Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One of the interesting side effects of the new 2257 regulations is that you can't shoot a model without American identification unless you shoot them outside the United States.

None of my sites fall under the definitions of 2257 so right now it is moot, but it is tough to be sure what will happen in the future.  You also never know what some judge might decide when interpretting the existing rules.  In the past though, when models from Canada came by, I would often shoot them in the U.S. so long as they had valid proof of age.

Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip.  I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

uhm...question about those new rules..

Can I still photograph an American model in the USA, or is it just allowed for American photographers now?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip.  I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

Well, not so bad at least the trip is a write off for tax purposes.

Studio36

Markus Richter wrote:
uhm...question about those new rules..

Can I still photograph an American model in the USA, or is it just allowed for American photographers now?

NO PROBLEM as long as YOU are legally able to be working in the US.

The recordkeeping rules apply ONLY to the model's ID documentation not the producer.

CASE 1
If shooting inside the US then the model must be documented with US [ONLY] documents issued by a governmental entity [federal or state] - containing name + DoB + a photo [all three elements are required]

CASE 2
If shooting with foreign models outside the US then the model's ID can be of any otherwise acceptable type but issued by a foreign jurisdiction - but it MUST be some form of government issued ID -  national identity card / passport / non-US driver's license / ect. containing name + DoB + a photo [all three elements are required] YOU should ALSO be able to establish, by some means, that the shoot actually took place in a foreign jurisdiction.

I know of at least one porn producer / webmaster that is skating on very, VERY, thin ice on this point. His models speak on video - and they are clearly American girls with clearly American voices and accents - but, also, in the background, are certain other clues to where the work was shot such as American style electrical outlets. However, he lists, in his 2257 notice, the producer / custodian of records as someone in Russia. If he ever gets looked at real closely he will fail any records examination in a flash because his claims and what can be seen in the actual videos, and most likely his paperwork as well, will not tally with a foreign made product actually shot in a foreign jurisdiction... American models or not.

CASE 3
If shooting with a US citizen model but outside the US then the model's ID should be ONLY of the same type as you would accept for a shoot within the US as (in CASE 1) above. In this case they would have / should have at least a passport.

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip.  I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

studio36uk wrote:
Well, not so bad at least the trip is a write off for tax purposes.

Studio36

Ah yes, but the memories, the trauma.  Come to think of it though, I also remember hanging out at Rochdale College in Toronto and partying when I was in school.  Then there were the shoots on the Scarborough Bluffs and the Ex.  I even slept on night on Mont Royal (the namesake for Montreal) when I couldn't find a room at a hostel. 

How about sleeping in the bandstand in Little Current 'cause I couldh't afford a hotel room.  The local constabulary woke me up to a bowl of hot cereal so I wouldn't have to get on the bus hungry.  Oh the good old days (read that, these memories are all before I got married there).

Oh, alright, I guess I can go to Canada.  Just need to block out the bad memories and remember the good!

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
But then, since he is from Europe and would be presumably posting the photos to a European website, 2257 isn't something that he needs to worry about.

Oh wait a minute, I forgot, every website in the world is hosted in the U.S.

Not quite that bad yet.... BUT 2257 must be complied with if his work product ENTERS THE "STREAM OF COMMERCE" in the US [according to the DoJ]. Sold to a US webmaster [or even a print publication]; billed through a US issued CC or payment processor EVEN IF his website is located fully outside the US; hosted on a US located server; ect, ect.

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Ah yes, but the memories, the trauma. 

How about sleeping in the bandstand in Little Current 'cause I couldh't afford a hotel room.  The local constabulary woke me up to a bowl of hot cereal so I wouldn't have to get on the bus hungry.

If you were doing that in Anaheim you would have gotten woke up by the gentile tap of the muzzle of the .357.  Maybe a policeman's .357 and, then again, maybe not. LOL

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
But then, since he is from Europe and would be presumably posting the photos to a European website, 2257 isn't something that he needs to worry about.

Oh wait a minute, I forgot, every website in the world is hosted in the U.S.

My websites are Canadian owned, run and hosted. I have this clause posted on them:

This is a Canadian owned website and accordingly follows the laws of Canada in regards to records and privacy. Entering from the USA may be a violation of your national, state, local, and/or federal laws, do so at your own risk. Misrepresenting your age or identity in order to enter this web site from a location within Canada, or elsewhere in the world, may be a violation of your national, state, local, and/or federal laws.

MarkMarek wrote:
My websites are Canadian owned, run and hosted. I have this clause posted on them:

All the extra you need is that little "one finger salute" graphic at the end. LOL

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:
All the extra you need is that little "one finger salute" graphic at the end. LOL

Studio36

Hey, this was your 1000th forum post. Welcome to the four digit elite of MM

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
But then, since he is from Europe and would be presumably posting the photos to a European website, 2257 isn't something that he needs to worry about.


Not quite that bad yet.... BUT 2257 must be complied with if his work product ENTERS THE "STREAM OF COMMERCE" in the US [according to the DoJ]. Sold to a US webmaster [or even a print publication]; billed through a US issued CC or payment processor EVEN IF his website is located fully outside the US; hosted on a US located server; ect, ect.

Studio36

So you are saying that American FBI agents have the right to knock on your door in Paris demand to inspect your records without a warrant and haul you into an American jail if you don't comply or keep the records?

That is the problem with it. 2257 is a protocol on recordkeeping, the right of inspection and penalties for failure to comply.  The U.S. has very limited authority, at best in foreign countries and I don't believe the French are going to haul someone away and extradite them.

The long arm part of the statute is problematic at best and we will have to wait and see if the DOJ ever tries to do an inspection.  Until they do that, it is all just theoretical, and as of yet, they haven't done a single inspection in the U.S., let alone oversease, since the law was enacted.

Where 2257 would be more applicable is if you shot images in Europe and then sold them to a U.S. webmaster.  But then it is the U.S. webmaster that then must keep the records.  If you were based in Paris and used ccBill to bill, that might be an entry into U.S. commerce.  But once again, the U.S. Feds would have to get the Paris constabulary to participate, because the FBI has no right to enter your premises in a foreign country.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip. I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

Shotgun wedding?  You can't remember if you have been back?
Left in a hurry?

studio36uk wrote:
CASE 1 ...
CASE 2 ...
CASE 3 ...

Umm, how about a CASE 4? What is the rule on foreign models shot in the US?

I don't currently fall under 2257, but possibly could at some point. I shot a foreign model who is in the US on a work visa. In theory, it would appear that your rule 1 would apply, but that doesn't take into consideration that foreign models in the US may not have any US documentation. The model doesn't drive and didn't have any type of US issued ID. I made a copy of his foreign passport as ID. In the absence of US documentation, is a foreign passport okay?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
But then, since he is from Europe and would be presumably posting the photos to a European website, 2257 isn't something that he needs to worry about.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
So you are saying that American FBI agents have the right to knock on your door in Paris demand to inspect your records without a warrant and haul you into an American jail if you don't comply or keep the records?

No I am not saying that but answered in the context of Markus' question as he asked it:

Markus Richter wrote:
Can I still photograph an American model in the USA, or is it just allowed for American photographers now?

So the answer, again, is YES he can but if the documentation needs to be 2257 compliant then the documents need to be US issued as well. IF, however, he is a non-US citizen "working" inside the US... he also needs to be extremely careful about the issue of "working," in theory or in practice, in the US even though that doesn't affect the 2257 recordkeeping issue.

For some later sale, say, to a US outlet, he CAN be listed as the producer and custodian of records, AFAIK, at his regular overseas address. When 2257 really starts to bite, however, I expect that any sales he makes in the US may have to be accompanied by reference copies of the documentation - even where a secondary producer / publisher may NOT be legally required to maintain those records for inspection. Most US webmasters in adult, as well as print publishers, are in a staunch CYA mode of operation on that even now - no documents = no sale.

OTOH, like Canada, and like the UK, most European countries, and Australia / N.Z. as well that I know of, have data protection laws that prohibit distribution of that [model's personal] data outside the protection of equivalent data protection laws. The US has no such data protection laws EXCEPT those that apply to the government itself. It becomes a Catch 22 for non-US producers. In my case I use a waver specifically for that - release of personal data permitted on two occasions - to meet a legal requirement [e.g. 2257] or on receipt of a court order [if a US gov't agency wants to inspect my records in the UK]

Studio36

Scott Aitken wrote:
Umm, how about a CASE 4? What is the rule on foreign models shot in the US?

I don't currently fall under 2257, but possibly could at some point. I shot a foreign model who is in the US on a work visa. In theory, it would appear that your rule 1 would apply, but that doesn't take into consideration that foreign models in the US may not have any US documentation. The model doesn't drive and didn't have any type of US issued ID. I made a copy of his foreign passport as ID. In the absence of US documentation, is a foreign passport okay?

There is NO CASE 4. That scenerio was never considered BECAUSE foreign models are NOT - without otherwise being documented in some way by the US gov't - by Green Card or by working visa, ect - permitted to be working at all inside the US in the first place.

You may NOT shoot them and, for 2257 purposes, rely on, for example, their non-US passport. It is highly unlikely they will have any US issued ID or be able to get any. Getting caught doing it, if it were a 2257 issue and a 2257 inspection where it was discovered, would be a criminal offence [recordkeeping]

Where it is a non-2257 case there is a lot less risk in shooting but it is not a nil risk. The one that gets in trouble would be the model for taking work not the photographer.

Interestingly you say the model you shot was on a work visa... but unless that visa covered modelling then there might be some valid questions raised if they were working outside the scope of their visa. Most work visas are limited to single employers or single industries. So if you get a computer programmer on a work visa who does some modelling on the side that would generally be a no, no.

Studio36

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One of the interesting side effects of the new 2257 regulations is that you can't shoot a model without American identification unless you shoot them outside the United States.

None of my sites fall under the definitions of 2257 so right now it is moot, but it is tough to be sure what will happen in the future.  You also never know what some judge might decide when interpretting the existing rules.  In the past though, when models from Canada came by, I would often shoot them in the U.S. so long as they had valid proof of age.

Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip.  I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

Unless the location was clearly USA, how would the legislators know? If I was in the USA and shot in a studio there really isn't anyway to tell (turn off the GPS feature in your D2X)

If I read the law correctly it doesn't matter where the shots are taken or where the models are. It's they (Government) wants records available. I am a Canadian but if my website is in the USA I am expected to comply. With many re-sellers of webhosting the webhost you use may actually be re-selling a USA webfarm.

This is what makes this law BAD!

Darrell wrote:
I am a Canadian but if my website is in the USA I am expected to comply. With many re-sellers of webhosting the webhost you use may actually be re-selling a USA webfarm.

This is what makes this law BAD!

That's why I use Servage to host my sites. Proudly Canadian - but not only that. Compare hosting plans and see for yourslef

Sorry to have hijacked the thread.

studio36uk wrote:
You may NOT shoot them and, for 2257 purposes, rely on, for example, their non-US passport. It is highly unlikely they will have any US issued ID or be able to get any. Getting caught doing it, if it were a 2257 issue and a 2257 inspection where it was discovered, would be a criminal offence [recordkeeping]

....

Interestingly you say the model you shot was on a work visa... but unless that visa covered modelling then there might be some valid questions raised if they were working outside the scope of their visa. Most work visas are limited to single employers or single industries. So if you get a computer programmer on a work visa who does some modelling on the side that would generally be a no, no.

Studio36

I happen to agree with you but there are two issues here.  The first, is if a person enters the country legally on a work visa, they are able to obtain a state issued ID card by presenting their social security card and passport to the state (unless the card is endorsed as "not authorized to work")  You are right though, most people who don't drive won't bother to get it.  Under 2257, a passport isn't acceptable, but a state issued ID card would be.

In terms of the legality of working on an improper visa, that is another issue.  You are correct, depending on the visa, you might not be authorized to work as a model.  However, 2257 doesn't speak to that.

It, however, might otherwise be illegal to hire the model, but that is another matter.

MarkMarek wrote:

That's why I use Servage to host my sites. Proudly Canadian - but not only that. Compare hosting plans and see for yourslef

Sorry to have hijacked the thread.

Odd Servage is in Germany, not Canada!

04/12/06 14:13:55 whois www.servage.net
whois -h whois.opensrs.net servage.net ...
Registrant:
Servage GmbH
Im Grund 9
Flensburg,  24939
DE

Domain name: SERVAGE.NET

Administrative Contact:
    Fallesen, Steffan  [email protected]
    Im Grund 9
    Flensburg,  24939
    DE
    +39.(0461)16098358    Fax: +39.(0461)16098359

Technical Contact:
    Fallesen, Steffan  [email protected]
    Im Grund 9
    Flensburg,  24939
    DE
    +39.(0461)16098358    Fax: +39.(0461)16098359



Registration Service Provider:
    Servage.net Hosting, [email protected]
    +49 46116098359 (fax)
    http://www.servage.net/
    This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
    DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.


Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 09-Jun-2005.
Record expires on 08-Jul-2006.
Record created on 08-Jul-2001.

Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.76
    NS2.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.80
    NS3.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.110
    NS4.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.71


Domain status: REGISTRAR-LOCK

They do not have a Canadian presence;

http://www.servage.net/show/?menuHeader … ut_offices

MarkMarek wrote:

That's why I use Servage to host my sites. Proudly Canadian - but not only that. Compare hosting plans and see for yourslef

Sorry to have hijacked the thread.

Odd Servage is in Germany, not Canada!

04/12/06 14:13:55 whois www.servage.net
whois -h whois.opensrs.net servage.net ...
Registrant:
Servage GmbH
Im Grund 9
Flensburg,  24939
DE

Domain name: SERVAGE.NET

Administrative Contact:
    Fallesen, Steffan  [email protected]
    Im Grund 9
    Flensburg,  24939
    DE
    +39.(0461)16098358    Fax: +39.(0461)16098359

Technical Contact:
    Fallesen, Steffan  [email protected]
    Im Grund 9
    Flensburg,  24939
    DE
    +39.(0461)16098358    Fax: +39.(0461)16098359



Registration Service Provider:
    Servage.net Hosting, [email protected]
    +49 46116098359 (fax)
    http://www.servage.net/
    This company may be contacted for domain login/passwords,
    DNS/Nameserver changes, and general domain support questions.


Registrar of Record: TUCOWS, INC.
Record last updated on 09-Jun-2005.
Record expires on 08-Jul-2006.
Record created on 08-Jul-2001.

Domain servers in listed order:
    NS1.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.76
    NS2.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.80
    NS3.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.110
    NS4.SERVAGE.NET   62.214.98.71


Domain status: REGISTRAR-LOCK

They do not have a Canadian presence;

http://www.servage.net/show/?menuHeader … ut_offices

MarkMarek wrote:
Actually, I was talking to them about it, and they formerly were a German host, but are now fully Canadian. They even charge in CAD and are a registered Canadian company.

The traceroute points to German servers. The purpose of my post was to point out on the web things are not always as they appear. My website is on a server in Texas even though my webhost and I am Canadian.

I would presume I have to be compliant to USA law because of how the Law is written.

BAD LAW!

MarkMarek wrote:
Actually, I was talking to them about it, and they formerly were a German host, but are now fully Canadian. They even charge in CAD and are a registered Canadian company.

The traceroute points to German servers. The purpose of my post was to point out on the web things are not always as they appear. My website is on a server in Texas even though my webhost and I am Canadian.

I would presume I have to be compliant to USA law because of how the Law is written.

BAD LAW!

Darrell wrote:
The traceroute points to German servers. The purpose of my post was to point out on the web things are not always as they appear. My website is on a server in Texas even though my webhost and I am Canadian.

I would presume I have to be compliant to USA law because of how the Law is written.

BAD LAW!

That's pretty shitty then. Guess I better check with them where exactly the servers my data is on are located. If it happens to be the US, I would be just as screwed as anyone else, right?

you know, the fun thing is that ever since 2257 introduction I have been keeping proof of age on file (just in case), I just don't have a few from models I took pictures of several years back. Some of them will be hard to trace. However, I do keep a copy of picture ID on file with all my model releases and I've been doing that since 2257 introduction, though my photography is an exception from the law. But I don't want to be obliged to comply, that's the thing. It makes me happy to be able not to comply... I got to make sure my files are not hosted in the USA.

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
One of the interesting side effects of the new 2257 regulations is that you can't shoot a model without American identification unless you shoot them outside the United States.

None of my sites fall under the definitions of 2257 so right now it is moot, but it is tough to be sure what will happen in the future.  You also never know what some judge might decide when interpretting the existing rules.  In the past though, when models from Canada came by, I would often shoot them in the U.S. so long as they had valid proof of age.

Now, to be safe, I guess I am gonna have to go to Canada and do a shoot trip.  I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

If you shoot a Canadian model, and it is just the two of you, and the documents say you shot her in Dildo, Newfoundland.... who is going to know differently?

Stephen Dawson wrote:
If you shoot a Canadian model, and it is just the two of you, and the documents say you shot her in Dildo, Newfoundland.... who is going to know differently?

Lol, there really is such town in NFL?

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

Did you get a Mexican divorce?

MarkMarek wrote:

Lol, there really is such town in NFL?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dildo,_New … d_Labrador


There is also a Come-By-Chance

Alan from Aavian Prod wrote:
I got married in Canada.  I don't think I have been back since.

John Jebbia wrote:
Did you get a Mexican divorce?

Some day I will tell you the long story.

Darrell wrote:
My website is on a server in Texas even though my webhost and I am Canadian.

I would presume I have to be compliant to USA law because of how the Law is written.

BAD LAW!

I am not a lawyer, but my lay interpretation of the law is that you are required to have a location in the United States where your records are kept and are available for inspection not less than twenty hours per week.

Where I am fuzzy is that some experts have interpretted the statute to prohibit designated custodians of record.  If read literally, there would be no possible way for a foreign company to legally host a website subject to 2257 if they did not maintain an office in this country.

To be frank, an attorney, smarter than I, would have to tell you how to deal with it since you have no office in the United States.  I am not sure how they would handle it in that situation.  But the DOJ has seemed to assert that if your hosting in this country you are subject to 2257.

And I agree, bad law!