Comments anyone ? :)
http://www.gmpass.com/2257.html
Printable View
Comments anyone ? :)
http://www.gmpass.com/2257.html
Well, for one thing, their agreement talks about metatags and keywords, but doesn't address the provisions of 4472 that specifically require that keywords and metatags can't be deceptive such that they might accidentally attract children (such as the use of the word "toys" for example)
For another, they are asking for copies of model releases, as do a lot of people that are classed as secondary producers under 2257.
I've never understood this. NOWHERE in 2257 does it say a word about model releases. The only things required are identification documents, model's former name(s) and stage name(s) if the producer is reasonably aware of them, and production date of the shoot. Furthermore, a strict reading of 2257 indicates that it's actually an offense publishable by jail time to store 2257 docs next to non-2257 docs. So keeping releases in the same file cabinet or folder as you keep your 2257 info could be a huge problem.
Everyone is running around so confused, and some attorneys are giving terrible, obviously wrong advice (such as advising webmasters that a UPS Store or Shipping Depot is an acceptable 2257 address) which, for whatever reason, webmasters aren't questioning.
What a mess.
Quote:
NOWHERE in 2257 does it say a word about model releases. The only things required are identification documents, model's former name(s) and stage name(s) if the producer is reasonably aware of them, and production date of the shoot.
I always thought that the term model realeases and 2257 docs are synonyms.
If 2257 docs cover model's identification documents (passport or driver's licence), model's former name, stage name(s), production date of the shoot, then what is "model releases"?
a model release is the document the model signs giving you the legal right or ownership to use the pics or videos of them. a model release has nothing to do with 2257 in any way.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
A model release, is what the model signs authorizing you to distribute their likeness.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
The 2257 docs are the ID that the model provides which proves their age.
Regards,
Lee
Ah ok, I see.
It usually comes in the same package as 2257 docs when you buy content. I wonder why would it be a problem to keep model releases in the same folder as 2257 docs, though? The 2257 docs prove the model was over 18 at the time of photography, while model releases show that he gave his/her consent and wasn't coerced to be photographed.
Actually the big fallacy of 2257 is there is NOTHING WHATSOEVER in the language of 2257 that requires any proof of when the scene was shot. You do have to provide a production date, but there is no means in 2257 to verify the production date you're indicating is the actual date the scenes were shot. That's one of the most disheartening things about the regulations; they can't even fulfill their intended purpose.Quote:
Originally Posted by Ben
The reason it's a problem to keep model releases in the same folder as ID verification docs is that 2257 specifically states that 2257 records MUST be kept completely separate from all other business records or information about the models. According to many attorneys in the field, it is a 5 year prison sentence to violate that part of the regulations.
So are they requiring 2257 docs for every gallery ever submitted to them?
Funny thing is that on their homepage they say this at the bottom: "THIS SITE IS IN COMPLIANCE WITH THE LAWS REQUIRED BY 18 U.S.C.
§ 2257 AND 75 C.F.R. § 75 ."
But the law clearly stated that you had to say this:
"18 U.S.C. 2257 Record-Keeping Requirements Compliance Statement"
Unless that was amended.
Would seem a shame to get dinged on a technicality when you're collecting records for 80,000 galleries.
Michael
I believe they are asking for that Michael if you want listing etc.
But we have discovered its only for webmasters who are using their free hosting.
Geez ... funny how omitting a key phrase from an e-mail can cause so much speculation. "This only applies to wm's using our free hosting" would have stopped so much talk.
Michael
I stand corrected ! this am they emailed saying something totally different ! Ive reasked for confirmation.
Those of us that are webmasters in the UK will not be allowed to pass on the details of a model as we have a thing called the Data Protection Act which prohibits personal data being shunted around, so all we can do is to confirm we hold them unless they are specifically requested by a government body - and a European government body at that.
Has anyone else had a few problems with GMP contacting and paying them?
Chip - are you using FSC forms, or a self-made model release form?Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Maybe I'm just confused by your statement because what info might you have the model give you on the release that isn't already on the ID (name, address, DOB)?
People are always saying 'what not to do', but also not providing a link to a blank form :)
The current FSC form does not include model's address. But when you attach the ID, the address would be there.
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/w...ectionForm.pdf
What is the balance?
Who uses Global Male pass anymore? They aren't that successful anymore. We used them for a long time all was great at the begining. Personally, Global Male Pass sucks!
I'm going to post my experience with the feds on behalf of record keeping...
Last year, I was invesigated on behalf of my records.
When the gov't comes in to investigate you, they are looking for 3 very simple documents:
Model ID / Drivers License - Cannot be altered, expired, or fake in any way
A Model Release consenting to be photographed
A 2257 Compliance Form which Nick Baer posted earlier
And they are looking for the following materials to aid in their investigation:
Model Index File
Videos that model was in
Most keep their releases in binders. I keep them in filing cabinets. I'm a custodian of records for other studios including myself. Each studio has their own filing cabinet. I keep the model names in alphabetical order by last name, first name, middle initial. (REAL NAMES).
The sloppier you are on your records, the longer the feds will be in your home or place of establishment.
Also, on my models that are 24 years old or younger I require 2 forms of ID to possibly eliminate the chances of them having a fake id.
Models 25 or older, I require 1 form of ID which is the primary id of:
Drivers License, State ID, Military ID, Passport, Country ID, so on and so forth.
Most of you are correct, most of you are wrong. You may get upset, I dont really care because what I'm stating are facts not fiction. I am a real survivor when I was investigated, I dealt with the feds for 4.5 long hours!
It will never hurt you to be more organized and efficient on your record keeping. The more organized you are, the better you will pass.
Here's the AVN Article from when I was investigated: http://www.avn.com/index.cfm?objectI...0B6288F87118DF
OH YES! I forgot...
Global Male Pass DOES NOT need your 2257 information. Yes, your probably hosted on their servers. But you operate the website. The content is yours. Your website should have a "2257" link which informs who the custodian of records is. That's where you state who the custodian of records is.
In the event that you should ever be investigated. The gov't is going to first go to the address that 2257 page is at, then they'll investigate further.
What Alec, Joel, or any others at Global Male fail to mention is that they want your model releases because they want YOUR content in their members "VIP" section. They were caught stealing content on numerous occasions in the past.
The reason they started requesting 2257 info is because I had sites with them last year. I got investigated.... Then Alec got scared and started that whole policy. I found my content on pages THEY BUILT which they had no rights to. And later I bought a membership to their "VIP Area" and found my content ALL OVER THE PLACE!" I got with my attorney, he sent them a letter, they pulled it down immediately. A friend of mine owns a studio, he found his there also.
You have to watch out for certain "AVS / AEN Systems" they're good at that. Not all are like that, but GMP is the worst!
If this is your experience, it's very disturbing, because 2257 makes absolutely no references whatsoever to model releases, nor to a "2257 compliance form" although the information requested on the form is part of 2257 records that every producer is required to maintain. But there's no requirement as far as I know that models sign an affidavit of age, or that a model sign a copy of their ID.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
Our attorney has advised us that releases should be stored elsewhere, in a physically different office from 2257 docs, and if requested by investigating authorities, we should say "Releases are not, from our understanding, part of 2257 records, and they are not stored here and not available for review."
If the FBI is, in fact, requiring documents that are not part of 2257, they would be required to have a search warrant in order to get them. (This notwithstanding the argument that many have made (and so far untested) that *any* 2257 investigation is, in fact, a violation of the 4th Amendment.)
According to Xbiz article, this 2257 inspection was done with a search warrant.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
http://xbiz.com/articles/17251Quote:
While each company was subjected to 2257 inspections, only gay content producer JJ Ruch, who owns Sebastian Sloane, was served with a search warrant.
Ruch told XBIZ that the warrant directed authorities to search for evidence of depictions of minors engaged in sexually explicit acts.
According to Douglas, who did not review the document personally, the warrant contained both directions to search for evidence of child pornography as well as a component instructing the agents to inspect Ruch's 2257 records.
First and foremost, I was NEVER served with a search warrant. That was evidently made up by XBiz.
Secondly, I never said that MODEL RELEASES WERE REQUIRED.
When I was investigated, they just wanted to know that I had releases from the models consenting to be photographed. They asked me if I had consent forms, I said yes. I pulled the consent forms out of my filing cabinet, held them up to them and said yes. The one agent said "good enough."
They didn't get a chance to read any of the information. They wanted a yes or no.
Actually, I think you did, which is why I was concerned.
It's still a little disturbing that they asked, since that's clearly not part of 2257.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
The following is from the AVN article:
If that quote is accurate, it is very disturbing, in light of the fact that they did not have a warrant, and no other producers have reported having anything other than 2257 records examined or searched, as far as I know.Quote:
the agents showed up on Ruch’s doorstep at approximately 8 a.m. EST, went through his model release documents, his computers, video cameras, masters and even searched his kitchen and living room.
To the extent that 2257 confers *any* right to enter your offices, it would not have granted them any rights to look at video cameras, masters, or computers. Did AVN misquote on that?
Chip, do you read stuff before you post or are you just a drama queen?
I'm asking this because NOWHERE does it say there was a "warrant"
They searched through my kitchen and living room because I filmed that weekend prior and had 2257 stuff in my kitchen and in my living room.
I suggest that you read postings thoroughly before you comment.
And personally, I think your full of shit and a know it all that really doesn't know it all.
If the fbi didn't have a search warrant, and that is what Xbiz is quoting you as saying, and what happened. I would get an attorney, well, I would have gotten one when they posted the article, but you should get one now, and at the very least get the article removed.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
You would also probably want to collect damages, as I am sure that in some ways this has damaged your reputation.
As for Chip being a drama queen, I would beg to differ, he is probably one of the most helpful people on and off of this board. I would venture to say that he has respect from most of the people around here. .
Here you said that you were served with a warant for search and seizure.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
http://gaywebmasters.com/forums/viewthread/358/
So is someone else posting as you, or did you have a warrant or not?Quote:
I wasn’t going to let them go through anything with out some sort of warrant to search. They had shown me a search warrant for a search and seize of the property. They said this is a standard investigation that they’re doing it with all companies that produce pornographic materials.
Yes, I did read everything in the thread, which is why I quoted your own words in an earlier post. And you'll notice I was concerned about the fact they *did not* have a warrant, I wasn't saying they had one.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
So your practice is to leave records that are crucial to the operation of your business lying around in the kitchen and living room, particularly after (according to the AVN article) you've received an advance call that the FBI will be coming to inspect the records?Quote:
They searched through my kitchen and living room because I filmed that weekend prior and had 2257 stuff in my kitchen and in my living room.
Sorry that you feel that way. I'm pretty quick to own up to it if I'm wrong about something. I never said that the FBI had a warrant, that was a quote from the Xbiz article, and my point was that the FBI's right to legally inspect even 2257 records without a warrant is tenuous according to most attorneys, and the right to go other places in someone's house would be nonexistent.Quote:
And personally, I think your full of shit and a know it all that really doesn't know it all.
And, if there was no warrant, why was the FBI looking at your master tapes and your camcorder? Did you have 2257 records stored in the tape slot of your camcorder as well, or was that also a misquote?
Let me know (after *you* have read the entire thread) what I have misquoted, misstated, or been incorrect on, and I will gladly offer up a correction and apology.
Hey everyone,
This is Joel with GlobalMalePass, here to hopefully clear some things up and contribute to this discussion. I'll start with why we are asking for model releases. We are simply taking the advice of the lawyers and consultants we've had helping us with 2257 for years. They have told us to make sure we have both model releases and IDs for all qualifying images on our site. Because websites listed on our content page can be considered as part of our site, we need to have 2257 information for those sites. We are trying to work with each of our webmasters on this and have been contacting people for about a year now to set things up.
I'd like to make sure that no one is under the impression that we are in any way trying to steal your content by asking for your model releases. In our VIP area, we provide content from a number of different video and image providers, all of which we have deals with and pay fees to. I personally have known and worked with many webmasters in the Los Angeles area for years, and would not be with a company that is in the business of blatantly taking content from their own webmasters.
If you have any more specific questions pertaining to our current policy for this ever changing 2257 issue, please feel free to ask me here or email me directly at joel@gmpass.com.
Thanks :)
-Joel
Hi everyone,
I know I dont post on here often but to further Joel's comments, its imperative we explain exactly why we say what we do so there is no confusion and no room for any spin to be made from our policies.
First and foremost its necessary to understand that the implementation of any policy is made always with the interest of keeping GlobalMalePass and its webmasters ahead of the curve in an ever-changing industry. Afterall, why would we make changes to a perfectly functioning machine unless it was absolutely necessary? Our intention all along has been to not only comply with the current parameters of the law but to understand the direction it is headed in and position ourselves and our webmasters to not miss a beat if/when any major 2257 changes are made. Hence the 2257 policy mentioned here.
With that said, and without delving into an unecessary explanation about the past, any negative comments made here are unfortunate to read but thats the nature of a message board--Everyone has 1 voice and its heard equally by everyone else ;) however those that have been with us for the long run know that we've become a staple in this industry because of among other things, our upstanding business ethics. We havent been around for nearly a decade because we like to steal content :) If you dont understand a certain policy or dont agree with how things are done, posting on the board or better yet emailing us directly might help keep the air clear in the first place :)
Thanks for hearing me out everyone :bigears:
Alec Alexander
over the years i have found chip to be far from a drama queen. he reads postings more carefully than most, and is always very helpful and free with his knowledge.
i remembered very clearly that according to that article they had a warrant. it stood out in my mind because so far yours was the only inspection where that was the case, so i feel it's very important as it could affect others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
Yep thats what i remember about it also.Quote:
Originally Posted by basschick
Makes you wonder why a warrant was issued and what they were actually looking to find as 2257 inspection just seemed to be a side-issue.
Regards,
Lee
I really don't mean to add fuel to the fire, it just urks the hell out of me when someone knowingly lies on the board and provides false information. According to the article they were looking for...Quote:
Originally Posted by Lee
Quote:
the warrant contained both directions to search for evidence of child pornography as well as a component instructing the agents to inspect Ruch's 2257 records.
Wow!
I just read this whole thread. Want my opinion? Someone here can't even lie good.
There is a saying, "You always remember the truth, but forget your own lies." I think someone hear needs to think about that.
Lloyd
Well, the other thing I just noticed in re-reading the thread is that Jeffrey Douglas, probably one of the most respected 1st Amendment attorneys, is quoted in the XBiz article as follows
So now I'm really confused.Quote:
According to Douglas, who did not review the document personally, the warrant contained both directions to search for evidence of child pornography as well as a component instructing the agents to inspect Ruch's 2257 records.
The article in XBiz, a direct quote from one of the most well known 1st Amendment attorneys, and even an earlier post on GWW from SebSloPro indicated that a warrant was served, and Douglas even states the details contained in the warrant, yet SebSloPro now says there was no warrant at all, and the only reason the kitchen and living room were searched was because 2257 records were apparently strewn about as a result of a recent shoot.
Also, SebSloPro says in the thread above that all the agents did was glance from across the room at the model releases, yet in the AVN article, he is quoted as saying that the agents photographed all of his model agreements.
And there's still the question of why, as part of a 2257 investigation, the FBI agents were examining a camcorder and a bunch of video masters.
I'm not accusing anyone of anything, I'm just confused. I think it would be helpful to me and to probably everyone else in the industry to know what the actual situation was, since it seems that what was said earlier and what is being said now about what happened are in complete conflict with one another.
One minute you say you keep everything in filing cabinets, now you have it in your kitchen and living room.Quote:
Originally Posted by SebSloPro
If I knew the fbi was coming, EVERYTHING would be in my filing cabinets and triple checked.
bump :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock: :bananacock: