Jump to content

New Vermont Bill Would Make it Illegal to Photograph Anybody Without Consent


Recommended Posts

Yikes! I hope this does not get passed.   New Vermont Bill Would Make it Illegal to Photograph Anybody Without Consent

 

http://petapixel.com/2013/04/12/vermont-introduces-bill-that-would-make-it-illegal-to-photograph-a-person-without-consent/

 

L

 

 

Article is dated April 12, 2013 about a 'short form bill' introduced in February of that year.

 

Read the quote from Representative Bill Lippert of the House of Representatives at the end: "The House Judiciary Committee, of which I am Chair, has no plans to take up this bill for consideration."

 

Well.  That's that, then.

Edited by losdemas
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of days ago I got some nasty email from a street performer I photographed several times in 2014. Despite the fact that he was performing in a public park he demanded I remove all images of him from Alamy because he didn't give permission!  Somehow he believes I'm profiting from his struggle.

 

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone and everything in public and no model release is necessary for editorial use. If the law didn't work this way we wouldn't have a free press. Then to add insult to injury I discovered several other photographers have photos on Alamy of the same street performer. I wonder if they've received the same nasty email.

 

I know I was within my rights. I didn't defame him, invade his privacy, or make the images available for commercial use. Even so, I decided to delete the images on Alamy because dealing with people who don't want to be photographed are often more of a pain than the images are worth.

 

From https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo

 

When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. 

 

I doubt Vermont has the power to override the US Constitution.

Edited by fotoDogue
Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh for goodness' sake . . .

 

. . . the last line of the nearly-2-years-OLD article in question is:

 

"Looks like there’s no chance the bill will get turned into law in Vermont"

 

dd

  • Downvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Just a couple of days ago I got some nasty email from a street performer I photographed several times in 2014. Despite the fact that he was performing in a public park he demanded I remove all images of him from Alamy because he didn't give permission!  Somehow he believes I'm profiting from his struggle.

 

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone and everything in public and no model release is necessary for editorial use. If the law didn't work this way we wouldn't have a free press. Then to add insult to injury I discovered several other photographers have photos on Alamy of the same street performer. I wonder if they've received the same nasty email.

 

I know I was within my rights. I didn't defame him, invade his privacy, or make the images available for commercial use. Even so, I decided to delete the images on Alamy because dealing with people who don't want to be photographed are often more of a pain than the images are worth.

 

From https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo

 

When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. 

 

I doubt Vermont has the power to override the US Constitution.

 

I am wondering how he new how to contact you. Did you give him your email address? Do you know him? Did you speak to him? If not He is obviously getting information about you from elsewhere. That could constitute harassment.

 

Personally I would have ignored the email and left the legally taken images on Alamy.

 

Allan

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Just a couple of days ago I got some nasty email from a street performer I photographed several times in 2014. Despite the fact that he was performing in a public park he demanded I remove all images of him from Alamy because he didn't give permission!  Somehow he believes I'm profiting from his struggle.

 

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone and everything in public and no model release is necessary for editorial use. If the law didn't work this way we wouldn't have a free press. Then to add insult to injury I discovered several other photographers have photos on Alamy of the same street performer. I wonder if they've received the same nasty email.

 

I know I was within my rights. I didn't defame him, invade his privacy, or make the images available for commercial use. Even so, I decided to delete the images on Alamy because dealing with people who don't want to be photographed are often more of a pain than the images are worth.

 

From https://www.aclu.org/kyr-photo

 

When in public spaces where you are lawfully present you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. 

 

I doubt Vermont has the power to override the US Constitution.

 

I am wondering how he new how to contact you. Did you give him your email address? Do you know him? Did you speak to him? If not He is obviously getting information about you from elsewhere. That could constitute harassment.

 

Personally I would have ignored the email and left the legally taken images on Alamy.

 

Allan

 

 

I somehow don't think someone clicking on a "contact" button on a website or facebook page could in a thousand years constitute harrassment. It takes just seconds to find most Alamy contributors' invitation to contact--and I'm not talking about the content or tone of the contact, just addressing the question of how folk find out how to contact us.

 

But a serious question (because I truly don't know the answer), does the US constitution's right to photograph include the right to publicly publish?

 

dd

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just presume the subject found me through Google. I don't know him and I didn't give me my email address.

 

I'm not an attorney but US law tends to address how a photo is used when it is published. Essentially we have the right to photograph anything within public view, but if it's publication defames or invades the subject's privacy, or is used to endorse a product without a model release, then the subject has legal recourses. I didn't do any of those things. I simply described the what the photo was of, and since (as far as I know) the photos are unpublished, they were not used in a negative manner by any third parties. US law also allows for "fair use" where an image can be used for satire, reviews, opinion, or newsworthy situations where no permission is needed.

 

Ironically, he didn't object to the photos that appeared on my Photoshelter site and said he didn't mind "personal use." He only objected to the ones on Alamy.

 

fD

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just presume the subject found me through Google. I don't know him and I didn't give me my email address.

 

I'm not an attorney but US law tends to address how a photo is used when it is published. Essentially we have the right to photograph anything within public view, but if it's publication defames or invades the subject's privacy, or is used to endorse a product without a model release, then the subject has legal recourses. I didn't do any of those things. I simply described the what the photo was of, and since (as far as I know) the photos are unpublished, they were not used in a negative manner by any third parties. US law also allows for "fair use" where an image can be used for satire, reviews, opinion, or newsworthy situations where no permission is needed.

 

Ironically, he didn't object to the photos that appeared on my Photoshelter site and said he didn't mind "personal use." He only objected to the ones on Alamy.

 

fD

 

What if when describing a person in an image a photographer uses terms such as "overweight" or "old" and the subject sees the photo and decides that these adjectives are offensive (even if they are accurate), could this get the photographer in hot water?

Edited by John Mitchell
Link to post
Share on other sites

 

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone and everything in public and no model release is necessary for editorial use. If the law didn't work this way we wouldn't have a free press.

 

 

First amendment doesn't speak to "photography".

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

 

 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

First amendment doesn't speak to "photography".

 

 

 

Because photography wasn't 'invented' until 35 or 40 years after the First Amendment was enacted. Nowadays most people, including the US Supreme Court, recognize that "The Press' goes beyond printed text and has been expanded to include radio, tv, illustrations, various websites, bloggers, and photography. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

According to the First Amendment of the US Constitution, it's perfectly legal to photograph anyone and everything in public and no model release is necessary for editorial use. If the law didn't work this way we wouldn't have a free press.

 

 

First amendment doesn't speak to "photography".

 

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances." -First Amendment to the Constitution

 

 

 

http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendmen

CArry on reading a little way down the page. It's covered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know my view will not be popular here, but I do agree with this bill if they would add that consent is needed only for commercial use. I would be terribly upset if anyone would take a photo of me and try to sell it without my consent.

Exceptions for a crowd of people, or newsworthy events (not editorial) makes sense too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.