Gibson Photo Art wrote:
ok. So would it be possible to keep these records online for inspection?

I'm aware of the security risks, but keeping records of any type could be abused.

No  . . . the law is very specific about how you must keep your records:

Records must be kept in both paper and digital form,

indexed by the model's last name,

cross-referenced to every work and every published URL on the internet,

kept in a separate filing cabinet

along with an archival copy of every image which was published,

with proper notification given on the entry page to the website to a physical address where the custodial records are kept,

which need to be available for unannounced inspections for 20 hours every week during usual business hours (9-5)

you can be thrown in jail for five years for each infraction of those complex record keeping requirements even if no minors are ever involved and even if you never shoot "porn."

KM

DJantz wrote:
Does all this apply for a private shoot with no plans at all for publication or display?  Say a girl does it for her boyfriend, wife for hubby, etc.

Probably not . . . as long as the images are never shown to anyone else.

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Probably not . . . as long as the images are never shown to anyone else.

KM

Thanks

slave to the lens wrote:
Hey, you used my Q!




So theoretically, if I

a) have 24 models I've shot in the past 2 years while only shooting an image of an ID (if that, and rarely)

and

b) focused on the genitalia in a (arbitrarily decided) titillating fashion

and

c) Have said images on the internet...

Then
A) I need to retroactively seek these documentations

B) Remove my images until doing so

C) Move to a country that values personal liberties over reactionary paranoia.

I am in disbelief about this whole mess. Photographers and models can't make art and put it on appropriate sites, but they can show T&A on t.v for little kids to see? WTF?

I understand art will still be made, just with a bunch of crap to deal with... But, why is anyone focusing on this, when there is so much more to worry about!

Gibson Photo Art wrote:
Where is the normal business hours aspect? I see where it says during the producers normal business hours.

"Advanced notice would provide the opportunity to falsify records
in order to pass inspection. Lack of specific case-by-case notice
prior to inspection will promote compliance with the statute and
encourage producers to maintain the records in proper order at all
times, as is contemplated by the statute. The rule will specify that
inspections are to occur during the producer's normal business
hours. The inspection process clearly does not contemplate
warrantless forced entry solely because no one is present when the
investigator arrives."

My hours are evenings and the weekends. Which I can easily maintain the 20 hours required. If I'm on vacation though then what? Or I'm in the shower when they come? Do they leave a card and come back later?

No . . . the onus of responsibility is on you to have your regular hours posted on the door. Not being there can be considered a violation . . . and each violation can be punishable by five years in prison.

KM

Nicole Mullins wrote:

I am in disbelief about this whole mess. Photographers and models can't make art and put it on appropriate sites, but they can show T&A on t.v for little kids to see? WTF?

I understand art will still be made, just with a bunch of crap to deal with... But, why is anyone focusing on this, when there is so much more to worry about!

Because for the past two years commercial shooters and "artists" have been laughing at those of us beating the drum.  They didn't care because they don't shoot "porn" and obviously no one in their right mind would ever confuse what "they" do with "porn"...

It's the same thing that happens whenever someone asks about shooting a minor naked.  Many of us chime in to say why that is a bad idea, but then the same few fucktards always come on to say how it's fine and fuck the government.  Well, sure, fuck the government ok.  But then don't cry when some overzealous prosecuters decides to go after you.

It doesn't mater what you think of your work, or what I think of your work.  It only matters 1) what the law is and 2) how an anti-porn crusader who thinks anything sexier than a woman in a ski parka is porn could use the law to fuck with you.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

No . . . the onus of responsibility is on you to have your regular hours posted on the door. Not being there can be considered a violation . . . and each violation can be punishable by five years in prison.

KM

I'm sorry Ken, but I'm not seeing that at all in these regulations. Where are you finding that? Plus my shoots are by appointment only. There is no walk in clients.

Paramour Productions wrote:
It doesn't mater what you think of your work, or what I think of your work.  It only matters 1) what the law is and 2) how an anti-porn crusader who thinks anything sexier than a woman in a ski parka is porn could use the law to fuck with you.

Overzealous crusaders or other with power who have it in for you will find a reason whether there are 2257 laws or not.

Paramour Productions wrote:
Because for the past two years commercial shooters and "artists" have been laughing at those of us beating the drum.  They didn't care because they don't shoot "porn" and obviously no one in their right mind would ever confuse what "they" do with "porn"...

At first they came for the trade unionists...

Gibson Photo Art wrote:

I'm sorry Ken, but I'm not seeing that at all in these regulations. Where are you finding that? Plus my shoots are by appointment only. There is no walk in clients.

It may or may not be posted in the regulations, I'm not quoting the law.

What I am relating is what the FBI agent in charge of investigating 2257 said he's looking for when approaching a building to do an inspection. He also said that he'd wait a reasonable amount of time to have the records presented to him. When asked, he said that 15 minutes would be a reasonable time.

KM

Gibson Photo Art wrote:

I'm sorry Ken, but I'm not seeing that at all in these regulations. Where are you finding that? Plus my shoots are by appointment only. There is no walk in clients.

Maybe this link will help:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

Or, start here, but be sure to click on the amendment links:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … 28;cc=ecfr

(c) Conduct of inspections. (1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in §75.4. For the purpose of this part, “normal business hours” are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or, for inspections to be held at the place of business of a producer, any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, the producer must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less than 20 hours per week.

(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the operations of the establishment.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

No . . . the onus of responsibility is on you to have your regular hours posted on the door. Not being there can be considered a violation . . . and each violation can be punishable by five years in prison.

KM

Plenty of photographers don't have a studio or place of business, shooting only location.  What then?

DJantz wrote:

Plenty of photographers don't have a studio or place of business, shooting only location.  What then?

Then I imagine the inspectors will show up at your residence.

KM

RSM-images wrote:
The operative word in the "free trade and commerce" clause of the Constitution of the United States is "free" -- meaning that such trade and commerce within and among the various States is to be *free* of federal interference.

.

Actually, the intent of the Commerce clause was to prevent states from imposing tarriffs on products produced in another state.   Only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, the states are explicitly denied that power

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.

Wrong.   As other have pointed out, Obama's pick for Attorney General is on record saying that the government should target the little guys who aren't able to defend themselves in order to create a mass of precedent that can then be used to go after the big guys.

It's terrorism, plain and simple.   Keep everyone scared that the police could knock down their door at any time.   Make it impossible or nearly so to comply with the law so that everyone's a criminal even if they make the effort to obey it.   That way you can arrest anyone at any time using the pretext of some technical rules violation to punish them for something else they did (like voting for the wrong candidate, or speaking out against the government, or whatever)

DJantz wrote:
Plenty of photographers don't have a studio or place of business, shooting only location.  What then?

The law only says you have to provide the location where the records can be found. If you want to keep them somewhere else, the onus (and extra work) is on you. The new regs seem to allow a third party to be able to keep these files now so that they DON'T have to come to your house/condo/trailer.

Clyph wrote:

Actually, the intent of the Commerce clause was to prevent states from imposing tarriffs on products produced in another state.   Only Congress has the power to regulate interstate commerce, the states are explicitly denied that power

. . . and this relates to 2257 in what way ?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

It may or may not be posted in the regulations, I'm not quoting the law.

What I am relating is what the FBI agent in charge of investigating 2257 said he's looking for when approaching a building to do an inspection. He also said that he'd wait a reasonable amount of time to have the records presented to him. When asked, he said that 15 minutes would be a reasonable time.

KM

Thanks Ken. That's helpful. I don't get the impression that agents are looking to cause problems. Just enforce the regulations reasonably. Plus we have to remember that there are a lot of steps before any type of prison time. Panic will not help the situation at all.

I will comply as best I can with the information I have. I don't think I have to comply with what I'm reading.

Midnight Imaging wrote:

Maybe this link will help:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

Or, start here, but be sure to click on the amendment links:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … 28;cc=ecfr

(c) Conduct of inspections. (1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in §75.4. For the purpose of this part, “normal business hours” are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or, for inspections to be held at the place of business of a producer, any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, the producer must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less than 20 hours per week.

(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the operations of the establishment.

That doesn't seem unreasonable. I don't like any of this, but I don't think it will be hard for me to comply.

Leroy Dickson wrote:
So... who wants to go into third-party record hosting? :-)

Could be a lucrative business.

And a dangerous one as well . . .  don't forget the penalties for making a single mistake.

KM

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.

Sure.... ask Tommy Chong about that one.... specifically how the patriot act and millions (literally) of dollars allocated towards federal DOJ activities (read anti-terrorism) were used to arrest him for selling glassware!!!!  Literally the only law he breached was an obscure (and previously un-enforced) law about violating a states law from another state.  Specifically he sold custom made glass bongs (legally with taxes collected, business license, several employees ie a legit business) to a undercover agent who bought them in california in person (where it is legal) and then had him ship them to an address in pensylvania.

When the federal case was made, they admitted that they spent millions of dollars forming a task force, setting up this sting, appointing a special federal prosecutor (all monies that should have gone to finding terrorists) to specifically get Tommy for his willful glorifying of maijuana use!

But hey thats POT... I'm sure no-one in the federal govt has a hard on for PORN!!!  and lest you argue that it proves your point because of his fame... tell that to the othe 27 defendants arrested by the the same task force!

SinVerguenza wrote:
I want to adhere to the law, but I'm not certain I'll be able to collect retroactive ID's.

This might be helpful:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit conduct, whose original production date was prior to March 18, 2009.

SinVerguenza wrote:
So, I'm curious. Does anyone know anyone, or heard of anyone that has done jail time for this? If it has been a law (if in a different media/ genre) since 1995, I'm sure they've prosecuted a few people, right?


I want to adhere to the law, but I'm not certain I'll be able to collect retroactive ID's.


I know as a hobbiest I'll be doing it from now on, but do I really need to expect my door to get kicked in because I've shot the boobs of a stripper, or a 20-something couple kissing?


Jee-bus.

The FBI will not kick down your door. They will ring the bell and if you don't answer within 15 minutes, they will go away.

But they will be back . . . with a warrant for your arrest.

It can get messy after that . . .

KM

Midnight Imaging wrote:

This might be helpful:

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

(g) Records are not required to be maintained by either a primary producer or by a secondary producer for a visual depiction of sexually explicit conduct that consists only of lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person, and contains no other sexually explicit conduct, whose original production date was prior to March 18, 2009.

That only applies to the new regulations that are added to the older ones that have basically the same requirements dating back to 1995.

KM

RSM-images wrote:
.

Waaa ... waaa ... waaa...!

Just keep and maintain the UNconstitutional paperwork and be done with it.

**********

There is absolutely NO constitutinal provision for federal law enforcement.

The operative word in the "free trade and commerce" clause of the Constitution of the United States is "free" -- meaning that such trade and commerce within and among the various States is to be *free* of federal interference.

.

Um...  No....  Sorry....   You obviously need to spend some more time in the law library.  (no offense).

Midnight Imaging wrote:
This is interesting, although I certainly wouldn't count Wikipedia as a definitive legal reference.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_Prot … cement_Act

At present, the Department of Justice has only implemented one specific case based primarily on the new 2257 laws and its supportive regulations. The case was against Mantra Films, Inc., based in Santa Monica, California, and its sister company MRA Holdings (both owned by Joe Francis), who are the originators of the Girls Gone Wild video series. Francis and several of his managers were prosecuted, citing infractions of this act. In January 2007, these charges were for the most part dropped.

However, Francis and the company entered guilty pleas on three counts of failing to keep the required records and seven labeling violations for its series of DVDs and videos before U.S. District Judge Richard Smoak, agreeing to pay $2.1 million in fines and restitution. This allowed Francis to avoid possible harsher penalties which include five years prison time for each violation.

Also in 2006, the FBI began checking the 2257 records of several pornography production companies.

So, they went after a fella with deep pockets who, after plying young college girls with booze, would videotape their drunken debauchery....to an amazing profit margin.


Strangely, I'm ok with that.

Midnight Imaging wrote:

Maybe this link will help:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

Or, start here, but be sure to click on the amendment links:
http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … 28;cc=ecfr

(c) Conduct of inspections. (1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in §75.4. For the purpose of this part, “normal business hours” are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or, for inspections to be held at the place of business of a producer, any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, the producer must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less than 20 hours per week.

(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the operations of the establishment.

So I can maintain my own records at home and specify that my business hours are in the evening after 7:00 PM and on weekends? That's actually true. I work during the day and only pursue my art in the evenings and on weekends. Hmmm

SinVerguenza wrote:

So, they went after a fella with deep pockets who, after plying young college girls with booze, would videotape their drunken debauchery....to an amazing profit margin.


Strangely, I'm ok with that.

And that IS the problem.  Listen I'm no fan of that guy either but if we don't object until we are affected by then it is too late!  (I saw someone posted the first line of the Oh so apprapos poem "at first they came for the trade unionists...").  Believe me when and if they come for you there will be someone saying "so what I never liked his work and he has nothing in common with me!"  Also consider this ... he avoided prison by paying 2.1million dollars!  Do you have that sort of bank.... if not hope you have no plans for the next 5 to 15 years!

Midnight Imaging wrote:
...

(c) Conduct of inspections. (1) Inspections shall take place during normal business hours and at such places as specified in §75.4. For the purpose of this part, “normal business hours” are from 9 a.m. to 5 p.m., local time, Monday through Friday, or, for inspections to be held at the place of business of a producer, any other time during which the producer is actually conducting business relating to producing a depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct. To the extent that the producer does not maintain at least 20 normal business hours per week, the producer must provide notice to the inspecting agency of the hours during which records will be available for inspection, which in no case may be less than 20 hours per week.

(3) The inspections shall be conducted so as not to unreasonably disrupt the operations of the establishment.

so according to this provision (because it's an or clause) I can state that I work a second day job and only shoot photography work evenings and weekends and declare those my 20 hours.  or am I reading this wrong?


And as for the whole sitution, I fully intend to adhere to law.  The way I'm looking at this is not so much as a complete and utter invasion of privacy but as a preparation by the FBI.  I feel this is viewed as required because of the surge in amateur porn of girls at parties, etc. and websites that host sexually motivated images of members' girlfriends and the like. 

Even though it is a random selection, The agent will be likely be briefed on your content and I think (unless they're some uber-conservative porn nazi) they'll be going easier on those that shoot what is generally considered artful nudes or nudity that does not impy a softcore nature and hit the amateur stuff harder to cut down on the girls-gone-wild-ish stuff.  That is provided the couple records they check on are sufficiently kept.

Either way I'm not happy with it but you gotta do what you gotta do.