|
Forums >
Off-Topic Discussion >
FBI meeting about 2257 requirements for nudes
WASHINGTON, D.C. â Agents of the Federal Bureau of Investigation met with members of the adult entertainment industry this afternoon for the second time in a year to discuss the current state of the 2257 inspections. The meeting was held at FBI headquarters in Washington, and was attended by representatives from several leading adult companies as well as industry attorneys and media. The purpose of the meeting, which was called by the FBI, was to have âa briefing on the inspection process and a general update on what the inspectors have encountered during the first year of operation.â FBI agents in attendance were Assistant Director for the Criminal Investigative Division Kenneth Kaiser, who chaired the meeting, Section Chief John Gillies, Special Agent Chuck Joyner, Supervisory Special Agent Stephen Lawrence, Unit Chief for the Crimes Against Children Unit Alan Nanavaty and Assistant General Counsel Richard McNally. Industry attorneys in attendance were Paul Cambria, Jeffrey Douglas and Gregory Piccionelli. Adult companies represented either by an individual from the company and/or attorneys were LFP, Wicked, Vivid, Diabolic, Digital Playground, Red Light District and the Scores Group. Media reps were Mark Kernes from AVN, and XBIZ. The meeting was on the record, but reporters were not allowed to audio tape the proceedings without prior approval by FBI public relations. Kaiser opened the meeting with a brief statement in which he repeated the FBIâs oft-stated intention to make the 2257 inspection process as seamless and easy as possible for everyone concerned. He said the companies inspected so far had been very cooperative. Agent Joyner then made his presentation on the current state of the inspection process. He said 24 companies had thus far been inspected, and that four had passed inspection. Of the remaining 20 companies, 15 had âunintentionalâ violations, but five had been âwillful.â Of those five, two companies had been re-inspected, but had come up âjust as bad.â Joyner added that five inspections are planned for next week, and of the five companies, he knew that three already had willful violations. When asked how he could tell that companies he had not yet inspected were guilty of willful violations, he said that they had sexually explicit content and no labeling of any kind. He added that in his book such an oversight could only be deemed willful. The meeting was then opened up for questions or comments. Cambria said that he had been in communication with his clients, who were concerned about some of the new provisions in the proposed regulations recently released by the Justice Department. He asked if the inspecting agents, who now had a significant amount of experience under their belts with respect to the real nature of the regulations and the ability by companies to comply, could communicate some of those difficulties back to the Justice Department, especially now when it is considering the proposed regulations. Joyner replied that they had in fact already forwarded suggestions to the Justice Department, though he did not specify exactly what had been suggested, and that more meetings between the FBI and Justice Department regarding 2257 were scheduled. He could not promise that anything would come out of those meetings. Jeffrey Douglas said that he had hoped for better communications between the FBI and Justice Department, a comment that elicited a laugh from everyone. He then made a very tangible suggestion, something he said the FBI could work toward that would be very helpful for the industry; namely, a standardized 2257 compliance form for producers that would save time, money and grief for all involved. Douglas added, âYou could not be doing a better job in the inspection process, and your communication before and after inspections couldnât be better.â Kaiser said they would look very closely at creating a standard form, something he said could be very helpful. Douglas said that another aspect of the regulations they needed to look at was the number of âdatesâ that needed to be addressed in the records by producers. âWe have counted seven different dates for which records have to be kept,â he said. âItâs madness from the perspective of compliance.â He added that there must be a way to simplify that requirement. Cambria asked at this point in the meeting whether the FBI had gotten around to adding adult websites to their database of sites to be inspected. âYes,â Joyner said, âthey have been included in the database.â But he did not say whether any had been chosen yet for inspection. Cambria said that there was a great deal of confusion about exactly what a webpage is, and that if the agents had to be clear about definitions such as this before they could even think about going out to inspect adult websites, couldnât they do a better job of communicating those definitions to the industry? âI agree with you,â Kaiser responded. âWe will try to tighten those questions up with the Justice Department. Ultimately, they make the decisions.â Greg Piccionelli reiterated Douglasâ earlier concern about âdates,â specifically original dates of production and the problems producers will have if they have a number of boxcovers on a website, each with multiple images comprising any number of original dates of production. âHow can all that information possibly be listed on a webpage?â Piccionelli asked. âIt will be impossible to comply with.â âWe have only so much influence with the Justice Department,â Kaiser replied. Cambia asked if Joyner had found that the use of hyperlinks for 2257 notices had been effective in the course of his inspections. âYes,â Joyner replied, âand that was mentioned in the FBI report to the Justice Department.â Douglas then weighed in that the single best suggestion made by the 2257 litigation team, which was rejected, was the issue of third-party record-keeping. He said that there were many potential benefits to adopting such a plan, such as greatly reduced costs to the industry, reduced burden on secondary producers, enhanced security for performers and a much smoother and more effective process for the inspectors. âThis happens often in government,â Cambria added. âYes,â Kaiser said, âwe use centralized records for a lot of things. Itâs a legitimate proposal. Iâll run it by the Justice Department at our next meeting. Weâll come back with an answer. There will be pros and cons to it.â Piccionelli added that the risk of identity theft with so many thousands of IDs being emailed around the world was too great not to come up with some alternative plan, and that it would be very easy for anyone to request IDs with the intent to steal identities. Douglas said that a case of 2257 identity theft had in fact already happened, and that the FBI had to be alerted in that case. âI donât disagree with you on that point,â Kaiser said. âIdentity theft is a very serious problem.â But he added, âIt will be up to the industry to ensure that a central repository is safe. Security of data is a fact and a problem that we deal with in many industries.â âNevertheless,â Douglas replied, âthe difference between vast access and limited access is huge.â Chris Haberski, who offers a 2257 compliance product called Keepsafe, suggested that performer IDs in a central repository would not have to be given out to thousands of webmasters and affiliates. They could have very limited access to the sensitive information, which could also be made available to law enforcement only when they need it for the purposes of an inspection. Douglas then asked how the FBI is going to inspect secondary producers in the absence of final regulations. âI feel comfortable that all companies so far have been primaries,â Joyner replied. âProposed regs mean nothing to us,â Kaiser said. âUntil they pass, they donât exist.â The implication here is that until the proposed regulations are finalized, the FBI will continue to focus its inspections on primary producers and not secondary producers. Piccionelli asked if Internet producers of live content are in the FBI database of adult companies open for inspection. âThey are in the database,â Joyner replied. XBIZ asked the agents if they knew if the Justice Department had made any decisions about charging any of the companies that had failed 2257 inspections. âThey have not made any final decision regarding any of those companies,â Joyner said. âWe will notify you as a group if there are any substantial changes to the inspection process,â Kaiser added. There is also a 2257 information page on the FBI website, where updated information can be found. The meeting ended with a promise to maintain a high level of communication between the FBI and the industry, and a promise by the agents to continue to act in good faith. âWeâre from the government,â Kaiser said. âTrust us.â Sep 14 07 01:40 pm Link a) MM isn't for adult industry networking so I can't see what this applies to (other than the 2257 requirements) b) did you write that article or do you want to credit the right source so you aren't infringing anyones copyright? Sep 14 07 02:01 pm Link Jessalyn wrote: if the answer to b is "no, i didn't write this article", this thread will be locked soon.... Sep 14 07 02:03 pm Link 2257 is about adult/sexual works...what does that have to do with nudes? Sep 14 07 02:05 pm Link Jessalyn wrote: And face. Sep 14 07 02:07 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: That's exactly what I was thinking. Sep 14 07 02:18 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Under the new 2257A law and regulations, explicit nudes are also included, as is bondage. Sep 14 07 02:34 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I've read the regulations but have the courts (or other regulations) defined "explicit" or "lascivious?" Sep 14 07 02:44 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I doubt they can effectively handle the big producers, Sep 14 07 02:44 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: I believe the answer would be numerous prudes in power that confuse one with the other. Eric wrote: Which encompasses many things in a prude's narrow mind. Sep 14 07 02:47 pm Link Is this really the best use of the FBI's time and resources? Sep 14 07 02:54 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: The search box is your friend, Doug. Sep 14 07 02:55 pm Link Eric wrote: Yes, and there is a long, long history of them doing that as well. Sep 14 07 02:56 pm Link Ken Marcus is a great photographer but I think he is also a bit confused. I've seen him put up other posts regarding this. The way I read 2257 it appears to be aimed at porn producers, video producers and adult magazine publishers and others who ship material such as videos and "dirty" books. I don't think it was ever the intent of the law to require guys who shoot weekend glamour to keep records. the law also states that it applies to sexually explicit conduct depicted on film or in pictures. since when are simple nudes sexually explicit? read it for your self: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html … -000-.html Sep 14 07 02:57 pm Link If the government spent as much time taking care of the fucking issues ruining this country instead of worrying about tits and ass on a website, the US might become a great country once again. Sep 14 07 02:59 pm Link Doug Swinskey wrote: Depends on how the Justice department and FBI define adult work. If that includes any image depicting nudity then that would apply to anyone, including artists who do nudes. Sep 14 07 02:59 pm Link Miami Glamour wrote: Ah, grasshopper, that's the old law. The new one (passed and signed into law a long time ago) is 2257A. Google is your friend. Sep 14 07 03:01 pm Link Eric wrote: My guess would be that they haven't...yet. Sep 14 07 03:02 pm Link I find it interesting to to keep watch over how the goverment approaches the adult industry. It's good indicator of how they may approach some edgy fine ART SHOOTERS. No one knows which random artist they may stick on the chopping block to carve up as an example of immorality. Civil liberty issues affect everyone's freedom. Watch and learn. Know your rights. Sep 14 07 03:02 pm Link Mickle Design Werks wrote: This appears to be where he got the story: Sep 14 07 03:02 pm Link Its pretty obvious the OP was quoting a news source and wasn't claiming it as his own, most people do not start off with WASHINGTON DC: Identity theft and privacy are two big issues. The decisions made in this case, even though it is pertaining to the big money adult sites, will cast a large net over many areas in photography. Sep 14 07 03:05 pm Link Dave Wright Photo SF wrote: I doubt many of us think it is. However, our beloved congresscritters think otherwise. From the law: ââ(k) On an annual basis, the Attorney General shall submit Sep 14 07 03:08 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: yes Google is your friend! Sep 14 07 03:09 pm Link Miami Glamour wrote: They may not catch you in a routine inspection, but if you come to their attention for any other reason, it's a big felony stick that they can hold over your head. You fail to comply at your peril. Sep 14 07 03:10 pm Link Miami Glamour wrote: I don't think it does apply to the majority. However, it certainly applies to some. It wouldn't be hard at all to find images on MM which fall under the new law - meaning that the producers of those images are subject to it, and that MM itself may be at risk because of it. Sep 14 07 03:12 pm Link Mickle Design Werks wrote: Here's where it's going to get bizarre if you are in a position of having to comply... the NEW IMPROVED regulations require that you: 1) inspect the ID first hand [not a problem]; 2) that you make by some means a "reproduction" of it [no problem]; but 3) that you ALSO keep that reproduction as a HARD COPY, all cross-indexed to a record of the images and names and DoB and locations where published, and everything else they require as a part of the records. And, yes, it is very specific on all these points. Sep 14 07 03:13 pm Link Mickle Design Werks wrote: If that's all you do, you are not in compliance with the requirements of the law. Not even close. Sep 14 07 03:14 pm Link This may matter if you have work hanging in a gallery that a (Bible Pounding)community does not want there. It's hard to procicute a huge corp. ..... a local photog may be easy to drive out or bankrupt in legal cost. *** I spent a year clearing my name, The definition of assault is if some one is "scared" of you and you have the "ability" to harm them. I'm a big guy. Will, intention, action, words, or knowing the person exist is not required.*** Sep 14 07 03:14 pm Link I just watched "the Notorious Bettie Page" last night. Watching the court room scenes in movie reminded me about how community standards can vary. It also was interesting how some the questionable images were no more racy than some Hollywood movie scenes from that time. I think this situation could have a a trickle down affect on fine art work. Nudes, even some Renaissance paintings could be considered indecent if they were to say nudity alone were indecent. Sep 14 07 03:19 pm Link Oh, what fun. I love it when the government decides what porn I'm allowed to watch. Sep 14 07 03:21 pm Link Eric wrote: "Explicit" and "lascivious" is what we do in a studio with a model and a camera. Not what someone does in an office with an intern and a cigar. Sep 14 07 03:22 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: I think the worst case scenario would be that Tyler would start removing a few portfolios and even go as far as deleting accounts. just to be safe. I can think of at least one member whose portfolio is very sexual explicit. Sep 14 07 03:22 pm Link Sabrina Maree wrote: This has nothing to do with what you are allowed to watch. It only has to do with the record-keeping requirements of what you watch. What is legally allowed in porn has not changed. Sep 14 07 03:23 pm Link Miami Glamour wrote: It could be quite a few. Sep 14 07 03:24 pm Link For anyone that is even remotely interested there is a full text copy of the PROPOSED [but these are not finalised as yet] regulations here: LINK TO THE TEXT OF THE NEW PROPOSED WORDING OF 28 CFR PART 75 Studio36 Sep 14 07 03:25 pm Link studio36uk wrote: Anyone who reads it and produces "soft core" or bondage work will have the daylights scared out of them if they haven't seen this before. Sep 14 07 03:26 pm Link studio36uk wrote: THANKS! Got it book marked. Sep 14 07 03:26 pm Link studio36uk wrote: well thanks for that well thought out and considerate suggestion...but i was asking the OP.....maybe not for my benefit, but for the benefit of the other readers... Sep 14 07 03:29 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: What specifically have the courts ruled as "lascivious" or how have they defined it? Sep 14 07 03:29 pm Link TXPhotog wrote: Yes, and notably in Dost and Knox... and it is the Dost standard that is being cited in the new regs. Sep 14 07 03:29 pm Link |
