Qustion about model release document
 

I wanted to know, should I have a lawyer look at my model release form before signing my 1st girl?

Yes you should.

Also depends on how specific your release form is I guess. If it's more or less general then you could compair it with another studio's release form first to see if you need to make changes. If you work with that a while then you could always still consult a lawyer later.

Where did you get your model release from ? Do you have a separate 2257 doc ? A lot of model releases I see have a 2257 doc combined in with it. I would not use those types of releases...

But yes, any legal doc you use should be reviewed by your attorney.

Can you explain why you would recommend against using a release that has 2257 combined into it?

I have got in touch with a lawyer thank you for all the replies. If you want to know a little more information on what I am trying to do click on eTriplex Studios it just takes you to the site, would like some feedback.

You should read 28 CFR 75.... the way records should be maintain is with the least amount of unnecessary information. If you are going to be inspected, having anything other than the required docs in your records may be a violation of 2257.

Your 2257 Notice is not compliant... there's no address for the records nor is there a name for the actual custodian.

This might sound dumb but can I keep the records at my home? That is where I do my editing.

Yes.....

Yes, but don't forget to list your home address on your site...

of course, you could use a service like 2257safe.com :winkwink:

What Michael says is correct. He knows everything about 2257 law.
So pay attention to what he says.
:2 cents:

Thanks for the compliment... but no I dont. I dont think any attorney should currently claim to be an expert in 2257. There are experts in First Amendment law and 2257 has a basis in the First Amendment, however until a lawyer has taken numerous 2257 cases to TRIAL I do not think they can claim to be an expert. No adult attorney that I know of has had even several 2257 defense cases. There are attorneys that have far more knowledge than me in regards to 2257. I feel confident in my level of knowledge though.

BTW - I sent you an email earlier as requested.

Pornlaw, when you get a chance could you shoot me an e-mail? its jason at ilsgcash dot com. Thanks.

I saw the email, I will reply when I get back in the office on monday.
Thanks Michael.

Thank You for all that replyed. I wanted to know, do you think this gig work? If you haven't seen the site click on etriplex studios on the signature it will take you to the site.

if you are doing sex scenes without condoms you need to look into a non-condom release aswell, according to my attorney they are now required under 2257.

I paid ALOT of money to make sure our production company was fully legal with state, federal and 2257 laws. These docs are not something to be taken lightly.

An employer cannot, in most states, put the assumption of the risk for a work related accident on the employee. If that were the case I would have every employee sign an employement contract releasing my law firm of all liability. Poof, no worries about on the job injuries. In California, performers have been determined to be employees and NOT independent contractors. Therefore any language in a model release that says something to the effect that the performer is assuming the risk for working without a condom will never pass muster in front of a judge. See the California Brooke Ashley HIV work comp case - she contracted HIV on set and it was determined by a judge that she was an employee and thus entitled to benefits. I cannot imagine AZ law would be much different.

Also, can you please cite for me the part of 18 USC 2257 or 28 CFR 75 that says anything about condoms ? There is nothing that I have read in either law about condoms....

Not knocking you, but can you tell us who your attorney is ? I am actually really surprised by his/her advice.

hit me up on ICQ and i will get you the doc to review. 468717149

Like i said i paid ALOT so if i got some schisty paperwork it would be nice to know.

I'm not really on ICQ -- can you email it to me and I would be happy to take a look for you. I really am curious. Most model releases that I have seen have the "condom" clause, its just that it really isnt applicable. I am most curious about the 2257 info though.

michael[at]fattlegal.com

sent you a copy via email

thanks for the review, legal services aren't cheap lol.

Could you post up the wording that says this? I've looked over this doctrine a number of times now and it's quite possible that I'm missing it, but I just don't recall seeing anything that specifies this. I've been using a joint release w/ 2257, and I'm going to re-write them separate now because after thinking about it I do feel it makes more sense to do it that way (and it's always good to play it safe). But I really don't see how it makes any difference from a legal standpoint if it's not stated in the doctrine that it HAS to be done that way.

Here ya go....

§ 75.2 Maintenance of records.
(a) Any producer of any book, magazine, periodical, film, videotape, digitally- or computer-manipulated image, digital image, picture, or other matter that is produced in whole or in part with materials that have been mailed or shipped in interstate or foreign commerce, or is shipped, transported, or intended for shipment or transportation in interstate or foreign commerce, and that contains one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or one or more visual depictions of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, shall, for each performer portrayed in such visual depiction, create and maintain records containing the following:

(1) The legal name and date of birth of each performer, obtained by the producer's examination of a picture identification card prior to production of the depiction. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after July 3, 1995, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall also include a legible hard copy or legible digitally scanned or other electronic copy of a hard copy of the identification document examined and, if that document does not contain a recent and recognizable picture of the performer, a legible hard copy of a picture identification card. For any performer portrayed in a depiction of an actual human being engaged in actual sexually explicit conduct (except lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person) made after June 23, 2005, or of an actual human being engaged in simulated sexually explicit conduct or in actual sexually explicit conduct limited to lascivious exhibition of the genitals or pubic area of any person made after March 18, 2009, the records shall include a copy of the depiction, and, where the depiction is published on an Internet computer site or service, a copy of any URL associated with the depiction. If no URL is associated with the depiction, the records shall include another uniquely identifying reference associated with the location of the depiction on the Internet. For any performer in a depiction performed live on the Internet, the records shall include a copy of the depiction with running-time sufficient to identify the performer in the depiction and to associate the performer with the records needed to confirm his or her age.

See, I was reading that part yesterday and I still don?t see where it states anything to the idea that the 2257 info should be completely separate and on its own, apart from any another release, waiver, or agreement. I?m reading that it says you must provide a copy of the models identification document, a copy of the actual depiction? which I still have not seen where it specifies what constitutes an ?acceptable? copy of such a depiction (other than when referring to live performances), and where the depiction is published. I don?t see where it says anywhere that having name and age verification written into a model release/waiver voids the 2257 info (or the release/waiver) and/or will result in a violation of the record keeping requirements. Now perhaps this is all open to interpretation. If that?s the case, could someone please break this down for me and explain how someone could interpret these statements to mean this?

This is what I do, it may simplify this for you. You really seem to be over examining what you need to do in order to be 2257 compliant.

First you need to make sure you have a 2257 compliant model release. I am not an attorney but I do know what it takes to be compliant so i would be happy to review your release.

second you need to have a digital or copied image of the models IDs (2 forms, 1 has to be photo and state or federal like a DL or passport), i use an ID form to photo copy the IDs onto and have the model sign it.

I then take a photo of the model holding both of there IDs next to there head on either side so yo see the IDs and the depiction of the model.

Once you have this paperwork you are nearly compliant. Now all you have to do is put the address of where you store the documents onto your Websites and DVDs. Here is my compliance page, every website has to have one in order to be compliant.

http://smokieflamexxx.com/2257.php

I hope this helps simplify this for you. I had 1 thing going for me before I started filming, I had already filled out over 300 model releases so I knew what was up hehe. Again I must stress I did spend ALOT of money as did alot of others on here to make sure our paperwork is fully legal, you dont have to use an attorney but i recommend it highly.

Smokieflamexxx.com

I understand all that. My confusion is over the 2257 doc being written in/combined with the model release. Is your 2257 part written separately from your model release?

If you give me your email I'll send you a copy of the release I've been using.

My bad... I thought you were talking about a copy of the scene/picture.

As for the separate 2257 doc, you are correct - there is no specific language stating that it needs to be a separate doc however, it is advisable that you do not give more information than is called for in the 28 CFR 75. It is also industry standard. Its not a fatal flaw but it makes record keeping easier and cleaner. And if they do not ask for it, I wouldnt put it in.

Here is two examples of too much info as well... dont get mad Smokey .. you are in the 90% of people in the indsutry that do overkill on this...

All the law calls for is 1 ID, not 2, but most people make that mistake as well. Also you do not have to have the model sign the ID. Nothing in the language of 28 CFR 75 calls for 2 IDs or an ID signature.

This is also completely unnecessary for 18 USC 2257 and 28 CFR 75. There's no requirement for a pic of the model holding up the ID. Just get a really good color scan/digital picture of the 1 ID and you are good to go. The ID needs to have the model's DOB, DL # and her name and you have to be able to see all the facial features.

Putting in unnecessary info into the records may frustrate and annoy the DOJ/FBI inspectors. They want to see what they need to see and move on. The more you give them the harder their job is and the longer it takes. You want them to get what they need and leave.

I will never get mad at an attorney giving me legal advise hun. This is all very good to know, i would rather not annoy the feds if I ever get questioned. Thankfully we do have high rez copies of the IDs and our model release itself if we ever have to show our proof. I guess it is always best to follow the KISS rule, keep it simple stupid.