Lens Diaries Go Now
Glamour, Beauty, Nude, Models, Photographers

*    |  Register  


 
Go Back   Garage Glamour™ > Garage Glamour™ Main Forums > Main Community Forum
 

Main Community Forum General Modeling & Photography Forum
Adult posts prohibited!>>Please Read Our GUIDELINES before posting!

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
2257 question
Old 10-19-2005, 02:07 PM   #1 (permalink)
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Member GG#: 44953
Location: Commerce
Posts: 1
Comments: 0

photobob58 is offline IP: 66.82.9.62
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Rolando,

I was forwarded the following message from a friend who is an owner of both a Yahoo and an MSN group that allows members to post glamour and nude photos. Reportedly, the letter originated from MSN. I would like your opinion and comment;
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This letter was in response to the new changes we are experiencing as group owners and moderators of Yahoo & MSN groups...

****************************************

Since earlier this year, the Bush Administration has been passing draconian regulations on the adult entertainment industry in an attempt to shut all things not fitting their narrow mold of decency. You think they just want to shut down porn sites. This is an administration whose previous Attorney General covered up the bare breast of a statue of Lady Law so he wouldn't be caught in a photo with a naked breast in the background. (At the toon of several thousand dollars.)

In an attempt to make the new AG, Gonzales more palitable to the neo-con relious right, there have been several new restrictions passed on legal adult entertainment. Not restricting child porn mind you, but going after regular old vanilla porn. The stuff you'd see in Playboy.

In June the DOJ passed changes to 18 USC 2257 which will require anyone who puts adult images on the web to maintain massive amounts of detailed records on every image they put up. And to give the new reg teeth, any mistake in your records is a criminal offense and can subject you to 5 years in federal prison.

At that time the regulation required that the images be of actual hardcore pornography. Now Congressman Pence (R-IN) has introduced new legislation on Monday Sept 12th that would extend 2257 record keeping requirements to images of mere nudity and even simulated sexual acts. If the image has two people holding each other, they are nude, and it just looks like they "might" be initimate, the image is covered by this law.

In a bit of legal card shuffling, this legislation was added at the last minute as an amendment to another bill the "Children's Safety Act of 2005", H.R. 3132, which was heard by the full committee Wednesday the 14th on Capitol Hill and then passed to the House of Representatives, where it passed overwhealmingly by a vote of 371 to 52, with 10 members not voting.

In addition Pence's bill added new stiffer forfeiture provisions which could result in people violating the regs having their assets seized by the government for a mere record-keeping violation. The mere failure to keep the proper records justifies a criminal or civil forfeiture. That means you lose your house, your car, your savings. Everything.

Having passed the House, it now goes to the Republican controlled Senate, where it probably will pass.

I noted in reading thru the comments here, some of you use the MSN groups to work on your tags. Not being familiar with what that is I'm assuming they're avatars used by people on discussion boards and forums. I also note that many of these tags use adult images of an erotic nature.

If this is the case then you should know that Pence's bill will require you to comply with the 18 USC 2257 requirements of record keeping just like hard core porn sites or face prison time and asset fortieture.

You will now be required to get copies of the model releases, and IDs of the models in all of the images you use. This applies not just to new images but every image you've used back to 1995.

You will be required to keep said records in your place of business available for inspection by DOJ agents. Your place of work will be required to be open at least 20 hour a week and your address must be posted on your website. Record must be kept for 7 years.

In addition, you are required to keep a record of all urls your work appears, cross referenced by model names and websites. This record must be separate from any other records you keep and be available for inspection without notice.

If you can't get the documentation on the images they must immediately be removed from the Internet or you will face possible arrest and prosecution.

For those of you who say I'm too small to be caught, you should understand that the Administration has made obscentity procescution a big priority. You can read about how they are diverting FBI personnel and resources away from going after terrorist and drug dealers here:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...901570_pf.html


  View Public Profile Send a private message to photobob58 Find More Posts by photobob58
 
like I haven\'t been telling people this is where this is going...
Old 10-19-2005, 02:11 PM   #2 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,078
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.248.21
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

repeatedly telling people... but i'm just chicken little waiting for the sky to fall.

wake up people!
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
 
hmmmm....
Old 10-19-2005, 07:02 PM   #3 (permalink)
Free Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Member GG#: 36812
Location: Saginaw
Posts: 320
Comments: 0

j4m3z is offline IP: 24.231.185.48
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

It wouldn't suprise me if this pisses off Hollywood because now 2257 would apply to any movies made since 1995 like American Pie. They actually have money and lawyers they can thow at it.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to j4m3z Visit j4m3z's homepage! Find More Posts by j4m3z
 
Re: hmmmm....
Old 10-19-2005, 07:55 PM   #4 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,078
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.248.21
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]
It wouldn't suprise me if this pisses off Hollywood because now 2257 would apply to any movies made since 1995 like American Pie. They actually have money and lawyers they can thow at it.

[/ QUOTE ]

and i hope they do! i hope hollywood takes this as a personal attack and pools together a legal fund that, frankly, the attorney general's office will find hard to justify the budget to match. and then let bush and his cronies defend spending that kind of dough on defending something that, frankly, the vast majority of americans will find completely frivolous and not in their interests. maybe that kind of sentiment will show at the polls in the next election cuz, frankly again, i'm finding it harder and harder to find anything--and i mean anything-- that these guys stand for or have as their agenda that is in my interests as an american citizen and a diehard constitutionalist.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
 
Re: 2257 question
Old 10-19-2005, 08:02 PM   #5 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.220.187
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With 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?

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...

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

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,078
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.248.21
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
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
 
Re: hmmmm....
Old 10-19-2005, 08:14 PM   #7 (permalink)
Senior Bad Girl
 
Join Date: Feb 2004
Member GG#: 38071
Location: Denverish
Posts: 323
Comments: 0

Brattitude is offline IP: 67.177.194.150
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Hollywood is actually getting in on the act now. I read an article today in the Hollywood Reporter, which talks about the movie aspect of 2257. I'd post it, but I don't have a membership. I'll have access to it tomorrow though if anyone is interested.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Brattitude Find More Posts by Brattitude
 
Re: 2257 question
Old 10-19-2005, 11:04 PM   #8 (permalink)
JohnPaul
Guest
 
Member GG#:
Posts: n/a
Comments:

IP: 66.94.220.187
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

Please fill me in Jimmy,... please take the podium.. [img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif[/img]



Kids,... 16 year olds...like this one...being referred to.. I am hoping to learn more,... it was in San Jose CA,..and it involved "well known", "high end" photographers who are apparently under investigation by their DA.. maybe you could find out more, being in your town..

I know how kids are...heck, I passed just on looks alone for buying cigs at the age of 12.. and booze at the age of 16 (when it was 19 legal drinking age)..just by "face value".. I worked with a model who ran a "business" of making fake ID cards out of her dorm, that brough in a lot of money that she spent at the bars before she turned 21..

The thing that scares me,...is what happens to us,...if some stinking little snot suddenly says....Oh,...I'm not really 18,...but 16!! Like Oh "F"!! .....and you even went through the trouble of getting two forms of phot ID, both of which turn out to be damn good fakes..

With the DA here in my County,...I'd crap my pants, because I know....I just know that I would really be up the creek.....because it would be his "spotlight case".........he is running for State Atty General you know.. What better way to get a little exposure than from a juicy little case against a ...."sick pervert who prays upon our children photographer!!"...when it all comes down to me being made a fool of...and oh well,....that's just tooooooooo bad!

[img]/ubbthreads/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

JP
 
 
Re: 2257 question
Old 10-19-2005, 11:55 PM   #9 (permalink)
Pro Shooter

 
jimmyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Member GG#: 38375
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 4,078
Comments: 2

jimmyd is offline IP: 70.34.248.21
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

i'm not saying there aren't photographers who would knowingly shoot models, unclothed, who are underage. frankly, it's never been clearly defined as a crime unless the children are involved in some sexual behavior or "appear" to be involved in some sexual behavior. who decides what things appear like? well, that would be your local city, state, and federal prosecutors and other law enforcement people. personally, given what i do, i'n gunshy of even speaking to an underage girl... for most any reason.

if shooting chidren naked was a crime, every parent in america who takes innocent pictures of their young children, naked in a bathtub, would be at risk of prosecution. there have been plenty of celebrated photographers who have taken artistic nudes of pre-teens as well as young teens... and some of them still do. one of them, and i can't right now remember her name, was recently profiled in Smithsonian Magazine with some of the images in the magazine.

here's the deal. the new 2257 regs have nothing to do with insuring your model is at least 18 years old. it deals with the manner in which you maintain the records and -- and this is a big *and* -- having those records available for inspection, without notice, during all, regular business hours. you have to go out on a shoot? doesn't matter. someone better be manning the file cabinets. to say this is Draconian is an understatement as failure to man those file cabinets carries an 8 year prison sentence! and that's just one of the title 18, sect. 2257's new, proposed, requirements. believe it or not... they get worse.

i just read a feature article in the current issue of U.S. News and World Report, hardly a leftist publication, about child prostitution in america. not in thailand or eastern europe or south america, but right here-- in every major city in america. and while the feds are aggressively pursuing this disgusting crime, they're not pursuing it as hard as they're pursuing restricting consenting adults being entertained by consenting adults having consentual sex. some freakin' priorities are WAY OUR OF WHACK HERE!!!!!!

and why is that? because porn has adversaries who are loud and boisterous. adversaries like james dobson and pat robertson and your freakin' republican administration is sucking these guys's asses. unfortunately for the thousands of 11 and 12 and 13 year old prostitutes being kept and traded by violent pimps, no one as loud and with as televised a pulpit as those guys and others are giving a crap about them!

and yeah, if i were you, i'd be more than careful about your records, insuring your models are 18 or over and all that cuz these politicians would just love deep fry some sleazy photographer.
  View Public Profile Send a private message to jimmyd Visit jimmyd's homepage! Find More Posts by jimmyd
 
Just a quick note
Old 10-20-2005, 12:16 AM   #10 (permalink)
Lifetime Photographer
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Member GG#: 35977
Posts: 609
Comments: 0

Andy_Pearlman is offline IP: 72.25.123.27
 
Digg this Post!Add Post to del.icio.usBookmark Post in TechnoratiFurl this Post!
Reply With Quote

[ QUOTE ]


if shooting chidren naked was a crime, every parent in america who takes innocent pictures of their young children, naked in a bathtub, would be at risk of prosecution.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't know where you've been, but there have been dozens of stories of people arrested for exactly that. The local one-hour lab sees a naked baby in the photos and the parents are hauled off to the pokey and have to prove they're not molesting or exploiting their own kid. On the one hand it nice that people are being proactive in trying to prevent this stuff, on the other hand its scary that they can do so, so easily.

Regards,
Andy Pearlman
Andy Pearlman Studio
  View Public Profile Send a private message to Andy_Pearlman Visit Andy_Pearlman's homepage! Find More Posts by Andy_Pearlman
 
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Section 2257 Hdvannjr Main Community Forum 3 06-04-2009 06:20 PM
Answer a Photo Question then leave a Photo Question? rolandogomez Main Community Forum 35 12-02-2007 07:00 PM
Answer to question on sensor size vs crop factor Brad Tech Talk Forum 17 01-02-2006 10:40 PM
Another reason why 2257 Regs are so dangerous!!!! jimmyd Main Community Forum 21 09-20-2005 10:09 PM
A question on digital use due to JT's question jford Tech Talk Forum 11 12-03-2002 06:58 PM

Sponsors


New To Site? Need Help? Photographer & Model Links
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 02:46 AM.

© 1999-2017 Garage Glamour™




Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 53 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 79 80 81 82 83 84 85 86 87 88 89 90 91 92 93