Content Providers + 2257 Documentation Standards

[Lee]

So for the last couple of weeks (on and off) ive been checking out various content providers and how they handle delivery of their 2257 documents for content they sell and i have to admit, im a little perplexed by it all in that there doesnt actually seem to be a 'standard' method of delivering documents, some include them in the content sets themselves, other (including Rainbow Content) offer them as seperate .zip downloads and others mail them out or offer to have them faxed to the customer whilst others simply dont include them at all (DVD content providers).

That being said, i was wondering what everyones preference was so far as delivery of 2257 docs when it came to the content you purchase and, how you like the docs arranged in terms of structure within a content set.

Right now im about to start re-working all of my 2257 delivery on Rainbow Content so that customers only have to download 1 zip file per set instead of the 2 they currently need to (one for the content and one for the docs).

With that in mind i think im going to use a directory structure like this..

.zip
.zip/set/
.zip/set/thumbs
.zip/2257

In essence, you get a zip file, which contains a directory for the images (and thumbs within that directory) and a directory for the 2257 docs.

Do you think there should be a 'standard' that content providers use when it comes to delivering their 2257 docs and, if so, do you think containing the docs in a seperate directory inside the content set would be enough?

Regards,

Lee

[licensedcontent]

I agree that there really needs to be some kind of guideline for 2257 docs.
I have been a content producer for over 10 years and have provided the docs since 1996. Remember that 2257 dates to 1993.

We organize our image sets as follows:

gpl_dslfet-lily (name of photo set and primary folder)
/2257 (folder with ID and a text document with details pertaining to the set)
/thumbs (folder with Hi-Res thumbs)
gpl_dslfet_001.thumb.jpg (thumb nail image)
gpl_dslfet_002.thumb.jpg (thumb nail image)
gpl_dslfet_003.thumb.jpg (thumb nail image)
faceimage.jpg (representation thumb nail image)
/videos (folder containing video if there is video to match the stills)
gpl_dslfet_786.wmv (WMV video file encoded to 786)


gpl_dslfet_001.jpg (full res 1200x800 image)
gpl_dslfet_002.jpg (full res 1200x800 image)
gpl_dslfet_003.jpg (full res 1200x800 image)
gpl_dslfet_004.jpg (full res 1200x800 image)

We name everything with a unique identifier as the law requires.
This means all images, thumbs and videos have a unique name

In this example the name of the set works out to mean:

gpl = Gecko Productions LLC (producer of the image set)
dsl = Models First initials of her / his First Name, Last Name and Stage name (Debbie Smith - Stage Name Lily)
fet = Type of content (fetish shoot)
lily = models stage name

This allows us to know who produced it, who the model is and the niche with just a glance at the name. If we have the same model from another producer the naming would be:

lme_dsltoy-lily - this tells us L&M Enterprises shot Lily and it's a toy set.

This make searching for content of a particular producer, model or niche very simple.

We have produced a text document that is included with all image sets that includes:

Copyright info
Name of Image set
Date of Production
Model(s) Real Name
Model(s) Stage Name
Model(s) Date of Birth

Producers Name
Photographers Name

Custodian of Record
Custodian Address
Custodian Phone Number

Release of Liability disclaimer.

This document answer all questions of 2257 / HR4472.

[Xstr8guy]

Great info! And since you go through such great efforts, maybe you should also put the production date in your file name too. Just a thought.

[licensedcontent]

We thought about adding DOP to the naming, but it would require renaming 13,000 image / video sets. We thought it was better added to the text doc than to spend the time renaming all the sets.

[Lee]

The only problem i see with putting all that info in the filename is that once a customer renames the images, the work was done for nothing.

Regards,

Lee

[sexyd]

1 zip with all the info under it is a great idea.

If I remember correctly that's the way Ounique work and tracking their 2257 according to a specific set has always been the easiest.

[basschick]

without the production date, seems like there's no way to prove that the content wasn't shot before the i.d. was copied.

[gaybucks_chip]

We don't currently sell content, but we use our content in many different places (our hosted galleries, various websites, etc as well as DVDs) and what we've done is come up with a naming structure for all media (still, video, screencap, etc, as well as new media that we may offer in the future) that references 2257 data.

The idea is that the naming structure identifies the set from which an image comes from, the individual image, the type of image, site on which it is used, and the type of media (still, video, screencap, etc) The naming structure, in turn, references directly back to our crossreferenced 2257 records database, so that any image used in any of our galleries, etc. can nearly instantly be referenced back to the required records and cross references.

The structure is a little complicated, but it's both human understandable and readable by our 2257 content system. If anyone wants a description of how it works to adapt for their own use, let me know and I can supply it to you.

[chadknowslaw]

licensed content:

Very nice, except you have not stated that your records are indexed by the last name of the performers. If the name of the performers are in a text document, then that is not a field that can be indexed or sorted, so your system fails even the lenient requirements set out by Agent Joyner last week.

I know you have done a lot of work on this, but it has to be indexed and searchable by the Legal Last Name of the model. Otherwise, it fails, no matter how many tricks and info can come out of that database.

[licensedcontent]

We have the models First, Last and stage intioal in the naming:

In this example the name of the set works out to mean:

gpl = Gecko Productions LLC (producer of the image set)
dsl = Models First initials of her / his First Name, Last Name and Stage name (Debbie Smith - Stage Name Lily)
fet = Type of content (fetish shoot)
lily = models stage name

In our database My2257 everything is cross refferenced.
This is just the naming sequence for the image and video sets.

[citiboyz]

Our interpretation of the regs is that any photoset or mpeg set we produce to sell as content is a "depiction" for 2257 purposes, so we include a Compliance Statement" jpeg image with every content item we sell, with the date of original production stated on it, which can be compared to the ID's to establish age of the performers. We supply full 2257 docs with all content, including an Excel spreadsheet that cross-references the models to the photos or videos. The Excel doc is available to anyone who asks, but since many of our direct customers just buy a set or two at a time it's no big deal to figure out who's who from the ID's and MR's. It seems like customer requirements vary from customer to customer, so we stay flexible concerning their needs. If they want the docs zipped, we'll do it. If they want them on CDR, we'll do that. Whatever they need is what we'll do. The bottom line is that we have always supported our content customers with everything they need to be legal, and always will.

without the production date, seems like there's no way to prove that the content wasn't shot before the i.d. was copied.

[BarebackJack]

ummm...

Don't all files contain a date and time stamp of original creation embedded in them?

[citiboyz]

ummm...

Don't all files contain a date and time stamp of original creation embedded in them?

We're talking about the date the sexual activity was originally shot, not the file creation date. They're not always the same.