US Producers Shooting Non US Models

[abostonboy]

The thread from the model about the Hyde Park situation brought up an important issue that got overlooked. I read the thread but at first did not catch that point. A US-based company shooting a Canadian model on US soil, when the model says he doesn't have any US-issued identification or work visa is alarming.

Thread in question: http://www.gaydemon.biz/showthread.php?t=215

Doesn't anyone else find this really concerning? My understanding is this is no different than shooting a model with no documentation at all, as far as 2257 goes. Can someone correct me if I am wrong? On the thread at the other board, it didn't seem that Hyde Park was disputing that fact.

Shouldn't people be concerned about the distribution of content that is in violation of 2257? Or am I misunderstanding the regulations about using non-US citizens?

2257 does confuse me. Maybe I am "missing something"???

[gaybucks_chip]

This was one of those things slipped into the 6/23/05 regulations, and has absolutely nothing to do with age verification, but is nevertheless part of the regulations.

I'm paraphrasing from the regulations, but under 2257, the only valid ID for a model who is a non-US citizen, when said model is being photographed in the US, is a valid US state or government issued ID (drivers license, state ID, or passport), or a US work visa.

Here's the fucked up part. The exact same model, if the US producer travels to Canada and films him there, can present a Canadian passport or provincial identification (insurance card or drivers license) and that ID is acceptable. But the same ID is invalid if the model was shot in the US by the same producer. Go figure.

I didn't see the thread you're referring to, but if the model was Canadian, and did not have US ID or US work visa, and Hyde Park did, in fact, shoot scenes with him in the US after 6/23/05, that content is clearly in violation of 2257 and should not be distributed.

My understanding is that it's the equivalent of having no ID at all as far as the Feds go. I would be interested to hear from the studio and/or the distributor or VOD providers, since it seems like that title should be immediately pulled if what the model is saying is true.

[TropixxxMichael]

It is my understanding that Chip is correct. It is the same as not having an ID at all. It was my understanding that the reason this was done actually had something to do with immigration laws, after all, if they are legal to work here, they will have a proper US issued ID.

[RottenRay]

The spirit of the law: Don't expose persons under the age of 18 to the opportunites available in the adult industry.

The letter of the law: Prove that you haven't.

The effect of the law: Something literally unenforceable. The only people being convicted are being caught by FBI "rico" agents, and most of these people are being convicted of mail fraud - not child endangerment. Skant few have been prosecuted under 2257, and so far, everything brought to a judge under 2257 is under appeal.

[Look at the true stats on this...]


Where does it leave us?

-- Keep your records in order, especially if you film or produce (and if you use sponsor content, "test" the 2257 page *they* use by requesting records!)
-- Don't use "unbranded" images unless you have full 2257 info on each shoot
(Not each model -each shoot!)
-- Don't post images of 18 year olds who have shaved themselves to a prepubescent look and pose in a childlike manner


At some point, the "feds" will figure out that policing the mainstream industry is a waste of time and realize what we already know: Most of the abuse takes place in social networking sites. Torrent sites, digital camcorders and faster computers give anyone the ability to share "home movies" with anyone they choose to.

I'm guessing that "2257" as we know and hate it only has another 2 years of life - after that, I'd hate to be the owner of place like myspace, all the "friends" sites, or the likes - the rules will change significantly for those places.

As they should - the whole MySpace genre represents something that parents should absolutely fear: a place for their kids to hang out which has "zero" rules and lacks the rentacops at the local mall.

Audits are down at the moment, and I suspect it's because of two factors:

1) The folks actually doing the audits are trying to protect children and realize what they're doing has no effect because they're looking in the wrong place

and

2) 9 of 10 places audited have passed without comment


Believe or think what you will of the US government - I know we've had a bevy of bad examples lately... But when you get down to the local agents investigating, you'll find they are dedicated and focused, and not likely to waste time or resources.

(A recurring theme since 9/11)


Every other point of law in the US has taken a extreme amount of patience to realize, and 2257 won't be any different.



...

[abostonboy]

What "slipped" by me Ray was the non US citizen issue. US producers have to be VERY careful in that any model that is filmed in the US has to have a US issued id. That is one part of 2257 that is both easy to understand and is not contradicted by another law. One of the few parts of 2257 that is actually clear.

So, by law that video distributed by Hyde Park is not 2257 compliant.

[gaybucks_chip]

In addition to being a DVD and website producer, we are also a DVD retailer.

From our perspective as a retailer, it's very concerning when something like this happens, not only because we as a retailer could be selling a noncompliant product, but because, as an industry, it damages our customers faith in us.

I remember after the Cobra matter happened, a lot of customers refused to buy new Cobra titles because they were concerned there might be more underage models. And a number of stores dropped the line for the same reason.

And I think there's a backlash... ALL twink producers suffer because people (stores, distributors, customers) get wary. That's why I think it's really important for there to be good self-policing within the industry.

[basschick]

as i understand it, even the doj admitted they weren't clear on the part of the regs regarding non-u.s. models. no surprise, it was total gibberish. as i recall, the fsc and the doj came to some sort of agreement, but i don't think it was actually committed to paper, so it's not official till the judge says it is...

[gaybucks_chip]

Actually, there was a memo of understanding (in writing) sent from DoJ to FSC, which was issued around the time of the injunction and binds the justice department.

At issue was the phrase "when the producer and the model are located outside the US." Prior to clarification, most attorneys interpreted "located outside the us" to mean the producer permanently lived and worked outside the US, and that, in those cases, a non-US citizen could use a non-US issued ID, but in all other cases, a non-US citizen could not be photographed by a US-based producer *at all*, regardless of where the content was being photographed, unless the non-US citizen had a US work visa. This caused a ton of producers (including us) to shit out a bunch of previously-shot content with non-US models prior to 6/23/05, so that it would be published (and therefore legal) prior to the new regulations.

The Justice Dept. memo, issued right around that time, clarified that the phrase "located outside the US" referred to where the producer was at the time the model was being photographed, rather than where the producer was based.

So, as a result of the clarification, if a model and producer are both "located outside the US" at the time of the shoot, then non-US ID is acceptable. If the producer is "located in the United States" at the time of the shoot, then only a US-issued ID, or a non-US ID plus a US-issued work visa is acceptable identification under 2257.

Had the clarification *not* been issued, then a US producer would not be able to shoot a non-US citizen *at all* regardless of where he was located.

So there is no question that, regardless of interpretation, shooting a non-US citizen inside the US, without a work visa or US-issued ID, is illegal and a very clear violation of 2257.

[deanb]

Actually, there was a memo of understanding (in writing) sent from DoJ to FSC, which was issued around the time of the injunction and binds the justice department.

At issue was the phrase "when the producer and the model are located outside the US." Prior to clarification, most attorneys interpreted "located outside the us" to mean the producer permanently lived and worked outside the US, and that, in those cases, a non-US citizen could use a non-US issued ID, but in all other cases, a non-US citizen could not be photographed by a US-based producer *at all*, regardless of where the content was being photographed, unless the non-US citizen had a US work visa. This caused a ton of producers (including us) to shit out a bunch of previously-shot content with non-US models prior to 6/23/05, so that it would be published (and therefore legal) prior to the new regulations.

The Justice Dept. memo, issued right around that time, clarified that the phrase "located outside the US" referred to where the producer was at the time the model was being photographed, rather than where the producer was based.

So, as a result of the clarification, if a model and producer are both "located outside the US" at the time of the shoot, then non-US ID is acceptable. If the producer is "located in the United States" at the time of the shoot, then only a US-issued ID, or a non-US ID plus a US-issued work visa is acceptable identification under 2257.

Had the clarification *not* been issued, then a US producer would not be able to shoot a non-US citizen *at all* regardless of where he was located.

So there is no question that, regardless of interpretation, shooting a non-US citizen inside the US, without a work visa or US-issued ID, is illegal and a very clear violation of 2257.

It will be interesting to see if the DVD in question is pulled from the shelves. One also has to wonder if this was a common practice for said studio, if that is the case, this could result in several titles being pulled.

[abostonboy]

It will be interesting to see if the DVD in question is pulled from the shelves. One also has to wonder if this was a common practice for said studio, if that is the case, this could result in several titles being pulled.


Or the video on AEBN. Would be nice to see that pulled as well.

[abostonboy]

a non-US citizen could not be photographed by a US-based producer *at all*, regardless of where the content was being photographed, unless the non-US citizen had a US work visa. .


I remember that VERY clearly as it would have shut down a vast majority of sites, including almost every asian website.