2257 compliant ?

[Evil Chris]

I'm just wondering about something... Shouldn't every TGP gallery that is created be labeled as 2257 compliant?

Is this something that even needs to be worried about? I know that paysites need to be fully compliant with this law, but what about the smaller sites and single pages?

[Taass]

I'd say no.. Since the gallery maker is not producing the pictures but merely distributing them..

Not even sure paysites needs it, that's more by demand of the prosesor compagnies isn't it ?

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Taass
I'd say no.. Since the gallery maker is not producing the pictures but merely distributing them..

Not even sure paysites needs it, that's more by demand of the prosesor compagnies isn't it ?

I'd say that you are a danger to yourself and our industry in general if your reply is actually a serious one.

[Taass]

Originally posted by AaronM
I'd say that you are a danger to yourself and our industry in general if your reply is actually a serious one.

why so ?

I won't pretend that i'm realy into this, as i'm not a US webmaster, don't shot or sell content and don't run any paysites, i havent realy had much reason to (please correct me if i wrong though)

Anyways, reading sec.2257 it says that it's for "Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct"

and states that the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;

I don't see how this affects a tgp gallery ?

[Ronaldo]

Well, well. Chris stirred the shitpot on this one.

I had the privledge, yes privledge, of shaking hands (although, from the shape he was in he probable doesn't remember) with AaronM in Miami.

I got into this business as a gallery builder and consider myself a "Professional" gallery builder. My next set of galleries WILL include 2257 info based on both AaronM's post's insistence and Cyndalie's summary of the roundtable I missed due to TOO much partying. That will cost me an extra 30 minutes or so to set it all up (bloody hell!).

Becaue I work for a content provider, I've kept quite abreast of the 2257 issue and sadly find myself in the minority (agreeing with AaronM) when if comes to this issue. It truly wasn't until Cynadie's article http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...703/page5.html that I seriously considered the personal ramifications.

I had the opportunity to meet Cyndalie in Miami and she is one of the most intelligent young ladies in our industry today. I took her comments carte blanche as I had and have no reason not to.

As for AaronM? Assume for a second that you're NOT a content provider. AaronM AS a content provider has taken the same stance as Xamo has for a LONG period of time. The industry's model's are TOO valuable to risk including personal information (ie. birth certificate, model release etc.) into any and all purchases. However, this information IS required as documentation under 2257 laws. AaronM IS losing business because of this. It MAY not be hurting him, but make no mistake, he IS losing business because of his stance on this issue. I know this because I personally have turned down 5 digit purchases in the past based on this issue alone. Our models, or, our industry's lifeblood, in exchange for for a dollar figure.

Where some, or most of you seem to misunderstand is to be 2257 compliant is to offer to "Proper governmental or law enforcement agencies (or challenging individuals able to supply documentation as required under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act)." This means that you INCLUDE on ANY site that provides adult content the appropriate Custodian of Records information. All reputable content providers will provide you with this information. They are taking their OWN business and reputation into account on this issue. If you have an issue with a particular model, ANY reputable content will reassure you with proper documentation. Those of us with a conscious however, will NOT hand over to you all model related information out of safely for our models.

I, as a "Professional" gallery builder, have come to terms with this issue and ONLY deal with companies that can ASSURE me that THEY have and HOLD the 2257 documents in question. Be wary of those that offer them to you at the drop of the hat because while they may aim to please you, photoshop is only a right click away.

To the best of MY information, Aaron is one of the last holdouts (Xamo capitulated a couple of months ago on this issue) in regards to supplying 2257 information to any and all webmasters purchasing content. Handing this information over to webmasters alone does NOT make one 2257 compliant. It ONLY reassures any webmasters that are, quite frankly, unsure of what the true nature of what 2257 means. This, imho, speaks volumes for Aaron's integrity (if not tact j/k). He is willing to LITERALLY throw business away to make YOU aware of YOUR obligations.

I hold this in VERY high regard.

Instead of attacking what AaronM has to say regarding this issue (not necessarily on this board), some of us should look a little deeper and assess our own businesses.

How many of YOU are willing to hand over money to ensure that OTHERS are following the letter of the law?

[AaronM]

Very well said.

Probably don't remember meeting you? Are you suggesting that I was drunk?

[Taass]

Hey Ronaldo

Nice post

Only i still don't see how this affects a gallery builder as the requirements are for whoever produces the content ?

This means that you INCLUDE on ANY site that provides adult content the appropriate Custodian of Records information.

Actualy it's only for sites showing ''actual sexually explicit conduct''.. the way i read this nude pics with no action or simulated action will not be affected at all ?


Another thing.. I don't see anywhere in sec.2257 that it says you have to put this information on your site, it rather says that you shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or somewhere they can be availeble upon inspection..

Again, the producer has too keep this record, and i asume when selling off this content must include in the contract that it complies to sec.2257 So that beeing a gallery maker you eigther have this stated in the contract or by the sponsor who's content you have been given the rights to use..

Could easely be i'm all wrong here, but then please explain to me where in sec.2257 it says otherwise ?

cheers

[Taass]

Originally posted by AaronM
I'd say that you are a danger to yourself and our industry in general if your reply is actually a serious one.

I'd say that this statement doesn't realy ansver the question much

[saus]

I'd have to agree with Ronaldo & aaron on this
The 2257 clauses are designed to allow law enforcement easy & quick access to documentation.

If american or cooperating law enforcement officers enter your premises, after seeing your content online, or receving a tip etc and you do not have immediate, easy access to full 2257 compliance that allows them to draw a straight line regarding your content they can rap you with charges on the spot, seize relevant portions of your business etc.

a tgp is a free site, in theory you are not supposed to be allowed to show provocative imagery on such sites that are accessible by US minors, to add questionable content which may fall under child pornography, or even fully legal aged models that are not documented according to the law is likely more than enough.

The issue of production is mute, putting together an html page and linking a single image is easily defined as a production.
You need a solid documented trail for your content to be covered, perhaps not the files on the premises, but clear documentation of exactly where those compliance files are, and public disclosure of that fact.

Greg Picconelli who was at the roundtable is counseling my associates with such issues, and he prefers even tighter controls, I think that merely wishing tgp would be immune is not realistic.. I said 5 weeks ago to those i work with that I'll wait for some action on the ground before worrying.. foot in my mouth as BIG time action was taken this week, no less than a full fledged sting operation!

Taas, I would consult with an attorney either way as opposed to interpreting the clauses myself. By itself such compliance may seem more minimal, but when combined with possible obscenity.. ouch!

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Taass
I'd say that this statement doesn't realy ansver the question much

Fine. Then this should.

"CFR 18 section75.8 - Location of the statement.

All books, magazines, and periodicals shall contain the statement
required in Sec. 75.6 or suggested in Sec. 75.7 either on the first page
that appears after the front cover or on the page on which copyright
information appears. In any film or videotape which contains end credits
for the production, direction, distribution, or other activity in
connection with the film or videotape, the statement referred to in
Sec. 75.6 or Sec. 75.7 shall be presented at the end of the end titles
or final credits and shall be displayed for a sufficient duration to be
capable of being read by the average viewer. Any other film or videotape shall contain the required statement within one minute from the start of the film or videotape, and before the opening scene, and shall display the statement for a sufficient duration to be read by the average viewer. For all other categories not otherwise mentioned in this section, the statement is to be prominently displayed consistent with
the manner of display required for the aforementioned categories."

Pay attention to the bold text. These laws were intorduced prior to the Internet. The "catch all phrase" in bold pretty much sums it up though.

I would suggest that you speak with a good Internet attorney. You can find a link to one in my sig.

[Vid Vicious]

very well said Renaldo

[Taass]

Thank you AronM for a way more productive ansver this time

It seems to me then that theres quite some confusion and contradiction Between 2257 And 75.8, Much of section 75 actualy seems to contradict itself as far as i see it..

It seems to get even more confusing as in 2257 its clearly required by the producer, whereas section 75 its required by both a primary and a secondary producer..

Anyways in both 2257 and 75 i still only see it stated that this as a requirement to the producer (and in sec75 for the primary producer too) so i think it comes down to the defenition of you beeing a producer or not.

Sec 75.1 uses this definition :

(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films, videotapes,
or photographs a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for
commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(3) The same person may be both a primary and a secondary producer.
(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.

The question is then if a gallery maker will be labeled a producer or not under those defenitions ?

Guess theres two ways of seeing this, one where we are all producers and we practicly have to have the statement writen on every hardcore photo or at least every webpage with those photos.. Or one where we (or most of us anyways) not labeled as producers and basicly stands clear of this requirement.

[Taass]

Originally posted by saus


Taas, I would consult with an attorney either way as opposed to interpreting the clauses myself. By itself such compliance may seem more minimal, but when combined with possible obscenity.. ouch!

I can fully agrea with you and AaronM on that one.. This was also only ment for board discution and showing my point of view on the matter..

This is US law though and beeing that i'm not a US webmaster this does not aply to me directly.. there could be some gray areas though if im using US hosting, not quite clear on that point i must confess but i wouldn't think so ?

You do seem to have quite some problems with laws agains online porn over there, guess enough congressmen got hit with too many popups or dialers or something like that.. in my point of view(and yes i know i'm moving to dangerus ground again), if this buizz behaved decent it would be treated way more liberal too, so much of this is to blame on ourselfs i guess

[Mister X]

I think it's a given that you can take the word "producer" to include people who build web pages. That means that a gallery page is covered by the law so it probably doesn't hurt to include a 2257 link on your pages. All that you need to have on that page is a statement that the content was supplied by "Company XXX" and their custodian of records info. If you put the info on a seperate page you will of course run into trouble with tgps that have a strict policy about the number of outside links on a page. You can get around that by putting the whole statement on a page.

Something like this:

This site obtains all images and other adult content only from Eromodel Group who represent in writing that they only use models that are at least 18 years of age and maintain age verification records required by the Federal government and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 2257.

Eromodel Group

Custodian of Records
XXXX Belanger
Montreal, QC, XXX XXX
Canada

514-328-XXXX



In compliance with the Federal Labeling and Record-Keeping Law (also known as 18 U.S.C. 2257), all models located within our domain were 18 years of age or older during the time of photography. All content and images are in full compliance with the requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257 and associated regulations.

Personally I would have to agree with AaronM that it is a really BAD idea to provide a model's private personal info to anyone that buys content with her in it.

As far as whether you really need to put it on a gallery page... probably yes if you are in the US and your server is in the US. Probably no if neither of the above is true. BUT be aware that there is always a possibility that you could end up with a criminal record in the US or be barred from entry to the US if you don't comply. The US has consistently shown that it considers anybody anywhere to be within their jurisdiction. Chances are slim to nonexistent that any other country would extradite one of their citizens to be prosecuted for something like failing to provide 2257 documentation but it is possible to be tried and convicted in absentia. Which means that you could end up with a criminal record and never be allowed across the border. And there would be a good chance that other countries would bar you from entering as well.

That said I think the chances of that actually happening are very small indeed if you don't use content that might be questioned. And a request/demand that the page be made compliant or that you provide the necessary info would probably be made before they bothered to prosecute. But anything could happen.

[Panky]

Bottom line: It's your business, your reputation, your income. Do what you can to protect it, no matter where you or your servers are in the world.

Sure, unwanted eyes can come snooping around your business at any time. Any page, live on the Internet, is an open door for "big brother". If one way to close that door, is to add the statement and keep records, then do it. It's better than being made an example of and having your life turned into a living hell.

Personal information concerning the models should never be freely distributed to anyone purchasing content. There's no reason a client/buyer needs this information. You can not trust anyone! If a client/buyer has any question about the age of a particular model, then don't purchase/use the set of images of that model. If the client raised a fuss, tell them to purchase MILF, Mature, or Granny content. If you lose the client, so what. It's a hell of a lot better than releasing information about someone and then that model becomes a target of zealots against porn, stalkers, serial killers, rapists...

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by Mister X
That said I think the chances of that actually happening are very small indeed if you don't use content that might be questioned. And a request/demand that the page be made compliant or that you provide the necessary info would probably be made before they bothered to prosecute. But anything could happen.

I do agree with you on this, but it'll take less than 30 minutes for me to make myself compliant. Better safe than sorry.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by Panky
Personal information concerning the models should never be freely distributed to anyone purchasing content. There's no reason a client/buyer needs this information. You can not trust anyone! If a client/buyer has any question about the age of a particular model, then don't purchase/use the set of images of that model. If the client raised a fuss, tell them to purchase MILF, Mature, or Granny content. If you lose the client, so what. It's a hell of a lot better than releasing information about someone and then that model becomes a target of zealots against porn, stalkers, serial killers, rapists...[/color]

NO content provider in their right mind would offer up this information with anything visible EXCEPT the model's name and date of birth.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by Ronaldo
NO content provider in their right mind would offer up this information with anything visible EXCEPT the model's name and date of birth.

The one notable exception would naturally be the proper authorities.

[Cyndalie]

I attended the legal seminar this past Internext and did an article on the amount of stress they placed on 2257 compliance.

Here is an excerpt of the article I wrote and researched after the show

"Section 2257 is one of the most directly applicable federal laws that can be used against Webmasters today. Since prosecution of obscenity is so difficult, the government is looking for a “guilty” plea by setting up these kinds of compliance requirements. Once you and your sites are under investigation the government will not only look for child porn and obscenity, but if they find anything on any computer they scrutinize they will add as many compounded charges on top of it such as “distribution” and “conspiracy.”

Chris this means ANY VEHICLE OF TRANSMISSION (that can go across state/country borders) like a web page, TGP pages, pic post pages, EMAILs that include adult content or sexual imagry, you name it you have to post it. The govt sill wont address the issues regarding BANNERS, and they say to be Censor-Happy when it comes to points of penetration.

Too much to put in a post so here's the link to the article posted a few days ago http://ynotnews.ynotmasters.com/issu...703/page5.html

Great Topic!

[saus]

Originally posted by Taass

This is US law though and beeing that i'm not a US webmaster this does not aply to me directly.. there could be some gray areas though if im using US hosting, not quite clear on that point i must confess but i wouldn't think so ?

Taass, location of content delivery is a main factor for the us in determining jurisdiction, US hosting would be enough to force your hand by requiring your company's compliance - bastards lol

I'm canadian myself, but truthfully all this regulatory stuff could be a good thing, our video industry in canada is regulated by the government, it doesn't solve all the problems but at least you have a more level playing field, know the score, and can subsequently stay within bounds properly and do legit business. Might not be a bad thing for the us to start cleaning up what is available for free and forcing some sort of system with rudimentary regulations for net businesses before we drown in a mountain of fraud, lost consumer confidence, etc etc.

cheers
saus

[TheTaoOfSexology]

As a content provider I agree that the models personal information should not be released when the same are sold. However I do believe and offer to clients indemnification and the right to publish us as their compliance agent regarding any images/video acquired from us.

I also agree that anything remotely associated with sexually explcict/pornographic material should bear this statement. I believe that enforcement of this statement will significantly reduce flagrant copyright infringement

What I am doubtful on are the suggestion that such compliance be stated on every page of a website. I believe the very first page is sufficient. Nevertheless I am going to redesign our sites to include a link to our compliance statement on every page as mere precaution. It's easier to add the statement to every page than to try and justify your actions and/or lack thereof when the feds are trying to hang a rap on you.

[Ronaldo]

Originally posted by TheTaoOfSexology
What I am doubtful on are the suggestion that such compliance be stated on every page of a website.

I agree with that. That would appear to be very redundant.

I believe the very first page is sufficient.

This brings us back to Chris's original question and helps answer it. If you ONLY have one page (ie.tgp galleries), then show the information.

I updated mine last night. I was wrong. It took me about an hour, not 30 minutes.

[TheTaoOfSexology]

I forgot to address one other issue. That being if the content is hosted on a USA based server it is subject to US law. However non compliant US content can also be exempted with a compliance statement to that effect.

It must specifically state why the content and/or site is not subject to US federal law, what country and/or law governs the same. Now before you go and try to pull an end run around US Federal law let me tell you this exception is likened only to an export/import license and may be acceptable for issues regarding proper US documentation of models ie: all the names the models has used in the past, copies of ID and/or custodial record keeping. Please don't ask us to host CP and claim it is legal in your neck of the woods. If it is I would ask that you find a host in your neck of the woods!