Printable View
Ok we are a new studios based in the USA , I have a model interested in working for us, but he lives in Canada. So the question is, can I legally fly him here to film a few scenes without having to secure a work visa for him? I know nothing about trying to get this if we do. And if we do, ugh this guy is gorgeous, so I guess we will have to do it. If we have to get one, does anyone know how?
No, But you can fly to where he is.
Even if we get him a work visa? I really don't want to fly all the gear, models, etc out there - that'll end up costing a small fortune!
2257 says a model must have a US ID if shot in the US.
A Canada ID is not a US ID. I think we've been over this since 2008.
You're not going to get a work permit for a 1-day photo shoot, in time for the model to also get a US state DL/ID.
Damn that sucks. Well I guess I am going to have to concentrate my recruiting efforts in Canada for a bit!
Canada could be fun, Montreal is loaded with gay strip clubs and cute college boys, and Toronto is such a big city with loads of colleges as well. And these two cities are close to each other, maybe an hour apart by flight or 5 hours drive. Its nearly Sept, so colleges will be going back to class soon, you could plan a little holiday, visit both and get loads of hot new content :D
Ok now for a dumb question. So I am planning on going to Canada to film, no prob. How are they going to know I filmed it there, and not in the USA?
I know where you're going with this.
When you show the date of production on your shoot, it can very easily be matched with travel dates to and from canada (which are tracked by immigrations canada and US immigrations at the border.) If your model's ID is from Canada, you're immediately going to get the question about when and where and so forth. So it will be obvious to FBI officials whether or not you were in Canada on the date the content was shot with a quick check with immigrations. Oh and... if you get inspected and immigrations records shows the model visited the US any time remotely close to when you claim the content was shot... that would be obvious as well.
So... if you really want to risk a charge of falsifying records and lying to federal officers *in addition* to a 2257 violation (that would add probably 20 or 30 years to the charges), then you can claim you went to Canada and simply have the model come to you and film him in the US.
It's not a risk I would take.
This is totally not where I was going. Mainly I was wondering if I had to put something on the video that stated it was filmed in Canada or not. I did not know it could actually be confirmed through immigration. Knowing this is a relief as it means less of a hassle and work on my end! We will be in Canada filming more than likely the beginning of December.Quote:
Originally Posted by gaybucks_chip
Include a scene of the model with an identifiable landmark.
Not according to NY DMV... Years ago my bf went to get his NY drivers license and they took his Ontario drivers license. He told them it was the property of the Ontario/Canadian government and he needed it back. The woman's response was "Canada is a territory of the US, if you want your license I have to take this one."Quote:
Originally Posted by nickbaer
Honestly, that's one of those portions of 2257 that I don't think would ever hold up in court. I think the intent had something to do with labor law - you need a US ID to work in the US. But I've filmed non-US models in the US before because I didn't pay them I don't see a problem...
2257 is US Federal law, not a State law.
The Obama Administration's FBI has not pursued 2257 witch hunts. Nor obscenity, because of the past history of success with such cases by previous administrations.
There are a number of important questions about the validity of 2257.
What has a non-expired ID vs an expired ID got to do with proving age?
What does a US ID vs a non-US ID got to do with proving age?
If a model is from another country, why can't he stand in front of a camera for an hour and pose for photos? Is that 'work"?
On a related musing, it is interesting hearing Republican candidates on TV talk about too much government regulation and interference of business, when it consistently, since Reagan, has been Republicans who have pursued governmental regulation and legal process against the adult industry.