gregorygarver.com

godged5497 · Joined: 14 Mar 2006 Posts: 10

It requires a PHOTOCOPY of the model's drivers liscence with EVERY photo which is sold or resold or published online.This means that you can go to content resellers, say you're an adult business, and obtain the models' personal information (and even social security number, if they have that on their drivers liscence).I've done this. It's easy. I think this opens alot of doors to identity theft.There is NO stipulation which gives the model ANY control out of this after she has signed the model release and had her IDs copied. This law might be half way fair, if it stipulated that the model must sign a NEW release every time her images change hands so she could atleast have some control of who sees HER personal info.It still leaves out the issue that if she starts a site herself that she has to have her HOME ADDRESS online.... as it requires that the name and PHYSICAL ADDRESS where "2257 records may be obtained" be linked from the front page of your website.Is this unconstitutional?

JerichoParker · Joined: 08 Feb 2005 Posts: 2

As long as I can carry an AK-47, I don't need privacy. Note:sarcasm.

sspice5757 · Joined: 12 Feb 2007 Posts: 6

i agree with you

ItzLaLa3 · Joined: 27 Sep 2004 Posts: 4

Who are you Sherlock Holmes?

punkrockdude · Joined: 01 Jun 2004 Posts: 5

If I was arguing it, I wouldn't attack it on privacy grounds. I'd attack it first as violation of compelled speech, since it compels the person to publicly express (reveal) specific personal information about themselves.I'd also attack it as not being narrowly tailored to serve the government interest, since there are less restrictive means to ensure that a model's pictures are actually of an adult.Oh, if only there were some organization that helped people whose constitutional rights were being infringed by government action....