Corey Ward wrote:

You quoted something I didn't say as me. WTF?

Sorry, must have edited out the wrong part of the quote. All fixed!

AcmeStudios wrote:

Perhaps. Or could have been smoke to make the major players not look so bad?

Yeah good point, although no matter the intent the result would have been good for everyone.

studio36uk wrote:

There was a guy prosecuted, some would say persecuted, under Florida state obscenity statutes and he was hosting in the Netherlands.

He became instantly unpopular with the Bush administration when he allowed posting of war images to his site. There was nothing at all illegal about that. So they went after him for other personal postings that included sexually explicit images. That case was so bizarre that reportedly the head of the Miami FBI office pulled agents off terrorism investigations to develop a case against him. Then turned all their information over the the country sheriff where he resided who was a real "Bubba" type in the best traditions of the stereotypical fat southern redneck sheriff of the Hollywood depictions, who, in the end, saw to it that the guy was charged with over 200 counts of [publishing] obscentiy.

You can run but you can't hide.

Studio36

Wow, that's a bit worrying. It certainly demonstrates the point.

RichK wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
First if you shoot at a remote location could you have the model bring color photocopys of her id's along with said id's?

Second  if a model has a photo posted that you shot,but it's a group shot and you cannot track all parties down for the paperwork ,can the photographer be held acountable for it?

Third what if you have a model that is some distance form you that you photographed,so you can't reach her? What if she only has them on her site.

lastly if you pull the images off the net before the March date, but they are still on your computer,  can you get into trouble? Also if I photographed images for an erotic swimwear company, even if I do not have those images on my site, however they are on the companies' online catalog, do I have to have the papaerwork or does the swimwear company?

1.  place the ID on a white piece of paper and shoot it with a macro lens.  I've been doing this for a while now and a lawyer has told me this legally would qualify as a copy.  I simply print it out later.  now, according to the new law, I'm not sure if the model has to sign the copy but that would definitely put a damper on the situation.

2. ANYONE in any sexual image (even just a hand or foot) is required to have a record kept.

3. once made public, you are liable as photographer/producer to keep records.

4. the law only applies to images taken after the march date so any you have now, provided you can prove they were from before, are fine so long as they comply with the old law.

RichK wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
First if you shoot at a remote location could you have the model bring color photocopys of her id's along with said id's?

Second  if a model has a photo posted that you shot,but it's a group shot and you cannot track all parties down for the paperwork ,can the photographer be held acountable for it?

Third what if you have a model that is some distance form you that you photographed,so you can't reach her? What if she only has them on her site.

lastly if you pull the images off the net before the March date, but they are still on your computer,  can you get into trouble? Also if I photographed images for an erotic swimwear company, even if I do not have those images on my site, however they are on the companies' online catalog, do I have to have the papaerwork or does the swimwear company?

You should have your paperwork in order for images taken after 1995

KM

AndrewFoto wrote:

1.  place the ID on a white piece of paper and shoot it with a macro lens.  I've been doing this for a while now and a lawyer has told me this legally would qualify as a copy.  I simply print it out later.  now, according to the new law, I'm not sure if the model has to sign the copy but that would definitely put a damper on the situation.

2. ANYONE in any sexual image (even just a hand or foot) is required to have a record kept.

3. once made public, you are liable as photographer/producer to keep records.

4. the law only applies to images taken after the march date so any you have now, provided you can prove they were from before, are fine so long as they comply with the old law.

You should have records kept for any nude images after 1995 to be in compliance with the original 2257 rules. The new regulations that go into effect next year do not replace the old ones, but  instead add to them.

I take a combination scanner/printer on location with me, so that I can scan (in color) the models ID and have her sign the paper on which it's printed (at 120% magnification).

The idea that you can pull something off the net once it's up is absurd. Ever hear of the Wayback Machine  (http://www.archive.org/index.php)  anything you put online can be found years later.

KM

SinVerguenza wrote:

So, they went after a fella with deep pockets who, after plying young college girls with booze, would videotape their drunken debauchery....to an amazing profit margin.


Strangely, I'm ok with that.

Cool.  It's because of douche bags like you that the anti porn crusade was able to do this.  Just remember how they define porn probably sin't how you define it...

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
. . . and this relates to 2257 in what way ?

The commerce clause is the only thing in the Constitution that could possibly be rationalized as giving Congress the power to enact legislation like this.  Why do you think the language of the regulations specifies COMMERCIAL use?  It's to try and justify in this Unconstitutional crap under the commerce clause.

Ümar wrote:
What if one took a real close up photograph of the ID's will that work?

You still have to have it printed out (not life sized) and then the model must sign it.

I always make sure the models signature goes across the corner of the printed ID so that it is clear that she knew what she was signing. Somebody may wonder if the model signed a blank piece of paper and the ID was printed on it afterwards.

KM

Clyph wrote:

The commerce clause is the only thing in the Constitution that could possibly be rationalized as giving Congress the power to enact legislation like this.  Why do you think the language of the regulations specifies COMMERCIAL use?  It's to try and justify in this Unconstitutional crap under the commerce clause.

Whatever their methods and justifications are, the reality is that if photographers don't comply with all the provisions of 2257, they are asking for more trouble than they know.

KM

Peter Claver wrote:
Any word about how it applies to foreign photographers posting on US servers/selling to US clients?

Apparently there is . . . a few photographers have already addressed this in previous posts.

You should read the law and check for yourself.

KM

Holix wrote:
So let me get this straight...

If a model comes here from another country; and has a passport (from her country) with a Visa...I cannot shoot her (unless she has a US ID or US Work Permit)?

That is correct.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

That is correct.

Thanks, Ken...you Rock.

I guess I'm screwed for the future.

This is just another hit to our economy (models travel here and spend money) and another major blow to our creativity and rights.

Where will it end?

Retinal Fetish wrote:
OK OK before i get my head bitten off.... I am NOT equating this to the holocaust!!!  But there is a lesson to be learned ... drmamically quoted it could be said ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ ... however I would prefer to avoid the use of good and evil as one mans fish is another mans poison (works better in the french believe me).

The point is if you think it may effect you, or even if it doesn't but it offends you to see rights (protection from search and seizure?, Freedom of speech or expression?) denied, then take that as a call to action rather then practicing the "wait and see" policy.... by the time you see it may be to late!

RESIZE YOUR IMAGE ITS SCREWING UP THE FORUM PAGES

Retinal Fetish wrote:
OK OK before i get my head bitten off.... I am NOT equating this to the holocaust!!!  But there is a lesson to be learned ... drmamically quoted it could be said ‘All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing’ ... however I would prefer to avoid the use of good and evil as one mans fish is another mans poison (works better in the french believe me).

The point is if you think it may effect you, or even if it doesn't but it offends you to see rights (protection from search and seizure?, Freedom of speech or expression?) denied, then take that as a call to action rather then practicing the "wait and see" policy.... by the time you see it may be to late!

RESIZE YOUR IMAGE ITS SCREWING UP THE FORUM PAGES

Ümar wrote:
What if one took a real close up photograph of the ID's will that work?

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
You still have to have it printed out (not life sized) and then the model must sign it.

I always make sure the models signature goes across the corner of the printed ID so that it is clear that she knew what she was signing. Somebody may wonder if the model signed a blank piece of paper and the ID was printed on it afterwards.
KM

Is this requirement (print outs) possibly changing?

http://edocket.access.gpo.gov/2008/pdf/E8-29677.pdf

Requirement of Hard Copies

The proposed rule amends § 75.2(a) concerning requirements for maintenance of records. The proposed rule requires that the copy of the identification documents be retained in hard copy form. The Department received four comments regarding the proposed rule’s requirements for maintaining copies of identification card records in hard copy form.

Two comments state that nothing in the Act or proposed rule requires that records be kept in hard copy format. It contends that there is no justification with contemporary technology for requiring hard copies. The comment also notes that the proposed rule represents a departure from § 75.2(f), which permits records to be kept in digital form if they include scanned copies of identification documents. Another comment reiterates that point, and adds that electronic copies would permit the passage of records along the chain of distribution as the rules contemplate. Otherwise, records could be divided when shared, which could create losses or errors and put the producer in danger of violating rules by having incomplete or improperly maintained records. This comment asks that the Department return § 75.(2)(a)(1) to its current form by deleting the word ‘‘hard,’’ or consider the new requirement for a hard copy of the picture identification document to be satisfied by scanning the identification card or a hard copy of it, and/or by electronic versions that can be printed out to create hard copies at the time of inspection.

The Department adopts these comments. Nothing in section 2257 requires that records be kept in hard copy format, and, indeed, existing § 75.2(f) permits copies of identification documents to be scanned and stored electronically if they can be authenticated by a custodian. The proposed rule did not seek to amend § 75.2(f). The proposed rule’s changes to § 75.2(a) that mandate the retention of all copies of identification documents and pictures in hard copy format would create a conflict with the terms of § 75.2(f). The final rule, therefore, amends proposed § 75.2(a)(1) to add ‘‘or digitally scanned or other electronic copy of a hard copy.’’ Note, however, that in the event a regulated entity or individual decides to retain records in electronic format, nothing in the Act or the regulations provides that technical difficulties would excuse failure to make the records available at reasonable times for inspection.

Leroy Dickson wrote:
One question:

Say you have the records (up to code), but fail to publish the compliance statement with the content... ie (not having compliance statements on your portfolio here)....

That would be a violation of the recordkeeping and LABELLING requirement. The regulations are actually directed at BOTH of those things. The labelling is to enable an understanding of the location of the records and the custodian. One goes with the other.

Studio36

RichK wrote:
I have a couple of questions:
First if you shoot at a remote location could you have the model bring color photocopys of her id's along with said id's?

It is acceptable for the model to furnish their own copies BUT you MUST also physically see the original documents and certify that you have seen them.

RichK wrote:
Second  if a model has a photo posted that you shot,but it's a group shot and you cannot track all parties down for the paperwork ,can the photographer be held acountable for it?

Where there is a group all persons in the group must be documented individually within your records and the master image needs to be cross-referenced to each person in the group and those individual records must be cross-referenced to the master image. The DoJ noted this in answer to a comment in the comments section of the source documents. They concluded that there is no practical way to separate a principle person in a photo from a non-principle [background performer in that case]

RichK wrote:
Third what if you have a model that is some distance form you that you photographed,so you can't reach her? What if she only has them on her site.

Dont quite understand the question here

RichK wrote:
lastly if you pull the images off the net before the March date, but they are still on your computer,  can you get into trouble?

Unlikely. However, as Ken noted once on the Internet always on the Internet.

RichK wrote:
Also if I photographed images for an erotic swimwear company, even if I do not have those images on my site, however they are on the companies' online catalog, do I have to have the papaerwork or does the swimwear company?

Both IF SHOT ON OR AFTER 18 MARCH 2009  will have to have their own records based on the original record you generated when the image was shot. You keep records; the publisher of the images keeps another set that you supply to them.

Studio36

AusModels wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
There was a guy prosecuted, some would say persecuted, under Florida state obscenity statutes and he was hosting in the Netherlands.

He became instantly unpopular with the Bush administration when he allowed posting of war images to his site. There was nothing at all illegal about that. So they went after him for other personal postings that included sexually explicit images. That case was so bizarre that reportedly the head of the Miami FBI office pulled agents off terrorism investigations to develop a case against him. Then turned all their information over the the country sheriff where he resided who was a real "Bubba" type in the best traditions of the stereotypical fat southern redneck sheriff of the Hollywood depictions, who, in the end, saw to it that the guy was charged with over 200 counts of [publishing] obscentiy.

You can run but you can't hide.

Studio36

Wow, that's a bit worrying. It certainly demonstrates the point.

Here's a bit more. The guy's name is Chris Wilson and his site was formerly
http://NowThatsFuckedUp.com

Click the link and see what happens 

No not this is not a trap of any kind - the domain now redirects you to the Polk County [FL] Sheriff's office who have posted a special Chris Wilson related page there.

Studio36

Ümar wrote:
What if one took a real close up photograph of the ID's will that work?

You can photograph it PROVIDED that any image so produced is legible as to the contents of the ID document.

It has been the case that a model holding the ID document up to their face and then shooting face + ID does NOT produce such an image when the image is subsequently enlarged in an attempt to read the document. Consequently this is a practice that is not recommended, if it is all that is done, in generating the ID copy. If the copy is not 100% readable it works the same as if there is no copy at all = a violation.

Studio36

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
You still have to have it printed out (not life sized) and then the model must sign it.

I always make sure the models signature goes across the corner of the printed ID so that it is clear that she knew what she was signing. Somebody may wonder if the model signed a blank piece of paper and the ID was printed on it afterwards.

KM

Yes. There is no absolute requirement that the model sign the copy. It is however an accepted practice and provides a direct and instant comparison of that signature to the signature on the ID document.

It is probably best practice but is is not mandatory practice.

Studio36

Holix wrote:
So let me get this straight...

If a model comes here from another country; and has a passport (from her country) with a Visa...I cannot shoot her (unless she has a US ID or US Work Permit)?

The visa MUST be of a kind that allows him/her to take up employment INSIDE the United States. A tourist visa won't do; a business visa won't do; and probably not a student visa in most cases because while allowed to work the nature of the permitted work a student can do is restricted; and may other kinds of available visa in a non-work status. If they have such a visa that allows them to work in the US then they will probably have other documentation of that status as well.

If you have ANY doubt that there is a legal authorisation to work don't shoot that model. That, BTW would also include such as Canadian and Mexican models as well or from any other country where they are not required to have a visa to enter the US under the visa waver program. VWP entrants are effectively tourists and have no authorisation to work in the US.

As of 2008, 34 countries were designated as VWP participants:

Europe (28)

    *  Andorra
    *  Austria
    *  Belgium
    *  Czech Republic
    *  Denmark
    *  Estonia
    *  Finland

    *  France
    *  Germany
    *  Hungary
    *  Iceland
    *  Ireland
    *  Italy
    *  Latvia

    *  Liechtenstein
    *  Lithuania
    *  Luxembourg
    *  Monaco
    *  Netherlands
    *  Norway
    *  Portugal

    *  San Marino
    *  Slovakia
    *  Slovenia
    *  Spain
    *  Sweden
    *  Switzerland
    *  United Kingdom [note] A passport indicating that the bearer is a British Subject, British Dependent Territories Citizen, British Overseas Citizen, British National (Overseas) Citizen, or British Protected Person does not qualify for travel without a visa, even if the passport states holder has Right of Abode or indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom.

Asia

    *  Brunei
    *  Japan
    *  Singapore
    *  South Korea

Oceania

    *  Australia
    *  New Zealand

Studio36

Paramour Productions wrote:
Cool.  It's because of douche bags like you that the anti porn crusade was able to do this.  Just remember how they define porn probably sin't how you define it...

Douchebag?

Wow, you're assuming alot.

  I like porn. I like it best when it's consentual, uncoerced and upfront. I'm weird that way. I don't like the business model of "Girls gone wild", but then maybe getting underaged drunk girls to do stupid things on camera and then profiting off them makes your noodle stiff. I'm not here to judge.

Retinal Fetish wrote:

And that IS the problem.  Listen I'm no fan of that guy either but if we don't object until we are affected by then it is too late!  (I saw someone posted the first line of the Oh so apprapos poem "at first they came for the trade unionists...").  Believe me when and if they come for you there will be someone saying "so what I never liked his work and he has nothing in common with me!"  Also consider this ... he avoided prison by paying 2.1million dollars!  Do you have that sort of bank.... if not hope you have no plans for the next 5 to 15 years!

The problem with selling videos to mass markets of drunk, sometimes underage girls doing things they normally wouldn't, and not having releases/age verification just seems so obvious. There are going to be people claiming they didn't know they were being filmed, etc.



Finding a distinction between "girls gone wild" and someone who shoots art nudes of 18+ models doesn't feel like a stretch, and I fail to see the correlation.

AndrewFoto wrote:
1.  place the ID on a white piece of paper and shoot it with a macro lens.  I've been doing this for a while now and a lawyer has told me this legally would qualify as a copy.  I simply print it out later.  now, according to the new law, I'm not sure if the model has to sign the copy but that would definitely put a damper on the situation.

2. ANYONE in any sexual image (even just a hand or foot) is required to have a record kept.

3. once made public, you are liable as photographer/producer to keep records.

4. the law only applies to images taken after the march date so any you have now, provided you can prove they were from before, are fine so long as they comply with the old law.

Remember, that the burden of proof, is on you.  It will be assumed,

that you are guilty, until you spend the money to prove yourself

innocent.

Also, with the passage of the orphan image law, you may end up responsible,

for an image, that you did not even know, was being used.

Vanishing Point Ent wrote:
I suppose, that ultimately, we need an amendment to the constitution.

" Resolved; The Right to Keep, Make & Take photographic images,

shall NOT be Infringed. "

Under attack here is the right to bare arms.

John Felici wrote:
the 2257 reg DOES NOT require 2 forms of ID...most models dont even have 2
what is required is a state photo ID

Acceptable forms of ID for employment............

1. You may provide one of these items to prove BOTH citizenship and identity:

    * United States (U.S.) Passport
    * U.S. Naturalization Certificate issued by U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS)
    * Certificate of Citizenship issued by USCI

      — OR, if you do not have any of the items above —

2. You may provide one item from list A and one item from list B:

    List A: Proof of U.S. citizenship (choose one item)
    Provide most reliable proof available — Items at the top of the list are more reliable

    * U.S. birth certificate
    * Certification or report of birth abroad issued by USCIS or the State Department
    * U.S. citizen ID card issued by USCIS
    * American Indian card issued by USCIS for the Kickapoo tribe
    * Final adoption decree
    * Evidence of Civil Service employment by U.S. Government before 6-1-1976
    * Official military record of service showing U.S. place of birth (Form DD 214)
    * Northern Mariana ID card from USCIS for naturalized citizens born before 11/4/1986
    * Extract of U.S. hospital birth record established at the time of birth.
    * Life, health, or other insurance record showing U.S. place of birth.
    * Census records showing U.S. place of birth
    * Nursing home records, medical records, or other documents showing U.S. place of birth.
    * Bureau of Indian Affairs tribal census records, Navajo and Seneca tribes only
   
    List B: Proof of identity (choose one item)

    * Driver’s license
    * Government issued ID cards with photo or identifying information (State ID card)
    * Tribal government issued ID card (CDIB card) or other tribal documents with photo or identifying information
    * U.S. Military ID, U.S. Military Dependent ID or U.S. Military Draft Record
    * U.S. Coast Guard Merchant Mariner card
    * School ID with picture
    * Day care/nursery record, minors only
    * School record, report card, or affidavit signed by a parent or guardian (under 16 only).

In as much as most folks [models] have to prove identification and citizenship to get a job these days, would expect some of the above or a combination will satisfy 2257 requirement for identification purposes.

FWIW

mphunt wrote:
In as much as most folks [models] have to prove identification and citizenship to get a job these days, would expect some of the above or a combination will satisfy 2257 requirement for identification purposes.

FWIW

Actually the regulations are quite specific about what is acceptable as an ID document. And the list [in the regulations] is somewhat more narrow than that one for several reasons.

Studio36

Midnight Imaging wrote:
If you are looking for examples of records forms, maybe these will help.  I did a quick Google search for some 2257 compliance forms and found these.

http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/webd … onForm.pdf
http://playgirlmag.files.wordpress.com/2008/01/2257.pdf
http://www.pornjobs411.com/2257.pdf
http://www.wecanhireyou.com/2257.html
http://www.adultwebcamworld.com/modelsi … ement.html
http://www.livepeeks.com/2257_Form.pdf
http://www.emodelscolombia.com/document … 3%2005.pdf

I'm sure you can find many more examples if you search a bit.  The forms are asking for exactly the information specified by the 2257 regulations.

Thanks!

Stephen Melvin wrote:
Where's Roger when we need him?

Sigh.

Ken provided us with a service in describing his practices - which are pretty close to what the law requires - and in answering questions.  However, his practices and his discussions with FBI agents occurred prior to the publication of these new rules, so they are not entirely consistent with what the new regulations require.  Herewith an annotation to bring his opening statement up to date.  My comments in italics.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I’ll start with what happens when a model arrives at my studio for a shoot:

1)  We obtain 2 forms of ID’s, including a government issued picture ID, such as a drivers license or passport. For 2257, two forms of ID are not required if one ID has all the legally required information.  Many publishers require two forms of ID, but that is not a requirement that this law or these regulations impose.

2)  We scan the ID’s into a database program and also Color Xerox the ID’s at 120% magnification.  Black & White copies are not accepted and it’s illegal to copy government documents at 100% size. Black and white is acceptable under these regulations.  It is illegal to photocopy some forms of government ID at 100% size, although the reason for that is to keep people from using the copies as fake IDs, and the government is on record as authorizing photocopying for other purposes (such as getting medical care).  That said, it's probably a good idea to use something other than 100% magnification.

3)  We provide the model with a form to fill out stating her current legal name, date of birth, name used for this photoshoot, all past and present professional and/or stage names, all past and present nicknames, all past and present aliases, and any name ever used by the model. ALL of this is required information.  It isn't good enough just to keep proof of age!  She then is asked to sign, under penalty of perjury that the information is true and correct and her identification was lawfully obtained and not forged or altered.   This seems like a good idea, but is not legally required.

4)  We have the model fill out and sign our model release that is kept in a job envelope along with any paperwork, receipts, etc. that relate to the shoot.  This is a good idea for other reasons, but IS NOT relevant to the 2257 discussion.  Model releases ARE NOT usable for 2257 purposes.

5)  The 2257 forms and information are kept in a separate file cabinet where they are available for inspection. The FBI agents recommended that model releases are not to be kept with 2257 paperwork.
The records do have to be maintained separately, but now they can be kept in electronic form, so no file cabinet is needed.

We keep a separate computer for 2257 data. In the even of an inspection, the agents are able to find everything they need in one place without any other distractions, such as personal emails or other business data that exist on different computers in the studio. Each models records are updated as we continue to work with them.

The whole process takes only a few minutes each time we shoot and hopefully keeps us in compliance with the law.

Every time an image appears online, a 2257 statement is provided informing whomever that I am the keeper of the records and an address where I can be found for inspection.  In addition, the records for that model have to be updated to indicate every such use, and cross-referenced to it.

The keeper of the records must be available at least 20 hours a week at that address so inspectors can visit without an appointment.  This is a legal requirement, and the FBI doesn't care whether or not it's convenient for you to comply.  However, you can have a third party (say, your lawyer) maintain those records for you - but you are still legally responsible for their accuracy and completeness.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Now, I’ll try to address some of the questions that I’ve seen posted. The questions are in bold and my answers are in regular text.

My model release forms include the real name and address of the person, and if I have to take a quick shot of their picture id too, so what?
It’s not enough to just take a shot of their ID. You need to have it on a database and comply to the form that the law requires.  If you are relying on your model release to comply with this law, you are guilty of a federal felony!

It seems like this will be an invasion of privacy as anyone will be able to see the actual names of any performer or photog even if they use an alias.
The names of the models and their personal information are not made public. Only the name of the record keeper and the address where the records are kept are to be displayed with the publication of the image.

So you could include a photo of the release and an id with the picture set and you're good?
It’s not recommended that you publish the personal information of your models. Publishers and webmasters only need a compliance statement from you stating that you are the keeper of the records and that the images conform to the 2257 law.  However, many secondary producers are required to have those records also, so it isn't just you that will see them.  However, the records of models' information are not published, and not accessible to the general public.  So . . . you want to know a lot more about some hot model you saw online?  Contact the producer, say you want to buy publication rights to one of the pictures of her that meets 2257 requirements, and you need all her data.  Voila!  You get it.

How does this effect the Nude and Glamour workshops all over the country?
If you have any plans on ever displaying your images publicly or online, you will need to have all your paperwork in order. It would be upon you to make sure that the workshop operators provide you with all the information, or obtain it from each model you photograph.
It's worse than that.  You shot a candid of the model with some of the workshop participants, and you want to put that shot online?  Then you need 2257 records on them, including all their names, dates of birth and copies of their IDs.  ANYONE in the picture with the model, regardless of what they are wearing or what they are doing, has to have records kept.

How are these rules enforced? Do they pick people at random to check credentials? How exactly does it work?

According to what the FBI agents described, there are two computer programs that they use. One is a database that contains the names of producers and photographers that have been collected by agents doing research. The other is a program that can randomly select records from a database program.
As a practical matter, they aren't being enforced at all right now.  A panel of the Sixth Circuit overturned 2257 in its entirety; the government appealed; the entire Sixth Circuit convened in September and heard the case en banc.  Their decision has yet to be issued.  If they uphold the previous ruling, none of this matters, for now.  If they over turn it, in part or in whole, we have a new, different ballgame.  But until that decision is rendered, there is very little if any enforcement activity.

The reason they use a randomizing program is so that they cannot be accused of going after someone in particular and that everyone has the same chance of being inspected. That means that the small guy has the same odds as a big company.

So... does a photo of the model holding his/her drivers license work well enough?
No. The rest of the information must be kept in the form required by law.
This needs to be emphasized.  Throughout the various threads on this issue we see people talking about keeping "proof of age", or putting something into their model release, and thinking they are in compliance.  They aren't.  They are committing a felony.

Someone call Obama! He'll save us!
Not likely !  His pick for Attorney General is a man that has written papers suggesting the way to go after obscenity is to prosecute the little guys instead of the big producers. He figured that little guys cannot defend themselves with the resources of the big companies and therefor it would be easier to  get convictions and set precedents that could be used in other cases.  Agreed, although the Sixth Circuit and subsequent court cases (no matter what the Sixth decides, this isn't over) may save us.

Tying Adam Walsh's name to this stupid legislation sullies his memory, and will serve only to make others dislike him.
The effect of using Walsh’s name on the legislation is to make it almost impossible that any congressman would ever vote to repeal it. Imagine what an opponent would make of that at election time . . . “so -and-so voted against the law that keeps kids safe”.  I wouldn’t hold my breath to see it repealed anytime soon.  Again, agreed.  But it may be overturned, in whole or in part, in the courts soon.  Then we get to see what the Obama administration recommends to Congress to replace it.

Porn producers go to Brazil because of the girls there.
Those days are long gone . . . It’s illegal for American producers to go out of the country and bring back videos or images for use, unless the models have US ID’s or US Work Permits. Every production (still or video) must comply with US 2257 regulations.  False. An American producer can go out of the country and use identification documents issued by another country, but they still have to maintain the required records on all participants in their production.  American citizens used in the production must use US (federal- or state-issued) identification documents.

Can anyone (law types) explain what any of this means for daily practice in english? what exactly would I need to do differently to comply with this law?
I have given the example of what goes on in my studio. I don’t pretend to know everything, but I think I’m pretty much on track for what is needed.  Ken's examples, as annotated, are pretty good at outlining what needs to be done.  Pleas note:  ALL OF THAT needs to be done.  Keeping pictures of IDs, or even just the information required and IDs, is not sufficient.  You are in violation of the law if you do not also:  Keep a cross referenced list of all productions the photos appear in; keep the records separate from other records; make them available for inspection during business hours a minimum of 20 hours a week.

What are the odds of a photographer ever facing a 2257 inspection?  tiny.
Your chances are better than winning the lottery. You may never get inspected, or you might end up with two inspections in a year. It’s all up the the computer program that picks the names.

Will images that were taken on/ before the effective date of this new bit of Big Brotherism be grandfathered in as exempt?
Only images produced before July 3rd 1995 are exempt from 2257.  However, that is only true of images which were included under the original law.  The requirement that images which show "lascivious display of the genitals" was not included in that original law, and records for them only apply to work produced after March 18th, 2009.

Further,

IT IS NOT TRUE that shooting only people over 18 in any way keeps you from being required to obey these regulations.  If your model is 65 years old, and you shoot something of the type covered in the law, you MUST keep and maintain the records, and provide the label/notice on all uses of the images.  Failure to do so is a federal felony.

IT IS NOT TRUE that these requirements apply only to nudes.   Many "lascivious" images can be produced of people who are dressed, and they fall within the law.  Pretty much any B&D image falls withing the law, even if everyone has all their clothes on.  Thinking that this is only about nudes is a grave error.

IT IS NOT TRUE that all nudes trigger this requirement.  In fact, the great majority of nudes on MM do not fall within the requirements of 2257.  It may be prudent for other reasons to keep proof of age of models you shoot nude, but 2257 does not require it unless the images fall within the definitions of "sexually explicit" as defined in the law.

IT IS NOT TRUE that shooting nudes of people under 18 - even sexually explicit nudes of people under 18 - is penalized by 2257.  The law only requires that you maintain records of their names and ages.  The 2257 law does not, in itself, criminalize any conduct other than taking and maintaining records and notices on images produced.  (That said, there are other laws - that have been on the books for a long time - which do criminalize sexually explicit photos of minors.  But 2257 does not change that in any way.)

If you shoot a non-US citizen in a way that meets 2257 criteria, you must have a copy of a United States government (federal or state) issued identification document.  You cannot rely on her passport or anything else issued by a foreign country.

If you ever, even once, take and sell or share an image that meets 2257 criteria, you are required to keep all the records for that image for at least five years, and to make your records available for inspection for at least 20 hours a week during business hours.

These regulations, and the 2257/2257A statutes, do not apply to people who shoot purely for personal use of the images, do not sell them or offer them for sale, and do not share them with others.  (Putting them on the Internet is "sharing", however.)

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

You still have to have it printed out (not life sized) and then the model must sign it.

I always make sure the models signature goes across the corner of the printed ID so that it is clear that she knew what she was signing. Somebody may wonder if the model signed a blank piece of paper and the ID was printed on it afterwards.

KM

I just spent hours going through it and found that a phtograph qualifies as a copy of the ID but did not see any mention of the requirement to sign it.  you happen to know whereabouts that may be?

I also found several misconceptions floating around here... someone should compile an FAQ PDF or something...