Designers and 2257

[jj33]

Hi

Does anyone know if 2257 effects graphic designers and web developers?

JJ

[gaybucks_chip]

There is language in 4472 that says something about "those who create graphics using sexually explicit materials" or something like that having to maintain records, but most likely that is referring to the *companies* that have the content created, not a contracted designer. But I would check with an attorney to get a competent answer.

[Andrew]

I'm not 100% sure I understand the question :cowboy:

[jj33]

Hi

Let's say a client wants us to design an adult site and he furnishes us with some adult photos to use in the design. Do we need to worry about 2257 for those photos?

[Rimmates.com]

I don't think so. I think it falls under the same category as free gallery makers using sponsored content. The sponsors hold the 2257 info, not the free gallery makers.

But make sure your client or whoever gives you the photos is trustworthy, you may want to have them verify that they do indeed hold 2257 info.

[gaybucks_chip]

I don't think so. I think it falls under the same category as free gallery makers using sponsored content. The sponsors hold the 2257 info, not the free gallery makers.

But make sure your client or whoever gives you the photos is trustworthy, you may want to have them verify that they do indeed hold 2257 info.

As I understand it from Chad, that isn't true any more. 4472 removed the differences between primary and secondary producers. Unless the galleries are actually hosted by the sponsor on the sponsor's server, or the pictures are non-explicit, the affiliate now has to have 2257 records on file for any content posted after 4472 went into effect (don't remember when this was, but within the last couple months.) And the FSC injunction doesn't apply because it was concerning the Sundance decision, which 4472 effectively nullified.

But check with your attorney to be sure.