I'm not sure what you can do other than write to the department of justice who asked for comments regarding the 2257 legal changes.

[Link]

It's sad, yes.

Jacco

[Link]

Since it is a major pain in the ass, and also as Genesis (the performer not the magazine) pointed out quite rightly, dangerous to the performers & certainly in many eyes (my own included) a clear invasion of their privacy, the industry grew lax on this policy, which by the way was negotiated by leading industry lawyers to put a stop to an ongoing series of busts that included, yes, Vivid Video. (Anybody remember VIVID ON TRIAL, with Savannah bound & gag in the courtroom?)

What happened was that everybody just relaxed for a while, since Clinton was busy getting blowjobs & all felt that the heat was turned down.

But Congressional hearings during the first Bush administration claimed that record-keeping by the adult-industry was lax,and that despite having a staff of high-paid porn prosecutors, nobody was busting us for it. Money was set aside for this endeavor.

Then, of course, they noticed the Internet.

As I understand it, this is the point where Congress clarified the wording of 2257, making crystal clear what they demand. Companies such as LFP (the magazines, I mean, you know, the secondary producers) have been erring on the side of safety for ten years. There's not a legit porn magazine around that would publish nude or sex photos without copies of model's IDs and releases. Why should the internet be any different?

Of course, the problem for performers here is that ten years ago (or now) if you shot for a still photographer, he sold it anywhere from one to maybe four or five places, all of which he knew and had strong business relations with. Now, thanks to these syndication houses, the pics, video, etc are sold to pretty much any anonymous buyer whose pays up. It seems pretty obvious this behavior was also a major cause of the collapse of the internet porno boom, as irresponsible "content providers" sell their crap for next to nothing, preferring to make their profit pennies at a time.

It's not unlike the contra trading that was the first sign of sickness in the video economy. But that's for another rant.
jacco wrote:
The law has been there a long time, DAC, but the rule that also everybody who posts pics on a website has to have all the 2257 paperwork is new. And since everybody with a creditcard can buy a photoset (for less than a DVD) from a content site they also get all that personal information.

It's sad, yes.

Jacco
[/quote]

[Link]