2257 shift

[amadman]

A few years ago a lawyer at a show said it was only for the providers/producers to be 2257 compliant for hardcore material they had.

Yet now it seems that people are saying that it is now required for site builders as well and for all types of content.


So now I am wondering what actually changed to make us have to look at 2257 differently?

Was someone convicted?

Was there actual changes made to it?

Or is it just being interpreted different now?

[Greenguy]

As far as I know you should have a 2257 for EVERYTHING that you put online

There are a lot more reasons than just 2257 for getting the documents when you buy content. There are reasons not to have them so here they are and if anyone has any more they are welcome to add them.

For having them.
(1) Proves the age of the girls and Identifies her.
(2) That she knew it was a pro shoot for resale.
(3) That she signed away her rights to be sold on the Internet.
(4) That she signed away her rights of PRIVACY.
(5) The seller has the rights to resell it. Not 100% but better then nothing.
(6) YOU KNOW THEY EXIST AND CAN CHECK THEM.
(7) SHOULD YOU EVER BE ASKED TO PROVIDE THEM. YOU HAVE THEM IN YOUR FILING CABINET AND NOT CHASING A CONTENT PROVIDER, WHO MIGHT BE CHASING A PHOTOGRAPHER ON THE OTHER SIDE OF THE WORLD, IN RUSSIA FOR INSTANCE.

Against having them.
(1) Take up space on your hard disc.

The argument that you are then responsible for their authenticity is put out by content providers who are frightened they are not real and obviously cannot tell the difference.

As for protecting her privacy. There is no need to supply her address or contact details, which can be erased. If a content provider really wants to protect girls privacy can I advise, not to selling pictures/videos of them posing nude.

Any provider who refuses to supply them should be avided.

[amadman]

Thanks GG! That seems to be the current consensus.

But that is not how it was first explained to us at the show in Chicago a few years back. If you remember it was the time we met at the bar during karaoke. That lawyer at the time said it started because of that Lords girl being under age while making videos. And that now producers were required to keep the information on all hardcore material produce to prove that models were of legal age.

So I am just wondering if something changed? Because I havnt really every put the information on sites. So I am trying to decied if I should start and also if I should maybe require it for sites being submited to me.

[amadman]

Thanks to you as well Paul. You must have been posting while I was.

But my question is more about the actual notice that is required and being put on sites.

[RawAlex]

The question has to do with the definition of "producer". Some lawyers have suggested to their clients that operating a website with pictures on it makes you a "producer" of the content.

The important part at the end is:

"the term ''produces'' means to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted;"

The question is does operating a website contstitute producing or just distributing?

On the other side of the coin, many content producers are reluctant to provide full information on each performer beyond a certain point because they worry about violating those people's right to privacy. Imagine a girl does one set (and one set only), and then her personal info is sold to 100 people, 10 of which call her for more work. Was her personal info violated?

It is a can of worms... I haven't seen anything where people are getting hassled over this yet, but it has been mentioned as a possible was for Assclown and his posse to hassle people into retirement.

Paul is very correct, if you are buying content from Russia, as an example, I would demand full model releases, otherwise you can consider the content not valid.

Entire text of 2257 is here: Cornell Law


Alex

Alex, you become a producer when you alter the original. If you are merely distributing you do not need it. Resize, crop, correct, use it in designs, compile it in a publication. Then you become a producer.

As for giving out her details like a phone number. What producer is that stupid? Models are hard enough to get at the best of times, don't want to make it harder and give out her phone number.

Want to protect her privacy? Don't put up a website of her taking it in the ass, is my advice.

[amadman]

Thanks RawAlex,

The idea of different interpretations of producers pretty much sums it up.

For me this part suggests that we would not be required to have the info:

but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted

Though we would still want to be sure we could prove that the content being used is compliant.

[RawAlex]

Paul, with a name and address, I can directory almost anyone in the US or Canada online and get in contact with them. Providing a copy of the ID presented and the model release forms would be more than enough for almost anyone to contact the model. Any level of information less than that would not be in compliance with 2257.

ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer's name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;

.

Do you (or any other content provider) supply this level of information for every photo that you sell? You would need model release (to prove right to sell) and copy of the ID of the performer to show the true age, etc. No blurring or masking permitted, it would appear!

There is no case law at this point that makes the website owner into a "producer" of the content. Nobody has gone down this road that I am aware of. However, certain lawyers have suggested this as a route of possible attack by the AG to get people. There isn't even any case law that says the documents must be specifically at YOUR place of business.

Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall maintain the records required by this section at his business premises, or at such other place as the Attorney General may by regulation prescribe and shall make such records available to the Attorney General for inspection at all reasonable times

Interestingly, this seems to suggest that only the AG himself (or herself) can request these documents. It does not say AG or appointed rep, but just AG. The video industry has been using lawyers offices and such for their records for years, and that appears to be acceptable. Wouldn't a license for use of content state the location of the records, and all parties agree to that?

Law also does not state that those records must be maintained in the US.

Look closely at the video industry to see what 30 + years of legal battles does to set precedents.

Alex

[NotThatKevin]

Here is an interesting cut and paste for you to read

It was indeed necessary for a United States Court of Appeals to take this issue head on in Sundance Associates, Inc. v. Reno, 139 F.3d 804 (10th Cir., 1998). The Tenth Circuit Court invalidated language contained in Part 75 which attempted to expand the scope of Section 2257 so that it would reach the re-publishers of photographs.

Sundance Associates published five swingers' magazines which reprinted reader-submitted photos, some of them apparently depicting actual sexual conduct. Fearing criminal liability under Section 2257, it brought sought for declaratory judgment declaring that the Attorney General's provisions, so expanding the scope of the Section as to make them what the Regulations called a "secondary producer", were invalid. 28CFR Ch. 1 Section 75.1 (c) (2) defined a "secondary producer" as any person who, among other things, publishes matter that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. Sundance argued that the Regulations did not simply implement the will of Congress for enforcement and application of the statute, but, contradicting limitations on the kind of production which was controlled by the Statute, it improperly added activity and persons to the reach of the law.

The trial court ruled for Sundance and invalidated the "secondary producer" provisions and the Attorney General took an Appeal to the Tenth Circuit.

The Tenth Circuit held that the Attorney General's interpretation of Congress's definition of "produces" "flies in the face of the statutory language". It gets stronger. The Tenth Circuit observed that the Attorney General was "twisting words to reach a result it prefers" rather than interpreting any verbal ambiguity with accepted alternative meanings. The court struck down that part of the Regulation that reached publishers who had no contact with the performers and had not contracted for the work to be produced. (To perhaps state it with too much exactitude for an article directed at a general readership, the Tenth Circuit struck the words "other than those activities identified in paragraphs (c) (1) and (2) of this section", words which had the effect of putting all publishers of explicit material back into a definition that otherwise would have excluded all persons who "did not hire, contract for, manage, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the depicted performers

[Frank]

Absolutely,

Keep you ass covered and you'll never have to deal with hemorrhoids.

[JenC]

Just a 2257 tip/suggestion:

Whenever we buy new content from a new provider we add them to this page. This is all the providers we've ever gotten content from and I'm not saying that it will ward off all government inquiries, but it sure looks really good that we're diligent about it and I'd think they'd take that into account before they harass us about it:

http://www.phatbucks.com/2257.html

[DangerDave]

Nice Info Kevin... thanks

Welcome as well mate.. didnt see you slip in here.

DD