This article originally appeared on the Adult Biz Law website. It’s very informative and that’s why I’m sharing it with you today.
If you’re in the adult content production business you’ve probably heard of the law usually referred to 18 USC 2257. And if you haven’t, you’re well behind the curve and you need to read up on it ASAP. Here’s a link where you can start…
https://adultbizlaw.com/2012/10/22/porn-101-18-u-s-c-2257-the-basics/
For those of you who have been keeping up on 2257, then you probably know that the FSC has been fighting this law for years. Right now, there is a judge that is about to issue a final ruling on the constitutionality of 18 USC 2257. Which you can read more about here…
However, in a story that broke on July 18, 2018, there may be life left in the enforcement of 18 USC 2257. For the most part, 2257 hasn’t really been enforced for years. That doesn’t mean its dead or you don’t have to comply but for the most part, its been a non-issue for the past several years. That is until yesterday and this…
https://www.jrlcharts.com/straightboyz-shutdown-owner-bryan-deneumostier-indicted/
From JRLCharts.com…
The StraightBoyz gay porn site was shut down and owner, Bryan Deneumostier, indicted for allegedly having sex with a minor at the time of his arrest as well as being charged with Surreptitiously Producing and Distributing Pornographic Audio and Video Recordings of Himself Engaged in Sexual Activity with Others.
Not a earth shattering case until you read further…
The indictment further alleges that Deneumostier was a producer of pornography, used performers portrayed in a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct, and did not ascertain the performers’ identification or age, as required by federal law.
In the past, I am only aware of two other producers that were charged with violations of 2257 – Joe Francis of Girls Gone Wild fame (who plead guilty to a single 2257 violation) and another adult producer who was also charged with obscenity (the 2257 charges were later dropped) but was convicted of obscenity.
These new charges are rather interesting in light of the fact that Judge Baylson is about to issue a decision on the application of 18 USC 2257. None-the-less, despite the recent non-enforcement of 2257, the US Attorney’s Office in the Southern District of Florida has not been deterred from charging the owner of StraightBoyz with three violations, each carrying a potential 5 year prison sentence.
Obviously, this isn’t a reason to panic, but if you are an adult content producer of any size, 2257 applies to you and you should know and understand 2257. 2257 isn’t dead yet…
4 Responses
Interesting article. I also read Pornlaw’s linked article, most of it I already knew but I didn’t know that records from a production company that went out of business only needed to be maintained for five years after dissolution. I thought it was in perpetuity (meaning that if a producer died the onus to maintain records fell on his heirs). Five years is a lot more fair than in perpetuity. Of course the definition of “out of business” is up for discussion — is it five years after production ceases or five years after the videos are no longer sold? This would be germane to the discussion if one producer went out of business and sold the movie rights to another company or individual not actively producing content. I would suspect the latter but this question might come up on appeal for a section 2257 case.
There should be harsher punishment for the minors that sneak or fake their way into porn. This might deter some from trying to get into porn before they are of legal age. However there is no money in that (fines and such) so instead they always drop the hammer on the production companies.
lol Karma kids are always gonna try and sneak into places and do stuff they know they’re not allowed to do…just cuz they aren’t allowed! Keeping them out is every adults punishment for once being a kid 😉
As I read the recent ruling on 2257 most of it was likely to be struck down but not the requirement on the primary producer to check the age of all participants and it appears that is exactly what Denemostier was charged with
” did not ascertain the performers’ identification or age, as required by federal law.”
It is likely that the warrant less searches, the requirements on secondary producers and the specifics of what info has to be kept will be struck down. In all honesty this should not have taken the FSC this long, I believe any first year law student with a C average could have had this disposed of years ago….even in the federal system, the law is, on its face, clearly unconstitutional.