I just got bitch slapped by Club-Xstream

[domweb]

First off...the frustration is not directed at you, Bill or Ramster. I am just amazed that I walked away from the industry over this issue a few years ago and when I return so many folks look at me like I grew a new head when I start asking questions about keeping legal and 2257 requirements. This stuff should be second nature by now.

I am flustered at the overall lack of knowledge of something so fundamental to keeping your ass out of jail.

I live in the USA. We have 5% of the world's total population. We have 25% percent of the world's prison population. We LOVE locking people up.

Originally Posted by Ramster

Names and aliases have nothing to do with 2257.

I think the US government disagrees with you.

I quote the United States Department of Justice in the previously referenced 28 C.F.R. Part 75 SMALL BUSINESS COMPLIANCE GUIDE - Recordkeeping for Visual Depictions of Actual and Simulated Sexually Explicit Conduct.

Third Paragraph:

"Summary of Part 75’s Requirements Part 75 requires that, prior to producing a visual depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct, a primary producer must examine a government-issued picture identification card belonging to each performer in the visual depiction that demonstrates that the performer is 18 years old or older. The primary producer must then record the legal name, any aliases, and the date of birth of the performer, record the date of production of the depiction, and make a copy of the picture identification card. Once production is complete, a copy of the visual depiction must be maintained along with these records. All information on a performer may be redacted other than the name, date of birth, and information that identifies the type and validity of the picture identification card (e.g., drivers license or passport number). All of the primary producer’s records for all its visual depictions must also be cross-referenced by name and alias of the performers. If a secondary producer produces a copy of the visual depiction, the secondary producer must obtain from the primary producer the records associated with that depiction."

Screw it. I am going to make a coffee and a toke. We Shall Overcome.

P.S. The frustration about the ID size thing was unintended bleed over from discussions I was having with Content Providers. That was mis-posted. Sorry Ramster.

[Ramster]

Originally Posted by domweb

I think the US government disagrees with you.

My mistake, you are right about that. Any normal model release will have her name and alias she uses/wants to use.

I would think the government is expecting you to list the aliases YOU are using on your sites and urls. I doubt they could hardly expect you to know what every guy in the world is using her as an alias.

And no worries, I can understand your frustration being in the US and not wanting to go to jail. I am in Canada and I abide by the law regardless.

[domweb]

I think you are right about what they expect. I think a diligent effort to gather and crossreference the names/aliases to specific pics or video content is what they expect. I don't think they would tolerate unrecorded URL addresses, models without proper IDs, etc.

'I think' is always a horrible defense in court, but the Holy Fury of the Right Wing is no longer in the Justice Department to fan the flames of Moral Purity.

I am not a lawyer but it all seems to come down to the following:

If you have a picture or video file on the internet of an adult nature for the purposes of profit, you better have a cross referenced database that tracks all the model's content and maintains all necessary ID files and can pull up for a Federal investigator information all that info at a snap.

If the Investigator points to a pic or video on the screen, you had better be able to produce: all the actor's real names/aliases, dates of birth, date of production of content, ID scans/pics and any URL address or others web address that you are serving that photo set or video to.

That's it in a rough nutshell. But I am no lawyer. Thats why I pay one to review my records. It takes less money than you think.

By the way Ramster, my father emigrated from Canada to the US. I love the place. I might retire there yet! Probably a good idea that you follow the 2257 rules anyway...never know when you might want to sell the whole thing to a rich American.

Long may the Maple Leaf wave to remind the Bald Eagle that there are all kinds of ways to run a successful democracy.