Paysite 2257 question: - GoFuckYourself.com

Chef86 · 01-23-2008, 05:56 PM

Say someone starts a paysite with content bought from a content store do they still need an office to have the 2257 docs or do they just have the put the content providers information on the site for the 2257 info? This is one question I've gotten lots on icq.

Sands · 01-23-2008, 06:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteknight

Say someone starts a paysite with content bought from a content store do they still need an office to have the 2257 docs or do they just have the put the content providers information on the site for the 2257 info? This is one question I've gotten lots on icq.

Yes, I believe that you will still need to designate a custodian of records and have an address where they work/reside/house the records to be inspected. However, if the content producer volunteers to act as the custodian of records for you, then he will bear the responsibility.

You have to remember that you're supposed to keep track of _where_ you're publishing the explicit content, and therefore the custodian of records will be documenting individual links. This is not something your content provider can do unless you make some sort of special arrangement.

Please take this answer with a grain of salt as I'm not a content producer nor a paysite owner. Hopefully someone like AfterShockMedia or Aaron M. can give a definitive answer.

Chef86 · 01-23-2008, 06:19 PM

I do know a little about the 2257 but not a whole lot yet thats why I've never been able to answer questions like this myself. Thanks for replying

chadknowslaw · 01-23-2008, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteknight

Say someone starts a paysite with content bought from a content store do they still need an office to have the 2257 docs or do they just have the put the content providers information on the site for the 2257 info? This is one question I've gotten lots on icq.

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

tony286 · 01-23-2008, 06:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

Bravo Chad

Chef86 · 01-23-2008, 06:59 PM

So that being said chad wouldn't tgps, blogs, tube sites etc... be considered as a secondary producer as well? Why is it with those sites all you need is a link to either the cash program or the sponsors 2257 info?

tony286 · 01-23-2008, 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteknight

So that being said chad wouldn't tgps, blogs, tube sites etc... be considered as a secondary producer as well? Why is it with those sites all you need is a link to either the cash program or the sponsors 2257 info?

I think its safe to say probably 80% of all adult sites arent compliant.

stickyfingerz · 01-23-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

Thank God for the 6th court woot! hehe

notoldschool · 01-23-2008, 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

I think its safe to say probably 80% of all adult sites arent compliant.

I agree, maybe even more than 80%

tony286 · 01-23-2008, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by stickyfingerz

Thank God for the 6th court woot! hehe

Wait arent you against activist judges? lol

chadknowslaw · 01-23-2008, 09:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteknight

So that being said chad wouldn't tgps, blogs, tube sites etc... be considered as a secondary producer as well? Why is it with those sites all you need is a link to either the cash program or the sponsors 2257 info?

_technically_ yes those sites do fall under the new catch-all definition of "producer" but so far there has been no enforcement against them, the validity of the law is in question, and the likelihood of enforcement against them in the near future is very low.

It is kind of like being in the situation where your car idles at 60 MPH, the speed limit is 55 MPH, and traffic is moving at 70 MPH. Not likely that you are going to get a ticket even though you are technically not complying with the law. What the law says and real life are usually two different things.

AaronM · 01-23-2008, 09:50 PM

Hey whiteknight....

Chad is right, you really should get with an attorney on this. Since Chad seems to be taken, you may want to hit up J.D. Obenberger from www.xxxlaw.com

Joe is a member of the FALA so he knows 2257 inside and out.

Barefootsies · 01-23-2008, 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

AaronM · 01-23-2008, 09:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

_technically_ yes those sites do fall under the new catch-all definition of "producer" but so far there has been no enforcement against them, the validity of the law is in question, and the likelihood of enforcement against them in the near future is very low.

It is kind of like being in the situation where your car idles at 60 MPH, the speed limit is 55 MPH, and traffic is moving at 70 MPH. Not likely that you are going to get a ticket even though you are technically not complying with the law. What the law says and real life are usually two different things.

I'm cold here. I'm on my way to see you so we can cuddle.

chadknowslaw · 01-23-2008, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Since Chad seems to be taken

I am totally taken by your total sexiness AaronM

AaronM · 01-23-2008, 09:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

I am totally taken by your total sexiness AaronM

Of course you are.

I get that a lot.

stickyfingerz · 01-23-2008, 10:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Wait arent you against activist judges? lol

No that would be the opposite of activist.

L-Pink · 01-23-2008, 11:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

How serious is the staffing of that office looked at. I know the law says you must desiginate a certain amount of hours ... but who want's to sit in an office if you are a one person content producer that likes to work from home.

Note: I don't want an official home office.

chadknowslaw · 01-23-2008, 11:33 PM

Chuck also said that if they came to your office and you had a sign on the door saying "Gone for 3 weeks for holiday" they would come back in 3 weeks.

I think if you are going to be out of the office, you would want to put a little note on the door with a contact number where you could be reached.

chadknowslaw · 01-23-2008, 11:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Of course you are.

I get that a lot.

That is because you are just totally irresistible!

RevengeBucks_Monica · 01-23-2008, 11:59 PM

I can't handle all this sexy talk, I just had to jump in.

Chad, what about Canadian webmasters who have servers located in the States?

And I've never been clear on the nuts and bolts. I realize you need a statement on your site and the jist of what it has to say. I know you need to keep records including copies of the model's ID on file.

They say the records have to be in a database. What kind of database? Is a spreadsheet fine? Is a physical file folder system in my filing cabinet fine?

Do I need model releases as well as IDs?

What if the image of the model's ID is a tad on the blurry side?

Is one ID enough?

I'm being a pain, sorry, but there are just so many questions.

L-Pink · 01-24-2008, 12:12 AM

Thank you Chad

chadknowslaw · 01-24-2008, 12:36 AM

1. Location of you or your servers does not matter. If you serve US customers and take money from them, you submit yourself to US laws. However, if you are in Canada, the FBI does not have the authority to inspect you and the RCMP is not about to inspect your records, particularly because 2257 has conflicts with Canadian privacy laws.

2. Electronic data base is perfectly acceptable, so is a file folder system. As long as the ID's are indexed by last name of the model and cross-indexed to the shoots, so that you can look at a model's record and see what shoots she was in or look at the record of a shoot and see what models were in it, you are pretty much there. If the records are electronic, it just needs to be in a separate folder on your hard drive. You are NOT required to have a separate computer, although it is actually a good idea, and I see Dell sells a desktop new for $299 USD now. If you are using a paper filing system, have your records segregated -- at least in their own drawer if you do not have enough to fill an entire filing cabinet

3. A model release is not part of the required 2257 records. The model release shows that you have the right to sell the images; 2257 is about showing that the images were taken when the model was at least 18. I have heard other attorneys say that if you have a model release in your 2257 data that you will go to jail. I say they must live in fantasyland. A good model release supports your database because it shows the date of filming, it should have the model affirming her birthdate, and that the ID was legitimate. If you do not have model releases in your 2257 database don't add them in, but if your database has model releases you do not need to pull them out either.

4. If you cannot match the model in the images to the picture on the ID, that is a problem. Of the few inspections that happened, one of the issues the FBI brought up was illegible ID's and the pictures on the copies of the ID becoming black blobs.

5. One ID is sufficient. If you are shooting young models, it is good practice to get 2 IDs. The most common fake ID is that of an older sibling. However, if you get your older brother's ID to do out drinking, does that older brother also give you his bank card, his student ID, his passport?? Make sure you get one good primary ID but it is a good idea to get something to back it up. Think of yourself as a bouncer at a bar. If that person came to you with that ID, would you let them in??
One ID is sufficient. 2 is always good. You can never be too sure

Ok, time for me to get to bed. BTW, if you see me at XBiz or Phoenix Forum buy me a diet coke.

:-)

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevengeBucks_Monica

I can't handle all this sexy talk, I just had to jump in.

Chad, what about Canadian webmasters who have servers located in the States?

And I've never been clear on the nuts and bolts. I realize you need a statement on your site and the jist of what it has to say. I know you need to keep records including copies of the model's ID on file.

They say the records have to be in a database. What kind of database? Is a spreadsheet fine? Is a physical file folder system in my filing cabinet fine?

Do I need model releases as well as IDs?

What if the image of the model's ID is a tad on the blurry side?

Is one ID enough?

I'm being a pain, sorry, but there are just so many questions.

RevengeBucks_Monica · 01-24-2008, 02:16 AM

Chad, if I saw you at a show, I would at least give you a kiss!

It's pretty fantastic that you are willing to take the time to sit down and answer questions, again and again and again.

Thank you so much ;) Now I shall leave you to cuddle with Aaron, or... "get to bed" as you've called it.

shinylove · 01-24-2008, 05:44 AM

Thank you sir for all that info

So, I just have one question, ( I am a noob to adult )

If you are just promoting like partner programs, Ie signups, and your servers where just hosting the thumbs and preview images...

Do you need to comply with this?...or is that just when you are "selling" directly from your site?

Thanks in advance!

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

1. Location of you or your servers does not matter. If you serve US customers and take money from them, you submit yourself to US laws. However, if you are in Canada, the FBI does not have the authority to inspect you and the RCMP is not about to inspect your records, particularly because 2257 has conflicts with Canadian privacy laws.

2. Electronic data base is perfectly acceptable, so is a file folder system. As long as the ID's are indexed by last name of the model and cross-indexed to the shoots, so that you can look at a model's record and see what shoots she was in or look at the record of a shoot and see what models were in it, you are pretty much there. If the records are electronic, it just needs to be in a separate folder on your hard drive. You are NOT required to have a separate computer, although it is actually a good idea, and I see Dell sells a desktop new for $299 USD now. If you are using a paper filing system, have your records segregated -- at least in their own drawer if you do not have enough to fill an entire filing cabinet

3. A model release is not part of the required 2257 records. The model release shows that you have the right to sell the images; 2257 is about showing that the images were taken when the model was at least 18. I have heard other attorneys say that if you have a model release in your 2257 data that you will go to jail. I say they must live in fantasyland. A good model release supports your database because it shows the date of filming, it should have the model affirming her birthdate, and that the ID was legitimate. If you do not have model releases in your 2257 database don't add them in, but if your database has model releases you do not need to pull them out either.

4. If you cannot match the model in the images to the picture on the ID, that is a problem. Of the few inspections that happened, one of the issues the FBI brought up was illegible ID's and the pictures on the copies of the ID becoming black blobs.

5. One ID is sufficient. If you are shooting young models, it is good practice to get 2 IDs. The most common fake ID is that of an older sibling. However, if you get your older brother's ID to do out drinking, does that older brother also give you his bank card, his student ID, his passport?? Make sure you get one good primary ID but it is a good idea to get something to back it up. Think of yourself as a bouncer at a bar. If that person came to you with that ID, would you let them in??
One ID is sufficient. 2 is always good. You can never be too sure

Ok, time for me to get to bed. BTW, if you see me at XBiz or Phoenix Forum buy me a diet coke.

:-)

Chef86 · 01-24-2008, 06:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Hey whiteknight....

Chad is right, you really should get with an attorney on this. Since Chad seems to be taken, you may want to hit up J.D. Obenberger from www.xxxlaw.com

Joe is a member of the FALA so he knows 2257 inside and out.

I don't really need a lawyer AaronM If you read the whole first post I made in this thread it was just a question I had. As you can see it's a topic that not only I know little about but others as well. Chad seems to have a lot of knowledge in this area and has been kind enough to share a lot of answers for free to those questions. However I do thank you for the support and information.

I'm just a webmaster that owns and operates a couple of tgp's so I don't really need a lawyer at this time. Maybe down the road if I decide to start a paysite I will need one and then I'll have to hit you up for some recomendations ;)

GatorB · 01-24-2008, 06:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by tony404

Wait arent you against activist judges? lol

Republicans only hate activist judges that rule against them. Activist judges that rule in their favor are ok. Except then they aren't being "activist" they are just "following the letter of the law". Typical hypocritical bullshit.

LFCII · 01-24-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

3. A model release is not part of the required 2257 records. The model release shows that you have the right to sell the images; 2257 is about showing that the images were taken when the model was at least 18. I have heard other attorneys say that if you have a model release in your 2257 data that you will go to jail. I say they must live in fantasyland. A good model release supports your database because it shows the date of filming, it should have the model affirming her birthdate, and that the ID was legitimate. If you do not have model releases in your 2257 database don't add them in, but if your database has model releases you do not need to pull them out either.

Dear Chad;

Thank You for the information. You have stated clearly some of the most important issues with regards to record keeping without any of the usual jibber jabber.

Arguable, we have been living in fantasyland in regards to the current U.S. administration on this subject.

Title 18 Part 75 Section 75.2 (e) states that records required to be maintained must be separated from all others. Since the law and regs only ask for ID at the time of shooting and assumes from there that the time of production is the same (there is no law or reg that asked for further proof of production), adding the model release could become a violation. Fantasyland? Maybe, but, please read my first sentence.

The whole purpose of the rewrite of the law and regs by the current administration was to make it ambiguous, redundant and conflicting enough to prosecute on a whim.

My Question;

The law and the regs do not ask for actual proof of production to be recorded. It is assumed the production date is the same as the date the id was documented. It has always been based on goodwill. The law and regs only ask for specific tasks be recored based on the production date and not proof of the production date. (yes, I did state the same thing three times.)

Thus, how does a secondary producers comply with part 75.2 (1) if they are only required to produce id?

The current law and regs seem to be written in a way that they do not require information that would make then unconstitutional, but, rather ask you to voluntarily give the information.

Kind Regards,

Les

stickyfingerz · 01-24-2008, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GatorB

Republicans only hate activist judges that rule against them. Activist judges that rule in their favor are ok. Except then they aren't being "activist" they are just "following the letter of the law". Typical hypocritical bullshit.

No the activism was 2257. The ruling by the 6th court was that the law was unconstitutional. Activism is CREATING laws, not ruling that a law is not legal. Hysterical to watch the republican hate. Even when the majority of the judges were in fact conservative judges that overturned 2257 in the 6th court.

chadknowslaw · 01-24-2008, 11:51 AM

You ask a very detailed question which is beyond the scope of me answering it on a board for no fee.

So that I don't seem to be using lawyer-speak to avoid the question, my general answer is:

The purchaser of the content (there are no more 'primary' or 'secondary" producers; everyone is a producer) can rely on the records given to them by the seller.

The best advice I can give is to keep the whole house in order. Keep good records, file honest tax returns and pay taxes, don't hire hookers and call them "test shoots", and generally run an honest business.

Quote:

Originally Posted by LFCII

Dear Chad;

Thank You for the information. You have stated clearly some of the most important issues with regards to record keeping without any of the usual jibber jabber.

Arguable, we have been living in fantasyland in regards to the current U.S. administration on this subject.

Title 18 Part 75 Section 75.2 (e) states that records required to be maintained must be separated from all others. Since the law and regs only ask for ID at the time of shooting and assumes from there that the time of production is the same (there is no law or reg that asked for further proof of production), adding the model release could become a violation. Fantasyland? Maybe, but, please read my first sentence.

The whole purpose of the rewrite of the law and regs by the current administration was to make it ambiguous, redundant and conflicting enough to prosecute on a whim.

My Question;

The law and the regs do not ask for actual proof of production to be recorded. It is assumed the production date is the same as the date the id was documented. It has always been based on goodwill. The law and regs only ask for specific tasks be recored based on the production date and not proof of the production date. (yes, I did state the same thing three times.)

Thus, how does a secondary producers comply with part 75.2 (1) if they are only required to produce id?

The current law and regs seem to be written in a way that they do not require information that would make then unconstitutional, but, rather ask you to voluntarily give the information.

Kind Regards,

Les

Noe · 01-24-2008, 12:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

2257 requires that even if you buy content from someone else that you must still have a custodian of records.

HOWEVER, 2257 is not enforceable against anybody in Kentucky, Ohio, Michigan, and Tennessee.

AND HOWEVER, as a purchaser and not an actual producer, you fit the old definition of "secondary producer" and the FBI has indicated they are not inspecting those companies. The term "secondary producer" was removed from the law by Congress in 2006 and anyone that sells images or puts them on a website is considered a producer, but it seems like the FBI avoided inspecting anyone that fit that old definition, even though the revised law made everybody equal.

SOOO _technically_ you should have an office for your custodian of records.

Realistically..... you should consult with an attorney that knows 2257, doesn't charge a shitload of money to talk to you, does not give you a line of shit that the sky is falling and asks you for more money on the spot.

Unfortunately, I am already taken~

I think the ruling in Ohio is the reason why we are not seeing any more FBI crackdowns on 2257s anywhere else.

Noe · 01-24-2008, 12:52 PM

I meant the Ohio ruling is why we're not seeing anymore FBI crackdowns on adult companies right now...it's a good sign that things are going in the right direction.

LFCII · 01-24-2008, 06:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chadknowslaw

The best advice I can give is to keep the whole house in order. Keep good records, file honest tax returns and pay taxes, don't hire hookers and call them "test shoots", and generally run an honest business.

This advice is good for any business

I thank you sir for your reply.

Kind Regards,

Les

Sands · 01-24-2008, 06:42 PM

Thank you Chad for your clear, concise, and informative answers. It's nice to have someone aid in the demystification of 2257-related regulations (and to do so when they could otherwise request fees).

AaronM · 01-24-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RevengeBucks_Monica

Chad, if I saw you at a show, I would at least give you a kiss!

Back off hussy, he's mine!

AaronM · 01-24-2008, 06:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by whiteknight

I don't really need a lawyer AaronM If you read the whole first post I made in this thread it was just a question I had. As you can see it's a topic that not only I know little about but others as well. Chad seems to have a lot of knowledge in this area and has been kind enough to share a lot of answers for free to those questions. However I do thank you for the support and information.

I'm just a webmaster that owns and operates a couple of tgp's so I don't really need a lawyer at this time. Maybe down the road if I decide to start a paysite I will need one and then I'll have to hit you up for some recomendations ;)

Pay close attention to what I am about to say:

ANYBODY who enters the adult biz on ANY level and does not officially consult with an attorney is a complete fucking idiot.

And you can quote me on that.

Somebody in your position is certainly no exception.

Chef86 · 01-24-2008, 06:53 PM

Very good point

RevengeBucks_Monica · 01-24-2008, 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by AaronM

Back off hussy, he's mine!

Wanna wrestle for him, goldilocks? ;)

chadknowslaw · 01-24-2008, 11:40 PM

There is enough of me to go around for everybody.

I work very hard to change the bad image that lawyers have earned, and I am now working hard to make "easy" a good thing.

Although I prefer to just say "I am not a whore, I am _popular_"

01-23-2008, 05:56 PM	#1
Chef86 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,930	Paysite 2257 question: Say someone starts a paysite with content bought from a content store do they still need an office to have the 2257 docs or do they just have the put the content providers information on the site for the 2257 info? This is one question I've gotten lots on icq. __________________ I have my sites hosted with Phat Servers why don't you? ICQ: 541885

01-23-2008, 06:19 PM	#3
Chef86 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,930	I do know a little about the 2257 but not a whole lot yet thats why I've never been able to answer questions like this myself. Thanks for replying __________________ I have my sites hosted with Phat Servers why don't you? ICQ: 541885

01-23-2008, 06:59 PM	#6
Chef86 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,930	So that being said chad wouldn't tgps, blogs, tube sites etc... be considered as a secondary producer as well? Why is it with those sites all you need is a link to either the cash program or the sponsors 2257 info? __________________ I have my sites hosted with Phat Servers why don't you? ICQ: 541885

01-23-2008, 11:33 PM	#19
chadknowslaw Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 343	Chuck also said that if they came to your office and you had a sign on the door saying "Gone for 3 weeks for holiday" they would come back in 3 weeks. I think if you are going to be out of the office, you would want to put a little note on the door with a contact number where you could be reached. __________________ ChadKnowsLaw

01-23-2008, 11:59 PM	#21
RevengeBucks_Monica Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 775	I can't handle all this sexy talk, I just had to jump in. Chad, what about Canadian webmasters who have servers located in the States? And I've never been clear on the nuts and bolts. I realize you need a statement on your site and the jist of what it has to say. I know you need to keep records including copies of the model's ID on file. They say the records have to be in a database. What kind of database? Is a spreadsheet fine? Is a physical file folder system in my filing cabinet fine? Do I need model releases as well as IDs? What if the image of the model's ID is a tad on the blurry side? Is one ID enough? I'm being a pain, sorry, but there are just so many questions. __________________ The ORIGINAL & BEST CONVERTING EX-GIRLFRIEND REVENGE site! Revenge Bucks - Now with Morphing RSS Feeds! Email: monica @ revengebucks.com \| ICQ:138-027-662 \| AIM:RevengeMonica

01-23-2008, 09:50 PM	#12
AaronM Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Oct 2001 Location: ┌∩┐ ◣_◢ ┌∩┐ Posts: 46,909	Hey whiteknight.... Chad is right, you really should get with an attorney on this. Since Chad seems to be taken, you may want to hit up J.D. Obenberger from www.xxxlaw.com Joe is a member of the FALA so he knows 2257 inside and out.

01-24-2008, 12:12 AM	#22
L-Pink working on my tan Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2005 Location: Florida/Kentucky Posts: 39,151	Thank you Chad

01-24-2008, 02:16 AM	#24
RevengeBucks_Monica Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2007 Posts: 775	Chad, if I saw you at a show, I would at least give you a kiss! It's pretty fantastic that you are willing to take the time to sit down and answer questions, again and again and again. Thank you so much ;) Now I shall leave you to cuddle with Aaron, or... "get to bed" as you've called it. __________________ The ORIGINAL & BEST CONVERTING EX-GIRLFRIEND REVENGE site! Revenge Bucks - Now with Morphing RSS Feeds! Email: monica @ revengebucks.com \| ICQ:138-027-662 \| AIM:RevengeMonica

01-24-2008, 12:52 PM	#32
Noe Confirmed User Join Date: May 2004 Posts: 1,082	I meant the Ohio ruling is why we're not seeing anymore FBI crackdowns on adult companies right now...it's a good sign that things are going in the right direction. __________________ www.xxxcontentdirect.com www.extremefeeds.com ICQ: 169980934 [email protected]

01-24-2008, 06:42 PM	#34
Sands Confirmed User Join Date: Feb 2007 Location: 418194907 Posts: 3,134	Thank you Chad for your clear, concise, and informative answers. It's nice to have someone aid in the demystification of 2257-related regulations (and to do so when they could otherwise request fees).

01-24-2008, 06:53 PM	#37
Chef86 Confirmed User Join Date: Sep 2006 Posts: 2,930	Very good point __________________ I have my sites hosted with Phat Servers why don't you? ICQ: 541885

01-24-2008, 11:40 PM	#39
chadknowslaw Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2004 Location: Phoenix, Arizona Posts: 343	There is enough of me to go around for everybody. I work very hard to change the bad image that lawyers have earned, and I am now working hard to make "easy" a good thing. Although I prefer to just say "I am not a whore, I am _popular_" __________________ ChadKnowsLaw