This new page is still a work in progess

The Custodian of Records

DVD Box Covers and title sequences usually list a Custodian of Records, together with date(s) on which the movie was filmed. There is some supporting evidence to suggest that Studmall generally did list accurate dates, including metadata inadvertently left on some still photos clearly shot at the same time. This information is required by law and usually taken quite seriously — more so than than now.

The following excerpt from 18 U.S. Code § 2257 summarizes the job description.

18 USC §2257 - Record Keeping Requirements

(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;

…. (e)

  1. Any person to whom subsection (a) applies shall cause to be affixed to every copy of any matter described in paragraph (1) of subsection (a) of this section, in such manner and in such form as the Attorney General shall by regulations prescribe, a statement describing where the records required by this section with respect to all performers depicted in that copy of the matter may be located. In this paragraph, the term “copy” includes every page of a website on which matter described in subsection (a) appears.
  2. If the person to whom subsection (a) of this section applies is an organization the statement required by this subsection shall include the name, title, and business address of the individual employed by such organization responsible for maintaining the records required by this section.

Double Fuck Me Double Fuck Me was the first Brazilian movie released by StudMall, released a few months after Glenn moved there in 2005. It may the only video which features the Seventh Avenue address of Glenn’s main law office on its cover.
In this instance the Custodian of Records was Adrian Armas (misspelt “Armos”, possibly deliberately), the husband of Glenn’s business partner, Jason Buchtel.

If you’re unclear why Jason left mainstream movies and moved into porn, here’s Adrian Armas in Showboy, which Jason produced.

These come from a variety of sources including The Gay Erotic Video Index and The Gay Adult Entertainment Broadcast Network - although not all pages of interest are filed under StudMall.

They are revealing for various reasons including the production dates which appear to be generally accurate where stated (a Date of Duplication is far less informative) and the name and address provided.

Note that David Miranda is explicitly listed as director on a number of sites, including Gay AEBN which credits him with eight movies including the entire Sauna Boys series.

Commentary is included with some of the linked images.
This gallery is so far from being finished, it’s not even funny.

Sauna Boys
Hairy Hustlers v1
Hairy Hustlers v2
Fuck Me
Fuck Me Raw
Sauna Boys 3: Tough Love
Sauna Boys 4
Sebastian's Double Fuck Weekend
NYC Escorts Gone Wild
Tattooed Tops
All Dat Dick
Piss Boys in Love
Bareback Cum Pups 2
Piss Boys in Love Cover 2
Cum Pups
Cum Pups (title sequence)
BB Cum Pups 2 (title seq.)

Many, many regulations.

The detailed implementation of $2257 is at the discretion of the Department of Justice.

(g) The Attorney General shall issue appropriate regulations to carry out this section.

They are actually contained in 28 CFR Part 75.

Over 30 pages of the DOJ decision from 2008 were devoted to a review of the comments received during a public consultation.
And the rules sure bothered some people.

Excerpts from the comments (emphasis added)

The Department received thousands of comments that appear to be part of an orchestrated campaign that opposes the requirement in the proposed rule that adult social-networking sites obtain and maintain personal information concerning their users, including obtaining and maintaining users’ photo identification, as well the ability of the Department to inspect such records and invade user privacy without safeguarding the information once observed.

The Department received thousands of similar comments that note that § 75.5(b) provides for inspections without advance notice and request that it should instead require such notice.

Seven comments state that moving the disclosure statement from the main page to every page is unnecessary and a nuisance. One comment says that each printed page is necessary for records and books, but an explanation is needed for applying this mandate to electronic media. Another comment thought that the disclosure statement could be affixed to a magazine or other printed matter in the same fashion as a shoplifting tag, not printed on the copy itself, and that only movies would actually require appearance of the statement on the work itself. Two comments state that the existing requirement of a disclosure statement on the homepage or principal URL of a Web site has worked well and that there is no need for it to appear on each and every Web page where the triggering content appears.
Two comments state that it is impossible to apply the requirement that the disclosure statement appear on every Web page to live Web casts. Another contends that it is unrealistic to expect a separate disclosure statement or a separate line in a disclosure statement for every separate work that is placed on each and every Web page. One comment notes that for composite works, there are thousands of images often organized into separate galleries. A Web page could have an index page with 100 images that were produced on different dates, according to the comment, and that more generality should be allowed in the statement.
The Department declines to adopt these statements.

One comment asks what the word “matter” means, and the Department again references the plain language of the Act in subsection (a), which refers to depictions of sexually explicit conduct. Another comment asks whether a Web site is a “matter” subject to regulation and, if so, whether each of its elements is an individually “matter” for such a purpose. It also inquires whether a Web site as a whole is a “matter” or whether it is simply an amalgamation of many matters, and whether the Department is requiring many different disclosure statements because a Web site has many different pages.
One comment related that neither the statute nor regulations define a “Web page.”

The Department has received many comments on the application of the proposed rule to secondary producers….
One comment states that the regulations should not apply to a secondary producer who obtained the materials before the compliance date without reproduction rights Two comments argue that secondary producers will not be able to comply with the terms of the proposed rule because primary producers have not made information available to secondary producers in all cases due to privacy concerns. Two other comments remark that even if the primary producer provides the records to the secondary producer, requiring the secondary producer to keep the records harms the performers’ privacy. Four comments objected to applicability of the proposed rule to secondary producers on the ground that secondary producers rarely come into contact with performers. These commenters claim that it is impossible for secondary producers to inspect the original identification of the performers, and that secondary producers cannot comply with this requirement.
The Department declines to adopt these comments.

And on it goes.

The full 42-page document is quite something.
The preceding update to the regulations in 2005 was 16 pages.