C.C. Holdings  wrote:
First you photograph model''s ID for records and then you need their social security number to file a 1099-misc if you pay them over $600 in a year?

as required by the federal government? (or in a general cover-your-ass even if the consequences for non-compliance are low, kind of way)

so we''re all ok with that? It is ridiculous for individuals to have this information spread out everywhere. that is so insecure.

Are there any middle men that do this in a secure way, for this industry? Maybe Docusign could be used this way, but I''m not sure. Where like the model''s information is stored in that system, as well as new release forms and contracts, and it can be verified when necessary. I don''t think there is any way around this dilemma especially if you plan to file 1099''s

Yours is a topic I would love to read responses from!  It''s something I have been thinking about.  There are some possible ways to deal with this.  I''ve heard of 3rd party records storage for the 2257 record keeping aspect.  As of yet, I have not dealt with paying over the $600 mark per model per year, but coming close.  Anyone else have concerns besides me and you?

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Yours is a topic I would love to read responses from!  It''''s something I have been thinking about.  There are some possible ways to deal with this.  I''''ve heard of 3rd party records storage for the 2257 record keeping aspect.  As of yet, I have not dealt with paying over the $600 mark per model per year, but coming close.  Anyone else have concerns besides me and you?

Most models I work with only once a year, or do not hit the $600 mark for whatever reasons. But here we are. I've had contractors and subcontractors before, and in other industries, but none of which I had soooo much information for. This is definitely an unintentional problem the federal government has created

Nobody else on set has this problem, stylists, studios, whatever.

Even with 2257 record storage, you still have to collect the information it at the time of shooting. The custodians just help with the arduous inspection requirements.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
First of all . . . photographing the model''''s ID is not what is required.
A color xerox that is not at 100% magnification is necessary for 2257 regulations. We do it at 120%

You only need the models SS # if you are paying them over $600.oo a year.

Do not kid yourself . . . the consequences for non-compliance are RIDICULOUSLY HIGH rather than ''''kind of low''''.

Punishment is 5 years in Federal Prison for Each Clerical Error, is what goes along with the 2257 regs.
Not quite sure what the Homeland Security Act offers as punishment for the same offense. But, I''''d bet it ain''''t a slap on the wrist.

You cannot use a middleman to do the paperwork for you, unless they are on the shoot and can verify that the ID''''s and paperwork are correct. Do you really want to take a risk that someone else can screw up the paperwork and YOU go to jail?

If you are concerned about doing things legally, you need to pay more attention to the details of how you collect and store the 2257 information and inspect everything yourself. It takes all of about 3 minutes to do all the model releases and 2257 forms.

Best of luck . . . KM

yes, I understand. I mentioned it that way, just in case the ''debate'' when the other direction. Internet threads are unpredictable, I could post this same thread in a different forum on this website and have a completely opposite response to the notion of covering my ass

this thread is more about the security of that information. Just imagining if I was a model and had even just a handful of photographers and small businesses with literally all of my ID information

Sandra Vixen wrote:
On older SS statements there is a disclaimer, "never give out personally identifiable information such as your social security number".

(just saying)

I personally find this ridiculous, and $600 a year is hardly anything.

I agree.... I wouldn''t even report it .. $600 is nothing   or pay thru paypal as a gift .. such a low number .. would your tax people really care

Daren King wrote:
Everyone has to pay their fair share in taxes.  Everyone !!

I don''t think you can use the word "fair" and "taxes" in the same sentence. ;D

Sandra Vixen wrote:
On older SS statements there is a disclaimer, "never give out personally identifiable information such as your social security number".

(just saying)

I personally find this ridiculous, and $600 a year is hardly anything.

we are talking about filing forms for everyone that you paid OVER $600 in a year.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
we are talking about filing forms for everyone that you paid OVER $600 in a year.

so hire a cheap payroll company. 20 $600 jobs in a year is $12,000. Do you think people shouldn''t disclose $1200 in income, of $2400, or where exactly is the line you think should be drawn?. Where should the line be drawn, cause lobby for the higher amount if you think that more than the $600 per odd job, or as an independent contractor for a single employer, someone does should be tax free.

And how about employers. How much should people be paying to independent contractors before they need to verify that the people are working legally in the united states?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
First of all . . . photographing the model''''''''s ID is not what is required.
A color xerox that is not at 100% magnification is necessary for 2257 regulations. We do it at 120%

You only need the models SS # if you are paying them over $600.oo a year.

Do not kid yourself . . . the consequences for non-compliance are RIDICULOUSLY HIGH rather than ''''''''kind of low''''''''.

Punishment is 5 years in Federal Prison for Each Clerical Error, is what goes along with the 2257 regs.
Not quite sure what the Homeland Security Act offers as punishment for the same offense. But, I''''''''d bet it ain''''''''t a slap on the wrist.

You cannot use a middleman to do the paperwork for you, unless they are on the shoot and can verify that the ID''''''''s and paperwork are correct. Do you really want to take a risk that someone else can screw up the paperwork and YOU go to jail?

If you are concerned about doing things legally, you need to pay more attention to the details of how you collect and store the 2257 information and inspect everything yourself. It takes all of about 3 minutes to do all the model releases and 2257 forms.

Best of luck . . . KM

Ken knows what he is talking about.  He is talking about keeping hard copies, not information on a database that could be hacked.  As long as you keep your paperwork on a combination of hard copies, and also on perhaps an external hard drive as well, I think you''ll be alright.  If you are filing taxes that include profits and deficits, then of course you should include amounts that are traceable by the IRS.  It''s a part of doing business.  If you shoot nudity, keep those 2257 forms accessible.  If this is a hobby, then keep the money off the books by paying cash, or paypal as a "gift."   It should not be that complicated. 

If someone is handling serious amounts of money, then the penalty for tax evasion can by severe.  If one messes up on their 2257 paper work ... we''re not talking about social security numbers ... the penalty can be severe.  For privacy and protection of your models information, keep all that off any computers that are Internet accessible.

Star wrote:

so hire a cheap payroll company.

Yeah, probably the solution. The payroll company sends the talent W2''s and W9''s, and I wouldn''t have to worry about their SSN myself.

Star wrote:
20 $600 jobs in a year is $12,000. Do you think people shouldn''''t disclose $1200 in income, of $2400, or where exactly is the line you think should be drawn?

Who cares, this thread is about information security, not public policy. This would benefit the models who have copies of their IDs floating around all over the country.

Daren King wrote:
Everyone has to pay their fair share in taxes.  Everyone !!

Any time I get paid over $600 I have to report it unless it's cash.  I've received the paperwork in the mail from businesses that record-keep by law (they are supposed to!).

So any creepy person can pay you over $600 and ask for ID/Social?
I've never been in that situation...yikes

**MM crew/staff - fix your code on ' and ", esp. for the people that pay a fee every month.

Lallure Photographic wrote:
The government doesn''''t care about what makes sense. The individual freelancer, is just as liable to meet the government''''s requirements, as is the largest corporations.

You simply have to deal with it, no matter how little sense it makes.

True.  Then again, I don''t work with creepy people even for trade.

Jules NYC wrote:

Any time I get paid over $600 I have to report it unless it''s cash.  I''ve received the paperwork in the mail from businesses that record-keep by law (they are supposed to!).

So any creepy person can pay you over $600 and ask for ID/Social?
I''ve never been in that situation...yikes

**MM crew/staff - fix your code on '' and ", esp. for the people that pay a fee every month.

Actually, you are required to report all your income, cash or not.  The person who pays you over 600 in a calendar year has to report that and send you a 1099 as well.

MoRina wrote:
Actually, you are required to report all your income, cash or not.  The person who pays you over 600 in a calendar year has to report that and send you a 1099 as well.

Of course, then if it''s around $600 you can pay someone $599 and avoid it.  One job was oddly $600 and we stayed later.  We were asked whether we wanted the extra money reported or the $599.  I wanted the extra money and reported it.

Jules NYC wrote:
Of course, then if it''''s around $600 you can pay someone $599 and avoid it.  One job was oddly $600 and we stayed later.  We were asked whether we wanted the extra money reported or the $599.  I wanted the extra money and reported it.

So the problem with all these tax avoidance strategies is that they are illegal and the IRS frequently prosecutes these kind of ridiculous assumptions about tax liability. (Usually in the form of expensive penalties, but not limited to and including jail)

And lets look at how you get caught:

The person that paid you accounts for this expense in their books. They call it contracting or something, you don''t report it at all, or you called it something else like a gift. (Or, as some other photographers here mentioned, they called it a gift and assume the model doesn''t pay their taxes)

If EITHER of you gets audited at any time in the future the stories for these particular payments have to match, or the IRS will follow up on that particular payment to get to the bottom of it.

This applies to amounts under $600, it applies to amounts over $600. The **ONLY** difference is if one person or company pays over $600 throughout the course of that year, they are simply obligated to send you a 1099. That doesn''t mean that the other jobs are unaccounted for or are tax free!

Regardless, you will never know how the other person actually accounted for it in their taxes, and you will never know if they got audited either. You won''t know if they consciously did their taxes themselves, or if some software auto calculated their tax liability or if they went to HR Block or had a friend did it. If you earned, you have a tax liability.

The IRS won't not send a whole audit team out after you for your $500 annual salary. They will simply mail you demanding tax, penalty payment and interest, as their systems got this information from someone you interacted with that paid you in the past and had to account for it.

Jules NYC wrote:
True.  Then again, I don''''t work with creepy people even for trade.

This is not an effective strategy. It is statistically unlikely that any person you physically interact with is going to steal your ID or care about your social security number. So forget about whispering your social security number on the phone. It is much more likely that they get hacked or compromised by somebody else.

So for non-nude non-provocative work, having a copy of a model's ID isn't necessary (but it's good to be consistent), and for under $600 payments, having their social security number for a 1099 isn't necessary.

But I think a payment processor, as someone else mentioned, can mitigate the other scenario when all that becomes necessary.

I guess I'll be interested in looking that up.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
So the problem with all these tax avoidance strategies is that they are illegal and the IRS frequently prosecutes these kind of ridiculous assumptions about tax liability. (Usually in the form of expensive penalties, but not limited to and including jail)

And lets look at how you get caught:

The person that paid you accounts for this expense in their books. They call it contracting or something, you don''''t report it at all, or you called it something else like a gift. (Or, as some other photographers here mentioned, they called it a gift and assume the model doesn''''t pay their taxes)

If EITHER of you gets audited at any time in the future the stories for these particular payments have to match, or the IRS will follow up on that particular payment to get to the bottom of it.

This applies to amounts under $600, it applies to amounts over $600. The **ONLY** difference is if one person or company pays over $600 throughout the course of that year, they are simply obligated to send you a 1099. That doesn''''t mean that the other jobs are unaccounted for or are tax free!

Regardless, you will never know how the other person actually accounted for it in their taxes, and you will never know if they got audited either. You won''''t know if they consciously did their taxes themselves, or if some software auto calculated their tax liability or if they went to HR Block or had a friend did it. If you earned, you have a tax liability.

The IRS won''t not send a whole audit team out after you for your $500 annual salary. They will simply mail you demanding tax, penalty payment and interest, as their systems got this information from someone you interacted with that paid you in the past and had to account for it.

True.

I highly doubt tax tricks are for people who make $500/599 a year.
As for me, I keep to the straight and narrow with the state and fed.

Being arrested is not my style.

Sandra Vixen wrote:
On older SS statements there is a disclaimer, "never give out personally identifiable information such as your social security number".

(just saying)

I personally find this ridiculous, and $600 a year is hardly anything.

You may not be legally obligated to share your SS# with anyone other than the IRS and your employer, but if you choose not to provide it to anyone else,  it removes many opportunities in life.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
First of all . . . photographing the model''''s ID is not what is required.
A color xerox that is not at 100% magnification is necessary for 2257 regulations. We do it at 120%

You only need the models SS # if you are paying them over $600.oo a year.

Do not kid yourself . . . the consequences for non-compliance are RIDICULOUSLY HIGH rather than ''''kind of low''''.

Punishment is 5 years in Federal Prison for Each Clerical Error, is what goes along with the 2257 regs.
Not quite sure what the Homeland Security Act offers as punishment for the same offense. But, I''''d bet it ain''''t a slap on the wrist.

You cannot use a middleman to do the paperwork for you, unless they are on the shoot and can verify that the ID''''s and paperwork are correct. Do you really want to take a risk that someone else can screw up the paperwork and YOU go to jail?

If you are concerned about doing things legally, you need to pay more attention to the details of how you collect and store the 2257 information and inspect everything yourself. It takes all of about 3 minutes to do all the model releases and 2257 forms.

Best of luck . . . KM

Isn''t the 2257 for actual explicit sexual acts, not simulated, thus making most of this a mute point? Unless you''re actually shooting explicit porn...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

Steve Korn wrote:
Isn''''t the 2257 for actual explicit sexual acts, not simulated, thus making most of this a mute point? Unless you''''re actually shooting explicit porn...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

See the definition in 2256
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

Some phrases don''t mean what they would otherwise mean.

Kevin Connery wrote:
See the definition in 2256
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2256

Some phrases don''''t mean what they would otherwise mean.

Come on guys you have like a decade''s worth of forum threads on this issue here, like a broken record on this site no wonder it''s dead

I'd prefer to discuss solutions that might help the models out

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
I'd prefer to discuss solutions that might help the models out

A model who is really concerned with giving personally identifying information to multiple people can get a DBA and an EIN. 

A photographer who wants to make sure those records are kept safe from any potential computer vulnerability should keep them in paper form.

Steve Korn wrote:
Isn''t the 2257 for actual explicit sexual acts, not simulated, thus making most of this a mute point? Unless you''re actually shooting explicit porn...

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257

No, since late 2008 > Jan 2009 and the advent of section 2257A simulated acts [conduct] that fall within the definitions and descriptions set out in section 2256 are covered as well for record-keeping purposes.

Instead of the link you referenced in your post you want to see this one:

http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/2257A

Studio36.

Brian Diaz wrote:

A model who is really concerned with giving personally identifying information to multiple people can get a DBA and an EIN. 

A photographer who wants to make sure those records are kept safe from any potential computer vulnerability should keep them in paper form.

Pointedly, however, that will NOT work for 2257 purposes.

Studio36

Jules NYC wrote:

Any time I get paid over $600 I have to report it unless it's cash.  I've received the paperwork in the mail from businesses that record-keep by law (they are supposed to!).

So any creepy person can pay you over $600 and ask for ID/Social?
I've never been in that situation...yikes

**MM crew/staff - fix your code on ' and ", esp. for the people that pay a fee every month.

You have to report all income, including cash, of any amount.

The $600 threshold is solely a trigger for a specific form.

Jules NYC wrote:

Of course, then if it''s around $600 you can pay someone $599 and avoid it.  One job was oddly $600 and we stayed later.  We were asked whether we wanted the extra money reported or the $599.  I wanted the extra money and reported it.

At $599 they don't have to report it via a 1099, but you still do.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

At $599 they don't have to report it via a 1099, but you still do.

I do.
It's not often I'm in the non-reporting situation.

Mikey McMichaels wrote:

You have to report all income, including cash, of any amount.

The $600 threshold is solely a trigger for a specific form.

Tell that to the restaurant industry.
I'm not in it but you think everyone does?

Brian Diaz wrote:
A model who is really concerned with giving personally identifying information to multiple people can get a DBA and an EIN.

yeah they definitely should. a dba for a sole proprietor would be very cheap and the EIN is free and takes 3 minutes to do online.

so this at least protects their social security number in theory. but I don't see this actually happening en masse any time soon. I could tell models that I work with to get an EIN as a sole proprietor, this doesn't really require filing a dba. This $600 issue is not common, you typically have models for 2 or 3 hours either for free or for a few hundred dollars

Brian Diaz wrote:
A photographer who wants to make sure those records are kept safe from any potential computer vulnerability should keep them in paper form.

Yeah. But right now the model has to trust everyone and everything, forever. Gotta be a better way to do this.

But again, I don't think the $600 issue + ID requirements is that common unless there is repeat work through an agency, in which case the agency would ideally handle all that stuff as a middleman.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Yeah. But right now the model has to trust everyone and everything, forever. Gotta be a better way to do this.

Why should a model be treated any differently than everyone else?

Not to hijack this thread because I think it's on topic... But is anyone aware of any actual prosecutions and verdict of photographers regarding this 2257 thing? I mean, I work in the photography industry every day and the only time I ever hear about this 2257 business is on this site. Sounds like it's mostly focused on the porn industry but to hear people talk about it on here it sounds like the men in black are coming to round up everyone with a dslr and picture of a boob on their hard drive.

ddtphoto wrote:

Why should a model be treated any differently than everyone else?

Because I don't take the drivers license of the wardrobe stylist.

C.C. Holdings  wrote:
Because I don't take the drivers license of the wardrobe stylist.

I guess I meant in terms of providing a ss# as an independent contractor, like you mentioned in your original post. But I've also been asked by certain clients to provide a copy of my drivers license in addition to a w9. That doesn't happen very often though.

Having said all that, I've never once requested a copy of a models drivers license for a shoot whether a test or paid. And I've never worked on a shoot where that happened.

That's why I'm curious how many people this 2257 thing actually applies to? Like, how many models are actually affected by this? I know that this is a nude model/ adult industry thing ( I've shot plenty of nude models without being 2257 compliant apparently ). It's just something I never, ever hear about until I somehow meander back into these MM forums.

ddtphoto wrote:
I guess I meant in terms of providing a ss# as an independent contractor, like you mentioned in your original post. But I've also been asked by certain clients to provide a copy of my drivers license in addition to a w9. That doesn't happen very often though.

Having said all that, I've never once requested a copy of a models drivers license for a shoot whether a test or paid. And I've never worked on a shoot where that happened.

That's why I'm curious how many people this 2257 thing actually applies to? Like, how many models are actually affected by this? I know that this is a nude model/ adult industry thing ( I've shot plenty of nude models without being 2257 compliant apparently ). It's just something I never, ever hear about until I somehow meander back into these MM forums.

We're all curious. We've always been at war with Eastasia.

ddtphoto wrote:
But is anyone aware of any actual prosecutions and verdict of photographers regarding this 2257 thing

Yes. it has featured in several prosecutions but not isolation. Where it has been used is has been a bolt-on charge.

Studio36