MicrostockGroup
Microstock Photography Forum - General => General Photography Discussion => Topic started by: ProArtwork on April 12, 2013, 22:41
-
Vermont was trying to introduce a bill making it illegal to take a photograph of a person without his or her consent. But for what I understand the bill is unofficially dead!
More here: http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/04/proposed-vermont-bill-will-not-outlaw-photographing-people-without-their-permission-upd (http://www.popphoto.com/news/2013/04/proposed-vermont-bill-will-not-outlaw-photographing-people-without-their-permission-upd)
-
but then they realised they'd have to take on Google? :-\
-
Given the fact that the courts have ruled that if you are in a public place your fair game to have your photo taken, I don't see this law going anywhere. Plus, lets look at the number of cameras that you see everyday in an urban environment. Almost every business you walk into your photo or likeness is taken and stored. If your in the city then the number of times your likeness is taken can be in the hundreds, if you in a rural environment then that would depend on the number of satellites and drones in the air at the time.
If there was a law to be enacted then every security and surveillance camera would have to be taken down. I don't think that will ever happen.
Just my 2 cents.
Have a great day!
Douglas.
-
any normal person with common sense could come to this conclusion within 5 minutes. Yet somehow, politicians are unable to show the same level of intelligence? meanwhile, they're drawing a salary....... ugh!
-
Given the fact that the courts have ruled that if you are in a public place your fair game to have your photo taken, I don't see this law going anywhere.
That's what I thought, too. However, after some reading that I've been doing lately, that may or not be the case. Apparently, first amendment laws regarding photography in public spaces vary depending upon which Circuit Court jurisdiction you are in. Take a look at the link below to see what I've been reading:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment (http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment)
I've also been spending quite a bit of time over on PINAC (http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/) lately, and I have to say, it's a scary world for photographers!
-
remembering of course that this is an American ruling. We are heading into different times now where a global company like FB can impose USA rules of the entire planet (ie, the no 13 year old "law").
Hasn't France tried to rule out street photography too?
-
remembering of course that this is an American ruling. We are heading into different times now where a global company like FB can impose USA rules of the entire planet (ie, the no 13 year old "law").
Hasn't France tried to rule out street photography too?
Nope. More strict rules, yes. More lenient rules, no. Every country has its own laws, and if a US company wants to operate in that country, they would have to abide by the laws in that country. So maybe the 13 yr old rule is accepted elsewhere, but if they tried to be more lenient it wouldnt fly.
Look at Microsoft, they got fined by Europe for not following EU laws on offering more browsers in their software. Fined $732 Million Over Antitrust Law
-
England even thought it could impose one of its laws in Scotland.
So we had the glorious scene of a Scottish lawyer representing a Scottish newspaper on the Beeb stating categorically that "we are not subject to any foreign legislation".
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/salmonds-fury-at-bid-to-extend-english-superinjunctions-to-scotland.17171290 (http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/salmonds-fury-at-bid-to-extend-english-superinjunctions-to-scotland.17171290)
-
Here's another bunch of dopes making bad laws.
Steven Tyler testified at a legislative session in Hawaii on Friday to show support for an anti-paparazzi law that bears his name.
The so-called “Steven Tyler Act” would allow stars to sue photographers who use advanced equipment to snap “offensive” pics or videos of them while they’re on private property.
The bill — which was debated and later passed by Hawaii’s Senate Judiciary Committee — had written statements of support from other stars, including Britney Spears, the Osbournes and Avril Lavigne, among others.
This article says Private Property, which I could find acceptable. But then the actual law...
http://www.dailyedge.ie/hawaii-paparazzi-bill-778542-Feb2013/ (http://www.dailyedge.ie/hawaii-paparazzi-bill-778542-Feb2013/)
It does not specify places where pictures would be OK or whether public places would be exempt. The bill says it would apply to people who are take photos from boats or anywhere else within ocean waters.
So the prissy stars say one thing, about privacy and then the law says something different. Make the people agree that it's some personal issue and then take away all the rights, behind closed doors. Bait and switch. The citizens of Hawaii should be outraged at the attempt to take away their constitutional rights to take photos in Public Places.
-
This article says Private Property, which I could find acceptable. But then the actual law...
[url]http://www.dailyedge.ie/hawaii-paparazzi-bill-778542-Feb2013/[/url] ([url]http://www.dailyedge.ie/hawaii-paparazzi-bill-778542-Feb2013/[/url])
It does not specify places where pictures would be OK or whether public places would be exempt. The bill says it would apply to people who are take photos from boats or anywhere else within ocean waters.
So the prissy stars say one thing, about privacy and then the law says something different. Make the people agree that it's some personal issue and then take away all the rights, behind closed doors. Bait and switch. The citizens of Hawaii should be outraged at the attempt to take away their constitutional rights to take photos in Public Places.
Good point. I have no problem with the expectation of privacy on private property, but out in public, seems like it should be fair game.
I had a problem with the paparazzi climbing a cement privacy fence to shoot topless photos of Jennifer Aniston sunbathing in her back yard a few years ago, but if she had been doing it on a public beach then anybody should have the right to shoot that.
-
I continue to be amazed that some "Stars" believe that some things don't apply to them or that they should get special treatment. While I completely believe that being on private property should be a safe place, if your in public, your fair game.
I think the next problem we are going to see from the paparazzi is them using UAV's to get into those private property but technically not trespassing. I've already seen a number of prototypes that carry a full size DSL camera that is remotely controlled as well. Plus, don't get me started on the use of UAVs by the government agencies to view into that same private property.
That or we will see the use of the "Google" glasses to get photos.
It's a slippery slope that we are on for good or bad.
-
These (http://aerobot.com.au/cinestar-octocopter) have been available for quite some time.
-
I think it should be illegal to take Photos of anything except ducks on a pond in flat gray light. Everything else should be left to illustrators. ( having said this I Soooo want one of them Cinestar Octocopter things I would of course only take pictures of ducks with it.)
-
remembering of course that this is an American ruling. We are heading into different times now where a global company like FB can impose USA rules of the entire planet (ie, the no 13 year old "law").
Hasn't France tried to rule out street photography too?
Nope. More strict rules, yes. More lenient rules, no. Every country has its own laws, and if a US company wants to operate in that country, they would have to abide by the laws in that country. So maybe the 13 yr old rule is accepted elsewhere, but if they tried to be more lenient it wouldnt fly.
Look at Microsoft, they got fined by Europe for not following EU laws on offering more browsers in their software. Fined $732 Million Over Antitrust Law
my point was that due to an american law about not being allowed to collect info from under 13s most websites globally have had to adopt this rule, even though local jurisdictions haven't the same law (I think ours is 18!!).
If I use FB am i operating in US territory? Well I'd say no, because 1)I'm sitting here in Australia and 2) I'm not allowed to access some content that is US only. Ditto for iTunes. Yet the American "no under 13s" rule applies to us all, and most people love to tout that "the legal age for facebook is 13" even though it's not true, the legal age for an american company to collect info from a person is 13+. I don't think American companies try to abide by local laws, I think they try to railroad and change local laws to their way (surely we all want to be like "the land of the free"?) I'm not trying to turn this into an anti-US rant, I'm just pointing out that laws are way behind the ever-changing global online world. (unless you're in China)