Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
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

So you could include a photo of the release and an id with the picture set and you're good?

Fernando Pacheco wrote:
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.

I think MM will be exempt.

a- none of the images are available for purchase
b- you must be a member to see anything 18+

The gist of the act seems to be aimed at -

a- protecting minors
b- regulating the commercial porn industry
c- regulating commercial artists who do nude work

(in other words, the act is about collecting taxes, and protecting minors)

Last I heard, the porn market was bigger then all of the major league sports combined, but I bet they've discovered that the gov't is getting the shaft on collecting taxes, since quite a few porn site are hosted off-shore. (hence all the language about 'foreign production'.)

The act seems fairly unconcerned with private usage of the same material (and MM would be considered fairly private). I think Tyler should also make it so that only MM members can view ANY of the material on MM. (no password= no entry onto the site)

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

I understand that, but it is not saying this type of photo can't be published/posted.  It's simply saying that records of the model's age verification must be kept.

Terry Breedlove wrote:
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 ?

I don't think so. You can put fake info on it.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
So you could include a photo of the release and an id with the picture set and you're good?

No, you need to publish with the photo the location where the records are kept, such as the address of your studio for instance, not the actual record itself.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

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

You know, not for nothing, but some of us have been bringing this up for over a year, saying what was likely to happen.  When we would caution folks to get proper documentation prior to shooting nudes, the same characters would come on and chastise us becuase they were "artists" and these regulations only cover "porn".  And nude doesn't equal porn.  Right?

I've said it before (ad nauseum) and I'll say it again.  The only opinion that matters is the DA's in the county you live in.  Be careful.

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

The flag looks pretty!

JustOwen wrote:
No, you need to publish with the photo where the records are kept, such as the address of your studio for instance, not the actual record itself.

So what?

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
You know - I've never really been into shooting nudes.  But this makes me want to start shooting them...

I won't bore you all with the story of when my 4 1/2 year old son decided to go swimming in the Ocean and took off his clothes - resulting in MULTIPLE complaints to the life guards and beach patrol.  It would just depress you all and make you want to move to a different country...

Fucking unbelievable!

NOTHING IS FUCKING VULGAR

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
So what?

Exactly

herblish wrote:

NOTHING IS FUCKING VULGAR

I find most everything around me to be vulgar, but that has nothing to do with nudity or sex, which are two of the least offensive things I see.

JustOwen wrote:
Exactly

I don't see what the big deal here is... I mean we already should keep track of stuff for taxes, bills, payments, and this doesn't seem like that big of thing to add on, since we should be doing it anyway.

Niall rhymes with real wrote:
2257    (3) whether the child is depicted in an unnatural pose, or in
inappropriate attire, considering the age of the child;


You're under arrest,  model's wearing a suit and tie on the beach.
We're seizing all your equipment, no child should be wearing Doc Martens.
Your fine is $10,000 that child's too old to be wearing Piglet pyjamas.

Children must be protected but what's the standard of unnatural pose and
inappropriate attire?

How bout the Jon Benet Ramsey's of the underage runway ? 


That's pretty damn unnatural...

Fwindustries wrote:
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) :-}

Freedom doesn't mean no rules or laws.

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!!!

There's the rub. There's always going to be someone somewhere who is going to pretend to offended by a bare boob or a butt shot.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:

I think MM will be exempt.

a- none of the images are available for purchase
b- you must be a member to see anything 18+

The gist of the act seems to be aimed at -

a- protecting minors
b- regulating the commercial porn industry
c- regulating commercial artists who do nude work

(in other words, the act is about collecting taxes, and protecting minors)

Last I heard, the porn market was bigger then all of the major league sports combined, but I bet they've discovered that the gov't is getting the shaft on collecting taxes, since quite a few porn site are hosted off-shore. (hence all the language about 'foreign production'.)

The act seems fairly unconcerned with private usage of the same material (and MM would be considered fairly private). I think Tyler should also make it so that only MM members can view ANY of the material on MM. (no password= no entry onto the site)

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:
I don't see what the big deal here is... I mean we already should keep track of stuff for taxes, bills, payments, and this doesn't seem like that big of thing to add on, since we should be doing it anyway.

Yes, that is axactly what I have been saying throughout this whole thread.  The sky is actually NOT falling, we're not all going to prison, yes you CAN still publish nudes and sexually explicit photos.  This is no BFD.

TomWinsteadPhoto wrote:

There's the rub. There's always going to be someone somewhere who is going to pretend to offended by a bare boob or a butt shot.

. . . and in the case of the new regulations, it doesn't even have to be bare.

DJantz wrote:

Freedom doesn't mean no rules or laws.

heh heh. Regulation doesn't mean no rule of laws. (freedom is everything it implies)

FYI- the USA is heavily regulated, it is not "free". Sure, we intended to be free, but that isn't how it turned out.


"or the land, of the regulated, and the home, of the, mostly regulated."  *new lyrics for our song*

JustOwen wrote:
This is no BFD.

I'm also going to venture to guess that they aren't going to be total dicks about it unless you do something to get their attention or to really push the limits.

I'm not a lawyer or cop, but I can guess and make myself believe that authorities have better things to do than track down rouge photographers who are shooting average stuff within the rules of what's porn/sexual/nude.

Andrew Thomas Designs wrote:

I'm also going to venture to guess that they aren't going to be total dicks about it unless you do something to get their attention or to really push the limits.

I'm not a lawyer or cop, but I can guess and make myself believe that authorities have better things to do than track down rouge photographers who are shooting average stuff within the rules of what's porn/sexual/nude.

You live in Minnesota.

What do you think it will be like for someone living and shooting "average stuff within the rules of what's porn/sexual/nude" in Alabama...

PhotoJoe wrote:
how are these rules enforced? 
do they pick people at random to check credientals?  how exactly does it work?

"producer" or "secondary producer" must have filed documents under 2257. If
a complaint or discovery is made of offending material, and then traced back to
such producers, and subsequently documentation is not found, then that's a violation
of 2257. Local jurisdictions receive complaints, and they have local "vice squads",
and State and Federal jurisdictions have investigative units.

JustOwen wrote:

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

As for "C", just how will verification be published and stored? Will there, or are there sites to maintain such records? Will sites such as Model Mayhem offer the services? I'm thinking that the cost of taking pictures will soon be going up...

PhotoJoe wrote:
how are these rules enforced? 
do they pick people at random to check credientals?  how exactly does it work?

I thought the same thing. It's probably only going to effect large companies. Other then that, I am really  not worried about it. There is no way they can come after us all. They're so many thing people do that is illegal and not enough resources to go after everyone.

Paramour Productions wrote:
You live in Minnesota.

What do you think it will be like for someone living and shooting "average stuff within the rules of what's porn/sexual/nude" in Alabama...

What I'm trying to say - and why I should have someone speak for me - is that I can't see how this will create more problems for people who haven't had problems already.

From there it's a matter of following the rules, and if something does come up, and again as long as you didn't do anything to really piss someone off, I can't see how it would be a big deal for someone to look though your records.

Unless you're doing another girls gone wild thing and not checking id's and stuff...

Paramour Productions wrote:
They don't even have to be a minor...

Exactly!  They don't even have to be nude:

JMX Photography wrote:
He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:

jeff bidewell wrote:
so... does a photo of the model holding his/her drivers license work well enough?

No - it is somewhat more complicated than that.