Slashdot Mirror
Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.
This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.
The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.
Job? I don't have time to get a job! Who will sit around and bitch about being broke and unemployed then?
It looks like these businesses will have to buy extra equipment (ten-foot pole) to check Goatse Guy's ID.
Set your phasers on "funky"!
Whats this got to do with models being required to prove they're over 18?
Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.
Taxation is legalized theft, no more, no less.
For the most part if a kid wants to see internet porn they can no matter what blocks you put in.
Not if I put a concrete block in their PSU, they won't!
This story is about proof of age for producers/distributors of photography, not viewers.
You don't get publicly carded for buying beer. The transaction is only between you and the store, unless there is evidence of a crime being committed.
It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.
I suggest you read Slashdot
Someone call the FBI!!!!
The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'
No, the law requires you to have proof of age if you distribute the photos to anyone else. If you don't, you aren't guilty of possession of child porn, you are guilty of distributing porn without the proper labeling. This is analogous to various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage ...
In order to get a conviction on private possession of CP the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that person did, in fact, possess child porn.
Please cite any authority to the contrary or stop spreading FUD.
Since the current Supreme Court has held in Morse v. Frederick. that the phrase "Bong Hits 4 Jesus," when displayed in a school setting, is so incredibly dangerous that the First Amendment must be thrown out the window, I think the odds that they'll hold up the First Amendment in this case are less than favorable.
it had a linux user on all fours with his ass in the air and said in big letters "come pound me up my ass, i use linux".
homos are bitches and deserve to die.
Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.
I work for the Department of Redundancy Department.
This is about the people/models in the photo's, not the one's wanting to see it. It wasn't designed to protect minors from adult pornography, but to protect minors from predatory pornographers. I have to agree that the restrictions were far to onerous to be useful. The whole 'fantasy' of pedophiles is purported to all be based on appearance. If someone looks to be a little long in the tooth, then why force them to maintain a pointless record verifying that aren't hot to a pedophile?
It then comes down to who decides what looks 'legal' and who doesn't. I can see this turning into the same mess as ID verification for Alcoholic beverages (anyone over 30 ID'd). Somewhat of a joke since you can't really tell everyone age with any accuracy from looks.
If the law is too difficult or to sweeping to enforce without unnecessarily restricting someone's first amendment rights, then it should be overturned as unconstitutional. We have those protections for a reason.
They should find a better way to put the sick bastards away who peddle child porn.
Not true. The law applies as much to individuals as it does to commercial purposes. Quote (from 2257):
(a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which--
(1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and
(2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce;
So if you bought your camera on eBay, or the photo paper for your printer came from some other state, the law applies to you. It is pretty clear.
Section 2257 says that records must be kept by ANYBODY who creates pornography either intended for distribution, or with equipment or materials that were sold or shipped via interstate commerce. It does not distinguish whether those videos or images were taken for personal reasons.
If you bought your camera on eBay, and you have taken pornographic pictures of your wife or girlfriend, the law very clearly applies to YOU. Which is not reasonable... but which is fact.
Clearly, the law *IS* overbroad.
This is the most balanced comment I have seen yet.
it's pretty implicit if not entirely explicit (no pun intended) under this topic heading that we're talking about nude models. I am stupider for reading your comment.
It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.
This is commonly used as an argument against 2257. It's also wrong.
If you actually read the wording, it allows for only the original rights owner of an image to keep the full proof of identity.
They may then send a redacted copy to all subsequent re-distributors for their records. That copy may blank out everything uniquely identifiable - driver's license number, etc. - leaving only the picture and the date of birth visible.
So long as a paper trail remains back to the original record holder, no one else has to have any information that aids stalkers. The original record holders only have to produce it for law enforcement, not for anyone curious.
I'll totally concede the act is abusive and designed to threaten pornographers that they can't shut down legally. But it's done with the intent of creating unreasonable burdens for record holders not to target the stars.
But then again, "Won't anyone think of the sleazy fat pornographer?!" doesn't work as well as "Won't anyone think of the poor model?!" Even if the former's true and the latter isn't.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
I second the motion. Now, if naked people and their babies could decide, in a timely manner,which one of two ways to express themselves (verbally - oral/written, or non-verbally) the discrepancies between what they 'said' and what they 'meant' would no longer be an issue or tie up the courts. Oops. I'm a man and I said something... does that make me wrong?
There is nothing to FEAR but NOTHING itself; and I fear there is a whole lot of nothing going on. --scorpivs
I have never seen a discussion so messed up at slashdot. Half the posters seem not to understand what the law or the ruling is about and quite a large fraction is getting into some ideological arguments. It is a reasonable idea that somebody distributing nude pictures as advertisements should be ruled after the same standards as somebody distributing these as content of the magazine. It is reasonable that, at a time when the porn industry is bigger than the rest of Hollywood, and then porn production is outsourced all over the word, and when "barley legal", "young looking" etc. we require that certain standards are kept during the production and i don't find in unreasonable to pu the burden of keeping records on the publisher. *Much* harder record keeping is required for a lot of other things, from tax records over record during food production to record during designing and engineering a car.
However i would also be happy when the customers could have the same good conscience when buying a t-shirt stitched in a sweatshop somewhere in Asia. How about requiring a proof that nobody underage was involved there?
Get married.
You can get married before you turn 18. The lower limit depends on the state. Often a judge will override a parent that refuses to allow marriage. In some states you can be as young as 14.
Waiting is stupid. There is nothing wrong with teenage fucking and even pregnancy, AS LONG AS YOU ARE MARRIED AND WILLING TO RAISE ANY CHILDREN THAT MAY RESULT. Go for it. Start a family. Kids may be a pain at times, but most every parent loves them anyway. Put your fear aside and start your life.
And this story is connected with "news for nerds, stuff that matters" how, exactly?
But seriously, this is just another example of what I call the "extended childhood" of North American children. Forget the Puritans; it was common all across Europe to marry children of 13-14 years of age for centuries. (Hell, didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 14-year old in 1950's?) But even though our kids, thanks to TV, computers, and the net, are much more educated than kids were in the 1930's, we keep trying to protect them from their own natural urges for longer and longer periods of time.
And this weird American prudishness just continues to amaze me. Here in Canada, on regular broadcast TV, not just cable, you can see nudity and soft-core sex practically every night. And on plain vanilla cable (which virtually all Canadians have), not specialty pay channels, you can even see hard core sex late night on the weekends. I really don't get why people think it's fine for the kids to see hundreds (if not thousands) of murders as they grow up, but think that if their kids see a naked breast, they'll be instantly corrupted.
What was once true, is no longer so
Yes, we do, but it's really more a "de jure" rather than "de facto" thing.
First, any competent attorney will cost at least $10k before you get to court (pre-trial proceedings, evidentiary motions, research, etc).
If you don't have the $10k to blow up-front, then you can get a public defender, who will usually be a less experienced lawyer with a huge caseload. The PD will do their best for you, but doesn't have the time or energy to really devote to your case, especially since she has 100 others in play at all times.
Add to this that the court rules themselves (ie: little things like "font size in brief" or "line spacing" or "citation reference format") are arcane to the extreme, and any one can be a landmine that blows the foot off of your case.
Next, add in that often prosecutors take an unreasonable "interpretation" of the law itself, which if unchallenged stands. And the challenge must follow ALL rules.
So - bottom line - it's $10k or jail, guilty or not. If guilty, it's probably $10k + jail, if innocent it's just jail.
If you have $100k and are innocent, you have a chance.
This case is headed to the Supreme Court, and there is a decent chance they may agree to hear it. There is a directly conflicting ruling out of the 10th Circuit in Denver. A split on a point of law (a Circuit split) is often a reason for the Supreme Court to step in, so that the conflict can be resolved.
I had to deal with 2257 compliance in my work for an adult website. It works like this:
1. The photographer (or production company) must verify identity with a government-issued ID. If shot in the United States, the government-issued ID must be an American identification, even if the model is not from the United States, such as a cute chick on vacation for a couple weeks just traveling on her passport. Note that if you shoot outside the United States, a foreign ID is fine. Are you shooting in El Paso? You can go to prison for shooting your Estonian model on her passport and visitor's visa, but if you take her to Juarez and shoot her there, you're in the clear.
2. The photographer must keep a copy of the ID, the model's contract, AND the pictures for five years after the last publication of the photographs. In addition, if published on the Internet, you have to keep a complete list of all URLs (including thumbnails!) of any picture you publish, even when those URLs change or come down. You better not be using any database-driven stuff with auto-generated URLs, because you now have to track every one of them, no matter how they change.
3. The records must be cross-indexed by model's real name, any stage names, any dates of publication, any dates of recording, title of product or production, and URL. Use three year old footage in a new DVD? You get to dig back through your compliance records and update your cross-indexes.
4. The records must be SEPARATE from your normal day-to-day business records. That is, you have to keep this stuff for the ordinary course of your business, and THEN you must keep a SEPARATE copy for the government.
5. You must publish the REAL name and address of the person who holds the records on each copy of your product -- DVD, mag, or book -- AND on EVERY PAGE of your website (a "click here for 2257 info" link is *not* acceptable).
6. This person must be available at least 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, for unannounced visits from the FBI, who may rifle through your records (and copy any or all of them, to dig through at their pleasure) looking for violations without a warrant or any cause at all, probable or not.
7. Violation of any of this can land you in prison, even if your models are not under the age of 18. You can do years in prison and pay thousands in fines if the only thing wrong is that you screwed up the cross-indexing.
8. If you sub-license or sell your content (such as your website's affiliates), you have to give un-redacted copies of your records to the person you sell/give the content to. Are you a DVD producer who posts your movies on HotMovies? HotMovies gets a copy of your records, complete with the model's real name and address. The model doesn't get any right to opt out, either; if they can also turn around and sell or sub-license your content, THEIR licensees get your model's information, and YOU can't do anything about it, and you have no control over who it all goes to!
9. If you receive sub-licensed or sold content, you likewise have to keep a complete set of records. It is *not* sufficient to simply keep track of where your content came from so the FBI can back-track. You have to have your own independent, complete set of records, all lined up, cross-indexed and separated from your daily business records, and ready for inspection whenever the FBI decides to materialize.
10. You are required to keep records even if you go out of business, be available for FBI inspection 20 business-time hours per week even if you go on vacation or operat
Remove the caps and hold to a mirror.
Judge: "I KNOW it's child pornography because I have an erec... I mean, my judgment is flawless!"
http://adultfriendfinder.com/
if you are familiar with it, it has tons of salacious user generated content. and it is an extremely well-visited site
http://www.alexa.com/data/details/traffic_details/adultfriendfinder.com
Adultfriendfinder.com has a traffic rank of: 79
no one is tracking their 2257 info. if the american taliban had such a weapon in their hands, wouldn't they be prosecuting this site into oblivion?
aff says so itself:
http://adultfriendfinder.com/go/page/2257_notice.html
in other words, members of a dating site, which this ohio swingers site obviously is, are excluded, by law, from keeping track of these onerous records, since they are not selling photos, they are selling dating contacts. (aff mentions it has 2257 records, only because it does generate some adult content for the purposes of selling, separate form its dating area)
dating sites are excluded. user generated content is excluded. youtube, google, flickr, etc: excluded
so why is this even an issue?
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
But point a camera at a naked body and all of the sudden it's ok to have laws just like Singapore or China.
That's a very odd statement considering Chinese culture. You don't get out much, do you? Try googling for where Japanese politicians/salary men like to take sex vacations.
The big difference between Singapore and the US is that Singapore is *clean*. I rather like that. Well that and the fact that I've just plain enjoyed all the time I've spent in Singapore.
I'll just look up their license # and from that get their address and phone # and then I can go see them for real.
They have a right to be anonymous to the world at large. And the government record on "losing" records isn't going to make anyone feel good about giving that kind of identifying information to a regulatory body.
How about we require a license to post on /. and you have to put your poster id at the bottom of your posts and remove the "Post Anonymously" checkbox????
You're missing the point. You original compared this law, to laws on "various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage" suggesting that both were laws on distribution.
However, all these laws apply not just to distribution, but to selling. There're no laws that regulate when people cook for other people in their own homes for example. But give an image to a friend, and it would count as distribution.
Indeed they are, but not as afraid as they are of free speech - as slashdot is a good proof of.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
You should be familiar with what section 2257 actually means for website operators, its much more intrusive than you think.
Ernie has a good writeup (site possibly NSFW):
http://www.ehowa.com/mythoughts/2257.shtml
Hot redhead? Loves riding cowgirl?
Hmm, now where's the +1 Drool tag when I need one...
Drool mod!
/. lately...
Looks like I've spent too much time away from
Pretty much same deal in the porn industry. All the owner really cares about is that the model produces enough ID that he can use the model without getting arrested.
The legal system probably also doesn't really care that much, so long as they can say that they've done their bit to pacify the puritans.
Engineering is the art of compromise.
"But better to shoot thy neighbor, eh?"
Its not flamebait, but true - its quite alright with all kinds of violence on tv, but just a tiny bit of nudity and all the 'moral' groups freak out.
If Google really cared they would fix Android Chrome to reflow text, instead of discriminating
but what if you had to continually register your possessions to prove you didn't steal them?
The nude model is not your possession.
The photographer, photo agency or publisher, who can't produce a valid consent form is exposed to both civil and criminal prosecution.
That won't come as headline news to anyone in the business.
That one we have to be careful for too, not running in a crowd of evil foes ... check the history on the net too!
--- I am known for the ones who want to find me on the net. Is that a privacy risk or a privilege? One might wonder..
So, what about Lady Justice?
Rule 34: If you can imagine it, there is porn of it.
So where can I find some Lady Justice porn?
Ahh, who cares about the model? I want a full-grown curvy woman!