Secondary producer dilemma - tearing my hair out

[Ounique]

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.

[Ounique]

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.

[DonMike]

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.

[Ounique]

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!!