I can has 2257 protest?
Jul. 30th, 2007 08:01 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
pantryslutThis PSA from kink.com about the proposed revisions to the 2257 statute is funny *and* informative. Some folks think there's too much humor and it detracts from the message (in other words, it's too "insider"-y). Maybe. A little long, quite possibly. Still cute.
And important.
In a nutshell: 2257 regulations are the laws that tell porn producers what kind of paperwork on models' ages they need to keep, ostensibly to keep minors out of the business (i.e. to prevent the next Traci Lords, and or "prevent child pornography"). These regulations sound keen in theory and are horribly burdensome in practice. The proposed revisions are even more annoying and burdensome -- and worse, because the paperwork required models' legal names, addresses, and other contact information be on file, presents a considerable personal danger to anyone who chooses to perform in front of the camera.
The PSA explains succinctly why. Basically, anybody who ever uses the photos or video with that model (not just the photographer or production company, but *anybody*) needs to have a copy of their paperwork physically on file. This makes it easy for that personal data to fall into the hands of...anyone. Stalkers, televangelists, sleazy reporters, and mean people with no boundaries.
The page also provides some handy links to go comment, because we are in the "comment phase" of the proposal.
So. If you are involved in any aspect of the production of sexually explicit visual media -- if you know a model, if you are a model, if you work at a place like I do or might consider it in the future; if you ever want to sell those cute nude pictures and videos you and your friends get together and take once in a blue moon; if you like looking at those pictures in a magazine or on screen on occasion; and so on, and so on -- at least consider commenting.
Thanks.
And important.
In a nutshell: 2257 regulations are the laws that tell porn producers what kind of paperwork on models' ages they need to keep, ostensibly to keep minors out of the business (i.e. to prevent the next Traci Lords, and or "prevent child pornography"). These regulations sound keen in theory and are horribly burdensome in practice. The proposed revisions are even more annoying and burdensome -- and worse, because the paperwork required models' legal names, addresses, and other contact information be on file, presents a considerable personal danger to anyone who chooses to perform in front of the camera.
The PSA explains succinctly why. Basically, anybody who ever uses the photos or video with that model (not just the photographer or production company, but *anybody*) needs to have a copy of their paperwork physically on file. This makes it easy for that personal data to fall into the hands of...anyone. Stalkers, televangelists, sleazy reporters, and mean people with no boundaries.
The page also provides some handy links to go comment, because we are in the "comment phase" of the proposal.
So. If you are involved in any aspect of the production of sexually explicit visual media -- if you know a model, if you are a model, if you work at a place like I do or might consider it in the future; if you ever want to sell those cute nude pictures and videos you and your friends get together and take once in a blue moon; if you like looking at those pictures in a magazine or on screen on occasion; and so on, and so on -- at least consider commenting.
Thanks.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
I can rite to bureau-cats!
Date: 2007-08-01 07:35 am (UTC)Hey, everybody, feel free to rip off my letter if you want!
----
I am writing to express my concerns about the proposed revisions to the 2257 statute, i.e., the regulations for ensuring that underage models are excluded from adult content on the Internet.
I am particularly concerned that some of the proposed changes would do little to further the goal of protecting minors, while simultaneously creating significant bureaucratic challenges to content producers--the new requirements to provide production date information in more locations, for example.
Most troubling is the new requirement to propagate the 2257 information about models. This information contains significant amounts of private information about models (address, birthdate, etc) which seem very likely to fall into indiscriminate usage if it is propagated so widely. This risk does not seem worth it, given the negligible benefits of wider propagation.
It would be very damaging to the public interest if the 2257 statutes, which are quite useful and important, were to be toyed with in an attempt to make legally protected artistic production more difficult to create in practice, due to unnecessary red tape.