GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum

GoFuckYourself.com - Adult Webmaster Forum (https://gfy.com/index.php)
-   Fucking Around & Business Discussion (https://gfy.com/forumdisplay.php?f=26)
-   -   Why 2257 is very very important and able to protect you. Important to read. (https://gfy.com/showthread.php?t=1003912)

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 04:06 AM
Why 2257 is very very important and able to protect you. Important to read.
 
I've always been a supporter of 2257 and encouraged others to support it and adhere to it. Today I got a letter from a Public Defender that enforce my belief in 2257.

It's from a public defender in Tampa Florida asking me for documentation that 2 models were over the age of 18 at the time of the shooting of the content. As I read it I was thinking this is going to be easy as they've enclosed photos of the models. Eva or I should be able to recognise them and supply the documents.

Only problem is, it isn't our content.

We don't recognise the models, scenes or locations. Not even content we broker or bought in to resell. The defendant obviously in deep trouble, this isn't a 2257 charge as he clearly doesn't have the documents. It's a child porn charge and he is SCREWED. Because I can't even find his name or the site in our database.

So he doesn't know who shot the content and guessing it was us. The site named in the letter is still up and looking at it I don't see any of our content there. But he's got some young looking girls on the site. And he doesn't have 2257 documents and he doesn't know for sure who shot the content and he's being defended by a public defender.

At least this letter found the desk of somebody that is still around to open it or bothered to ring Florida and explain that the content isn't his. It might be the sender will be getting a few letters "Return to Sender, Address not Found"

So the next time you post the solution of the producer being responsible for 2257 documents. Remember this poor guy chasing documents he's clueless of the origin of the content. Well at least the 2 scenes he thinks we produced.

The publisher should keep the documents.

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 05:04 AM
The most amazing thing is the lack of interest here. Some guy in Florida is facing ruin because of his stupidity over 2257.

jonnydoe 12-30-2010 05:19 AM
It's just good business to know and link up your 2257 information. The thing that sucks about being an affiliate is that you are at the mercy of your sponsor on this and they could be or have sloppy record-keepers upstream.

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 05:27 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808491)
I've always been a supporter of 2257 and encouraged others to support it and adhere to it. Today I got a letter from a Public Defender that enforce my belief in 2257.

It's from a public defender in Tampa Florida asking me for documentation that 2 models were over the age of 18 at the time of the shooting of the content. As I read it I was thinking this is going to be easy as they've enclosed photos of the models. Eva or I should be able to recognise them and supply the documents.

Only problem is, it isn't our content.

We don't recognise the models, scenes or locations. Not even content we broker or bought in to resell. The defendant obviously in deep trouble, this isn't a 2257 charge as he clearly doesn't have the documents. It's a child porn charge and he is SCREWED. Because I can't even find his name or the site in our database.

So he doesn't know who shot the content and guessing it was us. The site named in the letter is still up and looking at it I don't see any of our content there. But he's got some young looking girls on the site. And he doesn't have 2257 documents and he doesn't know for sure who shot the content and he's being defended by a public defender.

At least this letter found the desk of somebody that is still around to open it or bothered to ring Florida and explain that the content isn't his. It might be the sender will be getting a few letters "Return to Sender, Address not Found"

So the next time you post the solution of the producer being responsible for 2257 documents. Remember this poor guy chasing documents he's clueless of the origin of the content. Well at least the 2 scenes he thinks we produced.

The publisher should keep the documents.
why did they target you for the info?

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 05:34 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonnydoe (Post 17808532)
It's just good business to know and link up your 2257 information. The thing that sucks about being an affiliate is that you are at the mercy of your sponsor on this and they could be or have sloppy record-keepers upstream.
The letter starts. "You are identified as the Custodian of Records for XYZ site"

However the domain in the letter is owned by a big sponsor. So it seems it's an affiliate.

So why are the sponsor Identifying me as Custodian, why is the Public Defender coming after me and did they contact sponsor?

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 05:42 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by bm bradley (Post 17808537)
why did they target you for the info?
Because I'm on the list of Custodians which is strange because I see no record of selling this site content. If it has our content is better be licensed or I'm getting paid on it again.

This is why sites shouldn't be allowed to just sell content they licensed. It has to come back to the owner of the content for him to re-license.

GatorB 12-30-2010 06:08 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808491)
We don't recognise the models, scenes or locations. Not even content we broker or bought in to resell. The defendant obviously in deep trouble, this isn't a 2257 charge as he clearly doesn't have the documents. It's a child porn charge and he is SCREWED.


Actually it IS a 2257 case and NOT a CP case. In order to prove it's CP don't have to prove the "child" in question is actually a child? In America proof of guilt not proof of innocence. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to prove it's case. Now obviously if the girl looks very young or looks like small child then that makes it easier for the prosecution. But you have a girl that COULD be 16 or she COULD be 19, well I'm not sure how you get 12 people to put a guy away and then be listed a sex pred because he forgot to cross his T's and dot his I's.

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 06:21 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 17808585)
Actually it IS a 2257 case and NOT a CP case. In order to prove it's CP don't have to prove the "child" in question is actually a child? In America proof of guilt not proof of innocence. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to prove it's case. Now obviously if the girl looks very young or looks like small child then that makes it easier for the prosecution. But you have a girl that COULD be 16 or she COULD be 19, well I'm not sure how you get 12 people to put a guy away and then be listed a sex pred because he forgot to cross his T's and dot his I's.
The letter says "we are seeking to determine that they were over the age of eighteen years at the time the visual images were created."

So I don't see that as a 2257 issue.

It's all very confusing, maybe this guy was the original buyer, but not in our list under his real name. Then maybe he sold the site to the present domain owner.

The Whois says it was recently updated.

Does the site contain our content. Who owns the content in the pictures. Why are we being chased and not the site owner. Has the site been sold with non exclusive content. If so why was the content sold without our knowledge. Does the new owner, if it is a new owner, have the documents?

Strange and why 2257 is important. To stop messes like this from turning mole hills into shit mountains.

marcop 12-30-2010 07:46 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808559)
Because I'm on the list of Custodians which is strange because I see no record of selling this site content.
Over the last several years I've found numerous examples of me being cited as the custodian of records on sites that I've never sold content to. And pretty much every time that happens, I can't find any of my content on the site. I presume the site owners just steal 2257 compliance statements and info from other sites.

I wonder how this would work out in real life--is it possible I'd be arrested and charged with 2257 violations when I didn't shoot the content being investigated?

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 07:50 AM
So I phoned the "Staff Investigator" who's the person who wrote the letter to me.

And it's all much clearer now. The guy charged is a surfer. The police snatched his computer and the pictures are off his computer. I've given the staff investigator the site owners contact details.

Still doesn't explain why I'm listed on the site as custodian but that will be clearer soon. And I hope the owner has the documents.

marcop 12-30-2010 07:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 17808585)
Actually it IS a 2257 case and NOT a CP case. In order to prove it's CP don't have to prove the "child" in question is actually a child? In America proof of guilt not proof of innocence. The burden is on the GOVERNMENT to prove it's case. Now obviously if the girl looks very young or looks like small child then that makes it easier for the prosecution. But you have a girl that COULD be 16 or she COULD be 19, well I'm not sure how you get 12 people to put a guy away and then be listed a sex pred because he forgot to cross his T's and dot his I's.
What prosecutors have been doing is hiring an "expert" who testifies that the model in the images or video is definitely under 18. A few lucky souls have managed to find the models and have had them contradict the "expert" by proving to the court they were over 18 when the material was shot. I'm sure others haven't been so lucky... who's a juror more likely to believe: an expert medical witness or a pornographer/porn consumer charged with being involved with kiddie porn?

GatorB 12-30-2010 07:52 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808602)
The letter says "we are seeking to determine that they were over the age of eighteen years at the time the visual images were created."

So I don't see that as a 2257 issue.
Not having the proper documents is a violation of the 2257 laws. Now that doen't mean that because you can't prove the girls were 18 that they can prosecute you for CP unless they can prove those girls are under 18.

arock10 12-30-2010 07:56 AM
2257 is very important because illegal tube sites don't have to comply due to it being "submitted" content while legal affiliate are forced to comply even though its impossible to document every single image/video even if the 2257 information is available

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 08:13 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808602)
The letter says "we are seeking to determine that they were over the age of eighteen years at the time the visual images were created."

So I don't see that as a 2257 issue.
how bizarre

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 08:14 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by GatorB (Post 17808752)
Not having the proper documents is a violation of the 2257 laws. Now that doen't mean that because you can't prove the girls were 18 that they can prosecute you for CP unless they can prove those girls are under 18.
if you didn't shoot them they can't prosecute you for anything :2 cents:

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 08:15 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham (Post 17808749)
So I phoned the "Staff Investigator" who's the person who wrote the letter to me.

And it's all much clearer now. The guy charged is a surfer. The police snatched his computer and the pictures are off his computer. I've given the staff investigator the site owners contact details.

Still doesn't explain why I'm listed on the site as custodian but that will be clearer soon. And I hope the owner has the documents.
programs are using on 2257 page for all the sites, programs are being bought and sold.... :2 cents:

potter 12-30-2010 09:25 AM
Paul, Did you really just make these accusations in your first post:

1. A 2257 investigation is directly a CP investigation

2. A producer without 2257 documentation for a set/model, will be prosecuted for CP

VGeorgie 12-30-2010 09:37 AM
This is not about 2257, because the request doesn't come from a federal jurisdiction. It's a state jurisdiction looking for age documentation. Different.

Long before 2257 we were asking models for IDs and making copies of them and filing the documents for a rainy day. 2257 doesn't do anything any self-respecting photographer didn't do before. It only adds to the paperwork by requiring things are filed the way they want them to be filed.

Good recording keeping and business practice is important to us. 2257 has nothing to do with this.

That said, Paul, I read your post as the site lists you as custodian. That's an interesting legal dilemma for you, and I'd be talking to a lawyer about it, rather than posting threads about how producers should be happy that the federal government is telling them to do something we've been doing for decades without their help.

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 09:40 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie (Post 17808982)
This is not about 2257, because the request doesn't come from a federal jurisdiction. It's a state jurisdiction looking for age documentation. Different.

Long before 2257 we were asking models for IDs and making copies of them and filing the documents for a rainy day. 2257 doesn't do anything any self-respecting photographer didn't do before. It only adds to the paperwork by requiring things are filed the way they want them to be filed.

Good recording keeping and business practice is important to us. 2257 has nothing to do with this.

That said, Paul, I read your post as the site lists you as custodian. That's an interesting legal dilemma for you, and I'd be talking to a lawyer about it, rather than posting threads about how producers should be happy that the federal government is telling them to do something we've been doing for decades without their help.
bingo! :2 cents:

Paul Markham 12-30-2010 09:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie (Post 17808982)
This is not about 2257, because the request doesn't come from a federal jurisdiction. It's a state jurisdiction looking for age documentation. Different.

Long before 2257 we were asking models for IDs and making copies of them and filing the documents for a rainy day. 2257 doesn't do anything any self-respecting photographer didn't do before. It only adds to the paperwork by requiring things are filed the way they want them to be filed.

Good recording keeping and business practice is important to us. 2257 has nothing to do with this.

That said, Paul, I read your post as the site lists you as custodian. That's an interesting legal dilemma for you, and I'd be talking to a lawyer about it, rather than posting threads about how producers should be happy that the federal government is telling them to do something we've been doing for decades without their help.
I learned long before 2257 that shooting a girl without the proper documentation was professional suicide. The first sets I sold were to private collectors and were photos. still made sure I had the right documents.

2257 doesn't cover what I've covered in my documentation over the years. 2 IDs and recently 2 Government issued photo IDs. A model release stating the day and place of the shoot and the amount paid. With the model writing in her date of birth. Also approving the use of the content and copyright to me. Signed by the model and witnessed.

Also in her native language since we came here to CZ.

Agent 488 12-30-2010 09:53 AM
all i get from this thread is that you seemed confused by your record keeping. does not inspire confidence.

Grapesoda 12-30-2010 10:56 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 488 (Post 17809015)
all i get from this thread is that you seemed confused by your record keeping. does not inspire confidence.
interesting look at the situtation

CaptainHowdy 12-30-2010 11:00 AM
One of these days,...

http://www.ashleysaunders.com/ashblo...rganizized.jpg

MaDalton 12-30-2010 11:09 AM
i recently got content from a producer to sell in my shop. it was a nightmare: everything dumped in folders with no system at all, ID pics i had to search by myself and model releases only for the main girls, nothing for the guys and nothing for some extra girls who appeared in the scenes.

after some mails forth and back i sent the whole stuff back to him - not a chance in hell i am going to sell this.

and it makes me really happy that i am very anal about documentation - just give me one single filename of my content (unless its been changed of course) and i have the docs within 1 minute.

camperjohn64 12-30-2010 11:38 AM
I dont get it.

1) The guy is being prosecuted because he can't prove they are not underage.

2) Why isn't it the pigs job to prove that they ARE underage?

DWB 12-30-2010 11:44 AM
It's all user submitted content.

Case closed.

NaughtyVisions 12-30-2010 12:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by camperjohn64 (Post 17809223)
I dont get it.

1) The guy is being prosecuted because he can't prove they are not underage.

2) Why isn't it the pigs job to prove that they ARE underage?
Because innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to porn.

Barry-xlovecam 12-30-2010 12:56 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by arock10 (Post 17808759)
2257 is very important because illegal tube sites don't have to comply due to it being "submitted" content while legal affiliate are forced to comply even though its impossible to document every single image/video even if the 2257 information is available
USC 18 §2257 and §2257A were once found unconstitutional in Connection Distributing Co. et al. v. Holder No. 06-3822 (2009)
, then reversed, by the US Appellate Court for the 6th District. This statute is 90% political, discriminatory, overreaching (and total BS).

The above quote is just one reason why.

Anyway, life goes on ... This is one of the biggest follies in this industry.


Hentaikid 12-30-2010 01:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie (Post 17808982)
That said, Paul, I read your post as the site lists you as custodian. That's an interesting legal dilemma for you, and I'd be talking to a lawyer about it
Paul is a British subject living in Czech, 2257 is no more relevant to him than the german AVS law is to US webmasters, or the Japanese censoring system to anyone outside of Japan.

VGeorgie 12-30-2010 01:42 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Hentaikid (Post 17809454)
Paul is a British subject living in Czech, 2257 is no more relevant to him than the german AVS law is to US webmasters, or the Japanese censoring system to anyone outside of Japan.
Again, this has NOTHING to do with 2257, so it doesn't matter where Paul lives. However, if a prosecutor continues to believe Paul is the source of material that is found in court to be CP, he can certainly be the subject of an extradition order.

He also is subject to civil liability if defendant (or website) becomes claimant in a civil suit, and continues to insist Paul is the source of the material, and where he warranted that all models were 18+. You can be sued from anywhere in the world, and a default judgment against you could be collected at any point in your revenue stream where there is jurisdiction. Paul does a lot of business with US concerns.

Hentaikid 12-30-2010 02:12 PM
Fair enough. I don't think it's quite to the point of hiring overseas lawyers but it might be a good idea to do some preventive google searches on all those copy pasted inaccurate custodian of records pages

Mutt 12-30-2010 05:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by marcop (Post 17808738)
I presume the site owners just steal 2257 compliance statements and info from other sites.
this is why Paul is listed as a custodian of records on a site he has no records of selling to. industry filled with clowns. i've seen the same 2257 page literally on hundreds of sites and Paul is on them all with that Bananpro name.

with the morons who work in law enforcement this could develop into a comedy of errors clusterfuck - 'hey your name is on the site pal as the record keepin guy, yer in deep doo doo, it didn't get there by accident know what i mean mr check o slovakia child pornographer!'

Paul Markham 12-31-2010 04:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Agent 488 (Post 17809015)
all i get from this thread is that you seemed confused by your record keeping. does not inspire confidence.
Your take on this thread is obviously very wrong then. Keep guessing.

My record keeping is second to none, give me a scene and I will give you the model release and usually IDs from the scene in minutes. About as long as it takes to find the back up scene with the documents on my office server.

All content sold on the site includes a documents folder than contains full 2257 info inside.

Keep guessing.

Quote:
Originally Posted by camperjohn64 (Post 17809223)
I dont get it.

1) The guy is being prosecuted because he can't prove they are not underage.

2) Why isn't it the pigs job to prove that they ARE underage?
I guess you will need to ask the attorney prosecuting the case that question.

Paul Markham 12-31-2010 04:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by VGeorgie (Post 17809482)
Again, this has NOTHING to do with 2257, so it doesn't matter where Paul lives. However, if a prosecutor continues to believe Paul is the source of material that is found in court to be CP, he can certainly be the subject of an extradition order.

He also is subject to civil liability if defendant (or website) becomes claimant in a civil suit, and continues to insist Paul is the source of the material, and where he warranted that all models were 18+. You can be sued from anywhere in the world, and a default judgment against you could be collected at any point in your revenue stream where there is jurisdiction. Paul does a lot of business with US concerns.
This thread is a warning to those who don't take 2257 and record keeping seriously. Where ever they are in the world. It's not only about protecting under age and those who don't want their private porn movies made public.

It's more about protecting us from 17 year olds who think making some money in porn is a good idea for them, unscrupulous shooters in places we can't check up on and from being dragged through court.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mutt (Post 17809821)
this is why Paul is listed as a custodian of records on a site he has no records of selling to. industry filled with clowns. i've seen the same 2257 page literally on hundreds of sites and Paul is on them all with that Bananpro name.

with the morons who work in law enforcement this could develop into a comedy of errors clusterfuck - 'hey your name is on the site pal as the record keepin guy, yer in deep doo doo, it didn't get there by accident know what i mean mr check o slovakia child pornographer!'
Exactly. This site is a strange case. It still lists me and a few others, even though the owner has been notified. Some who I have no idea if they're still in the business.

But yes I don't appreciate being tied to a site I have no record of that's in the cross hairs of the DA for CP. Especially when I powerless to answer.

Barry-xlovecam 12-31-2010 05:28 AM
I reread your post Paul;

1.) The fact that he listed you as the "primary producer" means little legally, the Sundance decision that allowed this was vacated by the enactment of the revisions in the §2257 statute. Under the current law documents must be kept and indexed by the exhibitor of the images.


2.) Under §2257, as a person that is not under US jurisdiction (do you plan on setting foot on US soil? [you are an expatriate? Visiting?],) as a "primary producer," further extraterritorial, and the person having actual contract with the model — you only need to provide the "secondary producer (the person you sell content to)" with documentation that he would be required to examine then ascertain (to the best of his knowledge, without any verification,) that the models are at least 18-years-of-age then retain and index those documents prior to displaying those images.

Your responsibility to satisfy HIS (not your) legal requirements ends at that point even if you were a US entity and not a Czech one.

The buyer as the image's exhibitor is responsible to maintain, in many cases DUPLICATES of the documents that you already have on file. When an international transaction is involved this could be justified to some degree however this is a reversal of the statutory burden of proof required in criminal law in the US — innocent until proven guilty.

This differentiation is made as the makers of this law claim regulatory stature and necessity of "public safety" — CLAIM that they have the authority to regulate free speech and this is one reason for the constant legal challenges ...

If someone wants to sell content from outside of the United States into the US market they would want to offer US buyers documentation as to the models' ages as well as the standard Model Release to prove copyright license, willful acts (consent,) etc. .

I doubt the USDOJ (acting like the Untouchables) will be sending its agents to the Czech Republic anytime soon to bust into your place of business and do a warrantless search— their jurisdiction stops at the US border.

Solution: State that you require the model's name to search if she was ever photographed by you and if they don't have that you can provide no information — if they don't have that — too fucking bad ...



For discussion purposes only — not to be construed as legal advice.

Paul Markham 12-31-2010 08:58 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Barry-xlovecam (Post 17810629)
I reread your post Paul;

1.) The fact that he listed you as the "primary producer" means little legally, the Sundance decision that allowed this was vacated by the enactment of the revisions in the §2257 statute. Under the current law documents must be kept and indexed by the exhibitor of the images.


2.) Under §2257, as a person that is not under US jurisdiction (do you plan on setting foot on US soil? [you are an expatriate? Visiting?],) as a "primary producer," further extraterritorial, and the person having actual contract with the model ? you only need to provide the "secondary producer (the person you sell content to)" with documentation that he would be required to examine then ascertain (to the best of his knowledge, without any verification,) that the models are at least 18-years-of-age then retain and index those documents prior to displaying those images.

Your responsibility to satisfy HIS (not your) legal requirements ends at that point even if you were a US entity and not a Czech one.

The buyer as the image's exhibitor is responsible to maintain, in many cases DUPLICATES of the documents that you already have on file. When an international transaction is involved this could be justified to some degree however this is a reversal of the statutory burden of proof required in criminal law in the US ? innocent until proven guilty.

This differentiation is made as the makers of this law claim regulatory stature and necessity of "public safety" ? CLAIM that they have the authority to regulate free speech and this is one reason for the constant legal challenges ...

If someone wants to sell content from outside of the United States into the US market they would want to offer US buyers documentation as to the models' ages as well as the standard Model Release to prove copyright license, willful acts (consent,) etc. .

I doubt the USDOJ (acting like the Untouchables) will be sending its agents to the Czech Republic anytime soon to bust into your place of business and do a warrantless search? their jurisdiction stops at the US border.

Solution: State that you require the model's name to search if she was ever photographed by you and if they don't have that you can provide no information ? if they don't have that ? too fucking bad ...



For discussion purposes only ? not to be construed as legal advice.
Yes but so far I don't even know if there is any of our content on the site. The owner added me to ICQ and ignored me ever since. He obviously is less bothered about this than I am.


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 06:08 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
©2000-, AI Media Network Inc123