How much for a Model?

**cyrus** · 31-Jul-2011, 00:18

Originally Posted by John NYC

It's not a test. It's called trying to understand the reasoning behind your views.

So the relevant text to your argument is...

"(iv) sadistic or masochistic abuse; or
(v) lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person;"

Is open-handed spanking "sadistic or masochistic abuse"? Is that a "lascivious" display of the privates in the Saudek photo?

That would be up for the jury to decide. If you decide to take the risk and assume that it doesn't fit under the definition, and lose, you go to prison. Question is, do you as a photographer want to take that risk.

Now you're getting my point about the vagueness. That's why the lawyers I linked to say that erotic photographers should just assume that 2257 applies to their work.

**Tom J McDonald** · 31-Jul-2011, 01:48

Wow. great photo. Look at the expression on the spankee's face!

**John NYC** · 31-Jul-2011, 06:55

Originally Posted by cyrus

That would be up for the jury to decide. If you decide to take the risk and assume that it doesn't fit under the definition, and lose, you go to prison. Question is, do you as a photographer want to take that risk.

Now you're getting my point about the vagueness. That's why the lawyers I linked to say that erotic photographers should just assume that 2257 applies to their work.

Since I am personally not interested in ever taking nude photos or any other photos that would remotely fall into those categories, I don't have to worry about it.

But as I am the kind of person who has kept every single tax return I have ever filed, you can bet I'd keep records if I did do that stuff.

**cyrus** · 2-Aug-2011, 09:37

Originally Posted by John NYC

Since I am personally not interested in ever taking nude photos or any other photos that would remotely fall into those categories, I don't have to worry about it.

But as I am the kind of person who has kept every single tax return I have ever filed, you can bet I'd keep records if I did do that stuff.

You may not be interested in such photography but some of us are, so the bigger point is whether this law -- which was supposedly intended to protect minors from exploitation but which effectively imposes very onerous duties on photographers who even use very obviously adult models -- has had the effect of "chilling" expression. Note that under this law, you don't go to jail for using a model who turned out to be underage; no, you go to jail for failing to keep records in the way specified regardless of how old the model was. Ten years in prison for a failure to do paperwork, not for child porn.

How many perfectly legitimate photographers are now prevented/scared-off from taking perfectly legitimate photographs not because their model may be underage, but because they don't want to do things such as keeping detailed, cross-indexed files of model names, stage-names, photos taken, URLS where the photos were displayed, etc. -- all of which has to be made available by a publicly-identified person who has to be present at a public-identified location for at least 20 hours a week to allow the un-announced access by the FBI to the records (who don't need a warrant or even a legitimate reason for suspicion of any sort to come to your studio and demand to see these records.)

Is this really about protecting minors or a de facto stigmatization of certain types of photography which was intended to circumvent constitutional protections?

**Robert Hughes** · 3-Aug-2011, 06:47

How many perfectly legitimate photographers are now prevented/scared-off from taking perfectly legitimate photographs...

The Minneapolis Police Dept once bashed in my front door ($2000) and tore my house apart looking for child porn, after a local lab turned me in for taking "bear rug" shots of my infant daughter. I've certainly been scared off.