AHS Photography wrote:
Ken:

I think there is a distinction being made between who is getting inspected and who is getting prosectuted for child porn / obscenity.

On the issue of record-keeping, and taking the fed's position for a second, I think what they would say is that they are wanting to avoid a repeat of the Traci Lords situation, where you have a 15 year old "girl" appearing in mainstream porn videos and well-known men's magazines.  As I recall, she appeared in Penthouse and other of the mainstream mags that one would normally consider to be "reputable."   I think the feds want to force producers to make damn sure they are not working with a minor.  I see no problem with that, at least in theory.   

Again, if this turns out to be a mechamism for the feds to harass folks who are attempting to make legitimate porn / erotica (and by "legitimate" I mean using 18+ models), then I think the "industry" as well as artists will all need to band together to fight it.  But so far I have not seem too much of that.  I've asked various folks on this thread to provide specific examples of abuse, but so far nobody seems to be able to come up with any examples - which I think validates the fundamental point that I have been trying to make. 

BTW, I agree with most of what I have read that you have posted on the subject.  I think there is a need to be "better safe than sorry" and keep records even if you think you are exempt.  I noticed that "Femjoy" has a legal page where they take the position that they are exempt from reporting.  I'm not so sure.  If one of their models turned out to be 15 and has been posed showing "pink" I think they could be in trouble.   On the other hand, I think work from artists such as Jock Sturgis is clearly exempt, based on the statutory and administrative definitions in 18 USC 2257, 2257A, and 28 CFR 75.

just a little more information on this, a model who provides a fake set of ID's showing her/his age being 18 or over has happened since Tracie Lords and this new revision would do nothing to prevent it from happenning again in the future (this was brought up in the public commentary back in 2005 when 2257 was being rewritten into law) If the model passed a fake ID and you photographed them, and your record requirement was inorder, the Feds can only inform you of the minor and tell you to turn over all your photos of that model that are in violation, same as before. This revision in 2257 makes tracking down all of this model's photos much easier for the feds and how they augued it past the law makers on that point.

Again a good faked ID will allow any underaged model to be photographed as an adult, this law does nothing to prevent this. Never has.

This law puts the burden of reocrds to the extreme end of the spectrum on the producers and secondary producers of material that falls under these laws (2257,2256 and 4446) to maintain a cross referenced database on their behalf for their use. If you are making money on these photos or not makes no difference in the eyes of the law, art or not makes no difference either. Most everyone is safe until the knock comes to your door. Sites like this one and others where people and producers alike post material (while the site is held harmless from the law) are a great starting point for feds to find photos and the producers that fall under 2257 in general and seek them out. I sell material that falls under 2257 and I have to have a link to my 2257 compliancy statement inorder to sell/post there. Its no biggie for me as I am not a US citizen, I do not live in the USA, but have to comply on the photos/video sold just on that site. Setting up the records took about 5 mintues, will I ever hear from the US feds, nope, I am out of their jurstiction(sp?) I can be contacted by the feds if any of my models turn out to be under 18 because of a faked ID, I mean I look at a lot of "gov't issues IDs" and they are all different from mine, how in hell would I know if one was faked or not. I would of course pull all photos/video of that model from the USA, would I destroy the work, no, not until proof was given at to his/her real age was shown to me.

Keeping records is fine, but the crossreferencing is a PITA but esay to do once you figure it all out, me I code each photo with basic information, for example:

kato2257bn2006-0001tegan.jpg

kato - the producer (not required by me but ID's the photo as me as the producer)
2257 - meaning it falls under the regs since 2005 revisions
bn- main website orginally published to first (earliest known pubishing place/date)
2006 - year the photo was shot
0001 - sequencial number of the photo of that particular model
tegan - model's stage name she prefered to use based on the model release form

now my database is simple, a copy of each photo is placed in each file folder that this photos fits into, example:

I have folders named: "kato" this holds everything I shoot as well as all relevent ID's whether its covered by 2257 or not.

a folder called "2257" this contains all the photos I feel fall under 2257, many of the photos from the folder "kato" are copied into this folder too.

The next one "bn" is for the website with a link (folders and subfolders just like the URL of the posting website) for example: bn/perferred/2006/tegan/set1 which would look like this online: (www).bn.com/preferred/tegan/set1/kato2257bn2006-0001tegan.jpg

the next folder is 2006, 2007 etc a copy of the photo and ID is placed in there as well

now if I post the photo to another website, I just drop(copy) the photo file into the appropriate folders as they are pubished in various places online (or in print)

Now if a fed wants to see all the photos and places where said photo was published, they type in the search box, "tegan" and everthing on her pops up with the copy of the ID she used, and all the places where that photo exists (or existed) ever since being photographed. If they type in her real name, I have a folder with her real name and copies of all her photos are in there as well.

Yes this can be a lot of work, but once you have it set up, it takes very little time to keep it up. it does take up a big part of a 500gig hard drive, but a 500gig drive is only $80 and contains my entire database and can easily be added to (I periodically back it up to another HD (a 1TB drive) until the 500gig drive is full, then the backup becomes the main and the 500 is retired (up plugged and saved) as a redundant drive. and a second 1Tb drive will be added for backup, by then I am sure multi terabyte drives will be commonplace.

For the average photographer, this is fairly simple to do and maintain, but just "willy-nilly" posting photos (that fall under 2257) will be seriously curbed (the real reason IMHO) under the newer versions of 2257 since June 2005 and further more with 2257 revisions upcoming in 2009. But as with any law, there are many who feel it does not apply to them, there is no changing their minds, but I just chuckle when i hear in the news some dumbass doing something illegal spouting off, "I didnt know that was illegal, how was I supposed to know?" anytime you enguage in anysort of venture, it is your responsiblity to comply with any laws while persueing your venture.

But as with this or any law, think about this: A police officer stops a car for speeding, the driver complains he isn't the only one speeding, why are you picking on me? The police officer smiles and says, When you go fishing, do you catch all the fish in the pond?

This law I feel is secondary, by this I mean more then likely they are going for something bigger (like obscenity or whatever) and will use 2257 as a back up incase the original charge does not produce a conviction, much like a perosn robbing a corner store, if they get caught, they are chaged with robbery, if they get off on a technicallity, they may then be charged with using an unregistered firearm and get the maximum fine/jail time for the lessor offence... this has happened already with 2257, Feds went after a producer for underaged models, got their conviction, and dropped the 2257 violation charges. 2257 can be very difficult to have all the I's dotted and T's crossed, but will you goto jail for that... unlikely. But if they are going for Obcenity and it fails, to save face, they pull your records apart and get you that way instead, either way you are probably out of business by the time you pay the legal bills if you are not already in jail.

I know this is a very long post, it is not meant to attack anyone on here, I did quote a post above and rambled onto something else but it does all tie in together and I tried to give some ideas on how to comply to keep on shooting you ideas into photos and keep within your laws in the USA. I have seen posts about freedom of speech being stomped on, while freespeech is still there, its being paperworked to death, it not illegal, just requires paperwork, much like a permit to shoot in public places in the USA in some areas, you comply with those laws too (once you know about them).

Good Luck

***edit--- hyperlink removed---****

Kato PWC wrote:
just a little more information on this, a model who provides a fake set of ID's showing her/his age being 18 or over has happened since Tracie Lords and this new revision would do nothing to prevent it from happenning again in the future...

Just an interesting side note to the Tracy Lords case to dispel the belief that Lords was using a "fake" ID. Though it is widely believed that she was using a fake or forged ID to present herself as older, she was NOT using a fake or forged ID document but rather a genuine US passport issued on a fake passport application.

Following the May 1986 revelations that most of Lords' porn work was illegal, Jim South, of the World Modeling Talent Agency who represented Lords, was arrested on March 4, 1987, and was among those later charged by the U.S. government with pandering and child pornography. The charges were eventually dismissed after the discovery that the government issued Lords a passport under the name Kristi Nussman.

In an interview South said, "The only reason that the charges were dropped was that the federal government, that saw the very same ID I saw, gave Traci a passport to go to Europe to make an X-rated movie..."

That kept people out of jail but still did not prevent the industry from spending millions to recall and destroy any of the work she had appeared in up to that point.

Thereafter, certain questions of taxation came up in connection some of the other players in that saga which the government happily pursued down another rabbit hole of enquiry not unlike the case that was made against gangster Al Capone. [e.g. If we can't get him for murder, at least we can get him on an income tax charge.]

The parallel here is striking... if they can't get you for using actualy underage models they might still get you on record keeping.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Thereafter, certain questions of taxation came up in connection some of the other players in that saga which the government happily pursued down another rabbit hole of enquiry not unlike the case that was made against gangster Al Capone. [e.g. If we can't get him for murder, at least we can get him on an income tax charge.]

The parallel here is striking... if they can't get you for using actualy underage models they might still get you on record keeping.

Studio36

It's true. As part of the fallout over this, my friend Ginger went to jail on tax charges, although she told me the charges were filed in an attempt to coerce her into testifying on behalf of the State in the Lords trial.

Fotographia Fantastique wrote:
It's true. As part of the fallout over this, my friend Ginger went to jail on tax charges, although she told me the charges were filed in an attempt to coerce her into testifying on behalf of the State in the Lords trial.

Ginger Allen was an innocent by-stander, as they say, hit by a stray bullet. And she's still gorgeous!

Studio36

BlackWatch Jen wrote:
This is the part that worries me:


A computer site or service or Web
address containing a digitally- or
computer-manipulated image, digital
image, or picture shall contain the
required statement on every page of a
Web site on which a visual depiction of
an actual human being engaged in
actual or simulated sexually explicit
conduct appears. Such computer site or
service or Web address may choose to
display the required statement in a
separate window that opens upon the
viewer’s clicking or mousing-over a
hypertext link that states, ‘‘18 U.S.C.
2257 [and/or 2257A, as appropriate]
Record-Keeping Requirements
Compliance Statement.’

Does this mean that every image that may be construed as adult has to have this message on it?  what a PIA!

We already have the release, and photos of ID for every model we shoot with, not just the nude/implied nude.

Yes.

Actually, without going back and doing a very close reading between the draft and the final, they seem to have backed off from an even worse regime of requiring every page on the whole site to display the notice / link, though, I will have to look to be sure, it must still also be on the first "main" or "landing" page as well.

Studio36

AHS Photography wrote:

Technically, the reporting requirements originally "came into effect" as of November 1, 1990.  To this day, the statute still references that original date.  See 18 USC 2257(a)(1).  However, as I understand it, the AG agreed not to enforce any earlier than July 3, 1995, and the current CFR's reference that later date.  See 28 CFR 75.2(a)The reasons for this anomoly are documented at 70 Fed Reg 29607.   Technically, a statute takes precedence over an administrative rule, to the extent they conflict.  But in cases such as this were the AG is the office charged with enforcement of the Act, I don't think they would have much luck ignoring their own regulatory guidance.     

As for Jock Sturges' work, it is simply not accurate to suggest that his work is saved from enforcement merely because it is somehow "grandfathered" by virtue of the fact that it was produced prior to 1995 (or some other date).  The restrictions on producing child porn date back to 1977.  Mr. Sturges' work does not fall within the scope of 2257 because he does not produce material that contains visual depictions of "actual" or simulated sexually explicit conduct."   

I further disgree that there is anything new in the law that would currently prevent Mr. Sturges from publishing a work similar in content to his 1991 book "The Last Day of Summer."   Finally, with regard to the record-keeping requirement, it would obviously not make a whole lot of sense for Mr. Sturges to keep 2257 records of the people he photographed in a book such as "The Last Day of Summer," since some of the people in that book were clearly minors.  If you think about it for a second, how would having a record that you photographed a ten-year old girl help you in the least for purposes of 2257?   Obviously, it wouldn't help at all, and in fact, would be the evidence needed to cook your goose if your work otherwise fell within the scope of the Act.  Rather, the only viable defense to a prosection under that set of facts would be to show that the work does not fall within the scope of the Act, and therefore no 2257 record-keeping is required. 

One thing that probably helped Mr. Sturges was that he was based out of San Francisco.  As I recall, the prosecutor could not get case past the grand jury, so they dropped the case.  Although one might wonder if a different result might have occurred if the case had occurred in a more conservative jurisdiction, I think the law is pretty clear as to who it applies to, and Jock Sturges' work clearly does not fall within the express terms of the Act.

One of the more clearly thought out reactions to what has been posted to this group concerning this matter. I do not think anything at all has changed in it to make anyone feel threatened by this update. A photographer stands a much greater chance of being sued in a civil court for things that this law was designed to address. As in the case of copyrighted material, yes, the moment we take the picture we own the copyright, but unless you do the paperwork and send it in to the copyright office, you do not stand much chance in ever collecting any damages for even an obvious copyright violation.

Jon Barry

BrendaPrice wrote:
I'm sorry but if you have a model sign a release it only takes 5 seconds to look at an ID to verify that they are of age.

You haven't looked at what the law requires, have you?  If it were really that simple, this discussion would not be happening.  But it isn't that simple.  Not even close to that simple.

People running around crying "save the children!" and vastly understating the impact of these regulations is how we got to this point in the first place.

TXPhotog wrote:
You haven't looked at what the law requires, have you?  If it were really that simple, this discussion would not be happening.  But it isn't that simple.  Not even close to that simple.

People running around crying "save the children!" and vastly understating the impact of these regulations is how we got to this point in the first place.

It is that simple. If you are keeping records for your business... income and expenditures then take the time to document your subjects.
I guess it is real easy to say PROTECT OUR CHILDREN when the one saying it wishes someone had protected her!
Just hope that one day those who have that point of view about the SAVE THE CHILDREN never have to look a child in the eyes or the family that has suffered the loss or has a child that has been put through that hell and say that to them.
But I guess this is just one of those times we just need to agree to disagree.

BrendaPrice wrote:

It is that simple. If you are keeping records for your business... income and expenditures then take the time to document your subjects.

. . .

But I guess this is just one of those times we just need to agree to disagree.

Yes, because you  still have not read the regulations and have no damned idea what you are talking about.

TXPhotog wrote:
Yes, because you  still have not read the regulations and have no damned idea what you are talking about.

Photography... modeling... and anything to do with the industry is a business. And those that are not preforming in any many manner that causes harm to a minor... HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO BE PROUD OF THEIR TALENTS AND EXPRESS THEIR ARTISTIC IDEAS.
But if a Fortune 500 company can take and document their ten of thousands employees... is it not too much to ask the same.
This not only protects children but you in the same note!
I guess it is to say in hind-sight if I had only taken the time to check and document I wouldn't be in this mess now if something unfortunate should happen.
But hey you are entitled to your opinion... and if you feel it is right in your mind... so be it. I am certain that there are those that agree with your point of view but in the same not... there are those that would disagree.
But just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't mean that one need be rude or agruementative.
Wishing you and yours a Merry Christmas and Joyous New Year.

BrendaPrice wrote:
Photography... modeling... and anything to do with the industry is a business. And those that are not preforming in any many manner that causes harm to a minor... HAVE EVERY RIGHT IN THE WORLD TO BE PROUD OF THEIR TALENTS AND EXPRESS THEIR ARTISTIC IDEAS.
But if a Fortune 500 company can take and document their ten of thousands employees... is it not too much to ask the same.
This not only protects children but you in the same note!
I guess it is to say in hind-sight if I had only taken the time to check and document I wouldn't be in this mess now if something unfortunate should happen.
But hey you are entitled to your opinion... and if you feel it is right in your mind... so be it. I am certain that there are those that agree with your point of view but in the same not... there are those that would disagree.
But just because someone disagrees with an opinion doesn't mean that one need be rude or agruementative.

I have no problem with people who disagree when they know what they are talking about.  You do not.  You treat this as some trivial matter of just checking IDs.  It is not.  You have no appreciation at all of the burden it places on a photographer, because you have only made an emotional reaction to the claimed purpose of the regulations, and have not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, bothered to look at what they require.

That's not "disagreement", that's irresponsibility.  Read the damned requirements.  All of them.  Then and only then do you qualify to render an opinion on whether or not they are burdensome.  Until then, you are just giving an emotional, ignorant response.

TXPhotog wrote:

I have no problem with people who disagree when they know what they are talking about.  You do not.  You treat this as some trivial matter of just checking IDs.  It is not.  You have no appreciation at all of the burden it places on a photographer, because you have only made an emotional reaction to the claimed purpose of the regulations, and have not, as I have repeatedly pointed out, bothered to look at what they require.

That's not "disagreement", that's irresponsibility.  Read the damned requirements.  All of them.  Then and only then do you qualify to render an opinion on whether or not they are burdensome.  Until then, you are just giving an emotional, ignorant response.

Geez you must be a peach to live with.
I guess the next time you go to a hospital and let us say the doctor treating you has lost their license to pratice medicine for negligence and dose the same exact thing to you causing harm... it will be ok if the hospital administrator tells you... "Hey it was just too big of a burden to check his creditentials and he had a stethoscope so we put him to work"

BrendaPrice wrote:
But if a Fortune 500 company can take and document their ten of thousands employees... is it not too much to ask the same.

As it happens, I don't shoot material which would fall within 2257.  But if I decided to:

1.  I am not a Fortune 500 company.  I do not have, as they do, a paid staff to keep and maintain records.

2. I am not a Fortune 500 company, with a business office.  In fact, I have no office at all.  I live and work at home.  Consequently, I have nobody here the required 20 hours a week that I am required by law to be here, in case the FBI chooses to come knocking at my door.  So, either I am guilty of a federal felony, even if my records are perfect or I have to pay someone else to maintain the records for me.  How much does that cost?  You don't know. Neither do I, since under current law nobody is allowed to be in that business.  Nonetheless, you blithely dismiss the cost.

3.  I am not a Fortune 500 company with a business office, so if I choose to shoot a qualifying picture and post it on the Internet, I am required to also post my name and home address each and every time I post the picture.  Perhaps you can understand why some people - particularly models - are reluctant to do that.  Or perhaps not.  Maybe you think, somehow, that requirement for me or models I shoot to notify the world where I live - or they live - is "protecting the children".

4.  If I shoot a single 50 year old model in a picture that falls within 2257, I am then required to keep those records - and be home 20 hours a week, every week, during business hours - for a minimum of five years, even if I never touch a camera again.  If she posts the pictures anywhere, so is she.  If she fails to do that, she is guilty of a federal felony.  It's not clear how this is "protecting the children".

5.  If I shoot a single 50 year old model with a qualifying picture, I am required to get each and every name she has ever used as part of the record-keeping.  If I shoot a lot of 50 year old models, I have to get each and every name each one of them has ever used, and cross reference each name with each use of each picture.  That, in my mind, can get pretty burdensome, especially considering item #1.  But hey, in your mind, all these records about 50 year old models are "protecting the children", so I should be just fine with it.

6. This law was allegedly enacted in reaction to Tracy Lords, who was 15 when she started shooting hard core porn.  If some 15 year old were to come to me as Tracy did, and I were to take her ID and keep the records, and then shoot sexually explicit pictures or video of her, I would be completely in compliance with 2257.  And yet still the child porn would be created and, presumably, sold.  2257 would have done absolutely nothing to stop it - nothing at all to "protect the child".

But hey, who am I to endanger children? 

And who are you to tell me how trivial the requirement is, and how I should be doing it to "protect children" or to "protect myself"?

Midnight Imaging wrote:
(2)  Model Mayhem comes up with a means to either include the 2257 notification when entering/editing photo information, or a way to link to other sites for the 2257 notification.

The new regulations expand on the number of pictures which should be labeled, but they don't create a new labeling requirement.  There has been a legal requirement for this ever since MM was created.  No way to comply with the law has ever been provided.

TXPhotog wrote:

The new regulations expand on the number of pictures which should be labeled, but they don't create a new labeling requirement.  There has been a legal requirement for this ever since MM was created.  No way to comply with the law has ever been provided.

I would think that using the caption area under each photo would be sufficient, no?

Peter Claver wrote:
I would think that using the caption area under each photo would be sufficient, no?

I don't know.  I believe the label would have to appear with the thumbnail image, and right now it doesn't.  Other than that, the caption could, I think, be used, but that would make it hard to have a real caption.  And I don't know how many characters can be put into the current caption and have them show up.

TXPhotog wrote:
The new regulations expand on the number of pictures which should be labeled, but they don't create a new labeling requirement.  There has been a legal requirement for this ever since MM was created.  No way to comply with the law has ever been provided.

No argument with that.  Under the new regulations, more pictures on MM will be affected, so it would be nice to have a labeling solution for the site.  Although the number of affected pictures is probably quite small when taken as a percentage of all pictures posted on the site.  But I'll bet they are getting a disproportionately high number of views. 

BrendaPrice wrote:

It is that simple. If you are keeping records for your business... income and expenditures then take the time to document your subjects.
I guess it is real easy to say PROTECT OUR CHILDREN when the one saying it wishes someone had protected her!
Just hope that one day those who have that point of view about the SAVE THE CHILDREN never have to look a child in the eyes or the family that has suffered the loss or has a child that has been put through that hell and say that to them.
But I guess this is just one of those times we just need to agree to disagree.

man I am glad you feel this way, please post your street address on your photos in your portfolio here on modelmayhem so I can find you and stalk you easier, because as your port stands now the vast majority of the photos on your port fall under the 2257 regulations currently in effect since 2005, not to mention since 1995. Looking briefly at the very first page of your photos, many need a 2257 statment of compliance with you as the secondary producer.

/sarcasm

digital Artform wrote:
2257 is a tool for tripping up pornographers when the obscenity charges alone are weak.

A guy right now is facing 10 years not for improper records, but for improper affixing of a 2257 notice on his work.

No, he isn't.  There was a mistrial.  You are citing an incident from years ago, which has been resolved.

TXPhotog wrote:
Someday, just once, I would like to have one of these "save the children, it's no big deal" people have the honesty and integrity to actually read and understand the regulations they are claiming are "no big deal", and then come back to the forum and say something like, "Gee, I was wrong.  It really is a lot more burdensome than I thought."

Today, I fear, will not be that day.

Suspicions confirmed.

Integrity is a quality sadly lacking these days.

Paramour Productions wrote:

You live in Minnesota.

What do you think it will be like for someone living and shooting "average stuff within the rules of what's porn/sexual/nude" in Alabama...

Unless the Etowah County DA is significantly more liberal than, um, every single other person I know who lives here, the answer is, as you guessed, "unpleasant." Roy Moore is from here, man. *dies*

That said, I already get proper documentation and try to avoid shooting anyone under 21, not 'cause I have any respect or fear for The Man, but I do it nonetheless.

BrendaPrice wrote:

It is that simple. If you are keeping records for your business... income and expenditures then take the time to document your subjects.
I guess it is real easy to say PROTECT OUR CHILDREN when the one saying it wishes someone had protected her!
Just hope that one day those who have that point of view about the SAVE THE CHILDREN never have to look a child in the eyes or the family that has suffered the loss or has a child that has been put through that hell and say that to them.
But I guess this is just one of those times we just need to agree to disagree.

The problem is, it doesn't protect children.  It's like gun control.  If someone decides to commit murder the act of illegally obtaining a firearm is obviously of no consequence.  Gun control doesn't affect criminals using them, they're already criminals.  It does affect people who legally obtain and use firearms.

Same with the monsters that prey on children.  They're already committing haneous, criminal acts, I'm sure record keeping isn't really a concern of theirs.   I can already hear the response "But with this we can lock them up even longer!"  To which I would say it isn't really neccessary.  According to a presentation I saw by a Customs Official in charge (at the time (1999)) of digital child pornography cases, child pornographers were easiest suspects to work with.  They nearly always confess when presented with the evidence against them, they nearly always give up all their contacts in connection with their crimes, and they have the highest pre-trial suicide rate saving the state plenty in court fees.  The trick with child pornographers is finding them, after that the rest is pretty easy.  2257 doesn't help anyone find child pornographers, it does make is much easier for law enforcement to charge people with child pornography-like crimes though it's entirely possible (perhaps likely) no such acts were committed.

Peter Claver wrote:
I would think that using the caption area under each photo would be sufficient, no?

TXPhotog wrote:
I don't know.  I believe the label would have to appear with the thumbnail image, and right now it doesn't.  Other than that, the caption could, I think, be used, but that would make it hard to have a real caption.  And I don't know how many characters can be put into the current caption and have them show up.

An observation TX. A "caption", in text alone, is probably insufficient. The regulations refer to a "hyperlink" = by definition that is a live link to the compliance labelling located elsewhere. 

e.g.
[text only] "2257 compliance record keeping information can be found at mysite.com/2257.html"

vs.
that same text statement with an underling LIVE link to the mysite.com/2257.html URL "on click"

And, yes, the link MUST appear on ANY and EVERY page where there is ANY iteration of a regulated image. One of the problems with MM and no doubt other site's architecture will be this...

Take my avitar image as an example


It appears on various pages but is actually stored in other server locations from where it can be called into view directly, in effect it is actually downloaded to someone's computer without reference to the PAGE on which it also appears.

PAGE https://www.modelmayhem.com/18055 [main page]
and is called as a thumbnail sized image from here
IMAGE ONLY http://modelmayhm-5.vo.llnwd.net/d1/ava … 8055_m.jpg

PAGE https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=18055 [images thumbnails page]
and is called as a thumbnail sized image BUT NOT from the same location as the main page avi.
IMAGE ONLY https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050712/17/ … cb42_m.jpg

But here is it displayed as a larger sized version
PAGE https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pic … he_count=0 [individual image page]
and that larger version is called from here
IMAGE ONLY https://img2.modelmayhem.com/050712/17/ … decb42.jpg

For each iteration of the image, if it were a regulated one, that can be called into view, each and all of the interations must be EITHER labelled in full -THAT IS- be associated with a full text version of the compliance notice related to that image; -OR- there must be a live hyperlink that appears with the image, or is imbedded into it, to the text of the compliance notice.

On the actual pages that is not a great problem technically; the problem starts when one tries to consider how to do it when calling the image directly from the server location.

Studio36

Midnight Imaging wrote:
No argument with that.  Under the new regulations, more pictures on MM will be affected, so it would be nice to have a labeling solution for the site.  Although the number of affected pictures is probably quite small when taken as a percentage of all pictures posted on the site.  But I'll bet they are getting a disproportionately high number of views. 

You can bet on it. LOL

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:
Let me make this more personal.

Again, I do not shoot images which would qualify for 2257.  But if I did:

Under current 2257 law and regulations, I have no option but to maintain the required records in my home, and to label each and every use of the pictures with my name and home address.

Under current law and regulations, I am required to be home 20 hours per week, every week, in case the FBI wanted to make an unannounced inspection.

Later this afternoon, I am going to get on an airplane, and go meet my new granddaughter for the first time.  I will be gone the remainder of the week, and most of next week.  That is, I will not be home during business hours for the required 20 hours during those two weeks.

That fact would make me a federal felon because I wanted to spend some time over Christmas with my daughter and granddaughter - even though all pictures I shot were legal, and I had perfect records documenting them.  And you tell me I should be happy about that, because I am somehow "protecting the children".

Bullshit!

That's the problem I have.

I don't maintain an office for 20 hours a week and can't afford to pay someone else to be a custodian. I also refuse to put my home address out in public that way.

I have no fucking clue as to what images would require record-keeping, either. The various tests put forth here (such as Dost) don't tell me a damn thing. They are totally subjective and I'm not sure how anyone would be able to say ahead of time what images would be determined by a prosecutor, grand jury, judge, jury, or appellate court to pass or fail those tests. In fact, the Dost test is to decide if an image is child porn...if the image is an adult, BY DEFINITION it is not child porn so the Dost test MUST fail.

Forcing an otherwise law-abiding citizen into keeping records just to "stay safe" is a prime example of a chilling effect, especially when the criteria are so nebulous and burdensome. Look it up.

Longwatcher wrote:
Just thought I would share some potentially out of date trivia.

Having seen a lot of his work, as a collection there is definitely nothing sexual in it at all, but there were one or two images if taken solely by themselves could be considered sexual by the puritans.

Just what I remember.

And you can bet that each image, in a dispute, would be taken and considered  individually and in isolation, as well. That would be quite standard practice.

Studio36

Cameran Flash wrote:
2 questions.
does this mean every profile that has nudes or erotic must have link to the 2257/2257A statement?
Help me understand. I do take 2 pics of the drivers license of every model, one closeup of the DL, other of the model holding next to her face. And, then have her sign a release. Is this going to be enough?
thanks.

No. You need to carefully and throughly read the new regulations.

Studio36

My name is Ryo wrote:
why is this bad news.
Make sure everyone you photograph in a suggestive fashion is 18 and get proof of it. Photocopy their id and scan it into your computer, then burn it on cd.
what's the major malfuction that I seem to be missing?

All the rest of the requirements, labeling, indexing, affixing, etc.