James Perrin wrote:
Damn spelling......."incarcerated".

i see what you're saying, but 2257 covers all "secondary publishing", whether it's for-pay or free-access...from my reading of it, if its accessible over internet it's published

Longwatcher wrote:
If 2257 covered ALL secondary publishing they would probably have to arrest half the population of the planet.

It is my understanding it only covers commercial use. As in on pay-per-view sites and similar ventures. The point of 2257 to to protect the children. I personally would rather protect the adults they will become.

If it is only for artistic or political speech then 2257 does not apply. It gets dicey when you have some one who produces commercially and then also posts artistically, but there is no practical way to have every web page with the required 2257 notice that might possibly require it. With some luck and a little less stupidity, this may all go away sometime shortly after November.

Disclaimer; the above is only my opinion and should not be consider a legal basis,

thanks!  more luck and less stupidity is what the planet needs...

Longwatcher wrote:
If 2257 covered ALL secondary publishing they would probably have to arrest half the population of the planet.

It is my understanding it only covers commercial use. As in on pay-per-view sites and similar ventures. The point of 2257 to to protect the children. I personally would rather protect the adults they will become.

If it is only for artistic or political speech then 2257 does not apply.

I believe you are incorrect with regard to the 2257 regulations themselves. (You might try to have them declared unconstitutional burdens on speech, but do you really want to undertake that?)

Can you point to a part of the 2257 regulations that limits them to commercial enterprises?

kumi wrote:
they've already started visiting places...

hmmm, please explain what that means.

By the way,  you are so hawt.

Jack D Trute wrote:

hmmm, please explain what that means.

By the way,  you are so hawt.

According to AVN and Free Speech Coalition, the FBI has already sent investigators to check on producers' records, mainly in California so far. It would appear that the larger companies aren't having problems with compliance. It's the smaller operators who are being found with violations.

Visions Of Excess Studi wrote:

According to AVN and Free Speech Coalition, the FBI has already sent investigators to check on producers' records, mainly in California so far. It would appear that the larger companies aren't having problems with compliance. It's the smaller operators who are being found with violations.

Scary.

kumi wrote:
you can read all and updated info here:
http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/


facts might be a little better than opinions at this point.
they've already started visiting places...

So there you go - actually sexually explicit.

No problem.

Jack D Trute wrote:

hmmm, please explain what that means.

By the way,  you are so hawt.

Last I herd there are 2 that I know of that the DOJ has inspected there records. And rumer has it they are going after others. The laws are setup in a way that will always give the DOJ an angle to charge you with a crime. They may not win the case but you will be out thousands of dollors when it's over. But it is a risk and you might never even get inspected. We can thank GW for this headache.

Mike

SKPhoto wrote:

So there you go - actually sexually explicit.

No problem.

What you think is tame might not be seen in the eyes of a fed agent that just got out of church. You might think it's fine but he might think it is an easy win for him.

They will hear the case in some very conservative court and you will loose.

That is what they have been doing...

Mike

studio36uk wrote:
Now here's the rub...

2257A wrote the secondary producer requirement into LAW whereas it was previously  only a matter of regulation. The extension of the FSC injunction regarding 2257 for secondary producers, to the new 2257A requirements is not settled, and is still in doubt, BUT it APPEARS that secondary producers [including websites] are now liable to have and keep records for everything - ACTUAL sexual content and SIMULATED sexual content. Again to survive based on the injunction one MUST be an FSC member - everyone else is subject to the recordkeeping... EVERYONE... including secondary producers.

There is an interesting aspect of 2257A that most people are not yet aware of.  There was a big "hub-bub" raised by the moguls in Hollywood because the record keeping made producing motion pictures with simulated sex rediculously prohibitive.  Arguably, every theater might have had to maintain records to show a love scene or a fairly explicit nude scene.

There is a relatively unknown provision in 2257A which permits either a primary producer or secondary producer who only deals with simulated sex and lacivious display (the content that is exempt from 2257 rather than 2257A) to notify the attorney general and become excempt from the record keeping requirements.

For many webmasters, the provision does little good since they have content which falls under 2257.  But for those that only deal in simulated sex, they is relief provided you follow the procedures.

For the moment, 2257A is not effective and will not be until the appropriate federal agencies publish regulations as to how the requirements are to be fulfilled and enforced.  Until then, only 2257 applies.

Interestingly, there is supposedly more ammunition in 2257A that the Free Speech Coalition, particularly the waiver for simulated sex, which they feel stregthens their hand in court.

Jack D Trute wrote:

hmmm, please explain what that means.

By the way,  you are so hawt.

already explained below

places i believe one in SoCal... and another on the east coast as well (that did mostly gay porn)


and thanks!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
There is an interesting aspect of 2257A that most people are not yet aware of.  There was a big "hub-bub" raised by the moguls in Hollywood because the record keeping made producing motion pictures with simulated sex ridiculously prohibitive.  Arguably, every theatre might have had to maintain records to show a love scene or a fairly explicit nude scene.

True... and I predicted early on that some kind of exemption would be provided for mainstream - read here BIG BUSINESS - Hollywood producers.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
There is a relatively unknown provision in 2257A which permits either a primary producer or secondary producer who only deals with simulated sex and lascivious display (the content that is exempt from 2257 rather than 2257A) to notify the attorney general and become exempt from the record keeping requirements.

For many webmasters, the provision does little good since they have content which falls under 2257.  But for those that only deal in simulated sex, they is relief provided you follow the procedures.

In fact Alan there is no exemption factually... they are still required to keep records. The exemption, such as it is, is in distribution of the performer's personal data down line in the distribution chain [re the secondary producer extension of recordkeeping]. The procedures, as they stand now and subject to the creation of the follow-on regulations, only include such producers that adhere to tax liability; labour agreements; ect... that leaves out almost all photographers here who work on a more casual basis. They would NOT be able to be certified under those provisions.

[the exemption clause - in part]

...is created as a part of a commercial enterprise by a person who certifies to the Attorney General that such person regularly and in the normal course of business collects and maintains individually identifiable information regarding all performers, including minor performers, employed by that person, pursuant to Federal and State tax, labor, and other laws, labor agreements, or otherwise pursuant to industry standards, where such information includes the name, address, and date of birth of the performer...

NOTE: Further, producers that are subject to FCC oversight [for braodcast] can also apply under the same provisions.

As you can see they must still collect and maintain the records. There is no get-out to that fundamental recordkeeping requirement at all.

.
.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
For the moment, 2257A is not effective and will not be until the appropriate federal agencies publish regulations as to how the requirements are to be fulfilled and enforced.  Until then, only 2257 applies.

Interestingly, there is supposedly more ammunition in 2257A that the Free Speech Coalition, particularly the waiver for simulated sex, which they feel strengthens their hand in court.

That is correct... the ENFORCEMENT can not commence until 90 days after the final regulations are published. That may run a year down the road [from the actual enactment of the law] as first there has to be a preliminary regulation compiled; then a consultation period; and then a final ruling on the wording based on acceptance or rejection of comments from the consultation. HOWEVER, the EFFECTIVE date of the LAW [2257A] is the date it was signed [ca 27 July 2006] not the date the regulations are set. The regulations will be retroactive to the effective date.

The FSC is trying to get the judge in Denver to consider the matter but there is no assurance that he will... or what his decision might be. Even then, their challenge will only affect the secondary producer recordkeeping elements but not the requirements as they apply to the primary producer. If that flops the other way the judge may simply [be forced to] declare that the original temporary injunction vis a vis 2257 is moot... exactly because the requirement is now written out of "regulation" and into "law."

As a final note... I am NOT applying absolutes here because until the regulations are actually published and effective there will be no absolutes. What I know... what we all know... however, is what the text of 2257A, as law, does say. To that extent, only, there are some absolutes. The difficulty for some time will be in the interpretation, but on the face of it, it is not going to get any better... and the regulations will be no more forgiving, and certainly not less complex, then the law [2257A] itself.

Studio36

digitalkojak wrote:
Here is a link to the 2257 code which applies to actual sexually explicit images.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/ … -000-.html
Fetish and bondage as seen on this site is not sexually explicit any more than the glamour or nudes on this site are sexually explicit.

DON'T BE MISLEAD... there is new law that will be inserted there as section 2257A. That Cornell website just hasn't been updated yet to show it.

Studio36

Ty Simone wrote:
I think this change will be smashed down by the SC as well......

Just my opinion though.

The usual form is for a gaggle of civil liberties lawyers to sit in these things until the president signs them and then file suit against the government before the ink dries on the paper. That, curiously, hasn't happened this time... and especially considering the impact 2257A will have on the arts rather then just the porn makers, who, in reality, are hardly bothered by it at all because they already comply with the existing 2257 recordkeeping regime, and the smart ones [based in the US at least] already have docs for every instance of images.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
In fact Alan there is no exemption factually... they are still required to keep records. The exemption, such as it is, is in distribution of the performer's personal data down line in the distribution chain [re the secondary producer extension of recordkeeping]. The procedures, as they stand now and subject to the creation of the follow-on regulations, only include such producers that adhere to tax liability; labour agreements; ect... that leaves out almost all photographers here who work on a more casual basis. They would NOT be able to be certified under those provisions.

You need to read it very carefully.  What the exemption does, is not to relieve you of the obligation to keep the records, it gets you out from under the criminal penalties and unannounced inspections.  Basically, it shifts the burden to the government.  If the government can show that you have materials that fall under 2257, then you have the full responsibilities of the section.

2257A, however, has no criminal penalties of its own.  If you certify that you are not producing primariliy (or secondarily) that you are not producing 2257 materials, and that is in fact true, the form of the records you must keep is less draconian, you are not required to be available for inspections twenty hours per week and the FBI isn't going to be knocking on your door.  That assumes that your certification was accurate.

That is what Hollywood wanted and to provide it, it had to be available to everyone.  So while I agree that you are not relieved from maintaining records about who you are shooting, it changes the playing field dramatically.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
That is what Hollywood wanted and to provide it, it had to be available to everyone.  So while I agree that you are not relieved from maintaining records about who you are shooting, it changes the playing field dramatically.

Not that dramatically. The devil will be in the regulatory detail, however. The average photographer, OTOH, is not a Hollywood studio or a commercial production house and the model seldom in their employ... subject to the tax regime that an employee is... providing services under labor agreements... or meeting any of the other requirements already apparent. You can "hope" but "hope springs eternal"

As for me I prefer to read it as it is and hold out no hope at all that "Elmo down the street with a camera" is EVER going to be certified under those provisions.

Studio36