AsianBoyAlley - An Interesting 2257 Problem

Greetings:

We were just about to launch AsianBoyAlley.com when the new 2257 regs hit. We now find ourselves faced with an interesting situation:

Yes, we have IDs for all of the models that appear on the site. Unfortunately, they're all in Thai script !!

We can match up the IDs to the models, but organizing them by last name, pulling the date of birth, etc. etc. is proving to be an interesting challenge.

We've hired a Thai translator, with the hope of having all of the birthdates pulled from the IDs, and having the first and last names translated into English, so that we can organize them in a way that's in compliance.

However, we've now been told, that you can't REALLY translate Thai names into English.

They're really good photos, all of the models are obviously of age, the primary producer is very professional and easily reachable, but we're kind of stumped at this point.

Do we get a computer, install the Thai character set, and literally have everything organized and sorted in Thai script? Somehow I'm not sure that would please federal records inspectors......

Urgh the drama.............

:huh:

BTW: I've attached the AsianBoy Alley splash page that we just got back for fun. (had to axe quality some due to 100k upload limit)

The only thing I can think of is enter the most common English spelling along with their actual Thai script version.

They certainly don't get Thai script names on their drivers license when they move here.

Greetings:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

They certainly don't get Thai script names on their drivers license when they move here.

---

From what we've been told, most of them adopt English names if they move to the US or other English speaking countries. Things like "Ken" or "Joe" or "Dan", haha. I don't think we can legally justify changing everyone's name to Ken....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustMe

From what we've been told, most of them adopt English names if they move to the US or other English speaking countries. Things like "Ken" or "Joe" or "Dan", haha. I don't think we can legally justify changing everyone's name to Ken....

---

They probably spell it in English the way it sounds in Thai.

If their name is in Thai, then that's their name. What can you do? But this could be very troublesom for webmasters who have content from all over the world. Someone could have a database full of Thai, Russian, Chinese, etc...

What if you connected the photo ID with a number instead of entering these foreign characters? Everything would still be cross refrenced just fine aside from doing name quaries. You'd use the number instead. Who knows if that's legal.... But who knows if the foreign characters are legal.

i know some women from vietnam, and they spell their vietnamese name phonetically, although with light changes.

for example, one woman spells her name von. when she pronounces it, there's a hint of an ng sound at the end, but nothing major, so it works for her.

this is just my opinion, but I really think that going thru the amount of effort that you have already done shows a good faith gesture that you are trying to comply with 2257 regs so I don't think you have to stress over it.

also, don't forget that 2257 regs do not demand that your records be computerised so maybe just tagging each ID with a number and cross-referencing that number is good enough? On this note, do the 2257 regs say anything about having ID in english?

cheers,
Luke

´ÒǹìâËÅ Í¿µìá¿ÃìàÂÕèÂÁ äÍÕ¤ÔÇ = Siam


Could be difficult :francais:

I'd have an attorney look over what you have. You may have even bigger problems. There is a lot of confusion regarding the new regs and foreign shot content. Most people seem to be agreeing that the new regs don't allow for content shot in foreign countries to be used at all on US based sites. The rules appear to state that only if BOTH the producer and the Model have Foreign passports is it allowable. It doesn't even say Primary Producer. We have a lot of content shot in Prague and Argentina and so far every read on the law we have gotten says that we won't be able to use it anymore. I pray for an injunction.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustBryce

The rules appear to state that only if BOTH the producer and the Model have Foreign passports is it allowable. It doesn't even say Primary Producer. We have a lot of content shot in Prague and Argentina and so far every read on the law we have gotten says that we won't be able to use it anymore. I pray for an injunction.

---

"....or, a foreign government-issued equivalent of any of the documents listed above when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States."

It is legal for a Canadian producer to goto Brazil and shoot content for his American based business as long as he has a foreign government issued ID. Their goal is to have the producer be able to validate the authenticity of the ID's, which they cannot do if they are not in the same location as the talent that has the ID is. That way you can swear under penalty of purgery that the copies you are sending out to everyone are true and correct copies of the originals.

If the regs were as some of you are reading them, then no R rated or MA rated movies with nudity and sexual content could be shot overseas, and we all know the Motion Picture Association wouldn't want that lol

What do you guys think?

Greetings:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustBryce

The rules appear to state that only if BOTH the producer and the Model have Foreign passports is it allowable. It doesn't even say Primary Producer.

---

I've been given different advice: Since this content was shot overseas (not in the US), and since both the person that shot the content and the models are from the same foreign country, the content will be legal for me to use, so long as I can abide by all of the other terms of 2257. Now, if the content was shot in the US, the rules are different, and I wouldn't be in compliance.

As a side note: The fun thing about European content, is that most countries over there have privacy and data protection acts that prohibit them from handing out IDs to anyone, including a Secondary Producer. Don't you just LOVE catch 22s?

However, consider what I've been told, what you've been told, and now read these 2 conflicting opinion papers from Obenberger and then Randazza:

http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...ticle&sid=9454
http://www.ynot.com/modules.php?op=m...ticle&sid=9459

I tell you, I haven't been on the boards bitching about these 2257 regs, I've been hard at work spending time and money making sure that we're in compliance. But god damn, it's just absolutely ridiculous trying to GET into compliance, when you're not really sure what the hell it is you need to comply with in the first place.

As someone that's already spent considerable time and money becoming a "custodian of records" as a "secondary producer", I'm really feeling myself running out of steam.

BoyAlley.com should be in 100% compliance early next week, with IDs on file and cross referenced for everything on the entire domain. But this mess is sure gumming things up with some of our other projects (aka AsianBoy Alley)....

You want to read something REALLY shitty? Here's a paper where the FSC states, in no uncertain terms, that they believe every time a website is updated, the ENTIRE THING needs to be backed up and archived as its own unique production. IE every time you upload new photos or videos, you have a new product, and need to identify and archive it as such:

http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228369

BTW: I've gotten to the point where my attorney has requested that I sign a document that gives him rights to my left kidney and 1/3 of my liver should he ever need it. Is this uncommon, or has anyone else had to sign similar documents?

I think that the comment about producers and performers "living" internationally is probably not the most correct interpretation of the letter of the regs.. The specific wording is that the producer and the performer must both be "located" .........

so it seems to me that the word "located" needs to be clarified .. i.e. we are in Thailand when we shoot our thai gay stuff, so we are "located" in a foreign country with our models at the time of production..

as the basis of 2257 is the date of production of any content, i would surmise that on the date of production if i am "located" in a foreign country with my model, then i am in compliance....

of course this is my, non qualified opinion, but it seems to make sense to me.

as to Thai names, there is a way to spell them all with western script. they all know how to do that..... and if not, anyone that can do thai / english translations can do that for you.

it's how we do ours.. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tombarr

The specific wording is that the producer and the performer must both be "located" .........

so it seems to me that the word "located" needs to be clarified .. i.e. we are in Thailand when we shoot our thai gay stuff, so we are "located" in a foreign country with our models at the time of production..

as the basis of 2257 is the date of production of any content, i would surmise that on the date of production if i am "located" in a foreign country with my model, then i am in compliance....

---

I agree.

And you wanted to further define located? Here is the definition:

located

adj : situated in a particular spot or position; "valuable centrally located urban land"; "strategically placed artillery"; "a house set on a hilltop"; "nicely situated on a quiet riverbank" [syn: placed, set, situated]

Does that clear things up for anyone? :francais:

This reminds me of:

Quote:

---

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is

- President Clinton

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustMe

This reminds me of:

---

Yes, could not agree more, however, i would almost be willing to bet that any prosecutions under this Reg will be because of the Fed's interpretation of what the word "is" is. and that's half the battle with this new Reg. What is the meaning of the word "is"? Is the word is defined by one set of court rulings that they so strongly rely upon in drafting this mess, or is it based upon other precedent setting rulings that opposes this draft and the Fed interpretation of it?

This part of the regulation appears to have been written to insure that the Primary producer (the one in actual contact with the models at the time of photography) is in physical presence and can physically view the ID and the model, and be able to swear in an affidavit or court proceedings, and to subsequent secondary producers and distrbituors, that the ID is valid for the person (s) shown in the production.

The the requirement to be "located" or "on location" with the model in the same place at the same time. This provides a primary path of responsibility and culpability and continuous chain of knowledgeable, accurate information about each model. I don't believe the spirit of the law means you can't shoot content internationally unless you live there...i believe it is meant to be protective of the chain of knowledge/custody of first hand information about the actual model identification.

I think this is one area that will be tested and tried and will have to be further clarified by judgement as this has already been put into play in it's present form. Just another reason that there should be injunctive relief from some, if not all, of this reg in this present state of being all F****d up.

It's going to come down to exactly that, "define the word "is"....and that is going to take a court to do at this point.

"

So does anyone have an opinion (and yes, I know what a non-professional opinion is worth...) on the following?

-- A Canadian model, with proper government-issued Canadian ID, content shot in the U.S., by an American producer. My impression is that this is no longer legal under the new 2257 regs. I also heard that they might attempt to make this retroactive, such that content *already shot prior to 6/23/05* might no longer be usable. Does that match the general understanding?

-- Same thing, except American producer is in Canada, shooting Canadian models. Existing content? New content?

-- Could an American producer work (physically in the presence of and with) a Canadian producer in Canada (providing instructions and guidance), then have the Canadian producer be custodian of records to make the content legal?

Also, is there any difference between use of said content online vs on physical product (DVD, VHS, etc)

Greetings:

Here's the legal advice on these very issues that I was given:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

-- A Canadian model, with proper government-issued Canadian ID, content shot in the U.S., by an American producer. My impression is that this is no longer legal under the new 2257 regs. I also heard that they might attempt to make this retroactive, such that content *already shot prior to 6/23/05* might no longer be usable. Does that match the general understanding?

---

Yes, that is the understanding that I was given, and yes, my understanding is that this is also currently considered retroactive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boyfunk

-- Could an American producer work (physically in the presence of and with) a Canadian producer in Canada (providing instructions and guidance), then have the Canadian producer be custodian of records to make the content legal?

---

The custodian of records MUST be an actual employee of the company. In this case, it sounds that the Canadian will be a 3rd party, and thus can't be custodian of records. If it's a US based company there are other issues to worry about when it comes to hiring someone from another country as an actual employee. You'd definately have to consult an attorney about that one....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JustMe

Greetings:

Yes, that is the understanding that I was given, and yes, my understanding is that this is also currently considered retroactive.

---

The part I don't understand is how DoJ can pass a law that takes something already produced and released that was, in good faith, compliant under then-existing regulations and say that it is no longer legal to sell, particularly when there isn't any question about CP.

Of course, I also don't understand how 200 year old protections in our civil rights can suddenly be washed away under the fraudulent guise of "homeland security" either.