Not sure if this article link was posted already, but it's really worth a read if you haven't seen it:

New 2257 Regs Dominate Free Speech Coalition Meeting

I don't have any terribly insightful comments when it comes to 2257, but one of the books I've been reading might be worth a look for the rest of you. It's called "The Government VS Erotica", by Philip Harvey, the owner of Adam and Eve. It's a detailed account of his own court battle, and I find it interesting to look at the anatomy of a porn prosecution and fighting back against the government.

I found this quote from the AVN article to be kind of reassuring in a way:

The more I look at this new ruling, the more I see that it will be impossible to comply with. So much depends on interpretation. You can bust a gut to try and get everything perfect, but it won't matter if the inspectors knock on your door. You could be spot on with your records and you will still go to court because they're out to ruin your business, plain and simple.

As soon as the FSC fixes up their online ordering page (soon I hope) I'm sending them money. I'm not a US citizen, but I support what they're doing.

It's the "roadworthy" car law's evil cousin - if a cop looks hard enough they'll find something wrong with your car... same here :(

Wazza, you are correct. The law is written in such a way that nobody (and I mean nobody) will be 100% compliant, unless they spend their entire lives on only record keeping. Even then, I am sure they will slip up on something (typos, misspelled words, or one cross reference screwed up).

There appears to be no mechanism in the new rules to handle errors, ommissions, or problems. Your wrong, you go to federal butt slamming prison. I suspect this is ANOTHER area the rules can be attacked under, as they have no leeway in them, no administrative process for correcting issues... even the IRS has an appeal process.

Alex

Nudity ans 2257
 

Putting aside the issue of photosets that may contain harcore images even if one is using softcore images only from that photoset, does one need a compliance statement or exemption statement if the site containes no images of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity? |headbang|

Can someone tell me or point me to a thread where it's discussed when this goes into effect?

TIA

No.

From what I can tell, the regulations state that you may include an exemption statement for "actual sexual conduct" (defined in 2257(h)) that predates the regulations, or simulated sexual conduct, or a combination of the two:

"Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement.

(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film,
videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image,
picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the
matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the
record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part
if:
(1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually
explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced,
manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before
July 3, 1995;
(2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated
sexually explicit conduct; or,
(3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual
depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section.
(b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are
different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary
producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards
under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary
producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a
statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part."

Additionally, the following comments from the DOJ were published in the Federal Register along with the new regulations:

"One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is
unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then
the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be
required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three
reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement
requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation.
Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a
primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit
depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be
necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label
those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the
public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in
compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption
statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections
where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the
producer was exempt from the regulation."

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

It goes into effect July 3rd, 1995.

No kidding.

The actual "enforcement date" for these clarifications is June 23rd, 2005. But the July 3rd, 1995 date is important because all your records have to be good from THEN.

Alex

http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/h...6----000-.html

Definition of sexual explicit here.

I would recommend that if the girl gets naked, you need to get ID.

Alex

Hi Alex, you've been a tremendous help with this thread! |headbang| I have a lil question....The regs state that we only need records for the content described in 2256 sections A-D, right? That means "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is not included. Do we really need docs for simple nudity (no pink, no spreads)? Thanks!

Thanks.

One thing that stood out from that article was the following:

So, US webmasters cannot use any content that was shot using a non US ID?

Sounds rather rediculous, but that is pretty much how I'm reading the above article.

Alphawolf, you appear to be correct. Y'see, the performer would be working without permission in the US, and didn't pay taxes on their earnings.

Now, this will once again be a point that will be argued in court, basically because the government adjusted the standards "after the fact". It could (and likely will) be argued that content producers had no way to know which documents were correct, that no guidelines were in place before June 23rd, 2005, and as such, all content shot before that date should be exempt from new ID rules.

They would likely win.

Alex

I understood that. Section 75.7 is the only place an exemption statement is covered, so I think it's pretty safe to assume that an exemption statement only applies to the cases covered in 75.7.

So, if model resides outside USA, but was involved in a USA production whether vids or pics and of course only has a passport- that's no good.

However, I'm thinking of all our European friends who shoot outside of the USA and supply content....

That would still be legal - to the best of your knowledge of course)?

Umm...how can one prove where the original shoot took place, especially if it's a set?

This is quite the clusterfuck, in general.

:(

This is why I'm sticking very strictly to fisting and scat purchased quietly from an anonymous broker in Russia. That way I don't have to play guessing games about whether or not my content is legal. I'm golden!
|pink

Hold on...someone is knocking on my door. Be right ba...

I don't agree. 2257 uses 2256 to define sexually explicit as :

As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; E is not included.

Yeah, but read it backwards... if you don't have IDs for 2257... then there is no way to prove that the model ISN'T underage, therefore A through E would apply.

You could pass 2257 and FAIL 2256.

Alex

Alphawolf: It would appear that, providing the primary producer is outside the US, then government issued IDs in that country would be acceptable. That is what I read anyway, but that isn't a section I spent too much time on yet. I think they are trying to stop the "underground" porn movie trade, of bringing in models without valid work cards, having them shoot 10 - 20 movies in a month, and then go back to their country with what for them is a pile of cash - all without paying a cent of tax in the US.

It is things like this that reveal the true intentions of this sort of "rule" adjustment - they are attempting to use "law A" to fix "problem B".

Alex

Paul and Alex:
It's late, and maybe I am reading it wrong.

But, doesn't it indicate that if you are a US producer, and you shoot outside the US, the models have to have US IDs.

So if I understand you correctly, one can make a gallery consisting of simulated sexual activity and therefore be exempt from the record keeping requirements of 2257 including having model ID's (according to section 75.7) but if one makes a makes a gallery of simple nudity one has to have model ID's.

Does not make sense to me so maybe you are correct as these regs are ridiculous.

Worse than that! There are situations where you would not require 2257 documents for a model for section 2257, but if you read section 2256, you need them anyway otherwise you have no proof of model age, which means, well, how many years in the federal butt slamming prison for being a CP producer?

It's a funny situation... you can have a model that technically doesn't require 2257 documents, but you can get it in the ass anyway.

Nice.

Tickler, you are correct, that is the screwed up way it reads. The way around this of course is to have someone in each country be the primary producer, who then sells all the rights to the content to the US producer, who is now a secondary producer.

It does make it harder for "porn tourism", where performers go to different countries to shoot.

Alex

I think we can all agree that having IDs and/or a paper trail back to the producer has always been a good idea for copyright and legal issues other than 2257.

The appeal of sticking with softcore exempt content is to avoid all of the burdensome requirements of becoming a Custodian of Records - regular office hours, DOJ fishing expeditions, specific recordkeeping formats, maintaining an inspection location for years after going out of business, etc.

Airdick,the problem is, EVEN is you have nothing but softcore content you have to be able to prove the models are over 18. Otherwise you are in the shits by having a topless model and no way to prove her age.

Tell me exactly how you do that?

Think hard now!

Alex

you guys sound a bit paranoid

Uhh, yeah. A bit.

Alex, There is no requirement for a secondary producer to have documentation for mere topless/softcore content that is not subject to 2257.

2257 is a rare instance that shifts the burden of proof from the accuser (the DOJ) to the accused (the producer).

The 2257 statute only requires you to make documents available for inspections for the matters covered in 2257, NOT for topless and mere nudes without sexual contact.

Now if someone was dealing in genuine CP there would be a whole bunch of other problems to deal with, but it doesn't look like people promoting 'mardi gras' type sites with girls flashing are going to need to do anything differently than they have been.

As far as softcore and nude goes, the justice system in this country is still intact and one is presumed innocent unless someone else comes up with somethign proving otherwise.

Actually, MArdigras style content is a whole different ball of wax - it falls under "reporting of an actual event / news". You are exempt from 2257 requirement provided no real sexual acts occur. Even then, providing you don't dwell, you are pretty much good to go.

I understand where you are coming from, but your splitting hairs. If you are in the US, and have anything to do with porn, you need to have a 2257 statement on all your sites, you need to have records (even if those records are just the affidavits that say the material is exempt from 2257), and you must have an office - otherwise you are in line to be investigate, my bet, especially if you rank well in SEs for any major terms or have a site with some profile (good or bad).

Tommy, paranoid? Not really. I am hoping that nobody chooses to shift their business from "a" to "b" because someone suggested that "b" is somehow exempt from 2257 - sort of like people who drive without a license because the police only check 1% of the cars a year.

Alex

The mere lack of ID in the case you describe wouldn't be enough prove guilt, but having the ID would be a good defense. Like I said, I think it's a good idea to have documentation to cover your ass for your content, regardless of whether or not the content is exempt from 2257, but being able to defend yourself against charges of using underage softcore content is lot different than following all of the Custodian of Records requirement in 2257.

Airdick, the question is: How do you prove she is over 18? I think the answer "ask igor in buttslamovia" isn't going to float anymore.

Alex

Here's another analogy: Why should someone get a drivers license when all they want to do is ride a bicycle? ;)

Bicycles riders are exempt from having drivers licenses, just like anything that is not covered by 2257(h) is exempt from the record keeping requirements of 2257.

BTW, 2257 has been in place since 1988 and I have yet to ever see a R-Rated movie with nudity and sexual themse in a theater or on cable where there was a 2257 Statement presented.

I'm afraid we're going to chew up too much bandwidth on ggj going around-and-around on this. Doing enough CYA to prove that a model in a softcore shoot is over 18 (provided the matter ever came to court) is not the same as following all of the requirements of 2257. You would be innocent until proven guilty, and not having an ID on hand for inspection wouldn't a crime.

The whole premise of secondary producers having to prove a model is over 18 is flawed. The burden of proof lies with the justice system to prove that a model is under 18. That's not going to change no matter how much the authors of 2257 want it to be so.

Proof of age on model release forms has as much to do with proving the model is of legal age to be able to sign a binding contract as it does proving she's old enough to do adult content modelling.

DOJ can rewrite 2257, but they can't rewrite the 1st, 4th and 5th Constitutional amendments. Until these new regs have their day in court, I'm not going to get too excited about changing how I'm currently doing things.

Toby, is it up the courts to prove you sold beer to a minor, or is the assumption you sold to a minor unless you asked for ID?

Many states have an ID under 25 rule, if the person appears to be under 25, you have to ask for ID to sell beer or smokes. Failure to ask for the ID is an offence all it's own.

Alex

You're comparing apples to oranges. A point of sale transaction where the consumer is the one who's age is at issue is far different than a supplier to distrubutor transaction where the age of the "merchandise" is at issue.

Then wouldnt it be like making a supermarket keep records stating that all of their food is NOT expired at the time I purchased it? lol

This whole thing is a mess. Chances are that for my personal websites, I'll pull every image and block the web archive bot.

Surely there will be lawsuits because these regs are a huge mess.

Also, if having "editorial control" is a key to whether or not records need keeping, wouldnt hotlinking or zero framing be exempt? If I full page frame a sponsor tour, I have absolutely no control whatsoever. But I need records of every image on the tour, right? Ridiculous :(

PR_tom, I will answer your last question first, because it is the easiest. It doesn't matter where the image ACTUALLY is, it is where it APPEARS to be. If you hotlink an image onto your site, well, it's part of your site (you published it as part of your website) - so hotlinking, zero frames, whatever... you control the domain, so you control what is on it.

Redirects are better than zero frames.

As for supermarkets, well... I will assure you that they know which employees can legally work for them and which can't. No green card, no SSN, well... no job.

The government doesn't have to come check for them to still keep accurate records.

Alex

What if a site has no nudity. I would think I am in the clear with shoekittens.com as there is no nudity or sexual acts.

I might have to just dump my TGP's tho.
Uhg!

Bill

Alex THX. Probably makes a ton of current content invalid also if they get away with back dating.

Next question is if the 5 year rule is gonna fuck people, so that even pulling non-compliant content may not remove them from 2257 requirements?
If I was the DOJ, I would have been "scraping" the internet for the last few years and not just start the day everything gets active. Not counting google images, archives, ISP caches, etc. They do keep saying "clarifying".

As somebody mentioned about model IDs and ages and stuff. "Traci Lords would have been able to make every movie she made because she had California ID and she had a U.S. passport that were 100 percent valid; fraudulently obtained, but valid. "

BTW Paul, re. another thread, I found the reference for her again here:
http://www.avnonline.com/index.php?P...tent_ID=228369