BlueDancer Digital wrote:

Looking at this form, and the requirement for the model to sign photocopies of her ID... am I to understand that we must always have a photocopier on hand to do a shoot? That's pretty inconvenient for people like me who do a lot of work on location and outdoors...

I believe I satisfy the requirements by taking a photo of the ID, and the model holding the ID, in lieu of having her sign anything more than my release (which includes text verifying her status as a legal adult).

Can anyone comment on this?

government not here to help you

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
you can be the witness AND the photographer

Strange Babes wrote:
can I be witness, photographer and model

generally the witness signature designates only that the subject (or their legal representative) actually signed the form. 

the rule of thumb is any person who can certify that the person signing is the actual subject can be a witness as long as they are not the "person obtaining consent."  the most important reason why is if ever there was a conflict such as one being coerced into signing, the witness can provide verification for or against such allegation.

Dan Howell wrote:

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
The model release has nothing to do with 2257

They are for two separate purposes.

You should have both and keep them separated in your files.

KM

Yet they can be on the same document.  I have not seen any mention that they must be on separate sheets of paper.  I would caution that the some emphatic language used in this thread is not supported by actual regulations as discussed in numerous threads here and sites more closely associated with the issue.  There is a difference between regulations and good ideas and it is important to differentiate the two.

Dan, there is a specific part of 28 CFR 75 that requires that with respect to the 2257 records:  - - - The 2257 records can not contain, or be contained within, any other records. Thus, on the face of it, you can not combine 2257 records with model releases on the same literal document, the same piece of paper. Or, with, for example, a record of payment to a model which would be, either or both, an accounting record or a tax record, neither of which are created as part of the 2257 records.

As I am having some computer problems at the moment I can not access the actual text, the comp it is on is down, but it is, IIRC, within the Maintanance of the Records part of the Regulations.

Studio36

Monuments are always witnessed to by the marking of other nearby natural objects on the ground. These witnesses can be trees, rocks or trenches dug in the ground; the exact locations of the witness objects, and the markings made on them, are recorded in the surveyor's official field notes. Witness trees are commonly referred to as bearing trees, and they are highly important, not just for their legal purposes, but also for their use by ecologists in the estimation of historic forest vegetation conditions. The witness objects are designed to allow subsequent surveyors and landowners to find the original corner monument location should the actual monument be destroyed.

If you require the model to countersign the copies of the ID documents, that signature, as well, could be called a "witness" [signature]

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

If they didn't, they could be accused of singling out someone for prosecution and that could overturn a verdict.

Apparently they use a 'randomizer' program that selects 10 names from their ever-growing database of photographers/producers/videographers.

Once those names have been inspected, they run the computer again for the next 10 names.

I don't suppose anyone's allowed to SEE that database?

291 wrote:
generally the witness signature designates only that the subject (or their legal representative) actually signed the form. 

the rule of thumb is any person who can certify that the person signing is the actual subject can be a witness as long as they are not the "person obtaining consent."  the most important reason why is if ever there was a conflict such as one being coerced into signing, the witness can provide verification for or against such allegation.

Bear in mind that the 2257 records are not a form of "consent." They are a disclosure of information but not a "consent" of any kind.

Studio36

SLE Photography wrote:
I don't suppose anyone's allowed to SEE that database?

File an FOI and find out James.  LOL

Studio36

SLE Photography wrote:

I don't suppose anyone's allowed to SEE that database?

Probably not for a lot of reasons . . . but if you want to see if you are on it, you can request to see whatever records the government has on you through the Freedom Of Information Act.

However . . . if you are NOT on their database and you request to see what they have on you, you will probably be put ON the list.

KM

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

SLE Photography wrote:
I don't suppose anyone's allowed to SEE that database?

Probably not for a lot of reasons . . . but if you want to see if you are on it, you can request to see whatever records the government has on you through the Freedom Of Information Act.

However . . . if you are NOT on their database and you request to see what they have on you, you will probably be put ON the list.

KM

James > FBI: "I want to see if I am in your database."

FBI > James: "You are now!"

ROTFLMAO

Studio36

Mikes Images - Mike #4 wrote:
Regarding the record keeping requirements. It's my understanding that records must be available during normal business hours on normal business days. That's damn near impossible for me since I can't be in two places at once.

Does anyone know of anyone who has made a business out of providing the service of maintaining the required records for others? Is there anything like "All-American 2257 Record Keeping Compliance Headquarters, Inc?"

There are many.  Here is one that has an affordable program:  www.usc2257records.com/

Ray Holyer wrote:
Possibly as a slight digression...

I'm a primary producer, and I sell stuff, without exhibiting it myself, to secondary producers who publish it.  Now, some of the secondary producers, but not all, ask me to sign an additional form which, effectively, states that all the information I've provided is correct to the best of my knowledge, which I am happy to sign.  It was also suggested that I should get models to sign a similar form.  I don't.  Should I?

See me in a PM Ray. It is a little more complex in the UK because of the DPA issues. I have the forms of language.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
James > FBI: "I want to see if I am in your database."

FBI > James: "You are now!"

ROTFLMAO

FBI already has a file on me.
For a class in college (Poli Sci major wooo) I had to file an FoIA request on myself.  In high school I'd been part of a project exchanging e-mails with students in China, and the FBI had been monitoring my mail ever since.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:

With all due respect to you Ken, I have to say it's not required for the photocopies to be signed by the model to meet the 2257 guidelines. It is simply a precaution some producers use to prevent the model from using a false identity when checked against the driver's license signature to ensure he/she is not impersonating someone else or using a fake ID.

I added an extra line for a right thumb print. This would prove who someone was not, if a fake Id was used. My lawyer advised it for the model release.

Marvin Dockery wrote:
I added an extra line for a right thumb print. This would prove who someone was not, if a fake Id was used. My lawyer advised it for the model release.

And the next step is...



Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

And the next step is...

Oh now John, let's be honest.  On most 2257 sets there'll be an entirely different sort of "oral swabbing" going on, and there'll be performer DNA LITERALLY sprayed all over the place.  Collection should be a breeze.

Sorting out whose is whose might be tricky, tho.

studio36uk wrote:

And the next step is...



Studio36

Good grief!

studio36uk wrote:

Dan Howell wrote:

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
The model release has nothing to do with 2257

They are for two separate purposes.

You should have both and keep them separated in your files.

KM

Yet they can be on the same document.  I have not seen any mention that they must be on separate sheets of paper.  I would caution that the some emphatic language used in this thread is not supported by actual regulations as discussed in numerous threads here and sites more closely associated with the issue.  There is a difference between regulations and good ideas and it is important to differentiate the two.

Dan, there is a specific part of 28 CFR 75 that requires that with respect to the 2257 records:  - - - The 2257 records can not contain, or be contained within, any other records. Thus, on the face of it, you can not combine 2257 records with model releases on the same literal document, the same piece of paper. Or, with, for example, a record of payment to a model which would be, either or both, an accounting record or a tax record, neither of which are created as part of the 2257 records.

As I am having some computer problems at the moment I can not access the actual text, the comp it is on is down, but it is, IIRC, within the Maintanance of the Records part of the Regulations.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Dan, there is a specific part of 28 CFR 75 that requires that with respect to the 2257 records:  - - - The 2257 records can not contain, or be contained within, any other records. Thus, on the face of it, you can not combine 2257 records with model releases on the same literal document, the same piece of paper. Or, with, for example, a record of payment to a model which would be, either or both, an accounting record or a tax record, neither of which are created as part of the 2257 records.

As I am having some computer problems at the moment I can not access the actual text, the comp it is on is down, but it is, IIRC, within the Maintanance of the Records part of the Regulations.

Studio36

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:
Actually, the 2257 and model release CAN be written together into the same document if worded properly. The Coollawyer site has written a form just as such, and it was confirmed by an attorney for the Pepper Law group on another site.

I just looked up the text of the law, and reading it as a layman I'd say studio36 (and Ken Marcus) is right & those others are wrong:
28 CFR 72:2 (e)

(e) Records required to be maintained under this part shall be segregated from all other records, shall not contain any other records, and shall not be contained within any other records.

A modeling release would certainly seem to be "other records."  Everything on 28 CFR 74 is about age & ID & what all the terms & definitions thereof are & how the records must be kept.

That section I just quoted doesn't sound like having your release with it is a good idea.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:
Actually, the 2257 and model release CAN be written together into the same document if worded properly. The Coollawyer site has written a form just as such, and it was confirmed by an attorney for the Pepper Law group on another site.

Please see my response, above, to your original post.  The way the law is written it sure doesn't look like it.

SLE Photography wrote:
Please see my response, above, to your original post.  The way the law is written it sure doesn't look like it.

That's why I stated if worded properly. You can't just say first page model release, second page compliance form. It must be written together in such a way were it cannot be parsed to make two separate standing documents.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:
That's why I stated if worded properly. You can't just say first page model release, second page compliance form. It must be written together in such a way were it cannot be parsed to make two separate standing documents.

How can they NOT be parsed that way?  One is a statement of age & identity, the other is a release of rights.

I'm not a lawyer, but common sense would indicate, from the wording of the law, that mixing them is not a good idea.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:
I can't explain legally what needs to be done or in place for the document to work, all I can suggest it to ask your attorney.

It just seems like it'd be a LOT simpler to have two (or in some cases three) sheets there.
"Ok, here's the release and 2257 form (and usage agreement where applicable), please look those over & fill them out while I make a copy of your ID.  The MUA here will witness your signatures."
Release & usage agreement (where needed) go in one filing cabinet (in one office if you have the space), 2257 info goes in another cabinet (in a separate office, space permitting).

Redundant backup copies of both go in a safe deposit box in case of a fire or some such.

JoJo Suicide wrote:
The DOJ has prescribed what information is to be obtained and in what manner regarding 2257. If you start trying to combine a model release and 2257 into one form you are likely to end up with a major problem.

+1

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Re: witness

I have been advised by my council that a witness on the 2257 paperwork should be a disinterested third party – thus ruling out the photographer/producer.

What witness?

No-one has ever thrown out my 2257 paperwork because there are no witness signatures on it.

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Re: witness

I have been advised by my council that a witness on the 2257 paperwork should be a disinterested third party – thus ruling out the photographer/producer.

Yup.  Which's why I mentioned an MUA.  Or why I have the models countersign each others' paperwork as witnesses.

SLE Photography wrote:

It just seems like it'd be a LOT simpler to have two (or in some cases three) sheets there.
"Ok, here's the release and 2257 form (and usage agreement where applicable), please look those over & fill them out while I make a copy of your ID.  The MUA here will witness your signatures."
Release & usage agreement (where needed) go in one filing cabinet (in one office if you have the space), 2257 info goes in another cabinet (in a separate office, space permitting).

Redundant backup copies of both go in a safe deposit box in case of a fire or some such.

I don't disagree with the practice of having separate forms, I use them also. I'm just stating that the 2257 and the model can legally be written together.

Cogito Ergo Zoom wrote:
I don't disagree with the practice of having separate forms, I use them also. I'm just stating that the 2257 and the model can legally be written together.

I will believe it when it holds up in court, and I'd rather not be a test case.
The way the reg is worded it could cost you a case.

SLE Photography wrote:
28 CFR 72:2 (e)

Thanks for that James. Yup, that's it. Right now I am having to work from memory.

My other comp is sick. It has 5 drives in it - 3 HDD and two optical drives. For some reason the HDD spins up but the mother board / BIOS has decided that it does not like that HDD and one of the optical drives. But it sees the other two HDDs and the other optical drive. Unfortunately the OS is on the HDD it does not see so I can't even boot it up ATM. Maybe it has the Swine Flu... it certainly is behaving like a pig. Ain't technology wonnerful?

Studio36

Emeritus wrote:

First find the legal requirement that there even be a witness.

Wait, there isn't one?

Good to know. I must admit, I was wondering about that.

JoJo Suicide wrote:
Re: witness

I have been advised by my council that a witness on the 2257 paperwork should be a disinterested third party – thus ruling out the photographer/producer.

Yet another obstacle thrown at the small-time hobbyists.

SLE Photography wrote:

Oh now John, let's be honest.  On most 2257 sets there'll be an entirely different sort of "oral swabbing" going on, and there'll be performer DNA LITERALLY sprayed all over the place.  Collection should be a breeze.

Sorting out whose is whose might be tricky, tho.

Instead of a swab you have to use a mop.  LOL

Studio36