2 practical reasons 4 complying with 2257

[FightThisPatent]

from my Fight the Blog blog posting on xbiz:

The subject of 2257 has been beaten around many times from how it doesn't really protect children, to the burdensomeness of compliance, etc, etc.

The fact is that 2257 is on the books as a law, but complying with 2257 just for that reason isn't enough for most webmasters. I would like to suggest two reasons why you should look at 2257 compliance from a different perspective.

The intent of 2257 is that if a child was found to be used in production, that distributors of that content would be able locate those images and videos and take them down. By being able to locate the bad content, you remove yourself from the cross hairs of possession and distribution of child porn.

The problem is that most websites don't track where their images came from. Their idea of 2257 compliance is creating a 2257.html page and either copying the content producer's address from some other website, or they did record which content producers they used.

This form of 2257 documentation does nothing to resolve the problem of locating and removing the bad content.

You would need to know where those images and videos were used on your website. This is what the "record keeping" part of the 2257 statue speaks towards.

There are many ways to keep track of digital content, from paper filing to databases. The simplest methods could include:

- embeding some kind of ID of the content producer in the filename or folder

- use an excel spreadsheet with the following fields:

filename
content producer
directory location

More advanced methods of inventory tracking is to use a CMS.

If you point at any image/video on your website and you can't identify which content producer that it came from, then you just failed one of the 2257 tests.

2257 became more convoluted when they tried to say all website operators should have the ID's and do all the cross referencing responsibilities that the primary producer is supposed to do. I won't be getting into those issues.

By keeping track of the porn inventory, you go along way in complying with the spirit of 2257.

In the event there is a child found and the news story breaks, every webmaster who licensed content from that content producer would need to be scrambling to remove those images and videos.

If those images and videos are still up, you are now in possession of child porn, and also a distributor of child porn.

Your surfers and members who think they are accessing legal content, are now in possession of child porn.

At that point, who knows what ramifications there might be from surfers and members suing paysites for endangering them with illegal content, let alone the federal prosecutions.

The other practical reason for going through the "record keeping" exercise is on the issue of copyright infringements.

There are content producers out there who are looking to find their images on websites, using spidering technology to let the computer do the sniffing.

One real possibility is a content producer thinks he has found your website to be a copyright infringer, where in reality you licensed the content, but didn't notify them of the website the content was on. Many content producers have it in their licensing agreement that you must identify what website the content is being used. Many will fail to update them.

When you get slapped with the copyright infringement charge, if you knew where the image in question came from you could then look it up in your records to show to the copyright infringement cop that you had licensed the images, but did not update their records for the website. At this point, its not copyright infringement, its more of a licensing issue that can easily be resolved by complying with the terms of the content license.

So many are just sticking their heads in the sand on 2257 because they disagree with the law. You can't do that as a business owner when there are civil and criminal ramifications to your (in)actions.

The bottom line is know where your images come from my doing some form of documentation that allows you to be able to take down known CP images as well as protect yourself from a false copyright infringement claim.

Fight the bookkeeping!

[Nikki_Licks]

Interesting thoughts. I would hope if someone has a business in this industry they would do everything to comply with 2257. It would be suicide if you didn't.

Heres a bump for you Brandon

[Kevin Marx]

Interesting thoughts, but saying that "it's on the books, so deal with it" doesn't address a standard American principle.... that being we as citizens have a right and a duty to address and fight against bad legislation.

The basis of the ruling in the District Court (and now on appeal) is that the statute designed to control CP was restricting adults from doing things that adults are legally allowed to do, without being checked on. I think this is a great ruling.

On the other hand, I think it's stupid not to keep records of your business dealings (statute or not). Even without a law such as 2257 I would be checking and recording identification of my models.

Copyright violations and tracking down those problems is an entirely different discussion.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

Interesting thoughts, but saying that "it's on the books, so deal with it" doesn't address a standard American principle.... that being we as citizens have a right and a duty to address and fight against bad legislation.

i agree that our rights to dispute bad laws should be excercised, but that doesn't mean to disregard the law.. since that won't be a defensable postion in a court of law of "social disobediance"


i was saying to do the image/video inventory not for the sake of 2257, but for the case if a minor/child was found to be used, that webmasters would be able to locate and take down those images.

that would be the adult nightmare situation if it happened.


Fight the oh snap!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Kevin-SFBucks

Copyright violations and tracking down those problems is an entirely different discussion.

true, but 2257's name is being evoked in the same conversations as "copyright infringement".


Fight the name dropping!

[Elli]

Good article, Brandon! I hadn't' thought of the copyright aspect of the whole process.

[FightThisPatent]

Keep in mind, even if part of 2257 or all of 2257 get struck down, the problem still exists for paysites, that if you can't locate and remove the CP images/videos, then you are in danger of being prosecuted for possession and distribution of CP.

Your surfers/members could have those images sitting on their hard drive, and could end up being caught up in a possession charge.

I chatted with one individual at a show that is a correctional officer in a major prison, and he said anyone that shows up there and the word got out that he had anything to do with hurting little kids (ie pedophiles), that they would be in serious jeopardy. Inmates may not understand or hear the subtleness of inadvertantly having CP on the website... you know how it goes in the game that you whisper a word to one person and they pass it on and at the end, it comes out completely wrong.

See recent news items about people stumbling upon CP on websites and the FBI tracks them down to investigate (ie. rick rolling with CP not with the Rick Astley video).

Fight the alarm!

[notoldschool]

there is no such thing as copyright on the internet, or hadnt you heard?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Elli

Good article, Brandon! I hadn't' thought of the copyright aspect of the whole process.

ya, i know of some content producers who are looking at copyright infringement as a revenue source, and have heard cases where they thought they found infringement, but turns out that the website owner had a license for the images, but forgot to record that the images were to be used on a new website.

Other cases, they did find images that weren't paid for, but the webmaster had purchased other sets. In that case, they could technically be nailed for copyright infringement, but if its a customer that some reason or another didn't get the license, then correcting that on the spot by paying up should resolve things.


Fight the wasn't me!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by notoldschool

there is no such thing as copyright on the internet, or hadnt you heard?

i missed that memo, but i did hear that the internet is a series of tubes, and that all those tubes connect to tube sites and that's why they are called "tube sites".




Fight the Cliff Clavin history lesson!

[Gunni]

what I do is name all scenes in 3 parts, a 3 letter abbreviation for producer, 3 letter abbreviation for genre and serial number (ie mik-tee-001 [mike-teen-001]), then I have a database with each model and all scenes they've been in.
So if I get notified that say "Anne" is underage I simply go in the cms and search for her and manually delete all folders that have her content

[Bojangles]

Interesting..

[dready]

I wonder why the major CMS vendors haven't put out 2257 plugins. Only seems logical.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Gunni

what I do is name all scenes in 3 parts, a 3 letter abbreviation for producer, 3 letter abbreviation for genre and serial number (ie mik-tee-001 [mike-teen-001]), then I have a database with each model and all scenes they've been in.
So if I get notified that say "Anne" is underage I simply go in the cms and search for her and manually delete all folders that have her content

you are a rarity!

i have been ranting about this for last 3+ years but so many are still just hiding behind either ignorance or the belief that 2257 will be knocked down.. which doesn't change the problem.

as an aside, if your FSC membership dues are up for renewal, you should renew, and provide some donations to the 2257 fund.




Fight the sand in the ears!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by dready

I wonder why the major CMS vendors haven't put out 2257 plugins. Only seems logical.

There is a lot more to being 2257 compliant, especially with the later changes.

While CMS may not want to "go there" with 2257, i am sure they already have the ability to search for filename or content producer name, since the CMS would have a database entry for images and video.

With the CMS controlling the content, the CMS owner would probably have no problem locating and removing the bad content.


Fight the PMS!

[MrPinks]

"The intent of 2257 is that if a ***** was found to be used in production, that distributors of that content would be able locate those images and videos and take them down. By being able to locate the bad content, you remove yourself from the cross hairs of possession and distribution"

That's partly bullshit. The intent is not to track so you can hurry up and remove the image to save your self from prosecution. You have to be resposible enough that a image like that deosn't show up in the first place. Just because you rushed out and deleted it doesn't make you safe from possession.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

That's partly bullshit. The intent is not to track so you can hurry up and remove the image to save your self from prosecution. You have to be resposible enough that a image like that deosn't show up in the first place. Just because you rushed out and deleted it doesn't make you safe from possession.

how would a webmaster who licensees content from XYZ content producers know the content was not of age? If they looked at the driver's license, it could show she/he was 18+, so they would never know if it was a fake.

So if an underaged model were found, I am sure the DOJ would notify FSC to get the word out, and from there the alert goes out.

You are thinking that the DOJ would find a child's image and then not tell anyone, and then try to quickly find websites to bust them on the spot for CP?

Once the word is out about an underaged model, you bet webmasters should be rushing out to locate and delete those images so they won't be in a possession/distribution scenario.


Fight the 3 fire alarm!

[MrPinks]

"So if an u*******d model were found, I am sure the DOJ would notify FSC to get the word out, and from there the alert goes out."

Do you really think they are cooperating with the FSC?

"You are thinking that the DOJ would find a ****'s image and then not tell anyone, and then try to quickly find websites to bust them on the spot for CP?"

Call me crazy, but YES, I do think that.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

"So if an u*******d model were found, I am sure the DOJ would notify FSC to get the word out, and from there the alert goes out."

Do you really think they are cooperating with the FSC?

"You are thinking that the DOJ would find a ****'s image and then not tell anyone, and then try to quickly find websites to bust them on the spot for CP?"

Call me crazy, but YES, I do think that.

You know what's crazy... having the FBI, like maybe some head 2257 investigator, speak at an adult convention about 2257.. oh wait, that happened at Xbiz forum already

I don't share the conspiracy theory that the DOJ is out to shutdown the adult industry.

They are in the unpopular position of having to enforce a vague law.

if you have ever talked to FBI field agents (like i have), you would know they hate the CP stuff and have nothing against porn. So yes, i think they would absolutely alert the adult industry about a minor being used, so that the exploitation of that victim will end. that's what they are concerned about.

Fight the good intentions!

[MrPinks]

We have different opinions and that is fine. The DOJ and the FBI are two seperate entities. Saying you spoke to an FBI agent is different from speaking with the DOJ.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

You know what's crazy... having the FBI, like maybe some head 2257 investigator, speak at an adult convention about 2257.. oh wait, that happened at Xbiz forum already

I don't share the conspiracy theory that the DOJ is out to shutdown the adult industry.

They are in the unpopular position of having to enforce a vague law.

if you have ever talked to FBI field agents (like i have), you would know they hate the CP stuff and have nothing against porn. So yes, i think they would absolutely alert the adult industry about a minor being used, so that the exploitation of that victim will end. that's what they are concerned about.

Fight the good intentions!

[Anna_Miller]

While not argeeing with the actual worinng of 2257, it has been nice to see some of it bring the copyright issue to light. In 2000, we were writing people (including webmasters) every week about using our stolen content. For the amateur girls trying to run their own sites, having exclusive content is a major issue.

Now at least on the webmaster side, we rarely have to send anymore cesist and desist letters. It is nice to be able to spend that time back on our site.

[Anna_Miller]

oops worinng = wording. but could also mean working i suppose.

[Anna_Miller]

oops worinng = wording. but could also mean working i suppose.

[rockbear]

A lot of guys dosen't seems to care about that 2257 law since tube sites growing like crazy right now

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Anna_Miller

Now at least on the webmaster side, we rarely have to send anymore cesist and desist letters. It is nice to be able to spend that time back on our site.

I understand your point, but 2257 is not going to help lighten your load. The reason is that DOJ is not actively checking websites.. and even if they were, there are over 2M adult domains running and they aren't looking to find 2257 docs from everyone.

You, unfortunately, have the burden under DMCA to police the use of your content.

So that means when u find your contact, you do need to fire off a DMCA letter to the website owner. If they don't take it down in 24-48 hours, then you DMCA to the webhost who are much more receptive to these things, especially when u can show that you tried to contact the website owner.


2257 is not a tool to use for copyright infringement as you and others have expressed. It is has some issues and problems with the wording of the law (especially the more recent changes) that are very problematic for adult websites.

There are companies out there that are looking to help with this problem, through litigation, where once you have identified the site and the site has not acted on your DMCA notice, then u have to sue.

You should have all of your images copyrighted. You can do this once a month by burning them all to disc and filing for copyright. I think its like $30 or something, so its not too hard to do on a continual basis.

Filing for copyright gives you a strong leg to stand on in court over copyright infringements.

In other cases like Vivid, they are bringing up 2257 to add to their list of charges, because if someone has stolen content, they clearly don't have 2257 docs.

Fight the sharing is caring!

[Anna_Miller]

No I didn't think that 2257 was the copyright laws, I was just making an abstract inferrence between the press of 2257 laws for even secondary producers causing an overall awareness. Since all webmasters have now at one point been worried about IDs, us having to police them seems to have mellowed out.
I was, perhaps misplacedly, attributing that slow down to webmasters being aware of needing IDs. Maybe it just means people are more informed in general about copyrights? Or maybe they are just using other peoples photos now and not mine?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Anna_Miller

....Or maybe they are just using other peoples photos now and not mine?

oh the double edged sword.. in looking at your sites, they should be using your photos (you and bruce look great), but of course you don't want that because that would be stealing from you

LOL

Fight the but wait, there's more!

[Snake Doctor]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

as an aside, if your FSC membership dues are up for renewal, you should renew, and provide some donations to the 2257 fund.

I disagree with this. The FSC has changed it's tune quite a bit since they first decided to fight 2257.

And the 2257 fund is a moot point since the law was changed by congress to specifically counteract the arguments the FSC made in Denver....AND if the law is found unconstitutional it will be done in the Connection Distributing case...something the FSC has nothing to do with.

So padding the FSC's coffers for a case they're not likely to argue again doesn't make alot of sense to me......unless you just don't like money, in which case, can you send some to me as well?

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by Snake Doctor

...AND if the law is found unconstitutional it will be done in the Connection Distributing case...something the FSC has nothing to do with.

looking into the case now and reading some of the court docs.. i didn't realize this case went back to 1995.

Fight the reading assignment!

[FightThisPatent]

Fight the weekend bump!

[mikesouth]

I agree that everyone should maintain IDs I do and have since way before 2257 was law. But thats where it ends. It is not incumbent upon me to prove my self innocent of a crime that never happened yet that is exactly what 2257 in it's current form demnds.

I shouldnt have to say this but within our industry child pornography is non existant.

You want to find where child porn is simple set up a yahoo or google alert for the word porn. You will get dozens of stories daily about people being arrested for child pornography, far and away most of them are teachers, clergy, police, daycare and politicians, NONE of the are pornographers.

As dumb as porners are we are smart enough to know that child porn is simply a losing proposition but even moreso it simply isnt our market. Now I have no doubt that if it were legal there are people in porn valley who would shoot a 12 year old and never think twice about it, but far and away I think most porners would disassociate themselves from this practice even if it were legal.

Personally I would roll over on anyone shooting or distributing CP in a heart beat and donate any reward to root out more of them.

But I shouldn't have to tell FTP or anyone else that 2257 does NOTHING to that end. Child pornographers dont keep records y'all. If some 17 year old manages to slip through the cracks in this biz we have always gotten a hold of it quickly but it is VERY rare. We did that even before 2257 was law.

Make no mistake about it 2257 is an attempt to legislate us out of business in an era when juries are disinclined to convict on obscenity charges.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

But I shouldn't have to tell FTP or anyone else that 2257 does NOTHING to that end. Child pornographers dont keep records y'all. If some 17 year old manages to slip through the cracks in this biz we have always gotten a hold of it quickly but it is VERY rare. We did that even before 2257 was law.

I believe the cases you are talking about was on the video side, where the video side has done more 2257 compliance than the internet side, thus being able to pull the VHS/DVDs off the shelf when the underage model was identified.

Imagine the world where 2257 is found unconstitutional... there is a big hoorah, and people go back to their businesses.

then one day, a model for a large content producer is found to be underage, and many internet websites have licensed those images/videos.

how is a website operator going to know how to take down those pics and videos?

Most will not know where to start looking.

This is where if you did do "record keeping" of where your images and videos came from on your website, you would be able to pull the content. This bit of record keeping IS part of 2257 compliance... so whether 2257 is a law or not, doing no amount of record keeping is not the answer.

Even without 2257, possession of underage images/videos on your website is a felony as well as the website is now also a distributor.

While there has not been any major under age models found on the internet side, the chances are becoming greater as more content producers enter the space of creating the content, and being sloppy in not checking IDs.

Even the most diligent content producer can be duped with a fake ID... from there, its a big snowball of trouble once that model is found out to be underage.


Fight the hell hath no fury like a woman porned!

[MrPinks]

Are you going to testify in defense of 2257? Sure sounds like it in every one of your posts in this thread. Not every other country follows 2257 and they seem to be doing just fine. 2257 isn't going to stop any illegal material and it should be up to the company to choose how they keep records. You simply do not know how frustrating and vague the law is to secondary producers.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

I believe the cases you are talking about was on the video side, where the video side has done more 2257 compliance than the internet side, thus being able to pull the VHS/DVDs off the shelf when the underage model was identified.

Imagine the world where 2257 is found unconstitutional... there is a big hoorah, and people go back to their businesses.

then one day, a model for a large content producer is found to be underage, and many internet websites have licensed those images/videos.

how is a website operator going to know how to take down those pics and videos?

Most will not know where to start looking.

This is where if you did do "record keeping" of where your images and videos came from on your website, you would be able to pull the content. This bit of record keeping IS part of 2257 compliance... so whether 2257 is a law or not, doing no amount of record keeping is not the answer.

Even without 2257, possession of underage images/videos on your website is a felony as well as the website is now also a distributor.

While there has not been any major under age models found on the internet side, the chances are becoming greater as more content producers enter the space of creating the content, and being sloppy in not checking IDs.

Even the most diligent content producer can be duped with a fake ID... from there, its a big snowball of trouble once that model is found out to be underage.


Fight the hell hath no fury like a woman porned!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Are you going to testify in defense of 2257? Sure sounds like it in every one of your posts in this thread.

maybe when you see 2257 its causing some kind of reaction that you are missing my point.

forget about 2257 law, pretend it never existed or was found unconstitutional. no 2257, got it?

then some day, an underage model was found because some content producer didn't check to make sure she was over 18 or she duped them with a fake ID. her content gets licensed out to websites, maybe yours.. and all is fine.. until it is discovered that she was underage.

how are you going to locate on your webserver where those images/videos are at?


Fight the 2**7!

[MrPinks]

You shouldn't worry so much about how other people conduct business. I would be all for 2257 if it was modified to be practical and clear cut. First, 2257 needs to cut out the secondary producer bullshit. Primary producers are the ones producing the content, they need to be responsible enough to make sure the content they are producing is legal.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

maybe when you see 2257 its causing some kind of reaction that you are missing my point.

forget about 2257 law, pretend it never existed or was found unconstitutional. no 2257, got it?

then some day, an underage model was found because some content producer didn't check to make sure she was over 18 or she duped them with a fake ID. her content gets licensed out to websites, maybe yours.. and all is fine.. until it is discovered that she was underage.

how are you going to locate on your webserver where those images/videos are at?


Fight the 2**7!

[MrPinks]

You sound very confused though. You are all for 2257 yet at the bottom of your post you put fight the 2257? I don't get it?

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

maybe when you see 2257 its causing some kind of reaction that you are missing my point.

forget about 2257 law, pretend it never existed or was found unconstitutional. no 2257, got it?

then some day, an underage model was found because some content producer didn't check to make sure she was over 18 or she duped them with a fake ID. her content gets licensed out to websites, maybe yours.. and all is fine.. until it is discovered that she was underage.

how are you going to locate on your webserver where those images/videos are at?


Fight the 2**7!

[Iron Fist]

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

i missed that memo, but i did hear that the internet is a series of tubes, and that all those tubes connect to tube sites and that's why they are called "tube sites".




Fight the Cliff Clavin history lesson!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

I would be all for 2257 if it was modified to be practical and clear cut. First, 2257 needs to cut out the secondary producer bullshit. Primary producers are the ones producing the content, they need to be responsible enough to make sure the content they are producing is legal.

you have completely missed my point and i'll stop now since i'll just end up repeating myself. . you are still stuck on 2257.

your last comment makes me believe that if you had the underage content on your website (unknowingly) because you trusted that the content producer would be responsible enough to have over 18 models (and don't forget, they can be duped with a fake ID (traci lords)), that you seem to think you are immune from being prosecuted for CP possession and distribution.

I realize that your mrpinks.com website does not have images so you don't have to worry about 2257.

But for those that are reading, play this little game at home, pick any image/video on your website and can you name what content producer it came from? If the filenames of the image/videos from a content producer were alerted to be underage, could you track those images down on your server?


Fight the no consolation prize!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

You sound very confused though. You are all for 2257 yet at the bottom of your post you put fight the 2257? I don't get it?

you surely don't from all my postings.

2257 law as it has come to be is very vague and burdensome and a lot of it is ridiculous.
have i made that clear enough? So that's why you would "fight the 2257!" that;s what FSC is doing, that's what the Connections case is doing.

the aspect of 2257 of being able to know where your images come from (hence the name record keeping statue) is a valid point for a business to deal with the potential issue of underage content.

Fight the brick walls!

[MrPinks]

Man you are making me feel like banging my head against the wall. No I'm not fucking retarded. I know I wouldn't be immune. But the prime resposibility should fall on the primary producer to keep STRICT records. I do have to worry about 2257 because I do care about this industry and I can clearly see that the law is way to vague for everyone.

[MrPinks]

OK, so you are against 2257. I don't think Primary Producers should stop keep records and 2257 should not relate to secondary producers but secondary producers should be able to point their usable content to the appropriate producer, that's all.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

you surely don't from all my postings.

2257 law as it has come to be is very vague and burdensome and a lot of it is ridiculous.
have i made that clear enough? So that's why you would "fight the 2257!" that;s what FSC is doing, that's what the Connections case is doing.

the aspect of 2257 of being able to know where your images come from (hence the name record keeping statue) is a valid point for a business to deal with the potential issue of underage content.

Fight the brick walls!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

...I do have to worry about 2257 because I do care about this industry and I can clearly see that the law is way to vague for everyone.

then maybe you understand why I do post up on issues like this to bring awareness.

you wrote previously in a reply to me:
"You shouldn't worry so much about how other people conduct business. "

I know a lot of people in this biz, and I am concerned for those who are trying to run their biz as a biz, and to be aware of issues. Those that don't get it, or don't care, don't bother to read what i post.

Fight the would you hit this threads!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

OK, so you are against 2257. I don't think Primary Producers should stop keep records and 2257 should not relate to secondary producers but secondary producers should be able to point their usable content to the appropriate producer, that's all.

we are in complete agreement.

but you have missed the point of my thread... assuming everything you believe about how 2257 law should be... it still does not address what a "secondary producer", or webmaster can do to inventory their content to be sure they are not in possession or in distribution of underage content when it has been found that the underage model slipped past the primary producer.


Fight the prefect world! (mispelling intentional )

[MrPinks]

That's something as an industry we really need to figure out. It could be done but the industry really needs to make an effort to do it.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

we are in complete agreement.

but you have missed the point of my thread... assuming everything you believe about how 2257 law should be... it still does not address what a "secondary producer", or webmaster can do to inventory their content to be sure they are not in possession or in distribution of underage content when it has been found that the underage model slipped past the primary producer.


Fight the prefect world! (mispelling intentional )

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

That's something as an industry we really need to figure out. It could be done but the industry really needs to make an effort to do it.

now we are on the same page

gunni suggested something in his post previously that i have been advocating for 3+ years, which is putting in some kind of kind of code in the filename or folder that ties the image/video back to the content producer.

you can use a spreadsheet or database to track the following:

original filename
new filename
content producer
file location


You can use a CMS system to manage your content which would track all the data necessarily to locate and remove the underage content.

it is work to manage inventory.. that's why most don't do it. they will just throw the images into their resizer script, rename it, and throw it into a gallery.

Fight the data entry!

[MrPinks]

Those are good ideas but it wouldn't work for screenshots on review sites.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

now we are on the same page

gunni suggested something in his post previously that i have been advocating for 3+ years, which is putting in some kind of kind of code in the filename or folder that ties the image/video back to the content producer.

you can use a spreadsheet or database to track the following:

original filename
new filename
content producer
file location


You can use a CMS system to manage your content which would track all the data necessarily to locate and remove the underage content.

it is work to manage inventory.. that's why most don't do it. they will just throw the images into their resizer script, rename it, and throw it into a gallery.

Fight the data entry!

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by MrPinks

Those are good ideas but it wouldn't work for screenshots on review sites.

true.. and that's a whole different issue..

on one of the 2257 inspections, the DOJ was asking for the docs on the performers that were in the video that was running on the TV in the background of the video scene!

so you can easily see how enforcement of 2257 can extend to screenshots as well. I see that on your side you have no images, so your life is less complicated as far as the 2257 stuff goes

Fight the romper room!

[MrPinks]

I just about have a new design that will go online in June that will hopefully have screenshots.

Originally Posted by FightThisPatent

true.. and that's a whole different issue..

on one of the 2257 inspections, the DOJ was asking for the docs on the performers that were in the video that was running on the TV in the background of the video scene!

so you can easily see how enforcement of 2257 can extend to screenshots as well. I see that on your side you have no images, so your life is less complicated as far as the 2257 stuff goes

Fight the romper room!

[mikesouth]

It already has happened...in the video industry remember Traci Lords? Do you think Pink Visuals or whoever knew what video stores had her product...they didnt. but It got around and every quickly complied. We dont need government regulation for that...we didnt have it then

I dont resell my content, yes I maintain IDs and records but I am not going to roll over on this one giving the government the ability to use my oewn lack of ewvidence to convict me of a crime that didnt even happen. Perios Its wrong and try as you might you cant spin it right.

[FightThisPatent]

Originally Posted by mikesouth

It already has happened...in the video industry remember Traci Lords? Do you think Pink Visuals or whoever knew what video stores had her product...they didnt. but It got around and every quickly complied. We dont need government regulation for that...we didnt have it then

you completely have missed my point.. so i will use your example to explain.

When traci lords was found to be underage, the content producer didn't have to know which videos were in what stores. What happened is the word got out that certain titles needed to be pulled.

The store owner, who now has the contraband content, has to pull the video. He can check his inventory logs to see if he purchased those titles. He can go to his wall and visually inspect for the titles, etc.

The point is that the store owners had to have their own method for locating the contraband and take it down.

2257 didn't "protect" anyone from the Traci Lords situation.

2257 did not "protect" the store owner, who had to locate the content and remove it, otherwise he would be in possession and distribution position.

Forget that 2257 exists. There is no 2257.

How is a website owner going to do the equivalent that the store owner did for the Traci Lords situation when images/videoes are found to be underaged?


Fight the question!