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 08-18-2013   #81
E__WOK
Registered User
 
E__WOK is offline
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: San Francisco
Posts: 335
I wish there were more answer choices for the poll.


The celebrities need to stop whining. Replace Hallie Berry with Joe Blow off the street and this wouldn't even be on the news.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-19-2013   #82
MIkhail
Registered User
 
MIkhail's Avatar
 
MIkhail is offline
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Detroit, Michigan
Posts: 930
Quote:
Originally Posted by DNG View Post
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 ....... ????

Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations.
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


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

Can you give a clear definition of subjects of these group? I did not think so...
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #83
squareshooter
-
 
squareshooter is offline
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 226
Let's outlaw celebrities. They add nothing but blather and silicone to the public intercourse. What the tabaloid-reading public has added to our society is a new royalty that is allowed to murder people and rape kids and get by with it. Or am I being too subtle for you folks?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #84
sevo
Fokutorendaburando
 
sevo is offline
Join Date: Oct 2008
Location: Frankfurt, Germany
Posts: 6,364
And what written permissions (and by whom) will they require once they discover that the vast majority of bad, long term embarrassing (to the subject) photographs of children are made and distributed by their parents?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #85
rpsawin
RF Enthusiast
 
rpsawin's Avatar
 
rpsawin is offline
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 1,537
At best this is a well intentioned but poorly written bill...AT BEST. The problem with poorly worded laws is that they lead to poor enforcement. The cops can't ignore an infraction of a law because the law is poorly worded. The bill needs to be clear as to the issue it attempts to address and define clearly what constitute an infraction.

My $.02 fwiw.
__________________
Best regards,

Bob
CEO-CFO-EIEIO, Ret.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #86
rinzlerb
Registered User
 
rinzlerb's Avatar
 
rinzlerb is offline
Join Date: Sep 2011
Posts: 68
I think there are laws on the books already that could be more diligently enforced to protect children from photographic harassment, even celebrity children. This law is another case of people getting upset and making more legal clutter. And yes, I'm a very protective parent.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #87
jerrybro
Registered User
 
jerrybro is offline
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 38
I voted based on the headline, bad law. Then I read it, I'd like to change my vote. The law says a photographer can't chase down and harass a child because of who their parents are. Doesn't say you can't take pictures at Disneyworld. Doesn't say you cant take pictures at a playground. Doesn't say you can't take pictures at the beach. It does say you can't chase down some some kid with a famous last name at these places. To me, being a photographer and a stalker with a camera are different things.
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #88
stompyq
Registered User
 
stompyq is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: NYC
Posts: 1,557
Quote:
Originally Posted by jerrybro View Post
I voted based on the headline, bad law. Then I read it, I'd like to change my vote. The law says a photographer can't chase down and harass a child because of who their parents are. Doesn't say you can't take pictures at Disneyworld. Doesn't say you cant take pictures at a playground. Doesn't say you can't take pictures at the beach. It does say you can't chase down some some kid with a famous last name at these places. To me, being a photographer and a stalker with a camera are different things.
So what constitutes famous?
  Reply With Quote

Old 08-28-2013   #89
froyd
Registered User
 
froyd's Avatar
 
froyd is offline
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 2,088
I think this is fantastic and should be taken a step further, leave the plebe out of this and just ban photography of celebrities and their children. Death of tabloids, death of TMZ and its ilk, and death of the celebrity cult culture.

In a years time we'll see celebrities sue photographers brash enough NOT to photograph them, citing the great emotional and psychological distress of neglect.
  Reply With Quote

Old 09-12-2013   #90
kxl
Social Documentary
 
kxl's Avatar
 
kxl is offline
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Sunny SoCal
Posts: 2,982
From the CA Senate Rules Commitee:

SUPPORT : (Verified 5/20/13)

California National Organization for Women
California Police Chiefs Association
California State Sheriffs Association
Los Angeles Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa
State Coalition of Probation Organizations

OPPOSITION : (Verified 5/20/13)

Motion Picture Association of America


Now I'm getting a little verklempt. ... Discuss!
__________________
Keith
My Flickr Albums
RFF feedback


"... I thought the only way to give us an incentive, to bring hope, is to show the pictures of the pristine planet - to see the innocence. ― Sebastiao Salgado
  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 15:13.


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.