2257 Records Question

[DEVELISH]

Oh i have an interesting one, we have a live webcam house with cams everywheer and of course the law requires id's to be checked and waivers signed. we work from home and also havbe the records here. so if they come a kocking, should i folow the law and age verify them and have them sign a waiver and post theire id's to be in complence

Absolutely - I would at least try and if they deny I would have them sign a denial form - you would of course then have to cut the feeds or pixelate their faces

[tombarr]

Oh i have an interesting one, we have a live webcam house with cams everywheer and of course the law requires id's to be checked and waivers signed. we work from home and also havbe the records here. so if they come a kocking, should i folow the law and age verify them and have them sign a waiver and post theire id's to be in complence

I think your inspection day should be, upon their arrival, naked rat tail day..where all the boys are naked and run around the house snapping each other with rolled up towels (rat tails) and make sure you keep your records in the room where the boys will be naked ....

It is your place of business, and this is your business, and the 2257 inspections are not supposed to hinder you from your business.....so....

naked boys running around.....with their ID's on a string around their necks..

I bet they finish in record time.

[collegeboyslive]

LOL
funny, but on a serious note, we have a bunch of seconry producer photosets, we have all the id's but soem are from countries where the official id for the country dosnt have a photo and on some the photcopy isnt the best on the picture.

2257 dosnt seem clear on if it MUST have a photo attached to the ID or not

anyone know ?

[gaybucks_chip]

LOL

2257 dosnt seem clear on if it MUST have a photo attached to the ID or not

anyone know ?

I believe that for any content *produced* after 6/23/05, the only acceptable ID for a non-US citizen is a passport, which of course will have a photo attached. And if the content was shot in the US, a non-US issued passport is *not* acceptable; in that case, the only acceptable ID is a US work visa. But if you go to Canada, for example, and shoot the content, then a Canadian passport is magically a valid ID again. (Funny how an identification document that's acceptable suddenly becomes invalid when you cross the border into the US!)

For content produced prior to 6/23/05, there are two different parts of the regulations that appear to be in conflict, but if I remember correctly, the most widely accepted interpretation is that you are required to have a photo ID, and if the photo ID is not issued by a government entity (i.e, it's a school ID or something like that), you are also required to have a government-issued ID, and in those cases, something like a social security card or other non-picture ID would be valid *if* there were another ID with a picture.

I wouldn't swear to the accuracy of the above, but I believe that's what the regs say. Of course, I also haven't deciphered 4472 (or talked to our attorney) enough yet to know how it changes things.

[Squirt]

"at this time, it appears that American producers who use foreign talent can comply with Section 2257 by examining and copying foreign identification, as long as they do so outside of U.S. territory."

"This legal scenario creates quite a bizarre result. The regulations, when colored with the Government's position in Free Speech Coalition v. Gonzalez, means that American producers can use foreign talent, supported by a review of foreign identification if they do so in a foreign country, but that it does not matter in which foreign country the production takes place.

For example, an American producer could shoot content in Mexico using Russian talent, showing a Canadian ID, but the same exact content would not be legal if it were filmed across the border in California. More absurd is the fact that a Canadian producer, using Canadian talent, could not film a production on location in the United States (unless the talent had US identification). Of course, this is an over-simplification – they could "film" the content, but they could not legally distribute it in the United States. "

SOURCE

[tombarr]

Don't cha just love crystal clear government regulations?

[Squirt]

Don't cha just love crystal clear government regulations?

Yes well here's a secret for you:

The broader a regulation the more leverage they have for interpretation and the broader their reach of power until case law narrows their scope :shitpoke:

Can you imagine if every industry was open to random physical inspection of their records by the FBI? :cop:

[gaybucks_chip]

Don't cha just love crystal clear government regulations?

Exactly. That part of the language was a backdoor way of preventing producers with working with non-legal immigrants (students, vacationing people, etc).