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

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.

_

"Rights to the images." is a very true statement.

Photographers would be crazy to hand out the models release blindly. That would "imply" a transfer of ownership.


_

"contains one or more visual depictions of an actual
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.

I wouldn't bet my business or 5 years in a federal butt slamming prison on a single letter "s".

Alex

Nope, you cannot imply transfer. The document clearly states agreement between "this photographer" and "this model"... all transfers beyond that are done contractually (content license or complete content sale) specified in a different document.

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

I've read 100s if not 1,000s of model release documents and each one states clearly the parties involved. Just because I have a copy of it for 2257 does not mean that the agreement is noe with me.

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.

They're using the word 'depiction' in the singular, not the plural. They could and should have used it in the plural if thats what they had intended, but they did not do that. They haven't set aside a separate definition of the word 'depiction' in the statutes to indicate the word means anything other than its accepted meaning in the dictionary, so I'm not going to assume it means anything else. Words have meaning and I would hope the people who wrote this statute are aware of that.

I agree that when people in this industry speak of a model release, the first thing that pops in their head is probably 2257. However that is not the purpose of a model release and it never has been. Model releases existed long before the first version of 2257, it is an entirely different document that grants the producer the rights to distribute the images of the model, and a model release is used in many publishing concerns other than pornography that are not subject to 2257.


OK
Well the exemption statement pertains to:
(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.

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.

I agree with everything you said. But there is going to be that one dick head out there "presumes" a transfer of ownership and resell the imagery. Without a document explicitly transferring ownership of the models release, there is no transfer. But, if that person is in a different country than the content provider, getting that enforced in the courts will be expensive and very time consuming. Better for the content provider to hedge his bets.

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.


_

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.

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".

Which is exactly why I find the whole concept of secondary producers maintaining records on the models completely preposterous. I hope that the court agrees.

This is crazy. If all you post is one photo of a model, you should only be liable for that one photo.

Other than what you might have read in webmaster forums, what makes you think that is so?

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.

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

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.

I found this quote from the AVN article to be kind of reassuring in a way:

The more I look at this new ruling, the more I see that it will be impossible to comply with. So much depends on interpretation. You can bust a gut to try and get everything perfect, but it won't matter if the inspectors knock on your door. You could be spot on with your records and you will still go to court because they're out to ruin your business, plain and simple.

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.

It's the "roadworthy" car law's evil cousin - if a cop looks hard enough they'll find something wrong with your car... same here :(

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

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? |headbang|

Can someone tell me or point me to a thread where it's discussed when this goes into effect?

TIA

No.

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."

My question goes to pictures that are not of simulated sexual conduct but just nudity.

It goes into effect July 3rd, 1995.

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