View Full Version : 2257 and UK affiliate programs
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 07:10 PM
I recon there is going to be a rush with affiliates wanting fully compliant content. Its something we need to think about to cash in with ASAP to get ahead of the game.
There are a few ways we can do this. More suggestions also welcome please
None Nude banners and advertising material. Remember if the image comes from an explicit image, it still needs to be compliant. So for example if the picture comes from a picture with a pussy shot and you just use the head, it would still need to be compliant.
OK with thumb TGP's the thumbs are cropt from the gallery, which then links to the gallery, the same applies above. The image needs to come from a none explicit shot. Most thumb TGP's auto crop the image.
Fully comliant non nude image and videos to
Lots of thumb owners will either turn there sites to text links or will need compliant thumbs.
Seems a good idea to offer fully none nude galleries for affiliates as well as the explicit ones.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 07:11 PM
Or will affiliates go back to buying there own content. Or will program owners start giving model releases and ID's for there exclusive content. I doubt many will.
Or will program owners start giving model releases and ID's for there exclusive content. I doubt many will.
We certainly wont. :)
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 07:15 PM
We certainly wont. :)
Exactly. The only way we would is if we shot content specifically for that purpose. But we certainly wont be giving our models ID's out and giving model releases to affiliates with all the thieves and cheats out there also seems madness
Sarah_Maxcash
07-30-06, 07:16 PM
When the last 2257 scare happened we had so many banner orders from companies needing softcore banners.
Jock..
For those who shoot their own content here in the UK...
Due to our UK data protection laws we cannot publish any models details on a 2257 without their written consent. I doubt very much if anyone has got a model to do this, so by having our details as the holders of the information we are covered providing we state that this is due to UK law.
Also American law is only enforcable in the US not in the UK, or anywhere else in the world. Each webmaster in each country has to abide by his own country's laws.
So Chicken Licken.. The sky ain't falling in, and stop reading all the dumb posts on GFY.... LOL
Sarah_Maxcash
07-30-06, 07:17 PM
Also this is part of the reason why I am trying to move to having as much as my own content - exclusive and stuff I might shoot myself - as I can. Then I have the ids I need, etc and don't have to hope anyone will give them to me but also don't have to give them to anyone else either.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 07:22 PM
Jock..
For those who shoot their own content here in the UK...
Due to our UK data protection laws we cannot publish any models details on a 2257 without their written consent. I doubt very much if anyone has got a model to do this, so by having our details as the holders of the information we are covered providing we state that this is due to UK law.
Also American law is only enforcable in the US not in the UK, or anywhere else in the world. Each webmaster in each country has to abide by his own country's laws.
So Chicken Licken.. The sky ain't falling in, and stop reading all the dumb posts on GFY.... LOL
Did you read what I posted Joe?
Jock..
For those who shoot their own content here in the UK...
Due to our UK data protection laws we cannot publish any models details on a 2257 without their written consent. I doubt very much if anyone has got a model to do this, so by having our details as the holders of the information we are covered providing we state that this is due to UK law.
Also American law is only enforcable in the US not in the UK, or anywhere else in the world. Each webmaster in each country has to abide by his own country's laws.
So Chicken Licken.. The sky ain't falling in, and stop reading all the dumb posts on GFY.... LOL
How long do you think it is until you see a UK producer giving out 2257 docs? They have been doing that from the rest of the EU for months now Joe.
SGS
Do these other UK countries have the same data protection laws as the UK ?
If so, as a few other EU countries do have the same/similar laws.. How do the content providers get away with it, or do they get the model to sign a data release form ? Which I mentioned above :)
SGS
Do these other UK countries have the same data protection laws as the UK ?
If so, as a few other EU countries do have the same/similar laws.. How do the content providers get away with it, or do they get the model to sign a data release form ? Which I mentioned above :)
If everyone coming into this biz was 100% with what they were doing a lot of sites would come down tomorrow. :)
I thought that the data protection act was EU wide?
SGS.. Oop's.. I meant "other EU" not "UK" in post above...
Talk to the NatWest three about US law not being enforcable in the uk!
SGS.. Oop's.. I meant "other EU" not "UK" in post above...
I posted on a few UK "twat" adult model forums a while back and was snowed under with people wanting to sell me UK content with *full* ID/2257 docs.
Elisha Jade
07-30-06, 08:32 PM
No way would I give out model releases and IDs. I'd rather make compliant content for affiliates.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 10:16 PM
Data protection has nothing to do with giving iD's away. Its to do with storing peoples details. To do so all you have to do is cough up about £60 and register.
EU privacy laws are a bit different and has nothing to do with a primary producer giving ID's and model releases to secondary producers.
If that was illegal then there would be no such thing as content producers, content brokers, DVD distributers....
But either way it doesnt have much to do with the thread I started.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 10:18 PM
No way would I give out model releases and IDs. I'd rather make compliant content for affiliates.
Thats what I think. What about compliant galleries and banners etc, that something you are doing.
I do think there is an oppotunity to be had here getting compliant marketing material out to affiliates quick
Thats what I think. What about compliant galleries and banners etc, that something you are doing.
I do think there is an oppotunity to be had here getting compliant marketing material out to affiliates quick
If your stuff would still sell ok if it was 2257 compliant then go for it. Its the "if it would still sell" bit though thats important.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 10:43 PM
Talk to the NatWest three about US law not being enforcable in the uk!
An individual can only be extradited for a charge which has an equivalent in English law. Obvious examples would be murder, rape, theft etc. England has no equivalent law to 2257, so nobody could be extradited for non-compliance.
Anyway even if they could. How would they know you are not complying?
2257 is a record keeping law, how would they know you are not complying without the FBI comming to the UK, geting a court order to search your business?
Not going to happen
Talk to the NatWest three about US law not being enforcable in the uk!
The Natwest Three were extradited for offences which have comparable UK equivalents. The UK has no 2257 equivalent so extradition isn't a possibility on those grounds alone.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 10:46 PM
The Natwest Three were extradited for offences which have comparable UK equivalents. The UK has no 2257 equivalent so extradition isn't a possibility on those grounds alone.
Snap :gaylords:
Sarah_Maxcash
07-30-06, 11:09 PM
Talk to the NatWest three about US law not being enforcable in the uk!
Well, they are charged with commiting a crime that was essentially on American soil and if they are guilty they ruined the lived of many thousands of people. However, the point from it that we should take away is how easy it would be to be handed over to the American court system by an uneven treaty. I actually have no problem with them being sent there for the crime they are accused of but it is evening out the treaty that is the issue.
Shandy McAndy
07-30-06, 11:13 PM
Well, they are charged with commiting a crime that was essentially on American soil and if they are guilty they ruined the lived of many thousands of people. However, the point from it that we should take away is how easy it would be to be handed over to the American court system by an uneven treaty. I actually have no problem with them being sent there for the crime they are accused of but it is evening out the treaty that is the issue.
:agree:
I know pratically fuck all about 2257, why?, cos it doesn't concern me.
Surely the 2257 links that people put up is all that's needed. I sell you content, I have all the docs, so you link to me. If the authorities want you to show your 2257 shit you simply send them to me.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-30-06, 11:37 PM
Yes but I think (I could be wrong) the point of the thread was asking how to still attract American affiliates who DO need to follow 2257. The non-nude stuff makes sense to me.
Yes but I think (I could be wrong) the point of the thread was asking how to still attract American affiliates who DO need to follow 2257. The non-nude stuff makes sense to me.
What, you need non nude stuff for banner, galleries and anything else apart from the actual members area?
Simple, just crop.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-30-06, 11:45 PM
What, you need non nude stuff for banner, galleries and anything else apart from the actual members area?
Simple, just crop.
If you are following 2257 you can't just crop things. If the original image would require 2257 information then if you crop it then you still need to keep a record for it. Hence, any American based affiliate that ran a banner with even a cropped image on it would need the documents on that image.
If you are following 2257 you can't just crop things. If the original image would require 2257 information then if you crop it then you still need to keep a record for it. Hence, any American based affiliate that ran a banner with even a cropped image on it would need the documents on that image.
So if I take a pic of a girl with a cock up her arse and then crop it just to show her face who would know it contains the anal?
Like I said I know practically fuck all about 2257, but I thought it was all about the models age. So I take a pic of a girl bollock naked, I need to have proof she is 18 or over. If I crop her to a head shot I don't need to prove she is 18 or over. So if I give you a banner with her head shot are you saying you would still need all the docs cos the original was fully nude?
How would anyone know if the original was fully nude or just the head shot I put on the banner?
This is the problem I had with you asking me for ID's and Model releases for foot content. If the pic is just of a foot, what 2257 law is being broken?.
Elisha Jade
07-31-06, 12:04 AM
Thats what I think. What about compliant galleries and banners etc, that something you are doing.
I always have included softer galleries etc for affiliates who wanted to use it - topless ones etc. But it's not something I've done specifically for 2257 (unless I was doing it without thinking about it) hehe
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 12:06 AM
A cropped head of an explicit photo of a 12 year old is still a photo where a 12 year old was exploited. That is where, I suppose, the rule is coming from. Trust me, I am not arguing in favour of the rules but just that at this point those that have to follow them don't have to like them but we do need to pay attention.
It is similar to the rule that websites up before a certain date are grandfathered, etc. Even if that is true how is that proven?
A cropped head of an explicit photo of a 12 year old is still a photo where a 12 year old was exploited.
So how would you know the 12 year old was exploited, if all you have is a head shot?
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 12:30 AM
That is why they are reserving the right to see what the larger image is or proof that is the image. It doesn't have to make sense.
That is why they are reserving the right to see what the larger image is or proof that is the image. It doesn't have to make sense.
That is contradictory to UK law.... if you look at the CP charges, those pervs are charged with making images... simply by downloading them... Therefore making an image = a new image.
So for once i agree with geezer - he's right on this point........
I read the GFY thread on this last week.... and apart from the usual merchants of doom posting there, and the bar room lawyers, and the 'gold platers' of rules and regulations who were posting.... the consensus seemed to be that gallery owners using text based sponsor hosted gals would be fine as they are not displaying any images and its upto the sponsor to have the 2257 information.
That is contradictory to UK law.... if you look at the CP charges, those pervs are charged with making images... simply by downloading them... Therefore making an image = a new image.
So for once i agree with geezer - he's right on this point........
I read the GFY thread on this last week.... and apart from the usual merchants of doom posting there, and the bar room lawyers, and the 'gold platers' of rules and regulations who were posting.... the consensus seemed to be that gallery owners using text based sponsor hosted gals would be fine as they are not displaying any images and its upto the sponsor to have the 2257 information.
In a few weeks we will know but personally I think that *everyone* in the US producing an HTML page with images and publishing it will be needing 2257 but just linking to FHGs will be fine.
That is contradictory to UK law.... if you look at the CP charges, those pervs are charged with making images... simply by downloading them... Therefore making an image = a new image.
So for once i agree with geezer - he's right on this point........
I read the GFY thread on this last week.... and apart from the usual merchants of doom posting there, and the bar room lawyers, and the 'gold platers' of rules and regulations who were posting.... the consensus seemed to be that gallery owners using text based sponsor hosted gals would be fine as they are not displaying any images and its upto the sponsor to have the 2257 information.
Text base TGP owners account for only a part of what affiliates do.
Thumb TGP's are certainly hosting cropped images and as Sarah points out a cropped images from a larger explicit image is in need of docs.
So if I take a pic of a girl with a cock up her arse and then crop it just to show her face who would know it contains the anal?
Like I said I know practically fuck all about 2257, but I thought it was all about the models age. So I take a pic of a girl bollock naked, I need to have proof she is 18 or over. If I crop her to a head shot I don't need to prove she is 18 or over. So if I give you a banner with her head shot are you saying you would still need all the docs cos the original was fully nude?
How would anyone know if the original was fully nude or just the head shot I put on the banner?
This is the problem I had with you asking me for ID's and Model releases for foot content. If the pic is just of a foot, what 2257 law is being broken?.
Two things to say here.
They would know with a thumb TGP by clicking the thumb. But thats irrelivant anywat as you have to be able to produce the picture it came from.
But even thats irrelevant. If you give the cropped image for promotion to your affiliate knowing its been cropped from a larger explicit image, and dont give them the docs, they could end up in prison.
That goes for banners etc too
aaron_sterlingcash
07-31-06, 01:00 PM
My personal view is the only way to do this is to create tools and content if we want the US webmaster traffic...if you dont then whats the point. Im not about to break UK law to satify a US law, I say let them sort it out themselves.
dvtimes
07-31-06, 01:27 PM
Its rather simple, simply offer non nude content for people.
Explain on your site that you are uk based and your content is shot in the uk with uk models. That under uk law that giving out models deatails is a big no no.
It is up to them then if they wish to use nude or non nude content.
I would suspect that many usa webmasters who promote site probably have not heard of the 2257 law, or even care. Or in deed have found ways around it (such as regersting a busininess in Mexico).
The law is simply there to make life tougher for webmasters rather than protect children.
And to be honest I find it rather rediculas to think that the fbi is going to go to a webmasters house and spend hours and hours checking records and cross refersing them against a million pics that he may promote.
But as it has been said this is a usa law.
Richard
07-31-06, 01:45 PM
The Information Commissioner's office advised us a couple of years ago that a model's information can be given out if the following (or something similar) is put into the model release:
"I give consent for my personal information to be passed to third parties as evidence of my age and identification only and for no other purpose."
My understainding is that it is not illegal to give out information you hold on someone. It is only illegal to do so without their consent.
I am not sure if 2257 allows for censored model IDs, so that personal addresses are unreadable but with the date of birth, date of the ID and the model's name still visible.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 02:05 PM
Its rather simple, simply offer non nude content for people.
Explain on your site that you are uk based and your content is shot in the uk with uk models. That under uk law that giving out models deatails is a big no no.
It is up to them then if they wish to use nude or non nude content.
I would suspect that many usa webmasters who promote site probably have not heard of the 2257 law, or even care. Or in deed have found ways around it (such as regersting a busininess in Mexico).
The law is simply there to make life tougher for webmasters rather than protect children.
And to be honest I find it rather rediculas to think that the fbi is going to go to a webmasters house and spend hours and hours checking records and cross refersing them against a million pics that he may promote.
But as it has been said this is a usa law.
Perhaps you have missed the most recent primary producer inspection where they turned over his whole house looking for things. It really doesn't matter at this point how misguided the laws are they are there and now real for USA webmasters. Yes, of course that is not the UK but if somebody has an affiliate program that has a lot of their affiliates based in the States it makes sense to atleast know the law so that you can make their lives easier and therefore make them want to push your sites. I agree with the non-nude materials. It is hardly asking the earth.
Perhaps you have missed the most recent primary producer inspection where they turned over his whole house looking for things.
Primary producer?, as in, he took the original pics?
dvtimes was talking about webmasters.
What if I sell you some pics with a forged ID, would you be nicked for it?
I thought as long as you had a link to and were willing to give the name and address of the content pprovider then that is all that's needed. If there was a problem they would simply go there.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 03:17 PM
yes...at the moment they are searching primary producers. When they reach the point of being able to search secondary producers (which is part of why people care so much about the Adam Walsh bill from this week) they no doubt will. Since the primary producer inspections are all we have to go by at the moment we can only assume all inspections will be done in the same manner.
As far as the IDs..ever heard of Traci Lords?
Why are you aruging with me over the laws? Seriously, I didn't write them and I am certainly not saying they make sense but that doesn't mean I am wrong. If you don't want to provide content for American affiliates than it is your right not to do so.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 03:21 PM
I don't usually borrow from other boards. However, this is a post the second guy that was inspected wrote about how the inspection went down.
-
-----------------------------------
I am JJ Ruch. I am also the owner of Several lines of production as well as Sebastian Sloane Productions. I’m trying to spread the word as rapid and quick as I can so that everyone knows this is real and not a houx.
I received a telephone call a little while ago. The call was from the “U.S. Government” as it displayed on the caller ID. The lady I spoke to seemed nice...... After I hung up, I did call the number back and it was indeed real and not some fonie prank call.
I guess there are new 2257 Compliant Regulations out now especially focusing on adult websites and focusing on production studios.
They are out “auditing.” The company I own - Sebastian Sloane Productions, NoW @ ONE Entertainment, Sex Craved Studs, Studs In Heat Media, etc. is being investigated Tuesday at 9am - Eastern Standard Time.
It’s not some guy that audits you, it’s the fucking FBI.
The lady said they’re out investigating each and every production studio. They’ve been spending the last year and a half gathering information of every company, studio, webmaster, etc. to begin this investigation and they’re planning to investigate every company, etc. by the end of December of this year.
I asked the lady what the penalties are for any custodian of records mess ups or anything. She said it’s either a $10k fine, or they also have the option of giving you 10 years in prison.
Anyways - The below is an email that I sent to everyone I know WHILE they were in my offices investigating::::
The FBI is in my office across the room at this time investigating all of my files. I guess they moved everything from next Tuesday to Today. They just showed up at the door and rang the doorbell. I answered the door and they just barged on in. There are 4 of them. 4 men in black uniforms (suits) with badges. They drove a black SUV with a blue plate on the back of it that says “U.S. Government.”
They showed up at 8am Eastern Standard Time. It’s now almost 10:20am.
They are NOT nice people. They’re DICKS!
They’re rampaging my model files. Taking pictures of my model contracts. And watching my videos that we produced to make sure the model contracts match up. Meanwhile one of the guys demanded a password to my sites. He’s going through each site looking for illegal content.
I asked them when they came in how long it would take. They estimated 6 hours.
They also pulled off all the images on the digital camera. They’re going to go through the house when they’re done to look for films and images the one agent said.
I wasn’t going to let them go through anything with out some sort of warrant to search. They had shown me a search warrant for a search and seize of the property. They said this is a standard investigation that they’re doing it with all companies that produce pornographic materials.
-----
This was very scary. As I was sitting on the bed in the other room I could watch them… The experience was NOT pleasant.
Sebastian Sloane Productions has been cleared.
All they did was look through all my model contracts, took pictures of the main page of the model contract and their ID’s, then they had this little machine looking thing to verify models and their ID’s by putting in their information to make sure the models are over the age of 18.
They said my videos are in full compliance as well as my model contracts are in full compliance. They gave me information on how to keep records accurate.
Then they did a search of the house, in my video cameras, looked at all the still images, and anything that could be related to internet pornography.
They were dicks at first, but in the end they were somewhat nice.
Basicly, all they are doing is a search of model contracts, fake ID’s, illegal materials, and such. But yet rampaging your house or business.
When they left they shook my hand, thanked me for my time, and thanked me for not supporting child pornography.
They said they’ll be investigating all video production studios and anyone who displays child pornography on the net that is a producer and should finish this thorough investigation in December. They said after that time they’ll only be targeting producers who produce any content that models may look under the age of 20.
If you want to know further info, just ask. This is something very serious and should be handled very seriously. These guys are NOT nice. I know I didn’t enjoy my visit with them. This event has also made me think about if I really want to continue my ownership of Sebastian Sloane Productions, Now @ ONE Entertainment, etc. It’s very scary like I said.
When they were here. They demanded that I stay out of their way. When they were in the office they demanded I stay out of the room. It’s like they own your home and your a prisoner.
Anyone who has questions, comments, concerns, etc. I’d be happy to speak with you. The best information I can give about this occurance is to keep your records correct.
Sincerely,
JJ Ruch
JJ@BestOfBoysAndMen.com
President/Owner of NoW @ ONE Entertainment and Sebastian Sloane Productions
Richard
I mentioned that the models written consent is required in the other thread and everyone seems to have ignored it... boo hoo
dvtimes
07-31-06, 05:38 PM
Lets just hope that the next president of the usa is not a nut job and sorts things out.
Lets just hope that the next president of the usa is not a nut job and sorts things out.
Something tells me that is not going to happen anytime soon.
As far as the IDs..ever heard of Traci Lords?
Yep as and far as I know no one got nicked over it because her documents even fooled the government.
Sarah_Maxcash
07-31-06, 07:19 PM
Lets just hope that the next president of the usa is not a nut job and sorts things out.
Nobody is going to publicly challenge the Adam Walsh bill - nobody. Which is why it was burried in that bill.
Adam Walsh was a kid that was abducted from a department store when he was something like 7 and killed. His father is John Walsh who became one of the best known campaigners in the States for missing kids. He then became the host of America's Most Wanted - our version of Crime Watch. There is no way any one in politics is going to speak out about that bill. It was signed into law on the 27th because that is the date Adam was killed btw...who is going to be seen to be against that?
The Information Commissioner's office advised us a couple of years ago that a model's information can be given out if the following (or something similar) is put into the model release:
"I give consent for my personal information to be passed to third parties as evidence of my age and identification only and for no other purpose."
My understainding is that it is not illegal to give out information you hold on someone. It is only illegal to do so without their consent.
I am not sure if 2257 allows for censored model IDs, so that personal addresses are unreadable but with the date of birth, date of the ID and the model's name still visible.
100% correct. The only time you can give out someones personal details without their consent is under section 29(3) which deals with the prevention and detection of crime. This section is generally only used by the Police and other Government departments.
Yes, under 2257 you can blank out the address.
Well i guess the positive in this is the fact that it could result in a lot of US webmasters closing up shop which means less competition.
Does anyone think the UK government may try and create a UK law similar to the US 2257 law ?
Well i guess the positive in this is the fact that it could result in a lot of US webmasters closing up shop which means less competition.
I doubt it. Once the rush is over and the first round of inspections are completed I think a lot of US guys will actually be happier. Up till now no one had any idea what to expect, by the end of the year, people will have some idea of what the FBI are actually concerned with. I think it all depends on if anyone gets fined, or worse still, jail time for badly kept records of OVER age girls.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2012, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.