2257 and Free Sites

[abostonboy]

Ok. I am by no means a lawyer. However, I did get a "little" scared when another webmaster mentioned that US webmasters couldn't use sponsor content and be 2257 compliant when my lawyer said I could.

So, this is what I was told once again by him. (don't take as legal advice).

Sundance vs Reno addressed secondary producers and basically said Secondary producers do not have to keep records. Lady Justice felt that S vs R applied to only a very specific case.

New laws were passed in regards to 2257 that changed that.

Then the Adam Walsh Act hit. Boom! It was passed and basically said secondary producers do NEED ids. However, while Adam Walsh has passed, there is an injunction on it. That was why webmasters had until a certain date to make statements. Some very valid points were made. The regs on Adam Walsh have not been posted. The injunction still exists that even covers previous 2257 changes. So, the reason my lawyer felt it was ok is because the regs on Adam Walsh have NOT been published. You cant enforce a law with an injunction on part of it and Regulations that have yet to be posted

They could be posted tomorrow and all will change. However, due to the nature of the First Amendment violations under Adam Walsh and the recent case in the 6th curcuit it is unlikely that the regs will be passed real soon.

My attorney feels safe about secondary producers until the injunction is lifted and the final regs posted.

However, some lawyers will say my avatar triggers 2257 while others say it doesn't. It does show a bulge, but i wasn't hard.

So, best advice. Consult thy attorney. The more conservative lawyers tend to drive better cars.

[basschick]

your attorney is not playing it on the safe side, and that's surprising to me, because every lawyer i've dealt with does. the current challege to 2257, based on sundance vs reno, only applies to 4 or 5 states - a single district. i'm not in one of those states, so 2257 as applied as of june 23, 2005 definitely applies to me. whether they are currently doing inspections in your area or not, unless you are in one of the states in that district, nothing has changed legally,

there's no reason free sites can't be 2257 compliant using sponsor content as long as the sponsors include redacted i.d. for each model and the affiliate doesn't mind acting as custodian.

as you know, abostonboy, i've talked to several industry attorneys about bulge. how MUCH bulge and how it is displayed comes into play here since the key seems to be whether the bulge is displayed in a lascivious way. and since nothing like this has yet been challenged under the new regs, there's truly no way to know for sure how a judge will rule.

[Relentless]

Fire your attorney.

The LAW is that 2257 applies to any website that displays "sexually explicit images." not only does it not differentiate between primary and secondary... it doesn't define what either is and it does not define what sexually explicit means.

There are cases that hold that law in question. Do you want to be in that gray area? Keep in mind... when charges are filed your lawyer is not under ANY risk.

[abostonboy]

2257 does apply. I am NOT arguing that at all. However, the Adam Walsh act (in which secondary producers were classified the same as primary) has an injunction against it. The regulations have yet to be released.

Can anyone show me where Lady Justice has posted the regulations and the injuntion has been lifted?

2257 is alive an well in America. However, there is an injuction that affects 2nd producers and we are still waiting the regulations of the Adam Walh Act

It's one thing to have a law passed that says Secondary producers are the same as primary. It's quite another thing to have injunctions against certain parts of the law and no regulations to enforce them

[abostonboy]

as you know, abostonboy, i've talked to several industry attorneys about bulge. how MUCH bulge and how it is displayed comes into play here since the key seems to be whether the bulge is displayed in a lascivious way. and since nothing like this has yet been challenged under the new regs, there's truly no way to know for sure how a judge will rule.

Yes I do. And I both know and respect that you and the attorneys you talk to share an ultra conservative view on that. I respect that.

[abostonboy]

Quick correction. There is an injunction against the "revised" 2257, not the Adam Walsh. The Adam Walsh was meant to make mute the injunctions against the revised 2257. However Lady Justice has as of yet to publish the regulations on the Adam Walsh Act. The Adam Walsh Act is law of the land, but without the regulations posted, it's really not enforceable.

Once against, seek an attorney for legal advice. MAYBE one better than mine. Only time will tell on that one.