Hermesz Fine Art wrote:
Well, I have read the entirety of this thread over the past 3 days. ALL 24 Pages.

Obviously, there are some who get the implications of 2257 and others who do not.

Here is my stand on the issue;

1) Is it a problem to require the requisite forms be filled in my a subject?  NO
2) Is it a problem to examine the ID of a subject?  NO
3) Is it a problem to require a color Photocopy of a subject's ID?  NO
4) Is it a problem to keep the above records together and in order?  NO
5) Is it a problem to set up a database to cross-reference paperwork, images, etc, as required? Somewhat, but still doable.
6) Is it a probmen to track where every image produced ends up and be able to document their locations as required? NOT LIKELY!
7) Is it a problem for me to be available the requisite 20 hour/week for un-scheduled/un-announced visits for audits? As TX posted earlier, THIS IS AN IMPOSSIBLE SITUATION for me.
8) IS the ability to remotely store all records under the new provisions a solution to #7 above?  Much will depend on the cost factors and the additional requirements which are still unclear, at least to me.

For those who operate a "brick-and-mortor" business where there are set hours during the week, and they have employees who are there at all times during normal business hours, and at least one of those employees is considered to have "Custodial Previliges" for the 2257 records, there is little in the 8 points above that will give them problems in meeting the compliance requirements.

For those of us who are not full time photographers, and DO NOT have a Brick-and-Mortor place of business, and travel extensively either due to our primary income-producing endeavours, or because they are retired and have the ability to travel and shoot in different areas, even world-wide, only option #8 could be a solution.

However, I am barely able to pay my bills as they are now. I am not sure I could afford even the smallest annual fee to have someone else act as Custodian. Additionally, I am unwilling to begin shooting mainstream "Adult Content" just to provide the additional revenues necessary to meet all the requirements of 2257.

The bottom line for me is this:

Because I cannot meet the "Hours of Operation" clause of 2257, I will most likely have to give up shooting images that could fall under the new, expanded scope of 2257.

Some of my images appear here on MM, others on my website. I have won a number of awards in shows I have entered. I exhibit in Galleries and have even managed a few sales since I re-started shooting nude subjects in Nov 2007 after not shooting for almost 2 decades. 2257 all but makes it impossible to shoot in some of the genres I do because I cannot meet the "Hours of operation" clause. Why should I continue to shoot these genres if all I can do is look at them my self?

And ... my images are relatively "Tame" in comparrison to what is out there.

I have spoken with a number of people at least vaguely familiar with 2257 and they have tried to discourage me from letting 2257 get me down and cause me to quit. At least that is something. But, I am also realistic and know what some "Power Crazed" government official can do when they set their teeth like the proverbial Bulldog. My pockets are not deep enough to be able to fight this and I would not want to leave my freedom in the hands of some Court Appointed Public Defender.

So... my personal choices are somewhat limited until the legal ramifications play themselves out and clarifications become available that will make recordkeeping less invasive to the average hobbyist who simply wants to exhibit "Art" (Whatever the definition may be).

Unfortunately, I see no easy solution. What I see is an increased suppression of the creative process. In the not to distant future, all forms of "Art" will be banned because someone finds paintngs/drawings/sculptures/Photographs of fruit, vegetables, and landscapes too erotic to be permitted in publication or sale! I have already heard too many people express the notion that Michael Angelo's work should be removed/destroyed from the Cystine Chapel ... and yes, I have personally heard those expressions.

We all face difficult choices concerning what and how we shoot.

John

So help groups like APA, ASMP and PPA lobby Congress to get the laws changed so they are not so restrictive.  I can't see anyone who shoots on location and carry on a business will be able to sit around for 20 hours a week.

Telephoto Studio wrote:
So help groups like APA, ASMP and PPA lobby Congress to get the laws changed so they are not so restrictive.  I can't see anyone who shoots on location and carry on a business will be able to sit around for 20 hours a week.

Corporations use overseas operations to circumvent US tax, labor, and safety laws all the time with impunity.

Why don't we get smart and do the same?

I see a booming market in foreign photographer identities, complete with legal incorporations and web hosting in friendlier nations.

For the Feds to control that, they'd have to invoke Internet filtering which for sure would create massive public ire.

Just like Mexican border cities host AM radio stations and medical clinics in order to get around US regulations, perhaps they now have a new opportunity.

Perhaps an overseas identity would be a better investment for some than a third-party custodian.

Kymberly Jane wrote:
dude..25 pages of this..REALLY... thread lock?..

you are spreading Panic throughout.. this thread must be locked~

im shocked they let it go on for 25 pages

so have you read the new regulations or not? 

You ain't getting out of this.   

If you haven't read them, you really have no business giving anyone advice about whether or not they should choose to comply.

Damon Banner wrote:

Kymberly Jane wrote:
dude..25 pages of this..REALLY... thread lock?..

you are spreading Panic throughout.. this thread must be locked~

im shocked they let it go on for 25 pages

so have you read the new regulations or not? 

You ain't getting out of this.   

If you haven't read them, you really have no business giving anyone advice about whether or not they should choose to comply.

Look here and you decide

https://www.modelmayhem.com/po.php?thre … ost8431520

Studio36

Kymberly Jane wrote:
again.. i will contact the forum mods.. this thread has gone on long enough with panic~

You know what? No one is forcing you to hang around and read the thread either



Studio36

Kymberly Jane wrote:
again.. i will contact the forum mods.. this thread has gone on long enough with panic~

You don't HAVE to come into any thread, you know.  Seems you say these things in other threads as well.

Kymberly Jane wrote:
again.. i will contact the forum mods.. this thread has gone on long enough with panic~

For someone with as many possible 2257 images in her portfolio as Kymberly, I don't understand her position that this is panic . . . concern, yes . . . . panic, no.

KM

studio36uk wrote:

You know what? No one is forcing you to hang around and read the thread either



Studio36

Much as I try, I cannot get away.

Damon Banner wrote:
If you haven't read them, you really have no business giving anyone advice about whether or not they should choose to comply.

rp_photo wrote:
Much as I try, I cannot get away.

It's certainly cheeper than smack. but just as habit forming. LOL

Studio36

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

For someone with as many possible 2257 images in her portfolio as Kymberly, I don't understand her position that this is panic . . . concern, yes . . . . panic, no.

KM

Maybe those images aren't in compliance. 

Mark Anderson wrote:
Okay, there's something in the new law that allows couples to make a video of themselves for their own private use.  So... what if they were to hire someone to make the video for them and it would still be for their own private use.  Take that a step further.  What happens when a client hires a photographer to take boudoir/nude images of them for their own private use.  Not other use will take place, just as a present for their loved one and their exclusive use?  Where does 2257a stand on this?

From the photographers' standpoint, you would have no way to guarantee that the images that you are making for the couple actually would remain "private" in the future, so you would want to keep records.  Also, recordkeeping is a safeguard for the photographer.  For example, what if you agree to do the shoot, and it ends up involving "actual sexually explicit conduct," and you find out later that the model was only 16.  Your only hope of a defense to the ensuing child porn charges will be having records showing that you checked her fed / state-issued Id's. etc.

Kymberly Jane wrote:
again.. i will contact the forum mods.. this thread has gone on long enough with panic~

i totally disagree,..dont read it anymore and move on

Stephen Dawson wrote:
No 2257 bull shee-it here!

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Please read:


This is yet another chunk the government is biting out of our First Amendment rights.  Contact your closest lobbying group (ACLU?) now!

********

After spending some 35 years with the military fighting for those rights we all thought we had, especially those concerning the governing of expression. I have come to the conclusion that our country is hiding behind those "bible thumpers" and right wing activist who continually see fit to stomp on those freedoms.

Fuzzytek - Stephen wrote:
I hate when a model forgets her ID and I have to vault the photos until she gets the papers together the photos aren't going to be visible....

...Models - PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING A PHOTO ID WITH DATE OF BIRTH.

NOTE: This will be rather interesting with LINGERIE/BODYPAINT fashion shows!

FWIW... if you read the regulations closely you will realise that you MUST inspect the ID documents BEFORE you make ANY images that are potentially regulated by this law and the regulations. You can NOT generate the records after the fact.

28 CFR Part 75 [18 Dec 2008]
§ 75.2 Maintenance of records

[in part - emphasis is mine]

(a)(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer’s examination of a picture identification card prior to production of the depiction...

There will only be ONE legal option; NO ID at the shoot? NO SHOOT!

Studio36

Svend wrote:
I'm not concerned about it.  I just will not comply.  No need to understand the specifics because I don't fucking care.  Not gonna happen.

Golf claps.

San Francisco Nudes wrote:
So we're roughly a third of the way through our 90 day warning period.  Does anybody know if there's any change in terms of somebody setting themselves up as a third party custodian?

No doubt the third-party custodians will clean up.

San Francisco Nudes wrote:
So we're roughly a third of the way through our 90 day warning period.  Does anybody know if there's any change in terms of somebody setting themselves up as a third party custodian?

From industry sources I am informed that some 3rd party custodians will emerge and start offering the service about the 1st or 2nd week of February. At least one lawyer I do business with, however, and who is a specialist in this field [2257 compliance], is expressing some serious concerns about uncertainties of liability that 3rd party custodians will have to assume. His feeling is that some, without realising it, are going to venture into offering the service without knowing where they stand. Whatever a 3rd party custodian does, or does not, do with the records the producer is still ultimately liable for the accuracy, completeness and organisation records.

It would seem that until those concerns are answered that a producer or secondary producers would be better served by maintaining the records themselves... and painful as it may be to do it.

I also expect that right this minute there is some behind-the-scenes discussion going on to clarify, and resolve, the concerns of those considering acting as 3rd party custodians with the DoJ.

The new regulations, BTW, officially replace the existing ones effective TOMORROW, 20 Jan 2009.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

From industry sources I am informed that some 3rd party custodians will emerge and start offering the service about the 1st or 2nd week of February. At least one lawyer I do business with, however, and who is a specialist in this field [2257 compliance], is expressing some serious concerns about uncertainties of liability that 3rd party custodians will have to assume. His feeling is that some, without realising it, are going to venture into offering the service without knowing where they stand. Whatever a 3rd party custodian does, or does not, do with the records the producer is still ultimately liable for the accuracy, completeness and organisation records.

It would seem that until those concerns are answered that a producer or secondary producers would be better served by maintaining the records themselves... and painful as it may be to do it.

I also expect that right this minute there is some behind-the-scenes discussion going on to clarify, and resolve, the concerns of those considering acting as 3rd party custodians with the DoJ.

The new regulations, BTW, officially replace the existing ones effective TOMORROW, 20 Jan 2009.

Studio36

Happy New Year!!!

I don't remember if this question has been covered already, please bear with me if it already has . . .

Hypothetically speaking: what if I were hired/commissioned by Penthouse/Hustler/Playboy to shoot obviously "lascivious" images - would it still fall upon me as the photographer to maintain the 2257 records?

studio36uk wrote:
From industry sources I am informed that some 3rd party custodians will emerge and start offering the service about the 1st or 2nd week of February. At least one lawyer I do business with, however, and who is a specialist in this field [2257 compliance], is expressing some serious concerns about uncertainties of liability that 3rd party custodians will have to assume.[...]

Thanks - it's good to have some sense there are people heading down that path, even if it's going to take a while to shake out some of the details.

rp_photo wrote:
Corporations use overseas operations to circumvent US tax, labor, and safety laws all the time with impunity.

Why don't we get smart and do the same?

I see a booming market in foreign photographer identities, complete with legal incorporations and web hosting in friendlier nations.

For the Feds to control that, they'd have to invoke Internet filtering which for sure would create massive public ire.

Just like Mexican border cities host AM radio stations and medical clinics in order to get around US regulations, perhaps they now have a new opportunity.

Perhaps an overseas identity would be a better investment for some than a third-party custodian.

This is what I've been saying as the way to improve Photographer's

Copyright's, ( because of the Bourne Convention ), eliminate the Orphan

Works Rights Steal & put the nails in the coffin of 2257.

Are you wondering how ?  The U.S. Constitution plainly states, that

International Treaty, supercedes, U.S. law.  All that has to be done, is

for someone, to set up an A.S.C.A.P. type organization in Europe, for

International distribution.  When the U.S. tries to object, sue then per

W.T.O., ( World Trade Organization ).  Almost always, whoever sues in

this court, wins against the offending country.

--  What this country needs, is Creator Rights, not Corporate Rights.  --

Note: A.S.C.A.P. is a clearance organization for music writers & singer /

song-writers.  If a radio plays a song, or a movie / T.V., uses a song,

A.S.C.A.P. collects for the creator.

rp_photo wrote:

Corporations use overseas operations to circumvent US tax, labor, and safety laws all the time with impunity.

Why don't we get smart and do the same?

I see a booming market in foreign photographer identities, complete with legal incorporations and web hosting in friendlier nations.

For the Feds to control that, they'd have to invoke Internet filtering which for sure would create massive public ire.

Just like Mexican border cities host AM radio stations and medical clinics in order to get around US regulations, perhaps they now have a new opportunity.

Perhaps an overseas identity would be a better investment for some than a third-party custodian.

Dude - where you been?  The Feds are already doing illegal wiretapping of everyone's phones, and they run all internet signals through massive supercomputers.  Everything that you generate from a computer in the US gets logged into that room that the NSA has a key to.  Even if you send it to some site overseas - the NSA knows where it originates from.

studio36uk wrote:

Fuzzytek - Stephen wrote:
I hate when a model forgets her ID and I have to vault the photos until she gets the papers together the photos aren't going to be visible....

...Models - PLEASE REMEMBER TO BRING A PHOTO ID WITH DATE OF BIRTH.

NOTE: This will be rather interesting with LINGERIE/BODYPAINT fashion shows!

FWIW... if you read the regulations closely you will realise that you MUST inspect the ID documents BEFORE you make ANY images that are potentially regulated by this law and the regulations. You can NOT generate the records after the fact.


There will only be ONE legal option; NO ID at the shoot? NO SHOOT!

Studio36

I have always operated that way.  Get all records, and make copies - including Social Security number for tax purposes.  I know I will get flamed for that - but if I pay you more than $600 a year, I gotta have that number.  Way back in the day I didn't get that info and told a model I couldn't pay her without that information and she took me to Small Claims Court.  When she told the judge that she didnt' want to give me the info because she hadn't paid taxes in years on all her modeling or dancing income (all cash), he told her she had to play if she wanted to get paid by me.  She walked out with nothing because she didn't want to deal with the IRS