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

[Al Patterson]

Yeah, I can see it now. A family from another state is vacationing in LA, and when they take a picture of THEIR child, they get arrested because someone else's is in the picture...

What a bunch of pinheads these guys are.

 

[Al Patterson]

WWRPD?

(What would Roman Polanski Do?)

Let's not go there...

Funny thinking it through though.

 

[Gumby]

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 has little to do with the photograph itself. It has more to do with the mob mentality of the photographers, and somewhat to do with sensitivity toward those who choose to be in the public limellight and those who are unkowingly born into that limelight. It isn't always fair to those who those who inherit celebrity status to be subjected to situations where they cannot lead a normal life. I am sympathetic to the issue, but don't see this kind of bill as the best answer. Perhps a good investor would put money tinto stock for companies who make longer telephoto lenses and spy cameras... because the market for celebrity (and celebrity kid) pictures is still there and the papparazzi still need to pay their bills.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

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.

I'm with you entirely on this point. I don't blame these kids but they and their parents are the direct beneficiaries of 'the good life' showered on them by their adoring fans. If these celebrities don't like the way they're treated, let them go back to making starving-artist wages in their local theater group. The paparazzi will not bother them there.

In my opinion, this proposed law is another knee-jerk response by a special interest group that we see too much of these days. These celebrities can obtain lawful restraining orders to deal with their individual circumstances, but they must not be allowed to take away my Constitutional rights to get what they want.

 

[Gumby]

Agreed, ...

Money talks... and star-struck legislators (and many others) listen to loud celebrities, whether the speak the majority opinion or not.

 

[nikonosguy]

i think the south park episode where britney spears is sacrificed for the good of the crops is relevant here

 

[MIkhail]

It has little to do with the photograph itself. It has more to do with the mob mentality of the photographers, and somewhat to do with sensitivity toward those who choose to be in the public limellight and those who are unkowingly born into that limelight. It isn't always fair to those who those who inherit celebrity status to be subjected to situations where they cannot lead a normal life. I am sympathetic to the issue, but don't see this kind of bill as the best answer. Perhps a good investor would put money tinto stock for companies who make longer telephoto lenses and spy cameras... because the market for celebrity (and celebrity kid) pictures is still there and the papparazzi still need to pay their bills.

I was, and still am, under impression that the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully from public(!) places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Not that it matter to a general public, but this effectively kills the street photography, we have to at least recognise that.

 

[CK Dexter Haven]

I was in favor of the legislation, but only from hearing a small bit about it. Now that i'm reading this, though, it just seems problematic. I wonder why they can't just limit the issue to the predatory paparazzi? Or, prohibit the sale of such images, which might curtail the making of them. This measure seems to include too many incidental captures of childrens' likenesses, and the ambiguity of "legitimate purpose" makes it a matter for attorneys to debate ad infinitum. Why can't it just be clearly specified, and tailored to address the simple problem?

I've only been an Cali/LA resident for a year, but i've long felt paparazzi are a disgusting nuisance. Society doesn't need 'spy shots' and inciting incidents involving people in the entertainment industry. And the consumers who feast upon those images and articles aren't much better than the snipers.

 

[Gumby]

..., but this effectively kills the street photography, we have to at least recognise that.

I think you are overthinking this, and worrying too much... unless you are the kind of street photographer who photographs "the Beeb", Suri, and the like.

Not only has this not bill not yet been passed, but the courts haven't had a chance to prove that it is poorly written.

Me... I'm not at all concerned, but I am very amused by it!

 

[Brian Legge]

I don't get why this is a partisan issue.

Can we agree that a 5 year old should be able to be in public without being rushed by 20 photographers, followed around, harrassed constantly, etc?

If so, what differentiates that from more typical street photography and what laws could be put in place which permit one and prohibits the other?

 

[MIkhail]

I think you are overthinking this, and worrying too much... unless you are the kind of street photographer who photographs "the Beeb", Suri, and the like.

Not only has this not bill not yet been passed, but the courts haven't had a chance to prove that it is poorly written.

Me... I'm not at all concerned, but I am very amused by it!

I am glad I could amuse you.
My web site shows what kind of photographer I am.
BUT, if I choose to photograph the beeb, whoever that is, I should be able to. Just like I should be able to phtograph an unknown old lady on a bench IN PUBLIC PARK feeding pigeons. If you leaving this up to a discresion of policeman watching me to differentiate which one I can and cannot phtograph... then god help us.
Or, of course, I can always resot to photographing my Leica (with lenses, without lenses, on a table, on a bench...). It seems to be a very popular subject too. :bang:

 

[ZeissFan]

Politicians (most are lawyers) continue to edge us ever closer to a totalitarian police state. And liberal Democrats are the worst in their efforts to "protect" us.

 

[Lauffray]

Montreal is very pleasant, a tad chilly in the winter. 😀

That's an understatement 😀
And no, we don't have more favourable photography laws here :bang:

 

[clayne]

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

:angel:

Yep. Many people believe the USA is a democracy but it isn't in the purest classical sense. It's a representative democracy or democratic republic. Pure democracy wouldn't be fun at all.

 

[semilog]

I don't get why this is a partisan issue.

Because some people can't see anything except through partisan blinkers.

 

[pakeha]

There is always Cuba😉

 

[Scrambler]

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

I doubt it. The kids don't look particularly harassed.

It's hard for me to see this affecting anyone who isn't genuinely harassing kids. 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." But tourists don't get prosecuted.

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

 

[Melvin]

If you pass this law I'll pull the pin!😉

Photo credit: Diane Arbus

 

[semilog]

^---------slm WINS THE THREAD.

 

[Frontman]

Some years ago I met Paul Newman. He came into a shop where I happened to be working at the time, and he bought a pair of silver earrings. He was walking alone, no security detail, no paparazzi, just an ordinary guy. I suppose he wasn't such a popular subject, as he never raced around drunk in his car, got into fights with fans or bouncers, or was never arrested for drugs or beating his wife.

Many celebrities seem to invite the attention of the public and the paparazzi by living like hedonistic and egotistical fools. If they didn't do anything newsworthy, perhaps they wouldn't be followed around by a flock of picture-taking vultures wherever they went.

I can sympathize a little, but not so much, I can't stand to hear someone complain about their life when thay make as much money filming a single movie as 20 other people earn in their lifetimes combined.