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

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

It's a real pity that "civilised" countries don't require 51% of all voters to back any new statute.

Just think of the paper, ink and hot air it would save...

😀

 

[Spanik]

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

Yep, you now cannot take a picture of me without written consent of my mom. 😀

 

[Lauffray]

It's a real pity that "civilised" countries don't require 51% of all voters to back any new statute.

I heard from a Swiss friend that every "major" law that politicians want to pass also has to pass a local popular vote, or a type of referendum. I guess that makes Switzerland a democracy in the more literal sense, but it must get tiring to vote on absolutely everything, I mean surely there are issues where I wouldn't feel interested or qualified to give my opinion

 

[Gumby]

This bill is no good. No good at all. It is written to narrowly. In addition to photographers it should be expanded to include caricature artists, mimes, clowns, and clergy!

 

[redisburning]

there is no expectation of privacy in public.

this can be dealt with under existing harassment laws.

btw people aren't dumb, and Americans aren't dumb either, as a whole. but Americans, culturally, are short sighted and sold the idea that common sense, rather than technocratic approaches, is the solution to most problems. which is why you can have a law like this, which seems like "common sense", but which simply expands the power of the state while the issue it proposes to address is already covered in other areas.

and I have zero issue with celebrities whining and moaning about the paparazzi following them. clearly, public figures are the only ones targeted by them. however, letting them complain is different than bending the law to them when it places an unnecessary burden on others to comply to nebulous laws.

 

[willie_901]

1. It's not a law at this time.

2. It's unconstitutional.

3. It' impractical. Try taking tourist shots of Disneyland, Fisherman's Wharf, any professional sporting event, a wedding, etc, etc, without having a single child in the shot.

4. Don't worry about it.

 

[Lawrence Sheperd]

Would sitting on a park bench with your camera be considered "lying in wait?"

Slippery, slippery slope...

 

[redisburning]

It's a real pity that "civilised" countries don't require 51% of all voters to back any new statute.

Just think of the paper, ink and hot air it would save...

😀

well, I am not so convinced that this is even close to a good idea.

I would ask that you consider the effect of electing judges. Because what then happens is that people who the majority group don't like get punished unfairly. A good example of that happening is the application of sex offender laws in Florida to a female high school student who was in a consensual homosexual relationship with another high school student at the behest of the second girl's parents which landed her in jail. Some justic 🙄

Or consider the case in Texas, where I happen to live currently. Around here, the legislature ignores Roe v. Wade to appease the majority. Almost as bad is the effort to, in textbooks, offer creationism (which intelligent design is not in name only) as an alternative to evolution despite 100% of the available evidence supporting evolution, the removal of the near-genocide of native-americans at the hands of an exclusively white government and rewriting the role of religion in the founding of the nation and in the enlightened age in general. these are facts, plain and simple, under attack from a majority.

Frankly if it took 51% of the population to pass anything important we STILL wouldn't have the 14th amendment. Common sense tramples the truth and it tramples justice because it is the common sense only of the majority group. Which is why we had appointed Senators who could, in theory, be above the pressures of reelection by an electorate furious with them for giving blacks or women or homosexuals or ... closer to a fairer share of their rights.

 

[stompyq]

I'am curious to know who voted this as a good law? I can certainly see the negatives but can't possibly see how it's any good. Some one being cynical much??

 

[zauhar]

well, I am not so convinced that this is even close to a good idea.

I would ask that you consider the effect of electing judges. Because what then happens is that people who the majority group don't like get punished unfairly. A good example of that happening is the application of sex offender laws in Florida to a female high school student who was in a consensual homosexual relationship with another high school student at the behest of the second girl's parents which landed her in jail. Some justic 🙄

Or consider the case in Texas, where I happen to live currently. Around here, the legislature ignores Roe v. Wade to appease the majority. Almost as bad is the effort to, in textbooks, offer creationism (which intelligent design is not in name only) as an alternative to evolution despite 100% of the available evidence supporting evolution, the removal of the near-genocide of native-americans at the hands of an exclusively white government and rewriting the role of religion in the founding of the nation and in the enlightened age in general. these are facts, plain and simple, under attack from a majority.

Frankly if it took 51% of the population to pass anything important we STILL wouldn't have the 14th amendment. Common sense tramples the truth and it tramples justice because it is the common sense only of the majority group. Which is why we had appointed Senators who could, in theory, be above the pressures of reelection by an electorate furious with them for giving blacks or women or homosexuals or ... closer to a fairer share of their rights.

Good points all. The 'founding fathers' wanted nothing to do with democracy in its purest form, which is essentially mob rule. That's the significance of the Bill of Rights, fundamental protections that cannot be legislated or voted away.

Of course, as our current government demonstrates every day, that document is not worth much at the moment.

Going back to the question at hand, there is no reason that current laws cannot be enforced, without singling out reporters and photographers. In the current case, I cannot imagine that a squad of LA cops would not delight in beating the sh-t out of an aggressive photographer, especially if they could say they were protecting Halle Berry's kids! Who needs any new laws?

Randy

 

[Harry Caul]

As a father of 2, I should be sympathetic...

However, it sure seems that the movie stars are the ones putting their kids into these situations. No it's not the kids fault, but it's not the photographers fault either. If you don't want to be in the tabloids, move out of Hollywood. There are plenty of stars who do this and live perfectly normal, paparrazi-free lives. If you need/want to be in the tabloids for your career/ego, but don't want your kids to be... tough. You can't have it both ways so stop trying to restrict our collective rights through your political connections for your own convenience.

 

[Sejanus.Aelianus]

The 'founding fathers' wanted nothing to do with democracy in its purest form, which is essentially mob rule.

True. Mind you, I've noticed that "the mob" always consists of people whose opinions you don't like...

:angel:

 

[zauhar]

True. Mind you, I've noticed that "the mob" always consists of people whose opinions you don't like...

:angel:

Well, that's very true, but also the point, correct?

After all, weren't there very good and defensible reasons for killing Socrates? I could imagine people today making the very same arguments.

Randy

 

[jsrockit]

However, it sure seems that the movie stars are the ones putting their kids into these situations. No it's not the kids fault, but it's not the photographers fault either. If you don't want to be in the tabloids, move out of Hollywood.

Good point.

 

[cosmonaut]

Before GPS tracking info was included in image files I would have said this is a bad law. But with today's technology and the world we live in now I lean the other way. Our rights to any privacy are slowly slipping away.

 

[Harry Caul]

Good point.

I mean, can't a mom in a red Ferrari and a 2-black-SUV security detail just drop off her kids in peace? 🙂

 

[oftheherd]

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.” ?

Agreed, but with many children that will be reported by the aggreived parent.

...

The problem is that there is no specific definition for "seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes" nor is the term "no legitimate purpose" very specific. And exactly how does one measure "substantial emotional distress"? Children suffer "substantial emotional distress" if the ice cream truck fails to stop when they wave; should the ice cream man be charged for causing a child emotional distress if he fails to stop? I suffered substantial emotional distress when I was a child whenever Santa didn't bring the gift I wanted, should my parents have been charged with a crime?

It seems we are becoming a nation of weak and silly fools.

Another good point. This shouldn't be left to be fought out in multiple court decisions.

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?

It probably isn't so much the taking of a photo, but the method used to get the photo, such as yelling obscenities, or startling a child by jumping out from behind a bush, or impeding a child's progress to school in a way that frightens the child. Most people would not support that type of activity.

My take on the law (which as pointed out, isn't apparently a law yet:

Any person who intentionally harasses the child or ward of any other person because of that person’s employment

So berserker mom is going to have a hard time if she can't claim the photo was taken because of her employment.

“Harasses” means knowing and willful conduct directed at a specific child or ward that seriously alarms, annoys, torments, or terrorizes the child or ward, and that serves no legitimate purpose, including, but not limited to, that conduct occurring during the course of any actual or attempted recording of the child’s or ward’s image or voice, or both

Must be a specific child, not just someone in the neighborhood. Serves no legitimate purpose - the courts will have fun interpreting that.

“Employment” means the job, vocation, occupation, or profession of the parent or legal guardian of the child or ward.

So berserker mom is somewhat constrained.

Upon a violation of this section, the parent or legal guardian of an aggrieved child or ward, may bring a civil action against the violator on behalf of the child or ward for actual damages, disgorgement of profits, all compensation received in connection with the sale, license, or dissemination of a recording of the child’s image or voice, punitive damages, reasonable attorney’s fees, and costs.

Except as noted below.

(e) The act of transmitting, publishing, or broadcasting a recording of the image or voice of a child does not constitute a violation of this section.

So the publisher who pays the paps, and the news that report it, are protected. What a double standard. Money talks.

 

[nikonosguy]

WWRPD?

(What would Roman Polanski Do?)

 

[Guaranteed]

I found Halle Berry's concern with "dignity" rather amusing.

After all isn't this the same Halle Berry that first refused to do the topless scene in Swordfish, only later to air them out when offered and extra 500K bonus?

I guess dignity has a price for the Hollyweird crowd, maybe the paps should offer them a piece of the action.

 

[semilog]

That legislation would potentially subject operators of security and surveillance cameras in public places to lawsuits.