Rebel Photo wrote:
I'm somewhat curious as to what guidelines an image should fall under 2257, would it be community, state for federal standards?

Lewd/Lascivious..etc, has been applied to anything from taking a leak outside to a girl in a G-string on the beach. Or, does 2257 go beyond that incorporate glamor shots where the model is giving a coy expression, like that typical of pin-up work, or "sex Sells" ads.

I, like everyone else is simply trying to get a handle on the criterion:
(no attacks please!)

I'm trying to understand also.

I do a lot of nightclub photography that gets posted to the web. Just wondering if shots of people "dirty dancin" taking body shots or Go Go dancers in bras and bikinis would fall under this law.

Rebel Photo wrote:
I'm somewhat curious as to what guidelines an image should fall under 2257, would it be community, state for federal standards?

Lewd/Lascivious..etc, has been applied to anything from taking a leak outside to a girl in a G-string on the beach. Or, does 2257 go beyond that incorporate glamor shots where the model is giving a coy expression, like that typical of pin-up work, or "sex Sells" ads.

I, like everyone else is simply trying to get a handle on the criterion:
(no attacks please!)

For 2257 recordkeeping purposes ONLY the federal guidelines, respecting the chapter definitions, in 18 USC c:110 s:2256 need be used. They provide the definitions for the sections that follow 2257 / 2257A and the implementing regulations that govern the recordkeeping 28 CFR 75.

Studio36

JustOwen wrote:
Of course not.  it is not yet required.  Now who is over-reacting?

So it is your intention, after March 18th, to do all the things 2257 requires, for each and every picture you have ever shot?  And you are advising others to do the same?  No, that's no over-reaction on my part.  That's lunacy.

JustOwen wrote:
Look, yes, perhaps I am overstating,

Not just "overstating".  Massively overstating.  Creating fear where there need not be any.

JustOwen wrote:
but boil it down and here is all I am saying.

a) Regardless of the litmus test for 2257, if it ever were to come down to a prosecution (which i'm guessing is a only a very remote possibility for any of us) it is not the artist/photographer who gets to decide whether or not his or her work is or is not 2257 work.

What does that mean?  Of course we get to decide.  In fact, we must decide.  The law requires us to decide.

Other people also get to decide, but the first person who has to is the photographer. And to tell him to pick up an intrusive, burdensome responsibility that he doesn't need to is irresponsible.

JustOwen wrote:
b) if the proper records are kept and the requisite information is posted, whether or not it is 2257 work is a moot point.  (unless it is a child)

Again, a misreading.  2257 makes no distinction between pictures of children and any other kinds of pictures.  They all have the same labeling and record keeping criteria and requirements.

If you feel the need to post your name and address with every picture you put on the web, sell to anyone else, or trade or give away to anyone . . . well . . . I'd hardly say that and the record-keeping requirements are trivial, particularly when you claim they apply to all pictures of people.

JustOwen wrote:
3) the record keeping and publishing requirements are not a huge burden - in other words, it's no BFD to cover your ass.

Again, I will ask:  after March 18, 2009, is it your intention to keep a record of the URL of every use you have made on the Internet, and cross reference it to a searchable database of every model you have ever shot?  Your records include every stage name and alias of every model?  You put 2257 labels on every image you publish?  You have these records in a separate location, apart from all other records, and they are available during 9-5 business hours, Monday through Friday, at least 20 hours a week?

And to post a 2257 label, including your name and address, on each and every picture you use anywhere?

Really?  You intend to do all that for each and every model you shoot?

That may not be a BFD for you, but I promise you, it is for other people.

JustOwen wrote:
4)  the sky is not falling

5) Chill the fuck out!

Ah, just the point I was making.  The sky is not falling, precisely because your advice to others is so wildly wrong.  But that advice, given so fervently, calls for someone to "chill the fuck out", and it isn't me.

Rebel Photo wrote:
I'm somewhat curious as to what guidelines an image should fall under 2257, would it be community, state for federal standards?

Lewd/Lascivious..etc, has been applied to anything from taking a leak outside to a girl in a G-string on the beach. Or, does 2257 go beyond that incorporate glamor shots where the model is giving a coy expression, like that typical of pin-up work, or "sex Sells" ads.

I, like everyone else is simply trying to get a handle on the criterion:
(no attacks please!)

Then why don't you read the regulations, which explain the answers to each of your questions.

Rebel Photo wrote:
I'm somewhat curious as to what guidelines an image should fall under 2257, would it be community, state for federal standards?

Lewd/Lascivious..etc, has been applied to anything from taking a leak outside to a girl in a G-string on the beach. Or, does 2257 go beyond that incorporate glamor shots where the model is giving a coy expression, like that typical of pin-up work, or "sex Sells" ads.

I, like everyone else is simply trying to get a handle on the criterion:
(no attacks please!)

If the photo could be used in an advertisement posted on a public bill board, you don't need a 2257 - implied nudes, swim wear, and lingerie are typically seen on bill boards and there is no 2257 disclaimer printed in the bill board.

If you could take a picture of a minor and that picture is not child porn, then an equivalent picture of an adult does not need a 2257.

This is not a complete list by any means - just something to get you started.

Diamond Digital wrote:
I'm trying to understand also.

I do a lot of nightclub photography that gets posted to the web. Just wondering if shots of people "dirty dancin" taking body shots or Go Go dancers in bras and bikinis would fall under this law.

That exact scenario was dealt with in the AG's preamble to the new regulations.  Please read it.

TXPhotog wrote:

That exact scenario was dealt with in the AG's preamble to the new regulations.  Please read it.

AG's preamble? where can i find it ?

Diamond Digital wrote:
AG's preamble? where can i find it ?

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

TXPhotog wrote:

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

Thank you. I appreciate your help

TXPhotog wrote:
Edit:  I just checked your MM port.  None - not one - of the images in it meets the labeling requirement of 2257....

Hey TX, first - thanks for your postings that help everyone better understand these
2257 requirements - and also what is not required.

Second, you might be able to start a profitable business doing 2257 profile reviews!  :-)

Roger Barnstead wrote:
Paranoia?
Hardly, I didn't wite this rubbish as law, the US Goverment did.
News flash, the Goverment is not your friend and never has been and never will be no matter how much or how little you like the people who are supposed to be in charge of it.
Goverment like fire is a dangerous master.
I have always approached laws this way: always think of them as being enforced by your worst enemy.
I always ask, have they caught all the murders yet? Rapist? Breaking and entering people yet? No, they haven't. Where does the goverment get the time and money to go after people and ruin a life for screwing up paper work where no actual crime has been committed? And what for? The answer is not a pleasant one.

JustOwen wrote:
"Paranoia will destroy ya!"  (The Kinks)

It's not paranoia if they really are after you.

U.S. Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Martin Niemöller (Niemoller) wrote:
First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.' First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

Haile Selassie (?) wrote:
Throughout history it has been the inaction of those who could have acted, the indifference of those who should have known better, the silence of the voice of justice when it mattered most, that has made it possible for evil to triumph.

Midnight Imaging wrote:

Hey TX, first - thanks for your postings that help everyone better understand these
2257 requirements - and also what is not required.

Second, you might be able to start a profitable business doing 2257 profile reviews!  :-)

Actually TX I'd love to hit you up for  a pro-bono one.  I understand your statements of overraction, and realize that I may be ( hell AM) guilty of that sort of overreaction.  Of particular concern to me is the part about sadistic or masochistic abuse.  My personal opinion is that my pics do not violate this as they neither depict or imply ABUSE (but rather simple fetish fun).  I realize however that I could very well be wlaking a razors edge, and would love some input on if i should take diown (and try to get all models to do the same) any or all of my work, as I  verified ages but did not do so in a strictly 2257 compliant way (as can be evidenced by the lack of a 2257 notice attached to any of the pics).  More than anything else it seems that fetish may be almost impossible to display without 2257 complience.  I would love your opinion on that, including if such things as latex wear or having a model merely posing with a whip would trigger the 2257 requirements.

JT Hodges wrote:
How do you forbid something that is the foundation of your country...say Free Speech? You legislate documentation outlined in that foundation, and prosecute those who would fail to comply with records keeping.

U.S. Bill of Rights, 1st Amendment wrote:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

Justice William O. Douglas wrote:
Restriction of free thought and free speech is the most dangerous of all subversions. It is the one un-American act that could most easily defeat us.

Martin Niemöller (Niemoller) wrote:
First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.' First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

Thanks for that, JT!  A very knowledgeable friend of mine wrote this:

. . . there are some serious issues, I believe.

One is the application of the Drost test, which makes it likely that images which contain only adults, and are not obscene, would still trigger a 2257 requirement - and for people who are not generally involved in production of adult materials, shooting such non-obscene (arguably not pornographic) material even once would create a very substantial burden. Given the subjective nature of the test, it has a chilling effect on anyone producing anything that is so much as titillating. A fair number of MM images would seem to meet the requirement, which I'm confident most photographers don't understand.

The other thing I have found, so far, is the requirement that anyone in the image, even if fully clothed and not doing anything remotely sexual, still has to be kept in the 2257 records. Again, that puts a great burden on producers - one that may be impossible to meet.

To which I replied:

I am hoping that this over-reach of the Drost test will be its Achilles' heel. The old 2257 targetted materials that could easily be put under the "pornography" category - which meant that mostly "content producers" objected to it (represented by the Free Speech Coalition). But this latest expansion of 2257 hits far too many people now - and it's a matter of making as many artists/photographers understand its full meaning and thereby creating a groundswell of grassroots opposition.

The Free Speech Coalition's battle against the original 2257 was less effective because it basically only had the "content producers" behind it. Perhaps this time around we could get the ACLU to fight as well, since the new 2257 is like a river that has not only flooded its banks but will also flood communities far from it?

Someone else also suggested getting famous fashion photographers in on the fight, to which I replied, "Why not get the whole fashion industry to join the fight?" because so much of fashion industry is sexual even when covered with clothes.

Retinal Fetish wrote:
Actually TX I'd love to hit you up for  a pro-bono one.  I understand your statements of overraction, and realize that I may be ( hell AM) guilty of that sort of overreaction.  Of particular concern to me is the part about sadistic or masochistic abuse.  My personal opinion is that my pics do not violate this as they neither depict or imply ABUSE (but rather simple fetish fun).  I realize however that I could very well be wlaking a razors edge, and would love some input on if i should take diown (and try to get all models to do the same) any or all of my work, as I  verified ages but did not do so in a strictly 2257 compliant way (as can be evidenced by the lack of a 2257 notice attached to any of the pics).  More than anything else it seems that fetish may be almost impossible to display without 2257 complience.  I would love your opinion on that, including if such things as latex wear or having a model merely posing with a whip would trigger the 2257 requirements.

Rather than me replying with an interpretation, your question has been dealt with by the preamble to the regulations, which explicitly discusses the requirements for bondage and fetish work.  Anything I say would only be my interpretation of what they said, which is less valuable than the original.

One comment requests that the
Department define ‘‘sadistic or
masochistic abuse’’ because some
people believe that safe and consensual
bondage is not abuse, and requests that
the Department distinguish between
actual and simulated sadistic or
masochistic abuse. The Department
declines to adopt this comment. That
term is not a subject of this rulemaking.
Moreover, actual sexually explicit
conduct depends on the content of what
is being displayed, not on whether the
content is subjectively considered to be
abusive. If belief as to abuse were to
control, a producer who determined that
nothing was abusive would be able to
avoid compliance with the regulations
in their entirety, creating massive
opportunity for child exploitation.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
...
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.
...
Regards . . . Ken Marcus

WHERE does it say you have to have a "computerized database"???  The new rules "allow" you to use a database and forgo hardcopies, but they do not say you cannot maintain all your records in hardcopy form if that is your choice.

Also, why isn't a printed photo of the model holding her IDs a legal copy of those IDs if they are legible?  Not all of us have color copiers laying around or in our cars for location shoots.

Besides... the rules themselves state

"(e) Copy, when used:
(1) In reference to an identification
document or a picture identification
card, means a photocopy, photograph,
or digitally scanned reproduction;"

Sounds like those photos of models holding their IDs actually go beyond the requirements...

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
I want to take this opportunity to thank TXPhotog for revising my original post and bringing it up to date with the current revisions of the 2257 regulations.

I appreciate your efforts to help others understand what they may need to do to comply.

Thanks again

Ken Marcus

I'd like to say thanks to both Ken Marcus and TXPhotog for the original post and amended version as well as all your other related posts.

Carpe Luminous Photo wrote:
WHERE does it say you have to have a "computerized database"???  The new rules "allow" you to use a database and forgo hardcopies, but they do not say you cannot maintain all your records in hardcopy form if that is your choice.

Also, why isn't a printed photo of the model holding her IDs a legal copy of those IDs if they are legible?  Not all of us have color copiers laying around or in our cars for location shoots.

Besides... the rules themselves state

"(e) Copy, when used:
(1) In reference to an identification
document or a picture identification
card, means a photocopy, photograph,
or digitally scanned reproduction;"

Sounds like those photos of models holding their IDs actually go beyond the requirements...

Make sure you explain that to the FBI . . . they may have a different opinion.

KM

studio36uk wrote:

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

Talk about overkill! It's intended to prevent further breaches? How very self involved of them. Actually, that really does send a concerning message. "We are, BLATANTLY, in control, and just to prove the point to you ...............". So much for the American Constitution and Legal System.

Only in Amereeeeca!

Warren Leimbach wrote:
Thank you Ken for this thread and for posting your own best practices - data collection, color copier, separate computer, etc.

This is very eye opening and useful for me.  And much clearer than that 42 page DOJ document.

Thanks again.



WCL

If you are not at that computer 20+ hours per week then you are out of compliance.

They have approved the use of 3rd party record keepers. That looks to be a growth industry.

Ken Marcus Studios wrote:

Make sure you explain that to the FBI . . . they may have a different opinion.

KM

I shouldn't have to show them the text of the law they are attempting to enforce.  Has someone in DOJ told you that a photo of a DL is in invalid copy?

rp_photo wrote:
One of the concerns is unwillingness of TFCD models to supply the required documentation.

However, it appears that the threshold for being a 2257 image is right around the limit that most models will shoot TFCD.

In other words, to produce a 2257 image, the model normally must be paid and therefore should be more willing to provide documentation.

I have experienced no correlation between TFCD vs paid and "levels" overall, although some models make a distinction. 

And, as I read it, "coy expressions" could qualify.  Many models are willing to do coy expressions on a trade basis.

Gary Blanchette wrote:
I've been browsing to see if the following question has been asked but couldn't see anything. Pardon me if it has been covered.

What if a photographer does a shoot yet gathers no information on the Model, then later uploads them to a private Online gallery requiring a password to view them. Kind of like an invite only exhibition?

It's kind of like some clubs I have seen where it's against the law to smoke indoors if the club is open to the public. Same club, private invite only, after hours party - smoking laws don't apply (from what I understand anyway)

Gary

It's my understanding that if you show an image to someone online, that is considered publishing and therefore comes under the regulations.

KM

remerrill wrote:
. . . But is seems that this is a reality that we all will have to deal with to some extent.
And that reality is… simply proper record keeping . . .

To me this is quite simple… this is our art. We wish to continue making our art.
There is now a new ‘hoop’ that we have to jump through to continue making our art.
Anyone gotta ramp to get us up to the ‘hoop’?

Gary Blanchette wrote:
I've been browsing to see if the following question has been asked but couldn't see anything. Pardon me if it has been covered.

What if a photographer does a shoot yet gathers no information on the Model, then later uploads them to a private Online gallery requiring a password to view them. Kind of like an invite only exhibition?

It's kind of like some clubs I have seen where it's against the law to smoke indoors if the club is open to the public. Same club, private invite only, after hours party - smoking laws don't apply (from what I understand anyway)

Gary

What you are describing doesn't sound functionally different from a pay for porn site.  I believe that's not you intent, but that is the correlation that comes to mind.  Porn sites are basically large, Online galleries that require a password to view them.

I don't think this would get you a free pass, otherwise porn sites would slip through the same loophole.

John Felici wrote:
I dont see why you need 2 forms of ID..
you can buy beer with 1 form of id..and anything else...
I never saw on the actual law where it says two forms of id....has anyone actually seen that?

This has already been answered in this thread more than once.

TXPhotog wrote:

Retinal Fetish wrote:
Actually TX I'd love to hit you up for  a pro-bono one.  I understand your statements of overraction, and realize that I may be ( hell AM) guilty of that sort of overreaction.  Of particular concern to me is the part about sadistic or masochistic abuse.  My personal opinion is that my pics do not violate this as they neither depict or imply ABUSE (but rather simple fetish fun).  I realize however that I could very well be wlaking a razors edge, and would love some input on if i should take diown (and try to get all models to do the same) any or all of my work, as I  verified ages but did not do so in a strictly 2257 compliant way (as can be evidenced by the lack of a 2257 notice attached to any of the pics).  More than anything else it seems that fetish may be almost impossible to display without 2257 complience.  I would love your opinion on that, including if such things as latex wear or having a model merely posing with a whip would trigger the 2257 requirements.

Rather than me replying with an interpretation, your question has been dealt with by the preamble to the regulations, which explicitly discusses the requirements for bondage and fetish work.  Anything I say would only be my interpretation of what they said, which is less valuable than the original.

This is the part of the definition of lascivious that concerns/confuses me.  Simple bondage such as what I do depicts neither sadism nor masochism (sexual pleasure from the giving or receiving of pain).  Yes.. those of my images that display the genitalia fall under the 2256 (now moved to 2257A? can't remember) definition.. but what about this image, for example: https://www.modelmayhem.com/pic.php?pid=8258166 (18+) ?