Quote Originally Posted by JustMe
This reminds me of:
Yes, could not agree more, however, i would almost be willing to bet that any prosecutions under this Reg will be because of the Fed's interpretation of what the word "is" is. and that's half the battle with this new Reg. What is the meaning of the word "is"? Is the word is defined by one set of court rulings that they so strongly rely upon in drafting this mess, or is it based upon other precedent setting rulings that opposes this draft and the Fed interpretation of it?

This part of the regulation appears to have been written to insure that the Primary producer (the one in actual contact with the models at the time of photography) is in physical presence and can physically view the ID and the model, and be able to swear in an affidavit or court proceedings, and to subsequent secondary producers and distrbituors, that the ID is valid for the person (s) shown in the production.

The the requirement to be "located" or "on location" with the model in the same place at the same time. This provides a primary path of responsibility and culpability and continuous chain of knowledgeable, accurate information about each model. I don't believe the spirit of the law means you can't shoot content internationally unless you live there...i believe it is meant to be protective of the chain of knowledge/custody of first hand information about the actual model identification.

I think this is one area that will be tested and tried and will have to be further clarified by judgement as this has already been put into play in it's present form. Just another reason that there should be injunctive relief from some, if not all, of this reg in this present state of being all F****d up.

It's going to come down to exactly that, "define the word "is"....and that is going to take a court to do at this point.

"