2257 Compliance questions

[MorganGrayson]

We received a question from a newbie that I would like to have clarified for myself.

We all know that US law ends at our borders - despite the tendency of the US Government to arrogantly feel otherwise. However, there are content providers and sponsors still using content they label as "exempt." They suggest webmasters post on their sites "this content is exempt from 2257."

My advice to the newbie was to avoid such content like the plague.

I was out of the business when 2257 first hit and therefore am quite vague on some of the fine points. I can follow simple directions, however, as in "don't use it unless it comes with 2257 Compliance Information."

My questions:
What causes some providers/sponsors to declare the content is exempt?
Wouldn't posting "this content is exempt" be like a magnet to anyone who'd like to arrest a webmaster? As one can not prove a negative, how would the webmaster ever prove the content is exempt?

And finally, can someone give me a clear, concise paragraph that sums up the 2257 regulation as it applies to freesite webmasters for me to post in the newbie lounge to answer the questions of novice webmasters who have even less of a grasp of it than I do as to what this is all about?

[JR]

you should read this in its entirety including the comments which are very important to read before you read the law - it will help to know what was discussed/argued/objected too and what decisions were made as a result of those discussions and arguments. and the arguments will answer all your questions.

in spite of the obvious shortcomings of the law, most of the questionable issues were discussed in detail in the comments that can answer most of your "yeah, but what if...." questions that come up naturally as you ponder the law and its implications.

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/05-10107.htm

[JR]

hahah... just glanced at it... it looks like a hell of a homework assignment. i read through it occasionally. but the problem in asking questions is that few people seem to have a competent understanding of it and its important to really understand before you put yourself at risk. almost no one complied with the previous law.

[MorganGrayson]

I bookmarked it, glanced at it...and muttered "yikes." :)

But thank you, JR. I will read through it and attempt to untangle it.

The awkward position in which I find myself is in "mentoring novices." When I was a newbie, there were people saying patiently "no, you can NOT use newsgroup photos on your website. You must have a license for every image you use."

OK, that was a simple, easy-to-follow direction. At that point, the worst thing that could happen to a webmaster was getting "fired" by their sponsor and not getting paid.

Now, we have a whole new ball game. In order to mentor novices, we have to be able not only to tell them how to build the best website they can in order to convert their sponsors...but how to keep themselves out of jail.

It helps to understand fully what 2257 is all about, but for a short version, what do you think of this:

Only use "reliable" (a word to be defined later by...somebody) sponsors and their content, who provide the 2257 information for both their content AND their banners.

Only use "reliable" (see above) content providers who provide 2257 information for their content.

Keep *all* 2257 information on a page on the website you are building, linked to your index page by the link entitled "2257 Compliance Information."

Do not use any type of content that anyone claims is exempt, as US webmasters are not themselves exempt, and it's better to be safe than sorry.

Keep all hardcore images off the index page, whether it is 2257 compliant or not.

And since we're chatting...do you feel that freesite webmasters should now make the effort to provide an actual exit *link* to a nonadult sponsor/site (preferably one of their own) as opposed to saying "hit the back button of your browser" or assuming surfers would be smart enough to do so?

I'd like to be able to feel that we've done all we can in training Oprano novice webmasters in staying legal.

[sarettah]

Morgan, certain content in the US is exempt.

Content produced prior to a certain date is exempt.
Content that does not display actual sexual yada yada yada...

I am purposely being vague here :) I am not a lawyer.

But there is content that is exempt from needing 2257.

[MorganGrayson]

Morgan, certain content in the US is exempt.

Content produced prior to a certain date is exempt.
Content that does not display actual sexual yada yada yada...

I am purposely being vague here :) I am not a lawyer.

But there is content that is exempt from needing 2257.

Yes, but again...how do you prove a negative? A lot of content has been taken down that was exempt, however, the documentation that would prove it was exempt either wasn't collected or has been lost. Therefore, it would be one ugly he said/he said situation in court, and the webmaster would lose.

And yes, I realize the content that does not display actual sex is considered "exempt," but today, the proper documents are kept.

I would much rather err on the side of caution and advise novice webmasters to consider no content exempt and to *always* have proper 2257 documentation.

Am I being *overly* cautious?

[sarettah]

Am I being *overly* cautious?

lolol, remember, you are talking to the guy who took down every graphic on his sites the day before the new 2257 went into effect :)

[helix]

Here is a link to the 2257 resources on the AVN site
AVN 2257 website (http://www.avn.com/2257)
They have quite a bit of info that you might find useful.

[helix]

I found my copy of the 2257 handbook AVN had made available for download. If you are interested in a copy, you can download it from here (http://www.spiketechnical.com/2257_handbook.html)

[Unregistered]

I bookmarked it, glanced at it...and muttered "yikes." :)

But thank you, JR. I will read through it and attempt to untangle it.

The awkward position in which I find myself is in "mentoring novices." When I was a newbie, there were people saying patiently "no, you can NOT use newsgroup photos on your website. You must have a license for every image you use."

OK, that was a simple, easy-to-follow direction. At that point, the worst thing that could happen to a webmaster was getting "fired" by their sponsor and not getting paid.

Now, we have a whole new ball game. In order to mentor novices, we have to be able not only to tell them how to build the best website they can in order to convert their sponsors...but how to keep themselves out of jail.

It helps to understand fully what 2257 is all about, but for a short version, what do you think of this:

Only use "reliable" (a word to be defined later by...somebody) sponsors and their content, who provide the 2257 information for both their content AND their banners.

Only use "reliable" (see above) content providers who provide 2257 information for their content.

Keep *all* 2257 information on a page on the website you are building, linked to your index page by the link entitled "2257 Compliance Information."

Do not use any type of content that anyone claims is exempt, as US webmasters are not themselves exempt, and it's better to be safe than sorry.

Keep all hardcore images off the index page, whether it is 2257 compliant or not.

And since we're chatting...do you feel that freesite webmasters should now make the effort to provide an actual exit *link* to a nonadult sponsor/site (preferably one of their own) as opposed to saying "hit the back button of your browser" or assuming surfers would be smart enough to do so?

I'd like to be able to feel that we've done all we can in training Oprano novice webmasters in staying legal.

i think this is a sticky situation and you might be walking a fine line between offering helpful information and offering legal advice.

i would show them where to find the information, but i would not discuss interpretations, or how they should act on it. i would advise everyone to talk to an attorney and put disclaimers all over the place making it clear that you are not offering legal advice and that you recommend everyone consult with an attorney.

you might have 1000 webmasters in the year 2009 claiming in court that you are the reason they are not in compliance.

i would not offer any advice or suggestions on this issue.... other than to point people in the right direction to read the law and comments, point them to articles on the issue (xbiz and avn each have a few) and encourage everyone to do their own homework.

here is an example - you can tell people not to use hardcore images... but that can get you in trouble. its not about "hardcore". an image can be 50X50 thumb of a single strand of hard cropped from a hardcore image and you have to have the docs for it. so in clarifying something like this... you will be walking further and further down the road towards offering legal advice.

[JR]

i think this is a sticky situation and you might be walking a fine line between offering helpful information and offering legal advice.

i would show them where to find the information, but i would not discuss interpretations, or how they should act on it. i would advise everyone to talk to an attorney and put disclaimers all over the place making it clear that you are not offering legal advice and that you recommend everyone consult with an attorney.

you might have 1000 webmasters in the year 2009 claiming in court that you are the reason they are not in compliance.

i would not offer any advice or suggestions on this issue.... other than to point people in the right direction to read the law and comments, point them to articles on the issue (xbiz and avn each have a few) and encourage everyone to do their own homework.

here is an example - you can tell people not to use hardcore images... but that can get you in trouble. its not about "hardcore". an image can be 50X50 thumb of a single strand of hard cropped from a hardcore image and you have to have the docs for it. so in clarifying something like this... you will be walking further and further down the road towards offering legal advice.


shit.

meant to say

"here is an example - you can tell people not to use hardcore images... but that can get you in trouble. its not about "hardcore". an image can be 50X50 thumb of a single strand of HAIR cropped from a hardcore image and you have to have the docs for it. so in clarifying something like this... you will be walking further and further down the road towards offering legal advice.

[TheEnforcer]

Yes, but again...how do you prove a negative? A lot of content has been taken down that was exempt, however, the documentation that would prove it was exempt either wasn't collected or has been lost. Therefore, it would be one ugly he said/he said situation in court, and the webmaster would lose.

And yes, I realize the content that does not display actual sex is considered "exempt," but today, the proper documents are kept.

I would much rather err on the side of caution and advise novice webmasters to consider no content exempt and to *always* have proper 2257 documentation.

Am I being *overly* cautious?

No, you are not. 99.99% of newbies don't have the effective means of fighting a prosecution if something is in the grey area and the government wants to push the issue. Much easier to be in compliance than not.

[MorganGrayson]

Thank you, all.

I've bookmarked the links you gave me, helix. :)
TE...always reassuring to have you in a thread. :)

Most of all, I'd like to thank "unregistered." You made some extremely valid and important points of which I had not thought. I feel as if I just ducked an extremely large bullet because of your post. I was so focused on helping novice webmasters cover their own asses that I totally forgot the first rule...cover your *own* ass.

I had so hoped to be able to make what is a huge and difficult problem as simple as possible for novices...but the fact is...it can't be done. Oh, sure, I can write a snappy post that itemizes a bunch of "do's" and "don'ts" for them to follow, but you are so very correct, unregistered. I'd be giving legal advice.

I can't make this easy for them. I can give them the links and the urging to read, research and consult their own attorneys.

Thank you all. :)

[helix]

You're welcome:)
I also have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the 2257 rules to shake out into something definitive. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be to the likes of freesites, tgps, avs's, and program promotion.

[MorganGrayson]

You're welcome:)
I also have been sitting on the sidelines waiting for the 2257 rules to shake out into something definitive. It will be interesting to see what the impact will be to the likes of freesites, tgps, avs's, and program promotion.

From the perspective of now being one of the mentors - which on the one hand is most excellent as I had a lot of fantastic mentors the first time around (Yes, Nick. :) ) and I feel as if I get to repay a debt; from the other perspective, the game has changed so much that it's a much weightier respnsibility.

It's difficult enough to draw novice webmasters out and get them to participate in "public." Instead of posting "come here and we'll have wonderful discussions on making a *good* freesite that will do the best marketing for your sponsors" and letting that lay there like a fruit basket of welcome...I feel as if I have to add "but first...I'm going to scare the shit out of you and make you think twice about being involved with this entire thing."

Again, many thanks to everyone who participated in this thread. It's "old news" to most of you, but it's "oh, shit, you're kidding!" to anyone new to the business. (I re-entered the business at the exact moment when many webmasters were hitting the panic button and stripping there sites due to something of which I'd never heard. My first site of this incarnation went up on July 1st, 2005. I got a crash course.)

I feel much more armed to assist the new kids. :waving:

[JR]

Hi, i was "unregistered"

i have thought about this issue quite a bit because its an interesting issue... that presents some interesting questions -

"how do you help people that you really know deep down, will do none of these things;

1) take the time to fully read and understand the law and the issues surrounding the law

2) take the time to consult an attorney and have an attorney review their sites and them come up with a plan to be complaint

3) follow through completely with everything they learned from 1 and 2."

I would spend my time trying to impress upon people the seriousness of compliance - i.e. an introduction discussing the criminal penalties and fines.

then i would review carefully the comments on the law from the DOJ site which highlights a lot of issues that are going to be natural questions anyway and outline the objections and complications those points present to webmasters - as well as the DOJ point of view on those issue.

then it might make sense to not discuss the law so much as it might to itemize the comments point by point to understand the objections, issues and problems they will cause and it will help drive home the governments pretty harsh "yeah well, fuck you, its your problem" stance on most of them.

if thats not enough to scare them into understanding that they need to take it seriously and understand every letter, period, question mark and semi-colon, and hire an attorney, then i would put those people on ignore because they can't be helped.

:)

[MorganGrayson]

Thank you, JR. :) (I should have known that was you.)

Once again, very clear and concise. :okthumb:

To the novices reading: is help here for you? Yes. Will we do the work for you? Uh...no, of course not. Will we continue to help people who don't take the very sound advice that is given for YOUR protection? Nope. There's a newbie standing right behind you willing to do the work, do the research, stay legal, and do the best work he/she can at this job. *That's* the one we'll take by the hand and do baby steps with. That's the one that has earned our time.

But, the first step is always going to be posting and letting us know who you are. :)

[Newton]

Great posts JR