View Single Post
Old 05-26-2006, 09:42 PM  
amalekite
Confirmed User
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 162
Quote:
Originally Posted by Paul Markham
This part of your statement is 100% wrong. The bit about protecting a 7 year old I agree with.

THE 2257 LAW PROTECTS YOU

Yes it's the only thing you have to protect yourself against a 14 to 17 year old deciding a good way of making money would be to sell you porn pictures of themselves. It also hinders those who think they can exploit these kids.

2257 allows you to demand documentation to verify the model was of legal age at the time of the shoot, the model agreed to the shoot being sold and published.

I will not be joining the FSC because I do not believe the 2257 should be struck down. Because without it I can't demand to see the documents that keep me out of jail as a convicted child pornographer.

OK my reaction is not the norm. But maybe having 8 policemen in my studio at 5.00 am in the morning, with me in tow, trawling through my content and records looking for under age models changes my perspective. They did not find what they thought I had because it does no9t exist, because I have to comply to 2257. It did not stop the search happening, but it did stop me making a mistake and ending up in jail.

2257 PROTECTS US

PS
Yes 2257 is a badly written law and the amendments made it worse. But better a bad law then no law.
yeah I'm with you

I just don't like how it's written...unclear...confusing

There should definately be records kept of all models and proof of age...Just wish the gov'ment would be more precise about what they want...those amendments were just downright atrocious
amalekite is offline   Share thread on Digg Share thread on Twitter Share thread on Reddit Share thread on Facebook Reply With Quote