Five Moons wrote:
I'm confused by who exactly these regulations apply to...

There should be no confusion here.  It applies to anybody who "publishes" photos of human beings, and posting photos on websites is, in this case, considered publishing.

JustOwen wrote:

There should be no confusion here.  It applies to anybody who "publishes" photos of human beings, and posting photos on websites is, in this case, considered publishing.

SO an art gallery is not "publishing"?

JustOwen wrote:

There should be no confusion here.  It applies to anybody who "publishes" photos of human beings, and posting photos on websites is, in this case, considered publishing.

Thank you

Zopilote wrote:
SO an art gallery is not "publishing"?

That's a good question for a lawyer, but my educated guess is that the answer would be yes, it is publishing.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Does anyone know what a porn inspector looks like? 

I mean, could I just fake a badge, go to a holder of records and demand to see the names and addresses of all my favorite porn stars?  Seems like a major security hole.

I would guess that they would hold an FBI badge.....

Either Way...they're NOT getting in til I place a call to my local FBI office to verifiy their ID, and if they're NOT a real agent, I wonder if they're be waiting around for the real ones to show.

retphoto wrote:

I would guess that they would hold an FBI badge.....

Either Way...they're NOT getting in til I place a call to my local FBI office to verifiy their ID, and if they're NOT a real agent, I wonder if they're be waiting around for the real ones to show.

My guess is the FBI office will route you to a long menu before making you wait for 30 minutes and dropping your call.  Meanwhile your maybe fake FBI agent is either getting impatient or calling in the SWAT team to bust down your door and take you down town.

I was hoping Obama would de-nazify this country but I guess I was mistaken.

Roger Barnstead wrote:
You were mistaken "liberals" are very fond of force and they like using it "for your own good".  You ain't seen nothin yet!

"Paranoia will destroy ya!" (The Kinks)

Dragon-Fire Productions wrote:
Man... im quiting photography!!! :-P

This is f***ing ridiculous!!! I mean photography (as an art) is dead and its all about commercial goals and attitude!!

Yeah this is MM and its all about finding "models", however, is also a place where "artists" can find muses people to work with!!!

Shit... thank God I ddint buy my D3x yet! :-P

Now there's a reasonable, level headed reaction!

Lumigraphics wrote:
The Supreme Court has ruled that anonymous speech is not only allowed but specifically protected...this seems to fly in the face of that ruling, if a performer must identify themselves.

I also have to wonder which US Attorney is THAT hard up for cases to go after some hobbiest taking simple nude pics on the weekend. They typically won't even look at property cases under one million bucks.

The time to take action is now:

http://www.aclu.org
http://www.aclu.org/contact/index.html

ACLU
125 Broad Street, 18th Floor
New York, NY 10004

For Southern California:

http://www.aclu-sc.org/pages/contact

ACLU of Southern California
1313 West Eighth St.
Los Angeles, CA 90017
213 977 9500 Phone
213 977 5299 Fax

Roger Barnstead wrote:
Paranoia?
Hardly, I didn't wite this rubbish as law, the US Goverment did.
News flash, the Goverment is not your friend and never has been and never will be no matter how much or how little you like the people who are supposed to be in charge of it.
Goverment like fire is a dangerous master.
I have always approached laws this way: always think of them as being enforced by your worst enemy.
I always ask, have they caught all the murders yet? Rapist? Breaking and entering people yet? No, they haven't. Where does the goverment get the time and money to go after people and ruin a life for screwing up paper work where no actual crime has been committed? And what for? The answer is not a pleasant one.

"Paranoia will destroy ya!"  (The Kinks)

BodyartBabes wrote:
I think what most people are overlooking, is that 2257a applies to " Record keeping requirements for simulated sexual conduct" not to art nudes, simple nudes, or non-sexually explicit images.

Scott

Unfortunately, with the new revision it's not quite that simple.

JustOwen wrote:

Unfortunately, with the new revision it's not quite that simple.

Paranoia will wreck ya

Roger Barnstead wrote:
Paranoia will wreck ya

Suit yourself, but it's all there in black and white for those who care to read it

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

remerrill wrote:
So, it seems to both comply… and to cover my (our) ass(es), we need for each shoot:

1 - Model Release
2 - Performer Names Discloser Statement (2257 Statement)
3 – View and Photocopy 2 Photo ID’s, (have model initial)(do not copy at 100%)
4 – Database Record of all Model Information

also… maintain 2257 Statements and Database Records separate from Releases.

It has also always been my custom to do the paperwork after the actual shoot… same day, immediately following the shoot. Seems that now all of this paperwork should be done pre-shoot.

Does this about cover it?
I know this situation is new for all of us… but there are those with some knowledge and experience with all of this… I am hoping to hear your thoughts.

And thank you Ken for starting this thread, giving all of us the heads-up and the helping hand.

problem with #3:

how many people do you know with 2 forms of picture identification?  I have my driver's license, passport, and my smog technician license but i've only about a half of my records that have a second ID, let alone a picture one.

AndrewFoto wrote:
problem with #3:

how many people do you know with 2 forms of picture identification?  I have my driver's license, passport, and my smog technician license but i've only about a half of my records that have a second ID, let alone a picture one.

I agree... but that is why I asked as a question.
I was basing that list in major part on Ken's discription of his practices.
I am wondering if 2 ID's are required... or just recc?
In the pdf I read on some page a list of acceptable ID's... but it said nothing of 'number of IDs'

remerrill wrote:

I agree... but that is whay I asked as a question.
I was basing that list in major part on Ken's discription of his practices.
I am wondering if 2 ID's are required... or just recc?
In the pgf I read on some page a list of acceptable ID's... but it said nothing of 'number of IDs'

Fortunately for you and many others, Mr. Marcus is wrong about a lot of things. Only one id is required and there is a specific list of what is acceptable. There is no need for a sworn statement from the model, although it is a good idea to have the model fill out the form and sign it, because then you are not liable for the list of "other names used". This is the only thing that you are not responsible for. The model is also not liable since he is not the producer. Cool, huh? You are responsible for checking the id. Due diligence is required. Having the model swear that the id is real is not going to help you with possible criminal charges. You need to look at it. It is not illegal to photocopy an id at 1:1. It is not required that the copy be in color. It does have to be clear and legible. You do not have to have records for "lascivious display of ..." except for material produced after March 18, 2009. Since that date is in the future, you don't need records for any such images now. You can go outside the country and produce material subject to 2257. Different rules on ids apply outside the country. He is a famous photographer and he is right about a lot of other things. For example, it is easy to comply.

Please go read the regulations yourself. They are not very long nor are they very complicated.

PHT wrote:

Fortunately for you and many others, Mr. Marcus is wrong about a lot of things. Only one id is required and there is a specific list of what is acceptable. There is no need for a sworn statement from the model, although it is a good idea to have the model fill out the form and sign it, because then you are not liable for the list of "other names used". This is the only thing that you are not responsible for. The model is also not liable since he is not the producer. Cool, huh? You are responsible for checking the id. Due diligence is required. Having the model swear that the id is real is not going to help you with possible criminal charges. You need to look at it. It is not illegal to photocopy an id at 1:1. It is not required that the copy be in color. It does have to be clear and legible. You do not have to have records for "lascivious display of ..." except for material produced after March 18, 2009. Since that date is in the future, you don't need records for any such images now. You can go outside the country and produce material subject to 2257. Different rules on ids apply outside the country. He is a famous photographer and he is right about a lot of other things. For example, it is easy to comply.

Please go read the regulations yourself. They are not very long nor are they very complicated.

thank you for clearing this up!!

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
I'm kinda curious. Since the government is requesting us to have this record keeping, shouldn't they also supply us with the forms for them models to sign? Someone posted a link to one, but is that an official document or one that someone made up? They do supply us with tax forms after all.

I was thinking the same thing.  either way...