DUH?? :-) No, the laws of the US do not apply to any other country or any webmaster who does not live or host servers within US territory. Some may like to think so, but dream on.

Other countries do have laws in place to basically protect children and they can instigate an action against a webmaster within that country if he/she violates these laws. However, this does not mean listening to crap about 2257 from any US government officer - US laws do not apply in other countries.

Because the DOJ says so. If challenged in court, IMHO all that might happen is to get the requirement extended to theaters. It won't work the reverse way given the political pressure behind this and any effort spent thinking otherwise is a waste.

So you're telling me that if I'm standing in Mexico throwing sawdust-containing hot dogs across the border to US citizens who are throwing me money, the import / export and trade laws can't do anything about it?

I really really think you're wrong. But I'm not a lawyer, either, so I'll keep an open mind until someone posts something more informative on this one.

I believe that each company has a designated custodian of records, and that definition is set forth quite concretely elsewhere. Don't quote me.

As for the maintenance of records... it's my interpretation that the primary is required to record all instances of use, whether on their own behalf or by a secondary, while the secondary is required to obtain a copy of the model's documentation and track their own usage.

No. As a TGP owner, i.e. secondary producer, one would only be responsible for what actually appears on pages within your control. Sites linked to from that page that are outside your control, the records would be maintained by whomever is responsible for the individual site.

Correct. You are 'publishing' that image by virtue of it appearing on your page.

No, it means that you can accept the model info as valid when you receive it from the primary producer, but you have to keep a record of who the primary producer you received it from was.

As a secondary producer, any page you create with that content should list your custodian of records as the repository of 2257 info.

Then he's fucked, not you, because the onus is not on you to check the info provided by your primary producer, similar to how the primary producer has no obligation to check for model's aliases beyond what he / she provides.

Google, though, falls under the 'cannot reasonably control the content hosted' clause.

If you seriously think any interpretation of an act produced by US lawmakers is going to be heeded in the courts of any other nation - ya gotta be joking! :-)

The whole concept of nations and their right to produce laws is a matter for them and has no bearing whatsover on the legal processes and courts of any other countries.

To say this, I don't have to be a lawyer. Tho I do know a few lawyers in different countries and they would bust out laughing at the idea of laws of one country being "enforced" in another.

I have nada problem dealing with any US govt officer if he even addresses this issue - it's made up of two words. I never agreed (nor has any nation), to comply with laws created by US lawmakers as regards the internet - each country has their own laws on this.

Actually because you control what the page says about the link, it's still 'publishing' and subject to obscenity laws, but it doesn't fall under 2257 regulations at all if no images are used.

Ah, but if the banner is displayed on a us-based site owned by you, you have to have 2257 info for the image in it or YOU are in violation as a us producer because you 'published' it by featuring it on your site.

Their only argument for exemption would be that they have no control over the content, which is weak.

I suppose the same would apply to counters that featured explicit content - even if that image choice was out of the webmasters control.

Also just to clarify - im planning to remove all sponsor provided content from my server - if I do so before the law goes into affect then there is no retroactive prosecution allowed, correct?

One other question re: "publishing" if content is on the server but not linked or displayed in any html would the random act of the jpg being on the server still be considered in breech?

text tgps are ok ?

yes they are.

Ok what about my logo it is an adult cartoon ?
Is this ok as well ?

Re: publishing, if the image can be viewed by the general public, one would assume it's being published by you. Hence it would really depend on how your server access is configured; whether images can be directly accessed or only through pages.

cartoons are fine.... only applies to actual human beings

Thanks for your help :thumbsup

thanks for the info

Sig spot in a long thread :)

So, this means affiliates?

Remember, they can charge you with anything they want but convicting you is an entirely different matter. They will have to convince a jury that you deserve 5 years in prison for improper record keeping, even though you have absolutely nothing to do with CP. They don't just march you off to jail - you have a right to a trial by a jury of your peers. Stats say that 65% of men over 18 and 35% of women look at porn sites. Chances are that a few of these citizens would end up on your jury and some will see this law for what it is - an attempt to incriminate people involved in a legal business via regulation traps.
One of the reasons the government doesn't prosecute more obscenity cases is because when they do they LOSE them. The people on a jury decide your guilt or innocence - Not George Bush or Alberto Gonzales or Jerry Fallwell. There are literally thousands of laws on the books that the government doesn't enforce. There will undoubtedly be some test cases on this one and the outcome of those will determine how aggressively the feds will try to enforce these. This is just the beginning of a long legal process.

Anyone get the Exemption part? What is actually required if your content was produced before 1995.. and.. if it was produced before 1995, what if you actually publish it on your site on or after June 23, 2005?

" Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part if:

(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before July 3, 1995"

And... every video and photo must be re-encoded to have this statement on it if we publish after July 2005?

".............and produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued on or after July 3, 1995, shall cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement describing the location of the records required by this part."

It's late here.. eye's burning from reading all the docs.. anyone get these parts?

Thanks!

I'm not entirely sure you would get a jury trial in a matter like this.
It's kind of like fighting a traffic ticket in court. It's pretty open and shut, either they have you on radar or they don't......if you've violated the regs then you've violated the regs, they make copies of your records when they come to inspect so that's all the evidence they need.

I don't think a "sympathetic jury" comes into play here anymore than it would if you got caught going 90 in a 65 zone.

:2 cents:

Any time that you are charged with a crime...misdeameanor or felony...you are entitled to a trial by jury...if you plead not guilty to the charge and this cannot be denied.

thanks for info

Hope none of ya need it. We've been compliant for months.

Amendment VI

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense.

Hmmm all my equipment was purchased locally, except for one piece, which I can easily get rid of.

I'm strictly taking as a secondary producer and all my URL's are static.

From what I interpret it as, I need to map each associated URL to a set. Same as you do. But you're saying that the primary needs to keep a copy of each static URL where secondary producers use it too?

What the use for that? If the feds raid someone, it will be the record holder for that domain/site/whatever and that's me. I need to keep track of which set is mapped to a specific URL.

That's where I'm not certain my understanding is correct, so feel free to offer legal opinions on this one.

Yes that is true but the government can cherry pick the jurisdictions for each case. So for example if you have a petite 18 year old blonde on her 18th birthday getting double anal from a half dozen black guys, I am sure the Bush admin would pick "Alabama" as a logical place to try that.

Actually though, if there ever was an actual "2257 only" case the prosecution would not be allowed to disclose the web site or pictures to the jury, it would be irrevelant and prejudicial, so you would just br tried on the merits of the case.

Ok, but speeding is a crime. So even if the jury hated the cop and loved you and thought speeding laws were unconstitutional, they would still be required by law to convict you if the cop had proof (radar) that you were speeding.

Bump for this.... anyone?

here's a scenario:

I have 50,000+ old feeders online
I purchased legal content - ALL PRIOR to this new compliance date and have records
I purchase no new content to add to the randomizer scripts or the feeders

All I need to do is keep my old 2257 info and claim exemption from the new regulations due to the grandfather clause ... thats how I interpret it anyway ... correct?

Now what did I miss about sponsor banners, anything?

As a secondary producer only of content that was produced before 1995, it is exempt, but you DO have to have an exemption statement for it.

Opinions on whether you need a specific statement for each item that is exempt or a blanket statement vary.

If your content was produced before 1995, correct, you need nothing new except a statement that you are exempt.

If your content was produced AFTER 1995, you need to be fully compliant on all that content.

Sponsor banners, as they appear on YOUR site, are part of your published content as a secondary producer, so your sponsor, theoretically the primary producer of any explicit banner image, should be giving you 2257 info for that banner and you should be keeping records as to location used within your site (s).

And even if you get off you still had to go thru the legal process of getting arrested, bonding out have you name in the paper as the local evil pornographer and then spend a shitload of money on a laywer and probally have all your possesions taken away. Now some Joe Bloe webmaster making TGP galleries for part time income really wants to go thru that. well NO ONE wants to go thru that but you get my point.

But hey could find you not guilty and there's nothing a judge or the DA can do about it. Look at OJ. It's called Jury Nullification.