login info join!
This thread was locked on 2012-10-07 21:16:15. Reason: Do not resurrect old threads just to spam them.
Forums > Photography Talk > A third release above 2257 for some shoots? Search   Reply
Photographer
PF Dark
Posts: 946
Ypsilanti, Michigan, US


I found this in another thread and had never heard of a third release...

"" Although its rather unknown......If a photographer is taking pictures of any sexual act; or emotionally compromising act you NEED to have a THIRD release that clarifies what the images might look like!!!! (50 Shades of Grey) If you have images that can be questioned in court as to “coercion”,,,, you MUST have the permissions spelled out previous to their execution. ""

Does anyone have an example of what one of these might look like?  I thought BDSM in the shoot type pretty well explained the shots were going to offend some people.

(edit)
Got an answer Im satisified with.. 

There is no third release... 2257 is the law..
Aug 27 12 11:52 am  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,455
Los Angeles, California, US


This is SO unknown, that nobody has ever heard of it !

Total nonsense . . . . I've been in this business for more years than just about anybody, working for most of the top publishers of erotica, and dealing with the legalities of 2257, model releases, publishing requirements and internet regulations, and I have never once (until just now) heard of needing an additional release that will state 'what the images might look like'.

I don't know where anyone would get such an idea . . . . ? ? ?

KM
Aug 27 12 12:00 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,405
San Francisco, California, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I don't know where anyone would get such an idea . . . . ? ? ?

The answer, it is Internet folklore.   I have heard this many, many times before.  I have no idea why people want to create problems where none exist.

You and I are on the same wavelength here, total nonsense.

Aug 27 12 12:12 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,405
San Francisco, California, US


PF Dark wrote:
There is no third release... 2257 is the law..

If you are taking photos of real or simulated sex, a lascivious display of the genitals or a few other things, you do need 2257 documentation.  It is not a release.

On the other hand, an "emotional" image has nothing to do with 18 USC 2257.

Aug 27 12 12:14 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,455
Los Angeles, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:

If you are taking photos of real or simulated sex, a lascivious display of the genitals or a few other things, you do need 2257 documentation.  It is not a release.

On the other hand, an "emotional" image has nothing to do with 18 USC 2257.

Neither does an "emotional release"











Pardon me while I cry . . . .   :-(

Aug 27 12 12:45 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Robert Lynch
Posts: 2,483
Bowie, Maryland, US


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Neither does an "emotional release"











Pardon me while I cry . . . .   :-(

Oh.  Um, I was going to laugh.  Now I feel awkward.

Aug 27 12 01:56 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Christopher Hartman
Posts: 54,057
Buena Park, California, US


PF Dark wrote:
I found this in another thread and had never heard of a third release...

"" Although its rather unknown......If a photographer is taking pictures of any sexual act; or emotionally compromising act you NEED to have a THIRD release that clarifies what the images might look like!!!! (50 Shades of Grey) If you have images that can be questioned in court as to “coercion”,,,, you MUST have the permissions spelled out previous to their execution. ""

Does anyone have an example of what one of these might look like?  I thought BDSM in the shoot type pretty well explained the shots were going to offend some people.

(edit)
Got an answer Im satisified with.. 

There is no third release... 2257 is the law..

Couldn't it be claimed that that agreement was signed under duress before they were to be bound and gagged?

Aug 27 12 02:23 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,685
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Sounds like what the OP may be asking about could be some form of a "consent and waver" of liability. Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, to do with 2257. To my thinking that question would, as to what the finished work will "look like", be covered if in any other model release associated with the work there was already a built-in hold harmless provision = once signed it no longer matters what the finished work will "look like". If the model objects at some later date? Too bad!

But this is MM and only God knows where this stuff comes from.

Studio36
Aug 27 12 04:45 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,685
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


Christopher Hartman wrote:
Couldn't it be claimed that that agreement was signed under duress before they were to be bound and gagged?

Sure it could be "claimed". It can also be claimed that the moon is made of green cheese, too. Proving it in either case, however, is a completely different matter.

Whinging and whining that "He tricked me, the bastard" or "I didn't want to, but he made me [forced me to?] sign that paper" isn't proof of anything.

If it were that simple no contract, agreement or release would ever be worth the paper it's written on.

Studio36

Aug 27 12 05:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Anthony Photo
Posts: 199
Pottstown, Pennsylvania, US


Christopher Hartman wrote:

Couldn't it be claimed that that agreement was signed under duress before they were to be bound and gagged?

I thought that was the whole idea with BDSM, one being told to do something and the other obeying.  Now that's a problem?  Sheesh.

Aug 27 12 05:00 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
HBNMedia
Posts: 2
Cincinnati, Ohio, US


I am new to all of this but I make sure that I follow the law and compliance is a big gotcha if you don't do it.

I was really not sure if the 2257 issue was a really big deal because you never really hear of anyone being requested to provide 2257 information, well I was contacted a couple weeks ago by the attorney general's office to do just that, someone files a complaint but I was able to direct them to my 3rd party custodian, I am right now building 2 websites and have not yet posted that info online, so the AG did not know that I do my 2257 information...

My 3rd party custodian is Vault2257, the attorney responded to the request and took care of everything for me, needless to say I was freaking out but they had my back...

I have read a lot of the forums on the net like avn, gfy, ynot and modelmayhem forums about people talking like they are authorities on the subject of 2257 and I started out listening to them but quickly found out that they were wrong in their thinking so I let the professionals do it for me, it doesn't matter if you use the service I am with or someone else, but use a service it will save you time, stress and sleepless nights...

For any of the photographers out there looking for 3rd party with 2257 representation, I do recommend Vault2257 services...

http://vault2257.com
Oct 07 12 10:29 am  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,685
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


HBNMedia wrote:
I was contacted a couple weeks ago by the attorney general's office to do just that, someone files a complaint but I was able to direct them to my 3rd party custodian, I am right now building 2 websites and have not yet posted that info online, so the AG did not know that I do my 2257 information...

Ah, now this is interesting. It would be extremely helpful if you would clarify who you mean by "the attorney general's office" - the FBI? The DoJ? The federal district attorney? Who exactly?

It would also be helpful if you could describe how a complaint was made and to whom it was made. The US Dept. of Justice in writing the 2257 Regulations actually made no provision for filing a complaint. I've looked, as well as asked various lawyers associated with the adult industry, and never found a way to actually do such a thing.

Studio36

Oct 07 12 02:51 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
GPS Studio Services
Posts: 35,405
San Francisco, California, US


HBNMedia wrote:
I was contacted a couple weeks ago by the attorney general's office to do just that, someone files a complaint but I was able to direct them to my 3rd party custodian, I am right now building 2 websites and have not yet posted that info online, so the AG did not know that I do my 2257 information...
studio36uk wrote:
Ah, now this is interesting. It would be extremely helpful if you would clarify who you mean by "the attorney general's office" - the FBI? The DoJ? The federal district attorney? Who exactly?

It would also be helpful if you could describe how a complaint was made and to whom it was made. The US Dept. of Justice in writing the 2257 Regulations actually made no provision for filing a complaint. I've looked, as well as asked various lawyers associated with the adult industry, and never found a way to actually do such a thing.

Studio36

I had the exact same questions.  This sounds more like an ad for Vault than a real scenario.

Oct 07 12 04:18 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,455
Los Angeles, California, US


ei Total Productions wrote:

I had the exact same questions.  This sounds more like an ad for Vault than a real scenario.

My thoughts exactly . . . . a poorly executed ruse to promote a commercial service

It's the FBI that would be notifying you . . . not the AG's office

KM

Oct 07 12 04:26 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,531
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

My thoughts exactly . . . . a poorly executed ruse to promote a commercial service

It's the FBI that would be notifying you . . . not the AG's office

KM

since the poster's avatar wasnt shot by them shall we send the FBI or the AG? big_smile  or maybe just the cavalry

Oct 07 12 04:32 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Mark Salo
Posts: 8,191
Olney, Maryland, US


HBNMedia wrote:
. . .
My 3rd party custodian is Vault2257
. . .

It turns out that HBNMedia is the registrant for vault2257.com.

Oct 07 12 04:36 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Greg Kolack
Posts: 17,752
Downers Grove, Illinois, US


Mark Salo wrote:
It turns out that HBNMedia is the registrant for vault2257.com.

And he's cut and pasting the same message:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 0933&page=

Oct 07 12 04:44 pm  Link  Quote 
guide forum
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 21,685
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna


ei Total Productions wrote:
I had the exact same questions.  This sounds more like an ad for Vault than a real scenario.

Because of the work I do you can also appreciate why I have looked at the issue.

There is an interesting dynamic amongst adult industry lawyers over 2257, 2257A and the Regulations. On the one hand it is the law as it now stands and as such they will assist a client to comply. On the other hand, however, they will broadly NOT support a non-compliance complaint process [such as to the FBI or DoJ] or initiate a suit, of e.g. infringement, that cites 2257 non-compliance as an element of those claims. The feeling is that as they beaver away to see 2257/2257A declared unconstitutional, or at least severely limited in it's application, and where there are associated Regulations challenges, at every turn, to use it as an enforcement tool would tacitly admit that it has a valid purpose and be self defeating. They also do NOT, most definitely NOT, want to see any case law develop around 2257 enforcement by the government.

If there ever was a valid complaint process in operation, and there most definitely is not, 99.999% of the adult "tube" sites would have already gone the way of the Dodo and their operators would be locked up. And the "tube" sites would only be the start of the fallout and only for the most blatant of the content thieves.

If the Big O gets re-elected it will continue to be business as usual; if Tweedle Dumb and Tweedle Dumber get elected non-compliance is going to be a lot more risky.

Studo36

Oct 07 12 05:39 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Photos by Lorrin
Posts: 6,959
Eugene, Oregon, US


How come the small government people want to mess with our private lives more.

bur want to check in our bed rooms, what words we can use, in our computers and who we sleep with but do not want to check on how safe our medicine is, or food or cars or loans.
Oct 07 12 06:05 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
Ken Marcus Studios
Posts: 8,455
Los Angeles, California, US


Lorin Edmonds wrote:
How come the small government people want to mess with our private lives more.

Because they believe God told them what lifestyle and rules they should impose on others. And who doesn't want to do what God tells them to do ?

Oct 07 12 06:13 pm  Link  Quote 
Photographer
AVD AlphaDuctions
Posts: 10,531
Gatineau, Quebec, Canada


Greg Kolack wrote:

And he's cut and pasting the same message:

http://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?threa … 0933&page=

well I cammed it.  between the spam (and lies) and the image in his port that isn't his) we shall see how long he lasts

Oct 07 12 07:42 pm  Link  Quote 
  Search   Reply



main | browse | casting/travel | forums | shout box | help | advertising | contests | share | join the mayhem

more modelmayhem on: | | | edu

©2006-2014 ModelMayhem.com. All Rights Reserved.
MODEL MAYHEM is a registered trademark.
Toggle Worksafe Mode: Off | On
Terms | Privacy | Careers