For some of you this may just be more of the same old news, but this week I wanted to publish my thoughts on a very controversial and serious topic. 2257. First, the disclaimer. I am not a lawyer.For some of you this may just be more of the same old news, but this week I wanted to publish my thoughts on a very controversial and serious topic. 2257. First, the disclaimer. I am not a lawyer. I am not offering legal advice. I am only offering you a second hand account of what I heard from attorney Eric Bernstein, who shared his views with us on The Porn Professors (my YNOT Radio show) this past Tuesday.

First, and probably most importantly, most of the record-keeping requirements set forth by 18 U.S.C. §2257 are nothing new. For the most part, adult Webmasters who publish sexually explicit content have been and still are expected to have copies of model releases and copies of model IDs for all models depicted in said content. Of course we all know that most Webmasters, especially those making free sites and galleries with “free content” or stolen content, have never had those records. For Webmasters with stolen content it has really become quite clear that unless they don’t mind living in a small confined room, the time to take down their sites is now. In order for Webmasters to continue to use content provided by affiliate programs, these programs are going to have to make the necessary documents available to their affiliates; otherwise, owners of free content-based sites will also have no choice but to remove their sites from the Web.

On this week’s radio show, the issue of how to avoid the new law came up; like always, the answer was to simply comply and stop worrying. I know that many of you will continue to try and find new ways around this law. Even though there might be some clever way to avoid compliance, I still think that it is in the best interest of every adult Webmaster to have the necessary records to prove the age of models at the time of any filming. It was discussed whether those Webmasters not showing content defined under 2257 rules, for example those Webmasters sticking with straight nudity, still need to post the Custodian of Records information on their Web sites. My personal opinion is that you need to act with “CYA” in mind. For those who have not heard of “CYA,” it means “Cover Your Ass.” Don’t push the envelope, don’t pop-up the flags that will grab you the kind of attention you don’t want, and don’t run content that calls into question whether the model is of legal age. If I even question a model’s age in the least, I won’t use that content. Better to be safe than sorry.

Many TGP owners are questioning whether sites that show only thumbnail previews need to post the Custodian of Records information. The answer was yes, if those thumbs are showing anything at all. To avoid having to maintain the records it seemed to be the general consensus that a TGP owner could show only headshots of the models without revealing any nudity. Of course the gallery owners that submit to this TGP site would still need to maintain the records. So that was good news for TGP site owners, I am sure. It will require extra work and diligence, but it is still a workable situation.

What about the recently proposed changes to 2257? One complex and rather questionable change would require Webmasters to have a copy of every image on their sites and cross-reference each to the picture’s number, the model’s real name, the stage names or aliases of the model, and the URLs where the image is published. This will be a monumental maintenance task that will have many Webmasters in a quandary for a long time to come. And if these records are required to be on paper then that alone could be a nightmare for trees all around the world.

As time goes by I am quite sure that this law will come into line with the advances and promises of the digital medium. There is, after all, a much more efficient way of accomplishing the task at hand. Cross referencing may remain a necessity in order to locate a record, but to require Webmasters to print every image is, I think, overkill. As was said on the show, if this is the intent of this administration then this has to be a move to clear every tree from the planet.

The most controversial portion of the show came when we discussed what would qualify as a valid address for the Custodian of Records. For those who have read the proposed new law, there are basically two sections where this is discussed. Some amateurs and small Web site owners who work from home have interpreted the law to require that they prominently publish on the front of their Web site their home address; this would obviously be a major concern for most Webmasters. However, Eric explained in detail the second section of the law which allows for an “organization” to serve as the Custodian of Records. Under that section the law explains in detail how and what must be included; this includes the organization’s name, the employee and title of the person responsible for said records, and the physical address of that organization where the records can be reviewed. This interpretation would allow for other places to hold your records, such as an attorney or even a professional Custodian of Records business.

By now it is probably common knowledge that I am starting such a business. I too agree that the law will allow for this, and I actually believe that in time the government will welcome businesses like this for the simple fact that reviewing the records of several people in question could be done at once. If the service is done properly the records will be in order and all will be good.

Over the next few weeks I expect there to be much debate and discussion over the different interpretations of the law, even from different attorneys. However I do want to make a personal observation – somewhat biased I suppose, but nonetheless valid in my opinion. Keeping in mind that the reason for this law is to protect the children from being exploited and depicted in sexual acts (in other words, child pornography), which I am quite certain all responsible adult Webmasters abhor, if records are kept in a secure place and are viewable as determined by the law, and the records are found to be accurate and no age violations are discovered, the officials involved would find it very difficult to find any judge willing to make an issue over an address. I obviously have spent a great deal of time considering all of the issues, have talked with Eric Bernstein about the legality of a business like the one I am starting, and am completely convinced that this option is a sound one for all concerned. I do agree that you as a Webmaster should still have copies of all of your records at your place of operation, and in the case of my company will assure that you do. Compliance with this law is not only a necessity but it is also a good thing. In time, many will see that this law will clean up the industry and help remove those who seem to have no regard for the industry.

I look forward to being a part of this discussion, and of course I look forward to serving many of you in the capacity of a professional Custodian of Records service. Above all, I look forward to an industry with cleaner standards and the removal of those who don’t wish to play by the rules. Best of luck to each of you in all your endeavors, and if I can be of assistance, please feel free to contact me.

Tony Davis is a professional adult Webmaster who can be reached by email at tony@aytd.com. Webmasters interested in Tony’s 2257 Custodian of Records service are encouraged to read more at www.keepmyrecords.com.