DoJ Regulation 2257

[Imagebuffet]

A hot subject on another forum right now is Department of Justice Regulation 2257. Is it political to discuss laws that directly affect one's photography? I'm not clear on what this regulation requires, but it apparently relates to photographers who photograph people. It most applies to photography of nudes, but could also apply to non-nude photography, too. It states that you have to have 2 forms of government ID and a list of all the names and aliases used by your models, in both digital and print form, available for a certain number of hours a week for government inspection. Failure to do so can result in up to 5 years of prison time for a first offense, and 10 years for a second offense. The law was passed 2 years ago, but is just now being put into force.

Does anyone know anything about this?

[mathia]

I maybe be wrong, but I was under the impression that the 2257 regulations only apply to the production of sexually explicit materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_P...nforcement_Act

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by mathia

I maybe be wrong, but I was under the impression that the 2257 regulations only apply to the production of sexually explicit materials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_P...nforcement_Act

That would be my first take on it, but, apparently, the regulation is far broader. Or, not. That's one thing I'd like cleared up. One photographer says that the FBI agents who inspect his records don't care whether his photos are sexually explicit or not; they are there to see his records.

[CaptainTom]

This regulation has been overturned, and until it is upheld under appeal, it appears to be a moot point.

On October 23, 2007, the 6th Circuit U.S. Court of Appeals ruled the federal record-keeping statute unconstitutional, holding that the law is overbroad and facially invalid

Proposed regulations
On July 12, 2007, the Department of Justice issued a preliminary set of addendum record keeping regulations based on the Walsh Act amendments onto the existing regulations at 25 C.F.R. pt. 75.[10] These new regulations are meant to encompass the inclusion of simulated sexual actions that do not actually show explicit sexual contact or fulfillment that were included by the Adam Walsh Act that was signed into law in 2007. These new regulations are pending finalization.

[ggeen]

Seems pretty clear to me that the first thing the law does, after defining the terms, is to limit the scope of the law. Title 28 part 75 only has eight sections. Title 25 Part 75 has to do with Indian affairs.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 28, Volume 2]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 28CFR75]

Sec.75.2 Maintenance of records.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape,
digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or
other matter that contains a depiction of an actual human being engaged
in actual sexually explicit conduct that is produced in whole or in part
with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign
commerce, or is shipped or transported or is intended for shipment or
transportation in interstate or foreign commerce and that 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, create and maintain
records containing the following:

On a personal note, be careful with wikipedia. Anyone can write anything about any topic on that site. That does not make it correct. When it comes to the law, go to the source or at least double check with the originating source. www.gpoaccess.gov is a good place to start when talking about federal law and rulings. -G

[nastytrucker]

What does Adam Walsh have to do with photography? I thought he was kidnapped and killed a long time ago.

[ggeen]

Originally Posted by nastytrucker

What does Adam Walsh have to do with photography? I thought he was kidnapped and killed a long time ago.

His kidnapping and murder fired up his father, John Walsh of America's Most Wanted television series, to petition the federal governments to enact laws regarding child abduction and pornography. In general, John's ideas were well intentioned, in practice they were not always enacted in the same way.

-G

[nastytrucker]

OK, what does Adam and John walsh have to do with porn? The only connection I could figure is kiddie porn which could explain the whole proof of age thing...

[brad]

It also is intended only to apply to materials that are for resale... and honestly, they aren't likely to use this law to go after small photographers.. this is to go after the multi-billion dollar porn industry.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by nastytrucker

OK, what does Adam and John walsh have to do with porn? The only connection I could figure is kiddie porn which could explain the whole proof of age thing...

As I understand it, the main reason that child porn is illegal is the theory that child porn leads to severe child abuse, either in the production of the porn, or by those who are inflamed by viewing it. As I understand it, this regulation is not aimed at content, but at proof of age, to prevent the use of minors in the production of still photos containing sexual content. The hazy area in my mind is how much sexual content produced by who that would trigger the regulation.

[Murph]

Its illegal, because children have to be raped and molested to produce it.

Originally Posted by Imagebuffet

As I understand it, the main reason that child porn is illegal is the theory that child porn leads to severe child abuse, either in the production of the porn, or by those who are inflamed by viewing it. As I understand it, this regulation is not aimed at content, but at proof of age, to prevent the use of minors in the production of still photos containing sexual content. The hazy area in my mind is how much sexual content produced by who that would trigger the regulation.

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Murph

Its illegal, because children have to be raped and molested to produce it.

That explanation does not explain why it is illegal merely to possess or even view child pornography without having any direct connection to its production. It also does not make clear how the Adam Walsh case is connected to this regulation.

[Coelus]

That explanation does not explain why it is illegal merely to possess or even view child pornography without having any direct connection to its production.

You don't have to be caught smoking the dope, you just have to be caught with it. You having it gives a reason for the people who make it, to keep making it. To keep distributing it. To keep breaking the law. You as an end user support it's production. If no one wanted it there would be no one making it. Simple economics is the easiest way to fight it.

Are you saying it's okay to indirectly support such an industry?

[Imagebuffet]

Originally Posted by Coelus

You don't have to be caught smoking the dope, you just have to be caught with it. You having it gives a reason for the people who make it, to keep making it. To keep distributing it. To keep breaking the law. You as an end user support it's production. If no one wanted it there would be no one making it. Simple economics is the easiest way to fight it.

Are you saying it's okay to indirectly support such an industry?

No; I'm trying to explain how Adam Walsh fits into this legislation on photographers who work with models.

[LoungeLizard]

Dude - go see a lawyer who can explain the law to you. Bottom line is it's the law. You take photos that come under it's governance, you abide by it. You don't understand it - see a lawyer. You don't agree with it - write your congressman.

Who cares how Adam Walsh fits into it. His father was instrumental in legislation that created the Center for Missing & Exploited Children. Maybe that Center had something to do with the creation of the law that tries to prevent under age individuals being used in porn (hence, exploited children).

Darn it, sometimes people just want to argue for the sake of arguing.