Yep... sad but it happens in just about ANY business though

stick to public domain content man, no need to worry bout this 2257 shit.

:)

I finally have a few minutes to post on this important topic.

AaronM's list is not only irresponsible, it is also EXTREMELY dangerous.

First and foremost, there has been NO Federal court case stating that webmasters who license content must also maintain the records that primary producers are required to maintain. In FACT, there have been 2 or 3 court cases that say the contrary.

Secondly, AaronM is not an attorney. Yet he feels that he has the legal background to post a list stating who is, and who is not, 2257 compliant? Aaron, how many of these companies offices did you visit? How many records did you personally review? None? Or maybe it was Zero? Or perhaps Zilch? The FACT is that you have NO IDEA who is, and who is NOT 2257 compliant. Your list, while probably incorrect in many cases, is IRRESPONSIBLE, and, DANGEROUS. It may even be libelous.

Next, for those of you that think those sanitized model releases that some content companies provide gives you any protection at all, think again. Those sanitized model releases do not provide you protection because they are NOT complete. They do NOT provide the information required by law and therefore offer you no protection (assuming of course that as a secondary producer you even need the documents - see my first point above). Perhaps they give you piece of mind that the content producer does have the required docs, which of course is a plus.

Finally, for those content companies that provide unsanitized copies of the model releases and ID's, I have this question for you: Are you out of your fucking minds???? Have you heard of identity theft? Have you heard of stalkers? I bought some content yesterday from a company that does this and was SHOCKED to find the models social security number, drivers license number, and home address!!! I can guarantee you that the models have NO IDEA that you are providing this information and would be furious, perhaps litigious, if they were to find out. Forget that it is a violation of the models right to privacy, forget that it is dangerous to the model, it is against the law to publically post such information, specifically the social security number. Of course this information MUST be provided when someone is purchasing exclusive content, and you would think that the model would be told that, we tell our models that upfront. But to provide that information to someone paying $10 to license a set is not only wrong, it is illegal.

Be dilligent when you buy content. Be responsible. Do your homework. But this whole AaronM list is not proper, nor is it accurate as far as anyone knows.

I totally agree. The idea of an over zealous fan figuring out that he can buy a content set for $10 & get a model's real name etc. is truly scary.

This reminds me of some model releases I received several years ago. Had to be 5-6 years ago, a video company (that recently went under) sent me some videos for review in my magazine.

With the videos came full model releases, copies of all IDs, HIV tests, etc. OH yes, real names too, and the only names I recognized were Peter North and Rodney Moore.

Rodney is a friend of mine so I teased him a little about this stuff but I was really suprised such confidential information was sent to me out of the blue.

I've asked -- on several boards -- for years, for some 'proof' that Internet sites must provide such information, and this is the first time anyone has ever responsed/made mention of it. The law was written pre-Internet for magazine publishers and video producers.

Anyone can put "the keeper of the records etc etc etc" on their website, but unless you examine each file folder of paperwork (as JMM states), you don't know if they're in compliance or in violation of Federal law.

It's nice to see that someone finally agrees with me on this one.

This is what I have been saying for years.

I think it's time to create alternative aaron's list :glugglug