DSE,

I absolutely agree no one under 18 should be taking their clothes off. My concern is with records having to be made available during normal business hours and failure to do so results in major jail time. From my understanding, the producer MUST be the custodian of records and 2257 doesnt permit an attorney or any other clearinghouse to act as the custodian.

Furthermore, if someone includes a scene or simulated or implied sex in their movie, then they are lumped in with everyday pronographers which is disturbing to say the least.

A better question is where does it ever end? Censorship is alive and well I guess what bothers me more is how Congress likes to piggyback stuff on other bills draped in the name of protecting children. IMO, I think violence is next on the agenda.

But in many reguards this in an old story anyway - remember 'The Tin Drum" and how that was the center of child pornography lawsuits some years ago. (not to mention the effect it had on video stores and how they handle customer records) And no one was hiding the fact of how old Brooke Shields was when she did "Pretty Baby" or even "The Blue Lagoon".

What this does is simply say the records have to be maintained any *all* productions, not just "adult" ones. But I can agree that now one can read that into this that you can not even *make* a film like "The Tin Drum" or "Lolita" without going to jail because it would be proven the people on screen acting in simulted sex were under age. Frankly this is a fine line anyway - always has been. When age and sex come into play I always love to toss out what many consider a classic story that many children read, and thanks to a very popular TV show, watch. Of course I am speaking about Laura Ingalls Wilder and her series of books, more common they are collectivly known as the "Little House on the Prairie" books. And of course by todays standards there is nothing overtly sexual about the books that deal with her marriage but the fact remains that, by todays standards/laws, in many states in the US all these girls husbands would have been hauled away on statutory rape charges.

The statue doesn't read as though you cannot have a representative hold the records. I'm aware of one content producer that does use a law firm. I know there are some adult content producers that use this fora, perhaps they can tell folks how they do it.

I'm sure you're aware censorship is personally a huge issue for me, as are the moral police and those that would limit free speech to give strength to their own moral platform. It's amazing what a guilt-ridden, warped mind can conjure and then project upon other individuals and eventually get laws enacted to further their agenda.
But I don't see this particular recitation as an issue. Maybe I'm missing a piece of the puzzle. One indicator to me that it's not worth a lot of consideration is that the adult industry themselves began complying a long time ago, and did not resist this action.

I'm a lawyer but not a specialist in intellectual property. However--

The statute seems to reflect not so much a dark scheme to police our thoughts, as an inept use of language. It looks to me as if the drafters were trying to expand actual explicit sex to the subcategory of soft porn in which people simulate sex without the camera depicting the genitalia in action--but in both cases it's porn, meaning designed only to appeal to the prurient interest and without artistic value. The kind of stuff you might run across late at night on a motel TV (not you personally, of course). In this latter case of 'soft' porn, the use of underage minors is just as reprehensible.

Criminal law specialists try to draft laws broad enough to cover every trick, dodge, con and deceit that the most cunning porn producer can come up with, and when you read the actual statutory language, you see that this eternal attempt of the prosecutorial mind to second-guess the cunning can easily trespass on the edge of everyone else's rights.

If this were a law relating to porn generally, I suspect that a court challenge might find the statute portions unconstitutional which relate to "simulated" sex, since the Supreme Court has already defined pornography more narrowly than the statute appears to--porn has been held to be material appealing to the prurient interest and without artistic value--i.e., it is designed to stimulate sexual thoughts with no redeeming social value. The test is not how sex is portrayed but the overall creative context of the piece. This is why many of the 'early' porn movies of the 70s had infantile plots and shallow characters, in an attempt to disguise the material as having artistic value.

However, minors are afforded special protection, and this is a value we should all support even though I think America still suffers from an excessive 300-year-old dose of puritanism where adults are involved.
.

I think you're not understand WHY this was done. And I havea great (imho) example.

the movie "Hurly Burly" released in '98 was about a bunch of "looser" hollywoord folk (I belive, I didn't really follow the movie, I thought it really sucked). It featured Anna Paquin (at that time 16). She was basicly "hired" to be the group's whore-type girl. The two scene's that jump out to mind are the one where the guys are talking about who gets her & the one with several guys under covers (moving about & such) with her under there too.

you saying studios should be allowed to let 16 year old girls have "simulated" group sex for "artistic" value?

This has NOTHING to do with censorship, just proof nobody is violating laws. The FCC requires broadcast TV stations to keep records on almost everyting, viewable by anyone. The small rinky dink station I worked at had two 4 drawer file cabinets FULL of records & they had no problems. So an "indy" buys a filecabinet.

odds are an indy wouldn't go to jail for a wrong cross reference eigther. "simulated sex" is a very lax term & it could very easily be argued that something isn't simualted sex, the viewer is just a perv & persieve everything in a sexual nature. Not only owuld the courts have to prove you didn't keep the correct records but they'd have to prove he scene would be highly sexual oriented also.

Friar, you couldnt be more wrong. 2257/4472 has now shifted the burden of proof to the producers and absolved the prosecution for having to prove guilt. Now nowhere did I say that studios should be allowed to film 16 year olds in simulated sex. And dont be so sure and rely of vagueness of the the wording or the law because in doing more research on the regulations, I have confirmed that ANY errors in the record keeping xcan be punishable for not more than one year on the first charge and not more than 10 years for a repeat offense all for an error in record keeping.

The bill does indeed have to do with censorship. Lets face it. The government and special interest groups dont like the adult industry and the content they produce. They created 2257 requiring producers to verify talents age before producing any sort of hard/soft content. Apparently the law wasnt good enough as Congress amdended the law which is being challenegd in court currently. Congress then admends it again and piggy backs on another bill. By continuing to change the laws, they are making it harder for those in that line of work to continue to do so by placing further burden on them to house and maintain a large database of records that must be produced WITHOUT A SEARCH WARRANT during business hours. Your solution is for an "indy" to buy a filing cabinet.

Scenario. You own a small indy company that has produced movies that contain nudity or simulated sex scenes (which love scenes that portray two people having sex is considered simulated) and you dont have the employees that WB orSony has. So one day you are out working on a project and your number comes up and the feds arrive at your location of business only to find you not there. By law and definition, you have not made the record available to them and are guilty of not being able to prove any talent was over the age of 18. Bottom line, YOU GOTO JAIL. How can you not see a problem with this?

"odds are an indy wouldn't go to jail for a wrong cross reference eigther. "simulated sex" is a very lax term & it could very easily be argued that something isn't simualted sex, the viewer is just a perv & persieve everything in a sexual nature. Not only owuld the courts have to prove you didn't keep the correct records but they'd have to prove he scene would be highly sexual oriented also."

This entire paragraph is wrong. The law states if you do not maintain and cross reference the records, you can go to jail for one year the first time. Simulated sex is a vague term just as the definition of what is obscene. Courts dont have to prove you didnt keep the records as I said, the burden has been shifted to the producer to prove innocene instead of the courts proving guilt and the courts dont have to prove anything is highly sexual and the 4472 section 503 I believe defines it for all nudity and simulated not highly, just the mere exsistence.

Regardless, for anyone including scenes of the like, it would be in your best interest to contact your lawyer to cover your butt now instead of being shocked later on and it happens to you. Either way, with the new law, everyone who includes a nude scene or simulated sex, has become one step closer to being a pornographer in the governments eyes.

IMO, the law is too easy on those that engage in child exploitation taht it allows prdos to commit crime after crime and return to the street. If Congress were serious about protecting our children, they'd lock the pedos up forever or offer castration. Screw the three strikes rule. Hurt a child and end your life. But if you dont think this new law will not eventually effect "mainstream" movies and content, think again. With it being an election year, politicans will do and say anything to get relection. The FCC is already cracking down and thats just the start.

IMO, it wont be long before movies liek American Pie and its scene depicting high school kids engaging in sex (one scene even with someone over the age of 21 i.e Stifflers Mom) albeit not graphic and left alot to the viewers imagination, will become the target as well. That my friend is censorship.

Not that this is ever likely to affect me but I have to agree, laws that people say are OK because 'hey, they'd never do that' are scary.
Someone with an axe to grind can Make Them do That.
Also how is this limited to specific production companies or anyone for that matter. Surely anyone who owns a video camera (and that's most of the population today) could be 'suspected of' making a movie that might contain certain kinds of scenes. The effect is to bypass the usual protection of searches being approved by courts.

On a lighter note though given the advances in CGI and motion capture one can easily create anything with any talent and make them appear to be any age. Do we need records for virtual talent?

"Do we need records for virtual talent?"

Bring on SimOne. I dont' think she ever signed a release.
Great story, kinda weak movie. :-)

but that bring up something else: What if a documentary films two people, hand in hand, entering a mcdonalds? They could be having sex in the bathroom, who knows? What about news crews? Do news crews need permission to show video of those teachers that had sex with students?

Animated movie? Disney has a LOT of suggestive themes in their movies.

Scenes that people in a movie are watching on TV? What if in the next blockbuster movie they show some people watching the movie "7" & the show part of the sex/murder scene? How can they get fined for a scene in a movie they didn't produce? What if you do a cut from people having lunch to noises? Whom do you document? The people eating lunch, the, different?, couple making noises or the stock SFX company who made the audio track?

This is so riddled with holes it's crazy. The fed's can't handle anti-piracy laws, how are they going to track down every single person that will make any type of suggestive video after this law is encated?

What about video taping in public areas? If I accidently taped some people kissing I'd need a paper trail a mile long.

This will do almost nothing except drive judges crazy & lawyers a lot of money. it's also a distraction from the bills that they don't WANT to pass.

>>>IMO, it wont be long before movies liek American Pie and its scene depicting high school kids engaging in sex (one scene even with someone over the age of 21 i.e Stifflers Mom) albeit not graphic and left alot to the viewers imagination, will become the target as well. That my friend is censorship.<<<

Doesn't have to be your opinon - it is already fact. As I said in my post above - "The Tin Drum" went through the whole "child porn" lawsuit.

here are some links:

National Groups Condemn Oklahoma City Censorship

Sex, Nudity & Pornography

House Bill 2104 from Oklahoma circa 2000.

Camfield v. City of Oklahoma City lawsuit filed May 4, 2001

VSDA/MPAA press release on "The Tin Drum"

Video Software Dealers Association v. City of Oklahoma City case in PDF format.

You get the idea.

But you know this brings up a whole other issue - what about states where the age of consent is 14 - 15 years old? Say I make a modern day film about a 14 year old girl and a 16 year old guy who fall in love, date, have sex, break up and go on with high school. Oh heck - lets just say I take one of Judy Blooms books, Forever, and adapt it for a film. (And if you go to her site be sure to read her page on censorship) Now say I shoot the film in Hawaii. Now because the age of consent is 14 am I actually violating any laws by telling a story of two teens living there? (interesting to note that while "Forever"" was about 17/18 year olds it was "inspired by Judy's than 14 year old daughter - My daughter Randy asked for a story about two nice kids who have sex without either of them having to die) (hmmm..forget my thought - the film "Thirteen" got rave reviews and it's subject matter *was* 13 year olds - more below)

Ok - I know this is about record keeping and not just simulated under age sex, likewise it is not simply aimed at the "adult industry" either, as has been pointed out. Generally on any film you have to get release forms and if the person is under age the parent has to sign off on the release. When the film is sold one of the first things that gets asked for in the release forms and it is not just for any sort of nudity or simulated sex. However the wording in the bill is such as to slowly pave a road to make it easier for films like "The Tin Drum", "lolita", "Thirteen" or "Pretty Baby" (And yeah ok - "American Pie") to be 'legally' pulled because of the subject matter. (And by the way when they shot the film "Thirteen" they shot a sex scene which was deemed too hardcore and the footage was supposadly "destroyed" - keep in mind Nikki Reed, who also wrote the story when she was 13, was, I think, 15 or 16 at the time the film was shot so not only did they film a sex scene about 13 year olds girls both of the actresses involved in the scene were minors. The scene as it is now just shows them kissing but the love making is surely implied.)

OK - Here's an interesting twist on this - About a year ago, my wife had me take some of her old baby movies that had been trasncribed to VHS, capture them and create a DVD for her mom (she was about a year old in this video) - That video had a bathtub/changing table segment where whe was naked as a jaybird (I teased her about her kiddy porn past).

Does this bill mean I have to worry about doing stiuff like this?