2257 regulations reguarding TGP gallerys or content you dont own.

**sc32803** · 04-29-2008, 06:45 PM

I thought I'd jump back into this thread because I'm still confused.

If I sign up with XonDemand (or any sponsor) and post some naked man, hard dick, gay sex thumbnail images taken from their content on my site, don't I need to have the 2257 records of all those models in my posession?

Based on what others have said here, my linking to the content providers 2257 statement would not follow the law. But like I said, I'm confused so feel free to enlighten me. :bow:

**gaybucks_chip** · 04-29-2008, 08:02 PM

There are two answers.

UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS (and the injunctions stemming from them), if you have stills or embedded videos on your page provided to you by another sponsor, you can provide a proper 2257 statement with a reference to the primary producer's information.

UNDER THE REGULATIONS OF THE ADAM WALSH ACT, which is pending publications of final regs, you will have to have full 2257 records yourself, including crossreferencing, of any content (embedded videos, sponsor-provided stills, etc) that appears on your site (specifically, appears displayed on a page where a URL you own is at the top.

No one knows when the AWA regs wil be published. The proposed regs were published several months ago, so it's possible they could publish any day, or not for 6 months or more. Our general approach is to assume that we will need to be compliant with the more restrictive regs.

**sc32803** · 05-01-2008, 07:29 PM

Thanks, Chip, once again you made something much clearer for me.

If AWA passes I wonder if sponsors like XonDemand and others will share all their model records with affiliates.

**basschick** · 05-01-2008, 11:40 PM

the injunctions that i'm aware of don't apply to the entire u.s. and don't apply to where i am. are there further injunctions?

Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip

UNDER CURRENT REGULATIONS (and the injunctions stemming from them), if you have stills or embedded videos on your page provided to you by another sponsor, you can provide a proper 2257 statement with a reference to the primary producer's information.

**gaybucks_chip** · 05-02-2008, 01:34 AM

I think you're thinking of the 6th circuit decision that suspends ANY enforcement of 2257 for those living in 6th circuit area (midwest.)

I'm speaking of the earlier injunctions. Most of the original FSC injunction on the enforcement of the 6/23/05 regulations is still in effect until the final regulations for the Adam Walsh Act are published, which will effectively moot most of the injunction. So, for now at least, the FBI has said they are not doing any inspections of secondary producers due to the injunction and the lack of regulations for AWA.

As soon as the final AWA regs are published (or rather, 30 days after), then the regs for what were formerly known as 'secondary producers' will go into effect, and anyone having explicit content (which, under the new regs, will include erect penises that aren't being touched, simulated sex, and a whole bunch of other stuff that's a change from former regs and almost certainly unconstitutional) under their URL will need to have 2257 records for any such content. Of course, there will probably be another round of fight from the FSC and a request for injunction, but it's always tough to know exactly how much of an injunction the judge will grant.

**basschick** · 05-02-2008, 07:45 AM

the fsc injunctions only apply to fsc members, and in at least one inspection those injunctions were ignored as i recall.

**gaybucks_chip** · 05-02-2008, 03:41 PM

As Chad has stated, the US government cannot legally apply one standard to members of the FSC and another standard to members of the public. The injunction binds the US government and it must treat everyone equally, not just the people who brought the injunction. Although we (MRC/Gaybucks) are members of FSC, I checked out what he said at the time and it appears to be correct.

There was a case somewhere where agents did appear to inspect secondary records, but I believe there were unusual circumstances (a search warrant, maybe?) and the FBI's team has since clarified that they are, under instructions from Justice, not doing any inspections of secondary producers nor inspecting secondary records when inspecting primary producers.

Nothing in this industry relating to 2257 is bulletproof because there is so little case law around it. So what we're left to rely on is the best opinion/interpretation of those who specialize in the law. Each person has to make his own decision as to what level of risk s/he is comfortable with.

Personally, since Chad hasn't yet been wrong on any position he's taken, and the position of several of the other 1st amendments specialists has proved to be wrong (according to the information from the FBI agent in charge of the inspections) I feel pretty comfortable in relying on his advice. Of course, others may choose to take a more conservative approach, and that's their choice.

**abostonboy** · 05-05-2008, 08:03 PM

My understanding from my attorney is EXACTLY as yours. And, even though I am an FSC member, he basically said that didn't amount to a piss hole in the snow in regards to the injuction. There is currently an injuntion on secondary producers and if I am not mistaken webcam performers?

mrmax · 05-06-2008, 05:31 PM

But if your content was produced before 1995 then youre fine, right?
I have a lot of old content made in the 80s and its my understand that 2257 laws do not apply to them.

**basschick** · 05-06-2008, 05:40 PM

wrong.

i've talked to several lawyers about this, including chad. my understanding is probably fuzzy, but the bottom line is that because the videos are digitized, they count as a new production, and a new production requires 2257.

i was very sad about this because i had licensed a bunch of vintage content and was unable to start the 3 sites i wanted to make because no 1970's or 1980's content comes with 2257

Originally Posted by mrmax

But if your content was produced before 1995 then youre fine, right?
I have a lot of old content made in the 80s and its my understand that 2257 laws do not apply to them.

mrmax · 05-06-2008, 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by basschick

wrong.

i've talked to several lawyers about this, including chad. my understanding is probably fuzzy, but the bottom line is that because the videos are digitized, they count as a new production, and a new production requires 2257.

i was very sad about this because i had licensed a bunch of vintage content and was unable to start the 3 sites i wanted to make because no 1970's or 1980's content comes with 2257

Thanks.
Oh well, Ill just stick with non-nude then. Less headaches and more places to promote it.

**basschick** · 05-06-2008, 05:52 PM

that's why my sites are non nude including our paysite. and we have plans for 3 more sexy non nude paysites in the future.

Originally Posted by mrmax

Thanks.
Oh well, Ill just stick with non-nude then. Less headaches and more places to promote it.

mrmax · 05-06-2008, 06:18 PM

Originally Posted by basschick

that's why my sites are non nude including our paysite. and we have plans for 3 more sexy non nude paysites in the future.

Good for you, im glad youre doing well.

I still kind of wish I would be arrested for showing 2 men kissing and massaging shoulders, because then my site would get so much publicity, Id be in every paper and talked about on Fox News and Drudge.
but alas it wont happen. oh well.

**badboysfilms** · 05-06-2008, 06:21 PM

All this happens becasue you let it happen. The adult industry is not very put together, most are night people that party or are hiding because they are looking at porn. Oh can't let anyone see me!! ITs fucking a body, nothing more nothing less but the bornagain asswholes and others of the same stick their fucking faces into everyone elses and you let them. Where is the beef here no other place but some site that talks about what they are doing. Everyone is afraid and should be, I got to keep records for my videos as a producer and as a secondard producer????? even my older guys I have to have proof they are not under 18. Such shit but again you let this happen. WHere are the meetings of millions of porn users in the US to fight the small few, Noooo where, so soon you won't have but oh lets see bathing suits to the top of you feet and just below your neck level and maybe even shoes too as you can't show feet with all those foot fetish people. Why should they get their self off and we can't. :develish: