Sxy6ftr wrote:
So now that I have a headache from all the legal jargon...in layman's terms does this mean, I need to give up nude shoots before I even get started?

No. just means that if you work with photographers, they will need to scan your license before posting your pic.

~Krista~ wrote:
No. just means that if you work with photographers, they will need to scan your license before posting your pic.

A model will also have to provide some additional information besides merely presenting a document [ONE OF A CERTAIN SPECIFICALLY RREQUIRED RANGE OF DOCUMENTS] and having it examined. The recordkeeping requirements, besides requiring an actual copy of the ID to be kept, also demand that a record be kept of such as all the names by which a model is, or ever has been, known... and other information required as related to the DoJ's current regulations.

The secondary issue, however, is the scope of the required distribution of that data and those records to third parties. The DoJ is already on record as saying they don't give a rat's a*s about model privacy [or personal security] for the purposes of keeping and passing on the records to others. Sundance vs Reno decided that only the primary producer [such as the actual photographer] need have the actual records [though that was only binding in the 10th Circuit Court's district area] but the latest DoJ regulations say that secondary producers [e.g. publishers, distributors and even websites] have to have copies as well. That is the issue now being fought out in the courts over the current regulations... but this change to the statute... if it becomes law...  may change that situation drastically.

Lastly it catches, because of the inclusion of "simulated explicit sexual conduct," a LOT more material that even the DoJ didn't catch with the current regulations... where the DoJ only included "actual explicit sexual conduct."

It's a dog's dinner [everything and anything]

Studio36

Dave Krueger wrote:
For private citizens who produce explicit art in their home, they are no longer protected by the fourth amendment.  2257 gives government the right to come into your house four times a year to inspect your records without a warrant.

-Dave

Actually, Dave, this Bill seems to change the playbook on a very subtle level. The language as follows is there in the Bill as passed by the House and "seems" to allow a nominee [e.g. a law firm or data bank] to maintain the physical records on behalf of the/a person who is otherwise required to keep them. That is something the DoJ was not willing to do in the past but it does address producers and secondary producers working from home. It is going to take some time for the lawyers to figure out exactly what this means in practical terms:

[bold text is my emphasis - from the actual government documents]

8        (3) provides to the Attorney General the
9         name, title, and business address of the individual
10        employed for the purpose of maintaining such
11         records; and
12                ``(4) certifies compliance with paragraphs (1),
13         (2), and (3) to the Attorney General on an annual
14         basis, and that the Attorney General will be prompt-
15         ly notified of any changes in that name, title, or
16         business address.''.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
For private citizens who produce explicit art in their home, they are no longer protected by the fourth amendment.  2257 gives government the right to come into your house four times a year to inspect your records without a warrant.

-Dave

Actually, Dave, this Bill seems to change the playbook on a very subtle level. The language as follows is there in the Bill as passed by the House and "seems" to allow a nominee [e.g. a law firm or data bank] to maintain the physical records on behalf of the/a person who is otherwise required to keep them.

Sorry, but I don't take much solice in that.  The idea that they have provided costly hoops that I can jump through to keep them out of my house doesn't make it less of a burden.  The fact that they have the right to regulate ordinarily protected expression to such a degree means that no expression is protected.

Dave Krueger wrote:
Sorry, but I don't take much solice in that.

Nor do I. But it is a change that would be welcome relief from what the DoJ is requiring in the present regulations.

Not at all unlike hitting you on the head with a sledge hammer but offering you an aspirin for the pain.

Studio36

Sxy6ftr wrote:
So now that I have a headache from all the legal jargon...in layman's terms does this mean, I need to give up nude shoots before I even get started?

Nah, just make sure that the photographer has a lawyer and a DOJ representative in the next room and get certification that your daughter is in government protection at least 500 miles from the shoot site.

Actually, it is all a pain in the toushee, but it affects photographers, not models.  All you need is proper ID.

Dave Krueger wrote:
The fact that they have the right to regulate ordinarily protected expression to such a degree means that no expression is protected.

The constitution may say otherwise - you could put your money where your mouth is and be a test case! The Supreme Court has generally been pretty sensible about porn, all things considered.

Remember, it's only "legal" if they get away with it.

GWC!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Actually, it is all a pain in the toushee, but it affects photographers, not models.  All you need is proper ID.

And a willingness to be known by what you do. THAT is, and will be, a problem for many models, Alan. The privacy and safety issues should not be dismissed out of hand.

Studio36

William Coleman wrote:
Am I a "producer" under 2257?  I.e., do I have to get and keep records of the age of all members?  If that new member really is only 17, am I going to find myself in a jail cell...maybe next toTyler and those guys who own OMP?

That seems to be, in light of both law and regulation two different questions.

First:

Am I a producer? - No, but you may be a "secondary" producer [e.g. the publisher] -  that will be subject to interpretation as time goes on in light of this Bill and the Senate version.

Second:

do I have to get and keep records of the age of all members? - No, not members per se, but it "seems" [under this Bill] that you may have to, in future, obtain, keep and maintain records of persons appearing in images which fall within the specified types, even if you control noting except the website itself but where you have the ability to control content overall - by approving postings or being able to delete them at will.

As a side note... because of the inclusion of "simulated" material some particular websites dealing with Alt.Models are going to be in deep doo doo on recordkeeping because of the "simulated" S/M and bondage content. But I have no doubt that virtually any nudes will be caught somehow along the way... probably by the inclusion, also, of the "lascivious exhibition" language.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
And a willingness to be known by what you do. THAT is, and will be, a problem for many models, Alan. The privacy and safety issues should not be dismissed out of hand.

Studio36

That is true.  We often forget that we have to pass the ID's onto the secondary producers.

SKPhoto wrote:
(Disclaimer - I am not picking on one side or the other here, both are to blame when it comes to unprofessional behavior)

Lest we forget this situation came about because someone thought the then current law didn't apply to them.  A 15 year old model went and fraudently obtained a valid id showing her age as 22.  And even though those who hired her were defrauded by her in regards to her age, they paid the price.

If you are thinking about Tracy Lords then here is a little known part of the rest of THAT story... the CP case against the producers partially collapsed because she also had a genuine US Passport issued on a fraudulent application... but that also didn't stop the feds from chasing after taxes and that is what did it for most of those caught up in that case, such as Ginger Allen and others. The feds set out to destroy them and did exactly that!

Studio36

SKPhoto wrote:
(Disclaimer - I am not picking on one side or the other here, both are to blame when it comes to unprofessional behavior)

Lest we forget this situation came about because someone thought the then current law didn't apply to them.  A 15 year old model went and fraudently obtained a valid id showing her age as 22.  And even though those who hired her were defrauded by her in regards to her age, they paid the price.

Photographers, do you have accurate and detailed information on every model you have photographed?  It only takes one misstep.  Do you have the social security # for every model you've worked with?  Do you have their real name?  Address?

Every last one?

One one side we have a part of the business that has been very lax in treating their business like a business.  And the other side has had a pass for not behaving in a business like manner.

How many of you will cancel a shoot (clothed or not) in case of -
No valid picture ID,
Refusal to provide Social Security #,
Refusal to give real name,
Refusal to provide physical address.

I know far too many who don't.

Except for illegal day labor please tell me where as you can get a job without providing these things?

And as an employer do you issue 1099's?  Why not?

And before we forget, TFP falls under the tax codes laws for barter.  I have to wonder how many models claim the value of the prints or CD or film they recieve?  You can rest assured it goes on our books as an expense.

Boo-hoo, gone are the days when you could tell the waitress at the local diner she was something special and you'd love to take her picture down by the old mill stream.  If you are creating art, do it.  If your doing it to make money, it's commercial.

Censorship involves freedom of expression.  Express yourself all you want.  But if you want to make a buck off it your a business and you need to obey the law and act like one.

Just my $.02.

By the way, I just had a topless shoot with a first timer.  At the end of it she commented - Wow, strange, being topless for this was kind of like being topless in the doctors office.

I take that as a compliment.

Sick.
I guess it's the ultimate influence of the Bush administration into art, is that now, before contemplating or creating images, one has to consider it as commerce and thus accept more governmental intrusion into our lives.

It Doesn't have to be that way, it IS this way because we are a nation of sheep and particularly after 9-11 we offer our cherry asses up to the government because we're afraid of everything, including our shadows.

studio36uk wrote:
That seems to be, in light of both law and regulation two different questions.

First:

Am I a producer? - No, but you may be a "secondary" producer [e.g. the publisher] -  that will be subject to interpretation as time goes on in light of this Bill and the Senate version.

Second:

do I have to get and keep records of the age of all members? - No, not members per se, but it "seems" [under this Bill] that you may have to, in future, obtain, keep and maintain records of persons appearing in images which fall within the specified types, even if you control noting except the website itself but where you have the ability to control content overall - by approving postings or being able to delete them at will.

As a side note... because of the inclusion of "simulated" material some particular websites dealing with Alt.Models are going to be in deep doo doo on recordkeeping because of the "simulated" S/M and bondage content. But I have no doubt that virtually any nudes will be caught somehow along the way... probably by the inclusion, also, of the "lascivious exhibition" language.

Studio36

Thanks for your thoughtful analysis.  Unfortunately, there seem to be few definitive answers, just educated guesses, especially for those of us in the grey area who deal with nudes, including glamour nudes, but not traditional "porn."

Some parts of the statute sound unconstitutionally vague, arbitrary and/or capricious, to me.  E.g., it defines the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," to be "sexually explicit conduct."  To you and me, it is not "conduct" when a model is doing nothing.  So, the ordinary schmuck is to be held responsible for knowing the odd definition of "conduct" in the statute.  Courts commonly strike down such provisions.  I just don't want to be the test case.  :-)

GWC wrote:

Dave Krueger wrote:
The fact that they have the right to regulate ordinarily protected expression to such a degree means that no expression is protected.

The constitution may say otherwise - you could put your money where your mouth is and be a test case!

That wouldn't be putting my money anywhere but in some attorney's pocket.  Besides, I'm a chicken shit.  Sometimes you hear about people who fight the government and win.  Wanna know why you hear about them?  Because it's news.  In other words, it's not that common.  Most people go down in flames when they challenge the rules.  Did I mention I'm a chicken shit?

Dave!

studio36uk wrote:
Not at all unlike hitting you on the head with a sledge hammer but offering you an aspirin for the pain.

LOL!  Very true.  You have a way with words!

GWC wrote:
The constitution may say otherwise - you could put your money where your mouth is and be a test case! The Supreme Court has generally been pretty sensible about porn, all things considered.

Yes well, that was before Alito replaced O'Connor.

studio36uk wrote:
As a side note... because of the inclusion of "simulated" material some particular websites dealing with Alt.Models are going to be in deep doo doo on recordkeeping because of the "simulated" S/M and bondage content.

Alberto Gonzalez has specifically stated that he considers an bondage or BDSM imagery to be de facto pornography & there is an 8 man DoJ taskforce whose only job is to look for BDSM/bondage on the web to look for material to prosecute.  The taskforce was formed last year & there have been no prosecutions so far, so one can only image they're gathering information & evidence for either a few large show prosecutions, or a mass set of smaller ones.

William Coleman wrote:
Some parts of the statute sound unconstitutionally vague, arbitrary and/or capricious, to me.  E.g., it defines the "lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person," to be "sexually explicit conduct."  To you and me, it is not "conduct" when a model is doing nothing.  So, the ordinary schmuck is to be held responsible for knowing the odd definition of "conduct" in the statute.  Courts commonly strike down such provisions.  I just don't want to be the test case.  :-)

Exactly.  It's vague on purpose 'cause they can scare a lot of people out of doing things with the THREAT of prosecution, since most folks can't afford to defend the case or don't weant their reputations ruined.
As for the whole "lacivious display," I saw an article the other day that there's another bill in the works to restore some language that's been struck down by the courts in other bills regarding pictures of minors saying that even if they're clothed the pictures can be considered obscene if the picture seems in any way to focus on or display their genitals in a sexual fashion.
So if you photograph a 17 yr old in a bathing suit & her hips are tilted forward, you could be making "kiddie porn."
The courts have struck those provisions down the last few times they've been put in to law but again I don't want to be a test case.

SLE Photography wrote:

Alberto Gonzalez has specifically stated that he considers an bondage or BDSM imagery to be de facto pornography & there is an 8 man DoJ taskforce whose only job is to look for BDSM/bondage on the web to look for material to prosecute.  The taskforce was formed last year & there have been no prosecutions so far, so one can only image they're gathering information & evidence for either a few large show prosecutions, or a mass set of smaller ones.

Thanks for the info, SLE.  It's beginning to look like the administration is using the idea of preventing "child pornography" to throw a wide net that reduces whatever they think people should not be enjoying.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One has to wonder why the regs need to be stricter, when they aren't even enforcing that which is already on the books.

Yep.  There's no doubt that a lot of it is simply to make like they are doing something to stem the tide of children being snatched off the street and made to perform in sex films for the benefit of rich corporate executives.

These laws probably won't touch most of us.  We're protected by shear numbers.  It's just another step in the perpetual erosion of the liberties that most people take for granted.  People are quick to relinquish rights they don't use themselves.  It's like people not caring about evesdopping or sneak and peak searches.  Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why should it matter, right?

-Dave

SKPhoto wrote:
Censorship involves freedom of expression.  Express yourself all you want.  But if you want to make a buck off it your a business and you need to obey the law and act like one.

This is not just another simple business regulation.  Nowhere does 2257 imply that it applies only to activities for profit (ie:business).   So it has very direct implications on your freedom to "express yourself all you want". 

-Dave

Stephen Dawson wrote:
I am concerned for American artists. How can you breath?

What ever are you talking about?  This is the land of the free.  Just ask anyone. 

Muahahahahahahahahaha!

*choke - gag - gasp*

SLE Photography wrote:

Alberto Gonzalez has specifically stated that he considers an bondage or BDSM imagery to be de facto pornography & there is an 8 man DoJ taskforce whose only job is to look for BDSM/bondage on the web to look for material to prosecute.  The taskforce was formed last year & there have been no prosecutions so far, so one can only image they're gathering information & evidence for either a few large show prosecutions, or a mass set of smaller ones.

that and they're secretly jacking off to the material.  you know, in the name of research and all.

KM von Seidl wrote:
that and they're secretly jacking off to the material.  you know, in the name of research and all.

Yeah
We have a state vice agency here that operates in the central Florida area called the MBI, combined group of city & county agencies
They usually make the news every few years because they pull off "MAJOR DRUG AND PROSTITUTION ARRESTS" at one of the local strip clubs, then all the arrests get thrown out for bad evidence & falsified testimony and it comes out that the officers doing the ivestigation behaved inapropriately and spent a LOT of taxpayer $
The latest one was 2 officers & 3 months of investigations totaling $100,000+ where the officers destroyed all their notes & recordings before trial, had no photos, and were proven to have routinely exposed themselves, had sex with some of the dancers, exposed themselves to "prove" they weren't cops, etc etc.
So now we the taxpayers are out all the $ for the investigation, the court costs for the minor charges that were mostly dismissed or plead out by a few low level employees, and the additional costs now of investigating & prosecuting the cops who did the investigation.
All that $ to "protect" us from some b(o)(o)bies while the cops in question got drunk & got off with our cash.
And not even any Vaseline for the taxpayer.

Dave Krueger wrote:
These laws probably won't touch most of us.  We're protected by shear numbers.  It's just another step in the perpetual erosion of the liberties that most people take for granted.  People are quick to relinquish rights they don't use themselves.  It's like people not caring about evesdopping or sneak and peak searches.  Hey, if you have nothing to hide, why should it matter, right?

-Dave

----------

Don't be too sure they won't go after people selectively - don't be too sure that the FBI is not trolling for cases - or attempting to create a chilling effect with these laws and regulations interposed with the occasional raid and seizure of materials. This is happening right now with even the printed word. Even, too, in cases where there are no images involved at all. They are using the federal obscenity laws for this.

Here are two cases. The first was a raid by the FBI that shut down a website containing ONLY the written word. NO illustrations and NO photographs were involved. This is thought to be the first such action in more than 20 years concerning writing only. Because of the first incident, however, a second website just shut themselves down before they could be targeted - and out of sheer, and openly admitted, fear of being targeted by the FBI.

http://www.red-rose-stories.com/ [raided and shut down]

PITTSBURGH Friday, October 7, 2005 — Online erotic stories host Red Rose Stories announced on its site Friday that the FBI had forced it to shut down. According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children. *[see note at the end]

According to Rosie, who runs the site, such topics have opened the door to her prosecution.

“Trust me on this. I found out the hard way. I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Rosie [said] via email. “I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room.â€?

Rosie said officials came to her house when she was not home and seized a number of items.

The men in black took all of my computer equipment and many of my diskettes, and have access to all my files and site information,â€? she wrote. “I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a dead site.â€?

Rosie said that chat services on the site, as well as some parts to its forum, would remain open, and suggested subscribers contact the Pittsburgh FBI office if they “want to ask the feds for a refund.â€?  Calls to the FBI office [by this reporter] were not returned.

http://www.darksideofpassion.com/ [voluntarily shut down after the first was raided]

"Unfortunately, Dark Side of Passion will be down for a while and perhaps forever. Many of you are probably aware that there has been an attack on adult sites on the web. 2257 laws have resulted in many sites being shut down and according to the actual written law- it should NOT affect sites that have no pictures, such as this one. However recently a popular site, Red Rose Stories, was shut down. There were NO pictures on the site, only stories. This action has caused me to take down my site. I don't make money on this site and have no wish to risk invasion of my home and arrest."

------

* Well maybe some of you will think they had it coming because of the subject matter... but this is the written word we are talking about. Writing, as is photography, is a skilful occupation. It tales an artistic bent to produce it no matter what the subject matter or medium of expression. Persecution of one form of writing, or photography, is persecution at some level of all forms of writing, or photography. Aside from cases involving actual children, which is not what is/was going on here, who the hell cares about obscenity except the repressors of free thought.

Studio36

The Nazis at work...ca1935 - First they burned the books; Then they burned the people


The FBI at work..ca2005

studio36uk wrote:

----------

Don't be too sure they won't go after people selectively - don't be too sure that the FBI is not trolling for cases - or attempting to create a chilling effect with these laws and regulations interposed with the occasional raid and seizure of materials. This is happening right now with even the printed word. Even, too, in cases where there are no images involved at all. They are using the federal obscenity laws for this.

Here are two cases. The first was a raid by the FBI that shut down a website containing ONLY the written word. NO illustrations and NO photographs were involved. This is thought to be the first such action in more than 20 years concerning writing only. Because of the first incident, however, a second website just shut themselves down before they could be targeted - and out of sheer, and openly admitted, fear of being targeted by the FBI.

http://www.red-rose-stories.com/ [raided and shut down]

PITTSBURGH Friday, October 7, 2005 — Online erotic stories host Red Rose Stories announced on its site Friday that the FBI had forced it to shut down. According to a posting on the site’s main page, Red Rose Stories is facing obscenity charges for posting stories that allegedly involved bestiality, water sports, scat, bondage and domination, S&M, slavery, threesomes, orgies and sex with children. *[see note at the end]

According to Rosie, who runs the site, such topics have opened the door to her prosecution.

“Trust me on this. I found out the hard way. I never thought I'd be in trouble for the written word," Rosie [said] via email. “I had no pictures of a sexual nature on my site, adult or otherwise. [It seems] the only legal sex stories are those that involve a man and a woman consenting to missionary position sex in a dark room.â€?

Rosie said officials came to her house when she was not home and seized a number of items.

The men in black took all of my computer equipment and many of my diskettes, and have access to all my files and site information,â€? she wrote. “I am sorry to inform all interested parties that Red Rose Stories is a dead site.â€?

Rosie said that chat services on the site, as well as some parts to its forum, would remain open, and suggested subscribers contact the Pittsburgh FBI office if they “want to ask the feds for a refund.â€?  Calls to the FBI office [by this reporter] were not returned.

http://www.darksideofpassion.com/ [voluntarily shut down after the first was raided]

"Unfortunately, Dark Side of Passion will be down for a while and perhaps forever. Many of you are probably aware that there has been an attack on adult sites on the web. 2257 laws have resulted in many sites being shut down and according to the actual written law- it should NOT affect sites that have no pictures, such as this one. However recently a popular site, Red Rose Stories, was shut down. There were NO pictures on the site, only stories. This action has caused me to take down my site. I don't make money on this site and have no wish to risk invasion of my home and arrest."

------

* Well maybe some of you will think they had it coming because of the subject matter... but this is the written word we are talking about. Writing, as is photography, is a skilful occupation. It tales an artistic bent to produce it no matter what the subject matter or medium of expression. Persecution of one form of writing, or photography, is persecution at some level of all forms of writing, or photography. Aside from cases involving actual children, whihc is not what is/was going on here, who the hell cares about obscenity except the repressors of free thought.

Studio36

The Nazi's at work...ca1935 - First they burned the books; Then they burned the people

The FBI at work..ca2005

"It can't happen here" as the saying goes.  Oddly, that's what people said about Germany in the 1930's, that the people who produced Schiller and Goethe could not possibly sink into barbarism.  Their bad.

William Coleman wrote:
"It can't happen here" as the saying goes.  Oddly, that's what people said about Germany in the 1930's, that the people who produced Schiller and Goethe could not possibly sink into barbarism.  Their bad.

That was the view from outside Germany at the time; Inside Germany it was a different story. Many ordinary Germans, and even the courts, in the circumstances of the time, supported the Nazi party in it's efforts just as we see, in contemporary America, with the same kind of repressive government behaviour today.

The nature of that repression may come about because of burdensome regulations as with 2257 recordkeeping or by the more direct action against some individuals as noted above and resulting in the [government desired] fallout the indirect effects have on others to self censor. It is interesting to note that the Nazis ALSO were repressive in the extreme of most things of an erotic nature in the Germany of the mid and late 1930's; homosexuals in particular; and other subject matter such as performance art... it was not only the Jews that took it on the nose in those days... though they were being blamed for a lot of it. It was also the artists and those who lived outside the mainstream ultra-conservative government view of how things should be.

A reconstituted, but now conservative, Supreme Court may very well, in due course, re-define even what is obscene and therefore enjoying no protection of the law. That is the ultimate danger here.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

That was the view from outside Germany at the time; Inside Germany it was a different story. Many Germans, in the circumstances of the time, supported the Nazi party in it's efforts just as we see, in contemporary America, with the same kind of repressive behaviour today. The repression may come about because of burdensome regulations as with 2257 recordkeeping or by the more direct action noted above and resulting in the [government desired] fallout the indirect effects have on others to self censor.

A reconstituted, but now conservative, Supreme Court may very well, in due course, re-define even what is obscene and therefore enjoying no protection of the law. That is the ultimate danger here.

Studio36

I'm usually suspicious of analogies to Nazism, because nothing before or since is like that.  But the thought occurs to me:  The Nazis started with the "feeble-minded," to prevent them from reproducing and thus "weakening" the German people.  Even kind-hearted Germans saw a certain sense in that.  That prepared them for other "cullings" of those deemed harmful.

Here, we are starting with protecting children from pornographers, a good thing.  The administration just needs to convince the people that 2257 is necessary to achieve that end, and that those who protest are perverts, or anyway not in the mainstream.  I think that will sound reasonable to many.

William Coleman wrote:
I'm usually suspicious of analogies to Nazism, because nothing before or since is like that.  But the thought occurs to me:  The Nazis started with the "feeble-minded," to prevent them from reproducing and thus "weakening" the German people.  Even kind-hearted Germans saw a certain sense in that.  That prepared them for other "cullings" of those deemed harmful.

I did not comment in straight analogy [e.g. US government today = Nazi government of 1930's] so much as in comparison of the applied tactics and the targets... which are similar.

There may be those similarities in objective, and tactics, but not necessarily direct parallels in other respects. I could also have drawn on the experiences of Italians during the same period, 30's and 40's, and of their experiences with fascism under their government... aided and abetted by the church. Or perhaps the Spanish experience under Franco.

Studio36