Law about adult video websites retaining actors&#39; PII Pretend there is a British person in the United Kingdom (England &amp; Wales jurisdiction), that for some legally justifiable reason needs to obtain the name (and other information) of a female adult video actress in the United States of America. The video in question is legal (all parties are 18 years or older) and is available on a both well known and popular adult video website. Are there laws in the United States which obligate adult video websites to retain personal information (such as first and second names) of the actors/actresses in the videos uploaded on their website? If so, could someone please provide them? I am unsure as to whether it would be a Federal, State, or other law as I am not familiar with the United States legal system. To make an educated guess, I assume it would be Federal since it concerns somebody from outside the US making a request, but I might be wrong. EDIT: As per Trish in the comments, if this is something applicable to the film producers rather than the adult video website (or whatever) just inform me accordingly.
united-states Are there laws in the United States which obligate adult video websites to retain personal information (such as first and second names) of the actors/actresses in the videos uploaded on their website? If so, could someone please provide them? In the U.S. producers of adult material are required to keep information about the age of their performers pursuant to 18 U.S. Code § 2257 and 18 U.S. Code § 2257A which is part of &quot;The Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988&quot;, and 28 C.F.R. 75 which contains regulations adopted related to that Code section. See also U.S. Justice Department commentary on its website. You can read the full text at the links. The information must be retained for seven years after they are created or last amended, unless the business goes out of business less than two years after the records are created or last amended, in which case the records must be maintained for five years after the business ceases to operate. They key language of Section 2257 states: (a)Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which— (1)contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and (2)is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce; shall create and maintain individually identifiable records pertaining to every performer portrayed in such a visual depiction. (b)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. Section 2257A extends this requirement to simulated sexual content. The regulations spell out the details requirements more specifically with more precise definitions. Much of this information may only be disclosed to specified individuals and is not necessarily available to members of the general public in the absence of an investigation authorized by the U.S. Attorney General. But access to these records is not governed by these statutes and regulations. An objection to a subpoena and request for a protective order under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 45 (and related rules) or the equivalent state court rule would be the usual process for litigating that point. Whether the reason asserted is really justifiable would be a question for other law (usually under the law of California where most adult material in the U.S. is produced).
As stated in the answer to What is considered &quot;public&quot; in the context of taking videos or audio recordings?; if either of the participants is in Australia than unless all parties have given consent then the recording is illegal. Notwithstanding its legality, property in the recording vests in the person who made it. There is no law against him keeping it. There is no law against him publishing it unless the material contained is offensive, hate speech or defamatory (see Customer feedback gathering in Australia).
I think this shows a misunderstanding of the meaning of the GDPR. A data subject has the right to demand information, correction, deletion etc. about some of their data held by some institutions, depending on the legal basis for the data processing. One John Smith does not have the right to see the data of any other data subject named John Smith, and he cannot even demand to know if there are other John Smiths in the database. The data controller has to make reasonable steps to ensure that an individual who seeks account information is in fact the individual who is the data subject. In the case of an email, that's usually easy -- if John Smith can access the mail account jsmith@sample.org, one can assume that he is the John Smith who opened the account. If not, then not. If the data controller has the birthplace and birthdate in their records, they can possibly match that against some government-issue identity document, too, but why would they have that data?
There are various tangential ways in which this could be illegal, for example if your subjects are celebrities, you take a picture of them and commercially exploit it without permission in a product endorsement. Leaving aside such fringe cases, in the US, the legal right to privacy comes about, at the first cut, by premise trespass law. If the proprietor tells you to go away, you have to go away; if the proprietor tells you that you cannot take pictures, you cannot take pictures (your right to enter is conditional). Neither of those circumstances holds in your case. There are other tort-law bases for a right to privacy: numerous privacy laws regarding privacy and financial transactions (not relevant here), the aforementioned right of publicity (commercial exploitation of likeness), false light (like defamation, about creating a false impression – I don't see what false information is conveyed by a photo). There is also public disclosure of private fact, but that cat is out of the bag because the subject has self-disclosed the supposedly offensive fact revealed by the picture by eating in public. Intrusion of solitude and seclusion does not exist in the circumstance, since the subject is eating in public where everybody can see: there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. This page sums us Virginia law. The main take-away from that is that there is no common law action for privacy in Virginia, and only an action for unauthorized used of likeness or name.
Doesn't being recorded in your own home, or someone elses for that matter, require consent? That's not relevant here. Media outlets are generally not liable for reporting information that was or may have been obtained illegally, provided they are not the ones that did the illegal act, or directly incentivized its commission (e.g. if Gawker had paid someone to get them such a video). The person who filmed this act may or may not have committed a crime, but this was not relevant to the case at hand. In fact, Bollea (aka "Hulk Hogan") did sue those responsible for making the video; he settled with Bubba, but not with Clem. Bollea later added Gawker to the ongoing suit against Clem when publication of the tape was ruled to not be a copyright infringement. Isn't there a reasonable expectation of privacy when you're not in public like that? Also largely not relevant here, as Bollea's claims against Gawker were not about the production and existence of the tape, but of its publication. Bollea did allege invasion of privacy in his suit, but as concerns Gawker this was about publishing the video. Also keep in mind that Bollea had gone out of his way to convert his private life into a public spectacle by virtue of his reality tv program. Your reasonable expectation of privacy goes down when you have already set the bar so low that most every aspect of your private life is on public display. Some of Bollea's legal motions in his failed attempts to convict Gawker of copyright infringement were denied on the basis that publication of the video tape may actually constitute fair use. Celebrities in general have lower expectations of privacy than ordinary citizens. It's the well-known price you pay for fabulous amounts of wealth and fame: lots of people are paying attention to you and are interested in what happens to you, and you can't expect a lot of privacy when everyone's staring at you and hanging on your every word and action. Not that they have zero privacy rights, it's just harder for them to establish the "reasonable expectation". don't I have the right to not have that material distributed even if I were famous and it was "newsworthy"? Your question here is the embodiment of the controversy: where does freedom of the press end and personal privacy begin? Freedom of the press is constitutionally enshrined, and tends to be zealously protected in America as a prerequisite for true democracy and freedom. Personal privacy is not, and emerges more as the consequence of laws and the judiciary's application of certain Common Law sensibilities. There are some constitutional protections against governmental infringements (unreasonable search and seizure, that sort of thing), but the protections you have against non-governmental infringements only exist within laws. So the general expectation you can have is that if something is newsworthy, then it's fair game for the press to report on it. The issue falls to what qualifies as "newsworthy", and who gets to make that judgment? Part of Bollea's legal argument was that what Gawker published was not newsworthy, going to the extent of having the editor concede in court that a depiction of Bollea's genitalia was not newsworthy. And this "not newsworthy" angle seems to be the heart of what their case was getting at: what was reported was not done because it was "news", but because it would get Gawker attention and profits at Bollea's expense (including capitalizing on his famous Hulk Hogan persona). It's also the heart of why some people consider this a controversial and potentially problematic case. Those who have voiced 1st amendment concerns have done so primarily out of concern that this trial would allow courts and juries to decide what was "newsworthy" and what was not. Meaning that news outlets might now have to sweat bullets every time they published something because maybe a jury would assert it wasn't newsworthy, leading those outlets to be less likely to report certain aspects of news. Presumably these people feel that the only ones who should be deciding what is newsworthy is the press, and the public vis-à-vis their consumptions and demands thereof.
As someone with ties to the "foreign" community in the United States, I see these "marriages of convenience" from time to time. In their most "legitimate" form, the couple will move to the same address and "technically" live together, but without consummating the marriage so that it can later be legally annulled. American immigration authorities counter this by asking each spouse about the other's underwear (literally!). Some "marriages of convenience" are legal, insofar as they technically conform to the marriage documents, e.g. regarding "co habitation," even while violating the spirit of the law. Others don't. Your best chance of attacking such "marriages" is not regarding the marriage itself (basically only the couple can decide what constitutes a valid marriage), but rather "compliance" with the marriage documents. That's something any law enforcement officer can understand.
Just below the section you quoted it says: (3) The victim’s prior sexual conduct is not a relevant issue in a prosecution under this section. There is no stated provision for the case you mention. I suspect that the law would apply. Whether the authorities would choose to prosecute in such a case is a very different question. There might be caselaw of this subject. I wouldn't know. If this is more than hypothetical, i would urge consulting a lawyer with local knowledge of criminal practice.
Yes and No Selling your own body for sex is legal. Buying sex is illegal. Therefore the transaction as a whole is legal on the part of the seller and illegal on the part of the buyer. See Prostitution in Canada and Prostitution law in Canada. If you think this is odd, you are not alone '... one judge referring to the laws as "Alice-in-Wonderland" and the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court referred to the situation as "bizarre"'. In the circumstances, although I know of no case law on this, it would appear that any contract for prostitution would be void for illegality. Presumably, to enforce payment for services rendered the service provider would need to pursue a quantum meruit claim in equity.