Dumb 2257 question ??

[collegeboyslive]

Ught , with so much to do its hard to keep up on everything. anyway, I was asking for 2257 model Id's from one of my content producers the other day , and they said, "Oh you dotn need that any more as that part of the new 2257 has been struck down" meaning we are back to just posting th econtact information of the primery producer on the site. I hadnt heard this, did I miss something or is this incorrect information ?

thanks

zac

[Daymare]

There was something posted recently on avnonline in regards to this.

[Dzinerbear]

Much of the "new" proposed regulations were struck down in court, but it was my understanding that the world was waiting to see if the DOJ was appealing. You'll have to visit AVN Online and look for 2257 articles dated at the end of December/beginning of January.

Any change in how you're handling 2257 stuff would be premature at this point. Aside from the appeal issue, the articles I read seemed to raise for questions than answers.

Here you go, this will get you started: http://www.avnonline.com/articles/252970.html

Michael

[graphicsbytia]

Much of the "new" proposed regulations were struck down in court, but it was my understanding that the world was waiting to see if the DOJ was appealing. You'll have to visit AVN Online and look for 2257 articles dated at the end of December/beginning of January.

Any change in how you're handling 2257 stuff would be premature at this point. Aside from the appeal issue, the articles I read seemed to raise for questions than answers.

Here you go, this will get you started: http://www.avnonline.com/articles/252970.html

Michael

I agree 100% Dzinerbear

Collegeboyslive, if I were you, I'd continue to get the docs just like you have in previous months. and continue to do so no matter what happens with appeals.

We've gone this far, there's no reason to turn back now. Besides, getting docs is just good business, and anyone that doesn't have them is suspect in my book.

[collegeboyslive]

Oh we have been for years , but I came acros 8 pics from about 6 years back that we had the prducer info on but not a copy of the physical ID's and waivers. I wasnt too worried as this a a well known company that supplied them, I just wanted to make sure I have everything.

Thanks all

[graphicsbytia]

Oh we have been for years , but I came acros 8 pics from about 6 years back that we had the prducer info on but not a copy of the physical ID's and waivers. I wasnt too worried as this a a well known company that supplied them, I just wanted to make sure I have everything.

Thanks all

oh I see.. well maybe you can still get the docs for it then, wouldn't hurt to try

[gaystoryman]

Could be wrong here, but I think I read that it was simply an injunction preventing enforcement until a trial decides the issue, assuming that it gets thats far, but that if the trial goes against the injunction ruling, you'd still be liable... maybe Chad can clarify all this if he sees this thread?

[basschick]

gaystoryman - as far as i know, you are correct. also this may only apply to members of the fsc. and originally the fsc stated on threads on gfy that the tro would only apply to people who were members when the tro was applied for.

[hdkbill]

Gay Story Man is correct. The ruling was only a TRO, temporary restraining order and it technically only applied to members of the FSC. The 2257 as issued on June 23rd are still in effect, just currently not being enforced.

All of this could change as the lawsuit between FSC and the DoJ works it way through the courts, so may as well continue to make sure that you are in compliance with the regs in the event of the worst case scenario that the FSC loses.

Bill

[ponyboy]

It is a good question.
Any content seller that isn’t going to supply the models ID’s I walk from. I know there is just a TRO in place. I spent lots of time and money setting up my record keeping and I’m never going to stop doing it.
Asa long as the right wing is controling this country it's better to be safe!:thumbsup:

[collegeboyslive]

Thanks, ok I feel better now, I thought i was slacking and had missed an important news announcment.

[chadknowslaw]

Time to weigh in, I think.


The order that came out of the Denver court "technically" applies only to FSC members. However, in reality, and what FSC does not tell you in their membership marketing, is that the Restraining Order ALSO applies to the Department of Justice. The Department of Justice is bound by the Constitution to apply all laws evenly--that "equal protection" clause. What that means is that, even though the ruling is supposed to only protect FSC members, the way the law works is that the DOJ cannot enforce those parts of 2257 that are being restrained against ANYONE. It does not matter if you are FSC or not. I am 100% confident of this.

Next, this is a ruling out of a Colorado district court. Technically it does not apply anywhere else in the country. In practicality, it does. This ruling would be honored outside Colorado. The DOJ really does not have the resources to open up another identical battle on a different front, so there is little likelihood 2257 would be actively litigated in another jurisdiction. There are a ton of technically slimy lawyer-like law school exam question reasons why this wont come up in another part of the country. I just wont go into it now and you're gonna have to trust me.

Now, the language of the ruling gives a good indication of how this judge will rule when the real case comes to court. This is basically time trials, not the real thing. When this finally reaches the trial stage, which may be a very long time, I am quite confident the judge will rule that the Attorney General cannot define secondary producers the way he did and he cannot require secondary producers to keep records.
So, in the short run, secondary producers are not required to keep 2257 data and therefore primary producers do not have to provide it. Secondary producers can link to primary producers 2257 data statement and rely upon the primary producer's data.
The key words are "not required". You are free to make the business decision whether you as a secondary producer want to see [redacted] ID's.

I will slip in a warning for anyone sending out model ID's with content: Do not send Model ID's that have all the model's personal information. REDACT or Black Out the identifying data--like Drivers License number, Social SEcurity number, and black out the DAY or MONTH of birth . As long as you can look at the ID and say, "Yeah, he is over 18" then you are fine. If you sent MY driver's license you could black out both the month and day because we all know anyone born in 1985 HAS to be legal age, regardless of the day or month he was born. Protect the model's privacy! There is no need for street addresses or cities where they live either. Black all that out.

Congress may change 2257 to require secondary producers to keep all records, so don't throw out your 2257 data base system. If Congress requires it, then we are stuck. [right now the Attorney General is trying to require it, and that is beyond his authority. It is not beyond the authority of Congress]

SO---

1. In practical reality, NO secondary producer is REQUIRED to keep 2257 documentation at this time

2. It is good business to see the REDACTED ID's of the models you have on your website

3. Congress could change it all and require webmasters to keep records so don't think this is won and throw out your systems


I hope that helps.

[graphicsbytia]

Thanks Chad,

You've laid this out very nicely. What you've suggested is exactly what we're doing, and will continue to do.

The way we have our site set up, webmasters can retrieve the docs and the content they've bought at any time, it was a lot of work, but I think that in the long run, it's proved to be a wise move.