Secondary producer dilemma - tearing my hair out

Hi folks,

I need some reassurance here, either that I'm doing the right thing or that I'm way off base.

I run GayGeek (www.gaygeek.com), a website that specializes in reviewing other websites. It's a site that came to life right around the time the 2257 laws changed, so I designed it to be hyper-legal. As a secondary producer of porn, I would be required to have IDs for all the models that appear in nude or explicit photos/videos on the site. Since that isn't a realistic option, I opted to forgo nude photos in favor of PG-rated photos that tantalize but don't really show anything. The most revealing we get is the occasional bit of pubic hair and some butt shots. (Never the hole either, mind you).

Unfortunately, a number of my competitor sites have not done the same. Sites like Porn Inspector, Rabbit's Reviews, Boy Review, and Penisbot have not done the same. In Boy Review's case it's because he's not an American and his site is run outside the USA. But as for the others, I can't say why.

Either way, it's frustrating me to no end. I know if I ran explicit pictures I could triple my site traffic almost overnight. Considering that I'm really struggling with my site and the limited traffic that it's getting, this has me tearing me hair out.

Please reassure me that I'm doing the right thing. That although I'm a member of the Free Speech Coalition, it doesn't pay to run explicit pictures as a secondary producer. That the Supreme Court makeup is unfriendly at best, and who knows whether the secondary producer provisions will be upheld in court. In a nutshell, that I'm being smart by playing it legal.

A very frustrated,

--Aaron

PS, I'm aware that our current featured site is Chazing Papis, who has a controversy going on over stolen pictures. I'm hoping to hear from Randy Blue on the issue, after which I'll figure out whether to remove it or not.

Aaron--

As of 2006, everybody is a producer, no primary, no secondary.

You appear to be following the law as it is written.





We should have a little Skype chat sometime soon --

chadknowslaw on Skype and always invisible

Chad..as the FSC said..or any of their attornies said that the 2006 legislation does indeed make everyone a producer?

I know that they are TRYING to get around that..but curious as to what any of the members take on the 2006 legislation is.

Hey, Aaron,

I share your frustration, because a lot of the decisions we've made in terms of content we make available to our affiliates, what we put on our DVD covers, and even the way our previews are assembled... all those decisions seem to put us at a disadvantage against other programs that are all playing "fast and loose" with the regulations.

In a similar way, although it's for a completely different reason, I'm sure that if we were willing to shoot bareback content that our DVDs would sell better (turns out, according to our distributor, we are one of maybe three decent sized companies in the twink marketplace that don't produce bareback)

Yet, I believe that in both of these cases, we're doing the right thing. In the first case, it's a legal issue... having any explicit content on your site, whether you shot it or whether it's somebody else's content from their site, triggers 2257 documentation requirements. Failure to have the documentation on file for content that is on your server is, open and shut, a violation, and the FSC injunction was, as far as I understand it, made completely moot on this point by the new regulations of 4472.

I completely do not understand why so many people are simply putting their heads in the sand and ignoring this issue entirely. I talk to affiliates every day who cannot understand why we don't want them hosting our preview videos on their own servers, and it's always a "Well, __________________ lets me do it" argument.

All I can say is hopefully the foresight of following the regulations will pay off in the long term, and we will see a lot of the noncompliant sites get shut down, or come into compliance.

Now, of course, what I would REALLY like to see is a *meaningful* anti-child pornography act that, among other things, creates a way to establish aand verify a date of production so that, for example, producers cannot shoot content with underage guys and release it after they are legal. Or somebody going after all the eastern European sites with the guys who are 14 and 15 but the sites claim to have IDs (obviously forged) saying they are 18.

It is becoming increasingly irritating that nobody is actually doing anything meaningful about CP, but instead the feds are spending money examining records of studios that are legal and compliant.

I don't think the FSC has even acknowledged the revisions to the law made by Congress.

2257 now applies to anyone that puts a sexually explicit image on a website, whether you took the picture, bought it from someone else, or stole it off the member's area of another website.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Now, of course, what I would REALLY like to see is a *meaningful* anti-child pornography act that, among other things, creates a way to establish aand verify a date of production so that, for example, producers cannot shoot content with underage guys and release it after they are legal.

---

Take the customary face shot holding an ID up, and include a newspaper. The same thing can be done with video. At some point pan down and get the paper on film.

Graphic artists can spot manipulations, so nobody is going get away with saying the shoot was done early.

we took down all our explicit or nude content on june 22, 2005. if you want to be safe and legal, and not deal with life as a custodian, you did the right thing. and considering that custodians must continue to act as custodian for years after any content is taken down, whether to act as custodian or not is a very serious decision.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Matt 26z

Take the customary face shot holding an ID up, and include a newspaper. The same thing can be done with video. At some point pan down and get the paper on film.

Graphic artists can spot manipulations, so nobody is going get away with saying the shoot was done early.

---

Thought about that, but (a) it's not required by regulations, so anyone that wants to shoot underage can just keep doing so; and (b) it wouldn't be hard to have the guy come back in a month or 6 months later to pose with the newspaper. To be honest, I really have no idea how one would go about preventing this sort of thing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

Thought about that, but (a) it's not required by regulations, so anyone that wants to shoot underage can just keep doing so; and (b) it wouldn't be hard to have the guy come back in a month or 6 months later to pose with the newspaper. To be honest, I really have no idea how one would go about preventing this sort of thing.

---

This may be slightly off-topic, but I was reading in the FSC's comments regarding the judge's recent ruling, and I believe that the DOJ agreed to accept redacted ID's where all but the year of birth could be redacted. How does that help establish a performer's age on the actual day of production when the month and day on his ID can be redacted? Just wondering how that makes sense....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by citiboyz

I believe that the DOJ agreed to accept redacted ID's where all but the year of birth could be redacted. How does that help establish a performer's age on the actual day of production when the month and day on his ID can be redacted? Just wondering how that makes sense....

---

No kidding. There isn't much about 2257 that makes sense, actively protects children, or does anything to actually address CP, since none of the people who produce CP keep any records at all.

I remember reading the letter ruling you're referring to, and I believe there was something to the effect that if the content was shot in the year that the model turned 18, that the month was also required, but that was a while ago so I don't really remember the details.

I recently watched Raiders of the Lost Ark on the SciFi Channel. Does this mean that they are now the producers of the film the Raiders of the Lost Ark? Has someone notified George Lucas and Howard Kazanjian?

Steve

There is a clever exclusion written into 4472 to address the concerns of Hollywood. I don't remember the exact language, but it's something to the effect of if the film is a "major motion picture" distributed by a company with (some sort of criteria) or is shown on regular broadcast television, then it is exempt from 2257 and 4472 recordkeeping requirements.

That's one of the major reasons that I think, if FSC does it's job correctly, there's a good likelihood of getting part of the regs struck down, because that law as written would create different classes of regulation of speech.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by desslock

I recently watched Raiders of the Lost Ark on the SciFi Channel. Does this mean that they are now the producers of the film the Raiders of the Lost Ark? Has someone notified George Lucas and Howard Kazanjian?

Steve

---

LOL!!!!!

As a small dvd retail site, I am constanly paranoid. When I started, 2257 wasn't around. I can't afford to take all my cover images down. Would you buy a product without seeing it first? Certainly, most would not. I'd be out of biz in a week, and stuck with 1000's in inventory. So, I continue to hold my breath, hoping that cooler/reasonable heads will prevail.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GayGeek

PS, I'm aware that our current featured site is Chazing Papis, who has a controversy going on over stolen pictures. I'm hoping to hear from Randy Blue on the issue, after which I'll figure out whether to remove it or not.

---

It would seem that Papi's is revamping the site.

My content was on there as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GayGeek

Hi folks,

I need some reassurance here, either that I'm doing the right thing or that I'm way off base.

I run GayGeek (www.gaygeek.com), a website that specializes in reviewing other websites. It's a site that came to life right around the time the 2257 laws changed, so I designed it to be hyper-legal. As a secondary producer of porn, I would be required to have IDs for all the models that appear in nude or explicit photos/videos on the site. Since that isn't a realistic option, I opted to forgo nude photos in favor of PG-rated photos that tantalize but don't really show anything. The most revealing we get is the occasional bit of pubic hair and some butt shots. (Never the hole either, mind you).

Unfortunately, a number of my competitor sites have not done the same. Sites like Porn Inspector, Rabbit's Reviews, Boy Review, and Penisbot have not done the same. In Boy Review's case it's because he's not an American and his site is run outside the USA. But as for the others, I can't say why.

Either way, it's frustrating me to no end. I know if I ran explicit pictures I could triple my site traffic almost overnight. Considering that I'm really struggling with my site and the limited traffic that it's getting, this has me tearing me hair out.

Please reassure me that I'm doing the right thing. That although I'm a member of the Free Speech Coalition, it doesn't pay to run explicit pictures as a secondary producer. That the Supreme Court makeup is unfriendly at best, and who knows whether the secondary producer provisions will be upheld in court. In a nutshell, that I'm being smart by playing it legal.

A very frustrated,

--Aaron

---

You need to have ALL ID's and RELEASE forms.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GayGeek

PS, I'm aware that our current featured site is Chazing Papis, who has a controversy going on over stolen pictures. I'm hoping to hear from Randy Blue on the issue, after which I'll figure out whether to remove it or not.

---

There is no issue. They are using our stolen content. There is no agreement with us and them. They claim they "bought" the content from a content provider but Randy Blue content is not licensed to be sold by any content provider, except for a very limited number of older sets which can only be licensed from me.

We are working on getting this site shut down right now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DonMike

There is no issue. They are using our stolen content. There is no agreement with us and them. They claim they "bought" the content from a content provider but Randy Blue content is not licensed to be sold by any content provider, except for a very limited number of older sets which can only be licensed from me.

We are working on getting this site shut down right now.

---

Yeah what he said!!