California Senate Bill 606: No more photographing children W/O written permission

[xxloverxx]

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.

 

[mfunnell]

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

Until someone with power decides to trifle with you.

...Mike

 

[starless]

Obviously this bill will not pass in its current form ...

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Some years ago I met Paul Newman.

He played one of the less stellar luminaries of my wife's family, the infamous Phantly Roy Bean, Jr., more popularly known as "Judge Roy Bean", who married Virginia Chavez, one of my wife's great, great aunts.

Pretty tenuous as such connections go.

😀

 

[Texsport]

Stupid laws are passed to make stupid people feel safe.

Texsport

 

[ChipMcD]

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.

 

[DNG]

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...

 

[Highway 61]

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).

 

[E__WOK]

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.

 

[MIkhail]

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...

 

[squareshooter]

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?

 

[sevo]

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?

 

[rpsawin]

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.

 

[rinzlerb]

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.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Let's outlaw celebrities.

I agree. However, can we spell the word correctly: sellebrity

😀

 

[jerrybro]

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.

 

[stompyq]

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?

 

[froyd]

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.

 

[kxl]

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!