USC 18-2257 Compliance

All featured models on PornBilly.com are or were at least 18 years of age or older at the time the photos or videos were taken. PornBilly has no roles in procuring models or producing content for this site. We merely distribute content provided by our advertisers. Under our agreement with such advertisers, they represent that they are in full compliance of fulfilling their obligations under Section USC 18-2257. All images are copyrighted and used with permission from the respective sponsor/site from which they were taken.

Should you have any complaints regarding 2257 issues related to PornBilly.com, do not hesitate to contact us.

If you don't know what USC 28-2257 here's a brief description courtesy of Wikipedia:

Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act

Child Protection and Obscenity Enforcement Act of 1988 (Pub. L. 100–690, title VII, subtitle N (§7501 et seq.), Nov. 18, 1988, 102 Stat. 4485, 18 U.S.C. § 2251 et seq.) is a United States Act of Congress, and part of the United States Code, which places stringent record-keeping requirements on the producers of actual, sexually explicit materials. The guidelines for enforcing these laws (colloquially known as 2257 Regulations (C.F.R. Part 75)), part of the United States Code of Federal Regulations, require producers of sexually explicit material to obtain proof of age for every model they shoot, and retain those records. Federal inspectors may at any time launch inspections of these records and prosecute any infraction.

While the statute seemingly excluded from these record-keeping requirements anyone who is involved in activity "which does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for, the participation of the performers depicted," the Department of Justice (DOJ) defined an entirely new class of producers known as "secondary producers." According to the DOJ, a secondary producer is anyone who "publishes, reproduces, or reissues" explicit material.

On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that the record keeping requirements were facially invalid because they imposed an overbroad burden on legitimate, constitutionally protected speech

Read the full article