Sorry, another 2257 question :)

[deshg]

Hey once again everyone, how's it going?

I'm sorry () but i just wanted to confirm something regarding the 2257 documentation with regard to user uploaded content.

Obviously a copy of models id's, dates of birth, names/former names/stage names/alias' are required. They then need to be stored offline along with lists of the urls featuring the content. Then the office has to be listed with the COD on the site and it has to made accessible at least 20 hours a week.

My question is am i right in saying that legally all you need is a legible copy of the ID and all of the previously quoted information? Rather than actually requiring a signed form from the model detailing it?

The reason i ask is with regard to user uploaded content; if someone uploads a picture of themselves i would rather just have them scan in a copy of their ID (or photograph it) and then have them answer the other questions online, without them having to print off and sign a form.

Hopefully the 6th circuit ruling with help us out, but as far as i can tell at the moment it doesn't actually have any direct impact on what information should be being collected outside of their jurisdiction?

Thanks so much for your help as ever,

Dave

[tittychan]

I believe the signing off doesn't have anything to do with 2257, and instead has to do with covering your ass from regretful girls who want their masturbation video taken down. I suppose it could be satisfactorily replaced with a TOS that people have to check off on.

Also, any decision the 6th circuit makes will set a legal precedent. If it's in our favor, prosecutors everywhere will be less likely to prosecute in situations where the defendant can call upon the precedent set by the 6th circuit. This is, of course, if the decision is upheld.

[deshg]

Thanks tittychan, that's what i thought, so just to confirm i am right in saying that the only thing that is required is a copy of the ID, Date of Birth and Previous/Other/Stage/Maiden/Alias Names purely in terms of 2257?

And with regards to the 6th circuit, that sounds better than i thought i was, hopefully this might actually lead to some vague sense when it comes to 2257 regulations. But maybe that's just hoping for way too much!

Thanks again,

Dave

[Hammer]

If they are voluntarily uploading the content then you wouldn't need a signed model release, however, how will you be able to prove that the content wasn't uploaded by someone else without the permission of the person in the video or photo? A jilted boyfriend could easily get a scan of his ex girlfriend's drivers license and upload that along with the content.

There is some legal precedence for what is called an electronic signature and if you have some wording on your form to explain that by typing their name they are agreeing that they are signing electronically it may be usable.

As for 2257, as long as you have a legible copy of a government issued photo ID that should be acceptable although the wording of the document is ambiguous (purposely) and some people believe you need two IDs.

Personally, I can't imagine that anyone is going to be willing to provide you with a copy of their DL just so they can upload some stuff to your site.

[Cozy Monica]

I can see why someone would be hesitant to provide their ID, but it's not like he can just avoid that because people don't like it.

I'd feel really weird about not having some kind of model agreement though, so I think Hammer's suggestion of making sure your form gets an electronic signature is important.

[Hammer]

You don't see why someone that is surfing anonymously and decides to upload some porn to his site wouldn't want to send a copy of their DL to him? C'mon, seriously?

[Cozy Monica]

That's why I said "I can see why someone would be hesitant"

However, just because people aren't going to want to provide their IDs doesn't mean there is a way around it. He needs them.

[sunfunbill]

IMO it's just not worth the hassle to even have a site like that. But I'm a poor, broke soul, so what do I know???

[Hammer]

Originally posted by Cozy Monica
That's why I said "I can see why someone would be hesitant"

D'oh!. Sorry, my poor old eyes are seing 't's where they don't exist.

[deshg]

Wow, thanks everyone for your feedback. I hear what your saying about people being reticent to upload their id's, the site is a modelling community site, so the free content is pretty much exclusively non sexually explicit shots, the id becomes relevant if a user wishes to upload content which they are going to charge for (and generally is sexually explicit to some degree). As a result these people are much more happy to upload their id's as they have something to gain. Obviously this isn't going to appeal to everyone, but as you all say, it's something we pretty much just have to do unfortunately.

I very much like the idea of using an electronic signature, at least for some sort of cover. Presumably you are referring to an electronic signature with regards to, as you say, having information the user is agreeing to and then requiring them to physically type their name, alongside telling them by doing so they are agreeing to the terms etc?

Or are you referring to a digital signature with regard to actually using a private/public key encryption to ensure they have a future 'pass key' that they could use in the future to identify themselves again? I'm guessing the first one as this would only really ensure every future action was taken by the same person and not that that person is who they say they are!

If you see what i mean!

Thanks so much for your help everyone, it really is massively appreciated, i look forward to hearing your thoughts,

Dave

[Hammer]

Originally posted by deshg
I very much like the idea of using an electronic signature, at least for some sort of cover. Presumably you are referring to an electronic signature with regards to, as you say, having information the user is agreeing to and then requiring them to physically type their name, alongside telling them by doing so they are agreeing to the terms etc?

Or are you referring to a digital signature with regard to actually using a private/public key encryption to ensure they have a future 'pass key' that they could use in the future to identify themselves again? I'm guessing the first one as this would only really ensure every future action was taken by the same person and not that that person is who they say they are!

Doesn't really need to be that complex. Here's an example. http://www.fantasypimp.com

The signature is not stored in the case of this site but since the only way to gain access is by typing something in those fields it would be obvious that the person that entered was showing intent and didn't stumble in accidentally.

In your case it's even easier because it's not just a simple warning page. You are making them sign the electronic signature as part of the process of submitting content.

The important element is the wording of the warning.

"By entering the information in the form below, I am declaring and attesting, under penalty of perjury, under any United States laws or applicable International laws, that I am at least 18 years of!age if I live in the U.S. or of legal age in my country, and to the following:"

BTW, I paid an attorney to write this disclaimer. You are free to use it if you wish though.

You might also want to set up a script that records the IP of the person that fills out the application as well as what they type into the signature field.