So distributors have 2257 exemption. Why not affiliates or feed buyers?

The DOJ gave an example that movie theaters are exempt from 2257 since they merely screen other people's work.

Suppose I build a brick and mortar movie theater and license a movie to show there.

Now suppose I build a website and stream that very same movie online.

What is the difference here?

I assume it's because the theater is considered a "distributor" of other people's work, and distributors are exempt. We need clarification as to what type of websites constitute them being mere distributors also.

If I put up content and say... This stuff is from Whoever, go check them out if you want more... how am I not simply "screening" their work? I had nothing to do with the actual works at all, and I'm certainly not taking any type of credit for it. Don't say I'm republishing it either, because I'm not republishing it any more so than a theater projecting movies they don't own onto a screen. This is just over the internet.

the difference is YOU build the website. you produced it, in fact.

the movie theater manager simply receives the videos, and screens them. he is not an active part of the process, nor is he likely to be responsible for any decisions regarding - well - anything.

to some degree, our websites are active, whereas simple distribution seems to me to be more passive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

the difference is YOU build the website. you produced it, in fact.

the movie theater manager simply receives the videos, and screens them. he is not an active part of the process, nor is he likely to be responsible for any decisions regarding - well - anything.

---

I agree with your interpretation of the theater, but I disagree that webmasters can be a producer of already existing works unless a license is granted allowing them to take credit for the works and/or changing the work in a manner in which they can now take credit for.

Let's say I license a video from Bel Ami to show online. I'm not going to edit it. I'm not going to make any decisions about the work itself. I'm just going to show it to surfers "as is." I'm telling them it's from Bel Ami, now enjoy their film. How is that not an online movie theater?

I completely understand that if you take someone else's work and republish it in a book or website that you are now a publisher of that work and can take credit for this new presentation as a whole. BUT.... Sponsor content and leased feeds do not come with licenses stating that you now own the works to do with as you please. The original owners are merely allowing you to show/screen THEIR WORK to surfers. Again, same thing as a movie theater.

Im pretty sure this is going to be one of those issues the FSC try to get an injunction against.

Makes no sense to me to allow a bricks and mortar 'theatre' to not have to keep the licenses if online 'theatres' do.

Where the difference from a child protection standpoint? Its the same movie afterall, regardless of WHERE its being shown LOL

Regards,

Lee

the way i see it, the content is part of your creation - the site. you are using the porn picture or video to produce the porn website, not unlike using paint to create a painting.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

the way i see it, the content is part of your creation - the site. you are using the porn picture or video to produce the porn website, not unlike using paint to create a painting.

---

Right but, at the same time, is a theatre not using the SAME content to produce their creation? The movie theatre.

I just dont see the difference between using a movie 'online' and using the exact same movie 'offline' :wacko:

Regards,

Lee

This is a really difficult topic - are feed users "distributers" or "secondary producers"?

I've been surveying all of our feed customers from hardgayfeeds.com and receiving quite an equal proportion of responses from people who believe they are secondary producers, people who believe they are distributors and those who don't know.

In most cases the information they are providing me with is coming from their lawyers - so it seems there are a few contrary legal opinions about this.

I suspect it's going to take awhile to reach a conclusion so in the interim I suggest you check with your plug-in providers as to whether they can provide the necessary documents for you - presuming they will be required.

Additionally, don't forget all of the graphics and promotional collateral that contain model images - they will need to be compliant regardless, as they are hosted in your sites.

Question: do DVD distributors also need 2257 info? Since the info is already printed on the DVD and the box and appearing before and fter the credits on the movie itself?

Rocky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

the way i see it, the content is part of your creation - the site. you are using the porn picture or video to produce the porn website, not unlike using paint to create a painting.

---

Say I make a wooden picture frame by hand. This will represent the HTML framework for a website that doesn't actually have any content yet.

Now I'll mount an original Picasso in that frame I made.

Using your examples in this thread, I produced the Picasso.

Quote:

---

Question: do DVD distributors also need 2257 info? Since the info is already printed on the DVD and the box and appearing before and fter the credits on the movie itself?

---

If they are reproducing any imagery such a box-covers or promotional material they do.

most of us make pages that are far more than frames.

http://www.twinksinsocks.com/tis/
wouldn't you say those pics are an integral part of the design?

what about headers that use pics as part of their own design? you don't buy a picasso and put your business name on it, then use it that way on your letterhead. but if you did, you'd claim the picasso WITH the logo and extras as your own copyrighted design...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Say I make a wooden picture frame by hand. This will represent the HTML framework for a website that doesn't actually have any content yet.

Now I'll mount an original Picasso in that frame I made.

Using your examples in this thread, I produced the Picasso.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pistol

If they are reproducing any imagery such a box-covers or promotional material they do.

---

Wouldn't that be the Replication and Authoring? Not Distribution?

Rocky

Rocky - If you replicate anything in hardcopy or online you are required to be compliant.

Yeah I realize that.

I think you missed what I was saying here:

Replication/authoring and distribution of DVD's are two totally seperate things. I understand that the company doing the authoring and replication needs 2257 info, but what about the distributor? Should the Producer supply the Distributor with 2257 info, even though the 2257 info is already on the DVD jacket, on the face of the DVD itself AND on the actual video in 2 places (before and after the credits).

THAT'S my question. Do we need to supply the Distrobutor 2257 info if all they are doing is distributing it? Not replicating it. Not authoring it. Not producing it.

Rocky

WRT the new statute I don't believe so, however, and has as always been the case some retailers won't touch material that isn't fully compliant.

It also depends on whether the receiver will want need to develop promotional materials.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

most of us make pages that are far more than frames.
http://www.twinksinsocks.com/tis/
wouldn't you say those pics are an integral part of the design?

---

The gallery maker in that example reworked the content itself to turn it into something new (I'm talking the header here). So yes, secondary producer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by basschick

you don't buy a picasso and put your business name on it, then use it that way on your letterhead. but if you did, you'd claim the picasso WITH the logo and extras as your own copyrighted design...

---

Very true. But what about if I didn't touch the Picasso at all? Just like I wouldn't be touching the content.

Not to be rude, but this is just beating a dead horse.

There is no room for "what-if''s" and hypotheticals. The new regs are here and whether they are being challeneged or not, we still have to abide by them until there is a final solution. Sitting here debating back and forth what constitutes who a producer is, etc. doen't do any good. The regs clearly state what a producer is and what a secondary producer is. There really is no room for debate amongst webmasters. That's what the lawyers are for and what they are doing to protect us. In the meantime, we need to have our shit together and ready to go in case little or no changes are made.

Rocky

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by BeachBoi_Rocky

Sitting here debating back and forth what constitutes who a producer is, etc. doen't do any good. The regs clearly state what a producer is and what a secondary producer is.

---

Oh I pretty much agree. This is just for the sake of discussion. The only reason I brought it up is because they said distributors are exempt, but they did not give industry-specific examples of what a distributor was.

http://www.fanartikel.de-a1.de/fanar...se_263x400.jpg

I could screen the Hollywood movie Striptease at a real theater. We'll assume for the sake of discussion that it's a sexually explicit movie, and maybe it really is.

Now as soon as I license that for an online theater, do I need to keep Demi Moore's drivers license on file? I am the secondary producer of a Hollywood film now, right? :wacko:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Say I make a wooden picture frame by hand. This will represent the HTML framework for a website that doesn't actually have any content yet. Now I'll mount an original Picasso in that frame I made. Using your examples in this thread, I produced the Picasso.

---

Oh hallelujah someone said it! You should go work for the DoJ because I don't think most of us are secondary producers. What a perfect analogy Matt.

dzinerbear