Are Adult Webmasters Not Concerned About 2257 Anymore?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

Hold on a moment Bec, I think you are reading it wrong.


The original producer or photographer must actually physically inspect the ID. That producer makes a photocopy of the ID then sells the content to Webmaster. Webmaster can accept the photocopy.

The original producer who actually takes the photos cannot accept a photocopy of an ID.

---

Nope, I didn't read it wrong luv .... why should I be held accountable for an ID THAT I PERSONALLY NEVER SAW? What guarantee do I have that the "original" producer hasn't changed the "original" document in some way? Zip, Zero, None.

How does my having a "copy" of said document make the guy any more or less legal than he was when the material was produced and said documentation viewed by the one actually taking the photos/video? The one(s) responsible for age documentation should rest squarely on the shoulders of the person, or the company that hired a person, to photograph the model. Period.

If I'm not mistaken, this issue has come up before and I believe there were letters between Justice and the FSC that indicated that a secondary producer who is relying on a copy of an ID provided by a primary producer will not be held liable for problems with that ID.

However, a primary producer (i.e., someone who actually shot the content) does have the requirement to inspect the ID personally.

In other words, the secondary producer has to have a copy of the ID, but isn't responsible if there turns out to be a problem with it, since s/he is only looking at a copy. The primary has a greater responsibility in that s/he has to personally inspect the ID documents.

Even though I don't produce any content, 2257, still concerns me. I have always put links and 2257 info on my sites directing visitors to the content producer or owner of the content (sponsor).

When I start my own pay site I am damn well and sure that I am going to have a professional (lawyer) handle my 2257 paper-work.