Asshahahahaha's Draconian 2257 Changes - Ready For Jail?
 

There have been a few threads on GFY about this but really I don't think many people are aware how serious this is and how close they are to potentially going to jail for a few years.
My shooters are both past the 'concerned' stage - if this happens with no legal opposition, so far none is in the works, you can go to jail for data entry mistakes hypothetically. The demands on webmasters are far greater than on content providers with these new changes. If the changes are to be taken 100% literally a US webmaster or adult movie producer cannot use talent from anywhere else in the world except the United States. Only pieces of valid model ID mentioned are US issued drivers licenses and passports.

anyway it sounds like these go into effect very soon, these aren't changes that have to be voted on - ain't no democracy here, public can make comments but fat chance Asshat cares what a porn maker or consumer has to say.

i'm not even sure if Kerry wins in November it means anything good - these changes are coming into effect before the election.
I don't think a Democratic administration would enforce this lunacy
so if you're going to vote Bush/Asshat remember you're probably going to put some webmasters in jail.

here's the AVN article written by adult industry attorney Clive Dewitt, he's going to have a followup article coming up soon.

from http://www.avn.com/index.php?Primary...tent_ID=107185


WASHINGTON, D.C. - The U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) has never inspected the records kept by producers of performers in sexually explicit photos or videos, and Attorney General John Ashhahahahaha actually had the moxie to admit that when it came time for his required report to Congress under the PROTECT Act passed last year.

Ashhahahahaha offered no excuses for his department?s sloth ? but he did have a brand, spanking new set of regulations to propose under 18 USC 2257, the section of the U.S. Code created by the Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 which, due to a lengthy legal battle, didn?t go into effect until 1995.

The new requirements were published in the Federal Register on June 25, 2004; the public will have a chance to comment on them until August 24, and unless any changes are made (doubtful), they will take effect on that date ? just in time for the Republican National Convention!

Prominent First Amendment attorney (and AVN/AVN Online legal columnist) Clyde DeWitt has written a commentary on the proposed regs which will appear in the August issue of AVN Online ? but considering that one attorney has estimated that less than 5% of adult video companies are in full compliance with the current 2257 regs, and it?s impossible to tell how many Webmasters are in compliance ? if you guess ?less than 5%, you?re probably not too far off ? it?s never too early to start thinking about what it will take to be compliant with the new ones, because rest assured, these WILL be enforced!

Some points to watch out for include:

IDs: Some forms of identification commonly used by models and performers are no longer acceptable. According to the new regulations, the only forms of identification that can be used must A) have a photograph of the individual, and B) must be ?part of a system of records that can be independently accessed to verify the legitimacy of the identification card.? Driver?s licenses are fine, as are passports ? U.S.-issued ones, at least; it?s unclear whether non-U.S. passports will be acceptable ? but now ?off the list? (what list?) are Selective Service cards, college ID cards and any other form of identification that doesn?t meet the above requirements. And on top of it all, every copy of the ID must be legible!

Recordkeeping: Starting with the implementation of the new rules, the records for every performer who works for a company must be indexed alphabetically by the performer?s legal name (?or numerically where appropriate,? whatever that means ? consult your First Amendment lawyer!) and include every stage name used by that performer since May 26, 1992. (Where they pulled that date from is unclear, but note that it conflicts with the previously-understood requirements for scores of features made between that date and July 3, 1995, which has previously been considered the starting point for recordkeeping under 2257.)

Not only that, but every time that same performer works for the company again, all of that performer?s previous records with the company, for features made after the implementation of these new rules, must be updated with the name of the new feature (and, we?re guessing, any new stage names that performer may have acquired in the interim.) If that sounds like it?s going to a bitch to comply with, rest assured that the government will expect very ?t? to be crossed and every ?i? dotted lest the company be found to be not compliant! (We?re sorry; you thought these rules were for your benefit?)

Beginning with the new regs, all records will be required to be cross-referenced by all names of each performer, including legal name, any aliases, maiden name, nickname, stage name and/or professional name (got a non-porn-related business name by which you?re known?), as well as by title, number or ?similar identifier? of each ?book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, computer-generated image, digital image, picture or other matter.? In other words, Webmasters, get ready to list every stinkin? URL in which an image (even non-photographic, it would seem) of a particular performer appears, even if that numbers in the hundreds or thousands! But here?s a gift: Only one copy of a performer?s ID need by kept ? as long as each copy is ?categorized and retrievable according to any name, real or assumed, used by the performer, and according to any title or other identifier of the matter.?

Records inspections: ?Advance notice of record inspections shall not be given?... but the inspections shall take place during ?normal business hours? (8 a.m. to 6 p.m.) and ?shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the operations of the producer?s establishment.? Also, ?A producer may be inspected once during any four-month period, unless there is a reasonable suspicion to believe that a violation of this part [regulation] has occurred, in which case an additional inspection or inspections may be conducted before the four-month period has expired.? [Emphasis added]

Oh; and for those who may have interesting non-porn-related things lying around the office: ?Notwithstanding any provision of this part or any other regulation, a law enforcement officer may seize any evidence of the commission of a felony while conducting an inspection.?

There?s a lot more to these new regulations, especially as affects Webmasters, and a lot more questions to be asked about them ? and rest assured, First Amendment lawyers will be asking them ? but the point is, the feds are obviously gearing up to actually make those inspections the industry has been expecting all these years, so be ready for them ? and make sure you have a good attorney on retainer.

Will these rules only apply to content created after the date that the new rules are issued?

If they apply retroactively, wouldn't you have to throw out old content?

I would be willing to bet that it won't be retroactive much like the previous 2257 laws when it came to content produced before their inception.

not sure about that - i know one webmaster already is seriously considering getting rid of everything and starting over. i think what people do will be based on how seriously they think 2257 will be enforced. up until now 2257 enforcement has been minimal.

if you believe Asshat and Bush are as evil as many people do, this is clearly an end run around the First Amendment to throw pornographers in jail without having the pornographer able to defend himself before a jury of his peers. The government knows community standards have changed - they couldn't convict Max Hardcore, Seymore Butts and i bet they can't convict Rob Black.
So this is their plan, to throw pornographers in jail for failing to comply with draconian recording keeping rules they know go beyond onerous creating legal chill in the porn business - online and offline.

these changes have NOTHING to do with what Asshat wants the public to believe - protecting children.

Many of these idiots will not make any moves to prepare for these new regulations until they actually go into effect. By then, it may be too late.

It's not that difficult of a fix actually...At least not for content providers. I should have our new records keeping system in full swing by the end of this week. Once it's done, I will be happy to share it with chosen content providers (Ones who have demonstrated their 2257 compliance in the past) and get feedback from anybody who may have suggestions on how to build a better mousetrap.

This is something that we an all work together on.....maybe even create a Non profit org. and only allow those in who use the new system so we can self regulate our own industry.

Do I like these changes? Not really, but I do like seeing people become pro active about this issue.

I agree proactive steps need to be made in this industry for everyone to stay in business. Most who are irresponsible I'm sure will not survive when these new bullshit rules take effect.

Sounds like a complete nightmare to me. The big question I have after reading it is this. I am Canadian, my hosting is in the U.S. By the sounds of it, hosting companies are exempt....so does that mean I do not have to comply with the new regulations?

Mind you, I have a photo of each model holding up their I.D. as well as a copy of their signed release....but all that cross-referencing stuff....and all the URL's etc. will be such a pain in the ass.

It may be a good idea to start a model database where the urls could be posted and shared among webmasters because It would be a nightmare trying to get a model to remember all the people she worked for and the places her immage appeared.

Somebody clearly does not understand the proposed regulations. :glugglug

Im up to date on the present regulations but I am definitly a bit unclear on the new ones. I gotta do my homework .

the model has no responsibility, neither does the content provider when it comes to linking a model to each URL her photo is on - this is far worse for webmasters who have websites with content. As Aaron says it's very doable for a content provider if he's been keeping good records, both my guys have all that information - just a case of putting together a database that conforms to what the government wants. what has my shooter Marco really upset is that it would be possible to get thrown in jail for making some honest mistakes. maybe he's just paranoid about what Asshat is capable of.

for webmasters who have large sites, many sites, thousands and thousands of URLs, content from many many content providers - impossible to get this done by the time changes come into effect.

They just cant throw you in jail , they still have to go before a jury. If your models are all of age , they are going to have a rough time getting a conviction on a clerical error.

what do you mean they can't throw you in jail? u wouldn't be going to jail over an underage model, there's jail time for not complying with the 2257 requirements. every model on your sites could be 37 years old, you don't comply with these changes, you go to jail.

unless i am way off base, which i doubt i am.

what about things like sponsor hosted galleries and promo content from sponsors? will we be requried to keep records on that as well...

Have you been hiding under a rock or something?



This is where these new regulation may actually help our industry. It can assist in thinning the herds.

hosted galleries - nope, u just link to those. but sponsors free content you use on your own sites, definitely you are responsible for that and will need model releases and a database pointing the model to the URLs she's on of yours.

hosted galleries will get even bigger if people take this seriously.

No offense Mutt, but if you are going to try to be helpful then you may want to stick to 100% facts.

There is no law that requires a "model release" and your average model release does not include the requirements for 2257.

Yes, I am being picky but I believe in being quite specific when it comes to this law.

i mispoke - i didn't mean a 'model release' - i meant 'model id'. i make that mistake alot, just a habit when i type the word 'model' the word 'release' comes off my fingertips.

Jail would be good for some webmasters. It will give them some backbone to stop being keyboard warriors and start laying the smackdown in person at Internext.

Fun times ahead! :thumbsup

what is the accepted legal definition of 'softcore'? are photos of nude girls, open legs, exempt from 2257?

Honestly....Does it really matter? Get the ID's and needed info no matter what kind of content you are shooting.

A proper model release form, with proper ID, should cover you for 2257. Our model release forms have everything needed to be covered by 2257 laws including a section about what ID they gave us and any stage names ever used.

Also, Mutt, I think the new law being proposed states that proper ID includes IDs approved by the State Department (such as a valid passport from another country).

I wouldn't wish jailtime for anybody.The key is if they are smart enough to cover their ass.They can only blame themselves if they ignore the potential risks.

There is still due process it has to go before a jury, everyone has made a clerical error at one time in their lives. If all your ducks are in a row and you miss one url or missed cross referencing one model. I think its important to follow to the letter but the feds dont want to be flipant either because everytime they go to court there is always a chance they can lose. They will want quick wins , home runs.

I fully agree....BUT....Have you seen some of the releases that these idiots suggest people use?

Most of them do not keep 2257 in mind whatsoever and even more importantly....Shitloads of people in this business....Content providers included....Have never even spoken with an attorney on these issues.

I'm gonna stop showing any nudity on my small dinky sites and blogs. I'm just gonna send them to links. and stop showing pics. so any sponsors out there with pics of fully clothed chicks, hit me up



big changes are coming.

Very very true. I also think the big players are going to have to get together and create a legal fund or take legal action. THe first court battles over this are going to be the most important and you dont want it be a single mom in ohio with no money.

so this would mean that U S webmasters can no longer use content produced outside the US if the model ID's aren't US.

Are you somking crack? The standard is strict liability. In other words the only question before the jury is did you keep the proper records or not. They don?t get to consider excuses no matter how reasonable they may be.

Let me ask you some questions just to stir shit up.....

- If I purchase content from AaronM, Aaron is considered the "primary producer" and I am considered the "secondary producer". News flash to Ashhahahahaha: I didn't produce anything. The end client is not a secondary producer or a producer at all - That's like calling me a "secondary manufactuer" of Ford cars because I own a Mustang.

- How does this affect video stores? Does this mean that every video store will have to have 2257 information on every model in every video ever produced?

- How will this affect "R" rated movies. Will movie theatres have to keep 2257 info on some of it's movies?

- Define sexually explicit content for me. Seems to me like most of the content being produced isn't "sexually explicit". Does 2257 laws even apply to most of what we do?

Yep.. you are right. Ours list there stage names, the network of site they will appear on, their full name, a copy of their ID's (state issued only) and it even requires that they see my id and they have to sign off on it. We get a new release fo revery shoot and take digital pics of their ids each time. Its pretty simple to be compliant once you have a system in place. If people are not getting this info though... man it will be very tough to re-create.

As to being thrown in Jail. They could come and seize your stuff, throw you in jail, make you post a bond the then prove your case in court. You might win, but my god... at what cost?

Its just easier and cheaper to be above reprouch on this issue.


:2 cents:

I'll answer this one for you:

Sexually explicit is defined in 2257

2256 says:
Most of Lightspeed?s content isn?t sexually explicit when you break it down by individual photo.

This new set of regulations is nothing but an end run around the courts not allowing assaults on the first amendment. This does not place anyone except the porn industry at risk, DO not expect the ACLU or any other white nights to help.

Do expect prosecutions because this is a strict liability statute. As stated above if your records are bad even if the model is 50 years old you will go to jail.

Keeping the records for any website that updates it's content is going to be a nightmare. The heavy burden will be on the publisher of the website not the provider of content unless the primary producer also needs to maintain records of every URL and date of production of images used.

I doubt many sites with dynamic content will be able to live with these rules without considerable new expenses for record keeping.

This one might actually be the right thing for chicken little to scream about.

the writer of the AVN article who's a lawyer says this is a mystery to him and everybody else.

If you were to take what's written 100% literally the only acceptable IDs for models in sexually explicit material an American webmaster publishes is an American issued passport or drivers license. maybe they worded it poorly and their intent was to say 'the only acceptable forms of ID for American models are US issued passports and drivers licenses' - i don't know where that would leave 2257 with regard to models and content from the rest of the world.

Doesnt this mean they would have to look at ones site before knocking your door because if they do this without looking at your site. How do they know the info you are giving them is valid? Example they knock on your door you give them your records which has 50 different models in it but your site has 100 . Without going to the site first how would they know if you were compliant or not?

I would say they have to look at your site otherwise they wouldn?t be able to determine whos records they need to inspect in the first place.

Aaron is correct we need to work together on this as content providers. If you need any assitance Aaron let me know.

You are very right Aaron and also there are the small webmasters that dont go to the boards. They will in for a big surprise, our goal is to have our records ready by the end of the month. One of the benefits of being self contained and not that big is it will be a pain in the ass but not a huge one. Thats figuring no more changes will come up.

http://my.execpc.com/~xxxlaw/2257Table.htm
This one shows the differences in blue between the current regulation and what is proposed.