

Lee

[Chilihost]

Originally posted by basschick
you know what no one on this thread has brought up? banners!

Actually, that was what the last 10 or so posts were about, and YOU brought it up, hon

And yes, as I read it banners with sexually explicit content will require 2257 records stored at the primary work location of all affiliates too.

As for hiring a lawyer, I really think it is a bit too early yet, only because the confusion that this is generating so far. You can get some good legal opinions from xxxlaw.net and adultinternetlaw.com, its very interesting reading and I highly recommend it to everyone. I have personally learned a lot over the last 3 days from these sites.

cheers,
Luke