Ken Marcus Studios wrote:
When I think of all the man-hours and resources that I've expended recording, printing, filing and preserving 2257 paperwork since the mid 90's  . . . what a waste !

I share your pain.  The legal fees, the mountain of paper, the cross-referencing, the lost weekends up to my eyeballs in red tape just so I can take a g'dam photograph.  And now, my heart felt gratitude goes out to those who championed our cause.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
The OP and others involved in fighting this deserve a medal

Amen to that!

LA StarShooter wrote:
This is a free speech coalition case and the court filing can be found here of the details of the judges decision. Here is the site: https://www.freespeechcoalition.com/blo … ping-case/

Thank you for sharing that link. I hadn't seen the FSC story. And it's helpful that they included the judgement document in their post. Glad it's available on line now.

Brooklyn Bridge Images wrote:
The OP and others involved in fighting this deserve a medal

At minimum, a paid for ...  open bar 

Weldphoto wrote:
Thanks for those who took the bull by the horns and brought this over zealous law to an end.  Freedom is not free - it is our collective responsibility to help preserve it on all its forms. We all are grateful.

+1

I personally don’t have a goal to produce images that meet the requirements, my concern is more about how our personal freedoms are constantly being chiseled away.  As the linked article stated, 2257 was never about curbing child pornography. I also greatly appreciate all the work people have done to overturn this horrible legislation.

DaveL wrote:
I am one of the named plaintiffs in a lawsuit, originally filed in 2009, seeking to have the laws commonly known as 2257 and 2257A declared to be unconstitutional.

We have finally won that lawsuit.

The judge has issued a ruling that says the laws are unconstitutional in nearly every aspect and has issued an injunction preventing the government from enforcing all but one provision of the laws.

The sole remaining requirement from these laws is the requirement to check the identifications of models to confirm that they are at least 18 years old. I don’t think anyone has a problem with that requirement.

A little more detail:

The court has struck down under the First Amendment the recordkeeping requirements; struck down the labeling requirements; struck down the applications of the statutes to secondary producers, who do not actually produce the images but publish depictions produced by others; and struck down the criminal penalties, which included prison terms and large fines, except for primary producers who fail to check ID’s of performers.  In addition, the court struck down the inspection provisions of the statutory scheme under the Fourth Amendment.

The government may still appeal this ruling, but as it stands now 2257 and 2257A have been struck down in all but the requirement to check IDs. Other than that one provision the court has enjoined the government from enforcing the provisions of the law.

Congratulations!

Now about all the permits and fees to shoot in public for other styles, right?!!!