2257 regs published in full

[airdick]

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

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

[tickler]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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

[RawAlex]

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

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

If I use softcore content it will be sponsor content in which they have indicated that the models are over 18 or licensed content indicating the same. Furthermore, since 2257 would not apply I would not have to prove the model's age, the government would if they wanted to prosecute me. In addition, the way this NON-LAWYER- reads the statutes one has to knowingly use cp in order to be guilty of using cp.

[Tommy]

you guys sound a bit paranoid

[SexVideoContent]

Originally Posted by Tommy

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[airdick]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

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.

[Toby]

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.

[RawAlex]

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

[Toby]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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?

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.

[PR_Tom]

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.

[PR_Tom]

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

[RawAlex]

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

[PR_Tom]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

Yep I know, I've been advising people the same. But if Google for instance was granted an exception because they have no editorial control, then whats the difference.. It's not as if I have any say whatsoever if I frame a page full of text about oil painting, and then someone knocks on my door because a few weeks back, the site I'm framing put hardcore images on the page.
I'm ranting.

My comment about the supermarket was in response to someone elses apples and oranges comment. The burden is on us to prove the content is NOT illegal. Which I think would be similar to a supermarket having to prove their product was NOT expired when we buy it. Ridiculous. Again ranting.

[tortus32]

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

[RawAlex]

PR_tom, I agree with you, it seems stupid but there are many things in life the same, like getting a smog inspection because you have to prove your legal before you can plate the car. We are on the permit side, not the law breaking side. Not innocent until proven guilty, more in violation unless we show we are conforming to the rules.

tickler: I think the whole back dating thing will be VERY VERY VERY hard for enforce, it's a well know that "The Constitution clearly forbids "Ex Post Facto" laws " - which is making something illegal after it has occurred, and then charging people. It is one of the many ways that this current screwfest of a rule set will probably get knocked over in court.

ardentgent: I wish you luck with it. If I was in the US I would not have a single image with naked anything without either model IDs or a notice from the sponsor that the content is not applicable to 2257. I wouldn't run naked in the middle.

Alex