Printable View
I personally LOVE real amateur sites. But how about 2257 laws? I've seen some sites make an attempt at being legal, but even they aren't really following the existing rules.
And all of those "rating" sites... they are full of copyrighted images. All one of these sites needs is a couple Titan images on their servers and the party is over!
Is there a safe way to operate an amateur site with user submitted pics?
Not a legal expert here on this issue...so I'm just shooting from the hip from past reading. I believe the Digital Millenium Copyright Act (DMCA) in the USA has a safe haven for service providers. So you set up your site as a service provider in the site's Terms of Service using the requirements and language of the DMCA. There are specific rules for what to do if there is a dispute over copyright of user-submitted material.
Look at the Terms of Service of your webhosting company. You should see the service provider provisions of the DMCA.
I don't recall if (or how) the DMCA deals with issues involving minors or the 2257 documentation.
Larry Walters has an excellent article on the subject (and many other subjects of interest to webmasters) at www.firstamendment.com.
Steve
the way i understand it, adult material is adult material. if the model doesn't supply a recognizable i.d., it ain't legal. after all, how do you KNOW every 21 year old isn't really 16?
Woul be interested in seeing what Chad says on this topic so heres a quick bump so he gets to see it ;)
Regards,
Lee
Does this mean I should shut down my pic rating site? What about the thousands of other sites that accept nude profiles from it's members?
There are hundreds of popular ones that I know of that allow any member to post a nude picture, what is the answer for them? I don't see how they could they ever get 2257 info for every member of their site.
DigitalJay - if it were me, i'd never have started a pic rating site, or else i'd use bought photos. it's against u.s. law to have sexually explicit pictures on a website or in a magazine or video without someone acting as custodian for the i.d.'s which you must have.
please talk to a lawyer - someone with lots of experience in our industry. then decide if it's worth the risk, because it will probably become a much bigger risk after the new attorney general is fully in office.
Ok, call me a first amendment fanatic, but I don't see the problem with user submitted photos, on a free website.
If you have an adult warning on your index page, which you have, and you have a "I swear on a stack of bibles I'm over 18 and these pictures are mine" on your submission page, and you monitor the submissions, I think you've done what you can.
Since its not a membership site, the liklihood of someone getting bent out of shape and turning you in to the attorney general is so miniscule that I wouldn't even worry about it. If you were to turn it into a membership site, you'd probably have problems with a processor.
There are literally thousands of self-pic submission sites. This whole 2257 Consciousness flare up occured because of the VISA regulations and not becuase of any pending prosecutions or arrests. Do you honestly think the US Attorney General will spend the time and effort to go after thehottestcock.com ?
I think not.
Is it a risk? Sure. Would you ever go to prison over it? No.
MWCren - it's not a question of the first amendment. the government claims that current 2257 regulations do NOT impair free speech.
you are risking jail if you visitor submitted pics. sure, the risk isn't very high, so it depends on if the gamble is worth it to you. it wouldn't be worth it to me.
of course, if you get a mature-looking 16 year old who sends in his pics, and someone who knows him sees them and reports you, you will do time for cp. without i.d., how do you KNOW the age of your submitters?
Yes, but how do know that someone hasn't done a screen capture from a Titan movie and said, "This is me." Many of us can probably tell real amateur from professional, but what if? You're basically relying on the surfer to be honest. I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put my business and my future in the hands of surfers.
This is one of the main reasons that I haven't set up a profiler on any of my sites. While they're great for traffic, I don't need to be getting any letters from lawyers, and I don't have the time to scour hundreds or thousands of pics to make sure they're not CP or copyrighted.
Michael
I forgot about this thread, thanks for bumping it Lee.
I guess if I didn't already have my little empire, I might risk starting a rating or community site. But I have too much to lose now. It seems very risky :err:
Dzinerbear - if Titan contacts you and says "take the pic down", you do. if the law contacts you and says "that's a minor", they do it with a warrent and arrest you. not really the same thing.
Xstr8guy - glad to hear it :-)
Free pic hosting that allows adult material be it rate me sites or profile sites are basically the same thing.
Yahoo profiles, Gay.com, MySpace, YaFro, etc... All big outfits, and they all allow their users to post adult photos.
If a 17yo puts a nude up in his Yahoo profile, can Yahoo be prosecuted for CP? I would think there has to be an intent to knowingly disseminate the CP.
I forgot about all the profiles at yahoo.com and gay.com, et al.
Good point.
I wondered about Gay.com too. How they got around the 2257 rules. Maybe they aren't, but they certainly aren't the only ones posting profiles.
Two thirds of my content consists of models with paperwork that are 2257 compliant. The other 3rd is composed of user submitted pics. I try to avoid using any photos where that person even looks close to being 18. Still that wouldn't hold up in court if the guy I thought was 25 is only 17.
I'm redoing my site to include amateurs who are 2257 compliant. They would be considered models so all the necessary paperwork would be on file. Honestly, I'm tired of worrying about it all these years.
Your comments in this thread are interesting and somewhat reassuring regarding interpretations and adherences to 2257 requirements.
The issue of user submitted image files is a daily concern for us at Pantheon Productions where I am the site admin for HotOlderMale.com. Our current guideline is to accept amateur nude images of men associated with personal ads that are not obviously copyrighted material. Although the vast majority of the images obviously are of older men, it still is questionable since we have no ID or signed model release on file for each image in case of a dreaded federal 2257 audit.
Our attorney recently advised us to no longer accept amateur images in our personal ads section showing explicit sex acts such as oral and anal intercourse. So I routinely moderate new posted images, audit our imagedb and delete inappropriate files. Actually this revised policy is fine with us because Pantheon is primarily in the business of producing and selling gay adult videos and photo galleries and never set out to run only a personal ads site. Nonetheless, we are compelled to mitigate the risk of publishing undocumented amateur images on our site to the rest of our business.
Good points are being made; it is hard for adult dating sites like ours to abide by 2257. I agree if you have a warning and an over 18 declaration when you enter the site then you should be ok. In our case we have agents who only browse the site for quality and all pictures are checked for approval before being uploaded to the profile. Any picture that might be suspicious or has a kid in the background, we reject it and ask them to crop it or upload a new one.
Lara,Quote:
Originally posted by Lara M
Good points are being made; it is hard for adult dating sites like ours to abide by 2257. I agree if you have a warning and an over 18 declaration when you enter the site then you should be ok. In our case we have agents who only browse the site for quality and all pictures are checked for approval before being uploaded to the profile. Any picture that might be suspicious or has a kid in the background, we reject it and ask them to crop it or upload a new one.
I just want to point you to the forum rules page in respect of your signature size ;)
http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...=&threadid=690
Regards,
Lee
this is such a good point. I have had a great domain for a pic rating site, but I will not let my future be determined by surfers. I tried for a long while to find a rating script that was NOT user submission based, but couldn't find one... even contacted a few programmers about it... still looking,lol.Quote:
Originally posted by Dzinerbear
I don't know about you, but I wouldn't put my business and my future in the hands of surfers.
hmm, maybe some opionions on the domain name? rategayporn.com as good as I think it is?
Point is, I think depending on others (aka surfers) is in it's self risky enough to keep me from running a user submitted site.
BUT, damn I like those kind of sites... http://www.voyeurweb.com is a great one in my opinion
thetwink - rategayporn.com IS as good as you think it is, but it sounds to me more like a rating site for porn movies than surfer pics.
Lara M - i don't believe that anyone can tell a hunky, mature 16 year old from an 18 year old. the only difference lies in the fact that it is a crime you could spend 20 years of your life in jail for to have the 16 year old's sexually explicit pic up. how would your agents know whether a guy is 15 or 18? it's not like you can count the rings like you can with trees...
Greetings:
This SO makes me want to test your theory.Quote:
Originally posted by basschick
it's not like you can count the rings like you can with trees...
How many of you are willing to volunteer to have your rings counted?
*LOLOLOL*
not me - i have too many rings!
Thx Lee, i changed it!Quote:
Originally posted by Lee
Lara,
I just want to point you to the forum rules page in respect of your signature size ;)
http://forums.gaywidewebmasters.com/...=&threadid=690
Regards,
Lee
That is true we can't really say who is 15 and who is 18 but with the agents we have less of a chance to let minors post than without any monitoring. The site allows members to opload any kind of picture of themselves but anyone who wants to see the full picture has to a member and that requires a credit card. In all cases the point is that adult dating sites are not selling content rather they offer a medium for adults to chat. 2257 is not directed straight at them but more at content providers.Quote:
Originally posted by basschick
thetwink - rategayporn.com IS as good as you think it is, but it sounds to me more like a rating site for porn movies than surfer pics.
Lara M - i don't believe that anyone can tell a hunky, mature 16 year old from an 18 year old. the only difference lies in the fact that it is a crime you could spend 20 years of your life in jail for to have the 16 year old's sexually explicit pic up. how would your agents know whether a guy is 15 or 18? it's not like you can count the rings like you can with trees...
As I see it, a place like ratexpics allows only webmasters to upload pics and they require a link back.
I suppose they look at who has submitted pics and make sure they're legal (though I don't know and can't say for sure)
But, that's one way I could see this working.
I have a rate pic site and as the admin I do only except pics that are from x site owners...this way I can at least check out their 2257...
Mostly I'm the one who's submitted the pics though...lol (I haven't tried to get much traffic to it)
The surfers are unaware that webmasters are the one's who are submitting the pics...at least that's the way I see it.
I am preparing for arguments before the Court of Appeals next week so I really should be working, but 2257 posts always get me to chime in.
First, look at this part of 2257:
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which—
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction.
The first part--producing "other matter" under these facts is questionable. On these things I try to think like a judge--and that means going old school. If a person puts up a bulletin board in a public park for people to place their pictures, will the owner of that bulletin board be considered a producer under this law? Probably not. So, would the person that owns the board be responsible to make sure the documentation is in place for all the pictures posted up on that board? Again, probably not but there is no 100% clear answer that I can find either way.
My argument would be that the bulletin board owner is not the "producer" in the terms of the law. The person that created the image is the producer and therefore subject to 2257 if that image is published. The owner of the public forum is, in my opinion, not the producer and thus not required to maintain 2257 records for images posted in a public forum.
This is just my opinion, and that does not make it right! As a [former] prosecutor I know that a prosecutor can indict just about anybody for just about anything and put the accused through a lot of pain and suffering, even if he is not guilty of breaking any law.
So, the best defense is a good offense. For the owners of such public forums, I would suggest policing the images and removing sexually explicit images--actual sex or penentration. If you do that, you have just made your case easier to win if you are accused. You can then argue (1) you are not the producer and thus not subject to 2257 and (2) even if you are wrong about (1) then the images are not sexually explicit and again you are not subject to 2257.
So, a website with surfers sending in images of their bodies is probably not subject to 2257 recording requirements but best to keep any sexually explicit images confined to a members area or other restricted area.
Remember, unless you are paying me for this [which nobody is] this is not direct legal advice to you.
AND
This is just my opinion on the subject. I am human so have been known to be less than correct on occasion and I welcome anyone that can substantively add to this dialogue.
It is my understanding that whomever the primary producer of the sexually explicit content is, the (custodian of records) information has to be posted on the website. If, according to your opinion, the amateur is considered the primary producer, isn't their custodian of record information required to be posted on the website ?
secondary producers are not required to post the custodial information on their websites however...
if there are questionable photos on your website, you will be required to prove the age of the models. with a reputable content provider, by the time you get to court, you'll have the documents you need. with a guy who logged in and posted his photo, good luck. and what if he can't prove he's over 18 because he's 16?
there have been many cases where site owners were found responsible for things they linked to - you will be in court for years over having an actual underage picture, and are risking jail.