Originally Posted by Oberon

Hmm, I'm not reading it that way. What they're referring to there is the practice of saying 'I don't have to keep records, my primary producer has them, I'm just a secondary'. In actuality, when you read the requirements for a copy of ID, nowhere does it say you can't block info, it just says it has to be a 'legible' copy. Well... define legible for the purposes of this regulation, and you've answered the question. I suspect legal precedents exist elsewhere for what constitutes a 'legible' copy of ID, when privacy concerns exist.

Originally Posted by baddog

I was a paralegal at one point in my life. Often got accused by attorneys of practicing law.

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I thought you were an intellectual terrorist? :winkwink:


My attorney agrees with your interpretation. I have been advised not to accept ID's that have been altered in ANY way, including but not limited to blacking or blurring out information.

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

Ok what if the model holds her thumb over certain non needed info when the picture is taken? It would not be altered in any way. :winkwink:

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I recently made a post in another thread that said basically this
"Is it worth 5 years of your freedom and afterwards living the life of a convicted felon because you wanted to get "cute" with the law?"

Originally Posted by After Shock Media

I was making a joke.

Originally Posted by Lenny2

I thought you were an intellectual terrorist? :winkwink:

Originally Posted by AaronM

I'm wondering about that as well. The comments say that IF they required sanitized records that they would then also require the notary stuff. Since they chose not to do this...How can they enforce the notary part?

Let's say that they consider this "computer manipulation" of the docs. Well, according to their own regulations, a secondary producer is:

(2) A secondary producer is any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-
manipulated image, picture, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, or who inserts on a computer site or service a digital image of, or otherwise manages the sexually explicit content of a computer site or service that contains a visual depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct, including any person who enters into a contract, agreement, or conspiracy to do any of the foregoing.


Now, simply scanning and resizing the docs to give to secondary producers and or clients is also manipulating the docs.....But they are not requiring us to have that notarized.

Originally Posted by chase

Wait a minute...that passage isn't referring to docs, it's referring to actual sexually explicit content, isn't it, Aaron?

Originally Posted by Paraskass

are you a sig whore?