J C ModeFotografie wrote:
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?

Jay, part of the answer to that particular question goes to the relationship between the photographer and the publisher. If the photographer is a member of staff, thus an employee, then only the publisher would be required to have records; It seems that if it is, for instance, a working agreement such as a WMFH contract, it would also have the same effect; whereas, if work was produced independently and not commissioned [on-spec] then later offered to the publisher, even exclusively, the photographer would be by definition the primary producer and the publisher the secondary requiring BOTH to have records.

That is my non-lawyerly impression of what the regulations require in those three slightly different circumstances. Where there is any doubt, the photographer would be well served to get some legal advice on it... and maybe even structure his contracts to avoid the recordkeeping if possible.

Best I can do with that question.

Studio36

Telephoto Studio wrote:
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.

Did you hear that from Art Bell or George Noory?

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
Once the images are on the web, whether I legally and lawfully put them up or someone scans them and puts them up, I have no control who copies them and puts them on their web site.

What will they do go Google who isn't hosting the images, but will make them available without anyone's consent?...

How many people have the clause on their web sites?

That is perhaps the single most good news to 2257 recordkeeping. Maybe the only good news. The DoJ even addressed it in some of their commentary using YouTube as an example... as the discussion went... where a user posts regulated content to YouTube [or any website] that user MUST have the records and the record keeper info MUST be revealed in a compliance statement; YouTube [or any website], themselves, because they may not "manage" the up-loading of user generated content and can not reasonably be expected to do so because of the sheer volume of it, will be exempt from keeping records; BUT - and here is the kicker... if someone downloads a piece of regulated content from a site like YouTube [or any website] and reposts it elsewhere THEY need records. No records = a criminal offence, in and of itself, completely aside and distinct from the civil offence of infringement. They can not simply point at the YouTube [or any website] user and claim that only that party needs records.

The second kind of instance that has been discussed is that of a blogger who not only shows a link to some regulated content from another site but actually embeds it into their blog so it is visually perceived on the blogger's pages, then they, too, will have to have records as a secondary producer... even if the site they are linking it from, more likely lifting it from, does not.

Some cases of infringement are going to get a lot more interesting in future when seeking a take down.

Studio36

Telephoto Studio wrote:

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.

And if we forward 50 emails in 5 minutes Bill Gates is going to give us $142,896.

rp_photo wrote:
Did you hear that from Art Bell or George Noory?

No - from the NY Times, the Washington Post, and from C-Span (congressional hearings).  WHy do you think that the big communications companies wanted to get a pass from violating the wiretapping laws?

rolfe james photography wrote:
I don't have a problem with rules that require me to obtain and maintain proper identification of the models age.

That seems like an easy thing to do.

JACOBFAKHERI wrote:
holy christ, look, its not that big of a deal.

All it means is, you make sure to check the ID, you get a photo of the ID and of them holding the ID, you get them to sign a thing saying they are 18, make a photo copy of the license, whatever, and that's it. This is NOT the end all be all, and you know, its just fucking smart in general to have for ANY photograph.

Is it a pain to do all the time? Sure. Yes, it is. But is it THAT huge of a deal? no. Stop your whining.

You haven't read it. Or, if you have you didn't understand it. I can tell.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

That is perhaps the single most good news to 2257 recordkeeping. Maybe the only good news. The DoJ even addressed it in some of their commentary using YouTube as an example... as the discussion went... where a user posts regulated content to YouTube [or any website] that user MUST have the records and the record keeper info MUST be revealed in a compliance statement; YouTube [or any website], themselves, because they may not "manage" the up-loading of user generated content and can not reasonably be expected to do so because of the sheer volume of it, will be exempt from keeping records; BUT - and here is the kicker... if someone downloads a piece of regulated content from a site like YouTube [or any website] and reposts it elsewhere THEY need records. No records = a criminal offence, in and of itself, completely aside and distinct from the civil offence of infringement. They can not simply point at the YouTube [or any website] user and claim that only that party needs records.

The second kind of instance that has been discussed is that of a blogger who not only shows a link to some regulated content from another site but actually embeds it into their blog so it is visually perceived on the blogger's pages, then they, too, will have to have records as a secondary producer... even if the site they are linking it from, more likely lifting it from, does not.

Some cases of infringement are going to get a lot more interesting in future when seeking a take down.

Studio36

I don't know how they're going to enforce that to be honest.  They sound like they're thinking everyone is going to comply.  I'd say...take 5,000,000 with computers and 4,500,000 of them will be reposting something in a blog, in a forum, on their photobucket page or somewhere else.  I've got people copying thumbnails from a site of mine and pasting them places.  The laws are written very loose and I seriously find it near impossible to enforce.  I'm almost thinking like Svend right now, as if they've just got bigger people they want to keep from existing.

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:

I don't know how they're going to enforce that to be honest.  They sound like they're thinking everyone is going to comply.  I'd say...take 5,000,000 with computers and 4,500,000 of them will be reposting something in a blog, in a forum, on their photobucket page or somewhere else.  I've got people copying thumbnails from a site of mine and pasting them places.  The laws are written very loose and I seriously find it near impossible to enforce.  I'm almost thinking like Svend right now, as if they've just got bigger people they want to keep from existing.

enforcement is not the real issue, they need not get everyone, just be able to randomly get those who are in violation when they can, that will make headlines on sites like this, and that is enough to start to make many others start to take serious notice and be more careful. 

Stephen Eastwood
http://www.StephenEastwood.com

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
I don't know how they're going to enforce that to be honest.  They sound like they're thinking everyone is going to comply.  I'd say...take 5,000,000 with computers and 4,500,000 of them will be reposting something in a blog, in a forum, on their photobucket page or somewhere else.  I've got people copying thumbnails from a site of mine and pasting them places.  The laws are written very loose and I seriously find it near impossible to enforce.  I'm almost thinking like Svend right now, as if they've just got bigger people they want to keep from existing.

I have some idea on how they will approach it. But I can tell you this... if they do not enforce it, one way or another, across the board, the adult industry will be screaming blue murder. Selective enforcement [against the adult industry alone] is not going to be an option for the DoJ.

Anyone that wants to be the test case? The sacrificial lamb? The line forms on the right.

Studio36

Greg Cobb Photography wrote:
I don't know how they're going to enforce that to be honest.  They sound like they're thinking everyone is going to comply.  I'd say...take 5,000,000 with computers and 4,500,000 of them will be reposting something in a blog, in a forum, on their photobucket page or somewhere else.  I've got people copying thumbnails from a site of mine and pasting them places.  The laws are written very loose and I seriously find it near impossible to enforce.  I'm almost thinking like Svend right now, as if they've just got bigger people they want to keep from existing.

They'll start on the path of least resistance by searching for sites on which the operators put self-incriminating compliance statements, complete with contact address and business hours.

The rest of us will take more work, and mostly won't be worth the effort.

Telephoto Studio wrote:

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

Just be careful, there are various privacy and data retention laws that you could run afoul of. If someone steals or hacks into your records you could be on the hook for a bunch of money.

I wonder if this whole thing is going to result in civil suits over compromised personal data?

rp_photo wrote:
They'll start on the path of least resistance by searching for sites on which the operators put self-incriminating compliance statements, complete with contact address and business hours.

The rest of us will take more work, and mostly won't be worth the effort.

They will ALSO be extremely interested where there are regulated images but NO compliance or exemption statement in evidence. THAT is a clear and unambiguous violation.

Studio36

Lumigraphics wrote:
Just be careful, there are various privacy and data retention laws that you could run afoul of. If someone steals or hacks into your records you could be on the hook for a bunch of money.

I wonder if this whole thing is going to result in civil suits over compromised personal data?

Nope. Compromise of data like that as the result of a criminal act [theft or hacking] does not devolve liability to you, as long as whatever precautions you took to prevent it are reasonable in the first place.

To be frank, loss or destruction of physical records completely, paper or electronic = you no longer have records. And you can guess what that will mean. This is not something that anyone with as little as two acorns between their ears will allow to happen. Or would it be exactly a wise thing to trust the only copy of the records to what you keep on your own computer HD.

One of the advantages of the use of 3rd party custodians will be the off-site back-up copies.

Studio36

JACOBFAKHERI wrote:
holy christ, look, its not that big of a deal.

All it means is, you make sure to check the ID, you get a photo of the ID and of them holding the ID, you get them to sign a thing saying they are 18, make a photo copy of the license, whatever, and that's it. This is NOT the end all be all, and you know, its just fucking smart in general to have for ANY photograph.

Is it a pain to do all the time? Sure. Yes, it is. But is it THAT huge of a deal? no. Stop your whining.

studio36uk wrote:
You haven't read it. Or, if you have you didn't understand it. I can tell.

Studio36

Sorry, Jacob - but Studio36 has laid out exactly why this legislation is such a burden and one of the most DEVIOUS & diabolical assaults on the First Amendment in a long long time.

Please refer back to earlier pages on this thread.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
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:
Jay, part of the answer to that particular question goes to the relationship between the photographer and the publisher. If the photographer is a member of staff, thus an employee, then only the publisher would be required to have records; It seems that if it is, for instance, a working agreement such as a WMFH contract, it would also have the same effect; whereas, if work was produced independently and not commissioned [on-spec] then later offered to the publisher, even exclusively, the photographer would be by definition the primary producer and the publisher the secondary requiring BOTH to have records.

That is my non-lawyerly impression of what the regulations require in those three slightly different circumstances. Where there is any doubt, the photographer would be well served to get some legal advice on it... and maybe even structure his contracts to avoid the recordkeeping if possible.

Best I can do with that question.

Studio36

Thanks again!  As always, you shed light on these dark matters.

J C ModeFotografie wrote:
Sorry, Jacob - but Studio36 has laid out exactly why this legislation is such a burden and one of the most DEVIOUS & diabolical assaults on the First Amendment in a long long time.

I was speaking to an industry lawyer in the US a few days ago and suggested that I have never come across a 2257 compliance statement - NOT ONE!!! - that has been in full agreement with the regulations since July 2006 [when the last version of the regs came into effect]. You want devious and diabolical? If I worked for the DoJ, I told him, I could violate hundreds, and probably thousands, of sites and producers, right now, in one fell swoop, because it is a requirement, clearly laid out in the regulations, but one that nobody complies with.

The lawyer left that conversation, I gather, scratching his head... and looking worried.

The devil, as it turns out, is definately in the details.

Studio36

Imported Pixs wrote:
Only in America let the witch hunt begin!

I'm waiting for the Justice Department to offer, even, 10 bucks a pop for verified reports of non-compliance. I'm going to get fucking rich! Better yet they should offer a percentage of the fines collected as the IRS does in tax cases.

[in response to several posters above who are interested in HOW the DoJ intend to enforce this thing. Think, economic stimulus and law enforcement combined]

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

I'm waiting for the Justice Department to offer, even, 10 bucks a pop for verified reports of non-compliance. I'm going to get fucking rich! Better yet they should offer a percentage of the fines collected as the IRS does in tax cases.

[in response to several posters above who are interested in HOW the DoJ intend to enforce this thing. Think, economic stimulus and law enforcement combined]

Studio36

Shades of NAZI Germany or Russia post the Mongol conquest to the end of the soviet era!

This is the classic slippery slope to a morally and ethically backward society. A society of mistrust and suspicion of one's neighbor.

Lumigraphics wrote:

Just be careful, there are various privacy and data retention laws that you could run afoul of. If someone steals or hacks into your records you could be on the hook for a bunch of money.

I wonder if this whole thing is going to result in civil suits over compromised personal data?

What data retention laws are you talking about?  If I pay a model more than $600, I need her SS number for tax purposes.  Regular employees have to provide that data and regular employers have to store it.

Le Beck Photography wrote:

Shades of NAZI Germany or Russia post the Mongol conquest to the end of the soviet era!

This is the classic slippery slope to a morally and ethically backward society. A society of mistrust and suspicion of one's neighbor.

So let's not take this lying down . . . if it indeed takes a long time to overturn this thing in the courts, then the time to start is NOW!