Forums > Photography Talk > Nude Photographers: Some very Bad news!!!

Photographer

J C ModeFotografie

Posts: 14718

Los Angeles, California, US

Please read:

studio36uk wrote:
CRITICAL NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS SUBJECT - BREAKING NEWS HERE

This thread has been very timely as a way to get the word out to you all.

Yesterday, 18 December 2008 will burn into your memory as well as give you heartburn. The US Department of Justice published the NEW REVISED 2257 REGULATIONS including the 2257A changes mandated by Congress for compliance with the Adam Walsh Act which established as 18 USC c:110 s:2257A

A full analysis of this damn thing is not yet available BUT what is there will make your eyes water, and I guarantee it will.

These NEW record keeping regulations extend a NEW recordkeeping requirement to a LOT of work involving mere nudity, and some with no actual nudity at all, presented in any way that can be interpreted as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area" [even if covered] that is produced on or after March 18, 2009

Read and weep - - -

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

text version at

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/E8-29677.htm

PDF at

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf

The actual text of the NEW regulations is on Pages 38 - 42 of the PDF - there are requirements that wll apply to this site and your own website, and any other uses, such as in print, published in or distributed in the United States.

Studio36

A very Merry Christmas to you all from the US Department of Justice

http://i4.photobucket.com/albums/y132/calichic10684/merryxmas.gif

This is yet another chunk the government is biting out of our First Amendment rights.  Contact your closest lobbying group (ACLU?) now!

Dec 19 08 02:13 pm Link

Photographer

Steve Alkok

Posts: 399

Edmonton, Alberta, Canada

Sucks to live in the USA big_smile

Dec 19 08 02:15 pm Link

Photographer

J T I

Posts: 6051

San Diego, California, US

I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

Dec 19 08 02:15 pm Link

Photographer

J C ModeFotografie

Posts: 14718

Los Angeles, California, US

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

Read Studio36uk's post closely - the new regulations also affect non-nude photography.

Dec 19 08 02:16 pm Link

Photographer

Giuseppe Luzio

Posts: 5834

New York, New York, US

lets get naked as much as possible till march....

Dec 19 08 02:18 pm Link

Photographer

Darkroomist

Posts: 2097

Saginaw, Michigan, US

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:
http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080122/21/4796a9c917a40_m.jpg

Dec 19 08 02:22 pm Link

Model

bbz123

Posts: 258

Walnut Creek, California, US

So what if my nudes bring laughter instead of lascivious thoughts? What then Judge Porno? huh?

Dec 19 08 02:23 pm Link

Clothing Designer

Fantasy wardrobes

Posts: 106

Los Angeles, California, US

Can someone explain this in plain simple English please? English isn't my first language.

Dec 19 08 02:23 pm Link

Model

K I C K H A M

Posts: 14668

Los Angeles, California, US

JMX Photography wrote:

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:
http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080122/21/4796a9c917a40_m.jpg

Ugh. This is ridiculous.

How annoying.

Dec 19 08 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

Hipgnosis Dreams

Posts: 8943

Dallas, Texas, US

bbz123 wrote:
So what if my nudes bring laughter instead of lascivious thoughts? What then Judge Porno? huh?

It means that if even one person finds one of your nudes even vaguely pornographic in nature, you are then liable.

Looks like threads like this will soon have a whole lot of legal precedence to quote.

Dec 19 08 02:25 pm Link

Photographer

epo

Posts: 6196

Columbus, Ohio, US

Something tells me I am going to need to start doing this 2257 stuff
http://modelmayhm-1.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/081216/21/494891c937dbe_m.jpg
This probably counts lol

Dec 19 08 02:26 pm Link

Photographer

Studio-X

Posts: 631

Detroit, Michigan, US

it's embarrassing to be an american sometimes. no, strike that, OFTEN.

i wonder if i only shoot myself can i circumvent these new ridiculous rules...? or would i be arrested for not filling out my own release form?

Dec 19 08 02:27 pm Link

Photographer

ColourFool

Posts: 1658

Breda, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands

my god ...
Land of the free?

Any american photographer wants to rent a room in my cosy house in Holland? (yeah, that country where you can legally buy your weed .. who cares about a boob .. or two) :-}

Dec 19 08 02:27 pm Link

Photographer

JustOwen

Posts: 627

Arlington, Washington, US

"Keep on Rockin' in the free world!!"

Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link

Photographer

AUTONOMY

Posts: 3674

It's positively Orwellian. So, who want's to do some art nudes with me befoe March rolls around [must have I.D. & be 18+]?

Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link

Photographer

Kenneth Light Studios

Posts: 367

Basingstoke, England, United Kingdom

Makes me want to move back to England but I am sure it will follow there

So much for land of the Free and being an artist, what would they say about something like THE KISS BY RODIN.

Where will this end, destroying books that talk about it?


Just makes me sick

Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link

Model

Vegas Sarah Ashley

Posts: 833

Las Vegas, Nevada, US

Can this apply to models as well with "suggestive" images online???  Basically, it's saying that forms have to be submitted for each set you do that is of this nature??

Dec 19 08 02:33 pm Link

Photographer

J T I

Posts: 6051

San Diego, California, US

Wait,

So I just read it - but am not an attorney.  Does this say you have to verify the age of the model, or does it affect your ability to post such images to the internet at all?

I'm confused...

Dec 19 08 02:33 pm Link

Photographer

Ken Marcus Studios

Posts: 8835

Los Angeles, California, US

As someone that has been actively complying to the 2257 regulations for several years (since they were introduced) I welcome these new changes, as they clarify our responsibilities and make many of the areas of compliance more manageable and easier to work with.

You can now keep the records strictly as digital information, eliminating the need for redundant paperwork.

The best part is that now you can have a third party designated as your 'keeper of the records' and not have to reveal your studio or home address.

Unfortunately, the penalties for non-compliance still carry a 5 year prison term for each violation. If you make 5 mistakes in your record keeping, it's 25 years.

If you shoot nudes and think that this doesn't apply to you . . . . please check with a lawyer to confirm your liability.

KM

Dec 19 08 02:35 pm Link

Photographer

Kelvin Hammond

Posts: 17382

Billings, Montana, US

The act appears to be more concerned with commercial images (ie producing images intended for resale (but not the ones sold to the person in the photo for their own use).


"Finally, the Department responds to three other comments regarding
the regulation's applicability to non-commercial activities.
One
comment states that the definition of ``sell, distribute, redistribute,
and re-release,'' in Sec.  75.1(d) suggests that the entire record-
keeping obligation of producers is limited to commercial production
operations. One comment stated that age-verification requirements
should apply only to producers who pay performers, not individuals who
post photos of themselves,and another comment maintains that an
exemption statement should not be required if a depiction is produced
by married couples who produce videotaped images of themselves for
their own personal use.

    The Department adopts these comments in part and rejects them in
part. The statute is not clearly limited to producers who pay
performers. However, it is limited to pornography intended for sale or
trade.
Section 2257 speaks in terms of participants in the professional
pornography industry: The persons exhibited are ``sexual performers''
who must provide their ``alias, nickname, stage, or professional
name,'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(b)(2), and the producer's relationship with the
``performer'' is described as ``hiring, contracting for, managing and
otherwise arranging for the depiction of'' the individual to be shown
in the images, id. 2257(h)(2)(B)(iii). Similarly, records must be kept
for ``every performer portrayed'' (suggesting multiple ``performers'');
a disclosure statement is to be affixed to ``every copy'' of covered
sexually explicit material (suggesting multiple copies); and producers
working with images already in existence by definition produce
materials ``intended for commercial distribution."

Dec 19 08 02:37 pm Link

Photographer

J C ModeFotografie

Posts: 14718

Los Angeles, California, US

Sarah Ashley Barker wrote:
Can this apply to models as well with "suggestive" images online???  Basically, it's saying that forms have to be submitted for each set you do that is of this nature??

The short answer is "yes".

Dec 19 08 02:37 pm Link

Photographer

First Street

Posts: 127

Stephenville, Texas, US

I'm not a lawyer, but I plan on pestering several about this over beer today.  Maybe if what your doing is not lascivious, you are okay.  If their primary purpose is not to arouse, is not pornography,  or designed to promote prostitution,  would you have to comply with this?  Consider: a nude for art is not necessarily obscene, and the primary purpose is not to arouse.  Perhaps, this rule is designed solely for the pornography/adult entertainment market.  Thought I'd throw that out there.

Dec 19 08 02:38 pm Link

Photographer

JustOwen

Posts: 627

Arlington, Washington, US

Fantasy wardrobes wrote:
Can someone explain this in plain simple English please? English isn't my first language.

My take on it, just reading through it briefly, is that the burden is on us as photographers to verify that our models are over 18 for anything but the most innocent and innocuous of photos, and that we are required to keep records of this verification, and that we are required to publish, with our photos, where these files can be inspected.

Further, it appears that websites such as MM will be required to verify that we, as photographers, have made this verification and maintain these files before we can upload photos to their site.

Dec 19 08 02:39 pm Link

Photographer

Peace

Posts: 468

Dumont d'Urville - permanent station of France, Sector claimed by France, Antarctica

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
The act appears to be more concerned with commercial images (ie producing images intended for resale (but not the ones sold to the person in the photo for their own use).


"Finally, the Department responds to three other comments regarding
the regulation's applicability to non-commercial activities.
One
comment states that the definition of ``sell, distribute, redistribute,
and re-release,'' in Sec.  75.1(d) suggests that the entire record-
keeping obligation of producers is limited to commercial production
operations. One comment stated that age-verification requirements
should apply only to producers who pay performers, not individuals who
post photos of themselves,and another comment maintains that an
exemption statement should not be required if a depiction is produced
by married couples who produce videotaped images of themselves for
their own personal use.

    The Department adopts these comments in part and rejects them in
part. The statute is not clearly limited to producers who pay
performers. However, it is limited to pornography intended for sale or
trade.
Section 2257 speaks in terms of participants in the professional
pornography industry: The persons exhibited are ``sexual performers''
who must provide their ``alias, nickname, stage, or professional
name,'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(b)(2), and the producer's relationship with the
``performer'' is described as ``hiring, contracting for, managing and
otherwise arranging for the depiction of'' the individual to be shown
in the images, id. 2257(h)(2)(B)(iii). Similarly, records must be kept
for ``every performer portrayed'' (suggesting multiple ``performers'');
a disclosure statement is to be affixed to ``every copy'' of covered
sexually explicit material (suggesting multiple copies); and producers
working with images already in existence by definition produce
materials ``intended for commercial distribution."

Thank you Smedley for providing at least a little bit of objective reporting to this subject.

Dec 19 08 02:39 pm Link

Photographer

JustOwen

Posts: 627

Arlington, Washington, US

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
Wait,

So I just read it - but am not an attorney.  Does this say you have to verify the age of the model, or does it affect your ability to post such images to the internet at all?

I'm confused...

It looks like it's saying that A)  you have to verify the age of the model  B) you have to keeps records of said verifications, and C) you have to publish the location where this verification can be viewed when you publish the picture

Dec 19 08 02:41 pm Link

Photographer

rolfe james photography

Posts: 95

Phoenix, Arizona, US

I don't have a problem with rules that require me to obtain and maintain proper identification of the models age.

That seems like an easy thing to do.

Dec 19 08 02:43 pm Link

Photographer

Sick Subroutine

Posts: 119

Phoenix, Arizona, US

You don't have rights in the United States.. since the government reserves the right to give and take... you have privileges. That is all. The US is not free. Europe is not free because they live under the European Union and subject to the EU's constitution.

Dec 19 08 02:44 pm Link

Model

Emily Kherrington

Posts: 1000

Oh please.   I'm not worrying until someone comes to my house or sends me a personal letter with a formal complaint.

There is nothing I'd have to change if all it's saying is that having proof of legal age is necessary and to be able to give that information if requested - and it sounds like most of you do this anyway as a matter of practice.

Dec 19 08 02:44 pm Link

Photographer

Fernando L Pacheco

Posts: 942

New York, New York, US

More than that. Sites like Model Mayhem which host the images require records to be kept of file for every shoot and every model which depicts sexually suggestive photos, or photos featuring bondage or fetish, even if clothed.

If I am interpreting this correctly.

Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

DarioImpiniPhotography

Posts: 8747

Everett, Washington, US

I'm so glad the federal government is regulating human sexuality.  I dont know what would happen to the human species if they werent there to make sure everything happened according to their regulations.  Frankly, how humanity has survived prior to 200 years ago is a mystery to me.

Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

JustOwen

Posts: 627

Arlington, Washington, US

rolfe james photography wrote:
I don't have a problem with rules that require me to obtain and maintain proper identification of the models age.

That seems like an easy thing to do.

It really does not appear to be that burdensome.  We all keep documentation already in the form of model releases.  It seems such verification could simply be added to the release.

Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link

Photographer

Stephen Dawson

Posts: 29259

Toronto, Ontario, Canada

No 2257 bull shee-it here!

http://www.roissy.ca/forumlinks/canadaflagsunset.jpg

Dec 19 08 02:47 pm Link

Photographer

Gil Rivera

Posts: 553

New York, New York, US

First Street wrote:
I'm not a lawyer, but I plan on pestering several about this over beer today.  Maybe if what your doing is not lascivious, you are okay.  If their primary purpose is not to arouse, is not pornography,  or designed to promote prostitution,  would you have to comply with this?  Consider: a nude for art is not necessarily obscene, and the primary purpose is not to arouse.  Perhaps, this rule is designed solely for the pornography/adult entertainment market.  Thought I'd throw that out there.

Who really knows. A consevative person and/or party can say that showing boobs is pornography. Or that a butt shot will arouse. We don't really know the actual line that is being drawn here. To me this sucks. I'm so confused!!!

Dec 19 08 02:47 pm Link

Photographer

ColourFool

Posts: 1658

Breda, Noord-Brabant, Netherlands

Broken Image Photo wrote:
You don't have rights in the United States.. since the government reserves the right to give and take... you have privileges. That is all. The US is not free. Europe is not free because they live under the European Union and subject to the EU's constitution.

Being European ... and a lawyer .. I like to correct you on this. There is no EU constitution.

Dec 19 08 02:50 pm Link

Photographer

Fernando L Pacheco

Posts: 942

New York, New York, US

Yes, but Canada has extradition laws. Why do you think so many bank robbers and porn producers go to Brazil?   


Stephen Dawson wrote:
No 2257 bull shee-it here!

http://www.roissy.ca/forumlinks/canadaflagsunset.jpg

Dec 19 08 02:51 pm Link

Photographer

J C ModeFotografie

Posts: 14718

Los Angeles, California, US

JustOwen wrote:

rolfe james photography wrote:
I don't have a problem with rules that require me to obtain and maintain proper identification of the models age.

That seems like an easy thing to do.

It really does not appear to be that burdensome.  We all keep documentation already in the form of model releases.  It seems such verification could simply be added to the release.

Really?  Your current avatar could be subject to the new regulations, just as JMX said:

JMX Photography wrote:

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:
http://modelmayhm-2.vo.llnwd.net/d1/photos/080122/21/4796a9c917a40_m.jpg

Dec 19 08 02:52 pm Link

Photographer

Cheryl Fair

Posts: 147

Baltimore, Maryland, US

Maybe this is more complicated that I realize (I haven't read the document yet) but don't most photographers already keep records of who they are shooting?  My model release forms include the real name and address of the person, and if I have to take a quick shot of their picture id too, so what?

Dec 19 08 02:52 pm Link

Photographer

JustOwen

Posts: 627

Arlington, Washington, US

Gil Rivera wrote:
Who really knows. A consevative person and/or party can say that showing boobs is pornography. Or that a butt shot will arouse. We don't really know the actual line that is being drawn here. To me this sucks. I'm so confused!!!

It looks to me like what it is saying is that any photo of a human being that could possibly sexually arousing to any person is subject to these regulations.  This could concievably be any photo at all!  So it is looking like the prudent thing is to verufy age of every single model you shoot, keeps the records, and understqand that you might be taking your chances of you post any photos of models under 18.

Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link

Photographer

Bob Bentley Photography

Posts: 15140

Westcliffe, Colorado, US

After reading through NEARLY the whole thing it looks to be that "age" verification is the main emphasis, but they want the "real" name, etc, to verify. Also, this is to "confirm" the model is NOT a minor. I don't see where is says anything about NOT being able to shoot adult nudes. So far I see nothing wrong with it and will willingly comply. But, will the models? I always ask for an I.D. and check the age unless it's obvious. I guess now I will have to keep a record of it.

Say "CHEESE!"

Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link

Photographer

B R E E D L O V E

Posts: 8022

Forks, Washington, US

I wonder if adding the info they want to the exif data in each digital and online image is a good way to stay in compliance ?

Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link