2257 regs published in full

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by airdick

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.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

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

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

[airdick]

Originally Posted by ardentgent

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

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.

[RawAlex]

I wouldn't bet my business or 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison on a single letter "s".

Alex

[SexVideoContent]

I just noticed something: In 75.7 (a)(2) they do make use of the plural form 'depictions', which is a good indication that to the person writing this 'depiction' and 'depictions' have different meanings, and this was not merely an oversight on their part.

[tickler]

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".

[Toby]

Originally Posted by tickler

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".

Which is exactly why I find the whole concept of secondary producers maintaining records on the models completely preposterous. I hope that the court agrees.

[erasmo]

This is crazy. If all you post is one photo of a model, you should only be liable for that one photo.

[airdick]

Originally Posted by tickler

Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".

Other than what you might have read in webmaster forums, what makes you think that is so?

Can you point to any reference in the regulations to photo sets, photo sessions, or photo shoots?

I'm not trying to jump on anyone here or put anyone down, but I would like to try to understand by what reasoning you have arrived at this particular conclusion.

[Alphawolf]

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

[furrygirl]

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.

[Ms Naughty]

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

“What this law, the rationale behind this law is that it is presuming that every film you make, every photograph you take is child pornography, and you have to prove to this irrational level that it's not. That is at the heart of any challenge that this organization is going to make, because the ideal way for us to deal with 2257 is, as Reed Lee was the first person I know to make this argument, destroy it altogether.

"Ultimately, we cannot live with this. It would be great if we can cut out most of the cancerous parts, but fundamentally, it needs to be destroyed, and there's a good reason it should be destroyed in its entirety because of the first thing I said: It is presuming that constitutionally protected speech is a crime, and you have to prove it's not. That is at the antithesis of everything that American jurisprudence is supposed to be about.”

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.

[Wazza]

Originally Posted by grandmascrotum

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...

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

[RawAlex]

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

[Alphawolf]

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

TIA

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Alphawolf

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

TIA

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

[Alphawolf]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

Thanks.

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

Along the way, answers were given to questions such as the legality of using performers with foreign government-issued IDs in the U.S. (it's a no-no under the new rules); whether the government will try to apply the new ID rules retroactively (probably); whether the lack of privacy surrounding who must keep IDs will drive performers out of the business (that's the idea, Gelbard opined); the necessity of keeping separate records for compilations (yes, they're necessary); and whether the Justice Department is likely to be willing to compromise on some of the requirements.

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[Alphawolf]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[Useless]

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!


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

[RawAlex]

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

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[tickler]

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.

[RawAlex]

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