2257 regs published in full

[RawAlex]

Alphawolf, you appear to be correct. Y'see, the performer would be working without permission in the US, and didn't pay taxes on their earnings.

Now, this will once again be a point that will be argued in court, basically because the government adjusted the standards "after the fact". It could (and likely will) be argued that content producers had no way to know which documents were correct, that no guidelines were in place before June 23rd, 2005, and as such, all content shot before that date should be exempt from new ID rules.

They would likely win.

Alex

[Alphawolf]

Originally Posted by RawAlex

Alphawolf, you appear to be correct. Y'see, the performer would be working without permission in the US, and didn't pay taxes on their earnings.

Now, this will once again be a point that will be argued in court, basically because the government adjusted the standards "after the fact". It could (and likely will) be argued that content producers had no way to know which documents were correct, that no guidelines were in place before June 23rd, 2005, and as such, all content shot before that date should be exempt from new ID rules.

They would likely win.

Alex

So, if model resides outside USA, but was involved in a USA production whether vids or pics and of course only has a passport- that's no good.

However, I'm thinking of all our European friends who shoot outside of the USA and supply content....

That would still be legal - to the best of your knowledge of course)?

Umm...how can one prove where the original shoot took place, especially if it's a set?

This is quite the clusterfuck, in general.

[Useless]

This is why I'm sticking very strictly to fisting and scat purchased quietly from an anonymous broker in Russia. That way I don't have to play guessing games about whether or not my content is legal. I'm golden!


Hold on...someone is knocking on my door. Be right ba...