2257 regs published in full

[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

[madleinx]

Hi Alex, you've been a tremendous help with this thread! I have a lil question....The regs state that we only need records for the content described in 2256 sections A-D, right? That means "lascivious exhibition of the genitals" is not included. Do we really need docs for simple nudity (no pink, no spreads)? Thanks!

[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

[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.

[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...

[ardentgent]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

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

I don't agree. 2257 uses 2256 to define sexually explicit as :

As used in this section—
(1) the term “actual sexually explicit conduct” means actual but not simulated conduct as defined in subparagraphs (A) through (D) of paragraph (2) of section 2256 of this title; E is not included.

[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

[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.

[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]

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

[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.

[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

[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

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.

[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

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.

[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.