Printable View
Im outside the USA so not too worried but i do try to stick within the law of the US.
If i build AVS galleries and the AVS by passes my front end and jumps straight to my members area, should i put 2257 links in the gallery area or does that not matter?
Whether it matters is really judged on a case by case basis. What often happens is if someone is scrutinizing your site to approve it for processing and they find something small, they start looking for more. IMHO, by having 2257 links in your gallery area you are just increasing your chances of your site being approved - no harm no foul. In other words, don't make anyone who matters search for your 2257 info. ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by marcjacob
Thanks for that, i didnt think of that. I have to have 2257 info displayed as certain AVS demand it. Think putting it in the members area would be a good move, like you say, certainly wont harm me.
Nice to see someone from Verotel arround btw. Hope you stick arround.
I beleive the regulations state that you need to have a 2257 link displayed on any major entry point to your site but, as you are UK based, i would suggest that having a link on the main index page should suffice.
Regards,
Lee
That interesting for US basd webmasters though Lee, as i would say that with AVS's ike UGAS who bypass the tour for existing members, the members landing page is a major entry point to the site.
You're welcome. I will definitely try to stop by from time to time as workload permits. However, feel free to hit me up via e-mail if I can be of any assistance.Quote:
Originally Posted by marcjacob
The latest round of Idiot Laws that Do Nothing to Protect Children, or 2257, want you to put the 2257 link on every page.
The way we were understanding the way the law read was that it should be placed on any page that contained Hardcore. Can you clear up the issue for us so we are better informed? Although Mansites isn't truly affected by the 2257 laws due to the fact that we don't own or host any of it, our policy is that the owner must be able to provide all records associated with the photos or movie scenes. I am just wondering if the law states for anything deemed pornographic, or just hardcore materials.
2257 has never made use of the word "hardcore." It does make reference to "actually sexually explicit conduct", but under 4472, the definition was expanded to "actual or simulated" and now includes some language that also includes some cases of "non sexually explicit nudity" which were specifically excluded under 2257.
So basically, if you have a guy with a raging hardon, arguably that is now something that requres recordkeeping, while before, under 2257, Justice specifically stipulated in discussions with FSC that it was excluded.
And if you have a guy touching another guy's genitals with hands, lips, ass, or whatever, (or touching his own genitals!) it is definitely sexually explicit.
So unless you've got artsy pictures of guys who happen to be naked and aren't erect, I would suggest that you need a 2257 notice on any page where you have images.
I thought it was every page that CONTAINED sexual pictures / video. thus you dont need it say on a menu page in a frame set ( am i correct?)Quote:
The latest round of Idiot Laws that Do Nothing to Protect Children, or 2257, want you to put the 2257 link on every page.
if thats true would you need 2257 for advertising like banners etc, and its unlikely that you would have docs for models used in sponsor banner ads.Quote:
Originally Posted by collegeboyslive
lol now you do !!!Quote:
if thats true would you need 2257 for advertising like banners etc,
it falls under the new secondary producer rules. basically it its naked and served from your site you need docs on it
Well im not going that far, this whole thing gets stupid imo. And i dont believe it will stop a single case of cp or child abuse.
That's one of the major reasons we put up the new gallery server for Gaybucks. By hosting the images on our server, we are the ones responsible for maintaining the records, and as long as our affiliates make their own galleries using our gallery builder, and host them on our server, they do not have to maintain records.
Anyone subject to US law who is displaying sexually explicit content, including banners, has to have complete 2257 records for all the models displayed in the banners. In fact, I suspect that the picture of Shoe Polish Head in the AEBN banner is cropped from a sexually explicit image, so anyone displaying that banner should have 2257 docs on file, since the regs requre that cropped images still invoke the requirements.
The law is insane and unreasonable. But FSC is apparently asleep at the switch and hasn't even filed an injunction against enforcement.
Chip,
Thank you for defining what is acceptible and what crosses the line. I believe that the recquirements for having 2257 is a way to help fight CP, but until there is no demand for it, or the entire planet comes up with a consensus about CP, it will exist. I agree that 2257 will not stop CP, but it is at least a step in the direction showing that the industry as a whole does not condone or accept it. Unfortunately this is a cross we have to bare that we didn't earn.
thats a good point. did everyone at the FSC go on vacation or something? their site dosnt even seem to have been updated on anything in a whileQuote:
The law is insane and unreasonable. But FSC is apparently asleep at the switch and hasn't even filed an injunction against enforcement.
What we were advised on that issue was to assume that the Justice people reviewing the site are HTML-ignorant, meaning if the URL in the address bar at the top points to your server, anything displaying on that page you should have records for, regardless of whether it's in a frame that is coming from a different server.Quote:
Originally Posted by collegeboyslive
It's uncharted territory, but I don't want to be the one trying to explain to a jury of little old ladies from rural Tennessee that no, the picture of some guy getting plugged in the ass isn't my responsibility becuase it was actually served by somebody else's server in some other location :)
yes, you do need to have 2257 info for what's in those frames, or so said the two lawyers i talked to about this - and it's also how i interpreted it. the law doesn't say anything about content you host. it basically says content used in your site. a pic showing up on my page is in my site regardless of who hosts it.
It's all a big gray area that no one wants to be the test case for, so my advice is pick your battles and your risk comfort level.
Obviously a site using all plug-in feeds, each with their own windows that display the plug-in's URL at the top is going to be less risky than a frame with somebody else's content in one window of the frame. But Patti is right -- no one definitively knows whether "in a site" means any content accessible from your members area, including plug-ins, or any content hosted on your servers, or yet some other definition.
you misunderstood what i meant, say you have a page that has no pictures on it, just text, like a header page. you probably are ok not having to try to squeeze a 2257 link on THAT page
Ah yes. Pretty sure you're correct on that. But the thing is so poorly worded that who knows what they might try to argue.Quote:
Originally Posted by collegeboyslive