Legal Advice needed for affiliated adult site

[mgstore1]

Hi all,

I just bought an adult affiliated site (not a paysite) and was wondering what I should consider legal in regards to labeling.

I have a warning page but no 2257 compliance statement like many other websites. How do I obtained this statement to my website and what's the fees (if any)? Is it any other legal things I need besides copyright, 2257 compliance statement?

Thanks

[mynameisjim]

Did you mean to say an adult "oriented" site?

I'm not sure what an adult affiliated site is.

If it's showing explicit sexual images then you technically need to have the proper 2257 information which is proof that all of the people in the images where of legal age.

I'd say do some research on 2257 to get an idea of what it is.

[mgstore1]

Thanks for the reply,

I've already researched and know what the 2257 is but I just want to know the steps to incorprate it into my website. Yes, it is an adult oriented site, I guess this is the proper term for it..lol

[playful1]

I think what he is trying to say, (and I could be wrong) Is that he has a Site that he uses for Promoting his sponsors.

If that is the case, and you are simply using your site to promote sponsor sites, galleries, etc. Then you would simply rely on the Sponsor to have the 2257 info. If you are Producing your own content, or purchasing content (Even if you are given content) you will need to have 2257 documentation.

But excuse me for saying, I get the feeling, you need to do some homework in Adult Webmastering. Check out CozyFrog and Cozy Academy for a real good start.

By the way, Welcome to CozyCampus!!

[mgstore1]

Thanks Playful1, your answer to my post was what I figured but wasn't sure. In this situation, I promote other sites like many other webmasters. Yes, I'm new to the adult internet web business. I've did a lot of research in a short time and found out lots of things but most material didn't quite give me some legal answers I was looking for.

As far as doing my homework..lol Well, excuse me for saying this but part of my homework is coming onto this forum and asking you guys. You can do tons of research but sometimes, you need to ask someone first hand who's more experience in the matter and I was recommneded this site which is very informative. Again, I appreciate your input. Thanks for the welcome.

[Hammer]

Originally posted by playful1
If that is the case, and you are simply using your site to promote sponsor sites, galleries, etc. Then you would simply rely on the Sponsor to have the 2257 info. If you are Producing your own content, or purchasing content (Even if you are given content) you will need to have 2257 documentation.

You really shouldn't given legal advice unless you're sure you know what you're talking about, Playful1.

Mgstore1, welcome to the Campus. The advice given above is not completely accurate but you should also understand that asking for legal advice from anyone but an attorney is not a good idea really since it's not binding and often not going to be accurate.

If you promote a sponsor and use their free content you do need to comply with 2257 if that content is explicit as defined by 2256 and that means that basically if it shows anything more than what you would see in a Playboy, it's explicit and you, as the publisher of that content, must comply with the law and obtain the proper documents for that content. What you'll find is that very few sponsors actually provide the copies of photo IDs that you need and will tell you that linking to their 2257 statement is sufficient. That is a lie and hasn't been the case since June, 2005 when the changes to 2257 became law.

So, whether you produce the content, purchase the content, or use sponsor provided content, if that content is explicit you need to comply with 2257 and it's a very complicated law and not easy to comply with. I recommend using non explicit content and text links to link to the sponsor sites, in which case you can avoid 2257. Of course, even then, everyone has a different idea of what is explicit. Personally I recommend that you avoid showing pubic areas for either men or women.

You say you bought the site. Was it a turnkey? Based on the name you're using I'm wondering if it was an adult toystore. Would you care to show us the site? It would be a lot easier for us to help you if we could see exactly what kind of content you have.

[playful1]

Originally posted by Hammer
You really shouldn't given legal advice unless you're sure you know what you're talking about, Playful1.

Mgstore1, welcome to the Campus. The advice given above is not completely accurate but you should also understand that asking for legal advice from anyone but an attorney is not a good idea really since it's not binding and often not going to be accurate.

If you promote a sponsor and use their free content you do need to comply with 2257 if that content is explicit as defined by 2256 and that means that basically if it shows anything more than what you would see in a Playboy, it's explicit and you, as the publisher of that content, must comply with the law and obtain the proper documents for that content. What you'll find is that very few sponsors actually provide the copies of photo IDs that you need and will tell you that linking to their 2257 statement is sufficient. That is a lie and hasn't been the case since June, 2005 when the changes to 2257 became law.

So, whether you produce the content, purchase the content, or use sponsor provided content, if that content is explicit you need to comply with 2257 and it's a very complicated law and not easy to comply with. I recommend using non explicit content and text links to link to the sponsor sites, in which case you can avoid 2257. Of course, even then, everyone has a different idea of what is explicit. Personally I recommend that you avoid showing pubic areas for either men or women.

You say you bought the site. Was it a turnkey? Based on the name you're using I'm wondering if it was an adult toystore. Would you care to show us the site? It would be a lot easier for us to help you if we could see exactly what kind of content you have.

Hammer, I agree with you fully. This is not the place for legal advice (You have also taught me something here on the Sponsor 2257 issue)
The main point I was trying to get out was that he needs to do his homework, in this industry, if he in fact is having problems with even the terminology. I stand corrected and bow to Hammer

[Hammer]

Just so there is no misunderstanding I want to point out that when I say using sponsor provided content I'm not referring to free hosted galleries or linking to their pay sites.

You can link to highly explicit free hosted galleries and don't need to worry about 2257 as long as you link to them with a text link or softcore banner or image. It's when you actually publish content on your own sites that this becomes an issue.

If you take free content provided by your sponsor and use that content to build a TGP gallery, for example, and you host that gallery on a server that you control and you use explicit content, you have no choice but to obtain a copy of the photo IDs of every model that appears in that content and store those documents in the manner prescribed in 2257 and then post your name and address on your site's 2257 statement page as the custodian of records.

So, you either plan on complying with 2257 for ALL of the explicit content you post on your sites or you avoid using explicit content and link to galleries and pay sites that contain explicit content but are owned and hosted by someone else.

[KatieAnn]

Originally posted by Hammer
What you'll find is that very few sponsors actually provide the copies of photo IDs that you need and will tell you that linking to their 2257 statement is sufficient. That is a lie and hasn't been the case since June, 2005 when the changes to 2257 became law.

Hey Hammer, just curious here, but . . .

I believe reporting a sponsor's custodian of record as the custodian of record for an affiliate site would be legal assuming 1) the sponsor's custodian of record is legit and files are in order, and 2) the reference is clearly linked to only images provided by that particular sponsor (ie you have 1 page per sponsor and each page reports a different custodian of record, or you only have one sponsor on the entire site, etc).

The risk here is that you are taking on responsibility for somebody else having their records straight. But technically it would be legal wouldn't it?

By the way, welcome mgstore1 and good luck

[Hammer]

Originally posted by KatieAnn
Hey Hammer, just curious here, but . . .

I believe reporting a sponsor's custodian of record as the custodian of record for an affiliate site would be legal assuming 1) the sponsor's custodian of record is legit and files are in order, and 2) the reference is clearly linked to only images provided by that particular sponsor (ie you have 1 page per sponsor and each page reports a different custodian of record, or you only have one sponsor on the entire site, etc).

To my knowledge this is completely incorrect if you are using that sponsor's explicit content on your own pages. Like I said, if all you do is link to the sponsor's pay sites and free hosted galleries and you do that with non explicit images and banners or text links, you have no reason to comply with 2257 but if you use their free explicit content to build your own sites, like free sites and galleries or to build banners or as images on your own site, then you need to obtain the model's ID copies for that content and list yourself as the custodian of records on your 2257 statement page.

BTW, this even goes for thumb preview TGPs. If you use explicit thumbs and they are hosted on your server, you need have the docs. If you don't want to or can't obtain the docs then you need to use non explicit thumbs. Also, just cropping an explicit thumb so the explicit parts don't show is not enough because the law clearly states that it doesn't matter if you blur parts of the image or crop them out, if they appear in the original image you still need the docs.

[Hammer]

Even if you put 2257 aside, using a sponsor's free content is still risky if you don't obtain the docs to at least prove to yourself that the docs exist and that you would be able to prove that all the models are over 18 because there is still the issue of CP and if you use content that you are unsure of or that won't be able to prove the age of it doesn't matter where you got the content you could still face a visit from the FBI.

Personally, I would never use any free sponsor content to build anything unless that content came with the 2257 docs. Unless I was using it for mature sites.

[KatieAnn]

Originally posted by Hammer
To my knowledge this is completely incorrect

Hmm, interesting. I'd certainly trust your experience over "Katie's interpretation of the law" though

Originally posted by Hammer
Also, just cropping an explicit thumb so the explicit parts don't show is not enough because the law clearly states that it doesn't matter if you blur parts of the image or crop them out, if they appear in the original image you still need the docs.

Wow, crazy government. I didn't know that part. Doesn't that sort of provide precedent for claiming that if there is a set of photos including explicit content and you publish a non-explicit photo from that set that you would also require 2257 docs?

[porn punk]

Okay, I have an even better question? Lets say you had explicit stuff up on your site and you decided you wanted to go straight and turn it all softcore. Now, is that permitted or are you still liable for when you had the naughty naughty stuff up, and if so, shouldn't you just say fuck it and keep rolling, and if not, shouldn't you just wait until you have a problem and then take the site down?

[KatieAnn]

Originally posted by porn punk
Okay, I have an even better question? Lets say you had explicit stuff up on your site and you decided you wanted to go straight and turn it all softcore. Now, is that permitted or are you still liable for when you had the naughty naughty stuff up, and if so, shouldn't you just say fuck it and keep rolling, and if not, shouldn't you just wait until you have a problem and then take the site down?

A good lawyer will tell you "it's all about managing risk". And then will deny ever saying such a thing if you end up in a lawsuit.

While technically you are liable for things you posted in the past, the odds that someone saved a copy of your entire site and can prove that you had material posted without 2257 documentation on a specific date are slim. But every day that you *continue* to follow that practice you are increasing the likelihood that you will get in trouble for it at some point.

[porn punk]

Originally posted by KatieAnn
A good lawyer will tell you "it's all about managing risk". And then will deny ever saying such a thing if you end up in a lawsuit.

While technically you are liable for things you posted in the past, the odds that someone saved a copy of your entire site and can prove that you had material posted without 2257 documentation on a specific date are slim. But every day that you *continue* to follow that practice you are increasing the likelihood that you will get in trouble for it at some point.

I'm actually wondering if there's a legal time limit or if anyone who every posted a dirty pic on the internet without the 2257 info is liable under these laws, even in a chat room or something

[mynameisjim]

Originally posted by porn punk
I'm actually wondering if there's a legal time limit or if anyone who every posted a dirty pic on the internet without the 2257 info is liable under these laws, even in a chat room or something

I'm sure there is a statute of limitations on this law. The only crime without one is murder I think. I think even rape and child molestation have limitations of 25 years or so. Maybe less.

Generally, how it works is you get inspected on a certain day. The agents ask for documents relating to specific URLs. If you don't have them then you are in violation. So it's not really a case of them investigating you for months and years and taking snapshots of websites. At least that's my understanding. Now, this is for general, mainstream type porn. If you're selling borderline stuff or displaying questionable user submitted pics and videos, things may be a bit different.

[Hammer]

When the proposed changes to 2257 were first proposed they attempted to make the new law retro active and say that they could come after you for any content you had on a website even before you knew about the changes to the law. At that time a ton of webmasters closed down their sites and fled the business as if that would help them if the Feds had printouts of what their sites looked like before they pulled them but fortunately that part of the law was shot down before the law was passed.

That means that anything you published prior to June 2005 is exempt from 2257. Obviously nothing is exempt if the model was actually underage at the time the content was produced but all legal content published prior to that date would be. However, and here's the important part, if you make any changes to the sites that content appears on that you don't have the docs for, any change at all, even changing some text, it would be considered republished and the law would kick in.

So, if you have any websites with explicit content that you do not have the docs for that were published prior to June, 2005, never ever touch them. I have some and some of them are still making me money but if they ever stopped working and needed a little SEO work or something, I would just let them go and forget about them.

BTW, anyone that specializes in retro porn has it made because anything produced prior to July 3, 1995 is exempt. The kicker is that you would need to be able to prove it was produced before that date and if you didn't have the docs I'm not sure how you would unless you had receipts that indicated the file names of the content.

[Latinluvin]

What about making an image from a screen capture of a movie and then linking that image to the site where the actual movie was hosted. Would I still need documents even though the image contained above the waist nudity, but no sex.

[Cozy Monica]

I've heard people say that screen caps, images in banners, any kind of photo that could be considered explicit, GOTTA have the docs.

[kiara]

I think that Cozy Monica is right. If the original photoset was explicit, you will need the docs. It doesn't matter if you cropped the picture or photoshopped it to leave out the explicit content.