2257 and TGPs

[Dzinerbear]

Hi all,

I haven't submitted to a TGP in over a month, so maybe this isn't news. But I just stumbled across the first TGP that requires a submitter to put a link to the picture gallery's 2257 information.

Free Gay World is the TGP

Cheers,
Dzinerbear

[retrograde]

It looks like it's a new feature in Comus Thumbs. Interesting.

[zentz]

i smell some bad things coming up...

[Lee]

You see thats just crazy.

These proposed regulations havent been passed into law as yet and in fact, they may not get passed into law.

Changing things like that is just going to add fuel to the scaremongering that is already rife in the adult industry about the 2257 topic.

Regards,

Lee

[jIgG]

sometimes i ask people with twink sites, especially those with collected pics from the web, for 2257 at the bottom of the site, and it was in my instructions when i started with justusboys

UGAS/CyberAge has required 2257 on every page for a long time now

[Matt 26z]

Eh, just the TGP trying to protect their ass. This way if questionable content is seen in one of their posted galleries, it's obvious who should be tracked down... and not the TGP owner.

But as far as I know, TGP's are not bound to 2257 since they are technically just distributors of the materials.

[Matt 26z]

Originally posted by Lee
Changing things like that is just going to add fuel to the scaremongering that is already rife in the adult industry about the 2257 topic.

I agree. There's certain people out there who have a lot to gain by spreading such fear.

I've been doing my own in-depth research into thie history of 2257, and I can say I'm not as concerned as I was before about these "new" regs.

In fact, most secondary producers out there are not even bound to them..... but that's just my non-professional opinion based two court cases contesting the secondary producer requirements issue, which is absolutely nothing new to the updated regs. It's actually always been there, as have most of the "new" regs that people are freaking out over and hoping don't pass.....

[rick]

It's been law for 10 years now and most webmasters have had their heads up their ass as far as it is concerned. If a gallery has content that is sexual as defined by 18 USC 2256, then the information should be listed -- but you only have to link to the content provider's site unless you shot it yourself. Until the changes go through, sponsor provided content does not make you a secondary producer.

jIgG, you allow people to use "pictures collected from the web"? Those are more commonly known as copyright infringement!

[Matt 26z]

Originally posted by rick
Until the changes go through, sponsor provided content does not make you a secondary producer.

Yes and no. The definition of secondary producer is not changing with the new regs, nor are their requirements that I can tell. Most of the new stuff that people are talking about are right there in with the old regs if you actually look.

"Producer" as referenced to in 2257 ( http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/18/2257.html ) is actually defined in C.F.R. § 75.1(c) ( http://cfr.law.cornell.edu/cfr/cfr.p...=part&value=75 ). There it states that the term producer is any producer, primary or secondary. So when 2257 talks about producers, it's referring to both primary and secondary.

But it goes on to exempt certain producers in 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4)

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:
(i) Photo processing;
(ii) Distribution; or
(iii) Any activity, other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section, that does not involve the hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers.

Here is one of the court cases on this very secondary producer issue...

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/script...th/961501.html

[jIgG]

Originally posted by rick

jIgG, you allow people to use "pictures collected from the web"? Those are more commonly known as copyright infringement!

i don't if i know for sure, if it looks like borrowed content i ask for 2257 of where they bought the content and of course i never hear back

[Fister]

I include a short 18 USC 2257 statement at the bottom of my TGP galleries to cover my ass. I give the URL of where the 2257 info is, but I don't make it clickable to minimize the # of links on the page.

Some TGP's use sexually-explicit webmaster-submitted thumbnail pics as links to the galleries. I'd imagine those TGP's (if USA) would want to require 2257 statements on the submitted galleries, if they want to be legally cautious.

[rick]

From what I read on another board, Ashcroft is not giving Sundance any credence.

Right now, if you put sponsor-provided content on your site, you're not liable. If the changes go through, you are.