Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Will images that were taken on/ before the effective date of this new bit of Big Brotherism be grandfathered in as exempt?
Only images produced before July 3rd 1995 are exempt from 2257

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -


Regards . . . Ken Marcus

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.








Fuck, that's depressing.


Thanks, Ken!


RB


Oh, EDIT:


The porn industry has these disclaimers on their tapes, and have for a long time. Is this suddenly a widening of the definitions?

2257A wrote:
(1) Primary producer is any person
who actually films, videotapes,
photographs, or creates a digitally- or
computer-manipulated image, a digital
image, or a picture of, or who digitizes
an image of, a visual depiction of an
actual human being engaged in actual or
simulated sexually explicit conduct.
When a corporation or other
organization is the primary producer of
any particular image or picture, then no
individual employee or agent of that
corporation or other organization will be
considered to be a primary producer of
that image or picture.

(2) Secondary producer is any person
who produces, assembles,
manufactures, publishes, duplicates,
reproduces, or reissues a book,
magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or
digitally- or computer-manipulated
image, picture, or other matter intended
for commercial distribution that
contains a visual depiction of an actual
human being engaged in actual or
simulated sexually explicit conduct, or
who inserts on a computer site or
service a digital image of, or otherwise
manages the sexually explicit content of
a computer site or service that contains
a visual depiction of, an actual human
being engaged in actual or simulated
sexually explicit conduct, including any
person who enters into a contract,
agreement, or conspiracy to do any of
the foregoing. When a corporation or
other organization is the secondary
producer of any particular image or
picture, then no individual of that
corporation or other organization will be
considered to be the secondary producer
of that image or picture.

Doesn't this equate to saying that if a Corporation is the primary/secondary producer that there is no primary/secondary producer on the grounds that no individual at said corporation (or any other one) will be considered to the primary/secondary producer and a primary/secondary producer is, by definition, a person?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
So you could include a photo of the release and an id with the picture set and you're good?
It’s not recommended that you publish the personal information of your models. Publishers and webmasters only need a compliance statement from you stating that you are the keeper of the records and that the images conform to the 2257 law.

This does not agree with the practice of several magazines who require ID and release for every set submitted. Just submitting a 2257 compliance statement is not sufficient for at least three publishing companies I can think of that account for more than two dozen titles.

Dan Howell wrote:

This does not agree with the practice of several magazines who require ID and release for every set submitted. Just submitting a 2257 compliance statement is not sufficient for at least three publishing companies I can think of that account for more than two dozen titles.

You are correct in this . . . Taboo magazine, for example, requires copies of the model releases and the 2257 forms must be the ones that are issued by LFP publications. In the cases where they have published my work, I've had to go back to the models (even though I have all the appropriate information) and have them fill out the LFP forms. Their lawyers won't allow them to publish any image without those forms being filled out.

The upside of this is that the personal information contained on those releases and forms are kept by the LFP keeper of the records and it would probably take a court order for them to make it public.  Not everybody is as concerned for models privacy.

KM

Corey Ward wrote:

Doesn't this equate to saying that if a Corporation is the primary/secondary producer that there is no primary/secondary producer on the grounds that no individual at said corporation (or any other one) will be considered to the primary/secondary producer and a primary/secondary producer is, by definition, a person?

The corporation must assign an official "keeper of the records" that is accessible to the inspectors at least 20 hours a week, during usual business hours.

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

The corporation must assign an official "keeper of the records" that is accessible to the inspectors at least 20 hours a week, during usual business hours.

KM

Hypothetically, who is responsible if records are not maintained if a corporation is the primary producer? Is this like the traffic tickets for corporate vehicles (in AZ they're unenforceable)?

William D Walsh wrote:
question what if you're working with agency models, do you go about this through the same process?
guess if I ever want to do suggestive work I'll have to move to europe ...

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)???

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)???

Probably won't apply . . . . but if those publications are available in the U.S., it could be a problem.

Best advice I can give is to keep your records properly and don't worry about the posibilities.

KM

William D Walsh wrote:
wow this thing is going to be something else and why now..don't they have better things to do ? I'm going to try and follow this as much as I can, obtaining the ids and information.. but god knows there is no way I'll have a keeper of records whose on location 24/7... thats asking a bit much

It doesn't ask for someone to be on location 24/7...it asks for someone to be at the location for 20 hours a week during normal 9-5 business hours.

Corey Ward wrote:

It doesn't ask for someone to be on location 24/7...it asks for someone to be at the location for 20 hours a week during normal 9-5 business hours.

even that's asking too much.. im never home.. and it's not as if I can higher someone to house sit or business sit for 20 hours a week..

William D Walsh wrote:

even that's asking too much.. im never home.. and it's not as if I can higher someone to house sit or business sit for 20 hours a week..

Right. Which is why I think that they should do this upon request by mail, like most other official government business.

Using proper grammar in the forums will get you farther, by the way.

Zopilote wrote:
why has no one from MM said anything about what they are going to do?

I'm going to write the http://www.aclu.org about the possibility of filing an amicus curiae against this new Big Brother regulation.

Zopilote wrote:
why has no one from MM said anything about what they are going to do?

They never do...not to mention it's been all of 1-2 days since the changes, so most lawyers and such aren't updated on it fully yet...let alone model-photographer websites.

William D Walsh wrote:
even that's asking too much.. im never home.. and it's not as if I can higher someone to house sit or business sit for 20 hours a week..

Corey Ward wrote:
Right. Which is why I think that they should do this upon request by mail, like most other official government business.

Using proper grammar in the forums will get you farther, by the way.

I wouldn't assume that would be the case, though. 

I hope you understand that this is yet another chunk of our civil liberties that is getting bitten off.

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)???

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Probably won't apply . . . . but if those publications are available in the U.S., it could be a problem.

Best advice I can give is to keep your records properly and don't worry about the posibilities.

KM

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.

Phen Mas wrote:
This is interesting, and again proof that the FBI uses more money investigating US citizens more so then outsiders.

- Phen

The FBI is a primarlly for domestic law enforcement

amanda logue wrote:
There are other changes coming regarding video...

...not to be rude, but what aren't you telling us about your day job?

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 not familiar with the ACLU's contact procedures...if you care to fill me and the other MMers in that'd probably be pretty effective in getting the word out.

Corey Ward wrote:

Right. Which is why I think that they should do this upon request by mail, like most other official government business.

Using proper grammar in the forums will get you farther, by the way.

Come on now be nice.. I only know how to take photos.. not speaking english..si..

Corey Ward wrote:

Right. Which is why I think that they should do this upon request by mail, like most other official government business.

Using proper grammar in the forums will get you farther, by the way.

hire .. higher.. im high

Phen Mas wrote:
This is interesting, and again proof that the FBI uses more money investigating US citizens more so then outsiders.

- Phen

Exactly ! they cant fight crime or find terrorist ..but yet they go after pictures.. I can see how this will help in some instances but I have to question the amount of free time the FBI has on its hands.

Phen Mas wrote:
This is interesting, and again proof that the FBI uses more money investigating US citizens more so then outsiders.

- Phen

Uhh, yeah, that's their job.

Corey Ward wrote:

It doesn't ask for someone to be on location 24/7...it asks for someone to be at the location for 20 hours a week during normal 9-5 business hours.

Yep, that makes it impossible for anyone who works full time at anything else to comply with the law. 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.

shotbytim wrote:

Yep, that makes it impossible for anyone who works full time at anything else to comply with the law. 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.

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

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.

Corey Ward wrote:
I'm not familiar with the ACLU's contact procedures...if you care to fill me and the other MMers in that'd probably be pretty effective in getting the word out.

From their website:

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

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
Every time an image appears online, a 2257 statement is provided informing whomever that I am the keeper of the records and an address where I can be found for inspection.  The keeper of the records must be available at least 20 hours a week at that address so inspectors can visit without an appointment.

Hey Ken, please don't take this the wrong way, because it is an honest question and not a dig; why are you not providing this information for your images posted on MM?

- Owen

shotbytim wrote:
Yep, that makes it impossible for anyone who works full time at anything else to comply with the law. 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.

William D Walsh wrote:
wonder if they're going to be like other countries and ban Italian vogue..

The problem is - they've extended the reach to include non-nude images!:

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

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

shotbytim wrote:

Yep, that makes it impossible for anyone who works full time at anything else to comply with the law. 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.

Its not just nude though..its anything that looks sexually provocative.   Even clothed.   Time to make our voices heard.