Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > RFF Polls

View Poll Results: Is California Senate Bill 606 a good law or a bad law?
This is a good law 8 5.30%
This is a bad law 86 56.95%
This law is neither good or bad 10 6.62%
Children must be protected from photographers at all costs 3 1.99%
This law is a travesty - it violates the First Amendment 52 34.44%
Politicians should have carte blanche to say what is a legitimate form of photography 2 1.32%
Why does the gov't. get to photograph us with impunity while outlawing other forms of photography? 37 24.50%
Photographers have no right to photograph children even in public 2 1.32%
This law is okay but news photographers should have a special exemption 1 0.66%
It's high time that politicians put photographers in their place 4 2.65%
Politicians have no legitimate authority to decide what photography "serves no legitimate purpose" 54 35.76%
Politicians can do whatever they want once they are in office 4 2.65%
Multiple Choice Poll. Voters: 151. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Old 08-15-2013   #41
willie_901
Registered User
 
willie_901's Avatar
 
willie_901 is offline
Join Date: Dec 2005
Posts: 5,319
1. It's not a law at this time.

2. It's unconstitutional.

3. It' impractical. Try taking tourist shots of Disneyland, Fisherman's Wharf, any professional sporting event, a wedding, etc, etc, without having a single child in the shot.

4. Don't worry about it.
__________________
Basically, I mean, ah—well, let’s say that for me anyway when a photograph is interesting, it’s interesting because of the kind of photographic problem it states—which has to do with the . . . contest between content and form.
Garry Winogrand
williamchuttonjr.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #42
Lawrence Sheperd
Registered User
 
Lawrence Sheperd's Avatar
 
Lawrence Sheperd is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Location: Charleston SC
Age: 60
Posts: 344
Would sitting on a park bench with your camera be considered "lying in wait?"

Slippery, slippery slope...
__________________
Regards,

Larry
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #43
redisburning
-
 
redisburning is offline
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 1,580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
It's a real pity that "civilised" countries don't require 51% of all voters to back any new statute.

Just think of the paper, ink and hot air it would save...

well, I am not so convinced that this is even close to a good idea.

I would ask that you consider the effect of electing judges. Because what then happens is that people who the majority group don't like get punished unfairly. A good example of that happening is the application of sex offender laws in Florida to a female high school student who was in a consensual homosexual relationship with another high school student at the behest of the second girl's parents which landed her in jail. Some justic

Or consider the case in Texas, where I happen to live currently. Around here, the legislature ignores Roe v. Wade to appease the majority. Almost as bad is the effort to, in textbooks, offer creationism (which intelligent design is not in name only) as an alternative to evolution despite 100% of the available evidence supporting evolution, the removal of the near-genocide of native-americans at the hands of an exclusively white government and rewriting the role of religion in the founding of the nation and in the enlightened age in general. these are facts, plain and simple, under attack from a majority.

Frankly if it took 51% of the population to pass anything important we STILL wouldn't have the 14th amendment. Common sense tramples the truth and it tramples justice because it is the common sense only of the majority group. Which is why we had appointed Senators who could, in theory, be above the pressures of reelection by an electorate furious with them for giving blacks or women or homosexuals or ... closer to a fairer share of their rights.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #44
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,572
I'am curious to know who voted this as a good law? I can certainly see the negatives but can't possibly see how it's any good. Some one being cynical much??
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #45
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by redisburning View Post
well, I am not so convinced that this is even close to a good idea.

I would ask that you consider the effect of electing judges. Because what then happens is that people who the majority group don't like get punished unfairly. A good example of that happening is the application of sex offender laws in Florida to a female high school student who was in a consensual homosexual relationship with another high school student at the behest of the second girl's parents which landed her in jail. Some justic

Or consider the case in Texas, where I happen to live currently. Around here, the legislature ignores Roe v. Wade to appease the majority. Almost as bad is the effort to, in textbooks, offer creationism (which intelligent design is not in name only) as an alternative to evolution despite 100% of the available evidence supporting evolution, the removal of the near-genocide of native-americans at the hands of an exclusively white government and rewriting the role of religion in the founding of the nation and in the enlightened age in general. these are facts, plain and simple, under attack from a majority.

Frankly if it took 51% of the population to pass anything important we STILL wouldn't have the 14th amendment. Common sense tramples the truth and it tramples justice because it is the common sense only of the majority group. Which is why we had appointed Senators who could, in theory, be above the pressures of reelection by an electorate furious with them for giving blacks or women or homosexuals or ... closer to a fairer share of their rights.
Good points all. The 'founding fathers' wanted nothing to do with democracy in its purest form, which is essentially mob rule. That's the significance of the Bill of Rights, fundamental protections that cannot be legislated or voted away.

Of course, as our current government demonstrates every day, that document is not worth much at the moment.

Going back to the question at hand, there is no reason that current laws cannot be enforced, without singling out reporters and photographers. In the current case, I cannot imagine that a squad of LA cops would not delight in beating the sh-t out of an aggressive photographer, especially if they could say they were protecting Halle Berry's kids! Who needs any new laws?

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #46
Harry Caul
Registered User
 
Harry Caul is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 242
As a father of 2, I should be sympathetic...

However, it sure seems that the movie stars are the ones putting their kids into these situations. No it's not the kids fault, but it's not the photographers fault either. If you don't want to be in the tabloids, move out of Hollywood. There are plenty of stars who do this and live perfectly normal, paparrazi-free lives. If you need/want to be in the tabloids for your career/ego, but don't want your kids to be... tough. You can't have it both ways so stop trying to restrict our collective rights through your political connections for your own convenience.
__________________
Plaubel 670, Rolleiflex 2.8E2 Planar, Polaroid 195, Leica M3, Contax G2, Olympus OM-D
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #47
zauhar
Registered User
 
zauhar's Avatar
 
zauhar is offline
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Posts: 2,105
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sejanus.Aelianus View Post
True. Mind you, I've noticed that "the mob" always consists of people whose opinions you don't like...

Well, that's very true, but also the point, correct?

After all, weren't there very good and defensible reasons for killing Socrates? I could imagine people today making the very same arguments.

Randy
__________________
Philadelphia, PA
Leica M3/50mm DR Summicron/21mm SuperAngulon/
90mm Elmarit
Canon 7/50mm f1.4
Leica IIIf/Summitar/Collapsible Summicron
Yashica Electro 35
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #48
jsrockit
Moderator
 
jsrockit's Avatar
 
jsrockit is offline
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Santiago, Chile
Age: 46
Posts: 19,954
Quote:
Originally Posted by Harry Caul View Post
However, it sure seems that the movie stars are the ones putting their kids into these situations. No it's not the kids fault, but it's not the photographers fault either. If you don't want to be in the tabloids, move out of Hollywood.
Good point.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #49
cosmonaut
Registered User
 
cosmonaut's Avatar
 
cosmonaut is offline
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: North Georgia
Posts: 1,207
Before GPS tracking info was included in image files I would have said this is a bad law. But with today's technology and the world we live in now I lean the other way. Our rights to any privacy are slowly slipping away.
__________________
Cosmo
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #50
Harry Caul
Registered User
 
Harry Caul is offline
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 242
Quote:
Originally Posted by jsrockit View Post
Good point.
I mean, can't a mom in a red Ferrari and a 2-black-SUV security detail just drop off her kids in peace?
__________________
Plaubel 670, Rolleiflex 2.8E2 Planar, Polaroid 195, Leica M3, Contax G2, Olympus OM-D
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #51
oftheherd
Registered User
 
oftheherd's Avatar
 
oftheherd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 7,917
Quote:
Originally Posted by j j View Post
Petapixel knows how to push the moral panic buttons. What part of your photography needs to “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.” ?
Agreed, but with many children that will be reported by the aggreived parent.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Frontman View Post
...

The problem is that there is no specific definition for "seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes" nor is the term "no legitimate purpose" very specific. And exactly how does one measure "substantial emotional distress"? Children suffer "substantial emotional distress" if the ice cream truck fails to stop when they wave; should the ice cream man be charged for causing a child emotional distress if he fails to stop? I suffered substantial emotional distress when I was a child whenever Santa didn't bring the gift I wanted, should my parents have been charged with a crime?

It seems we are becoming a nation of weak and silly fools.
Another good point. This shouldn't be left to be fought out in multiple court decisions.

Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I still fail to see what possible harm can one do to a child by taking picture of him in public place. Can anyone enlighten me?
It probably isn't so much the taking of a photo, but the method used to get the photo, such as yelling obscenities, or startling a child by jumping out from behind a bush, or impeding a child's progress to school in a way that frightens the child. Most people would not support that type of activity.

My take on the law (which as pointed out, isn't apparently a law yet:

Quote:

Any person who intentionally harasses the child or ward of any other person because of that person’s employment

So berserker mom is going to have a hard time if she can't claim the photo was taken because of her employment.

“Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both

Must be a specific child, not just someone in the neighborhood. Serves no legitimate purpose - the courts will have fun interpreting that.

“Employment” means the job, vocation, occupation, or profession of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward.

So berserker mom is somewhat constrained.

Upon a violation of this section, the parent or legal guardian of an aggrieved child or ward, may bring a civil action against the violator on behalf of the child or ward for actual damages, disgorgement of profits, all compensation received in connection with the sale, license, or dissemination of a recording of the child’s image or voice, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Except as noted below.

(e) The act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute a violation of this section.

So the publisher who pays the paps, and the news that report it, are protected. What a double standard. Money talks.
__________________
My Gallery
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #52
nikonosguy
Registered User
 
nikonosguy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 925
WWRPD?

(What would Roman Polanski Do?)
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #53
Guaranteed
Registered User
 
Guaranteed's Avatar
 
Guaranteed is offline
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 236
I found Halle Berry's concern with "dignity" rather amusing.

After all isn't this the same Halle Berry that first refused to do the topless scene in Swordfish, only later to air them out when offered and extra 500K bonus?

I guess dignity has a price for the Hollyweird crowd, maybe the paps should offer them a piece of the action.
__________________
Christian
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #54
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
That legislation would potentially subject operators of security and surveillance cameras in public places to lawsuits.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #55
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,733
Yeah, I can see it now. A family from another state is vacationing in LA, and when they take a picture of THEIR child, they get arrested because someone else's is in the picture...

What a bunch of pinheads these guys are.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #56
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
 
Al Patterson is offline
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Columbus GA USA
Age: 63
Posts: 2,733
Quote:
Originally Posted by nikonosguy View Post
WWRPD?

(What would Roman Polanski Do?)
Let's not go there...

Funny thinking it through though.
__________________
Al Patterson

Canon QL17 GIII
Leica CL 40mm Summicron-C 50mm Hexanon
Yashica Electro 35 GSN
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #57
Gumby
Registered User
 
Gumby is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
I still fail to see what possible harm can one do to a child by taking picture of him in public place. Can anyone enlighten me?
It has little to do with the photograph itself. It has more to do with the mob mentality of the photographers, and somewhat to do with sensitivity toward those who choose to be in the public limellight and those who are unkowingly born into that limelight. It isn't always fair to those who those who inherit celebrity status to be subjected to situations where they cannot lead a normal life. I am sympathetic to the issue, but don't see this kind of bill as the best answer. Perhps a good investor would put money tinto stock for companies who make longer telephoto lenses and spy cameras... because the market for celebrity (and celebrity kid) pictures is still there and the papparazzi still need to pay their bills.
__________________
With kind regards, ed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #58
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,034
Quote:
Originally Posted by Snapper_uk View Post
Ah, but who makes the celebrities? Who buys the magazines and papers the publishes paparazzi pictures? If people weren't so eager to gobble up celebrity culture, there would be no celebrities.

Don't blame their kids for that.
I'm with you entirely on this point. I don't blame these kids but they and their parents are the direct beneficiaries of 'the good life' showered on them by their adoring fans. If these celebrities don't like the way they're treated, let them go back to making starving-artist wages in their local theater group. The paparazzi will not bother them there.

In my opinion, this proposed law is another knee-jerk response by a special interest group that we see too much of these days. These celebrities can obtain lawful restraining orders to deal with their individual circumstances, but they must not be allowed to take away my Constitutional rights to get what they want.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #59
Gumby
Registered User
 
Gumby is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by oftheherd View Post
Agreed, ...
Money talks... and star-struck legislators (and many others) listen to loud celebrities, whether the speak the majority opinion or not.
__________________
With kind regards, ed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #60
nikonosguy
Registered User
 
nikonosguy is offline
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 925
i think the south park episode where britney spears is sacrificed for the good of the crops is relevant here
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #61
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
It has little to do with the photograph itself. It has more to do with the mob mentality of the photographers, and somewhat to do with sensitivity toward those who choose to be in the public limellight and those who are unkowingly born into that limelight. It isn't always fair to those who those who inherit celebrity status to be subjected to situations where they cannot lead a normal life. I am sympathetic to the issue, but don't see this kind of bill as the best answer. Perhps a good investor would put money tinto stock for companies who make longer telephoto lenses and spy cameras... because the market for celebrity (and celebrity kid) pictures is still there and the papparazzi still need to pay their bills.

I was, and still am, under impression that the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully from public(!) places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Not that it matter to a general public, but this effectively kills the street photography, we have to at least recognise that.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #62
CK Dexter Haven
Registered User
 
CK Dexter Haven is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 1,444
I was in favor of the legislation, but only from hearing a small bit about it. Now that i'm reading this, though, it just seems problematic. I wonder why they can't just limit the issue to the predatory paparazzi? Or, prohibit the sale of such images, which might curtail the making of them. This measure seems to include too many incidental captures of childrens' likenesses, and the ambiguity of "legitimate purpose" makes it a matter for attorneys to debate ad infinitum. Why can't it just be clearly specified, and tailored to address the simple problem?

I've only been an Cali/LA resident for a year, but i've long felt paparazzi are a disgusting nuisance. Society doesn't need 'spy shots' and inciting incidents involving people in the entertainment industry. And the consumers who feast upon those images and articles aren't much better than the snipers.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #63
Gumby
Registered User
 
Gumby is offline
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 2,554
Quote:
Originally Posted by MIkhail View Post
..., but this effectively kills the street photography, we have to at least recognise that.
I think you are overthinking this, and worrying too much... unless you are the kind of street photographer who photographs "the Beeb", Suri, and the like.

Not only has this not bill not yet been passed, but the courts haven't had a chance to prove that it is poorly written.

Me... I'm not at all concerned, but I am very amused by it!
__________________
With kind regards, ed.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #64
Brian Legge
Registered User
 
Brian Legge is offline
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 2,685
I don't get why this is a partisan issue.

Can we agree that a 5 year old should be able to be in public without being rushed by 20 photographers, followed around, harrassed constantly, etc?

If so, what differentiates that from more typical street photography and what laws could be put in place which permit one and prohibits the other?
__________________
Shooting whatever I can get my hands on.
Recent Work
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #65
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gumby View Post
I think you are overthinking this, and worrying too much... unless you are the kind of street photographer who photographs "the Beeb", Suri, and the like.

Not only has this not bill not yet been passed, but the courts haven't had a chance to prove that it is poorly written.

Me... I'm not at all concerned, but I am very amused by it!
I am glad I could amuse you.
My web site shows what kind of photographer I am.
BUT, if I choose to photograph the beeb, whoever that is, I should be able to. Just like I should be able to phtograph an unknown old lady on a bench IN PUBLIC PARK feeding pigeons. If you leaving this up to a discresion of policeman watching me to differentiate which one I can and cannot phtograph... then god help us.
Or, of course, I can always resot to photographing my Leica (with lenses, without lenses, on a table, on a bench...). It seems to be a very popular subject too.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #66
ZeissFan
Registered User
 
ZeissFan is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Posts: 3,211
Politicians (most are lawyers) continue to edge us ever closer to a totalitarian police state. And liberal Democrats are the worst in their efforts to "protect" us.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #67
Lauffray
Invisible Cities
 
Lauffray's Avatar
 
Lauffray is offline
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Montreal
Age: 31
Posts: 1,434
Quote:
Montreal is very pleasant, a tad chilly in the winter.
That's an understatement
And no, we don't have more favourable photography laws here
__________________

WebsiteFlickrInsta
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #68
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
Quote:
Originally Posted by Brian Legge View Post
I don't get why this is a partisan issue.
Because some people can't see anything except through partisan blinkers.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #69
pakeha
Registered User
 
pakeha is offline
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: South Pacific
Posts: 901
There is always Cuba
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #70
Scrambler
Registered User
 
Scrambler's Avatar
 
Scrambler is offline
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Toowoomba
Posts: 1,279
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rick Waldroup View Post
Would this ridiculous law stop street photographers from taking wonderful shots like this one? Even though this was not shot in the U.S., this great photo by one of our members, Clayne, captures the sheer joy of kids, acting, well, like kids.....

http://www.rangefinderforum.com/rffg...photoid=213628
I doubt it. The kids don't look particularly harassed.

It's hard for me to see this affecting anyone who isn't genuinely harassing kids. Consider that in France you have an absolute right to prevent the use of your own likeness. Technically any photo in France with an identifiable person in it needs to have a signed release from each and every "subject." But tourists don't get prosecuted.

De minimis non curat lex: the law doesn't concern itself with trifles.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #71
Melvin
Flim Forever!
 
Melvin's Avatar
 
Melvin is offline
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 434
Childwithhandgrenadedianearbus.jpg

If you pass this law I'll pull the pin!

Photo credit: Diane Arbus
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #72
semilog
curmudgeonly optimist
 
semilog's Avatar
 
semilog is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 3,671
^---------slm WINS THE THREAD.
__________________
There are two kinds of photographers:
those who are interested in what a particular camera can't do,
and those who are interested in what it can do.

semilog.smugmug.com | flickr.com/photos/semilog/
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #73
Frontman
Registered User
 
Frontman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2009
Location: 東京日本
Posts: 1,684
Some years ago I met Paul Newman. He came into a shop where I happened to be working at the time, and he bought a pair of silver earrings. He was walking alone, no security detail, no paparazzi, just an ordinary guy. I suppose he wasn't such a popular subject, as he never raced around drunk in his car, got into fights with fans or bouncers, or was never arrested for drugs or beating his wife.

Many celebrities seem to invite the attention of the public and the paparazzi by living like hedonistic and egotistical fools. If they didn't do anything newsworthy, perhaps they wouldn't be followed around by a flock of picture-taking vultures wherever they went.

I can sympathize a little, but not so much, I can't stand to hear someone complain about their life when thay make as much money filming a single movie as 20 other people earn in their lifetimes combined.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-15-2013   #74
xxloverxx
Shoot.
 
xxloverxx is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 606
If art serves no legitimate purpose, I suggest they start by banning and taking down every display of art in the state, including those in areas of worship.

Controversy is part of what makes art beautiful.
__________________
http://hugopoon.smugmug.com
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #75
mfunnell
Shaken, so blurred
 
mfunnell's Avatar
 
mfunnell is offline
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Sydney, Australia
Posts: 2,460
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrambler View Post
De minimis non curat lex: the law doesn't concern itself with trifles.
Until someone with power decides to trifle with you.

...Mike
__________________
There is a very fine line between "hobby" and "mental illness." Dave Barry

My flickr photostream has day-to-day stuff and I've given up most everywhere else through lack of time or perhaps interest.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #76
starless
Registered User
 
starless is offline
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 269
Obviously this bill will not pass in its current form ...
__________________
VitaObscura
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #77
Texsport
Registered User
 
Texsport's Avatar
 
Texsport is offline
Join Date: Feb 2010
Posts: 521
Stupid laws are passed to make stupid people feel safe.

Texsport
__________________
"The top selling beer in America is Bud Light, followed by Budweiser, Miller Light and Natural Light. We are officially feminized". Joe Soucheray - Minneapolis, Minnesota.

This discussion is a perfect illustration of what I constantly tell my wife - you can never have enough cameras, lenses, guns, or golf clubs - oh, and diamonds, according to her! - Texsport

"That girl can make a dog break his chain!" - Justified - 2015.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #78
ChipMcD
Registered User
 
ChipMcD is offline
Join Date: Oct 2010
Location: East Coast USA
Posts: 479
Quote:
Originally Posted by mugent View Post
In fairness, this is more of an anit-harrasment bill,rather than an anti-photographer bill. The problem is, as with most laws, interpretation.

I can't help thinking that celebrities who have been affected by invasive photographers would be better served with some kind of injunction against the publishing newspapers, if there is no market for the photos, then the paps won't bother.

I think being surrounded by photographers when you take your kids to school *is* harassment, and there are already laws in place to deal with that.
The problem with this solution is that, from the standpoint of First Amendment prior restraint, it's even worse than the statute proposed. Maybe the next injuction will be to prohibit publication of anything that causes serious emotional distress to members of Congress.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #79
DNG
Film Friendly
 
DNG's Avatar
 
DNG is offline
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Indianapolis, Indiana. USA
Age: 65
Posts: 2,985
So, This law was written because of "Movie Stars" getting tired of the Paparazzi being totally annoying... right (RE: Post #1) right?

So way extend this law to the full Public ?

Just keep it for the Paparazzi who do nothing but try to catch candid images of FAMOUS PEOPLE! If they must make a law...

Why penalize everyone else?

BUT, the law is wrong regardless...

If the Photographer is on Public Land, then they have a right to photograph anything the camera can see from that vantage point... BUT, common sense also should be used, and not "Invade" a persons privacy who are on their private property... where is the "Line" ??? Photographer on Public land, Subject on Private land ....... ????

This law may be tiring to draw a "Line" in the sand...
But, it is seems to be too broad in scope and interpretation... it needs to be more specialized. or REPEALED IF PASSED BY ELECTION


EDIT: ADDED:
Don't Paparazzi hide on the Neighbors Private Property many times... In my area, that is Trespassing if I am told to get off the property and refuse to.

If nobody says anything, it is not trespassing (in a legal sense)... But, still... they are not on public property....

In most areas in the USA, if you are asked to leave, and refuse to leave... that is a trespassing offense. there are a few other qualifiers also, like blocking the entrance etc...


__________________
Nikon F, F2, D200
Yashica A TLR
My Portfolio
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-16-2013   #80
Highway 61
Revisited
 
Highway 61's Avatar
 
Highway 61 is offline
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,799
Quote:
Originally Posted by Scrambler View Post
Consider that in France you have an absolute right to prevent the use of your own likeness. Technically any photo in France with an identifiable person in it needs to have a signed release from each and every "subject."
Things are more complex than what you write. It depends on where the photo was taken (public or private place), how "bad" can the situation displayed be for the person photographed, what is done with the photograph (published or not).

And there is no actual law behind that - only casual right (jurisprudentia).
__________________

  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 21:26.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.