JustOwen wrote:

From Page 1

"My take on it, just reading through it briefly, is that the burden is on us as photographers to verify that our models are over 18 for anything but the most innocent and innocuous of photos, and that we are required to keep records of this verification, and that we are required to publish, with our photos, where these files can be inspected.

Further, it appears that websites such as MM will be required to verify that we, as photographers, have made this verification and maintain these files before we can upload photos to their site."

Ok, so we snap off a shot of the ID, make sure the model release states something about being of legal age (already does) and click a box that says the model is of legal age if the picture is getting marked "mature"

I hate the Bush administration as much as anyone, but it seems as if people are probably over-reacting to this one unless I am mis-understanding it. Im not actually even sure who it's supposed to help or protect. Not like the guy shooting the naked 7 yr olds is all that concerned about the law to begin with, I guess it hurts paparazzi nipple slips since Britney and Lindsey probably wont sign the paperwork.

JMX Photography wrote:

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:

Yes... you need to anticipate what a publisher might think; what a viewer of your website might think; what the DoJ might think; and ultimately what a court might think. It is really as simple as that.

Studio36

Sungoddess Studios wrote:


I thought we   fought and died   for FREEDOM


    READ BOOKS NOT BURN THEM !

As you had the ability to post the above, you did not die for freedom.
As the United States has not had its freedom threatened by war, you did not fight for freedom.
Even during WWII, US Freedom was not on the line.
"We" is what our ancestors can lay claim to.
The living simply gripe about procedural things like recordkeeping.
Myself included.

There is no freedom without law.  That would be anarchy.   Don't think I was to live in a place without law.  Doubt you would be happy there either.

This has nothing to do with limiting your ammendment rights. 
You still have the right to shoot adults in any pose you want.
You just need to make sure that you have absolute proof they are adults and you need to properly maintain that proof.

Jeff Cohn::X-Pose.net:: wrote:
...but it seems as if people are probably over-reacting to this one...

BINGO

studio36uk wrote:
Yes... you need to anticipate what a publisher might think; what a viewer of your website might think; what the DoJ might think; and ultimately what a court might think. It is really as simple as that.

Studio36

Actually, no.  You simply have to maintain the required documentation.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
As someone that has been actively complying to the 2257 regulations for several years (since they were introduced) I welcome these new changes, as they clarify our responsibilities and make many of the areas of compliance more manageable and easier to work with.

You can now keep the records strictly as digital information, eliminating the need for redundant paperwork.

The best part is that now you can have a third party designated as your 'keeper of the records' and not have to reveal your studio or home address.

Unfortunately, the penalties for non-compliance still carry a 5 year prison term for each violation. If you make 5 mistakes in your record keeping, it's 25 years.

If you shoot nudes and think that this doesn't apply to you . . . . please check with a lawyer to confirm your liability.

KM

Your answer is the only one who isn't an all caps, all anger, lolcat language reply and it is nice to see someone making a logical reply about a serious topic in an photography industry forum.

If only those that doesn't agree took the time to write something that seems more fitting of an industry forum it would be an interesting discussion.

Ray Cornett wrote:
"The requirements of this rule apply to producers of visual depictions of
the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person and
producers of simulated sexually explicit conduct as of March 18, 2009."

Huge difference really between that and,say, normal fine art nudes.

No, because it is not the artist, or even the arts community, that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is not

Studio-X wrote:
it's embarrassing to be an american sometimes. no, strike that, OFTEN.

i wonder if i only shoot myself can i circumvent these new ridiculous rules...? or would i be arrested for not filling out my own release form?

You probably don't need a release form for a self shot image; but if it runs into what the recordkeeping requirements would cover then you would almost certainly need to have and keep records... even on yourself!

The reason for that appears to be that the records relate to the point of publication, including on the Internet, and thus you may be obligated to furnish them down stream.

Studio36

JustOwen wrote:

No, because it is not the artist, or even the arts community, that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is not

I think even to the most conservative judge the difference between hustler/penthouse style is a lot different than normal fine art nudes.

Luckily, I have gone above and beyond what was required for records from the get go.

JustOwen wrote:

Actually, no.  You simply have to maintain the required documentation.

My point exactly, unless you are prepared to make the wrong guess and accept the consequences, it is by far better to just keep the darn records.

Studio36

Ray Cornett wrote:

JustOwen wrote:
No, because it is not the artist, or even the arts community, that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is not

I think even to the most conservative judge the difference between hustler/penthouse style is a lot different than normal fine art nudes.

Luckily, I have gone above and beyond what was required for records from the get go.

You read it. There is absolutely NO exemption or exception for "art". None, none, none!

Studio36

Ray Cornett wrote:
"The requirements of this rule apply to producers of visual depictions of
the lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of a person and
producers of simulated sexually explicit conduct as of March 18, 2009."

Huge difference really between that and,say, normal fine art nudes.

JustOwen wrote:
No, because it is not the artist, or even the arts community, that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is not

This is the very GIST of the problem.  An artist/photographer/creative may be better equipped to decide what is and isn't "lascivious" - but it isn't they who will be deciding that . . . instead it will be all those NeoCon's/Christian Right Winger's who work in local, city, state government and also ultimately those in the Justice Department.

Thanks for contradicting yourself with this very post.

Ray Cornett wrote:
I think even to the most conservative judge the difference between hustler/penthouse style is a lot different than normal fine art nudes.

Luckily, I have gone above and beyond what was required for records from the get go.

I don't disagree with you at all.  I'm simply pointing out that, because of the completely open interpretation of what is "lascivious" and/or "sexually arousing", it appears that the documentation standards are going to apply equally to all model photographers, whether they are photographing nudes or not.

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

Wait for it

Kenneth Light Studios wrote:
Makes me want to move back to England but I am sure it will follow there

So much for land of the Free and being an artist, what would they say about something like THE KISS BY RODIN.

Where will this end, destroying books that talk about it?

Just makes me sick

Well, the Kiss is exempt by reason of its age; but if you shot an image with live models like that after March '09 you would be a mug if you didn't create and keep the required records.

Studio36

JustOwen wrote:

I don't disagree with you at all.  I'm simply pointing out that, because of the completely open interpretation of what is "lascivious" and/or "sexually arousing", it appears that the documentation standards are going to apply equally to all model photographers, whether they are photographing nudes or not.

Luckily I have been keeping more records the way I have. Even with the new laws I am in compliance.

Fernando Pacheco wrote:
Yes, but Canada has extradition laws. Why do you think so many bank robbers and porn producers go to Brazil?   

RJB Design and Graphics wrote:

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

Wait for it

Have I got bad news for him, if he expects to publish in the US. LOL

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Have I got bad news for him, if he expects to publish in the US. LOL

Studio36

Like on MM?  -  Excellent point.

JEBKA Photography wrote:
...
Facts are an enlightening thing.

But facts aren't allowed on MM. It's much more fun to jump up and down and scream that everyone is so mean. You know those laws about taxes and business licenses and permits and trespassing and recordkeeping are just so mean. I mean, photographers are supposed to be exempt from rules. They're not regular people, you know. They're more important.

Sarah Ashley Barker wrote:
Can this apply to models as well with "suggestive" images online???  Basically, it's saying that forms have to be submitted for each set you do that is of this nature??

Effectively, it appears so. Copies of the records would have to be supplied to another webmaster in some cases; but you must also have records even if you own and operate your own website, with your own pictures, if any images there would be of a nature that they would require the records.

Studio36

JEBKA Photography wrote:
Here ya go.  An easy way to handle your recordkeeping.b

http://www.2257software.org/

This will give you all you need to be compliant, except for actually asking the performer for ID.

This all started in 1988, way before Dubya.

Facts are an enlightening thing.

Gosh - how wonderful!  Is this free, or is there a charge for it???

J C ModeFotografie wrote:

Gosh - how wonderful!  Is this free, or is there a charge for it???

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version."

PHT wrote:
But facts aren't allowed on MM. It's much more fun to jump up and down and scream that everyone is so mean. You know those laws about taxes and business licenses and permits and trespassing and recordkeeping are just so mean. I mean, photographers are supposed to be exempt from rules. They're not regular people, you know. They're more important.

Not to mention the damned Gestap... er, I mean, cops!

Eduardo Frances wrote:

"This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(at your option) any later version."

And how sure are we that the documents therein are in complete compliance with the new 2257???

I have had magazine publishing companies try to foist non-compliant blank forms (model release) on me, thankfully I consulted a friend before using them to any great extent.

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!

Hallelulah! Praise God! All the perverts are going to have to be checking themselves from now on, its about time!

Glamour Jessica wrote:

Hallelulah! Praise God! All the perverts are going to have to be checking themselves from now on, its about time!

Thank you for the helpful contribution to the thread.

JustOwen wrote:
Like on MM?  -  Excellent point.

MM just may be able to claim a safe harbour [exempt from keeping their own copies of records] but, then again, they may not. The turn on that goes to how much a website owner / operator exercises control of the content placed on the site. As MM is moderated there is a serious question about this site, or any like it that are also moderated, that I can not resolve, even in my own mind, at the moment.

What is sure, however, is that whoever "inserts" on a web page an image requiring records is liable for keeping the records. There are some details on foreign producers publishing in the US [on a US owned, operated and hosted site] that I have not worked through yet.

It's early days for such a complex set of rules. It will take some time to digest and distill it all.

Studio36

Split Images Studio wrote:
you think they have the resources to cum after all of us?? Think not

Anyone up for a few rounds of Russian Roulette?

Split Images Studio wrote:
you think they have the resources to cum after all of us?? Think not

That in itself would be lascivious.

Sita Mae wrote:
Is there a 2257 for dummies somewhere?  I'm so lost.

2257 for Dummies:

1 - Verify model's age.

2 - Maintain records of model's age verification

3 - When you publish (upload) model's photo, include information on where said documentation is maintained.