Quote:
|
Originally Posted by mikesouth
Dave I love ya but I hate to tell ya that you are a primary producer and the FSC injunction doesn't help you or exempt you in any way.
|
If you produce your own content, then you are required to keep proper identification records as defined by the 11+ year law.
While FSC is challenging all of 2257, i believe that the provisions for primary record keepers will stick.
It makes sense... that primary record keepers be responsible for ensuring that minors are not used, and to document which production material the performer was in.. such that in case it was a minor (ie. they had fake documentation), then it would be possible to track down the instances of that performer in content, and have the word be broadcasted out to take down that content.
Websites that license the content have on the whole, failed in their responsibilties of 2257.. that so many can't identify which content came from which place.
the 2257.html page is not good enough for compliance and does nothing to be able to do something when finding out that a particular content set or video was found to be underaged.
Compliance with 2257 means taking the law seriously and understanding what to do.. which i have had countless threads and posts to explain it. and for the most part, is quite easy.. its a recordkeeping issue, which the word "recordkeeping" is in the title of 2257.
What is a problem is the new 2257 language introduced by ashcroft to require secondary record keepers (websites that use the content) to have the 2257 documentation.
This is quite burdensome and a great violation of privacy towards the models.. that when you license content, it should be the responsibility of the content producer to have good records, but also the responsibility of the website that shows the images to be able to attribute each and every image to which content producer.
Going forward, the simple answer is to tag the filename or the folder with some ID that ties back to where the content came from.
So the FSC can't really help content producers, they have a legal responsibility that in the original 2257 language seems reasonable.. the new additions to both primary and secondary record keepers goes over the top and does further to protect child from being used in content, to actually be used to shutdown adult websites due to ignorance in the law and the burdensome requirements to do so.
This is one of the main challenges FSC is doing on the secondary record keeper front which is VERY significant and very much needed.
Content producers for the most part on the video site, have been complying with 2257 for a long time.. it's the internet side of content producers who have enjoyed the wild west of growth and have largely ignored the responsibility to document properly and failure to even consult with an attorney with 2257 understanding.
Has this clarified the issue on 2257 and primary record keepers and FSC?
Fight the 411 on 2257!