Model IDS and 2257 on reqest issue

[amacontent]

I agree with AAron. I will not supply IDs and releases unless requested and I put up a fight still. My understanding is...and Aaron, tell me if im wrong...is the initial producer is the one required to keep all documentation at his specified location....
Thats why there is no documentation in video stores as the box covers all state where custodian of records is..as does the video itself. So a website in my eyes is like an online video store where webmaster should list where keeper of recors is.
Now my other train of thought is some people insist on IDS and rleases so they can resell your stuff behing your back...not all...but some.
Im really open to all thoughts on this

Joe
ICQ - 214137742

[AaronM]

Originally posted by amacontent
I agree with AAron. I will not supply IDs and releases unless requested and I put up a fight still. My understanding is...and Aaron, tell me if im wrong...is the initial producer is the one required to keep all documentation at his specified location....
Thats why there is no documentation in video stores as the box covers all state where custodian of records is..as does the video itself. So a website in my eyes is like an online video store where webmaster should list where keeper of recors is.
Now my other train of thought is some people insist on IDS and rleases so they can resell your stuff behing your back...not all...but some.
Im really open to all thoughts on this

Joe
ICQ - 214137742

I agree with most of this. I will not fight with a client if they ask for the ID's but I will first attempt to help them understand the laws. If they still want the ID's then they can have them.

As for the release. Never. That is a legal document between the model and my company. It has absolutely nothing to do with my clients and can be of no benefit to them since they are not specifically listed on it. Not that altered/incomplete ID's are gonna do a damned thing for them either.

[Sly_RJ]

The video store analogy holds absolutely no weight, it's not even a good analogy.

Here's the analogy you guys should be using:

--

A guy walks into a video store and rents a video from the store. Great. The police are not going to come running after the guy renting the video, they'll come after the video store, no?

A guy signs up to my site for access. The Feds won't go chasing after this guy. They'll go chasing after me for supplying the content.

--

Now, both the video store and I will refer the authorities to the content producers. Meanwhile, will the authorities simply let me go about my normal every day business?

For some reason, I'm thinking no...

[KRL]

Its a very complex issue. There's no clear cut answer either way based on all the arguing we've seen around here recently on the subject. Everyone has their own interpretation.

Ultimately whatever actions the DOJ pursues will provide better guidance hopefully.

[KRL]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
The video store analogy holds absolutely no weight, it's not even a good analogy.

Here's the analogy you guys should be using:

--

A guy walks into a video store and rents a video from the store. Great. The police are not going to come running after the guy renting the video, they'll come after the video store, no?

A guy signs up to my site for access. The Feds won't go chasing after this guy. They'll go chasing after me for supplying the content.

--

Now, both the video store and I will refer the authorities to the content producers. Meanwhile, will the authorities simply let me go about my normal every day business?

For some reason, I'm thinking no...

So does Cinemax, HBO, and Showtime have model releases for the porn they're providing then? They are no different than who we are.

Did Adam Glasser aka "Seymor Butts" provide them for his show Family Business I wonder?

[gruffy]

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ
The video store analogy holds absolutely no weight, it's not even a good analogy.

Here's the analogy you guys should be using:

--

A guy walks into a video store and rents a video from the store. Great. The police are not going to come running after the guy renting the video, they'll come after the video store, no?

A guy signs up to my site for access. The Feds won't go chasing after this guy. They'll go chasing after me for supplying the content.

--

Now, both the video store and I will refer the authorities to the content producers. Meanwhile, will the authorities simply let me go about my normal every day business?

For some reason, I'm thinking no...

The 10 circuit court disagrees with you.

[Sly_RJ]

Originally posted by KRL


So does Cinemax, HBO, and Showtime have model releases for the porn they're providing then? They are no different than who we are.

Did Adam Glasser aka "Seymor Butts" provide them for his show Family Business I wonder?

I don't know, and frankly I don't really care. I'm just saying the video store analogy is stupid.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

I don't know, and frankly I don't really care. I'm just saying the video store analogy is stupid.

The law was written for the video world. This analogy is probably one of the most realistic arguements that has been offered to date.

[CoolE]

Originally posted by KRL
There's no clear cut answer either way...

Exactly. The law is vague and was not written with the internet in mind. Beware of these guys who claim it IS clear cut, and that for every sety of pics licensed to 1500 webmasters there MUST BE 1500 copies of the ids and 1500 "Custodians of Record" spread all around the world. The regulations simply are not clear cut as they pertain to non-producing webmasters ("re-distributors").

[AaronM]

Originally posted by CoolE


Exactly. The law is vague and was not written with the internet in mind. Beware of these guys who claim it IS clear cut, and that for every sety of pics licensed to 1500 webmasters there MUST BE 1500 copies of the ids and 1500 "Custodians of Record" spread all around the world. The regulations simply are not clear cut as they pertain to non-producing webmasters ("re-distributors").

Uh....OK.

[Sly_RJ]

Originally posted by AaronM


The law was written for the video world. This analogy is probably one of the most realistic arguements that has been offered to date.

You know more than me about this obviously, so please continue to explain how the analogy of a guy renting a video from a store compares to a webmaster buying content from a provider? Shouldn't the true comparison be the video store buying from the video provider?

[beemk]

so what happens if you buy some content today and the content provider who holds the records dies? can they have someone else hold onto the records for them or is the content all of a sudden illegal since the custodian of records is dead and he was the only one who could hold the records?

[tony286]

I think you first cant quote cases when Janet Reno was Attorney General, the new guy has a different view point on the matter. Also alot of content providers are Mom/ Pops and can disappear tomorrow you are not exactly buying content from IBM. They can go after you if you have underage girls on your site even though you are not the primany producer especially if photos by lou disappears. Also I think the I didnt know defense is not going to work in the legal climate we live in. Even if you are right, how many of us have the money to go ten rounds with the feds. Most would have to take a plea bargain even if we were innocent. Being right doesnt make you bullet proof.

[AmeliaG]

Originally posted by beemk
so what happens if you buy some content today and the content provider who holds the records dies? can they have someone else hold onto the records for them or is the content all of a sudden illegal since the custodian of records is dead and he was the only one who could hold the records?

There is the thing where content providers go out of business too. I was really stressed out because I bought some content from Bareskin really early on and they shut down their site and told me that they would be happy to provide the legal info if I was ever asked for it, but, with their site shut down, I thought it unlikely I would be able to track them down if needed. Fortunately, I later photographed the same girl myself, so I have all of her info now.

Anyone have an opinion on how it would shake out if you have a content provider's custodian and last known custodial address? Would that be accepted?

[Lensman]

No IDs & No Releases = No Sale

The law states:

Sec. 2257. - Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which...

The key being "other matter". If the authorities interpret "other matter" to be creating web pages (why would it be different than magazine pages), then YOU the webmaster must hold IDs and releases, or risk jail time. The release is necessary to "date stamp" the date of production.

Content sellers, get real.

[Loch]

Put this issue to rest god damit, if your still unsure after weeks upon weeks of debating and stating facts SEE YOUR LAWYER.....

Drawing attention to 2257 has imo been GREAT, but my GOD Im so fucking sick of it by now!
Take care of your business, call and make an appointment with your lawyer or lawyers "we use one in Europe and one in the US" as European lawyers rarely know all the inn´s and out's of the US law!

[xxxdesign-net]

Originally posted by Lensman
YOU the webmaster must hold IDs and releases, or risk jail time. The release is necessary to "date stamp" the date of production.

But what would be the use if I can create a fake one in 5 minutes...

Basically, to keep it legal... you would need to produce your own content... or if you buy it from someone else... you would need to do some detective work on each models... trying to find them with their ss# or drivers liscence....!?

Its like someone buying a stolen car from a dealer... you wont go to jail for that if you didnt know...

THe authorities should take care of the content provider... not you... (unless the law now impose you to do some detective work for all the models on your site!! please!)

[TheDoc]

Videos do require 2257 information on the boxes now. Our new videos that are hitting the store shortly had to have the 2257 at the bottom, as if it was on a website.

As for getting model ID's, you can ask. But as long as you keep information about that content provider at your place of business then you wont have many worries.

Just keep your records and the information about your providers right next to the door

Either way though, last time I heard the FBI/Police nock on the front door of a porn company was, well... Never. They always seem to RAID them so either way your still fucked based on how the world really works.

[amacontent]

Two points here:
1- My video store analogy is that if the video store has porn for sale that a client can walk in and buy porno graphic material is the same as a website has porn material where a surfer can (walk in ) and purchase it and view it also.
Both are required to show where the 2257 info is. The video store..obviously has the info on the box cover which it purchased for the manufacturer ( Provider ) ... The website also has the info as to where he obtained the 2257s..whether it be from himself or the provider ( manufacturer ).. In both cases , where the video store/website owner got the content from another source.. the IDs and 2257 info is not in their possession unless the website owner shot it himself.

2 - Now it is a good point that what if the person who has the 2257 info dies or goes out of buisness...very good point ! My question is what if VCA goes bankrupt and out of buisness...Are all the video stores required to remove all VCA products that were paid for ?

[jact]

Originally posted by amacontent
Two points here:
1- My video store analogy is that if the video store has porn for sale that a client can walk in and buy porno graphic material is the same as a website has porn material where a surfer can (walk in ) and purchase it and view it also.
Both are required to show where the 2257 info is. The video store..obviously has the info on the box cover which it purchased for the manufacturer ( Provider ) ... The website also has the info as to where he obtained the 2257s..whether it be from himself or the provider ( manufacturer ).. In both cases , where the video store/website owner got the content from another source.. the IDs and 2257 info is not in their possession unless the website owner shot it himself.

2 - Now it is a good point that what if the person who has the 2257 info dies or goes out of buisness...very good point ! My question is what if VCA goes bankrupt and out of buisness...Are all the video stores required to remove all VCA products that were paid for ?

Custodian of records are required by law to maintain records for 5 years regardless if their company has gone under. The whole death thing I'm not sure about however.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally posted by jact


Custodian of records are required by law to maintain records for 5 years regardless if their company has gone under. The whole death thing I'm not sure about however.

What happens after 5 years? Can you dump all those records, I know you wouldn't want to, but can you?

Just wondering.

[jact]

Originally posted by eroswebmaster


What happens after 5 years? Can you dump all those records, I know you wouldn't want to, but can you?

Just wondering.

To be honest, I'm not sure. That's something that I didn't ask my lawyer to be honest since I don't plan on putting my records away anytime soon.

[tony286]

The video store is a very poor example. Video stores get busted for selling dirty movies all the time and they dont go after the company that made it with them. What is the big deal to give copies of the id and model with the address and telephone number blacked out. If the webmaster is your customer and thats what the customer wants in these troubled times . I guess thats what the content providers are going to have to do whether they like it or not if they want to keep being content providers.

[Carrie]

The video store analogy is a bad one because the store buys a pre-packaged product and resells that to the end consumer.

The webmaster, on the other hand, buys a raw product and creates something with it (tours, websites, galleries, advertisements) and then uses that new creation to sell access rights to the end consumer.

Two totally different beasts.

[amacontent]

I disagree Carrie
The video store presents porn on display, and sells it
The webmaster presents porn on display and sells it

When porn stores get busted its not for the 2257 issues..its for the zoning issues also.

[eroswebmaster]

Originally posted by amacontent
I disagree Carrie
The video store presents porn on display, and sells it
The webmaster presents porn on display and sells it

When porn stores get busted its not for the 2257 issues..its for the zoning issues also.

The webmaster also edits and repackages the product.

You don't have video store owners chopping up a bunch of vhs tapes and editing them to make one montage of messy cumshots to sell.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Sly_RJ

You know more than me about this obviously, so please continue to explain how the analogy of a guy renting a video from a store compares to a webmaster buying content from a provider? Shouldn't the true comparison be the video store buying from the video provider?

The "true comparison" does not matter. The example is valid no matter how you look at it...Perfect? No, but still valid. As for the video store buying it...Fine, look at it that way and the question is still the same. How many video store owners have 2257 docs on file? NONE.

Webmasters are secondary producers and as such, they have the option to supply the primary producers custodial info OR list themselves as custodian IF they have ALL of the required components. No offense meant to you or any other webmasters but let's look at this situation with 100% honesty.

The average webmaster has no fucking clue about how 2257 REALLY affects them. They are running scared or in some cases they do not even care at all. Now this person wants to take on additional responsibilities and place themselves in harms way of a law that they do not even have a basic understanding for.

How fucking stupid is that? Top this off with the fact that the ID's they get are already altered AND the fact that simply having the ID's does not make them compliant.

I fully understand the "want" of the webmasters to protect themselves but if you can not trust your content provider then you should not be buying from them in the first place, [i]especially[/i if that provider lives in a different country than you do.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by beemk
so what happens if you buy some content today and the content provider who holds the records dies? can they have someone else hold onto the records for them or is the content all of a sudden illegal since the custodian of records is dead and he was the only one who could hold the records?

What happens if the content provider simply moves and the info on your license has their old address? This is pretty much the same kind of situation. As long as the info was accurate upon the original date of publication and/or republication and distribution, then you are safe.

In your case the guy is dead...So what? I am pretty sure the Attorney General can confirm that he was alive and the custodial info was valid when you made the purchase. What's that??? The guy lives in Germany and the Attorney General can not confirm this? Hmmm...Perhaps you should have bought from a US provider then.

Here Mr. Asshahahahaha....Here is an altered copy of a German Drivers License. No, I can't read it either but the content provider told me she was old enough.

I am not saying that providers out of the US are not following our laws, in fact I know many of them are. But the fact remains that they are not truly responsible and YOU are.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by AmeliaG


There is the thing where content providers go out of business too. I was really stressed out because I bought some content from Bareskin really early on and they shut down their site and told me that they would be happy to provide the legal info if I was ever asked for it, but, with their site shut down, I thought it unlikely I would be able to track them down if needed. Fortunately, I later photographed the same girl myself, so I have all of her info now.

Anyone have an opinion on how it would shake out if you have a content provider's custodian and last known custodial address? Would that be accepted?

If a video store buys a video from VCA which has their current custodian of records info on it and then VCA relocates that office....Do you think they recall all of the videos? No, they don't. The video is still legal. As far as a provider going out of business.....Even more reason to stick with a US provider. 2257 requires them to maintain the records for 5 years, even if they shut down.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by Lensman
No IDs & No Releases = No Sale

The law states:

Sec. 2257. - Record keeping requirements

(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter which...

The key being "other matter". If the authorities interpret "other matter" to be creating web pages (why would it be different than magazine pages), then YOU the webmaster must hold IDs and releases, or risk jail time. The release is necessary to "date stamp" the date of production.

Content sellers, get real.

You ever heard of a secondary producer?

"Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.

(a) Every statement shall contain:

(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may be made available. The street address may be an address specified by the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer."

If there is still confusion, I will be happy to break down section 75.2 sinc that section is the true key to understanding the maintenance of records.

Being the owner of GFY does not make you correct about Federal Laws. Researching the laws and asking the right questions to the right attorneys does.

Content purchasers, Get Educated.

[jact]

Originally posted by eroswebmaster


The webmaster also edits and repackages the product.

You don't have video store owners chopping up a bunch of vhs tapes and editing them to make one montage of messy cumshots to sell.

Taken a look at the ads that some(most) video stores place before the video? If your arguement is correct, then you're saying they don't do that, which they do. However, that's a different arguement altogether.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by amacontent
2 - Now it is a good point that what if the person who has the 2257 info dies or goes out of buisness...very good point ! My question is what if VCA goes bankrupt and out of buisness...Are all the video stores required to remove all VCA products that were paid for ?

Looks like I am going to cover 75.2 anyway.....

"Sec. 75.2 Maintenance of records.

(c) The information contained in the records required to be created and maintained by this part need be current only as of the time the primary producer actually films, videotapes, or photographs the visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. If the producer subsequently produces an additional book, magazine, film, videotape or other matter that contains one or more visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made by a performer for whom he maintains records as required by this part, the producer may add the additional title and/or identifying number and the names of the performer to the existing records maintained pursuant to Sec. 75.2"

[FATPad]

There is nothing wrong with erring on the side of too much caution in this industry.

[Rochard]

Each and every one of you needs to have 2257 info, no matter if you made the content or purchased it.

If a video store sells or rents a video that is considered illegal, the video store is at fault - as is the person or company that created the video. In this case the video store is guilty of breaking the law.

The way that I - and our company attorney - reads 2257 is rather simple to understand...... If you put a picture on line of any woman you need to prove who she is and that she is over the age of 18 "on demand".

If I purchase a picture from someone that is illegal and I put that picture on line, I'm going to jail.

Bottom line.... Make sure you know and trust who you are buying your content from.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by RocHard
Each and every one of you needs to have 2257 info, no matter if you made the content or purchased it.

If a video store sells or rents a video that is considered illegal, the video store is at fault - as is the person or company that created the video. In this case the video store is guilty of breaking the law.

The way that I - and our company attorney - reads 2257 is rather simple to understand...... If you put a picture on line of any woman you need to prove who she is and that she is over the age of 18 "on demand".

If I purchase a picture from someone that is illegal and I put that picture on line, I'm going to jail.

Bottom line.... Make sure you know and trust who you are buying your content from.

Is this the same attorney who is currently acting as your custodian of records?

http://tour.churchupskirts.com/age.php?r=typein

You are sooooo wrong on this issue that it is not even funny. What you say may be a good idea but you speak as though it is law...which it is not.

[tony286]

Aaron you are a smart guy but how can you say its impossible that the feds cant arrest and charge a webmaster for bought content. If they come, take your computer and they find a pic of a chick that is in your web temp file. If they can prove she is underage, even though you got it from a pop up and had no control you are going to jail and you think they cant arrest webmasters for pics posted on thier website lol. If you are so sure , you should offer a guarantee that if this impossible thing ever happens you will pay all legal costs incurred to the webmasters based on content sold by you to them.

[LadyMischief]

Originally posted by tony404
Aaron you are a smart guy but how can you say its impossible that the feds cant arrest and charge a webmaster for bought content. If they come, take your computer and they find a pic of a chick that is in your web temp file. If they can prove she is underage, even though you got it from a pop up and had no control you are going to jail and you think they cant arrest webmasters for pics posted on thier website lol. If you are so sure , you should offer a guarantee that if this impossible thing ever happens you will pay all legal costs incurred to the webmasters based on content sold by you to them.

I don't think he ever once said it was impossible.. if the authorities want to take you down for something, they don't need to stretch very hard to find something irregardless. However the RESPONSIBILITY legally falls into the hands of the primary, and sometimes the secondary producer, NOT the webmaster. Technically, according to your scenario here, a websurfer could also be arrested for having a questionable image in his broswer cache as well. It's not a big stretch from one to another.

[AaronM]

Originally posted by tony404
Aaron you are a smart guy but how can you say its impossible that the feds cant arrest and charge a webmaster for bought content. If they come, take your computer and they find a pic of a chick that is in your web temp file. If they can prove she is underage, even though you got it from a pop up and had no control you are going to jail and you think they cant arrest webmasters for pics posted on thier website lol. If you are so sure , you should offer a guarantee that if this impossible thing ever happens you will pay all legal costs incurred to the webmasters based on content sold by you to them.

WTF does it matter what I offer? Nobody listens to me in the first place.

I never said anything was impossible. When are you people going to get it through your fucking heads? I am talking about LAW. Several peope, such as RocHard, like to post replies that are based on opinions...Opinions that have been gained because these people are clearly not familiar with the LAW.

I have said it MANY times and I will say it again for your benefit. There is nothing wrong with covering your ass by going above and beyond. Let's not confuse the law with personal preferences.

[tony286]

Cant understand why content people just cant give their customers what they want, without giving them lip. At the end of the day if you like eating 3 squares a day and like paying the rent. The customer is always right. The world is changing and content providers should be sensitive to their customers needs.

[titmowse]

okay so,

content buyers want to receive copies of model releases/ids to protect themselves from prosecution.

content sellers don't want to give out copies of model releases/ids in order to protect the models and prevent unauthorized redistribution/resale.

is that right?

[iroc409]

"irregardless" isn't a word, last i checked...

[AaronM]

Originally posted by titmowse
okay so,

content buyers want to receive copies of model releases/ids to protect themselves from prosecution.

content sellers don't want to give out copies of model releases/ids in order to protect the models and prevent unauthorized redistribution/resale.

is that right?

Different providers have different reasons for not wanting to give out the docs. I have no problem giving ID's upon request but I first try to explain the laws and how I, as the primary roducer, am the one responsible.