|
The biggest flaw, as has been pointed out (and assuming the law means what it appears to say) is the URL issue. At best it will be a pain and at worst - for those with dynamic sites - that requirement will be impossible to satisfy.
What otherwise bothers me is that say I get the required info from someone and then I am asked to prove the validity of that information. It would have been easy enough to miss, but I couldn't find any reference to what would be recognized as "due care". Is a court really going to accept a photoshopable file or an easily manipulated photocopy (with half the model's information blacked out)? This should be of particular concern if everyone else involved is outside US jurisdiction and the "secondary producer" is standing by himself in court.
The same applies if buying from brokers, even here in the US: the law would be meaningless if it were not necessary for anyone to prove the ID information is valid. But in this chain of people who have handled the supposedly valid data, whose is responsible for ensuring its validity?
|