Verne Troyer's sex tape travails..

[nickbaer]

Been wanting to ask, every time some celeb's EX puts their sex tape on the market - and the celeb tries to get an injunction, etc, to stop it...

What's the 2257 implications??

When the celeb doesn't want it up.

[gaybucks_chip]

If there's a copy of a drivers license, passport, or other approved photo ID in possession of whomever has the video, then there's no 2257 issue.

I'm guessing that for at least some of the released videos, the producer doesn't have an ID on file, but I suspect it would probably be near impossible to get Justice to take 2257 action on a video, such as Troyer's, where it's obvious that everyone is over 18. Of course, it's technically a violation but I can't imagine the FBI considering it a good use of resources to go after somebody distributing some celebrity's sex tape, unless it's obvious that the celebrity was clearly under age when the video was produced.

In practice, I would guess that the companies who market these things take the calculated risk that there won't be any 2257 implications. It would also be interesting to see Justice try to get a conviction in a case where the model is very obviously over 18, but the producer is nonetheless in violation of 2257 because there's no ID on file. I suspect you'd have a hard time convincing a jury to send somebody to the federal pen on a paperwork violation with no other aggravating factors.

Now, of course, the absence of a model release is something different entirely. There is no 2257 issue (releases aren't part of 2257), but absence of consent is plenty of justification for a good civil case. I don't know the law, but I could make an educated guess that you'd have a claim for all income produced, plus separate claims for invasion of privacy if the model had an expectation of privacy when the video was shot, and potentially, for a celeb, you might be able to make a claim for damage to the celeb's reputation and career.