View Single Post
Old 2005-05-24, 11:03 AM   #23
RawAlex
Took the hint.
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 5,597
Send a message via AIM to RawAlex
Actually, it doesn't appear to matter about a specific thumb - you could not, example, use a non-explicit image from a hardcore package and claim exemption. They appear to be specifying a single 2257 release per photoset or video made, with a requirement to cross reference every image from that set to the 2257 document to show it's use.

THE MOST IMPORTANT NEWS IN THIS RULE HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH THE MODEL RELEASES THEMSELVES, BUT WHERE THEY MUST BE. Third party custodians of records are OUT!

Quote:
Two commenters commented that the implicit requirement that
records be kept at a place of business is unreasonable and argued that
the regulation should permit third-party custody of records. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. Permitting a third party to
possess the records would unnecessarily complicate the compliance and
inspection processes by removing the records from the physical location
where they were initially collected, sorted, indexed, and compiled. For
example, producers could provide false names and addresses to the third
party as a means to avoid scrutiny by law enforcement. Historically,
producers have used front corporations in order to evade both law
enforcement and tax authorities. Permitting third-party custodianship
would exacerbate this problem. Custodians could, for example, disclaim
any responsibility for the condition or completeness of the records or
be unable to provide additional information regarding the status of the
records. Permitting such third-party custodians in the final rule would
thus require additional regulations to ensure that the third-party
custodian could guarantee the accuracy
That means that the custodian of records for the ENTIRE INDUSTRY must be the actual places of business. It would appear that third party custodians will no longer be permitted after June23rd. It would also appear that this would apply to PRIMARY producers as well.

I think there is going to be some major screaming coming from California about this, as this would change almost everything in the porn industry.

Other interesting operating tidbits: It would appear that each person who works on the primary shoot of the content (camerman, lighting crew, gaffers, even craft truck operators) may be required to obtain, maintain, and cross reference all 2257 records themselves. The rule specifically declines to nominate a single "primary producer":

Quote:
One commenter commented that the definition of producer is too
broad, such that one depiction may have multiple primary producers,
including, e.g., the photographer and a different individual who
digitizes the image. The commenter argued that the definition should be
written so that each depiction has only one primary producer. The
Department declines to adopt this comment. The Department does not
believe that logic, practicability of record-keeping or inspections, or
the statue dictates that there be one and only one primary producer for
any individual sexually explicit depiction. Any of the persons defined
as primary producers has easy access to the performers and their
identification documents and should therefore each have responsibility
individually and separately of maintaining the records of those
documents.
Thus, anyone in the scope of potentially being a primary or secondary producer:

Quote:
(1) A primary producer is any person who actually films,
videotapes, photographs, or creates a digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, a digital image, or picture of, or digitizes an
image of, a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual
sexually explicit conduct.
(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial
distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being
engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a
computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the
sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a
visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually
explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.
Good luck everyone. I suspect there is going to be a few extra rooms available at internext now as many people will be gone on June 24th.

Alex
RawAlex is offline   Reply With Quote