knoxville, tn law regarding photography

[Chinasaur]

So that's cool. As long as you don't solicit people to buy them, you're fine 🙂

 

[Leigh Youdale]

The important word is "and" in the unbroken sentence.

 

[t.s.k.]

At face value, it doesn't appear to affect "street shooting" as we all know it.
However, it seems like a true waste of time for legislators to enact and law enforcement to implement.

 

[sevres_babylone]

It does sound like it was enacted in the days of Polaroid to prohibit photographers from snapping pics of people, and then peddling them to the subjects.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Question about interpretation.

If I take the photograph AND solicit the sale, I'm breaking the law. No ambiguities here.

If I take the photograph AND DO NOT solicit the sale, am I breaking the law?

If I simply solicit the sale of photographs (whether of pedestrians or objects, taken in Knoxville or elsewhere), am I also breaking the law?

Thanks in advance! 🙂

 

[back alley]

it seems pretty clear...they are wanting to get rid of street portrait sellers...no real controversy here.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

Whaddayathink, Blake? Anything like this could happen in your hometown? 😕

 

[nikon_sam]

It's a non-issue unless you're trying to make money...next...

 

[Peter Klein]

I once read that it was still technically illegal for any resident of Rhode Island to set foot in Massachusetts. It was passed in the Puritan vs. Quaker early Colonial days, and had never been repealed. I have no idea if it's true or not, but very amusing if it is.

 

[cambolt]

So does this mean you can take a picture of someone, unrequested, then sell the photo on the internet?

 

[willie_901]

So does this mean you can take a picture of someone, unrequested, then sell the photo on the internet?

Yes, if the photograph is not used for commercial (i.e. advertising) purposes.

Editorial use (fine art) is not legally considered commercial use as no endorsement is implied. In the US editorial usage is (so far) protected by the Constitution.