Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
The Courts Government The Internet News

Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads 267

Posted by timothy
from the barely-legal dept.
arbitraryaardvark writes "An Ohio swinger's magazine objects to keeping proof on file that its advertisers are over 18. I reported here in 2007 that the 6th circuit struck down U.S.C. Title 18, Section 2257 as a First Amendment violation. The full 6th circuit has now overturned that ruling. The case might continue to the Supreme Court. The Cleveland Plain Dealer reports."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Court Reinstates Proof-of-Age Requirement For Nude Ads

Comments Filter:
  • SOP (Score:5, Insightful)

    by raydobbs (99133) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @05:38PM (#26943877) Homepage Journal

    It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage, file it right along side the model release form - and call it a day. A little extra insurance saves tons of headaches later in life, and a little prudence and CYA never killed anyone in this lawsuit-happy world.

    • Re:SOP (Score:5, Interesting)

      by owlnation (858981) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @06:28PM (#26944249)
      Mod Parent up. I have no idea why some overzealous mod has modded the OP flamebait. I don't think "flamebait" means what the mod thinks it means -- must be a wikipedia admin with /. mod points.

      The OP is correct, it's sensible advice. As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models. It's extremely annoying to have to do that, but it's insurance nonetheless. Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by ivan256 (17499)

        I would guess that a publication such as this would be afraid it would lose customers if those customers knew their names were going to be on file for an extended period just waiting for somebody to go trying to dig up some dirt on them.

        Isn't proof of age up front enough?

      • >>>As a filmmaker and photographer I always do get forms signed and ID from models.

        As a casual observer, I don't know why I need to provide proof of age to post an advertisement. Nudity is not illegal, even if you're only 16 years old (like a certain naked HSM star). In fact I could walk into Barnes & Noble right now and buy multiple books filled with naked children. It's called freedom of the press. It's called natural.

        "Because God created the human body, it may remain uncovered and still

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by ultranova (717540)

          As a casual observer, I don't know why I need to provide proof of age to post an advertisement.

          Well, there's this thing called projection. It basically means that we tend to see other people as similar to ourselves. In this context it means that the people who write these laws are convinced that anyone who sees a child in anything less than a burka will face an irresistible urge to...

          ...Coming to think of it, I began writing this as a nasty joke, but it actually does explain a lot, now doesn't it?

          In fact I

      • Yes, it's sensible advice, but there's a big difference between being sensible and being a crime not to do.
        It's a good idea not to jump off the roof, but it shouldn't be a crime to jump off the roof, if there's no one standing underneath.
        The first amendment is designed to protect foolish and wrong ideas, not just sensible ones.

      • Re:SOP (Score:5, Insightful)

        by Strange Ranger (454494) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @09:57PM (#26945547)
        The whole problem with this law and the concept of "insurance" is that you have to continually prove your innocence or you are de facto Guilty. You could shoot a nude of a 40 year old women but if you don't have a record of her age then you're guilty of a crime.

        I know we must all Think of Children all the time, but what if you had to continually register your possessions to prove you didn't steal them, or continually register your driving speed to prove you weren't speeding? We'd be all up in arms over the outrageous unconstitutionality of such laws. But point a camera at a naked body and all of the sudden it's ok to have laws just like Singapore or China.

        > Never underestimate the stupidity of humanity when it comes to anything sex-related.

        Indeed. Especially Americans.
    • Idea... (Score:3, Funny)

      by v1 (525388)

      Require a license number in really small print in the lower right corner on published pornographic pictures, with the actors' license number(s). And require them to be licensed. If anyone has any questions right there's the number and look it up. If the actor looks like the pic on file well then ok. If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent. Problem solved.

      • Re:Idea... (Score:4, Funny)

        by Jane Q. Public (1010737) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @06:36PM (#26944299)
        You "solved the problem" by making things even more difficult than what people are already bitching about.
      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by mcpkaaos (449561)

        If it doesn't have a number or if they're obviously not the same person, go after the publisher for consent.

        Porn is probably the number one industry in which people radically alter their appearance frequently, if not regularly. Good luck enforcing your idea.

      • Why the hell should I have to register to take a picture of myself.

        The magazine is aimed at amateurs, at people looking to hook up with other people who like sex. Why the hell should you have to register your personal habits?

    • Okay, so let's see the records you have for the pictures of the toddler running around without a diaper, who you accidentally caught in a funny but "suggestive" pose.

      Don't try to tell me that the law doesn't apply to you! As written, it most certainly does.
      • Re:SOP (Score:4, Informative)

        by The Snowman (116231) * on Sunday February 22, 2009 @10:49AM (#26948439) Homepage

        Okay, so let's see the records you have for the pictures of the toddler running around without a diaper, who you accidentally caught in a funny but "suggestive" pose.

        Don't try to tell me that the law doesn't apply to you! As written, it most certainly does.

        I have photographs of both of my children naked. Certainly I have photos from the delivery room. I even have pictures of their fist baths, and one of my younger son pissing on my ex-wife while she bathed him.

        The difference is I am not publishing these photographs, nor do I use them in a sexual context. It is the difference between nudity and sexuality. At the very least, if such a law were in effect, someone would need to see them, suffer some sort of harm (or claim that I harmed my children), and then file a lawsuit. Even if it is technically illegal, a judge wants to see that someone was hurt in some way before agreeing to hear a lawsuit.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by westlake (615356)
      It should just be SOP that you have a proof of age statement for ANY model that could potentially be seen as underage

      It surprised me that this post was originally modded as Flamebait.

      Because the professional artist or photographer needs to have this nailed down before the session begins.

    • Re:SOP (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Belial6 (794905) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @07:18PM (#26944601)
      apparently reading the summary is not being done, more so in responses to your post, but also in yours. It is not the magazine that is taking pictures. The magazine is being told that it has to have age verification ON THE ADVERTISERS PICTURES. Not their picturse, the pictures from their advertisers.
    • Re:SOP (Score:5, Funny)

      by Machtyn (759119) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @09:49PM (#26945523) Homepage Journal
      there really should be more CYA with the porn industry... oh, wait.
  • oblig. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2009 @05:40PM (#26943891)

    This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.

    • by genner (694963)

      This Thread Is Worthless Without Pictures.

      Go back to Fark outsider!

    • Re:oblig. (Score:5, Funny)

      by Anonymous Coward on Saturday February 21, 2009 @06:04PM (#26944083)

      It's a swingers' magazine. Do you have any idea what swingers look like? Trust me... the lack of pictures is a plus.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        Actually, a gf of mine was a swinger before she met me and she was pretty hot redhead. It was a rather unhealthy lifestyle for her, though. Her husband goaded her into it, only to discover the obvious: though they did sometimes swing in the sense of trading partners with another couple, it mostly meant that he stayed home while she dated (and had sex) a lot. I remember one time watching HGTV with her and she pointed out the attractive hostess was a swinger in Atlanta (where she'd live before meeting me).

        The

      • Arbitrary Aardvark here.
        The submission was edited, changing the headline to
        "nude ads." The story is important because the proof of age requirement affects content on the internet, and has effects far beyond a swinger's magazine in Ohio. Parent poster is of course correct that you probably don't want to see those pictures. For the most part they are over 30,and there's no question about whether they are of age.

    • by sukotto (122876)

      Yeah let's go. This place is dead anyway.

  • Picture Collectors (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Renraku (518261) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @05:43PM (#26943921) Homepage

    The proof-of-age thing really hits picture collectors hard. For those pictures that do not have a site tag on them, if questioned, the collector must be able to come up with proof-of age. The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.' There are many models out there that are well above the age of consent that might raise suspicions.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

      So, what about Lady Justice? Wasn't the model for that statue 12 or so?

    • by Kjella (173770)

      The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

      I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed]

      • Re: (Score:2, Flamebait)

        by binarybum (468664)

        welcome to the post-bush era. it's going to be next to impossible to turn back now.

      • by westlake (615356)
        I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion"

        "Reasonable doubt" in this context means only that a jury can find that an man of ordinary intelligence, judgment and experience, could have have mistaken the model for an adult.

        The problem is that the jury won't be looking at a single photograph, but rather the hundreds or thousands of those you've collected which were entered into evidence.

        The problem is that the jury won't be looking

        • It's a sad day
          when we can't even be naked
          because we're afraid of our bodies.

          Guess I won't be going to the nudist beach this summer; it will be closed down by the fucking fools who fear naked penises, vaginas, or breasts. Retards. They are mentally ill.

      • I think the problem is that with CP being such a touchy and emotional issue, cops investigating it, prosecutors prosecuting it and juries deciding on it, will be very tempted to take anything that even remotely looks like CP to BE CP, and make decisions accordingly.

        I wish people would be reasonable, but I'm starting to think that's unrealistic.

      • Arbitrary Aardvark here.
        That was my first reaction too, but when I thought about it, reasonable suspicion, at least to the point of probable cause, is all they need to come in, put you in jail, seize your computers, ransack your house, take your kids to foster care, shoot your dog, etc.
        At that point, 90% of cases are resolved by plea bargain, in which the accused pretends to be guilty in exchange for probation/other.
        So grandparent poster is approximately right.

        The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

        I must have missed the memo where they lowered the standard from "beyond a reasonable doubt" to "reasonable suspicion". In the words of wikipedia: [citation needed [xkcd.com]]

    • The only thing a court needs to convict you of possession of child pornography is 'reasonable suspicion' that the subject of the photo is underage and the pose is considered 'sexual.'

      No, the law requires you to have proof of age if you distribute the photos to anyone else. If you don't, you aren't guilty of possession of child porn, you are guilty of distributing porn without the proper labeling. This is analogous to various laws that make it illegal to distribute things without adequate source documentation -- food and ingredient lists, drugs and dosages, clothes and country of origin, appliances and their wattage ...

      In order to get a conviction on private possession of CP the jury mu

      • Not true. The law applies as much to individuals as it does to commercial purposes. Quote (from 2257):

        (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which--

        (1) contains one or more visual depictions made after November 1, 1990 of actual sexually explicit conduct; and

        (2) is produced in whole or in part with materials which have been mailed or shipped in interstate or fore
        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by Wrath0fb0b (302444)

          (a) Whoever produces any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digital image, digitally- or computer-manipulated image of an actual human being, picture, or other matter which ...

          The word "produce" has a specific legal meaning that is not the same as "possess".

          • That's not an argument. So, what is the definition of "produce" then? Only knowing that will we know if it applies.
          • Here is the meaning of "produce" that I found in a legal dictionary. Edited for brevity (much of the entry is not relevant):

            As a noun, the product of natural growth, labor, or capital. Articles produced or grown from or on the soil, or found in the soil.

            As a verb, ... To make, originate, or yield, as gasoline. To bring to the surface, as oil. To yield, as revenue. Thus, funds are produced by taxation, not when the tax is levied, but when the sums are collected.

            So anybody who "makes" or "originates"
      • by Renraku (518261)

        Child pornography elicits a very emotional response from the public at large. You'd have almost no trouble whatsoever convicting someone at a jury trial of possessing it if the female model was below 30 and had pigtails. You can bet your ass that the prosecutor would use phrases like 'the little girl next door' and 'your children' to further sway the jury's emotions.

        Common sense usually doesn't apply when strong emotions are involved.

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by dryeo (100693)

          Do you have to have trial by jury in the States?
          Here in Canada it is something that you can elect to have or you can have trial by judge. Seems to me that being accused of child porn you would be safer going without a jury.

          • In Theory (Score:3, Informative)

            by maz2331 (1104901)

            Yes, we do, but it's really more a "de jure" rather than "de facto" thing.

            First, any competent attorney will cost at least $10k before you get to court (pre-trial proceedings, evidentiary motions, research, etc).

            If you don't have the $10k to blow up-front, then you can get a public defender, who will usually be a less experienced lawyer with a huge caseload. The PD will do their best for you, but doesn't have the time or energy to really devote to your case, especially since she has 100 others in play at a

    • No, that is not true. SCOOTUS ruled a few years ago that in order for something to be considered "child pornography", it must be shown that the depictions of of real children (not just adults who look like children, or faked images), and it must be actual pornography. It might be possible to arrest you on reasonable suspicion, but they need facts to convict.
    • For speech/a picture to be ruled illegal, it must be obscene.

      Nude photos with no explicit sexual content of young people are illegal, and thus are obscene.

      Great message we're sending young people. Sure that won't come back to bite us in the ass in 20 years.

  • It looks like these businesses will have to buy extra equipment (ten-foot pole) to check Goatse Guy's ID.
  • Who cares? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Darkness404 (1287218) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @05:49PM (#26943969)
    Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Frosty Piss (770223)

      Honestly, who cares? As long as no one is hurt, it should be legal. The government is not our moral compass. As long as it does not negatively impact you or anyone who didn't agree with it (and agreement should not have an age restriction), it should be, by definition, legal.

      That's what a lot of people here say, but the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that and so this is why our elected representatives craft such laws.

      • the problem is that a lot of people think exactly that

        Why is that a problem? That's circular reasoning, unless your argument is that anything a lot of people here agree with is inherently bad.

        What is the purpose of government?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Kjella (173770)

      (and agreement should not have an age restriction)

      So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal? Come on, you gotta be kidding me.

      • So anyone from a three year old that's barely learned yes to a 17.5 year old should be able to agree to anything, and then it's legal?

        I did not say that there was no mental capacity restriction. For example, the 3 year old would not be in a fit mental condition to make decisions, however an advanced 13 year old would be able to, similarly a mental retarded 25 year old may not be in a fit mental condition.

        The problem in our society is the magical age of 16, 18 and 21. What would be illegal to do at 17 and 360 days suddenly becomes legal 5 to 6 days later.

        • Well, and why should it not only be illegal, but a sex offense, thus putting the young man on a sex offender's list for life because he didn't wait 5-6 days?

        • The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age than it is to administer some examination to determine fit mental condition for each and every transaction in which it is meaningful.

          As you approach a limit, the delta is "arbitrary." But it's still a limit.

          • The "magical age" is because it is easier to determine someone's age...

            I'm sorry, I thought this is about morality and laws. Since when is "easier" a valid criterion here?

            That would be like saying we should jail every Mexican immigrant, because they are likely to have been illegal immigrants, and it's easier to just lock 'em all up than to sort out who has a valid visa (or citizenship), and who sneaked across the border (or overstayed a visa).

            It would also be "easier" just to let anyone practice law, rather than requiring a bar exam. And it would be similarly "easier" to charg

        • The problem with this argument is that it requires somebody to decide who is mentally mature enough to agree, and who is not. And in that case you have just opened up a huge can of worms that believe me, you do NOT want: Who is going to decide? You? A psychologist? "The State"? By what standards?

          In practice, the standard would end up being determined by the government, and that's a worse situation than you started out with. As soon as the government starts meddling in such situations as "is this person
          • New standard, as the following:

            "The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.

            The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority

        • by Kjella (173770)

          Yes, there are magical ages. What's the alternative, some government mandated maturity test before you can do certain things? Trying to figure out two years down the road in court after the girl told mom about you whether she in fact, at that point in time two years ago, was sufficiently mature to make the decisions she did? Some kind of self-inspection as if ever a teen would say "I don't consider myself old enough to take that decision"? That's just another variation of manipulating them to think they're

      • It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.

        At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.

        I'm not arguing a three-year-old that's barely learned yes should be able to consent. But what about a six-year-old prodigy?

        Or, for that matter, what about an 18-year-old retarded person?

        I'm actually not sure what the answer is. I do think that there needs to be real deb

        • It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.

          That would never fly - jim crow laws are still too fresh in the cultural memory.

          At the same time, once someone is an "adult" -- which we've arbitrarily defined as 18 -- it doesn't matter if it's informed or not. Yes means yes.

          I'd like to add a law that states that trying someone as an adult confers on them the rights of an adult - drinking, driving, and screwing (not at the same time). This means that if you try someone as an adult and they get off, they can vote.

        • by r00t (33219)

          It might help if we had an objective way to measure someone's ability to have informed consent.

          That could be a dream come true.

          Let's determine this via a reading comprehension test. The test material can be a wide selection of common real-world consumer contracts. Anything a regular person has to sign is fair game: car rental agreement, apartment lease, contract to buy a house, DSL terms of service, employment agreement, HIPPA waiver, credit card agreement, Windows Vista EULA, AT+T agreement for the iPhone, etc.

    • by westlake (615356)
      The government is not our moral compass.

      The role of government is shaped by the values of the community which created it.

      I know of no government which will not insist on its right to protect minors against themselves and those who would exploit them.

      That can not and will not limit a minor's freedom of action.

    • by ivan256 (17499)

      If you were going to advertise in a swingers magazine, would you care that your name and proof that you did so were to remain on file for an extended period? Do you see how somebody might mind? Might choose not to place the ad for that reason?

      Now... If you published the magazine the ads are placed in, wouldn't you mind if you were required to do something that scared off your customers?

    • "The government is not our moral compass."

      All criminal law is legislation of morality. The only way for a government to stop being a "moral compass" is to get rid of the whole criminal legal system. Even many civil laws are moral issues to some degree. One of the whole purposes of governments is to be a moral compass (that does not negate our responsibility to have our own internal moral compasses).
  • Nothing new (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Hao Wu (652581) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @05:53PM (#26944005) Homepage
    You don't get publicly carded for buying beer. The transaction is only between you and the store, unless there is evidence of a crime being committed.

    It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.
    • OT? This actually frighteningly makes sense, and unfortunately I can see this line of thought actually occuring here in america.

    • Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Informative)

      by mtdenial (769442) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @06:53PM (#26944387)

      One of the google talks by Violet Blue actually had some interesting information on the 2257 requirement. She did not go quite this far in criticising the law, but pointed out some very serious problems with it.

      Basically, a decent chunk of people who needed to prove age for 2257 compliance basically just had pictures of them with the driver's license. Of course, many people tend not to perform under their real name and if these pictures get onto the internet, then someone else can tie a face to a real name and possibly even an address. Not a good situation in general. From what I gather, the wording of the law was pretty vague as well as to what sort of proof was required and who could eventually ask for it.

      Anyhow, a pretty interesting talk here with some relevance to the topic: Violet Blue (Google Tech Talks) [youtube.com]

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bluephone (200451)
        Wow, Violet Blue gave a talk-- oh, THAT Violet Blue, the one who stole the porn chick's name [1 [wikipedia.org]] [2 [avn.com]] [3 [wired.com]] (note, having a name doesn't mean you own it if someone else gets famous with that name before you, but of course you can outspend them in court anyway!), and later was erased from BoingBoing (eliminating any sense of credibility BB had, and showing they have no problem with revisionist journalism) because she broke up with Xeni [4 [wikipedia.org]] [5 [chicagotribune.com]].
    • It is a deliberate tactic for anti-sex groups to threaten porn stars with stalkers. If they can't shame them into obedience, then they expose them to sexual predators.

      This is commonly used as an argument against 2257. It's also wrong.

      If you actually read the wording, it allows for only the original rights owner of an image to keep the full proof of identity.

      They may then send a redacted copy to all subsequent re-distributors for their records. That copy may blank out everything uniquely identifiable - driver's license number, etc. - leaving only the picture and the date of birth visible.

      So long as a paper trail remains back to the original record holder, no one else has

    • I don't get carded for buying beer , too old, but in the UK at least there are shops that ask for proof of age if you look under 30 let alone 18 which is the legal age for buying alcohol in the UK.

      With Councils sending under age people into stores to buy alcohol and the result of them succeeding being a loss of license to sell alcohol it's sadly understandable.

  • I have never seen a discussion so messed up at slashdot. Half the posters seem not to understand what the law or the ruling is about and quite a large fraction is getting into some ideological arguments. It is a reasonable idea that somebody distributing nude pictures as advertisements should be ruled after the same standards as somebody distributing these as content of the magazine. It is reasonable that, at a time when the porn industry is bigger than the rest of Hollywood, and then porn production is ou

  • ZOMG! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Brickwall (985910) on Saturday February 21, 2009 @10:29PM (#26945725)
    139 posts on /. on child porn issues, and not a single "Think of the children!" comment? I'm appalled.

    But seriously, this is just another example of what I call the "extended childhood" of North American children. Forget the Puritans; it was common all across Europe to marry children of 13-14 years of age for centuries. (Hell, didn't Jerry Lee Lewis marry a 14-year old in 1950's?) But even though our kids, thanks to TV, computers, and the net, are much more educated than kids were in the 1930's, we keep trying to protect them from their own natural urges for longer and longer periods of time.

    And this weird American prudishness just continues to amaze me. Here in Canada, on regular broadcast TV, not just cable, you can see nudity and soft-core sex practically every night. And on plain vanilla cable (which virtually all Canadians have), not specialty pay channels, you can even see hard core sex late night on the weekends. I really don't get why people think it's fine for the kids to see hundreds (if not thousands) of murders as they grow up, but think that if their kids see a naked breast, they'll be instantly corrupted.

  • by RWarrior(fobw) (448405) * on Saturday February 21, 2009 @11:39PM (#26946027)

    This case is headed to the Supreme Court, and there is a decent chance they may agree to hear it. There is a directly conflicting ruling out of the 10th Circuit in Denver. A split on a point of law (a Circuit split [wikipedia.org]) is often a reason for the Supreme Court to step in, so that the conflict can be resolved.

    I had to deal with 2257 compliance in my work for an adult website. It works like this:

    1. The photographer (or production company) must verify identity with a government-issued ID. If shot in the United States, the government-issued ID must be an American identification, even if the model is not from the United States, such as a cute chick on vacation for a couple weeks just traveling on her passport. Note that if you shoot outside the United States, a foreign ID is fine. Are you shooting in El Paso? You can go to prison for shooting your Estonian model on her passport and visitor's visa, but if you take her to Juarez and shoot her there, you're in the clear.

    2. The photographer must keep a copy of the ID, the model's contract, AND the pictures for five years after the last publication of the photographs. In addition, if published on the Internet, you have to keep a complete list of all URLs (including thumbnails!) of any picture you publish, even when those URLs change or come down. You better not be using any database-driven stuff with auto-generated URLs, because you now have to track every one of them, no matter how they change.

    3. The records must be cross-indexed by model's real name, any stage names, any dates of publication, any dates of recording, title of product or production, and URL. Use three year old footage in a new DVD? You get to dig back through your compliance records and update your cross-indexes.

    4. The records must be SEPARATE from your normal day-to-day business records. That is, you have to keep this stuff for the ordinary course of your business, and THEN you must keep a SEPARATE copy for the government.

    5. You must publish the REAL name and address of the person who holds the records on each copy of your product -- DVD, mag, or book -- AND on EVERY PAGE of your website (a "click here for 2257 info" link is *not* acceptable).

    6. This person must be available at least 20 hours a week, 52 weeks a year, for unannounced visits from the FBI, who may rifle through your records (and copy any or all of them, to dig through at their pleasure) looking for violations without a warrant or any cause at all, probable or not.

    7. Violation of any of this can land you in prison, even if your models are not under the age of 18. You can do years in prison and pay thousands in fines if the only thing wrong is that you screwed up the cross-indexing.

    8. If you sub-license or sell your content (such as your website's affiliates), you have to give un-redacted copies of your records to the person you sell/give the content to. Are you a DVD producer who posts your movies on HotMovies [hotmovies.com]? HotMovies gets a copy of your records, complete with the model's real name and address. The model doesn't get any right to opt out, either; if they can also turn around and sell or sub-license your content, THEIR licensees get your model's information, and YOU can't do anything about it, and you have no control over who it all goes to!

    9. If you receive sub-licensed or sold content, you likewise have to keep a complete set of records. It is *not* sufficient to simply keep track of where your content came from so the FBI can back-track. You have to have your own independent, complete set of records, all lined up, cross-indexed and separated from your daily business records, and ready for inspection whenever the FBI decides to materialize.

    10. You are required to keep records even if you go out of business, be available for FBI inspection 20 business-time hours per week even if you go on vacation or operat

Never invest your money in anything that eats or needs repainting. -- Billy Rose

Working...