2257 regulations reguarding TGP gallerys or content you dont own.

Ok so I need to know, I have been asking numerous people in the industry Michael Brandon from raging stallion, Chip from 18west and many other people that I know, know there facts and they all seem to have something different to say..

So my question here is..
TGP gallerys if you are not the original photographer/owner and you do not own the content do you have to keep 2257 records on file now for things that you host off your server that are explicit in anyway?? Im not speaking inreguard to Gallerys that are hosted by the content owner themselves for others.

One anwser I had got is if they are touching themselves ( there penis etc.. ) You have to have 2257 records cause at that point it is considered explicit.

I know a lot of people have been modifying or taking down TGP gallerys lately and Im wondering why they are doing so..

Just wanna make sure Im completly legal :)

ALSO are TGP gallerys worth messing around with now.. especially with how regulations are becoming more stiff all the time??

Please give me your opinion thanks..

as of june, 2005, all webmasters are considered producers and must have i.d.s for all sexually explicit content and act as custodian, not just the content owner.

as of the new law, that applies to simulated sex and most nudity, as well.

so if you run a tgp that shows thumbs, or if you are showing nudes with erections, you must have i.d. for all models, you must post the necessary 2257 link on your gallery that links to your work address, and if you are not there during all business hours, you must post the 20 hours or more where law enforcement can find you there each week.

and in the near future, the regs may change again so that each gallery has the actual 2257 info on the page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistahTaylor

TGP gallerys if you are not the original photographer/owner and you do not own the content do you have to keep 2257 records on file now for things that you host off your server that are explicit in anyway?? Im not speaking inreguard to Gallerys that are hosted by the content owner themselves for others.

---

HOLY MOLY.. To me it doesnt seem like it is even worth it.. I should move to canada LOL thanks so much :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

as of june, 2005, all webmasters are considered producers and must have i.d.s for all sexually explicit content and act as custodian, not just the content owner.

as of the new law, that applies to simulated sex and most nudity, as well.

so if you run a tgp that shows thumbs, or if you are showing nudes with erections, you must have i.d. for all models, you must post the necessary 2257 link on your gallery that links to your work address, and if you are not there during all business hours, you must post the 20 hours or more where law enforcement can find you there each week.

and in the near future, the regs may change again so that each gallery has the actual 2257 info on the page.

---

YOU KNOW.. IM SORRY BUT WHATEVER HAPPENED TO THE SAYING "LAND OF THE FREE" IT SEEMS LIKE THAT SAYING OUR BEAUTIFUL COUNTRY WAS BUILT ON MEANS LESS AND LESS EVERYDAY.. SORRY FOR THE CAPS BUT IT MAKES ME SO MAD :( AND DISSAPPOINTED THAT PEOPLE MAKE DECISIONS FOR EVERYONE ELSE CAUSE THAT IS THE WAY THEY WANT TO LIVE THERE LIFE *SHAKES HEAD* Whatever :thumbsdown:

Also how is XTUBE.COM getting away with not having 2257 records for all there amateur videos?? and if they are getting some sort of records how are the absolutely verifying the persons really identity. Kinda hard to match someones ASS HOLE with there face :goatse:

i believe - and i could be wrong - that they fall into the law that has to do with message boards and dating sites. i could be wrong about that, though. maybe ask chad?

Xtube is based in Canada. That's how they're doing it at the moment.

Pornotube (based in the US) is trying to argue that they are not in any way involved in the publication of the content, they are simply an ISP. I think that argument is complete BS and would get shot down instantly if the justice dept. called them on it... but Pornotube is owned by AEBN, who has more money than God, so they probably figure that they will squash the government with legal motions if anyone ever comes after them. Not a strategy I would try.

For the moment, a lot of people are relying on the very thin ice of the Sundance vs Reno decision, which stated that secondary producers were not required to keep records. However, that decision was effectively rendered moot by 4472/2257A, which became law last summer. Most legal opinions I've heard indicate that 4472 can't be enforced until the new regulations go into effect, which hasn't happened yet. That's why you still see all of the TGPs and so forth... people are hoping and praying that Sundance will still hold, at least until the new regulations go into effect.

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near a TGP or anything involving hosted content for which you don't have records until all of these issues are cleared up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Personally, I wouldn't go anywhere near a TGP or anything involving hosted content for which you don't have records until all of these issues are cleared up.

---

Unless you do a text tgp. God, back in the day they use to send some good SE traffic. I am sure they still could.

I use to submit 3-5 gals a day and each gallery would pull in 10 SE hit after a week or so. Times that by 365 days a year times 2 years. Do the math.

Well it is a bummer cause I really wanted to start a TGP traffic site and now I dont think I even wanna bother until I see what is going on with all the 2257 bullshit. I really wanna get involved in the support of some of the stuff that is going on.

well, you could start a text description tgp...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

well, you could start a text description tgp...

---

I would even submit!

i would submit nn muscle galleries if that would help... also foot fetish.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i would submit nn muscle galleries if that would help... also foot fetish.

---

Hey basschick what is your take on my ass/butthole niche site Im opening.
(Do you find it to something that is quite popular or searched for often?)

Also do text based TGP's solely based on a gay mens ass hole's do they do well?

Sorry for being so blunt but you have to be in this business hehe..

i actually pm'ed you on another board about this... sort of. what kind of action will you be showing on the site, and will the focus basically be ass and asshole or ? right now, the only rimming sites out there don't actually have much rimming, but there's a lot of traffic for it. there's more assplay sites, although not that many male toy sites.

a tgp with that tight of a niche will be rough. there's not that much content in that niche, so it would be virtually impossible unless you make hundreds of your own galleries.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistahTaylor

Hey basschick what is your take on my ass/butthole niche site Im opening.
(Do you find it to something that is quite popular or searched for often?)

Also do text based TGP's solely based on a gay mens ass hole's do they do well?

Sorry for being so blunt but you have to be in this business hehe..

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

a tgp with that tight of a niche will be rough. there's not that much content in that niche, so it would be virtually impossible unless you make hundreds of your own galleries.

---

actually Im working on content just like this.. it is solely based on rimming/toys/assplay and nothing else you will see the penis and the person but out of 250 shots of each set of each model either duo or solo it all just about the ass and nothing else. The textures,angles,all that sort of stuff this will be an ASS DREAM for anyone who has a fetish like me and it will be super custom to specs.. The TGP gallerys will be specifically for me but I also wanted incorporate other such types of websites and there content mixed in with mine :) if you get what I mean.

but I cant give away all my secrets I mean Im like I dunno the ASS MASTER IF YOU WILL.. IF THERE WAS A STUDY of it I would ace every test LOL. I guess I would consider the new content Im going to be putting out totally fresh and I have really seen nothing like it.. So Im really excited and I cannot go over everything right now.. But If you have sometime later basschick I would love to talk to you about the ideas and the stuff Im doing currently :)

hmmm... i'd like to hear someone else's take on this. my marketing tends more toward a specific niche, like rimming, rather then a general niche where multiple things are involved like rimming, ass fingering, toys and more anal activities.

you could ask a few owners of larger link lists, like gaydemon, how many requests they get for terms in the niches you're working on. but no matter what you learn about traffic for those specific terms, you'd really need to know about traffic for those terms that is sent to a site that has other activities besides the terms. for example, will rimming traffic convert on a tour that includes lots of dildos and ass closeups? no way to tell without testing the traffic. some things go together really well, some that seem related don't sell when they're together on the same site.

hmmm.. well I guess I will just try and see.. I really just wanted to create this because Im very passionate about it you know what I mean.. If it fails that is fine but I have a really clear vision of my project and I think it will be really hot and new and different and if it doesnt take I can always remix it and re edit everything to make it look and seem different you know what I mean :)

if you're that passionate, go for it. that can make a difference, and so does having a clear vision of your project. i love hearing that people have passion and a vision :)

as opposed to a tgp, i'd consider a blog, a series of free sites and some galleries to get some traffic going... and you're very right about remixing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MistahTaylor

hmmm.. well I guess I will just try and see.. I really just wanted to create this because Im very passionate about it you know what I mean.. If it fails that is fine but I have a really clear vision of my project and I think it will be really hot and new and different and if it doesnt take I can always remix it and re edit everything to make it look and seem different you know what I mean :)

---

Sorry if this question seems naive, I'm new to this. Do the 2257 record keeping requirements also apply to the producers of text description tgps? For example, a site like Cloland.com. Since the actual visual content is on another server would the tgp be in anyway responsible in including 2257 info for that hosted gallery on their pages? Thanks for any feedback/suggestions in advance.

That's uncharted waters, but the general rule of thumb most of the first amendment attorneys have been following is this: If the URL at the top of the browser window is a domain that belongs to you, then you need to be compliant (i.e., have records on hand.)

If you're linking to someone else's hosted galleries, and their URL is at the top, then you (according to this line of reasoning) shouldn't have to worry about 2257. If you're embedding video on your own page, even if that video is actually hosted elsewhere, you probably should have docs on file, according to common thought on the subject.

Hope that helps.

I find this thread kind of confusing.

Let's say I sign up as an affiliate with a gay porn site, get some promo pics of nude models doing all sorts of sexual things, maybe some videos, and post them on my site (TGP or blog) in an effort to promote the sponsor.

If I'm hearing some of you correctly, in order to be compliant with 2257 I have to ask each sponsor to send me copies of all their records on the models I promote in case the FBI pays me a visit.

I'm very new at this so I don't know the answer to this question: is it common operating procedure for a sponsor to provide model info to affiliates? In all my research so far I've never heard of this.

If the answer is no then it would seem that the whole affilate/sponsor business model is a sham unless you only use text or G-rated images, or only link to the content on the sponsors site... or just decide to roll the dice with 2257 and publish the content on your own site, as it seems a gazilion webmasters are doing.

yes, legally for u.s. residents to have any sexually explicit material on their website they must not only haev the i.d. for every model but must have them cross referenced by - as i recall - url, model name and model real name. the webmaster must then have a link on their site that says these EXACT words:

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

that links to a page with their business address and - if they're not there during ALL business hours - the 20 hours minimum per week that they are there in case the fbi wants to inspect the records. the fbi won't call - they will generally drop by unannounced.

many sponsors and most content providers will supply affiliates with the i.d.s although some do it in weird ways.

as far as i understand it this applies to stuff ON YOUR SITE. that doesn't necessarily mean stuff you host, but anything that shows on one of your web pages - which would be any webpages you control including free hosted pages. please note that i am not a lawyer and don't play one on t.v. but this is my interpretation and/or the interpretations of the attorneys i spoke with re this issue.

i personally wouldn't "roll the dice" as the penalties include prison and the legal fees can eat you up.

keep i mind that not all webmasters are in the u.s., either , so they may have pics on pages without worrying the same way about 2257.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sc32803

I find this thread kind of confusing.

Let's say I sign up as an affiliate with a gay porn site, get some promo pics of nude models doing all sorts of sexual things, maybe some videos, and post them on my site (TGP or blog) in an effort to promote the sponsor.

If I'm hearing some of you correctly, in order to be compliant with 2257 I have to ask each sponsor to send me copies of all their records on the models I promote in case the FBI pays me a visit.

I'm very new at this so I don't know the answer to this question: is it common operating procedure for a sponsor to provide model info to affiliates? In all my research so far I've never heard of this.

If the answer is no then it would seem that the whole affilate/sponsor business model is a sham unless you only use text or G-rated images, or only link to the content on the sponsors site... or just decide to roll the dice with 2257 and publish the content on your own site, as it seems a gazilion webmasters are doing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sc32803

I find this thread kind of confusing.

---

You aren't the only one confused by 2257. I have read and re-read the regulations and they are among the most poorly written and confusing regs ever published.

Quote:

---

If the answer is no then it would seem that the whole affilate/sponsor business model is a sham unless you only use text or G-rated images, or only link to the content on the sponsors site... or just decide to roll the dice with 2257 and publish the content on your own site, as it seems a gazilion webmasters are doing.

---

That isn't completely correct, but close. For the moment -- until 30 days after the final regulations enforcing the Adam Walsh Act (USC 4472, the latest incarnation of 2257) are published -- many people (i.e., affiliates) who are not content producers are relying on the older 2257 regulations, which did not require that a "secondary producer", as the old regs called it, have actual records, only contact information for those who do have the records.

When the regulations for 4472 become law, then anyone who has explicit content on his website (i.e., content that appears on a webpage with a URL at the top of the page that he owns) will be required to keep records. Keep in mind also that 4472 now classifies certain types of content, such as
nudity with erections but no touching, simulated sex, and certain other things that were previously exempt as explicit, so you have to be even more careful about what you are posting.

I suspect that most affiliates are just pretending the whole issue is going to go away and/or hoping that the FSC will get the regs struck down before they go into effect, but ignorance, particularly if you're just starting in the biz, would not be a well advised approach.

Also, for clarification, although the wording of the law doesn't say so, the inspectors for the FBI handling the 2257 inspections have said they don't intend to be as strict as Patti has indicated; they've indicated that if you have a vacation or an "out to lunch" sign on your place of business, they will simply come back when you're open.

As for records, some sponsors provide them and others do not. Those sponsors who do not provide records generally offer hosted ad tools, which are intended as an alternative to requiring affiliates to have mess with 2257 records.

while the fbi guys did indeed say that, it's ultimately not up to them - it's up to the DOJ.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Also, for clarification, although the wording of the law doesn't say so, the inspectors for the FBI handling the 2257 inspections have said they don't intend to be as strict as Patti has indicated; they've indicated that if you have a vacation or an "out to lunch" sign on your place of business, they will simply come back when you're open.

---

btw, hosted ad tools may or may not be considered part of your site. i've talked to lawyers who go either way on this and it hasn't gone to court, so there's no way to know how it will go when it does nor do most judges or juries know anything except that a pic or video is on your page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

As for records, some sponsors provide them and others do not. Those sponsors who do not provide records generally offer hosted ad tools, which are intended as an alternative to requiring affiliates to have mess with 2257 records.

---

I've never heard anyone argue that a hosted gallery where the sponsor's URL appears at the top of the page would require an affiliate linking to it externally to have 2257 docs. Embedded videos, yes, but not hosted galleries.

Also, DoJ are not the ones carrying out the actual inspections; the FBI is, so if the agent who is the head of the FBI investigation team says that's the way they will be doing the inspections, it is probably safe to assume that information is correct, and if it were not, one would have a near bulletproof defense (in legal terms, it's called "detrimental reliance on apparent authority".)

Nonetheless, Patti is absolutely right about the point that none of the law has been tested, so what actually comes to pass is anyone's guess. The decisions we (Gaybucks) make abut 2257, and the information I share on the boards is based on what our attorney has told us in combination with other information AJ and I have read or heard from other First Amendment attorneys. No two agree on all points, and I strongly advise anyone considering this business to spend the money and get a consultation with a competent professional to cover your bases; it simply isn't worth the risk to go without.

This is an enlightening thread to say the least.

Just wondering if any of this was discussed at the Forum last week. I couldn't go but wasn't there a legal seminar? If so, did anyone go who can share some new information?

I wasn't at Phoenix Forum, but I doubt there's any new info.

Everything is in limbo at the moment; the 6th circuit court of appeals ruled the entire 2257 unconstitutional, but that will probably be overturned. It is suspected, though no one's said outright, that inspections are suspended until 2257 is reinstated or there's some resolution of that.

Meantime, proposed regulations for 4472 were published for comment months back, but again, nothing has happened and it's possible that they are holding up on that until the underlying issue with 2257 is resolved, since 4472 is sort of a "piggyback" on 2257.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sc32803

This is an enlightening thread to say the least.

Just wondering if any of this was discussed at the Forum last week. I couldn't go but wasn't there a legal seminar? If so, did anyone go who can share some new information?

---

I am sure it was mentioned there, but outside the seminar no one was talking 2257, unlike previous conventions.

Quote:

---

I am sure it was mentioned there, but outside the seminar no one was talking 2257, unlike previous conventions.

---

You think the reason why was because the general mood of webmasters at the Forum is that 2257 is dead at the moment?

I think it's really dangerous to assume it's dead, even for the moment.

We have a ton of right wing loonies who want everyone praying to God before they go to work each day, having only male-female sex in the missionary position, and only for procreation, and banishing all porn forever. These fine folks will ensure that the powers-that-be have *something* to go after legal adult content with.

But to answer your question... yes, I do think a lot of webmasters are sticking their head in the sand and pretending that 2257 is dead. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sc32803

You think the reason why was because the general mood of webmasters at the Forum is that 2257 is dead at the moment?

---

No. Not at all. Just nothing really new to talk about. We are basically waiting the Adam Walsh regs and then a challenge to them. Then there will be talk.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

But to answer your question... yes, I do think a lot of webmasters are sticking their head in the sand and pretending that 2257 is dead. :)

---

I would agree with that.

But in all actuality those that think that are the ones that really have no idea what 2257 really is. One needs to keep in mind that 2257 is MUCH more than an id stuck in a filing cabinet. Actually, that's the easy part. All the cross references are what is a killer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i believe - and i could be wrong - that they fall into the law that has to do with message boards and dating sites. i could be wrong about that, though. maybe ask chad?

---

Hi im sorry to ask, but what is the 2257 law regarding dating sites?
Im putting together a dating site now and was going to have it totally non nude. But if theres an exclusion for dating sites Id like to know about it.

Thanks!

There is no language in the 2257 regs that would exclude dating sites. Or tube sites, for that matter.

A handful of dating or tube sites are making the claim that they are "ISPs" and have no control over the content or material displayed on their networks and are therefore exempt since they are simply infrastructure providers, but this argument would almost certainly fail if tested, since all of these sites do, in fact, exercise control, either by removing offensive/illegal images, reviewing images, videos, profiles, or other content either prior to or after it is posted, and other things that indicate a degree of control over the content.

There's no way, if I were a US-based company, I'd do a dating site or tube site without full 2257 docs.

Thanks for the info.
I'll still do dating, but I'll make it non nude and pg13.

i hope you've talked to a lawyer, not only regarding 2257 but other stuff. there are plenty of other issues facing dating sites.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrmax

Thanks for the info.
I'll still do dating, but I'll make it non nude and pg13.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

i hope you've talked to a lawyer, not only regarding 2257 but other stuff. there are plenty of other issues facing dating sites.

---

No, but if I feature a bunch of shirtless guys who are clearly over 20 with their shorts on I cant imagine the US govt knocking on my door, when there are far far more explicit dating sites out there.

I didnt see a 2257 warning on AllAmericanGuys and my site would be exactly the same, except I have profiles for guys who want to meet.

there are many other legal challenges for dating sites, however.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by mrmax

No, but if I feature a bunch of shirtless guys who are clearly over 20 with their shorts on I cant imagine the US govt knocking on my door, when there are far far more explicit dating sites out there.

I didnt see a 2257 warning on AllAmericanGuys and my site would be exactly the same, except I have profiles for guys who want to meet.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

there are many other legal challenges for dating sites, however.

---

Thanks for the feedback. Id love advice on running a dating site.
Btw I see you have a non nude site as well. Id love to hear how that is going for you if you dont mind sharing.