2257

[femdomdestiny]

Is there a need for some 2257 statement on affiliate website ? (site promoting paysites)
thanks

[newB]

If there is content on your site that warrants 2257 documentation (such as "lascivious display of genitals"), then yes, and good luck getting said documents from your sponsors. However, if the content on your site is all softcore enough (think Playboy, not Hustler) to not necessitate 2257 documentation, but you link out to the hosted hardcore stuff, then you're fine.

Though things have been quiet on the 2257 front for the past couple of years. I wonder if we won't see a renewed interest by the DOJ once they're done with the torrent/file-locker sites.

[brassmonkey]

not all sites have it.

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by newB

If there is content on your site that warrants 2257 documentation (such as "lascivious display of genitals"), then yes, and good luck getting said documents from your sponsors. However, if the content on your site is all softcore enough (think Playboy, not Hustler) to not necessitate 2257 documentation, but you link out to the hosted hardcore stuff, then you're fine.

Though things have been quiet on the 2257 front for the past couple of years. I wonder if we won't see a renewed interest by the DOJ once they're done with the torrent/file-locker sites.

It is my understanding that at the moment, there is no enforcement going on at all, pending the resolution of FSC v. Holder.

AVN's Mark Kearnes wrote a detailed account of the latest hearing in that case just a few weeks back.

[SmutHammer]

I thought 3rd party doesn't need 2257? isn't that why tubes are still around?

[cooldude7]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I thought 3rd party doesn't need 2257? isn't that why tubes are still around?

tubes are around bcoz its user generated., buahahahaa

[Quentin]

Originally Posted by Ed Hammer

I thought 3rd party doesn't need 2257? isn't that why tubes are still around?

This is a commonly held misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

The tubes are relying on being considered OCPs ("online content providers") as that term is defined under the Communications Decency Act, and operating on the assumption that they would have immunity to prosecution under 2257 by way of CDA Section 230 immunity.

It's a theory which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court (I could very well be wrong about that, though).

Larry Walters wrote a good two-part piece for XBIZ about this some time ago, and he does a much better job of explaining it than I can. Here's part 1, and here's part 2 for those interested in the subject.

[Barry-xlovecam]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Is there a need for some 2257 statement on affiliate website ? (site promoting paysites)
thanks

28 CFR 75.2 - Maintenance of records
(h) A primary or secondary producer may contract with a non-employee custodian to retain copies of the records that are required under this part. Such custodian must comply with all obligations related to records that are required by this Part, and such a contract does not relieve the producer of his liability under this part.

So, if the sponsor is your designated "non-employee custodian to retain copies of the records" list the sponsor and hope if you need them (the records) they can produce the records -- I see this being done frequently on USA Affiliate websites. (Not legal advice.)

[madtwin]

Bump for affiliate managers out there, maybe some of you could clarify this shit.

[Webattorney]

Originally Posted by Quentin

This is a commonly held misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

The tubes are relying on being considered OCPs ("online content providers") as that term is defined under the Communications Decency Act, and operating on the assumption that they would have immunity to prosecution under 2257 by way of CDA Section 230 immunity.

It's a theory which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court (I could very well be wrong about that, though).

Larry Walters wrote a good two-part piece for XBIZ about this some time ago, and he does a much better job of explaining it than I can. Here's and here's for those interested in the subject.

Affiliates may well need 2257 documents relating to any of 2257-triggering content they use to promote their sponsors' sites. As noted earlier, affiliates would not be in the same category as tube sites since affiliate material is not 'user generated content' in the same sense as material uploaded by independent third party users to social networking sites. But the lines are blurry here, and there may be ways to structure a promotional business model so that it fits within a 2257 exemption. Contact one of the adult industry attorneys for advice on the issue, as it can get quite complex.

[epitome]

Originally Posted by Quentin

This is a commonly held misconception, but a misconception nonetheless.

The tubes are relying on being considered OCPs ("online content providers") as that term is defined under the Communications Decency Act, and operating on the assumption that they would have immunity to prosecution under 2257 by way of CDA Section 230 immunity.

It's a theory which, to my knowledge, has never been tested in court (I could very well be wrong about that, though).

Larry Walters wrote a good two-part piece for XBIZ about this some time ago, and he does a much better job of explaining it than I can. Here's part 1, and here's part 2 for those interested in the subject.

We know you're super busy building the bunker, but when you come above ground for a breath of fresh air you drop mad knowledge, yo.

[dave90210]

So user submitted videos and pictures does not warrant 2257 documentation?

Originally Posted by Webattorney

Affiliates may well need 2257 documents relating to any of 2257-triggering content they use to promote their sponsors' sites. As noted earlier, affiliates would not be in the same category as tube sites since affiliate material is not 'user generated content' in the same sense as material uploaded by independent third party users to social networking sites. But the lines are blurry here, and there may be ways to structure a promotional business model so that it fits within a 2257 exemption. Contact one of the adult industry attorneys for advice on the issue, as it can get quite complex.

[just a punk]

Originally Posted by brassmonkey

not all sites have it.

Because not all sites host in the USA. The adult hosting is moving to the EU these days

[madtwin]

It seems that I can just add some fake SUBMIT form and my blog/tgp/website will be "user generated"...

[Barry-xlovecam]

Xlovecam.com (AC Webconnecting BV (NL)) maintains identity records of all performers ( their depictions ) being of 18-years-of-age or greater.

These records are available to anyone by a subpoena for them issued by Courts of The Netherlands.

Should there ever be an individual case in a foreign jurisdiction, involving one of our affiliates; we would consider the instance on its own merits (de novo) and in compliance with DIRECTIVE 95/46/EC in regard to the disclosure of personal data.

[Webattorney]

Originally Posted by dave90210

So user submitted videos and pictures does not warrant 2257 documentation?

It's never quite that simple, and a direct answer to your question calls for legal advice, which lawyers are ethically prohibited from providing on message boards. By way of general information, there are 2257 exemptions that appear to apply to true 'user generated content' and the DOJ has submitted official Comments to the 2257 regulations which suggest social networking sites are not responsible for records keeping related to material uploaded by the site's users, to areas of the site under the user's control. But the devil is always in the details, and the precise way in which you structure your business model, your review process, and your internal operating policies will impact the potential availability of a 2257 exemption. For example, what if you take that user generated content and use it in an promotional banner, or 'feature' certain images on the front page of the site, which were originally posted only to a profile? The stakes are pretty high here, so legal advice is recommended.

[Best-In-BC]

Originally Posted by femdomdestiny

Is there a need for some 2257 statement on affiliate website ? (site promoting paysites)
thanks

Just leave the USA if your paranoid about 2257, I post them now on all my tgps as a pocaughtionary method to fight stupid within the teen niche.

and yeah, my spelling is garbage