Quote:
Originally Posted by BoyAlley
Uhm...............................
ok.
1. They "technically" didn't ask for 2257, because although their original email to him didn't say so, they came back and said the IDs JUST needed to show pic and DOB and everything else could be edited out. Whether that's still a violation of privacy laws I have no idea.
2. He was gathering docs, because they gave him several days (until the 18th I think) to show them, but turned him off the next morning, something like 5 days early.
3. Your understanding that "anyone" is entitled to your actual 2257 records is seriously flawed and likely to get you into trouble.
4. I hope for your own sake your model releases specifically allow you to pass out the types of personal identifications that you're apparently handing around like candy. And, even if it does,
5. If you're really producing content, and these are your views, I suggest you consult with an attorney. It sounds to me like you could use some guidance....
|
I am sorry if you misunderstood my post, I guess my wording was a little open to drama queen interpretation ... but I never said I would give out 2257 docs, and I am not basing my views on what he said she said they did like you appear to be. If they asked for id's, then yeah that would be a prob, but we have to be able to prove we have 2257 docs to anyone who asks & this case if a big fat example of the flaws in the process and our lack of understanding (yours included) of how the processes work. While everyone would bring attorney's in for the major items or anything that appears like it might become an issue, this appears to have been a minor situation that just got handled badly by staff who aren't lawyers & didn't know better.
And in continuing with that trend of ignorance, we have a bunch of pornographers arguing about how the law applies in a case we aren't involved in ... We should all be mouths closed/ears open with this case because whatever happens, its a set of laws that haven't really been tested yet.