Thread: 2257 question
View Single Post
Re: 2257 question
Old 10-19-2005, 08:11 PM   #6 (permalink)
jimmyd
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,077
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.248.21
  Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]
So, basically, they just broadened the brush...... we are going beyong the "Tracy Lords Law",...now we are including in that law, any intimate type of photography that includes nudity...well,...if you ain't keeping a solid record of who you photograph in the nude,...then doncha think that would be a good thing to do?

[/ QUOTE ]

no. and ou're obviously not well acquainted with all the records keeping aspects of the new 2257 regs.

[ QUOTE ]
I was on www.modelplace.com this morning, and someone in the shoutbox mentioned that a bunch of photographers were recentlky busted, photographing a 16 year old girl, nude, who apparently "said" that she was 18 years old.. which is not quite a shock to me, knowing just how a LOT of photographers don't take federal law all that seriously...

[/ QUOTE ]

i can't speak for "a lot of photographers" but people in the adult industry have taken this law VERY seriously since it went into effect in 1994. i don't think you have to be callous towards the law to be tricked and hustled by someone with really well done forged i.d's. maybe even you, jp. but i guess it might be easier in cases like this to lay blame on the person who was scammed rather than the scammers (16 years old or not.) you must not know too many 16 and 17 year olds. they ain't all innocent and incapable of pulling of a hustle like this. but i guess that's okay. having the person you pulled the scam on do some prison time will cure a lot of those kids of doing that.

[ QUOTE ]
I'd suggest going to an IP attorney who is up to date on this new legislation....(is it law now...I must have missed that?) so that you can keep your rear in gear.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]

JP

[/ QUOTE ]

it's not law as of this time as it was challenged in federal court and a temporary restraining order has been issued. and it's not a "law" in the sense that the new requirements were put into effect by some legilative body. the AG rewrote it and tried to put the new requirement into effect. now this NJ legislator is trying to extend it to nearly anything that includes nudity. you might want to check out the new requirements and then wonder if its even possible to fully comply, regardless of your intent to do so.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd