Revisions made to the Title 18 U.S.C. 2257 law that was passed on June 23rd, 2005, made it so that any picture deemed lascivious requires 2257 documentation even if you are a secondary producer (meaning you did not take the picture but are displaying it). This is meant to disable the adult industry.
The adult websites hardest hit are the sites that offer thumbnails, pictures, streaming video, or product covers for which they cannot get Title 18 U.S.C. 2257 model releases. This strongly affects many amateur sites and adult sites that offer a diverse number of pictures, videos, etc. that are paid or free where it would be impossible to get the thousands of model release forms required.
The Sexually Explicit Debate
One point that has been up for debate is- what is considered "sexually explicit" under the new regulations? We are still in the dark about this and will have to wait until the Law Suit with the Free Speech Coalition and the Department of Justice has concluded to have some things clarified.
Why it is Confusing
Many people in the adult industry are assuming that "sexually explicit" refers to things like sex acts or masturbation when it comes to the pictures and video on their sites. They often express that they do not feel this pertains to general nudity.
They may be assuming this based on what was previously defined in Title 18 U.S.C. 2257 law. But I think that the Department of Justice was sneaky by changing those definitions by the way they did it. They did not "add" any more specifics... what they did was remove the once specific examples and replaced them with a vague term... "sexually explicit." Why would this be sneaky? Well, let's take a look at what they mean by "sexually explicit." In the United States Code, these are defined as follows-
"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."
See, the last part in bold, that was not in the definitions before, so while it appears they took away the specific definitions, they added more, but made it harder for adult web site owners to figure this out.
Therefore, to the average adult website owner, it would seem that the D.O.J. was laxer on the definitions by taking out the specifics in the actual law, but when you look up what that means, it has been made more rigid. That is why so many people in the adult industry who are aware of the changes, may not be fully aware of what they mean.
This is an important point because we are talking about a rather broad term. Lascivious, which means lustful, can refer to many forms of nudity depending on how conservative your views. If this is the way the D.O.J. is going to define them (and it seems they are), it will pretty much devastate the adult industry by requiring them to have model releases for even general nude images perceived as lustful on everything they display from pictures, pictures of products to streaming video, etc. Only those who produce the pictures, film, etc. will be able to show them on their web sites. That would shut down over half of the adult sites on the web.
Third-Party Data Bases
There are some companies right now that are offering to serve as a database for all of the 2257 model releases so that it will be easier for adult sites to obtain them. However, the Justice Department rejected calls for 2257 to permit third-party custody of records. This is yet again, just another way the D.O.J. is trying to prevent law-abiding adult companies from following the law because it is not their intention to protect minors, they intend to disable the adult industry.
What Are The Statistics Of Child Porn In The Adult Industry?
The Association of Sites Advocating Child Protection (ASACP) hotline receives over 75,000 reports of suspected child pornography sites each year. Of these, their compliance manager validates 3,000 as new Child Porn sites; 99.99% of which are not in any way, shape, or form related to the adult entertainment industry. The child pornography producers and distributors are criminals who prey upon innocent children and sick pedophiles. The new rules will do nothing to find these criminals. The government is merely trying to politically position itself to arrest legitimate business people and appease gullible voters.