|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
A third release above 2257 for some shoots?
I found this in another thread and had never heard of a third release... "" Although its rather unknown......If a photographer is taking pictures of any sexual act; or emotionally compromising act you NEED to have a THIRD release that clarifies what the images might look like!!!! (50 Shades of Grey) If you have images that can be questioned in court as to “coercion”,,,, you MUST have the permissions spelled out previous to their execution. "" Does anyone have an example of what one of these might look like? I thought BDSM in the shoot type pretty well explained the shots were going to offend some people. (edit) Got an answer Im satisified with.. There is no third release... 2257 is the law.. Aug 27 12 11:52 am Link This is SO unknown, that nobody has ever heard of it ! Total nonsense . . . . I've been in this business for more years than just about anybody, working for most of the top publishers of erotica, and dealing with the legalities of 2257, model releases, publishing requirements and internet regulations, and I have never once (until just now) heard of needing an additional release that will state 'what the images might look like'. I don't know where anyone would get such an idea . . . . ? ? ? KM Aug 27 12 12:00 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: The answer, it is Internet folklore. I have heard this many, many times before. I have no idea why people want to create problems where none exist. Aug 27 12 12:12 pm Link PF Dark wrote: If you are taking photos of real or simulated sex, a lascivious display of the genitals or a few other things, you do need 2257 documentation. It is not a release. Aug 27 12 12:14 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Neither does an "emotional release" Aug 27 12 12:45 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: Oh. Um, I was going to laugh. Now I feel awkward. Aug 27 12 01:56 pm Link PF Dark wrote: Couldn't it be claimed that that agreement was signed under duress before they were to be bound and gagged? Aug 27 12 02:23 pm Link Sounds like what the OP may be asking about could be some form of a "consent and waver" of liability. Nothing, absolutely nothing at all, to do with 2257. To my thinking that question would, as to what the finished work will "look like", be covered if in any other model release associated with the work there was already a built-in hold harmless provision = once signed it no longer matters what the finished work will "look like". If the model objects at some later date? Too bad! But this is MM and only God knows where this stuff comes from. Studio36 Aug 27 12 04:45 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: Sure it could be "claimed". It can also be claimed that the moon is made of green cheese, too. Proving it in either case, however, is a completely different matter. Aug 27 12 05:00 pm Link Christopher Hartman wrote: I thought that was the whole idea with BDSM, one being told to do something and the other obeying. Now that's a problem? Sheesh. Aug 27 12 05:00 pm Link I am new to all of this but I make sure that I follow the law and compliance is a big gotcha if you don't do it. I was really not sure if the 2257 issue was a really big deal because you never really hear of anyone being requested to provide 2257 information, well I was contacted a couple weeks ago by the attorney general's office to do just that, someone files a complaint but I was able to direct them to my 3rd party custodian, I am right now building 2 websites and have not yet posted that info online, so the AG did not know that I do my 2257 information... My 3rd party custodian is Vault2257, the attorney responded to the request and took care of everything for me, needless to say I was freaking out but they had my back... I have read a lot of the forums on the net like avn, gfy, ynot and modelmayhem forums about people talking like they are authorities on the subject of 2257 and I started out listening to them but quickly found out that they were wrong in their thinking so I let the professionals do it for me, it doesn't matter if you use the service I am with or someone else, but use a service it will save you time, stress and sleepless nights... For any of the photographers out there looking for 3rd party with 2257 representation, I do recommend Vault2257 services... http://vault2257.com Oct 07 12 10:29 am Link HBNMedia wrote: Ah, now this is interesting. It would be extremely helpful if you would clarify who you mean by "the attorney general's office" - the FBI? The DoJ? The federal district attorney? Who exactly? Oct 07 12 02:51 pm Link HBNMedia wrote: studio36uk wrote: I had the exact same questions. This sounds more like an ad for Vault than a real scenario. Oct 07 12 04:18 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: My thoughts exactly . . . . a poorly executed ruse to promote a commercial service Oct 07 12 04:26 pm Link Ken Marcus Studios wrote: since the poster's avatar wasnt shot by them shall we send the FBI or the AG? Oct 07 12 04:32 pm Link HBNMedia wrote: It turns out that HBNMedia is the registrant for vault2257.com. Oct 07 12 04:36 pm Link Mark Salo wrote: And he's cut and pasting the same message: Oct 07 12 04:44 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: Because of the work I do you can also appreciate why I have looked at the issue. Oct 07 12 05:39 pm Link How come the small government people want to mess with our private lives more. bur want to check in our bed rooms, what words we can use, in our computers and who we sleep with but do not want to check on how safe our medicine is, or food or cars or loans. Oct 07 12 06:05 pm Link Lorin Edmonds wrote: Because they believe God told them what lifestyle and rules they should impose on others. And who doesn't want to do what God tells them to do ? Oct 07 12 06:13 pm Link Greg Kolack wrote: well I cammed it. between the spam (and lies) and the image in his port that isn't his) we shall see how long he lasts Oct 07 12 07:42 pm Link |
or maybe just the cavalry
