AndrewFoto wrote:
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?

There is no legal requirement for the model to sign it.  However, if you can demonstrate that the model filled out the form, or reviewed and approved the accuracy of all the data you have on it, you can avoid prosecution for inaccurate information on the form.  If, for instance, she has used seven aliases and only told you about two, and signs a document to that effect, you are off the hook for not knowing about the other five.

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

See my post above.

TXPhotog wrote:
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.

Only a minor point here Roger. The purpose of the ID as required by the regulations is actually twofold - to secure proof of age [as you note] but also to secure positive proof of identity.

The relevant part of the regulations 75.1(b) has previously allowed, to be compliant, the optional use of more than one "document". One to obtain identity and another, if necessary, to obtain proof of age. That is the reason, in part, that so many seem to believe that two ID documents are mandatory. You noted that that is not the case, but two documents can be used if one alone does not provide all the required information + a photo. One, but not both, needs to be a picture type ID document.

In the new wording you might also observe a changed requirement in the new version that the ID documents, if they are of a type that expire from time to time [passports, DL's, ect], must be valid at the time of production. That is not the case, explicitly stated, in the currently used version of the regulations.

Some of the changes they have made require a very careful reading especially for someone who has been keeping records for some time. These things might be traps for the unwary, working to create completely unintentional violations.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Only a minor point here Roger. The purpose of the ID as required by the regulations is actually twofold - to secure proof of age [as you note] but also to secure positive proof of identity.

The relevant part of the regulations 75.1(b) has previously allowed, to be compliant, the optional use of more than one "document". One to obtain identity and another, if necessary, to obtain proof of age. That is the reason, in part, that so many seem to believe that two ID documents are mandatory. You noted that that is not the case, but two documents can be used if one alone does not provide all the required information + a photo. One, but not both, needs to be a picture type ID document.

In the new wording you might also observe a changed requirement in the new version that the ID documents, if they are of a type that expire from time to time [passports, DL's, ect], must be valid at the time of production. That is not the case, explicitly stated, in the currently used version of the regulations.

I agree with all of that.  I was being a little less than exhaustive in what I said because the post was already longer than most people will read, and it's readily apparent from comments in this and the other thread today that people aren't reading.  There are an amazing number of misconceptions and illusions about what the law requires and what it applies to.

AndrewFoto wrote:
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?

There is no mandatory requirement to do so. It is however considered good, even best, practice when it can be done.

Just as there is no mandatory requirement for a model to certify, under penalty of perjury, the accuracy of the information they provide and the genuine status of the ID documents. Again, best practice for reasons other than strictly the 2257 disclosure.

I wouldn't second guess the industry lawyers that have suggested both things and crafted them into the disclosure forms.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
There is no mandatory requirement to do so. It is however considered good, even best, practice when it can be done.
Studio36

I would think that the signature on the copy of the ID could easily be compared to the signature on the 2257 form and on the model release if a question arose.

Midnight Imaging wrote:

studio36uk wrote:
There is no mandatory requirement to do so. It is however considered good, even best, practice when it can be done.
Studio36

I would think that the signature on the copy of the ID could easily be compared to the signature on the 2257 form and on the model release if a question arose.

That is it's purpose but the regulations do not require it to be done. I mentioned it earlier, and for the same reason you suggest, in either this thread or the other one.

Studio36

TXPhotog wrote:
There are an amazing number of misconceptions and illusions about what the law requires and what it applies to.

Too true. We are right now in a 90 day window for preparing to comply with this. For some it will be a very steep learning curve to get it right.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
Too true. We are right now in a 90 day window for preparing to comply with this. For some it will be a very steep learning curve to get it right.

Judging from some of the responses I have seen in this thread, there is little interest by many in getting it right.  I see lots of people hyperventilating about pictures that do not meet the 2257 criteria, who haven't bothered to learn what it really applies to. 

I also see lots of people saying, in effect, that they do something different, and that should be enough. It's not enough.

TXPhotog wrote:
Judging from some of the responses I have seen in this thread, there is little interest by many in getting it right.  I see lots of people hyperventilating about pictures that do not meet the 2257 criteria, who haven't bothered to learn what it really applies to. 

I also see lots of people saying, in effect, that they do something different, and that should be enough. It's not enough.

I think most of my work would not need a 2257.  And for those images that do, I think that getting a copy of the model's ID and and asking her to fill out a compliance form could be rather straight forward.  I'm more concerned about things like a cross-referenced index and tracking URLs.  How detailed does this need to be?

Is recording the link to my profiles photo gallery sufficient?  Such as:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=91970
Because I really have no control over what name MM gives to my photo or if/when MM might rename it, reorganize the directory structure, etc.

TXPhotog wrote:
There is no legal requirement for the model to sign it.  However, if you can demonstrate that the model filled out the form, or reviewed and approved the accuracy of all the data you have on it, you can avoid prosecution for inaccurate information on the form.  If, for instance, she has used seven aliases and only told you about two, and signs a document to that effect, you are off the hook for not knowing about the other five.

That is what I thought.  My 18 USC 2257 release form has a release for myself at the bottom that states:

"Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the form of picture identification provided by myself to the aforementioned inspector is my own and was obtained legally and is not forged or altered in any way.  All information entered on this record has been done so by myself or at my direction and is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.  In the event this statement is not true, I agree to indemnify and defend Photographer against all resulting claims, liability, damages, costs, and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and expenses."

the model then writes their name, signs it, and dates the form.  I feel that is sufficient enough to satisfy the requirement.

AndrewFoto wrote:
That is what I thought.  My 18 USC 2257 release form has a release for myself at the bottom that states:

AndrewFoto wrote:

That is what I thought.  My 18 USC 2257 release form has a release for myself at the bottom that states:

"Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the form of picture identification provided by myself to the aforementioned inspector is my own and was obtained legally and is not forged or altered in any way.  All information entered on this record has been done so by myself or at my direction and is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.  In the event this statement is not true, I agree to indemnify and defend Photographer against all resulting claims, liability, damages, costs, and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and expenses."

the model then writes their name, signs it, and dates the form.  I feel that is sufficient enough to satisfy the requirement.

AndrewFoto wrote:

TXPhotog wrote:
There is no legal requirement for the model to sign it.  However, if you can demonstrate that the model filled out the form, or reviewed and approved the accuracy of all the data you have on it, you can avoid prosecution for inaccurate information on the form.  If, for instance, she has used seven aliases and only told you about two, and signs a document to that effect, you are off the hook for not knowing about the other five.

That is what I thought.  My 18 USC 2257 release form has a release for myself at the bottom that states:


the model then writes their name, signs it, and dates the form.  I feel that is sufficient enough to satisfy the requirement.

Midnight Imaging wrote:
I think most of my work would not need a 2257.  And for those images that do, I think that getting a copy of the model's ID and and asking her to fill out a compliance form could be rather straight forward.  I'm more concerned about things like a cross-referenced index and tracking URLs.  How detailed does this need to be?

Very.  You have to have the records indexed by last name, cross referenced to all other names, and cross referenced to every production (or URL on the Internet) that you have used the pictures.

Midnight Imaging wrote:
Is recording the link to my profiles photo gallery sufficient?  Such as:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=91970
Because I really have no control over what name MM gives to my photo or if/when MM might rename it, reorganize the directory structure, etc.

No, it is not sufficient.  Not even close to sufficient.  It does not state the physical location (address) where the records are kept, and what person or organization is the custodian.

AndrewFoto wrote:
That is what I thought.  My 18 USC 2257 release form has a release for myself at the bottom that states:

"Under penalty of perjury, I declare that the form of picture identification provided by myself to the aforementioned inspector is my own and was obtained legally and is not forged or altered in any way.  All information entered on this record has been done so by myself or at my direction and is correct and complete to the best of my knowledge.  In the event this statement is not true, I agree to indemnify and defend Photographer against all resulting claims, liability, damages, costs, and expenses, including reasonable legal fees and expenses."

the model then writes their name, signs it, and dates the form.  I feel that is sufficient enough to satisfy the requirement.

Think about this one. It explains where that could save you. Model furnishes false/forged ID. It is later discovered to be false/forged. Because of it you have to recall all work that the ID is associated with or undertake to correct all the records, both yours and anyone you were obligated to furnish copies to.

Now with that statement guess who could be made to be ultimately financially liable for the expense of that? Without it? No chance!

When the Tracy Lords case went down, for example, and indeed it was a bad one as there was a lot of work involved and widely distributed, the recall of the work she fraudulently appeared in cost millions. But even for you or me it could cost thousands to do something similar even with a fairly modest distributution.

Studio36

Zopilote wrote:
So if I have paper records, age, photocopy of ID, aliases, I am good to go. No problem

The record keeping is not the problem for most of us. Simple enough. We can all keep records. But for those of us without studios or commercial locations, that means we need to post our home addresses. And be home 20hrs per week. I'm not too comfortable with that.

John Jebbia wrote:
The record keeping is not the problem for most of us. Simple enough. We can all keep records. But for those of us without studios or commercial locations, that means we need to post our home addresses. And be home 20hrs per week. I'm not too comfortable with that.

As far as I know, there is no stipulation that you have to be on location 20 hours per week during regular business hours.  If you work the standard 40 hours per week you're home well over 100 hours per week.

Lumigraphics wrote:
I also have to wonder which US Attorney is THAT hard up for cases to go after some hobbiest taking simple nude pics on the weekend. They typically won't even look at property cases under one million bucks.

The simple hobbyist is precisely who they'll go after. You know someone without the resources to fight for their rights. Someone they can make an example of. Someone who will likely take a plea deal. The big fish will be able to comply with no problem. It's the little guy who has the most to fear.

And I wouldn't be all that surprised if the big boys are actually pushing for this legislation.

Midnight Imaging wrote:
Is recording the link to my profiles photo gallery sufficient?  Such as:
https://www.modelmayhem.com/pics.php?id=91970
Because I really have no control over what name MM gives to my photo or if/when MM might rename it, reorganize the directory structure, etc.

TXPhotog wrote:
No, it is not sufficient.  Not even close to sufficient.  It does not state the physical location (address) where the records are kept, and what person or organization is the custodian.

I was asking about this requirement:
the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

JustOwen wrote:
As far as I know, there is no stipulation that you have to be on location 20 hours per week during regular business hours.  If you work the standard 40 hours per week you're home well over 100 hours per week.

You'll still need to publish for all to see your home address. You comfortable with that?

John Jebbia wrote:

You'll still need to publish for all to see your home address. You comfortable with that?

IF you produce 2257 type work and choose to publish it.

DarioImpiniPhotography wrote:
Does anyone know what a porn inspector looks like? 

I mean, could I just fake a badge, go to a holder of records and demand to see the names and addresses of all my favorite porn stars?  Seems like a major security hole.

nice try- they have a fbi badge bc they are a fbi officer.

and this information coming out is nothing new to the porn industry. they have had to comply to this record keeping for at least a year now. the government just broadened the definitions of what it is requiring record keeping on and defined some of it's broader terms to exclude the under 18 crowd and the exact meaning of how you can photograph and film minors. there is very specific wording regarding the birthday and production of said material in regards to the age of 18.

if you look at the wording of the law (including the non-nude  but sexual in orientation items) you will see that while it sounds like a pain in the who-ha to you, the days of 17 year olds uploading their lascivious and sexually charged underwear pictures are done as they (the 17 year olds) are defined by the law as the primary producer and can now be charged under government law for not keeping correct 2257 compliance paper work filings and for generating and distributing child porn. it also prevents their boyfriends/ girlfriends/ random  "buddies" on the internet from up loading and sharing these illegal pictures with others as the sharing party will be defined as a secondary producer by making the material available.

if you are an adult with a valid purpose (art, business, etc) for asking a model forthis information, the model should have no problem giving the information over... or they should not be modeling for this type of content... as this information is now required by law for the shoot. when you apply for a job and someone "hires you" you give all the same information to them... with the exception of aliases. they make copies of your id cards.

i don't see this law as "stealing my civil liberties" as much as i see it stopping the spread of child porn which, now under these new laws, is better defined for everyone and will be more black and white to prosecute. if you stop and look outside your own little world and see how many teenage girls and boy (and even minor children) are being advertised as "food" for someone's sexual desires, you would see how this law is a bump in the road for you but a positive change in the long run in regards to the government and the prosecution of child porn producers.

and if you can't be a custodian of  records because you are not home enough, hire someone who can be a custodian of records for you- example: a lawyer or law office.

i'm not a lawyer. i don't claim to be one. these are my opinions. i read the entire 40 some pages of the article and this is how i understood it to be. if you don't comprehend something or have questions, you should call a lawyer in your state. I called mine.



*** someone "big" here laughed at me and told two weeks ago that hobbiest  don't have to follow those 2257 rules and i should shut my mouth... LOL. i guess some people should read more and talk less and stop claiming to know it all***

Midnight Imaging wrote:
I was asking about this requirement:
the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

Sorry, I misread your question as asking if the labeling on the picture (assuming it met 2257 requirements) was sufficient.  It is not.  No matter how good your records are, you also have to label each and every use of a 2257 image whenever it is used.  So if your excellent records were perfect, you would still be guilty of a federal felony for failure to label the picture.

Zopilote wrote:
IF you produce 2257 type work and choose to publish it.

Do you need to publish the custodian information EVERYWHERE the images are published? If so, it could be a major undertaking should your location (business or otherwise) ever change.

Zopilote wrote:
IF you produce 2257 type work and choose to publish it.

Unfortunately, any image of a human being is potentially "2257 type work."

Midnight Imaging wrote:
I was asking about this requirement:
the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/te … =1;size=25

With respect to the highlighted part they are trolling for a storage location, as some producers merely store content that is for sale on a server, NOT at all associated with a web page, and furnish the access path and log-in data to their customers e.g. for FTP download. Thus, an FTP storage site would not have a conventional "URL" or be publicly available, but there would be a "server address" and "path" that can be followed to retrieve the files. There are even other protocals used besides "http" and "ftp", such as "mms" for streaming media files, as well as "gopher", "ssl" and "socks" hosts. Except for "http" none of these have conventional URLs.

Studio36

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
and this information coming out is nothing new to the porn industry. they have had to comply to this record keeping for at least a year now.

No, they haven't.  The 2257A law which expands the requirement to cover simulated sexual activity and lascivious display of the genitals has not yet gone into effect, and will not until March 18, 2009.  It is precisely those issues that are most worrisome to people here.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
the government just broadened the definitions of what it is requiring record keeping on and defined some of it's broader terms to exclude the under 18 crowd

Yes, they "broadened the definitions" (see comment above) - which is, for many, a big deal.  And nothing in the regulations "excludes the under 18 crowd" - the regulations apply equally to everyone, regardless of age.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
and the exact meaning of how you can photograph and film minors.

False.  Nothing in 2257 says anything at all about how you can photograph and film minors.  2257 deals solely and only with record-keeping and labeling, not how pictures or films are made.  Nothing about the new regulations makes any kind of photography or filming any more or less legal.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
if you look at the wording of the law (including the non-nude  but sexual in orientation items) you will see that while it sounds like a pain in the who-ha to you, the days of 17 year olds uploading their lascivious and sexually charged underwear pictures are done as they (the 17 year olds) are defined by the law as the primary producer and can now be charged under government law for not keeping correct 2257 compliance paper work filings and for generating and distributing child porn.

Again, wrong.  The 17 year old could easily keep records - there is only one person, themselves, involved, and they wouldn't have much trouble cross referencing that.  So in such a case, 2257 puts no burden on them at all.  And 2257 does not in any sense criminalize the generation or distribution of child porn.  Just labeling and record-keeping.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
it also prevents their boyfriends/ girlfriends/ random  "buddies" on the internet from up loading and sharing these illegal pictures with others as the sharing party will be defined as a secondary producer by making the material available.

Again, it does not directly prevent anyone from uploading anything.  Either it's illegal to upload those pictures or it's not.  2257 doesn't change it.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
i don't see this law as "stealing my civil liberties" as much as i see it stopping the spread of child porn which, now under these new laws, is better defined for everyone and will be more black and white to prosecute.

False again.  2257 and the implementing regulations DO NOT define child porn, and have no direct effect on prosecutions for child porn.  Since child pornographers tend not to keep records anyway, an expanded requirement for them to do so hardly seems effective in stopping child pornography.

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
if you stop and look outside your own little world and see how many teenage girls and boy (and even minor children) are being advertised as "food" for someone's sexual desires, you would see how this law is a bump in the road for you but a positive change in the long run in regards to the government and the prosecution of child porn producers.

Tell me again how a requirement that I keep records of shoots with 50 year old models is a good thing in the war against child pornography? Or how it helps anything at all?

Lucrecia Marie wrote:
and if you can't be a custodian of  records because you are not home enough, hire someone who can be a custodian of records for you- example: a lawyer or law office.

You got a price quote on that service handy, do you?

JustOwen wrote:
Unfortunately, any image of a human being is potentially "2257 type work."

I beg differ, the verbage is pretty specific

John Jebbia wrote:
Do you need to publish the custodian information EVERYWHERE the images are published?

Yes.

John Jebbia wrote:
If so, it could be a major undertaking should your location (business or otherwise) ever change.

A ray of light in this dismal situation:  the labeling of the images need be accurate only as of the date of publication.

JustOwen wrote:
Unfortunately, any image of a human being is potentially "2257 type work."

This is false.  Very false.  And it is typical of the massive over-reaction that many have shown in this thread.  There is a specific requirement in the law.  There is a specific test, used and validated by the courts, in the regulation.  By no means is the result of that law and that test even within the same zip code as your claim.

TXPhotog wrote:

John Jebbia wrote:
Do you need to publish the custodian information EVERYWHERE the images are published?

Yes.


A ray of light in this dismal situation:  the labeling of the images need be accurate only as of the date of publication.

Ok, the question I would truly like answered is are there services offering to act as the custodian of records. I googled, but didn't come up with anything.

Midnight Imaging wrote:
When does a work not fall under 2257
I could use some legal input on this theory:

Is it reasonable to say that if a picture could be made with a minor and would not constitute child porn, then that same picture shot with an adult would not need a 2257 ???

Consider the work of Jock Sturges or the recent (implied) nudes of Miley Cyrus shot for Vanity Fair Magazine by Annie Leibovitz.  These do not constitute child porn (although Sturges went through legal hell before that determination was reached.)  I assume that because they are not child porn, Sturges’ work and the Miley Cyrus nudes both pass these tests:

The Miller test - they are not obscene.
The Dost test - they are not sexually explicit.

If these works are OK, then equivalent works with adults would not need a 2257?

My reading is that they would not.  You are correct.

Zopilote wrote:
I beg differ, the verbage is pretty specific

I disagree that it is specific, and I would also add that it is not the arts/photographer community that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is potentially sexually arousing.

John Jebbia wrote:
Ok, the question I would truly like answered is are there services offering to act as the custodian of records. I googled, but didn't come up with anything.

I doubt that there are right now, since until the publication of these regulations third parties were not allowed to be the custodians.  But look for them to make an appearance on the marketplace really quickly.  We just invented a whole new cottage industry.

studio36uk wrote:
Think about this one. It explains where that could save you. Model furnishes false/forged ID. It is later discovered to be false/forged. Because of it you have to recall all work that the ID is associated with or undertake to correct all the records, both yours and anyone you were obligated to furnish copies to.

Now with that statement guess who could be made to be ultimately financially liable for the expense of that? Without it? No chance!

When the Tracy Lords case went down, for example, and indeed it was a bad one as there was a lot of work involved and widely distributed, the recall of the work she fraudulently appeared in cost millions. But even for you or me it could cost thousands to do something similar even with a farily modest distributution.

Studio36

I try to be as careful as possible and make everyone liable for their own actions.  my TPF model release is 2 pages for christ sake!  it has an 800 word release on the second page that clarifies uses, when pics are to be delivered, what they can and cannot do with them, that all information is correct, and even that all poses were done willingly.  I have them sign it at the beginning and initial a statement at the bottom after the shoot that says the agreement was read and signed before the shoot and everything went as specified.

when you work for yourself part-time and haven't incorporated, due dilligence is the only thing that will save you.

JustOwen wrote:
I disagree that it is specific, and I would also add that it is not the arts/photographer community that gets to decide what is lascivious and what is potentially sexually arousing.

So?  That is still a very long way from your extravagant claim:

JustOwen wrote:
Unfortunately, any image of a human being is potentially "2257 type work."