There has been a lot of chatter today about a recent court decision. Some have inappropriately said that FSC defeated the 2257 regulations. That isn’t true. This claim is rather misleading and potentially dangerous.
The full court decision can be viewed at www2.ca3.uscourts.gov/opinarch/183188p.pdf
The part I want to highlight is this ….
“The plaintiffs’ as-applied claims do not show that the Statutes are invalid as applied to all producers covered by the Statutes. Most critically, the successful as-applied plaintiffs often feature older individuals in their sexually explicit depictions — a factual circumstance at the center of their successful as-applied claims and one which sets the plaintiffs apart from the more typical category of pornographers who rely on young-looking performers. Furthermore, the successful as-applied plaintiffs are not what may be considered ordinary pornographers…. The plaintiffs’ meritorious as-applied claims, thus, were not a sound basis to enjoin enforcement of the Statutes’ unconstitutional requirements against all other producers of sexually explicit depictions, whose circumstances may be different.”
“Accordingly, we will vacate the District Court’s order entering a nationwide injunction and remand for the entry of relief limited to the successful as-applied plaintiffs.”
While I’m no legal expert it appears to me that the court affirmed some relief to the FSC itself, and to the other plaintiffs, but reversed the relief to everyone else.
The press release issued by the FSC may lead everyone else to assume that they’re off the hook for 2257 regulations but that isn’t what the court ruling says at all. It’s only specific to the plaintiffs.
The original plaintiffs include Free Speech Coalition, American Society of Media Photographers, Thomas Hymes, Townsend Enterprises, Sinclair Institute, Barabar Alper, Carold Queen, Barabara Nitke, David Steinberg, Nina Hartley, Dave Levingston, Betty Dodson, and Carlin Ross.
This press release is dangerous because it could lead folks to assume they don’t need to keep up with 2257 documentation.
That isn’t the case and if you aren’t one of the plaintiffs you absolutely better make sure your 2257 docs are in order because if you read the ruling carefully it nowhere mentions any protections or relief for anyone other than the FSC and the other listed plaintiffs.
Despite what anyone else may be reporting, do not fail to get the proper model releases and 2257 documentation for any and every scene you are involved in.