New 2257 Compliance Guide

[gonzo]

http://www.usdoj.gov/criminal/optf/l...nce-guide.html

Thoughts?

[Toby]

Q. Is a secondary producer required to check identification documents of performers?

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

OK, now just exactly what records are required to do that and how does it effect all the tedious cross referencing of pages, model names, aliases, ad infinitum...

[TheEnforcer]

Yeah.. that part in red leaves a WHOLE lotta legal interpretation to it.

[RawAlex]

Who is not required to maintain records?

A. Individuals or entities are not covered producers if their role with respect to covered materials is limited to photo or film processing; distribution; services that do not involve the hiring, managing, or arranging of the participation of depicted performers; providing telecommunications or Internet services; transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication; or dissemination of a depiction without selection or alteration of its content. See 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4).

I am particular on "services that do not involve the hiring, managing, or arranging of the participation of depicted performers" - this pretty much makes all free websites using sponsor content as exempt, because they are not involved in the hiring, managing, or arranging for performers".

This version is funny as hell.

[RawAlex]

Is a secondary producer required to check identification documents of performers?

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

Again, this looks like secondary producers don't have to keep actual 2257 records, just a list of content providers and some sort of "we assure you that we checked the records" notification.

This is really, really weird stuff.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Who is not required to maintain records?

A. Individuals or entities are not covered producers if their role with respect to covered materials is limited to photo or film processing; distribution; services that do not involve the hiring, managing, or arranging of the participation of depicted performers; providing telecommunications or Internet services; transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication; or dissemination of a depiction without selection or alteration of its content. See 28 C.F.R. § 75.1(c)(4).

I am particular on "services that do not involve the hiring, managing, or arranging of the participation of depicted performers" - this pretty much makes all free websites using sponsor content as exempt, because they are not involved in the hiring, managing, or arranging for performers".

This version is funny as hell.

Not true -- here's the important part of the text

transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication; or dissemination of a depiction without selection or alteration of its content

Its the selection and/or alteration of the content that is the deciding factor.

Is a secondary producer required to check identification documents of performers?

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

Again, this looks like secondary producers don't have to keep actual 2257 records, just a list of content providers and some sort of "we assure you that we checked the records" notification.

Again, not true. This just means that a secondary can rely on copies of ID and 2257 docs given to them by the primary. See the bolded text above. You cannot verify unless you have the records. A simple link back is not allowed.

[DannyCox]

It's this stuff that can create quite a problem for Canadian producers. While we do maintain our records per 2257, and have always done so, it is illegal for us to share that information with anyone unless we have prior written consent from the talent or have been issued a Queen's Writ (court order) to do so. Canadian Privacy Laws are quite clear on that point. We just cannot send releases to anyone, it is against the law.

Michael, You seem to be arbitrarily BOLDING text, and missing some key points. I read it as:

A. A secondary producer is not required to check identification requirements. The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production.

I read it as I must maintain records of any primary producer I have content from, and that the primary producer must also send me a letter stating that they have checked the required records for the talent they are using. It really does seem pretty straight forward. Nowhere do I see that as a secondary producer I must also keep a set of records for the talent.

[miz_wright]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

It's this stuff that can create quite a problem for Canadian producers. While we do maintain our records per 2257, and have always done so, it is illegal for us to share that information with anyone unless we have prior written consent from the talent or have been issued a Queen's Writ (court order) to do so. Canadian Privacy Laws are quite clear on that point. We just cannot send releases to anyone, it is against the law.

I actually just had a conversation about this internally for Canadian producer concerns.

This clause:
4.5 Principle 5 — Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention
Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

seems to indicate that if the information is collected for the purpose of age verification, that can be used as applicable for those particular business purposes. Additionally, the model release could be worded to proactively outline those purposes. Also, certain personally identifying information can be redacted from submitted data.

[gonzo]

So all in all .....after this long wait. The Fed have made ZERO progress in making this regulation easily workable to us in the biz.

[softball]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

I actually just had a conversation about this internally for Canadian producer concerns.

This clause:
4.5 Principle 5 — Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention
Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

seems to indicate that if the information is collected for the purpose of age verification, that can be used as applicable for those particular business purposes. Additionally, the model release could be worded to proactively outline those purposes. Also, certain personally identifying information can be redacted from submitted data.

Here is the dilemma for Canadians and Europeans. It is against the law to disclose any private information of employees to anyone. If the FBI comes calling outside the US, they are just plain people with no more authority than any normal person. Extraterratoriality is anathema to any free country. Imagine if the Nigerian secret police demanded information on a US citizen from their employer. All hell would break loose. So 4.5 Principle 5 is unenforcable outside the US.

[TheEnforcer]

That just makes it all the much harder for foreign producers to sell in the US market.

[softball]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

That just makes it all the much harder for foreign producers to sell in the US market.

I don't actually think so. I think the United States has to respect the laws of other countries or suffer the repercussions. This is a philisophical and political issue that transcends porn. The European market is 500 million people and I can't see the US pissing them off by trying to enforce local laws on the world.

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by LizAEBN

4.5 Principle 5 — Limiting Use, Disclosure, and Retention
Personal information shall not be used or disclosed for purposes other than those for which it was collected, except with the consent of the individual or as required by law. Personal information shall be retained only as long as necessary for the fulfilment of those purposes.

seems to indicate that if the information is collected for the purpose of age verification, that can be used as applicable for those particular business purposes. Additionally, the model release could be worded to proactively outline those purposes. Also, certain personally identifying information can be redacted from submitted data.

The purpose they are talking about is for the producer, not for anyone else. Within Canada, I may be able to show a lottery winner, but I cannot disclose their personal information. Also in Canada, we really don't care how an American attorney may read our Privacy Act as we are here, and we have to deal with it. Long ago, I retained an Attorney here to read the Act and to let me know in writing what I may and may not do. It came down to; DO NOT disclose personal information to anyone for any reason unless presented with a court order to do so. Most other civilized countries have the same privacy laws.

The main thing is that people can throw as much legal opinion as they want, but unless we are all right here in Canada, I have to ignore it. I need to worry about the laws in Canada, no where else.

Anyway, the section of 2257 that is being discussed takes care of all that. If someone is using or distributing my content in the US, all they need is my corporate legal information and a letter from me saying that all model releases and identification have been duly verified.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

I read it as I must maintain records of any primary producer I have content from, and that the primary producer must also send me a letter stating that they have checked the required records for the talent they are using. It really does seem pretty straight forward. Nowhere do I see that as a secondary producer I must also keep a set of records for the talent.

Sorry, I have to disagree here. It says "The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production"

Read carefully. It doesn't say you have to maintain records of the participants, only records that identify the primary producer (the company that made the content) and that verify that the records were checked. A notarized "we have checked the documents" would cover this, no?

[softball]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry, I have to disagree here. It says "The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production"

Read carefully. It doesn't say you have to maintain records of the participants, only records that identify the primary producer (the company that made the content) and that verify that the records were checked. A notarized "we have checked the documents" would cover this, no?

But would the Americans accept a notarized Canadian document as legal verification? More to the point, would an American company?

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry, I have to disagree here. It says "The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production"

Read carefully. It doesn't say you have to maintain records of the participants, only records that identify the primary producer (the company that made the content) and that verify that the records were checked. A notarized "we have checked the documents" would cover this, no?

Alex, that's what I said. I said "I read it as I must maintain records of any primary producer I have content from" meaning that I must have a record of who the content is from, not the actual records from the talent. I also said "and that the primary producer must also send me a letter stating that they have checked the required records for the talent they are using". So basically, you just reiterated what I had already written

[DannyCox]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

But would the Americans accept a notarized Canadian document as legal verification? More to the point, would an American company?

Yes, I have sent many notarized documents to the US for business, and have also received many. They are acceptable in both countries and legal. I don't believe the document would have to be notarized in any case.

The problem here is that the various distributors in the US are really just too lazy to do their own due diligence with all this, and throw it back on us, the Canadian producers. You would think that a company that really does want to do business, and is a true business, would put a little effort in working with their foreign associates. I just see very few Adult Internet companies actually act like a proper business!

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by DannyCox

Alex, that's what I said. I said "I read it as I must maintain records of any primary producer I have content from" meaning that I must have a record of who the content is from, not the actual records from the talent. I also said "and that the primary producer must also send me a letter stating that they have checked the required records for the talent they are using". So basically, you just reiterated what I had already written

Okay, good, sorry, I missed that. I am just thinking that this is the way that secondary producers get out of having to maintain duplicate records, by only having to know who the primary producer is. The downside for programs providing "sponsor content" is that they will have to identify to their affiliates who the primary producer actually is for each scene.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

I don't actually think so. I think the United States has to respect the laws of other countries or suffer the repercussions. This is a philisophical and political issue that transcends porn. The European market is 500 million people and I can't see the US pissing them off by trying to enforce local laws on the world.

Um.. i think you're nuts. LOL

The DOJ/FBI isn't gonna give a damn that a foreign company can't give them the required documents. ALL they care about is whether or not that US citizen complies. I know there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever say to the DOJ/ FBI that I don't have the documents US law requires because a (insert foreign country here) says they can't give me them. They will laugh in your face and lead ya to the clink/fine ya to death.

[Toby]

I think all of this is really pretty much moot anyway. I doubt that the DOJ is going to do any inspections of strictly secondary producers unless there's some other red flag that gets tripped.

I don't think they want a test case to go to court that is strictly for 2257 record keeping violations, as there are way too many constitutional issues.

[softball]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Um.. i think you're nuts. LOL

The DOJ/FBI isn't gonna give a damn that a foreign company can't give them the required documents. ALL they care about is whether or not that US citizen complies. I know there is NO WAY IN HELL I would ever say to the DOJ/ FBI that I don't have the documents US law requires because a (insert foreign country here) says they can't give me them. They will laugh in your face and lead ya to the clink/fine ya to death.

Then you will lose business. That is up to you.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Sorry, I have to disagree here. It says "The secondary producer is required to maintain records that identify the primary producer for any depiction and that verify that the primary producer checked the legal age of performers prior to the date of original production"

Read carefully. It doesn't say you have to maintain records of the participants, only records that identify the primary producer (the company that made the content) and that verify that the records were checked. A notarized "we have checked the documents" would cover this, no?

Instead of just reading the compliance guide you need to read the actual law...28 CFR 75... which reads in relevant part and is quite clear...

75.2 Maintenance of Records

(4) The primary producer shall create a record of the date of original production of the depiction.

(b) A producer who is a secondary producer as defined in §75.1(c) may satisfy the requirements of this part to create and maintain records by accepting from the primary producer, as defined in §75.1(c), copies of the records described in paragraph (a) of this section. Such a secondary producer shall also keep records of the name and address of the primary producer from whom he received copies of the records. The copies of the records may be redacted to eliminate non-essential information, including addresses, phone numbers, social security numbers, and other information not necessary to confirm the name and age of the performer. However, the identification number of the picture identification card presented to confirm the name and age may not be redacted.

Its not OR its ALSO. You must have the actual 2257 docs and IDs as a secondary and ALSO keep a list of where the content came from.

As for privacy laws of the EU countries - your model releases can be written so that the model waives rights and you are allowed to share the information necessary for 18 USC 2257.

And just so we are clear here is the what is required under Section (a) that is bolded in my response...

shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:
(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card prior to production of the depiction. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall also include a legible hard copy or legible digitally scanned or other electronic copy of a hard copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible hard copy of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after June 23, 2005, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by rhetorical

Then you will lose business. That is up to you.

Well.. it's a non-issue for me in the sense that I don't have any content sites at all... but that doesn't stop me from commenting.

And there are enough US based content companies to do business with that a person does not have to put themselves at risk by not following the law. You want USA companies to break the law to do business but why should the people here have to break the law to do business? Why don't you break canadian law if you're so eager to flout laws?

[TheEnforcer]

Originally Posted by Toby

I think all of this is really pretty much moot anyway. I doubt that the DOJ is going to do any inspections of strictly secondary producers unless there's some other red flag that gets tripped.

I don't think they want a test case to go to court that is strictly for 2257 record keeping violations, as there are way too many constitutional issues.

Why go after a big fish when you can establish precedent against a little fish with far less resources to put up a fight?

The odds may be greatly against it for a secondary producer but there are thousands upon thousands of people who thought that for a whole range of other legal issues right up until the moment they got that knock on the door.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by TheEnforcer

Why go after a big fish when you can establish precedent against a little fish with far less resources to put up a fight?

Big fish, little fish, it makes no difference. My point was that they do not want to take the chance on establishing a precedent.

[pornlaw]

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

I agree, I don't think 2257 is going away any time soon, but I also don't think the DOJ really wants the law tested in court either.

Free Speech and privacy aside, the whole concept that I have to prove I'm legal rather than the gov't having to prove I'm not is a very dangerous precedent.

The other major issue is that the record keeping requirements are being applied to an industry that doesn't fall within the parameters of "highly regulated". Last I checked there weren't any certifications or licenses required to be an adult webmaster.

[softball]

Free Speech and privacy aside, the whole concept that I have to prove I'm legal rather than the gov't having to prove I'm not is a very dangerous precedent.

Photo Radar comes to mind as a nasty concept. Guilty until proven innocent. There are lots of laws that this is the case, though maybe not codified as such, in reality they are.

[EmporerEJ]

Originally Posted by Toby

I agree, I don't think 2257 is going away any time soon, but I also don't think the DOJ really wants the law tested in court either.

Free Speech and privacy aside, the whole concept that I have to prove I'm legal rather than the gov't having to prove I'm not is a very dangerous precedent.

The other major issue is that the record keeping requirements are being applied to an industry that doesn't fall within the parameters of "highly regulated". Last I checked there weren't any certifications or licenses required to be an adult webmaster.

I'm with Toby.
I didn't see any category for Virtual Sex, so I have to assume I'm a virtual producer.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

I think that with third party record keepers, this incarnation of 2257 will pass Constitutional review. Again, I am not First Amendment expert, but the government has made it easier to comply. At some point the law will stand and the challenges will stop.

The FSC doesnt have the money and the big players that could challenge it will find it less costly to comply than fight. 2257 isnt going anywhere anytime soon.

With all respect, you have a horse in this race that says it BETTER be enforced and be constitutional, or your business model is out the window.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

With all respect, you have a horse in this race that says it BETTER be enforced and be constitutional, or your business model is out the window.

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

I would jokingly say that it fails the stink test when it comes to meeting the stated goal of the act. In my mind, making secondary producers also maintain complete records is a needless duplication on the first part, likely to induce minor errors in the system, and doesn't do anything more to protect the performers than a straight notification from the primary producer. After all, if the primary producer fudged the documents (took a fake driver's license from a girl who is 17 years 11 months), and then sends those documents on to me, there is nothing I can do to stop this horrible exploitation.

Effectively, it creates a undue burden on secondary producers, without doing anything that would promote the government's stated interest in the act.

Further, we get into the situation of third party producers. Let's say I promote a program and use their sponsor content, which they obtained from a producer. So now, the producer is a primary producer, the paysite owner is a secondary producer, and I am, what, a secondary secondary producer? A triplication of records doesn't do a damn thing to assure the models are over 18, certainly no more than having a statement to the effect from the primary producer.

Those who have no control of or no way to check original documents are entirely dependent on others, so keeping those records does nothing to meet the government's intent, nor does it provide any legal coverage for the secondary producer. There is nothing in the act to say what would happen if a primary producer faked the records. Are the secondary producer(s) still on the hook anyway, even though they could do nothing? This is probably the most compelling way to explain the futile nature of retaining records as a secondary producer, because it creates liability without creating benefit.

[pornlaw]

In my mind, making secondary producers also maintain complete records is a needless duplication on the first part, likely to induce minor errors in the system, and doesn't do anything more to protect the performers than a straight notification from the primary producer.

And if the primary's would contractually agree to act as a third party record keeper for the secondary then there is no need to give a secondary anything. However, would you trust the primary to hold your records correctly so that if there were mistakes you would still be criminally liable ?

After all, if the primary producer fudged the documents (took a fake driver's license from a girl who is 17 years 11 months), and then sends those documents on to me, there is nothing I can do to stop this horrible exploitation.

And the secondary is not responsible for this.

Effectively, it creates a undue burden on secondary producers, without doing anything that would promote the government's stated interest in the act.

What exactly is the undue burden ? Having a filing cabinet of records that consist of files on each performer that are basically 3 pages and are cross referenced ? Compared to other industries and what they are required to comply with on a federal and state level, this is not burdensome.

Further, we get into the situation of third party producers. Let's say I promote a program and use their sponsor content, which they obtained from a producer. So now, the producer is a primary producer, the paysite owner is a secondary producer, and I am, what, a secondary secondary producer?

There are no third party producers. If the producer works for or is contracted by the program, the program is the primary producer. Individuals working for an organization are no longer primary producers.

Are the secondary producer(s) still on the hook anyway, even though they could do nothing? This is probably the most compelling way to explain the futile nature of retaining records as a secondary producer, because it creates liability without creating benefit.

As stated earlier the answer is that secondary producers do not have liability.

[RawAlex]

If secondary producers have no liablity, then why have records?

As for the undue burden: having a cross referenced system for every image, video,and use of an image on a site is a burden. Every new use of the image requires documentation, cross referenced with where it appears and all that other stuff. Heaven forbid you rename an image, you just created yourself an hours work to document the stuff.

With no liabilty and no control over the situation, why should a secondary producer be held to the standards? It creates a huge burden with no hope of return. Remember, the average affiliate site might have tens of thousands of images from hundreds of different programs and different primary production sources. That by itself would be 30,000 pieces of paper in the filing cabinet. WOW!

"And if the primary's would contractually agree to act as a third party record keeper for the secondary then there is no need to give a secondary anything. However, would you trust the primary to hold your records correctly so that if there were mistakes you would still be criminally liable ?"

Is the secondary producer liable? You just said that secondary producers are not liable if the documents are incorrect (like fake ID) - so where is the liablity otherwise?

[tony404]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

And I am an attorney first and foremost. I will not be retiring off of the income generated by www.2257Safe.com. The reason why I have a horse in this race is because I studied the case law and the new regs and felt that all the challenges were coming to an end and this version would withstand scrunity.

The FSC has no money to fight this and neither does anyone else in the industry.

What are your "feelings" that it would NOT be Constitutional based on ?

What case law is that? As far as I know there has been no case for a 2257 violation alone where the talent was of age.If Im wrong please correct me.

[pornlaw]

Not sure what you mean... but there's been the Connections case and the Joe Francis plea bargain not to mention the actual challenges by FSC over the past decade. Those are the cases I am referring to.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

Not sure what you mean... but there's been the Connections case and the Joe Francis plea bargain not to mention the actual challenges by FSC over the past decade. Those are the cases I am referring to.

What I mean is until someone has their records and inspected the government says they are not in compliance and someone is arrested even though the models were of age. Until then its all guessing.
That's what my lawyer told me its all theories until someone gets arrested for noncompliance of models that are of age.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by tony404

What I mean is until someone has their records and inspected the government says they are not in compliance and someone is arrested even though the models were of age. Until then its all guessing.
That's what my lawyer told me its all theories until someone gets arrested for noncompliance of models that are of age.

If thats your basis than you can include Francis, he was inspected, had models that were of age, was arrested, prosecuted and copped a plea. He is the only person that I know of that has had a 2257 case that resulted in a prosecutorial victory.

You can probably also include Ira Isaacs case. He was arrested and charged with 2257 violations in addition to obscenity. However, the 2257 charges were dropped after the lower court ruling in the Connections case which found 2257 to be unconstitutional, until it was reversed. They never reinstated the 2257 charges though.

[Toby]

Originally Posted by pornlaw

If thats your basis than you can include Francis, he was inspected, had models that were of age, was arrested, prosecuted and copped a plea. He is the only person that I know of that has had a 2257 case that resulted in a prosecutorial victory.

You can probably also include Ira Isaacs case. He was arrested and charged with 2257 violations in addition to obscenity. However, the 2257 charges were dropped after the lower court ruling in the Connections case which found 2257 to be unconstitutional, until it was reversed. They never reinstated the 2257 charges though.

Yes, but in both of those cases the 2257 charges were add-ons to far more serious charges.

No one has yet been prosecuted solely for 2257 record keeping violations, and I have serious doubts that anyone ever will.

When the FBI does an inspection, they're not on a fishing expedition, they know what they're looking for well in advance and are simply after confirmation. Unless you're promoting some fairly questionable content, as strictly a secondary producer, having the FBI show up to do an inspection isn't very likely.

What is far more likely given the economic climate and current administration is that well see porn taxed in some form.

[pornlaw]

Originally Posted by Toby

Yes, but in both of those cases the 2257 charges were add-ons to far more serious charges.

As for Isaacs I would agree...

Where is your info from about the charges being added on in the Francis case ? He had state charges but the federal charges were clear 2257 violations.

Here's the DOJ's press release..

‘Girls Gone Wild’ Company Sentenced to Pay
$1.6 Million in Fines in Sexual Exploitation Case

WASHINGTON – Mantra Films, Inc., a Santa Monica, Calif. company operating as Girls Gone Wild, was sentenced today to pay $1.6 million in criminal fines for failing to create and maintain age and identity records for films it produced, Assistant Attorney General Alice S. Fisher of the Criminal Division, and U.S. Attorney Gregory Miller for the Northern District of Florida announced today.

The sentence was imposed today by U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak at the federal court in Panama City, Fla.

Here's the link to the rest of it ....

http://www.usdoj.gov/opa/pr/2006/Dec...6_crt_831.html

[Toby]

There was a whole bunch more legal issues going on with regard to Francis. Tax evasion being the biggest one. It just wasn't all tied together in one nice tidy bundle.

[RawAlex]

Originally Posted by Toby

There was a whole bunch more legal issues going on with regard to Francis. Tax evasion being the biggest one. It just wasn't all tied together in one nice tidy bundle.

Toby, I think you are right on the money here. Failure to maintain records was just a nice passing charge instead of "production of child pornography", which producing a movie with a 17 year old might have been considered. It let the government extract it's pound of flesh without having to brand Joe Francis directly. Plea bargain, I think - I am sure pornlaw will correct me if I am wrong here.

[tony404]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Toby, I think you are right on the money here. Failure to maintain records was just a nice passing charge instead of "production of child pornography", which producing a movie with a 17 year old might have been considered. It let the government extract it's pound of flesh without having to brand Joe Francis directly. Plea bargain, I think - I am sure pornlaw will correct me if I am wrong here.

You are right, no one has been arrested for a 2257 violation only and the persons were of age.