Interpretations
         Understanding Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Revisions

Right now, legal firms, lawyers and those in the adult industry are going wild to interpret what the new revisions translates to in reality. On a side note, this is why I hate legal writing, because it seems written to confuse rather than to clarify... often disregarding how to most simply express a point and actually making every attempt on how to complicate one.

I looked over the Title 18 U.S.C. § 2257 Revisions which you can view for yourself at the following site-

http://www.XXXLaw.net

They can be found under "What's New" and using the "preliminary table" link.

After reviewing the new revisions concerning Secondary Producer definitions and law I drew some conclusions about what this all could mean. Now, please do not substitute what I say as legal advice or the ultimate in interpretation. It is a "worst case scenario" look and just my perception. I recommend having a Lawyer who specializes in related law for a more in depth look...

From the actual 2257 revisions-

"A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer- manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing."

So, I have understood this to mean that if I have a picture of a video cover, sex toy cover, etc. with a nude model... in order to display it on my site, I have to have the 2257 forms of that model.

In regard to videos, books, etc., they have already been under 2257 regulations for the Primary Producer, however, it is now my understanding that under the revisions, the Secondary Producer must have the 2257 model releases to post sexually explicit images of these products on a web site.

I developed this interpretation by reviewing section (d) where it defines "commercial distribution " as to sell, distribute, etc. and because the term "commercial distribution" is under the "Secondary Producer" it seems that we too would be responsible for selling it as well.

(d) Sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release refer to commercial distribution of a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, but does not refer to noncommercial or educational distribution of such matter, including transfers conducted by bona fide lending libraries, museums, schools, or educational organizations."

Now, I also wonder if we are considered an "educational organization" under these terms... and I am still investigating that... could that mean that better sex web sites that offer education are exempt even if some of what they offer is considered "sexually explicit" and for entertainment?

What do they mean when the say "sexually explicit?" This by the DOJ's definition means (sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; bestiality; masturbation; sadistic or masochistic abuse; or lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person).

I have highlighted this because this basically can be interpreted as "lustful genital shots or simply the pubic area," which many of these products contain." I am not a Lawyer, and is why I have requested that the Legal team with FSC review my interpretation to tell me their interpretation.

However, knowing the current administration and clearly understanding that these revisions were NOT put into place to protect minors, rather to impair the adult industry, I am going to assume the worst unless corrected. As a adult retailer myself, I am extra cautious in dismissing my interpretation, because it is a worst case scenario and important to consider in order to protect from legal action.