Attention - BIZ Thread: 2257 - what's the latest ruling on livecams?

[MaDalton]

i'm not a live cam specialist, anyone knows what someone would need to do to comply with 2257 regarding live cams? do sessions need to be recorded and archieved?

thanks!

[CarlosTheGaucho]

Well the only thing I can contribute is that recording live shows was never required, just model release and more importantly ID, but that's like three years ago..

[CarlosTheGaucho]

bump would be also interested to know although we record everything

[O MARINA]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

i'm not a live cam specialist, anyone knows what someone would need to do to comply with 2257 regarding live cams? do sessions need to be recorded and archieved?

thanks!

bumpshizzle

[MaDalton]

no one knows? or no one cares?

[The Duck]

I am also interested in this info.

[Quentin]

While it might not seem so on its face, this is an extremely complicated question.

In FSC v. Gonzales (which as I understand it has been administratively closed but is very likely to pick up again at some point), the judge did give some guidance as to what he felt was a reasonable interpretation of the statute and the corresponding regulations with respect to live feeds, but I don't believe that guidance has any value as precedent or case law, because the case was paused/administratively closed before being fully adjudicated.

Bottom line: this is a question for a qualified attorney with relevant expertise. There will likely be disagreement even among attorneys who match that description, because until a case that is on-point is fully adjudicated, all of this is open to interpretation, and interpretations will vary, even among experts.

Or, as attorney JD Obenberger put it on his site XXXLaw.net:

"Explicit streaming video and live feeds are almost certainly among the kinds of material generically described as "other matter" in the Statute. Therefore, the producer of explicit feeds must in every respect comply with the provisions of Section 2257. Special practical difficulties arise that are distinctive to live feeds with respect to a location for the mandated disclosure statement and for the name or number of the work. The information acquisition and record keeping must go on continuously. Because an approved method of compliance is described neither in the Statute nor in either the existing nor proposed Regulations, the scheme of compliance for those who produce such feeds should be designed in close consultation with a lawyer and a technical expert, and provide for notice all the way through to the destination subscriber."

- Q.

[Abbie]

Having worked in this cam business for too long, I highly recommend you speak with Michael from http://AdultBizLaw.com he's been my savior in exactly this aspect of the cam business

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Quentin

While it might not seem so on its face, this is an extremely complicated question.

In FSC v. Gonzales (which as I understand it has been administratively closed but is very likely to pick up again at some point), the judge did give some guidance as to what he felt was a reasonable interpretation of the statute and the corresponding regulations with respect to live feeds, but I don't believe that guidance has any value as precedent or case law, because the case was paused/administratively closed before being fully adjudicated.

Bottom line: this is a question for a qualified attorney with relevant expertise. There will likely be disagreement even among attorneys who match that description, because until a case that is on-point is fully adjudicated, all of this is open to interpretation, and interpretations will vary, even among experts.

Or, as attorney JD Obenberger put it on his site XXXLaw.net:

"Explicit streaming video and live feeds are almost certainly among the kinds of material generically described as "other matter" in the Statute. Therefore, the producer of explicit feeds must in every respect comply with the provisions of Section 2257. Special practical difficulties arise that are distinctive to live feeds with respect to a location for the mandated disclosure statement and for the name or number of the work. The information acquisition and record keeping must go on continuously. Because an approved method of compliance is described neither in the Statute nor in either the existing nor proposed Regulations, the scheme of compliance for those who produce such feeds should be designed in close consultation with a lawyer and a technical expert, and provide for notice all the way through to the destination subscriber."

- Q.

thanks quentin, that's a lot of words for saying nothing - lol

lawyers... sigh...

[pr0]

i hate when people spend 5k to ask a lawyer a question

and then tell other people to spend 5k to ask the same one

attorney client privilege is doesn't mean you can't be like "YOUR FINE" or "YOUR SCREWED" i mean come on...give us a taste!

[After Shock Media]

Originally Posted by pr0

i hate when people spend 5k to ask a lawyer a question

and then tell other people to spend 5k to ask the same one

attorney client privilege is doesn't mean you can't be like "YOUR FINE" or "YOUR SCREWED" i mean come on...give us a taste!

Pr0 truth be told.
Most people never speak to any lawyers even when they say they better ask one.
The lawyers themselves are typically just giving opinions when they are asked anything about 2257 laws, go research how many have tried a 2257 case.
The same lawyers will most often give different advice or opinions than another industry lawyer will.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Pr0 truth be told.
Most people never speak to any lawyers even when they say they better ask one.
The lawyers themselves are typically just giving opinions when they are asked anything about 2257 laws, go research how many have tried a 2257 case.
The same lawyers will most often give different advice or opinions than another industry lawyer will.

Sad but true...

Well here's my opinion.... having never tried a 2257. In fact, I believe there has been only 2 recent cases involving 2257 and both were plea bargained out. The most recent here in LA, the govt dropped all charges in regards to 2257 violations.

I tell cam site operators to record, index, log and store every stream and feed. JD actually said the same thing just in a more round about manner.

The more interesting question is the use of foreign cam girls by US cam companies.

Right now we are still awaiting the new regs and I suspect they will discuss the issues presented by cam sites. Until then and until a cam site is prosecuted no one can give a definitive answer.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Sad but true...

Well here's my opinion.... having never tried a 2257. In fact, I believe there has been only 2 recent cases involving 2257 and both were plea bargained out. The most recent here in LA, the govt dropped all charges in regards to 2257 violations.

I tell cam site operators to record, index, log and store every stream and feed. JD actually said the same thing just in a more round about manner.

The more interesting question is the use of foreign cam girls by US cam companies.

Right now we are still awaiting the new regs and I suspect they will discuss the issues presented by cam sites. Until then and until a cam site is prosecuted no one can give a definitive answer.

thank you. do streamray or cams (just examples) record all streams that are sent by private cam girls? i have difficulties believing that.

i guess the good thing is that even if this would be required, no one will care till the first one gets sued. because there's no content that you will need to throw away because of missing docs

[l0lf4c3]

I believe you do not need to record every stream, you only need to monitor them and make sure that nothing happens what is against the regulations or the websites rules.

Since you can not control live content, you need to make sure that no unregistered person appears on the feeds. If you get caught with a screenshot or recorded session where the persons are not registered, you'll be sorry. Thats why live cam sites need 24/7 control.

Governmental identificational documents are required, some sort of a signed agreement is required as well. I suggest to try registering a model account somewhere and check the agreement they require. You'll see what documents are needed while registering.

Also you should check the model rules on cam sites (usually a modell account is required to reach them) , this way you can put the actual requirements/regulations together for live content.

Cheers

[John.]

Interesting topic.

[Jim_Gunn]

Every cam company and individual cam girl would be wise to record all their cam shows anyway for the archives, never mind for 2257. Why throw away good content that can possibly be viewed again? If I had any involvement with cam girls, I would make sure that we use actual video cameras with a mini-DV tape inside as webcams to make sure that the footage gets archived for future use.

[Robbie]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

thank you. do streamray or cams (just examples) record all streams that are sent by private cam girls? i have difficulties believing that.

i guess the good thing is that even if this would be required, no one will care till the first one gets sued. because there's no content that you will need to throw away because of missing docs

I've never been inside the members area of any of the big cam sites...but I'm pretty sure that they record all the shows automatically and use them as "archives" for when that model is off-air. At least that would seem to be the smart thing to do. The whole "2257" or as we used to call it a "model release" seems so stupid sometimes that it's enough to drive you crazy. Common sense seems to say that if it's a solo girl all by herself then she should be able to provide ONE id and model release. But I'll bet if the govt. got all stupid about it (and we know they will)...then they will end up wanting a seperate model release, copy of id, and date of production and "name" of production for every single cam show that girl does. It's just like everything else the govt. tries to do...a mess.

[MaDalton]

Originally Posted by Jim_Gunn

Every cam company and individual cam girl would be wise to record all their cam shows anyway for the archives, never mind for 2257. Why throw away good content that can possibly be viewed again? If I had any involvement with cam girls, I would make sure that we use actual video cameras with a mini-DV tape inside as webcams to make sure that the footage gets archived for future use.

in a studio maybe, but you really want the girls at home to change tapes during cam session? and who will capture the tons of tapes? i don't see that happening, if something gets recorded then directly on the streaming server i'd say

[Jim_Gunn]

Originally Posted by MaDalton

in a studio maybe, but you really want the girls at home to change tapes during cam session? and who will capture the tons of tapes? i don't see that happening, if something gets recorded then directly on the streaming server i'd say

In any studio I ran for certain this would happen. Why throw away free content? If the girls at home were smart they would be doing it themselves to create their own archives, but I suppose if there are dozens or hundreds of models working from home it would be cumbersome to organize that. In that case an automated setup to record off the server as you suggest could work.