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

[j j]

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.” ?

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

Celebrities should not be allowed in public. They cause more damage to our culture than just about anyone else I can think of. Celebrities are more than willing to let public adoration pump up their egos and pay checks. So I say they d**n well deserve the papparazi.

Honestly, this torrent of poor spelling must cease.

It's spelled "s-e-l-l-e-b-r-i-t-y".

😀

 

[Snapper_uk]

Hmmm. How many people ranting against this here are actually parents? Or parents of children that are continually followed by paps?

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

So someone with a camera (I hate to use the word 'photographer' here) has the right to do the above? Another example of the arrogance of camera users that think that anything is game in public.

 

[Snapper_uk]

Celebrities should not be allowed in public. They cause more damage to our culture than just about anyone else I can think of. Celebrities are more than willing to let public adoration pump up their egos and pay checks. So I say they d**n well deserve the papparazi. Oops... sorry... late night... rant shields are down!

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.

 

[clayne]

So someone with a camera (I hate to use the word 'photographer' here) has the right to do the above? Another example of the arrogance of camera users that think that anything is game in public.

Yes, that's how it works. We do not restrict freedoms of such things in the USA - and for good reason. Consider how this proposed law can/could be abused for any arbitrary purpose. If you think it's about "save the children", think again.

 

[mugent]

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.

 

[clayne]

Yes I think harassed people should utilize already existing laws. This proposed law just smells incredibly bad. I also don't know how it'd even remotely get past a Supreme Court challenge either. Any justice worth their clout can just smell the abuse coming from this one.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

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/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=213628

 

[MIkhail]

Hmmm. How many people ranting against this here are actually parents? Or parents of children that are continually followed by paps?

California Senate Bill 606 would expand the state’s definition of “harassment” to include photographing, following or lying in wait for a child without the written consent of a parent or guardian — provided such behavior “seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and … serves no legitimate purpose.”

So someone with a camera (I hate to use the word 'photographer' here) has the right to do the above? Another example of the arrogance of camera users that think that anything is game in public.

Anything IS game in public, that's what law says. And I hope it will...

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/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=213628

You bet it will.

 

[jsrockit]

Many people already think there are laws like this in NYC. Many people think it is illegal to photograph anyone without their consent. It seems that in NYC, people come from all different countries and then think the laws from the country they came from are the same as in the US.

I can see both sides in the 606 bill. It sucks for a parent to have to deal with some creep job using their kids image for nefarious purposes. However, it would suck to give overly protective parents any reason to get in a photographer's face. There are parents that go nuts simply because their kid was 100 feet away in the background of a photo.

I've always thought people were silly about photographing in the streets. They will go to a museum, read a magazine, or look at a picture book without making the connection that most of those images were made by a person in a public place not asking everyone for permission.

 

[lynnb]

This law would never have happened if paparazzi were generally well mannered or at least moderated their behaviour. Now everyone stands to lose.

 

[Cold]

The spirit behind it isn't so bad, but the law itself is awful and realistically unenforceable.

Let's say you're a street photographer, not necessarily focusing on a child, but there's maybe 20-30 people in the scene you capture.

Some over-protective mom sees someone with a camera and goes into berserker mode, demanding you delete the photo because her child was in it. You explain you're shooting film, so you can't possibly delete it, and now you're facing criminal charges for violation of this law because berserker-mom, as a ward, feels harassed, and "art" is not a "legitimate" reason.

By the book, that photographer is guilty, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if his/her name ends up on some sort of child crimes list.

 

[j j]

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/rffgallery/showphoto.php?photoid=213628

It is not a law. Even if it became one it would not stop photos such as that one by Clayne: the subjects do not appear harassed and in any case they are not in California.

 

[jsrockit]

Some over-protective mom sees someone with a camera and goes into berserker mode, demanding you delete the photo because her child was in it. You explain you're shooting film, so you can't possibly delete it, and now you're facing criminal charges for violation of this law because berserker-mom, as a ward, feels harassed, and "art" is not a "legitimate" reason.

By the book, that photographer is guilty, and it wouldn't surprise me a bit if his/her name ends up on some sort of child crimes list.

Yes, this is certainly one of the cons of the bill.

 

[btgc]

Good part of adults qualify as a children. Now their images are protected by the law. Great!

 

[leicapixie]

I lived in Southern California.
Lord help you if there were kids somewhere on the beach, miles away..
Everybody was concerned. The fact i was doing a scene or fashion shoot,
made no difference.The kids were not even in my shots..Too far away, plus
they were dots. Pedophiles are usually your OWN family.

 

[MIkhail]

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?

 

[jsrockit]

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?

Photoshopping your kid's head onto another kid's body. Sites with pictures of kids by people with no relation to the kids who are not in it for the art, etc. The celebrities probably just want their kids to have a semi-normal life without being harrassed or ending up in some rumor magazine.

 

[Lauffray]

Luckily we don't have that many more serious problems to deal with these days, what's a bored politician to do ? got to make a living somehow

 

[Ronald M]

Supply and demand determine price.

Celebrities supposedly dislike the paparazzi, so they run, duck and hide. The way to stop it is to stand still, smile, and let them fill the cards or run out of film. How much is the pic worth. Not much when 20 people have them all. Then they give up.

Same with your kids. Provide some photo ops.

Now if they invade privacy with cameras on drones or the like, jail time as far as I am concerned for the photog and magazine that publishes them.