View Full Version : JUB Certificate of Compliance
HunkMoneyLuke
03-13-2008, 10:09 AM
OK, I just got an email today from James Hipps, office manager:
In review of our records, we do not have an 18 U.S.C. 2257 Certificate of Compliance on file for the website(s) you are the Custodian of Records for, including younghotlatinos.com. Please fill out the attached form and return it as soon as possible. Even though there is compliance information posted on the website(s), we are required to have a signed Certificate of Compliance for each website that we direct traffic to. If you are the Custodian of Records for more than one site, you can fill out one form for all websites, as a blanket form, by listing all websites at the top of the form.
WTF??? Since when does 2257 require signed certificates of compliance from websites that you link to? This is the first time I Have ever heard of this and, imho, it sounds like a load of b.s.
so... you're linking to a pay site and they require your signature for some sort of compliance dealy? Sounds like they're lawyer is blowing smoke up their ass.
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 10:16 AM
I would talk to them about it. I believe since they are using your content on their servers they are just protecting themselves.
If they have used your content, they are more than just linking to you. They are hosting your content on their servers.
"we are required" may or may not be a law put company policy.
JUB has great traffic! I have no problem signing a certificate that we are 2257 compliant. I seriously just think they want websites that they host content on their servers on to say that they are 2257 compliant. I know I ask all sponsors that I use their content of they are 2257 compliant.
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 10:19 AM
so... you're linking to a pay site and they require your signature for some sort of compliance dealy? Sounds like they're lawyer is blowing smoke up their ass.
JUB HOSTS pics on their website from sponsors....
Example: http://www.justusboys.com/eyecandy_7603-matt_h_and_nathan_b-blake_mason.html
What is wrong with a company that hosts our pics to have us sign a statement that we are 2257 compliant? Makes perfect sense to me.
JUB HOSTS pics on their website from sponsors....
Example: http://www.justusboys.com/eyecandy_7603-matt_h_and_nathan_b-blake_mason.html
What is wrong with a company that hosts our pics to have us sign a statement that we are 2257 compliant? Makes perfect sense to me.
ahhh... guess I was a tad confused.
Yeah makes sense but i really don't think they're required by law to have a compliance statement from sponsors... probably just covering every possible angle that "the man" can try to come at them with. Are they US based?
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 10:28 AM
ahhh... guess I was a tad confused.
Yeah makes sense but i really don't think they're required by law to have a compliance statement from sponsors... probably just covering every possible angle that "the man" can try to come at them with. Are they US based?
It's just good risk management.
gaydemon
03-13-2008, 10:48 AM
It doesnt say anything about hosted pictures though, just that they need it for every affiliate.
marcjacob
03-13-2008, 10:53 AM
There still out of compliance even with a certificate. Surely 2257 requires them to hold ID's for content they host.
MaxPower
03-13-2008, 10:54 AM
I would comply with JUB’s wishes, and be happy they will list my shit at all :) They can have any 2257 thing they, or anyone I work with wants. I have NP with it.
MWCren
03-13-2008, 12:33 PM
Yeah, I got the same thing. I've been ignoring it for ages, but they finally made it easy, they sent a paper copy in the mail, with a pre-paid return envelope.
Its already on the way back to them and I didn't have to print anything out. hehehe.. I'm so lazy
Its just a "cover your ass" thing as far as I'm concerned. The info they requested is no different than the 2257 page on my site, so its no big deal.
HunkMoneyLuke
03-13-2008, 02:31 PM
yeah i know they host our content on their servers, but a "certificate of compliance" is a totally new thing - I have never heard of one of these before so I do not want to go signing things that I have never encountered before.
For us this is a very complex issue. We are not a USA entity, we are not American citizens, we do not bank in the USA, we do not process in the USA. When implementing 2257, my lawyer gave me very specific instructions on what I could and could not say (Australian privacy laws are very strict). I worked with my billing companies to ensure that we complied with not only their requirements, but visa's cross-border processing requirements too.
Sure this is an easy c.y.a. move, but if everyone is proceeding with this, what happens next? Will we have to sign papers with every affiliate we have? How about every affiliate program we participate in? Or every forum we post on, or every site we surf?
Adam Mason
03-13-2008, 04:01 PM
I personally think that the eradication of child porn is far more important than genuine producers being inconvenienced by such requirements. In fact, I applaude JUB for asking for such assurances.
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 04:31 PM
For us this is a very complex issue. We are not a USA entity, we are not American citizens, we do not bank in the USA, we do not process in the USA. When implementing 2257, my lawyer gave me very specific instructions on what I could and could not say (Australian privacy laws are very strict). I worked with my billing companies to ensure that we complied with not only their requirements, but visa's cross-border processing requirements too.
Luke,
We are not a US company either, though we are 2257 compliant. I can't speak for JUB as to the reason. I can however say that I don't believe what they asked for violated any privacy laws etc. They are a private company and can pretty much ask for whatever they want from advertisers as long as it's not violating a privacy law.
As many know I do a little affiliate marketing on the side and one of the first things I look at before I market a site is the 2257 page. Now, I don't have a site that is a 4,000 Alexa nor do I do 100's of signups a day. If I did and was hosting sponsor content, I may be a little more aggressive and ask for such info.
In all actuality even having a nude banner on one of my sites triggers 2257 compliance.
In my opinion you wont see what you are saying happening. 2257 is a mess right now and Lady Justice has a uphill battle on its hands.
HunkMoneyLuke
03-13-2008, 05:15 PM
I personally think that the eradication of child porn is far more important than genuine producers being inconvenienced by such requirements. In fact, I applaude JUB for asking for such assurances.
This topic has nothing to do with cp!!!!!
Luke,
We are not a US company either, though we are 2257 compliant. I can't speak for JUB as to the reason. I can however say that I don't believe what they asked for violated any privacy laws etc. They are a private company and can pretty much ask for whatever they want from advertisers as long as it's not violating a privacy law.
As many know I do a little affiliate marketing on the side and one of the first things I look at before I market a site is the 2257 page. Now, I don't have a site that is a 4,000 Alexa nor do I do 100's of signups a day. If I did and was hosting sponsor content, I may be a little more aggressive and ask for such info.
In all actuality even having a nude banner on one of my sites triggers 2257 compliance.
In my opinion you wont see what you are saying happening. 2257 is a mess right now and Lady Justice has a uphill battle on its hands.
You know, we are totally compliant & I don't mind the inconvenience of having to complete this, if thats all it was for me. But, because this can be used as a legal document, I have to get lawyers involved and that costs me money and time. Sure, they are a very good affiliate, but we have quite a few good affiliates and if this move by JUB triggers all of them to do similar requests, then its just creating a huge mountain of paperwork & legal time and expense that, quite frankly, none of us need! And there is no reason for it. No new regulation has even suggested that this happen. There is no legal requirement for it. This paper will not make them anywhere nearer 2257 compliant than they currently are. Plain and simple, there is no reason for this.
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 05:28 PM
Luke is right on the point of Child Porn. The irony of 2257 is that it originated when a model appeared nude that was 16. Companies that are 2257 compliant really prove only one thing - they know how to cross reference pics to docs. Docs that may or may not prove age.
2257 does not prove that the models on a site are 18+. That's the main issue I have against 2257. It does nothing to prove that the models on a site are 18+.
If I am not mistaken Puppy Productions was 2257 compliant in that they had docs that showed the 16 year old was 18.
abostonboy
03-13-2008, 05:32 PM
You know, we are totally compliant & I don't mind the inconvenience of having to complete this, if thats all it was for me. But, because this can be used as a legal document, I have to get lawyers involved and that costs me money and time. Sure, they are a very good affiliate, but we have quite a few good affiliates and if this move by JUB triggers all of them to do similar requests, then its just creating a huge mountain of paperwork & legal time and expense that, quite frankly, none of us need! And there is no reason for it. No new regulation has even suggested that this happen. There is no legal requirement for it. This paper will not make them anywhere nearer 2257 compliant than they currently are. Plain and simple, there is no reason for this.
What if they asked for model ids of every model instead? I would rather send a form stating that I am 2257 compliant than sending ids for every model on their site. Now, for some of us that would violate privacy laws.
Let's face it; any company that is hosting content on their servers that they have no ids for is facing a risk. That document is a form of protection.
gaydemon
03-14-2008, 02:42 AM
I've heard its exactly the same for companies in Canada, i might be totally wrong but due to privcy laws there and other countries its not straight forward or even possible to comply to US 2257 laws, if they do comply they are breaching laws in their own countries.
I think the problem is with the 2257 law rather than anything else.
yeah i know they host our content on their servers, but a "certificate of compliance" is a totally new thing - I have never heard of one of these before so I do not want to go signing things that I have never encountered before.
For us this is a very complex issue. We are not a USA entity, we are not American citizens, we do not bank in the USA, we do not process in the USA. When implementing 2257, my lawyer gave me very specific instructions on what I could and could not say (Australian privacy laws are very strict). I worked with my billing companies to ensure that we complied with not only their requirements, but visa's cross-border processing requirements too.
Sure this is an easy c.y.a. move, but if everyone is proceeding with this, what happens next? Will we have to sign papers with every affiliate we have? How about every affiliate program we participate in? Or every forum we post on, or every site we surf?
gumdrop
03-14-2008, 05:49 AM
y. When implementing 2257, my lawyer gave me very specific instructions on what I could and could not say (Australian privacy laws are very strict).
Same in Canada. We have to be very careful with peoples private information.
abostonboy
03-14-2008, 08:25 AM
I think the problem is with the 2257 law rather than anything else.
2257 is the most convoluted piece of crap that was ever passed. Give it a while and 2257 will be a mute point in this industry.
RocketJD
03-17-2008, 07:29 AM
Hey all,
I think the confusion here stemmed from the poorly worded request we sent out. This certificate, which we've used for several years based on advice from our attorney, is strictly for in house purposes. We use it to ensure that we list the proper Custodian of Records for your content and also as a written record of the fact that your complies complies with 18 U.S.C. 2257.
We've reworded the request to make it clear exactly what it is we're asking for and the reasons behind it.
Sorry for the confusion Luke!