Sponsor 2257 announcements, are they good enough?

[Matt 26z]

There is one thing that worries me about all of this.

That's the fact that these new regs have a retroactive effective date. Meaning the requirements are not based on the old regs before 6/23 and the new regs after 6/23. It's actually as if the old regs never existed, and that these new regs have always been there.

That's one of the things the FSC is fighting, but who knows what will happen.

So if you are a gallery submitter who has been using sponsor content for a number of years, come the 23rd you need to have on file all those model ID's even if you pulled the galleries a year ago.

Now of course most sponsors are refusing to release model ID's, and are instead coming up with other promo systems for affiliates. I don't blame them for this. I wouldn't release the docs to just anyone, but that's beside the point. It may be illegal.

Suppose for a second that the DoJ is on a witch hunt, and that's why they made the new regs retroactive. They may have been recording affiliate promo activities over the past couple years, and then on the 23rd they can legally nail you for not having model ID's for old long gone galleries.

Just something to think about.

[basschick]

can you show me where you see these regs are retroactive? i see they have an effective date starting one month after being signed.

[Matt 26z]

From the comments section:

--------------
American Library Ass'n v. Reno, had upheld the requirement that secondary producers maintain records. The Department is not responsible if secondary producers chose to rely on the Tenth Circuit's holding in Sundance and not to maintain records while ignoring the D.C. Circuit's holding in American Library Ass'n v. Reno. A prudent secondary producer would have continued to secure copies of the records from primary producers after July 3, 1995. If those records, which are statutorily required, are not currently available, then the commenters are correct that they will be required to comply with the requirements of all applicable laws,including section 2257(f).
----------------

[hdkbill]

Matt is correct. The fact that the DoJ made this statement in their comments section is very worrisome. That would mean that all secondary producers who are out of compliance as of today....or yesterday...or a year ago, would be at risk, regardless of if they are in compliance as of tomorrow, the 23rd.

Bill

[basschick]

unless i am mistaken, which isn't impossible, the secondary producers were legally required to have the i.d. but not to act as custodian. and at the time, there was no law in place requiring that the i.d. be unblocked.

[Lee]

unless i am mistaken, which isn't impossible, the secondary producers were legally required to have the i.d. but not to act as custodian. and at the time, there was no law in place requiring that the i.d. be unblocked.

Correct.

Thats why i dont think these new regs are as bad as people are making them out to be.

Webmasters were already required to have the ids for models, all that changed was they are now classified as 'secondary producers' anyone who didnt have the ID's prior to these new regs going in to effect were already breaking the law.

Regards,

Lee

[hdkbill]

Much controversy exists over whether or not under the old 2257 regulations secondary producers were required to maintain model id's. In fact, much controvery existed as to whether or not secondary producers even existed as evidenced by the Sundance case and the American Library Association case.

For years, conflicting opinions have been renedered by attorneys over this issue so I think it is incorrect to say definitely that; " Webmasters were already required to have the ids for models".

Bill