US Fedral requirements for adult content collaborations

Federal Requirements When Collaborating in Adult Content Creation

So you want to work with a co-star! That is great and can lead to huge sales and even great working relationships, opportunities and friendships. 

However, there are absolutely legal requirements that MUST be followed when having co-performers in anything even remotely NSFW. This applies even to just simulations of NSFW content. 

The US Department of Justice states 

This means that producers of pornography, or depictions of any sexual activity using actual people, are required to verify that the performers are of legal age (18–years–old or older) by maintaining records of the performers’ names and ages.  They also are required to disclose the location of these records.

This law is broken down into subsections. Subsection A states, in general terms, anyone who creates or produces (that would be us, the person selling this content on our fan sites etc.) NSFW content, or implied NSFW content, with the intent to distribute it for commerce MUST create and maintain records of all performers identities. 

To break this down further into the meat and potatoes we look at the following section from myadultattorney.com 

Any person to whom subsection (A) applies shall, with respect to every performer portrayed in a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct –

(1) ascertain, by examination of an identification document containing such information, the performer’s name and date of birth, and require the performer to provide such other indicia of his or her identity as may be prescribed by regulations;
(2) ascertain any name, other than the performer’s present and correct name, ever used by the performer including maiden name, alias, nickname, stage, or professional name; and
(3) record in the records required by subsection (a) the information required by paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subsection and such other identifying information as may be prescribed by regulation

So how about we look at that in English and not legalese. What is required:

  • A copy of the performers identification document, or at minimum the legal name and date of birth written the exact same as what appears on the document. DO NOT ACCEPT pre-photocopied documents as those can very easily be doctored. 
  • Any and all stage names or other names they have EVER been known by
  • Any and all other identifying information you can possibly imagine needing. 

Remember: when it comes to the federal government, it is significantly safer to err on the side of over-prepared rather than unprepared. 

Please see the attached 2257 compliance form for further examples of everything you MUST record, and maintain record of when working with a co-performer. 

That is unfortunately not all we MUST Record and maintain record of

Now we know the performer is who they say they are, we must also have legal documentation of them agreeing and consenting to acting in the performance role, their consent for us to film it, and their consent for it to be distributed. This protects our ass more than anything else and is an absolute necessity to help prevent future lawsuits and other legal battles.  This is a legal contract they are signing allowing us to capture, use, and redistribute their image.

Example of mentioned documents attached below. 

This is not legal advice and I am not a lawyer…. This is all extensive research based. I would be terrible as a lawyer to be honest… 


Comments

4 responses to “Federal Requirements When Collaborating in Adult Content Creation”

  1.  Avatar
    Anonymous

    Thank you for all you do! This is really solid advice, even if you’re not a lawyer. FWIW, as lawyers we agree 100% with it, and would never advise against strict compliance with Sections 2257 or 2257a or any other statute and regulation until they are completely repealed or invalidated by the courts. But, it’s worth noting that Sec. 2257 was previously held unconstitutional by the US Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit (one level below the US Supreme Court) and was challenged in the Sixth Circuit as well. Here are some notes about the most relevant cases, but it suffices to say that 2257 continues to apply everywhere outside of the Third Circuit (Delaware, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and the U.S. Virgin Islands):

    “Statutes and regulations imposing age verification, recordkeeping, and labeling requirements on producers of pornography violated First Amendment freedom of speech as applied to commercial photographer-artists, producer of sex education materials, and journalist that produced sexually explicit images, and thus, they had standing to challenge statutes and regulations; under strict scrutiny, content-based requirements served government’s compelling interest in protecting children, but were not narrowly tailored to advance that interest, as Congress could have used less restrictive alternative by limiting requirements to circumstances where performer in sexually explicit depiction could have reasonably appeared to be child. Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General United States, C.A.3 (Pa.) 2020, 974 F.3d 408

    Trade association representing producers and distributors of sexually explicit materials stated as-applied First Amendment free speech claim, that criminal laws imposing recordkeeping, labeling, and inspection requirements on producers of sexually explicit depictions burdened substantially more speech than was necessary to further government’s legitimate interest of protecting children, on allegations that speech involving performers who obviously were adults did not implicate government’s interest in protecting children.   Free Speech Coalition, Inc. v. Attorney General of U.S., C.A.3 (Pa.) 2012, 677 F.3d 519, on remand 957 F.Supp.2d 564, appeal dismissed.”

    Thanks again for all you do to keep people safe and free!

    Teamkink

  2. I am so glad that the advice is solid! It was a lot of hours of research and hearing from a law group that it is correct is exceptionally good to know and hear. Thank you so much for this further information on the cases that were fighting 2257. I did not even know that that occurred. This is great info and I’m going to dig into it more. And you are so more than welcome. It is truly a joy to get to try and help as best as I can.

    1. teamkink Avatar

      To save you some time on your research, here’s link to a google drive folder with the full text of 18 USC Sections 2257 & 2257a, all federal regulations implementing those two statutes, the FSC cases challenging (and ultimately deeming 2257 and 2257 unconstitutional), and the Connection Distribution Co. cases that were decided before the FSC cases:

      https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/10WijLC2O6ga5SAm897xSzcK8Aoc0H0pT?usp=sharing

      Please don’t hesitate to ask if you ever need assistance with legal research–we’d be pleased to help you help others. Happy reading!

      1. Thank you so incredibly much for this information and this research! You are so incredibly appreciated. Please feel free to reach out using the contact form (https://www.creatorsspicytea.co/contact/) at any point, I would love to be able to connect further!

Have a Question or Comment? Join the Conversation!