PHT wrote:
- Only one id is required
- There is no need for a sworn statement from the model
- You are responsible for checking the id.
- 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.
- You can go outside the country and produce material subject to 2257.
- Different rules on ids apply outside the country.

Quoted for truth, and bulletized in hopes that more will read it before replying!

Clarification on the country/foreigner issue:

1. If you shoot a US citizen while outside the US, only their US ID will do. Any IDs they have been issued overseas won't do.

2. If you shoot a non-US citizen outside the US, their foreign ID is ok if it has the same specs (photo, name, birthdate, etc.).

No word on whether you use a really long lens and shoot her across the Rio Grande (lol).

But here's the kicker:

3. If you shoot a non-US citizen while in the US, you can only use their US-issued ID card. Their driver's license, foreign passport, etc. won't work like it would if you were back in their home country.

That's going to put a real damper on using models vacationing from overseas, making traveling tours, etc.

Also, three other points:

1. The comments on this rule specifically call out "profile" sites like MM and say they are exempt from being considered "secondary producers." MM will not need to post 2257 notices, validate records, certify compliance, etc. since the users are responsible for the photos they post.

That also takes the pressure off MySpace, Facebook, YouTube, Flickr, and thousands of other social networking sites.

2. They are now allowing producers to use third-party companies to maintain the records. This should lower the cost and complexity of compliance dramatically, and provide more privacy to models who self-produce and photographers who don't want their name and home address next to every photo online.

3. They are requiring all online photos depicting sexual conduct (including just lascivious exhibition) to have 2257 records information, but it can be in the form of a hyperlink. (I think this may require MM to allow a hyperlink field to be associated with each photo--there's plenty on here within the rules that is still lascivious exhibition, even among non-nude glamour work.)

Personally, I don't shoot anything I would consider "lascivious exhibition" anyway--my art nude work is tame and non-erotic. But since that is apparently a subjective call made by some yahoo who got 51% of the vote who could make my life a living hell, you betcha I'm keeping records for every single shoot, just in case they find something objectionable about my work in the future.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
This is a great question.

Since the new 2257 regulations will make publication in the U.S. onerous - how will it affect material created here in the U.S. and published abroad (non-Internet)???

Thanks Ken.

I will also be contacting the http://www.aclu.org about fighting this . . . if it truly takes time to overturn this, then now is the time to start.

I'm with you, but I don't see much happening.  I've been donating money to the free speech coalition for the past two years to help them fight this.  They had some of the best first amendment lawyers in the country, if not the best, working on this. 

This is where we landed.

Go back and read the part about Obama's AG.  Research where the Dems are on the issue.  The political tide is against us in every way.

And again, I don't mean to sound like and ass, and I know I will, but if you remember the battles that were waged on this site over this and how everyone and there brother told the few of us who would bring this subject up that we were crazy (speaking of which, what ever happened to James Jackson??) well.... 

If it had been more than just adult content producers complaining and lobbying we might have fared better.  Hollywood made it's deal separately, but we still don't know how that will pan out.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

Thanks Ken.

I will also be contacting the http://www.aclu.org about fighting this . . . if it truly takes time to overturn this, then now is the time to start.

Paramour Productions wrote:
I'm with you, but I don't see much happening.  I've been donating money to the free speech coalition for the past two years to help them fight this.  They had some of the best first amendment lawyers in the country, if not the best, working on this. 

This is where we landed.

Go back and read the part about Obama's AG.  Research where the Dems are on the issue.  The political tide is against us in every way.

And again, I don't mean to sound like and ass, and I know I will, but if you remember the battles that were waged on this site over this and how everyone and there brother told the few of us who would bring this subject up that we were crazy (speaking of which, what ever happened to James Jackson??) well.... 

If it had been more than just adult content producers complaining and lobbying we might have fared better.  Hollywood made it's deal separately, but we still don't know how that will pan out.

I don't believe I was ever a part of those "battles" - but if I ever said anything that suggested we shouldn't "fight the future", I sincerely & wholeheartedly regret it.

I'd like to renew our fight with the future now.

Perhaps if we could get the ACLU in on this, as well as the Free Speech Coalition - we could be more effective?  Our only hope is to make this a broader concern - to show that it really does impinge on the rights of artists and our First Amendment Rights (this is where the ACLU comes in), rather than just "content producers" alone (which is who the FSC was basically fighting for).

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.

Yes, but look at everything else we sign that's meant to be saved for records...




IMO and this is coming from someone with a few years in the annuity/insurance industry (one that wasn't caught in crisis this time around) it's more or less the effort that counts and that the effort covers what it needs to as well as that you're being as honest as you can.

It could mean going though a lawyer to double check things, or just reading what's required and doing the very best you can.

William D Walsh wrote:

wonder if they're going to be like other countries and ban Italian vogue..

As an outside of the USA producer, ANY material I sell or publish in the USA MUST comply with US law, this includes photos, video, printed material, promotional photos, video etc.

  Also someone else posted about moving to another country to get away from these laws, it wont work for you unless you become a citizen of that country, you are still a US citizen and have to follow US law until you become a citizen of another country, inwhich you are now subject to their laws inwhich case see the paragraph above I just wrote.

Zopilote wrote:
So if I have paper records, age, photocopy of ID, aliases, I am good to go. No problem

ummm yeah, if you never show you photo/images publicly, once you publish somewhere you have to add to your records/databse where you published and when.

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.

The (new) revised 2257 that is coming into effect in 2009 is not near as bad as the previous 2257 THAT IS ALREADY in effect, original in 1995 and revised again in June 2005... reread your laws.

Compliance is not had, but trying to retroactively comply is, and mistakes (if audited/inspected) is 5 years imprisonment (previously 10) if convicted per mistake for US citizens.

The real stigma for an arrest under the old or new 2257 regs is the law is under the guise of child porn and in your media, you are guilty until proven innocent and by that time you think they are going to report that?... no ratings in reporting that. By the time the truth surfaces, your job, life and future is tainted. Can this happen, its posible, will it happen, maybe not, the laws are vague for a reason, it leaves it open to inturpation of a local judge/DA/whoever trying to score brownie points with voters saying they worked hard to get child molestors off the street.

None of the incantaions of the 2257 law since 1995 have ever done squat to protect children from exploitation in the least, nor will it ever. People who produce kiddie porn or the like have no regard for laws (or morales) This law was enacted to appease a special interest group in their support of a potential President. The law has never been enforced until recently.

In Canada for instance, a law was past to prevent minors (under19) from buying cigarettes, but not from smoking them, it was all in the wording of the law, it satisfied the special interest group, but failed to actually do anything, and if it is not enforced, changes nothing. The it was revised and the onus was placed on the store owners/cashiers to check the IDs being used, this didn't work until they sent in under aged "agents" to spot check... this worked, UNANNOUNCED spot checks, much like the FBI will be doing in the USA for 2257

So minors under 19 can not buy smokes, but can smoke them if someone buys them for them... and they suspend a store licence to sell smokes if they are caught selling to minors. This makes the news fairly regularly. Also what makes the news bigtime across the country (and from the USA) is when someone gets arrested for childporn on their personal computer, then you hear nothing...nadda zip... all you get is the location, a photo of the accused, and the stigma of the arrest.... before being proven guilty.

2257 is ment to curb the production of "adult" material by "mom and pop" producers and hobbists like myself and many of the photographers here on MM and all the other simliar sites. The law is useless unless enforced, until you begin hearing about arrests under 2257 (there have been inspections) no one will take the law seriously... and when it happens to them....... crying ignorance will not save you.

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.

The only thing your forgot in number 3 is a color  copy/Scan. 

Thank You Ken for the clarification and especially your Process.  That is a huge help.

Lumigraphics wrote:
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.

Ah but think of it this way. What if there is a young up and coming lawyer who not yet established a name for themselves? This type of a case, in this current climate, would certainly be a bone they could chase after.

Rich

Rich Mohr wrote:
Ah but think of it this way. What if there is a young up and coming lawyer who not yet established a name for themselves? This type of a case, in this current climate, would certainly be a bone they could chase after.

Rich

Then why aren't they going after home builders and others who use illegal immigrants in plain public view?

shotbytim wrote:
The purpose of the law is clearly not to stop child molesters, but to place such an undue burden on photographers that no one will want to do any nude photography. A great illustration of the folly of trying to prevent one crime by legislating other activities into crimes.

Actually, that's one of the arguments used by the Adult Industry against the proposed changes, some years ago.

Not a lot of this is new and record keeping has been law from a very long time. I'm in Australia and don't HAVE to comply, but do in any case. There are several reasons why I do, least of which is having the ability to sell into the US market.

What's a bit worrying about all this is there seems to be very few Photographers keeping records in compliance with the current/previous laws. As mentioned above, Only images produced before July 3rd 1995 are exempt from 2257. I don't believe that is retrospective with these changes, if I remember correctly the record keeping has been a rquirement since the 90's, in one form or another. What had been ambiguous, and may still be, were the definitions. "What is Porn"?

Other proposed changes to the legislation included public display of the Model's information. I haven't been following it all that closely recently, but it appears this part of the legislation was successfully lobbied out.

rp_photo wrote:

Then why aren't they going after home builders and others who use illegal immigrants in plain public view?

Because the immigrants are building the lawmakers new $14 mil beach house, maintaining their lawns and cleaning their current houses.

NO offense to immigrants or lawmakers meant...

rp_photo wrote:
Set up hosting or community site in safe harbor nation (Cayman Islands, etc.).

Photographer joins site and hosts images using a member name.

How would the DOJ be able to find out who the photographer was?

Think of all the people in the US who gamble on line with impunity. Same concept.

The Internet was designed to thwart censorship and central control. Take advantage.

As a US Citizen, you must comply with US law. Where the host is has little to do with it.

If you think they don't know when you're online, you're in for a bit of a shock.

AcmeStudios wrote:
Seems to me the major players in the adult industry have lobbied lawmakers into this to make it harder and less cost effective for the small producer of these materials to make a profit and to add to the hassle, using it as a deterrent and a way to put down the competition.

Just my opinion.

There may be some truth in that assertion, however one of the arguments used by the Adult Industry was that the law was unconstitutional, in that it limited the ability of people to maintain their current levels of income, doing something which was legal. This argument covered everyone, not just the studios.

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!

ECHO!

AusModels wrote:

There may be some truth in that assertion, however one of the arguments used by the Adult Industry was that the law was unconstitutional, in that it limited the ability of people to maintain their current levels of income, doing something which was legal. This argument covered everyone, not just the studios.

Perhaps. Or could have been smoke to make the major players not look so bad?

AusModels wrote:

You quoted something I didn't say as me. WTF?

rp_photo wrote:
Obviously there will be finite budget and personnel for enforcement, with priority going to more flagrant violators.

I see this as analogous to illegal immigration, which is often plainly apparent yet only a small number are deported.

So a small time hobbiest worried about 2257 would be like a homeowner who has an undocumented worker mowing their lawn being worried about ICE.

Except for one thing. Even if caught seldom is the home-owner prosecuted but the alien is usually arrested and only deported. In the case of 2257 records you could be the one arrested, fined, and even jailed for up to 5 years. Believe it or not [and this IS true] even if every model you have ever used is 18+ and even if you would otherwise be in the clear if you did have the records - the recordkeeping violation alone [failure to keep or maintain the records as required], by itself, in isolation, is a separate, distinct and prosecutable criminal offence.

The bottom line? If, being required to do so, you do not keep the records you also do not want to be caught not keeping the records.

Studio36

AcmeStudios wrote:
Seems to me the major players in the adult industry have lobbied lawmakers into this to make it harder and less cost effective for the small producer of these materials to make a profit and to add to the hassle, using it as a deterrent and a way to put down the competition.

Just my opinion.

Not true. The mainstream adult production houses would like to see it gone, in any form in which it has existed, to the dustbin of legal history as well.

One persistently irritating and financially harmful, as well as notoriously difficult to deal with, area which the adult business community has not exploited, but absolutely should have, is infringers and out-and-out piracy of content for lack of records. Only one such case of any significance has ever been mounted, but then withdrawn before it came before the courts. Even then that case was predicated on CA's unfair competition law. They were fearful, and still are, that such cases would have further validated the purpose and need of the regulations - something they did not want to do.

No. You can't blame the adult industry for this one.

Studio36

AusModels wrote:
As a US Citizen, you must comply with US law. Where the host is has little to do with it.

If you think they don't know when you're online, you're in for a bit of a shock.

There was a guy prosecuted, some would say persecuted, under Florida state obscenity statutes and he was hosting in the Netherlands.

He became instantly unpopular with the Bush administration when he allowed posting of war images to his site. There was nothing at all illegal about that. So they went after him for other personal postings that included sexually explicit images. That case was so bizarre that reportedly the head of the Miami FBI office pulled agents off terrorism investigations to develop a case against him. Then turned all their information over the the country sheriff where he resided who was a real "Bubba" type in the best traditions of the stereotypical fat southern redneck sheriff of the Hollywood depictions, who, in the end, saw to it that the guy was charged with over 200 counts of [publishing] obscentiy.

You can run but you can't hide.

Studio36

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
So who are they really targeting, Jessica who posts her boob pics on Photobucket or the adult pr0n sites?

And in regards to sexy, clothed images, how is one narrow-minded politician going to determine what's "sexy" and exhibits adult behavior?  Will they know the different between fine art and what they're focused on?

What is this, "G-Rated America"?

In time, they'll be taking money from those who they think make too much, will tell us we're limited on how much we can drive our cars, etc.

I believe if "Jessica" posts photos of herself she is exempt, but I could be mistaken.

bustlesprout wrote:

I believe if "Jessica" posts photos of herself she is exempt, but I could be mistaken.

You ARE mistaken . . . the law still applies even if it is your own image.
Last year a 15 year old girl was arrested even though she took the photos of herself with her webcam and posted them to a site that she built herself.

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
How are these rules enforced? Do they pick people at random to check credentials? How exactly does it work?

According to what the FBI agents described, there are two computer programs that they use. One is a database that contains the names of producers and photographers that have been collected by agents doing research. The other is a program that can randomly select records from a database program.

The reason they use a randomizing program is so that they cannot be accused of going after someone in particular and that everyone has the same chance of being inspected. That means that the small guy has the same odds as a big company.

It would be interesting to know how they do their research.  Are they scouring the Internet looking for nudes?  Are we paying FBI agents to surf porn?  (Could be a fun job for the right person!)  Is the "researcher" applying the 2257 standard when deciding who's name to add to the database?  Is someone with a few artistic topless pictures of women old enough to not be mistaken as a child as likely to be added as someone doing erotic barely legal / Lolita stuff?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

You ARE mistaken . . . the law still applies even if it is your own image.
Last year a 15 year old girl was arrested even though she took the photos of herself with her webcam and posted them to a site that she built herself.

KM

Right, I didn't realize we were actually talking about a minor.  I mean if you are of age I don't think you have to have to comply with 2257 to post photos of yourself.  I thought the wording specifically addressed that, as well as a husband and wife producing a video for their own enjoyment.

Midnight Imaging wrote:

It would be interesting to know how they do their research.  Are they scouring the Internet looking for nudes?  Are we paying FBI agents to surf porn?  (Could be a fun job for the right person!)  Is the "researcher" applying the 2257 standard when deciding who's name to add to the database?  Is someone with a few artistic topless pictures of women old enough to not be mistaken as a child as likely to be added as someone doing erotic barely legal / Lolita stuff?

Are they scouring the Internet looking for nudes?  =  yes

Are we paying FBI agents to surf porn?  =  yes

Is the "researcher" applying the 2257 standard when deciding who's name to add to the database?  =  No . . . just as long as there are nudes, you are qualified to be on the list

Is someone with a few artistic topless pictures of women old enough to not be mistaken as a child as likely to be added as someone doing erotic barely legal / Lolita stuff?  =  yes

KM

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
So who are they really targeting, Jessica who posts her boob pics on Photobucket or the adult pr0n sites?

And in regards to sexy, clothed images, how is one narrow-minded politician going to determine what's "sexy" and exhibits adult behavior?  Will they know the different between fine art and what they're focused on?

What is this, "G-Rated America"?

In time, they'll be taking money from those who they think make too much, will tell us we're limited on how much we can drive our cars, etc.

I for one am sick and tired of empowered non-experts deciding that we are commercial or our work is pornographic.