Penrod

If content is solely shot in a country like Brazil, for use on sites in the U.S., what requirements have to be met along the lines of ID?

Can you simply have a copy of passport or local (Brazil) ID?

What kind of releases are required?

Or is nothing required?

This content would be created for resale.

I know I can ask an attorney but I thought I would try a biz thread on GFY and see what happens.......

Penrod

Bumpity Bump

Penrod

Guess this was a bad place for a business thread.......

squishypimp

bump for answers!

__________________

squishypimp

sorry for the double post

__________________

baycouples

First, you need to ask your attorney. He'll give you the best answer. Secondly, you should probably get at least 2 different picture IDs from each girl just to be save. Look up what kind of picture IDs are listed as legit in 2257 and follow those guidelines.

Doctor T

My personal recomendation would be to have a passport be the first ID. Just because the brazilian ids have the photo on the front of them, and the birthdays on the back. So you need to have multiple scans to show the front and the back, and there isn't a way to prove that there wasn't two ids being scanned. Most brazilian shooters that I've seen show the model holding the ID to show they at least were holding it. The regulations say 'state or government issued id' however passports tend to be a little more standardized from country to country that I have seen. Little things like always using the same date format.

Another way of looking at it is, if you want to sell to America, you must do everything the same as if you shot in America. Get a release, get more then one ID, cover your ass, and while you are at it, cover your legs and chest just in case. Better to be over dilligent then under.

Oh and just in case you are an idiot (not saying you are, just in case) to be 2257 compliant you need all the documentation on men as well as women. I have run into a few places that didn't seem to get that point. I thought it was obvious, but hey I guess not.

LAJ

If you need to contact an attorney (or retain one)... see sig...

__________________
YNOT.com - The original industry resource
email jay at ynot dot com or skype LAJConsulting

Snake Doctor

A 2257 violation comes with a 5 year prison sentence.

Do you really want to trust your freedom to an answer from a bunch of kids who live in their mother's basement? (that's what 80% of GFY is)

Think about it.

__________________
sig too big

Dirty Dane

Im not a lawyer, but if you gonna 'import' content to US, you better follow US laws
Passport ID and model release is a good idea to cover your ass.

Quentin

The regulations are very poorly written with respect to the subject of what constitutes acceptable foreign identification documents, a problem noted by some commenters during the public comment period that followed the DOJ's revision of the relevant CFRs a couple years back.

Here's how the DOJ responded in their response to public commentary:

+++++++++
Two commenters commented that the definition of picture identification card is vague, in particular because it does not include documents issued by a foreign government but does include as an example a foreign passport.

In response to these comments, the Department has clarified that the definition includes a foreign government-issued passport or any other document issued by a foreign government or a political subdivision thereof only when both the person who is the subject of the picture identification card and the producer maintaining the required records are located outside the United States. The definition also clarifies that it includes a U.S. government-issued Permanent Resident Card (commonly known as a ??Green Card??) or other U.S. government-issued Employment Authorization Document.
+++++++++

You can see all the DOJ responses to the public comments in this doc posted on the FSC's website.

Now.... as many lawyers (I am not one, myself) will tell you, the problem with the responses issued by the DOJ is that such comments are not deemed by the courts to be the same thing as "narrowing construction" for the given law addressed in such comments.

The same lawyers would likely explain that while the Court *can* consider the opinions, edicts and responses of governing agencies when interpreting the laws those agencies are responsible for enforcing, the Court is bound by law/precedent to give primacy to the "plain language" of the statute.

Having said that, I think it's *fairly* safe to take the DOJ at its word on this one, because if they acted otherwise with respect to a specific foreign ID situation, they would have to face their own assurances in court, having contradicted those assurances.... and I think the presiding judge would be something other than impressed by the DOJ's conduct in that hypothetical scenario.

- Q.

__________________
Q. Boyer