2257 Breakdown As It Pertains To Most TGP/MGPs
 

I've been trying to keep up with this as much as possible, and although I believe I understand it correctly, I'd appreciate if someone knowledgable would confirm my breakdown of it.

My 2257 Understandings:

• For all sexually explicit material, whether real or simulated, and/or material depicting nudity (ie nipples, vag, dick) that is hosted on my website, I must retain a copy of a valid ID for all depicted persons.
  
• If I own a thumbnail site featuring thumbs that depict no nudity/sex whatsoever, I do not need to keep a record for the featured model. This is up to the gallery submitter, or whomever owns the linked-to page that depicts the nudity/sexually explicit material.
  
• Sites that are entirely text are exempt from 2257 record-keeping.

That's the basics as I understand it, at least as far as it concerns most TGP/MGP owners...

I still have a question that I haven't seen addressed:

If an image that is sexually explicit resides on my server/domain but I do not share it with visitors (ie no one sees it but me), must I have 2257 documentation for it?

The reason I ask is because I delete explicit thumbs submitted to my TGP, but since I only use about 10 of them per day (and receive 80-90) I usually just crop a few to be 2257 compliant and display those, while the others sit on my server and are never incorporated into any of my pages.

Again, if anyone could make sure I've got this down, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks,
c-lo

cropping into compliance doesn't make you compliant. The original image (pre-crop) has to be compliant

If you crop an image so it looks NN, you still need docs.

If using a NN/non explicit thumb and the original is from an set containing sexually explict/nude, you need docs

sperm, what is your plan? I would love to hear it, you seem to know your shit and you own all those sites.

Which leads to an interesting question: What's with all those webcam and dating sites ? From the affiliate side, no problem, get rid of the ads with thumbs in them, but what's with the owners ? Looks pretty much impossible to me to run that kind of site from the US in the future...

Fuck. So there's basically no way for a thumb site owner who accepts gallery submissions to comply besides by getting docs for every girl featured in every gallery submitted daily?

Not to play chicken little, but major limbs of this industry seem to be headed for a nosedive.

Any ideas, folks? :helpme

Any ideas? How about sponsors give out the sanitized docs. That would solve everything!

Change to a text tgp. Seems the easiest solution.

That's what the government wants primary producers to do:
"FSC advanced the important contention that performers were subject to identity theft and harassment by virtue of distribution of identification documents containing their personal information. In response, the government said that primary producers could redact their addresses, social security numbers and all but the year from their date of birth"

Did you just say Real or SIMULATED?
No cant be isnt that what I said like at 8am thismorning when everyone was laughing at me about cartoons?

When a girl simulates an orgasm, she doesn't turn into toon...:1orglaugh

So let me get this straight are you saying that all those cartoons are not in fact created by actual people having sex?
Come on weve all met mickey mouse a Disney!

Are you sure about that? I thought that area was pretty grey...

Meaning the ORIGINAL pic was also NN, but the rest of the set was explicit.

Alright people, there's been enough laughing at Bloomer for one day...errr year for that matter.

If sponsors do 'hand over' the docs as required, which really shouldn't be a problem if they get off their asses, it's still impossible for a US webmaster to run a real tgp/mgp.

All tgps/mgps would have to consist of 100% FHG material, correct? I don't see how you could accept galleries and get docs for every girl that runs through your site...you'd be 'handling' a thousand docs per week (give or take a few hundred.)

And as far the easy solution that Worried suggests (turning all text)...well that simply puts U.S. webmasters at a disadvantage, not to mention it would also probably result in a substantial loss of bookmarkers for established thumb sites.

livid,
c-lo

c-lo, if sponsors say "we only accept traffic from 2257 comliant TGPs, which means you may not have any thumbs on your site" suddenly nobody would be at a disadvantage.

It just depends where the money is.

The bigger question is this: What about Google and other "auto thumbing" companies? Who will close down the newsgroups? Who will close down the newsgroup resellers? The 2257 rules will effectively make it a million times easier to get free porn via P2P than via normal legal channels.

What a fuckup.

I think you would be surprised. After this first came up a year or so ago i went all text expecting a *serious* drop in traffic and revenue. As it turns out traffic did decrease a little but not dramatically AND surprisingly revenue increased.

You just need to adjust your trades, find other text tgps to trade with - blogs are also another good trading partner for text tgps.

I think the reason why revenue increased even though traffic went down a little is that i suddenly had weeded out all my non-english speaking traffic. Thus leaving more card carrying pornsters perusing my links. Also i noticed a serious increase in SE traffic, especially on my TGPs with established PR.

:2 cents:

What differnece is it to a sponsor if the TGP is compliant or not. Especially if it's outside the US?

They are exempt

whats happening if im a canadian tgp webmaster living in canada andowning a thumb tgp network and my hosting companie is US based are my box are located in the USA?

Well, if you think about it, a non-compliant TGP (US owned) would technically be an illegal site, no different from a file sharing site full of copyright material or a site filled with CP. There would be no way to say "it's legal", and thus would be in violation of the T&C for the sponsor (most sponsors have that in there).

That isn't clear. 2257 is a rule about publication, and the question comes up as to the location of publication. Is the server the point of publication, or just an innocent "common carrier" third party, with the point of publication being your office / place of business / mother's basement.

It is a question that has not been answered.

I'm not sure about that and/or depicting nudity part. You won't see breast surgery, mammography, breast-feeding, or medical sites required to hold 2257; I'd bet not tattoo sites, naturalist/nudist, or fine art either. Unless the definition was rewritten(?), it's still got to be "sexually explicit". Where that blurry line is finally drawn is open for debate, but if I were in the secondary producer position, I really wouldn't be too worried about softcore topless pics. It's simply not a strong case, with non-discrimination laws being passed now to allow women to breastfeed and be topless in public, a bare boob can hardly be called explicit. And what about a person just standing there naked? That's not necessarily sexually explicit either. A spread vagina or an erection is probably over the line. Such a silly thing to have to try to define. I'm trying to look on the bright side and hope that maybe this will bring more tease to how adult sites are promoted, but I figure it'll just be more of the same coming from offshore. To make US affiliates happy, I will be working on 2257-safe .zips of non-explicit teaser content and a 2257-safe RSS feed.

What is the difference between google and a tgp that spiders galleries from the web,accepts user submitted urls and displays predetermined search terms like a category style tgp and also has a search engine of the database.

That sounds like a SE to me?

Wrong the statute was amended to include “lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person.” Nipples aren’t genitals or part of the pubic area of any person, so nipples and tits are ok to display without 2257 documentation.


[quote]Sites that are entirely text are exempt from 2257 record-keeping.[/yes]

Yes this is correct.

offshore + living outside of US = non compliance....

Its obvious that most of you are basing your answers on articles written in AVN or other online magazines - the law has changed considerably since the FSC went to bat against a certain version of 2257 - that 2257 has been changed quite a bit with the passage and signing into law in June last year of HR 4472. It makes major changes that most here dont seem to be talking about - youre still stuck on the old rules that were in court which no longer apply to US webmasters - the new law is definitely out there - and you might want to either read it for yourself or get a lawyer to read it to you - because youre all making assumptions that arent correct

I believe I did read HR 4472 some time last year (but it has been a while.) If I remember correctly, it just seemed to clarify a few things...but didn't really strike down any pre-existing 2257 compliance requirement...but I may be wrong.

A link would be nice...after all, you're name is Linkster.

darnit: Yeah, just a few months ago all of my sites were 100% text, but like a fool I changed them. Prod has increased a little, sales are about the same though. I'll probably just end up reverting back. Thanks for the info, though.

GatorB: How is Google exempt? They are a website displaying explicit sexual images just like any other. Thats basically like saying if I were to hotlink all my content, I'd be exempt, right? But that's not the case. Please explain, if you will.

TTiger: I believe that if either you or your content are within the US, you must keep documentation. Either, not both. Since you're already outside the US, I'd switch to a host outside the US. Might be a bit of a hassle, but you wouldnt have to fear a knock on your door.

Thanks to everyone else who has replied thus far...
c-lo

reading 4472 can give you a headache, because much of the good stuff is in the "striking" or "adding" of single words to modify existing code. The version of 2257 at cornell law appears to be out of date at this point.

For hosting, it isn't clear, and certainly needs a ruling. However, it would appear that the best way to figure it is this: The hosting company doesn't need 2257 documents, so they are not a publisher in and of themselves. So the publication would occur on your PC (wherever that may be located) which would be where stuff is published. That office is the office of record (and the one that would be subject to 2257 inspections).

If that office is outside of the US, it would appear at least on the surface that the DoJ would not have jurisdiction over the location, and thus could not make a 2257 inspection (at least not directly).

http://www.freespeechonline.org/webdocs/109248t5.pdf ( starting around page 6)

Sorry, long quote here:

In this case (B) - v specifically excludes hosts.

Most gallery posters / TGP owners / free site makes, bloggers, and such would fall under (A) - iii, "inserting on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise managing the sexually explicit content, of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of," - that is a pretty clear description (in those terms, anyway) of what a webmaster at that level does.

Since the host is exempted (unless they specifically are editing content or have editorial control over your site), so the chain goes back to your office of publication. Located outside of the US? I have a feeling that this all makes you "in the clear", at least to that point.

However, I am not a lawyer. I don't play one on TV, I didn't sleep at a holiday inn express, and I haven't "had sex with that woman", so take it with the largest grain of salt you can find.

Fuck 2257.

what about 3359 ?