JMX Photography wrote:
...The term "pornography" is porously defined in the law.  Many content creators slate (take pics/photocopy the ID) models/actors that appear in content that is not pornographic for fear that the term "pornography" will be broadened in the future or that the regulations will be applied to near-pornographic content, ie Maxim.  This is a legitimate fear because restrictions of this kind often have bi-partisan support having been framed as "protecting children."

If you have something of a background in this legislation and the wrangling over it the past couple of years, since the Adam Walsh Act became law on July 27, 2006, you will realise that is exactly what has just happened, vis a vis the likes of Maxim/Playboy/ect style work.

Gots ta protect them chillens, don'cha know.

Studio36

PHT wrote:
Unfortunately not true. The law was passed in 2006 with wide bipartisan support. Don't expect anything to change in this regard with a new administration. If you want something to change, write to your congressional representatives, not the DoJ.

In many ways the published regulations are lenient given what the law says. Especially making the effective date March 18, 2009 instead of the date that the law was passed. If they had done that, instant felonies for many who didn't pay any attention to what the law says. They also eased the requirement from putting the disclosure statement on every web page to just furnishing a link on every web page. And it appears that sites such as MM have escaped being classified as producers. Every individual who posts a photo, however, is probably liable.

Interesting that you mention that. There is more as well in the fine print. The person who inserts on a web page such an image is liable for the records; the website will also be PROVIDED they exercise [editorial] control of what is published to their site. If they do NOT exercise editorial control [moderation] they are not liable; if they pick and choose [moderate] which images can be posted, allowing some and refusing others, they may very well be required to have and keep records.

But there is also a bright side. If someone steals/infringes such a photo, in cases where records are supposed to be kept, and inserts it [publishes it] on another website the infringer, or the site, or both, is/are liable for the recordkeeping and likewise the penalty for the lack of same. And consider that that payback could literally be hell exactly because infringements are civil matters but recordkeeping violations are criminal acts. At the very least, in the long run it will be another tool to use to have such an image promptly taken down.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
The person who inserts on a web page such an image is liable for the records; the website will also be PROVIDED they exercise [editorial] control of what is published to their site. If they do NOT exercise editorial control [moderation] they are not liable; if they pick and choose [moderate] which images can be posted, allowing some and refusing others, they may very well be required to have and keep records.

They are allowed to use some degree of editorial control, at least to remove material which may be objectionable.

From the Regulations:

(4) Producer does not include persons whose activities relating to the visual
depiction of actual or simulated sexually explicit conduct are limited to the following:

. . .

(v) The transmission, storage, retrieval, hosting, formatting, or translation (or any combination thereof) of a communication, without selection or alteration of the content of the communication, except that deletion of a particular communication or material made by another person in a manner consistent with section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) shall not constitute such selection or alteration of the content of the communication;

Section 230(c) of the Communications Act of 1934 (47 U.S.C. 230(c)) states:

(c)  Protection for “Good Samaritan” blocking and screening of offensive material

(1) Treatment of publisher or speaker

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be treated as the publisher or speaker of any information provided by another information content provider.

(2) Civil liability

No provider or user of an interactive computer service shall be held liable on account of—

(A) any action voluntarily taken in good faith to restrict access to or availability of material that the provider or user considers to be obscene, lewd, lascivious, filthy, excessively violent, harassing, or otherwise objectionable, whether or not such material is constitutionally protected; or

(B) any action taken to enable or make available to information content providers or others the technical means to restrict access to material described in paragraph (1).

I read that as giving MM and similar systems fairly broad latitude to exercise control over content of the site while still not falling within the 2257 definition of "producer".

K E S L E R wrote:
Hell I'd be lucky to work with anyone younger than 19.    So no need to copy ID for me.

I looked only at the first page of photos in your port and there are several there that would require not only a copy of the ID, also full 2257 documentation to boot.

K E S L E R wrote:
Hell I'd be lucky to work with anyone younger than 19.    So no need to copy ID for me.

Kato PWC wrote:
I looked only at the first page of photos in your port and there are several there that would require not only a copy of the ID, also full 2257 documentation to boot.

I just looked at K E S L E R's port, but I don't see any images that I think would need full 2257 documentation.  I think this because I do not see any images with these features:

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

List per this thread:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 761&page=1

Keith Allen Phillips wrote:
Doesn't matter if they're 18 or 81 if you're shooting nudes you should be getting copies of ID.

But why? Is that an american thing? I only can imagine magazines won't publish nudes from minors but what do you have to do with that as a photographer? And why a drivers license????

Midnight Imaging wrote:

K E S L E R wrote:
Hell I'd be lucky to work with anyone younger than 19.    So no need to copy ID for me.

I just looked at K E S L E R's port, but I don't see any images that I think would need full 2257 documentation.  I think this because I do not see any images with these features:

(i) sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex;
(ii) bestiality;
(iii) masturbation;
(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;

List per this thread:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … 761&page=1

ye best read the entire law (2257, 2256, 2257a) as to the definitions both from the revisions made in 2005 and the upcoming ones in 2009, continue on down a couple more paragraphs where you copy/pasted your quote from, and just because its your opinion, it will be just the opinion of the prosocutor, judge and if you are lucky a jury and reread the definations of the above quote your chose.

Good Luck

John Len wrote:
No model should ever give anyone a copy of their drivers license or any other identification. Show them prooof of age if necessary, but no copies.

ID Theft is the fastest growing crime in North America. Although the photog may not use it for that, the copy could end up anywhere of the next few years.

guess you didn't see the federal regulations about certain types of modeling?

JMX Photography wrote:
It all goes back to Traci Lords.  *Using a fake ID* the 15 year old snuck into the porn industry.  Because this minor chose to "victimize" herself the government has tightened regulations on age verification of people engaged in pornography.  The term "pornography" is porously defined in the law.  Many content creators slate (take pics/photocopy the ID) models/actors that appear in content that is not pornographic for fear that the term "pornography" will be broadened in the future or that the regulations will be applied to near-pornographic content, ie Maxim.  This is a legitimate fear because restrictions of this kind often have bi-partisan support having been framed as "protecting children."

yeah that's what pretty much began it all

terrysphotocountry wrote:
Is your question a joke?

Mine isn't. And I don't know USA-laws. In belgium it's only up to police and people with a license as a security guard to ask/take/copy someones id. There are exceptions to that rule, but in no way a photographer is an exception.

I just can't imagine and see why *I* should ever ask somebodies id just because I made a picture from them with some nudity.

TXPhotog wrote:
They are allowed to use some degree of editorial control, at least to remove material which may be objectionable.
---
I read that as giving MM and similar systems fairly broad latitude to exercise control over content of the site while still not falling within the 2257 definition of "producer".

You also need to read down a bit further in the statute TX, keeping in mind that the regulations we are discussing stem from 18 USC c:110 and specifically s:2256/2257/2257A and are, in particular, dealing with record keeping and labelling not the substantive nature of the content directly.

http://uscode.house.gov/download/pls/Title_47.txt
CITE- 47 USC Sec. 230           last revision 01/02/2006

§ 230(e)(1)

(1) NO EFFECT ON CRIMINAL. LAW. Nothing in this section shall be
construed to impair the enforcement of section 223 of this Act, chapter
71 (relating to obscenity) or 110 (relating to exploitation of  children) of
title 18, United States Code, or any other Federal
criminal statute.

I assure you this part is alive and well, and was not struck down in ACLU v Reno, as you can see from the last revision date.

In order to be liable the site must have knowledge making for the distinction between strict liability and informed liability. And that is a big difference in so much as a site may or does control the posting of content or moderates that content with or without the appropriate labelling and the keeping of records required by 28 CFR 75.

If they do not, and can not reasonably, know they avoid liability; if they do know [in advance or by supplied information], and fail to act, they can be liable. That is the same discussion the US DoJ had in the YouTube related comments. In fact it is THE discussion they had precisely.

Studio36

Kato PWC wrote:
ye best read the entire law (2257, 2256, 2257a) as to the definitions both from the revisions made in 2005 and the upcoming ones in 2009, continue on down a couple more paragraphs where you copy/pasted your quote from, and just because its your opinion, it will be just the opinion of the prosocutor, judge and if you are lucky a jury and reread the definations of the above quote your chose.

Good Luck

I have read it (before I posted).  And my opinion is still the same.

You'd have to explain what aspect of his pictures you think requires full 2257 record keeping, cause I'm not seeing it.

Casper Munoz wrote:
I had a model come to me recently complaining about another photographer and his shady actions. But the one thing that he did was asked her to sign not a model release, but a form that gave him permission to submit her photos to Maxim, Playboy, and FHM and he also asked to make a photocopy of her drivers lisence.

Now i could see if the girl was clearly young looking, but he knew she was of age and also knew she has a young teenage child. So clearly it couldnt have been for his purposes, but she asked me, i was dumbfounded, so i ask you... why would he need a copy of her drivers lisence?

Because it's 2009, and not 1899?

Midnight Imaging wrote:
I have read it (before I posted).  And my opinion is still the same.

You'd have to explain what aspect of his pictures you think requires full 2257 record keeping, cause I'm not seeing it.

Not all of his photos, just several of them from the first page, and what I think is irrelevent and what you think is irrelevent as well, what matters is what the fed thinks when looking though your records and photos and if they think you need to keep records and you haven't... its too late to comply.

What I may see in a photo and what you do is very subjective, I see some as be sexually suggestive, example a "comehither" look etc.... not only do you need to read the law (both the proposed one forethcoming, but the revision of 2257 made in 2005 AND in 1995 as well as the discussions by the DOJ in 2005 and any discussion for the proposed new revisions to 2257 coming in 2009 to get a "feel" for what they are going after, if you nitpick a law apart it will have no meaning, leave that up to the lawyers to sort out, once a few cases go to trial and are won or lost, everyone will have a much clearer vision of what will be required.

But I have said on several threads on this site as well as other message boards, read the law, read the discussions on this law, see how it could possibly affect you in the worst way and prepare for it to affect you in the worst way and hopefully you come through unscathed.

Hope this helps some.

Good Luck

Kato PWC wrote:
Not all of his photos, just several of them from the first page, and what I think is irrelevent and what you think is irrelevent as well, what matters is what the fed thinks when looking though your records and photos and if they think you need to keep records and you haven't... its too late to comply.

What I may see in a photo and what you do is very subjective, I see some as be sexually suggestive, example a "comehither" look etc.... not only do you need to read the law (both the proposed one forethcoming, but the revision of 2257 made in 2005 AND in 1995 as well as the discussions by the DOJ in 2005 and any discussion for the proposed new revisions to 2257 coming in 2009 to get a "feel" for what they are going after, if you nitpick a law apart it will have no meaning, leave that up to the lawyers to sort out, once a few cases go to trial and are won or lost, everyone will have a much clearer vision of what will be required.

But I have said on several threads on this site as well as other message boards, read the law, read the discussions on this law, see how it could possibly affect you in the worst way and prepare for it to affect you in the worst way and hopefully you come through unscathed.

Hope this helps some.

Good Luck

He has swimwear photos.  And if I follow your line of thinking, then somebody who goes to the beach with their family and posts some pictures on their blog showing the fun time they had would need to keep 2257 documentation.
I'm not buying this at all.

By "comehither" look, I assume that you are referring to this factor of the Dost test: "whether the visual depiction suggests sexual coyness or a willingness to engage in sexual activity".  But there is no reason to consider that except to determine "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area".  And these models are all wearing at least swimsuit bottoms and not one picture has a crotch as a focal point.

Kellie Krave wrote:
forget the age question.

no one is getting a copy of my I.D. (you can look), or getting me to sign a model release unless there is a paycheck there.

end of story.

Wow.

Just to clarify, you'd prevent a photographer from recording your ID on a TF* shoot?

Granted, I don't know what the laws are in Argentina but here in the great state of Illinois, I am not doing a trade-based shoot without having a limited release signed. Otherwise, from my reading of the IRPA, I can't even use them in an online portfolio.

Kellie Krave wrote:
forget the age question.

no one is getting a copy of my I.D. (you can look), or getting me to sign a model release unless there is a paycheck there.

end of story.

She does nudes, but she is in Argentina.  There is no 2257 there so she may well have a different attitude about providing an ID.  As for TF*, it just sounds like she doesn't want to do them, which is her perogative.

I don't think that a model doing nudes in the U.S. could take the same position.

That having been said, perhaps this thread should go back off into oblivion since it is so old.

ei Total Productions wrote:
She does nudes, but she is in Argentina.  There is no 2257 there so she may well have a different attitude.

I don't think that a model doing nudes in the U.S. could take the same position.

That having been said, perhaps this thread should go back off into oblivion since it is so old.

But she also shoots in the US (permanent resident status).

I didn't see the date of the OP when I replied.

ETA: Alan, I just saw you added the part about TF* and her prerogative. Could not agree with you more, but there's probably a better way for her to put it (since it's kind of vague).

Kellie Krave wrote:
forget the age question.

no one is getting a copy of my I.D. (you can look), or getting me to sign a model release unless there is a paycheck there.

end of story.

That's one more hot chick crossed off my "to-shoot" list.

ei Total Productions wrote:
Ummm, .....

That Ummm is tres California eh?

Sorry, I'll leave now, the real point has been made.

K E S L E R wrote:
Hell I'd be lucky to work with anyone younger than 19.    So no need to copy ID for me.

All it takes is some asshole w/ a vendetta to claim that blonde chick in your avi is 16. Especially doing noodz, you need to comply w/ the new 2257. Just because there are assholes who do shit like that...

Paul

Casper Munoz wrote:
I had a model come to me recently complaining about another photographer and his shady actions. But the one thing that he did was asked her to sign not a model release, but a form that gave him permission to submit her photos to Maxim, Playboy, and FHM and he also asked to make a photocopy of her drivers lisence.

Now i could see if the girl was clearly young looking, but he knew she was of age and also knew she has a young teenage child. So clearly it couldnt have been for his purposes, but she asked me, i was dumbfounded, so i ask you... why would he need a copy of her drivers lisence?

If he shot nudes, which is a reasonable assumption considering who he wanted to submit them to, then to be prodent he keeps copies of two I.D.'s.

As to what she signed, there appears to be a lot of garbled terms and misunderstanding, since it doesn't make sense for him to not get a release, but to get permission to submit the photos...

See 18 USC 2257 and 2256, also see, generally, Model Releases.

Damon Banner wrote:
18 or 81 doesn't matter, I'm getting a copy of that ID.

Why is your avitar a jet black horizontal rectangle?

Kellie Krave wrote:
forget the age question.

no one is getting a copy of my I.D. (you can look), or getting me to sign a model release unless there is a paycheck there.

end of story.

so you ain't getting paid.  bye bye.  out the studio now.

Damon Banner wrote:
18 or 81 doesn't matter, I'm getting a copy of that ID.

That's what so cool about this 2257. If it's lascivious and it's genitals and it's 80 years old, the U.S. is worried about it being child porn. Whoa.