studio36uk wrote:
CRITICAL NOTICE TO EVERYONE ON THIS SUBJECT - BREAKING NEWS HERE

This thread has been very timely as a way to get the word out to you all.

Yesterday, 18 December 2008 will burn into your memory as well as give you heartburn. The US Department of Justice published the NEW REVISED 2257 REGULATIONS including the 2257A changes mandated by Congress for compliance with the Adam Walsh Act which established as 18 USC c:110 s:2257A

A full analysis of this damn thing is not yet available BUT what is there will make your eyes water, and I guarantee it will.

These NEW record keeping regulations extend a NEW recordkeeping requirement to a LOT of work involving mere nudity, and some with no actual nudity at all, presented in any way that can be interpreted as "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or public area" [even if covered] that is produced on or after March 18, 2009

Read and weep - - -

SOURCE DOCUMENTS

text version at

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

PDF at

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

The actual text of the NEW regulations is on Pages 38 - 42 of the PDF - there are requirements that wll apply to this site and your own website, and any other uses, such as in print, published in or distributed in the United States.

Studio36

A very Merry Christmas to you all from the US Department of Justice

This is yet another chunk the government is biting out of our First Amendment rights.  Contact your closest lobbying group (ACLU?) now!

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

Read Studio36uk's post closely - the new regulations also affect non-nude photography.

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
I don't shoot nudes - but this makes me go crazy if it means what the OP is implying...

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:

JMX Photography wrote:

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:

Ugh. This is ridiculous.

How annoying.

bbz123 wrote:
So what if my nudes bring laughter instead of lascivious thoughts? What then Judge Porno? huh?

It means that if even one person finds one of your nudes even vaguely pornographic in nature, you are then liable.

Looks like threads like this will soon have a whole lot of legal precedence to quote.

Sarah Ashley Barker wrote:
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??

The short answer is "yes".

Fantasy wardrobes wrote:
Can someone explain this in plain simple English please? English isn't my first language.

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.

Further, it appears that websites such as MM will be required to verify that we, as photographers, have made this verification and maintain these files before we can upload photos to their site.

Smedley Whiplash wrote:
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."

Thank you Smedley for providing at least a little bit of objective reporting to this subject.

Jason Todd Ipson wrote:
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...

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

rolfe james photography wrote:
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.

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.

First Street wrote:
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.

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!!!

Broken Image Photo wrote:
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.

Being European ... and a lawyer .. I like to correct you on this. There is no EU constitution.

Stephen Dawson wrote:
No 2257 bull shee-it here!

JustOwen wrote:

rolfe james photography wrote:
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.

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:

He's implying that you'd need to comply with 2257a regs for, say... this image:

Gil Rivera 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!!!

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.