|
2005-06-01, 01:11 PM | #426 |
Took the hint.
|
The problem is what is a depiction. All images that portray the same subject matter shot in the session could be part of the same depiction. While it is not clear how they slice it, the requirement to have ONE model release and ONE ID for the entire package of images basically implies that the images are together as a "work".
Model releases and 2257 info tend to be integral. You get both the rights to the images and a statement from the model that they are over 18. To fulfill 2257 you must have the required IDs. The model release is the document that attaches the 2257 items to the photoshoot in question. They are three parts of the same puzzle. When I say model release, for me there is a direct assumption that the model IDs are with it. Read 75.7 more closely... Alex |
2005-06-01, 01:27 PM | #427 |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Rawalex, elaborate a little more on how the models release is relevant?
The models release does nothing more than give the photographer the right to distribute, or resell, the photography. I know one content provider that will debate this all day and never run out of breathe. You can own as many photos as you want, but the copyright belongs to the photographer, and the right to distribute is owned by the model. Reference the last widely known legal challenge reported in the media. The model portraying Juan Valdez. He was awarded a ton of money. The models release is a document that allows the photographer to make money on his/her photography useing the models image. Nothing more. If content providers were smart, they would keep their models releases under lock and key. But, it would be interesting to hear the debate on how it applies to 2257. _ |
2005-06-01, 01:33 PM | #428 | |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership. _ |
|
2005-06-01, 01:54 PM | #429 | |
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995 shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction" IANAL, but IMHO, the phrase "such visual depiction" limits this to only the portions of the work that contain "one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct made after July 3, 1995" and not the whole website, magazine, or other work. |
|
2005-06-01, 01:58 PM | #430 |
Took the hint.
|
I wouldn't bet my business or 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison on a single letter "s".
Alex |
2005-06-01, 02:01 PM | #431 | |
Took the hint.
|
Quote:
The model release is the place you have the model's signature, proof that the model was aware of the photoshoot, and usually proof that the model was paid (an important part of assigning rights is the recompense for doing so). 2 pieces of ID without other supporting documents would not be enough to do the job. Alex |
|
2005-06-01, 02:06 PM | #432 | |
Jim? I heard he's a dirty pornographer.
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 2,706
|
Quote:
On the other hand, the new regs require a date stamp. There's no mention that the stamp needs to be a model release. I think soon we'll start seeing a new document being used as a data stamp so the primary producers can keep the release. |
|
2005-06-01, 02:19 PM | #433 | ||||
WHO IS FONZY!?! Don't they teach you anything at school?
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
(1)Sexually explicit matter made before 1995 Not what I'm referring to... (2)Simulated sexual conduct I'm referring to non-nude images specifically here so that doesn't apply either (without getting into whether a hand down the panties etc would be considered 'simulated' masturbation - thats another topic) (3) a combination of 1 and 2 Also not relevant... I don't see how that affects non-nude images at all. It seems to only pertain to older real pornography, or simulated images. Now if I'm misreading that, please inform me; however that seems pretty clear as to what it pertains to. BTW I hope I'm not coming off as inflammatory here, its certainly not the intention. |
||||
2005-06-01, 02:32 PM | #434 |
WHO IS FONZY!?! Don't they teach you anything at school?
|
I just noticed something: In 75.7 (a)(2) they do make use of the plural form 'depictions', which is a good indication that to the person writing this 'depiction' and 'depictions' have different meanings, and this was not merely an oversight on their part.
|
2005-06-01, 02:40 PM | #435 | |
You tried your best and you failed miserably. The lesson is 'never try'
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 166
|
Quote:
As for the date stamp, I think your right. I'm not sure of the how or where they will do it, but content providers will need to include the date of production on the documention some where. Probably on the license, I would think. _ |
|
2005-06-01, 05:37 PM | #436 | |
Trying is the first step towards failure
|
Quote:
I would seem to agree with Alex here. However, the exemption statement in 75.7 states in part that one may be exempt if "the matter containes only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct". The matter seems to refer to images or pictures and not picture sets. |
|
2005-06-01, 07:32 PM | #437 |
If there is nobody out there, that's a lot of real estate going to waste!
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 2,177
|
Keep in mind that if you purchased a softcore set, there may also be a Set"B" with the hardcore in it. Since 2257 seems to apply to the entire shoot, you may be in doo-doo even though you have never seen Set"B".
|
2005-06-01, 07:38 PM | #438 | |
Lonewolf Internet Sales
|
Quote:
|
|
2005-06-01, 07:39 PM | #439 |
Rock stars ... is there anything they don't know?
|
This is crazy. If all you post is one photo of a model, you should only be liable for that one photo.
|
2005-06-01, 07:49 PM | #440 | |
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
Can you point to any reference in the regulations to photo sets, photo sessions, or photo shoots? I'm not trying to jump on anyone here or put anyone down, but I would like to try to understand by what reasoning you have arrived at this particular conclusion. Last edited by airdick; 2005-06-01 at 07:51 PM.. Reason: add more typin' |
|
2005-06-01, 09:58 PM | #441 |
Don't come to Florida for vacation. We're closed.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 1,874
|
Not sure if this article link was posted already, but it's really worth a read if you haven't seen it:
New 2257 Regs Dominate Free Speech Coalition Meeting |
2005-06-01, 10:49 PM | #442 |
No offence Apu, but when they were handing out religions you must have been out taking a whizz
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Seattle
Posts: 281
|
I don't have any terribly insightful comments when it comes to 2257, but one of the books I've been reading might be worth a look for the rest of you. It's called "The Government VS Erotica", by Philip Harvey, the owner of Adam and Eve. It's a detailed account of his own court battle, and I find it interesting to look at the anatomy of a porn prosecution and fighting back against the government.
|
2005-06-01, 11:27 PM | #443 | |
old enough to be Grandma Scrotum
|
I found this quote from the AVN article to be kind of reassuring in a way:
Quote:
As soon as the FSC fixes up their online ordering page (soon I hope) I'm sending them money. I'm not a US citizen, but I support what they're doing.
__________________
Promote Bright Desire |
|
2005-06-02, 01:51 AM | #444 | |
I'm a jaded evil bastard, I wouldn't piss on myself if I was on fire...
|
Quote:
__________________
I sale Internet My sites have no traffic and no PR - let's trade - PM me |
|
2005-06-02, 09:41 AM | #445 |
Took the hint.
|
Wazza, you are correct. The law is written in such a way that nobody (and I mean nobody) will be 100% compliant, unless they spend their entire lives on only record keeping. Even then, I am sure they will slip up on something (typos, misspelled words, or one cross reference screwed up).
There appears to be no mechanism in the new rules to handle errors, ommissions, or problems. Your wrong, you go to federal butt slamming prison. I suspect this is ANOTHER area the rules can be attacked under, as they have no leeway in them, no administrative process for correcting issues... even the IRS has an appeal process. Alex |
2005-06-02, 09:51 AM | #446 |
Trying is the first step towards failure
|
Nudity ans 2257
Putting aside the issue of photosets that may contain harcore images even if one is using softcore images only from that photoset, does one need a compliance statement or exemption statement if the site containes no images of conduct as specifically listed in 18 U.S.C section 2256 (2) (A) through (D), but are merely depictions of non-sexually explicit nudity?
|
2005-06-02, 09:52 AM | #447 |
Don't come to Florida for vacation. We're closed.
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Orlando, Florida
Posts: 1,874
|
Can someone tell me or point me to a thread where it's discussed when this goes into effect?
TIA |
2005-06-02, 10:18 AM | #448 | |
Shut up brain, or I'll stab you with a Q-tip!
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 114
|
Quote:
From what I can tell, the regulations state that you may include an exemption statement for "actual sexual conduct" (defined in 2257(h)) that predates the regulations, or simulated sexual conduct, or a combination of the two: "Sec. 75.7 Exemption statement. (a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter may cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record-keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part if: (1) The matter contains only visual depictions of actual sexually explicit conduct made before July 3, 1995, or is produced, manufactured, published, duplicated, reproduced, or reissued before July 3, 1995; (2) The matter contains only visual depictions of simulated sexually explicit conduct; or, (3) The matter contains only some combination of the visual depictions described in paragraphs (a)(1) and (a)(2) of this section. (b) If the primary producer and the secondary producer are different entities, the primary producer may certify to the secondary producer that the visual depictions in the matter satisfy the standards under paragraphs (a)(1) through (a)(3) of this section. The secondary producer may then cause to be affixed to every copy of the matter a statement attesting that the matter is not covered by the record- keeping requirements of 18 U.S.C. 2257(a)-(c) and of this part." Additionally, the following comments from the DOJ were published in the Federal Register along with the new regulations: "One commenter commented that the exemption statement in the rule is unnecessary and redundant because if no statement is necessary, then the regulation does not apply and no statement of any kind can be required. The Department declines to adopt this comment for three reasons. First, the Department notes that the exemption-statement requirement was included in the previous version of the regulation. Second, the commenter is wrong to state that it is redundant. Since a primary or secondary producer could possess various sexually explicit depictions, some subject to the regulation and some not, it would be necessary for the producer to label both types, rather than only label those that are subject to the rules and give the impression both to the public and to government inspectors that the producer is not in compliance with the regulation. Third, the lack of an exemption statement could lead to a waste of resources by prompting inspections where none were needed because, unbeknownst to the inspector, the producer was exempt from the regulation." |
|
2005-06-02, 10:57 AM | #449 | |
Trying is the first step towards failure
|
Quote:
My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity. |
|
2005-06-02, 11:02 AM | #450 | |
Took the hint.
|
Quote:
No kidding. The actual "enforcement date" for these clarifications is June 23rd, 2005. But the July 3rd, 1995 date is important because all your records have to be good from THEN. Alex |
|
|
|