Forums >
Photography Talk >
Nude Photographers: Some very Bad news!!!
Please read: studio36uk wrote: This is yet another chunk the government is biting out of our First Amendment rights. Contact your closest lobbying group (ACLU?) now! Dec 19 08 02:13 pm Link Sucks to live in the USA Dec 19 08 02:15 pm Link I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying... Dec 19 08 02:15 pm Link Jason Todd Ipson wrote: Read Studio36uk's post closely - the new regulations also affect non-nude photography. Dec 19 08 02:16 pm Link lets get naked as much as possible till march.... Dec 19 08 02:18 pm Link Dec 19 08 02:22 pm Link So what if my nudes bring laughter instead of lascivious thoughts? What then Judge Porno? huh? Dec 19 08 02:23 pm Link Can someone explain this in plain simple English please? English isn't my first language. Dec 19 08 02:23 pm Link Dec 19 08 02:25 pm Link bbz123 wrote: It means that if even one person finds one of your nudes even vaguely pornographic in nature, you are then liable. Dec 19 08 02:25 pm Link Dec 19 08 02:26 pm Link it's embarrassing to be an american sometimes. no, strike that, OFTEN. i wonder if i only shoot myself can i circumvent these new ridiculous rules...? or would i be arrested for not filling out my own release form? Dec 19 08 02:27 pm Link my god ... Land of the free? Any american photographer wants to rent a room in my cosy house in Holland? (yeah, that country where you can legally buy your weed .. who cares about a boob .. or two) :-} Dec 19 08 02:27 pm Link "Keep on Rockin' in the free world!!" Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link It's positively Orwellian. So, who want's to do some art nudes with me befoe March rolls around [must have I.D. & be 18+]? Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link Makes me want to move back to England but I am sure it will follow there So much for land of the Free and being an artist, what would they say about something like THE KISS BY RODIN. Where will this end, destroying books that talk about it? Just makes me sick Dec 19 08 02:32 pm Link Can this apply to models as well with "suggestive" images online??? Basically, it's saying that forms have to be submitted for each set you do that is of this nature?? Dec 19 08 02:33 pm Link Wait, So I just read it - but am not an attorney. Does this say you have to verify the age of the model, or does it affect your ability to post such images to the internet at all? I'm confused... Dec 19 08 02:33 pm Link As someone that has been actively complying to the 2257 regulations for several years (since they were introduced) I welcome these new changes, as they clarify our responsibilities and make many of the areas of compliance more manageable and easier to work with. You can now keep the records strictly as digital information, eliminating the need for redundant paperwork. The best part is that now you can have a third party designated as your 'keeper of the records' and not have to reveal your studio or home address. Unfortunately, the penalties for non-compliance still carry a 5 year prison term for each violation. If you make 5 mistakes in your record keeping, it's 25 years. If you shoot nudes and think that this doesn't apply to you . . . . please check with a lawyer to confirm your liability. KM Dec 19 08 02:35 pm Link The act appears to be more concerned with commercial images (ie producing images intended for resale (but not the ones sold to the person in the photo for their own use). "Finally, the Department responds to three other comments regarding the regulation's applicability to non-commercial activities. One comment states that the definition of ``sell, distribute, redistribute, and re-release,'' in Sec. 75.1(d) suggests that the entire record- keeping obligation of producers is limited to commercial production operations. One comment stated that age-verification requirements should apply only to producers who pay performers, not individuals who post photos of themselves,and another comment maintains that an exemption statement should not be required if a depiction is produced by married couples who produce videotaped images of themselves for their own personal use. The Department adopts these comments in part and rejects them in part. The statute is not clearly limited to producers who pay performers. However, it is limited to pornography intended for sale or trade.Section 2257 speaks in terms of participants in the professional pornography industry: The persons exhibited are ``sexual performers'' who must provide their ``alias, nickname, stage, or professional name,'' 18 U.S.C. 2257(b)(2), and the producer's relationship with the ``performer'' is described as ``hiring, contracting for, managing and otherwise arranging for the depiction of'' the individual to be shown in the images, id. 2257(h)(2)(B)(iii). Similarly, records must be kept for ``every performer portrayed'' (suggesting multiple ``performers''); a disclosure statement is to be affixed to ``every copy'' of covered sexually explicit material (suggesting multiple copies); and producers working with images already in existence by definition produce materials ``intended for commercial distribution." Dec 19 08 02:37 pm Link Sarah Ashley Barker wrote: The short answer is "yes". Dec 19 08 02:37 pm Link I'm not a lawyer, but I plan on pestering several about this over beer today. Maybe if what your doing is not lascivious, you are okay. If their primary purpose is not to arouse, is not pornography, or designed to promote prostitution, would you have to comply with this? Consider: a nude for art is not necessarily obscene, and the primary purpose is not to arouse. Perhaps, this rule is designed solely for the pornography/adult entertainment market. Thought I'd throw that out there. Dec 19 08 02:38 pm Link Fantasy wardrobes wrote: My take on it, just reading through it briefly, is that the burden is on us as photographers to verify that our models are over 18 for anything but the most innocent and innocuous of photos, and that we are required to keep records of this verification, and that we are required to publish, with our photos, where these files can be inspected. Dec 19 08 02:39 pm Link Photographer Posts: 468 Dumont d'Urville - permanent station of France, Sector claimed by France, Antarctica Smedley Whiplash wrote: Thank you Smedley for providing at least a little bit of objective reporting to this subject. Dec 19 08 02:39 pm Link Jason Todd Ipson wrote: It looks like it's saying that A) you have to verify the age of the model B) you have to keeps records of said verifications, and C) you have to publish the location where this verification can be viewed when you publish the picture Dec 19 08 02:41 pm Link I don't have a problem with rules that require me to obtain and maintain proper identification of the models age. That seems like an easy thing to do. Dec 19 08 02:43 pm Link You don't have rights in the United States.. since the government reserves the right to give and take... you have privileges. That is all. The US is not free. Europe is not free because they live under the European Union and subject to the EU's constitution. Dec 19 08 02:44 pm Link Oh please. I'm not worrying until someone comes to my house or sends me a personal letter with a formal complaint. There is nothing I'd have to change if all it's saying is that having proof of legal age is necessary and to be able to give that information if requested - and it sounds like most of you do this anyway as a matter of practice. Dec 19 08 02:44 pm Link More than that. Sites like Model Mayhem which host the images require records to be kept of file for every shoot and every model which depicts sexually suggestive photos, or photos featuring bondage or fetish, even if clothed. If I am interpreting this correctly. Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link I'm so glad the federal government is regulating human sexuality. I dont know what would happen to the human species if they werent there to make sure everything happened according to their regulations. Frankly, how humanity has survived prior to 200 years ago is a mystery to me. Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link rolfe james photography wrote: It really does not appear to be that burdensome. We all keep documentation already in the form of model releases. It seems such verification could simply be added to the release. Dec 19 08 02:46 pm Link No 2257 bull shee-it here! Dec 19 08 02:47 pm Link First Street wrote: Who really knows. A consevative person and/or party can say that showing boobs is pornography. Or that a butt shot will arouse. We don't really know the actual line that is being drawn here. To me this sucks. I'm so confused!!! Dec 19 08 02:47 pm Link Broken Image Photo wrote: Being European ... and a lawyer .. I like to correct you on this. There is no EU constitution. Dec 19 08 02:50 pm Link Yes, but Canada has extradition laws. Why do you think so many bank robbers and porn producers go to Brazil? Stephen Dawson wrote: Dec 19 08 02:51 pm Link JustOwen wrote: rolfe james photography wrote: It really does not appear to be that burdensome. We all keep documentation already in the form of model releases. It seems such verification could simply be added to the release. Really? Your current avatar could be subject to the new regulations, just as JMX said: JMX Photography wrote: Dec 19 08 02:52 pm Link Maybe this is more complicated that I realize (I haven't read the document yet) but don't most photographers already keep records of who they are shooting? 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? Dec 19 08 02:52 pm Link Gil Rivera wrote: It looks to me like what it is saying is that any photo of a human being that could possibly sexually arousing to any person is subject to these regulations. This could concievably be any photo at all! So it is looking like the prudent thing is to verufy age of every single model you shoot, keeps the records, and understqand that you might be taking your chances of you post any photos of models under 18. Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link After reading through NEARLY the whole thing it looks to be that "age" verification is the main emphasis, but they want the "real" name, etc, to verify. Also, this is to "confirm" the model is NOT a minor. I don't see where is says anything about NOT being able to shoot adult nudes. So far I see nothing wrong with it and will willingly comply. But, will the models? I always ask for an I.D. and check the age unless it's obvious. I guess now I will have to keep a record of it. Say "CHEESE!" Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link I wonder if adding the info they want to the exif data in each digital and online image is a good way to stay in compliance ? Dec 19 08 02:53 pm Link |