You ask a very detailed question which is beyond the scope of me answering it on a board for no fee.
So that I don't seem to be using lawyer-speak to avoid the question, my general answer is:
The purchaser of the content (there are no more 'primary' or 'secondary" producers; everyone is a producer) can rely on the records given to them by the seller.
The best advice I can give is to keep the whole house in order. Keep good records, file honest tax returns and pay taxes, don't hire hookers and call them "test shoots", and generally run an honest business.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LFCII
Dear Chad;
Thank You for the information. You have stated clearly some of the most important issues with regards to record keeping without any of the usual jibber jabber.
Arguable, we have been living in fantasyland in regards to the current U.S. administration on this subject.
Title 18 Part 75 Section 75.2 (e) states that records required to be maintained must be separated from all others. Since the law and regs only ask for ID at the time of shooting and assumes from there that the time of production is the same (there is no law or reg that asked for further proof of production), adding the model release could become a violation. Fantasyland? Maybe, but, please read my first sentence.
The whole purpose of the rewrite of the law and regs by the current administration was to make it ambiguous, redundant and conflicting enough to prosecute on a whim.
My Question;
The law and the regs do not ask for actual proof of production to be recorded. It is assumed the production date is the same as the date the id was documented. It has always been based on goodwill. The law and regs only ask for specific tasks be recored based on the production date and not proof of the production date. (yes, I did state the same thing three times.)
Thus, how does a secondary producers comply with part 75.2 (1) if they are only required to produce id?
The current law and regs seem to be written in a way that they do not require information that would make then unconstitutional, but, rather ask you to voluntarily give the information.
Kind Regards,
Les
|