data:image/s3,"s3://crabby-images/95f6b/95f6bb5aad73058cb3122c093b68a26d2a93b17e" alt=""
Here's a big shout out of congratulations to the Free Speech Coalition for tackling a HUGE issue that has become a bitter fact of life for our American photographic compatriots. Specifically, the dreaded 2557 and 2557a legislation.
If you aren't familiar with the 2557 saga, photographer
Dave Levingston who sent in this link and who describes himself as one of the "et al" named in the suit, describes it thusly:
In short this clearly unconstitutional law violates the guarantee of free speech contained in the Bill of Rights by making it a felony to fail to follow obscure, complicated and unclear procedures for record keeping for many types of completely legal photographs…and other forms of artistic expression such as painting and drawing. That’s right, it’s not just about photography. The idea behind this law appears to be to make it so impossible to follow the law that people will stop producing perfectly legal art work and at the same time make it possible for the government to pretty much charge anyone whose work they don’t like with a felony. Conviction can result in a 5-year prison sentence and designation as a sex offender.
The law requires that you keep detailed, cross-referenced records of all the models you work with for those images. You also must publish a statement of where those records are maintained with each publication (including on the web) of any of those images. And those records must be available for unannounced inspection by federal agents at least 20 hours a week, every week. That’s right, if you maintain the records yourself you not only must publish your address, but you also can never go on vacation because you have to be there 20 hours every week in case an inspector wants to visit unannounced. Oh…and during that inspection they are permitted to look around for anything that they might consider a violation of any law, not just 2257A. So you have effectively given up your constitutional protection against warrantless searches.Read more about the lawsuit here:
FSC Challenges 2257 and 2257A in U.S. District Court in Philadelphia