I'm waiting on a lawyers opinion of exactly what we have to do, in fact two lawyers.

I'm pretty sure you will need 2257 documents.

I think it's time for the serious webmaster and paysite owners to go talk to a lawyer, like we are doing.

Then see how they comply.

some will not and run the risk of getting a visit from the authorities, but many will get out of the business. This will be good for the professionals left, becasue there will not be one less surfer.

Everyone is complaining about free porn, this might be the best thing to reduce it.


Think positive see how you can work it, not how it will work you.

I'm waiting to see what Sponsors say about this. I'm gonna hit them up on message boards if they have 'em.

For those who don't read g f y a guy who seems really into this posted this:

I thought it was important otherwise I wouldn't snag and quote a whole post like that.

If lawyers are going to state we need the actual photo ID with license that's not a good thing at all. |sad|

I have just 1 stinkin' site up- nearly all softcore and just started in the industry.

It seems pretty odd to me that those of you who make a living off this aren't providing feedback from what your lawyers told you.

I was really going to get down and dirty and go through *every* sponsor I am with and start posting links to every hosted gallery they have.

BUT...unless what is on the boards is all 'hype', a lot of sponsors will toss in the towel, I think.

It's not really hype because the actual document is there to see and read. Did everyone read it all the way through? It has some pretty speciifc straight forward wording. |sad|

There is not much time for the Sponsors to get a system in place.

AW, read the law - there is no distinction in the types of records required between primary and secondary providers. Full model release with photo ID will be required. Address and full information must be clear so that authorities can check to make sure that person exists, is an adult, etc. Blacked out documents just won't cut it.

However, this is more than likely going to violate all sorts of privacy laws, so I expect this one to die a horrible COPA style death... years and years turning in circles in court.

Alex

Maybe so. Two issues here then.

1.) Will a court , as with COPA, issue an injunction against enforcement of this new regulation pending a final decision?
(Plus, to get that injunction, someone with "legal standing" will have to spend some serious $$$ to file that privacy case - meaning a porn model with very deep pockets. How likely is that, I wonder?)

2.) Since this is merely a "regulation" and not an actual congressionally-passed law, does that change the degree of interest the courts might have in issuing an injunction? By that I mean, if the law that gave the Justice Dept. this regulatory authority in the first place is considered constitutional and valid, then I'm thinking that a regulation issued under that law may well be considered prima facie valid as well.

I sure hope we as an industry can come up with some way to fight this trend. Ashcroft & company sound like they've figured out that they can simply hyper-regulate us all out of business without even having to deal with the swamp of 1st amendment and obscenity
issues. If the industry can no longer hire models because of privacy and security issues, then even the guys who are crowing now about how this will help "get rid of the unprofessional newbies" etc. are gonna be out of business too. |goodnight

The models privacy is a very valid point and needs to be challenged. If buying a $50 set of Jenna Jameson gets the buyer her home address and contact details this will put her in danger and I'm not sure if Ashcroft has considered this.

You need to go to the site and register these thoughts, I will so you do it as well.

As for a webmasters privacy, well that will not cut it I'm afraid, they will tell you to get the porn business out of your home IMHO.

I can't imagine no one thought about privacy.. I read into it that they dont believe an adult performer's personal information should be private if they want to "sell their wares"

Can you show me where it requires the models address and full information. I can't find it on the regulations, all it says is name and date of birth.

Maybe I'm wrong, I've only been 2257 compliant 15 years.

You see for me this is what 2257 is about, it's there to protect me.

Executive ran website touting girl prostitutes

Perverted postman delivers steamy schoolgirl sex videos

Under age street walkers

TEENS ON THE MAKE

What I was looking for and could not find was the case in America where some schoolgirls were selling sex to class mates. Sorry I could not find it.

But we do not live in a perfect world where no one would ever sell us a picture of an under age girl. I just feel trusting a stranger is a bit to risky.

Paul, 3 of those examples are outside the United States.

In general, if someone is knowingly doing a crime, do you think they will comply with the new 2257 law?

You think they care- at all about laws?

2257 is a US law. The Internet is not a physical place with borders.

Exactly my point. They can sell you pictures of under age girls, call themselves Custodians and you are in the shitter.

But as you well know no American would ever do anything like that, American girls would never pose nude and sexual before there 18th birthday and it's totally unthinkable that an American would sell you these pictures.

The tooth fairy and Father Xmas will be coming to my birthday party next month.

GET REAL IT COULD HAPPEN TO YOU.

Do you not remember the case of 14 year old American girls selling oral sex to class mates? Have you so much faith in Americans that you are prepared to put your liberty into strangers hands?

Give me one good reason other than lazyness why you do not want to check the documents.

I don't mind the security of checking the documents. What I'm worried about is any rule that would allow surfers to see the documents. Even with an address blocked out, knowing a model's real name can lead to some very nasty harrassment and even physical danger to that model if we're required to have an accessible link that the general public can see (not to mention the Google data being easily collated).

I hive not seen anywhere that it says the documents are to be shown to surfers. Did I read it wrong?

Well, it depends on the interpretation of the language.

Proposed 28 CFR 75.2(a)(1) would require computer site or service producers to maintain a ``hard'' physical or electronic copy of the actual depiction with the identification and age files, along with and linked to all accession information, such as each URL used for that depiction. This ensures that all of the data about all of the people in the depictions can be accessed to ensure that none of the people in the depictions are minors.

A copy of the "actual depiction", linked to "each url used for that depiction" to ensure that "all of the data" about "all of the people in the depictions" can be "accessed."

First question is probably "accessed by whom?" The answer to that determines whether the "link" to "all the data" needs to be clickable from "each URL."

This obviously needs to be clarified, and quickly by the Justice Dept. Even if my lawyer told me I don't have to provide a link to "all" the model's data from "every URL" in which her images appear, if my lawyer's interpretation turns out to differ from the Justice Dept.' s interpretation, I could still face 5 years in jail for not letting my surfers find out my models' real names and addresses (remember it says ALL the data - no exceptions stated for addresses, etc.).

Knowing the Ashcroft boys, this sort of ambiguity and confusion is exactly their intention, though, so no clarification is likely to be made before someone is charged by the feds as a test case.

IANAL, but it seems to me that records have to be made available to investigators designated by the Attorney General for inspection at your place of business. I don't see any requirement to have the actual records linked from the pages containing the content or otherwise available to the general public.

(excerpt from Sec. 75.4 Location of records.)

" Any producer required by this part to maintain records shall make
such records available at the producer's place of business."

(excerpt from Sec. 75.6 Statement describing location of books and records.)

"(3) A street address at which the records required by this part may
be made available. The street address may be an address specified by
the primary producer or, if the secondary producer satisfies the
requirements of Sec. 75.2(b), the address of the secondary producer. A
post office box address does not satisfy this requirement."


(excerpt from Sec. 75.5 Inspection of records)

"(a) Authority to inspect. Investigators designated by the Attorney
General (hereinafter ``investigators'') are authorized to enter without
delay and at reasonable times (as defined in subsection (c)(1)) any
establishment of a producer where records under Sec. 75.2 are
maintained to inspect, within reasonable limits and in a reasonable
manner, for the purpose of determining compliance with the record-
keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257."

By having a piece of paper or a computer file with the IDs and a list of the URLs the models appears on you cover that part of the act, no where does it say, "put it up on the net and link it to the pictures"

I can see why it's been done and the error they made. Would you know the name of every model on your site and could you access the documents easily? I've already had two clients contact me asking for 2257 documentation they "Lost". Problem is they can't remember what sets they bought from me and one asked me to go through their site checking to see which models are mine and supplying the documents. They had me listed as the Custodian, but it seems did not know which images I was custodian of records for.

These amendments are vague, more reason to fear them, but not an excuse to ignore them.

IAANAL (I am also not a lawyer) but I agree with your interpretation. Essentially, as far as I can tell, this new regulation extends the responsibilities of "primary producers" (ie, those who make the pikkies and videos) to cover typical paysite, freesite and gallery owner. And it might possibly require even more of said paysite/freesite/gallery owner than it does of the primary producer. It would be impossible for the primary producer to track every url on which the images are used. It will be a royal pain in the ass for us site owners to do. But is it impossible? I'm not sure. It depends on how the regulation is interpreted. It would be a pain in the ass (but not impossible) for me to log all the urls where given content is featured.

But what about banners? Do I need ID for every model in every ad on every site? That would be problematic in the extreme.

I will mention again; I'm not a lawyer (not even a law student) so I really have no clue. What troubles me is that I suspect any given lawyer will have a different interpretation of this regulation, and we won't have a solid definition or interpretation without somebody acting as a test case. Personally, I don't want to be that case, so I'm going to do everything I can to cover my ass.

No, the sky isn't falling - but it's definitely time to break out the umbrellas.

Why would 'banners' be excluded from the law?

An image is an image.

Graphics, including banners- if explicit, would have to fall under the same law.

Everyone has 2257 info on their explicit banners, buttons, FPA's and advertising materials, right? |jester|

BTW, I agree with you about lawyers having different takes on this proposal until a case goes to court. |sad|

off topic - would be good to turn this thread into a condensed version as a newsletter article.

"At the same time, a requirement is proposed to
be added that the identification card used to verify identification by
the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy. Thus, driver's licenses--which are
routinely accessed through the States' departments that manage such
licensing and motor vehicle registration--are a prime form of
identification. "

According to this piece of proposed legislation USA webmasters will only be able to deal with content providers that can provide them with a USA drivers license or other approved ID document than can be accessed by government entities.

Kevin it is good to see your post.

This does not sound too good. I have 410 different models with 150,000+ images. Last week I made an effort to see how close to compliance I would be if this thing is adopted. At that point it looked like about 20% of my content would need to come down. In lieu of the US driver license, I guess all of that good Chez content will also have to go.

Oh well, I love girls from the South (US) anyway.

The law is not retroactive according to that link GG posted. When and if it's approved it will only apply on new sets shot from that date onwards. By the way even tho you have some of our content that are girls from other countries they all have a USA drivers license and live in the USA :)

Adopting a rule that only US documents will be acceptable will make the market an open field day for foriegners. Unfortunately the US does not produce enough good or cheap content.

I think it also says overseas documents such as passports are acceptable.

Only if that document can be accessed and verified to be valid by the USA authorities.

At the same time, a requirement is proposed to be added that the identification card used to verify identification by the producer must be independently accessible by government entities in
order to ensure its legitimacy.

The Authorities want be be able to verify the reliability of the documents. For example the USA authorities will not have the rights to access the Czech republics database of it's citizens to verify the validity and age of a model.

Think I better get back in my lurking mode, but

As many of you who know me off the board know that as a CPA, I made my living practicing before the most vicious regulatory agency in the US. Get ready! When Congress gives an agency the right to write their own regulations, it is tough. The 'sky ain't falling' but it is about to rain like hell. Sooner or later 2257 regs will be tested in court.

One other small rant - when the regs are finally adopted, you comply. Otherwise, you get out. It is that simple.

Yes...and to play the devil's advocate, how are you going to prove a set in question was shot after the regulation came into effect? Tell the nice man from the DA's office, and expect him to believe you?

People, make no mistake - Ashcroft is PISSED OFF that COPA was set back once again. We are less than four months away from the US election, and the religious right are seeing their lives flash before their eyes. I have never seen a group of politicians more desperate to make an impact. WE are the target. This is not going to go away.

I do see what you are saying Mishi. The nice man from the DA's office can just be a prick and give you a rough time but at the end of the day the guy from the DA's office has to accept the date on any legal document that was signed by the model and witnesses as is the case with any other legal document in the USA.

You are 100% correct that this band of politicians wants to make an impact and we the adult community are the target.

Notice to all:

I've posted a two-column table on the proposed regulations - comparing all of the terms side by side, indicating by strikethrough what language is to be deleted and indicating the new language in color. It's a fairly elaborate chart but it makes it simple to see what's new and to compare it with the old regulations.

http://www.xxxlaw.net
Click on "What's New".

Feel free to post this link wherever the webmasters graze. As a matter of fact, I'd appreciate it.

Thanks for all of the kind words you folks posted, expecially misha; You all made me feel quite welcome in this rare visit to the boards.

Regards,

J. D. Obenberger

Thank you xxxlaw this is great :)

JD, THANK YOU for putting that up - makes it tons easier to understand the scope of the changes for us non-legalize fluent folks.

Ashcroft is calling this a "clarification"??? WTF, it's a total rewrite! Section 75.5 changed from a brief sentence to a 60 part diatribe!!!

I'm not saying these changes (many of them) are for the better, but pushing such sweeping modifications through as a "clarification" just doesn't wash with me.

Joe - that's awesome - thank you so much for putting it together & posting the link over here - very much appreciated!

Can you give us a non legalese version of what it means please.

Do webmasters have to have 2257.

Can we remove the models address?

What documents are required fro non US photographers?

Will it apply to content shot before the September deadline or will it apply to pages published after that date?

Feel free to ask any other ones I missed.

I'm sure alot of models that posed in the past would feel very uncomfortable with anyone that buys $5 worth of content having their full name and contact info though....

Well One good thing about all of this is to buy content from a good legal source That knows the law.. And to keep good files and records..

Thought I'd chime in here with some thoughts and comments.

First, having looked at various threads on various boards about this same topic, I do have to hand it to everyone here at GG&J, that this has been the best discusssion I've seen thus far on the subject.

I also wanna give a big hand to Joe, as I believe this is (so far) the only posting I've seen anywhere from a legal professional.


I guess the most unanswered question though is: What should we do? And I think the reason there are no clear cut answers, is because there won't be any until someone gets prosecuted and the law gets challenged and a court makes a decision. (Is this sad thinking the true answer here? Anyone?)

I think in terms of prevention there are very limited things we can do right now, because to follow the (proposed) law to the full extent that a liberal reading of it would suggest is, basically, an impossibility. To get every record from every content provider (highly improbable), and then to some how attach each image to an URL and to a record is most definitely impossible.

And evern were it actually fully and totally possible, then the effort, time and money would so outrageously great that everyone closing shop would be a more desirable option. (Which, IMHO, is what Aschhead wants in the first place.) So again, what DO we do? How can people follow a rule that requires an impossible task? Now that's what I'd like to hear a legal opinion on.

You write to Mr Ashcroft, via the site, telling him this.

Sounds like a bit of a Catch 22 though, doesn't it? Hi Mister Enemy, here is all of my business information, where I live, how much I make, my IRS ID number and this is how much it would cost to make the changes you propose?

I'm thinking you're safer being out of the country, maybe you should write him, Paul. :)

I've already written and if your attitude is to lie low and hope it goes away you are dreaming.

I guess you don't know me that well then, Paul.

But I'm also not going to put my foot into a bear trap and think it's the answer to all my prayers either. :)