![]() |
|
||
|
|
|
||
|
|
|||
|
|
|||||||
| Notices |
| Legacy Archived Main Board Business chat and general industry chat. All participation is welcome. Dont post your fucking spam here. |

|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
|
|
#24 | |
|
Members
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 303
|
Quote:
For digitally transferred video from a website, the new 2257 regs talk about webmasters needing to have model releases and info for those in the video clip that is served from the webmaster's website. DRM does not solve this problem. DRM can only help to identify which models are in the video and which content producer made it (by someone typing it in), so that the webmaster can look up his LOCAL COPY of the info to show prosecutors. This is a huge burden to video content producers to gather their records and make them available to webmasters. It's a huge burden for webmasters to now hold onto these records. Many of the image content producers already send out model releases and copies of the driver's license with the private info blackened out. Hopefully for video, what should suffice, is what the current standard of displaying the primary record keeper info on the video, and not have to burden the webmaster with having that info... So it's an interesting twist for the video people to look into for 2257 compliance on their end and on the webmaster's end. -brandon
__________________
Learn more about Acacia and other patent abuse cases at: http://www.FightThePatent.com | find the goldmines of traffic |
|
|
|
|
| Bookmarks |
|
|