Quote:

I think we need jrv on this. jrv, if you don't mind?


I don't know anything at all about model releases. I'm sure this has been thoroughly litigated over the years and RLD had no trouble getting good legal advice. I assume this is a purely civil matter between RLD & Paris and has nothing to do with the government.

I found one case that may apply for 2257: Sundance Associates vs. Reno. The statute defines “produces” as

Quote:


to produce, manufacture, or publish any book, magazine, periodical, film, video tape or other similar matter and includes the duplication, reproduction, or reissuing of any such matter, but does not include mere distribution or any other activity which does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.



(that bizarre wording came about because they patched earlier unconstitutional language)

RLD could be relying on the fact that every activity of theirs “does not involve hiring, contracting for, managing, or otherwise arranging for the participation of the performers depicted.”

Regulations originally tried to include “any person who produces, assembles, manufactures, publishes, duplicates, reproduces, or reissues a book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, or other matter intended for commercial distribution that contains a visual depiction of actual sexually explicit conduct.” The Sundance case threw this out as contradicting the statute.

The careful thing to do is of course to keep 2257 records if you “touch” the material in any way. RLD probably can’t but that’s not necessarily a show-stopper.

I didn’t try to find the 2257 regulations themselves to see what constitutes an ID. Also, these laws & regulations have been patched over and over and there might be something newer.
_________________________
"If they can't picture me with a knife, forcing them to strip in an alley, I don't want any part of it. It's humiliating." - windsock