2257 Question: Find the Primary Producer

[Dzinerbear]

Hey guys,

I'm no 2257 expert so let me throw this scenario out there and see what y'all come up with.

I'm a Canadian webmaster and my buddy is an American webmaster. Together, we commissioned a set of pictures and video from a Canadian photographer who used a Canadian model with the appropriate release forms and ID a passport. The model is from South America, but living in Canada.

We did not produce the content in that we shot it, but we commissioned it and paid for it.

So, my American buddy wants to know: who is the primary producer?

Is he one of the primary producers? Or is the photographer the primary producer?

Any thoughts? This is like one of those logic problems in the Dell crossword puzzle books.

Michael

[gaystoryman]

Off hand I'd say the photographer would be the primary, unless it is totally 100% exclusive to you two. Then it might be considered that he was merely acting as an employee type rather than a seller. But not legal advice, maybe Chad can drop by and answer with the real answer behind door #1..:thumbsup:

[chadknowslaw]

This is not as hard as you are making it.

The primary producer is the photographer that takes the pictures. The nationality or location of the shoot is not relevant. Exclusive or not is not relevant.

If you are taking part in the shoot or if you own part of the photographer's company, you would be part of the primary producer.

You and your business partner may have commissioned the work, but there is no difference if you order a picture ahead of time or buy a set from a photographer from his collection of already available images. If you buy your work from someone else, then you are not the primary producer. Make sure the producer provides you with his contact information, or if you do not have confidence that he will be around very long then you should get copies of the photo ID's in case the primary producer disappears.


Answer to question:: Photographer is primary producer. Guy buying pictures from photographer is not a primary producer.

[Dzinerbear]

Yes, the content is 100% exclusive to us. He will not sell it to anyone else, however, he may use the odd pictures for his own use in magazine ads that he runs. And we're cool with that.

Michael

[Xstr8guy]

Wow Chad... thanks for THE definitive answer! This had been a concern of mine too. I'm sorry I missed this thread earlier.

[chadknowslaw]

Thank you Xstr8guy!

Michael never said thank you :-(

Bears without manners:cry:

[Dzinerbear]

Chad, I'm going to slap you hard in a couple of weeks. I didn't reply because I didn't get notified of replies ... there, it's Lee's fault.

Seriously, thanks Chad, for the answer - it's crystal clear. I guess we were focusing on the nationalities involved and not the functions.

And congrats on your big win! See you in a couple.

Hugs
Michael

[hoofs]

Hi all,

Chad, congratulations on your big success the other day and thanks for clarifying the primary/non-primary producers question.

Does this therefore mean that when a website has content produced by various different photographers/videographers i.e. the primary producers, the 2257 complaince statement must list the custodian of records details for all the different primary prodcuers? Furthermore, if the primary producer 'disappears' does the webmaster then become the custodian of records for the relevant content? Please do correct me if I'm missing the point here and getting my knickers in a twist over nothing.

regards,

Jim

[Xstr8guy]

Furthermore, if the primary producer 'disappears' does the webmaster then become the custodian of records for the relevant content?

I've feared the answer to this question for a long time. Can't we just put our hands over our ears and go "LALALA"?

[chadknowslaw]

I've feared the answer to this question for a long time. Can't we just put our hands over our ears and go "LALALA"?

Of course you can do that! You can do anything you want. Just remember that all actions DO have consequences, and some are definitely worse than others. Real prisons do not have hot horny men in the shower room looking for a sensual gang bang.

I am going to take the original question and break it into parts. First, yes, you do need to link to all your primary producers Custodian of Records information. Go to any of the VOD sites to see THEIR list and then your list doesn't seem so long.

Next, you don't become the primary producer just because the real primary producer disappears. You just become the secondary producer who has content that does not comply with 2257 laws because the 2257 records are nowhere to be found. Here is some free legal advice: Don't put up content that is not 2257 compliant or that you have no photo ID's.

Consider this scenario: "No, officer, I can't prove this model with no pubic hair and still has baby fat and glowing cheeks and looks 14 was really legal age when this hard core fisting scene was filmed"
Fuck that. Be safe. Be smart. If the producer disappears and you have no records of the models, pull that content down.

If you buy content from a new or unknown producer, insist on the model information or go elsewhere. There is no shortage of content and no content so good as to be worth legal troubles.

[Xstr8guy]

Once again Chad... great free advice. I always get docs (IDs and release forms, although some information may be blacked-out) from my content brokers. But let's say Ounique goes out of business (god forbid). And I have 100's of Ounique photosets spread across 50 domains.

So, the primary producer no longer exists but I still have the docs. Is it still legal to display the images?

[chadknowslaw]

Once again Chad... great free advice. I always get docs (IDs and release forms, although some information may be blacked-out) from my content brokers. But let's say Ounique goes out of business (god forbid). And I have 100's of Ounique photosets spread across 50 domains.

So, the primary producer no longer exists but I still have the docs. Is it still legal to display the images?

I kind of figured by the time I got out of the shower this question would come up.

The law applies to the producer. Since 2257 is such an untested law, it is hard to give you a definitive answer, so what you get is my best opinion.

You do not change rolls because the producer has disappeared. You are not required to keep those records, but let's say the producer DOES disappear and you DO have copies of ID's [redacted ID's are OK too]
Since you do not have to comply with records keeping rules, you have committed no crime by displaying the images. However, if you are ever investigated you DO have evidence [not PROOF] that the models were legal age at the time of the shoot.

If the producer disappears, it does not become illegal to display the images under 2257.