Proposed Ansel Adams Act before Congress, restores rights to photograph in public

[lynnb]

PetaPixel report here (includes full text of proposed legislation - short and to the point). Introduced on January 2nd, 2015 by Republican US Representative Steve Stockman of Texas.

'The bill aims to “restore the First Amendment rights of photographers” by removing restrictions on taking photos in public places.'

This Act deserves wide support. It would be even better if this triggers similar legislative moves in other countries that have enacted policies that restrict or discourage lawful photography.

Link to text of bill.

 

[Paul Jenkin]

As a resident of the UK I can't fully understand the current regime / restrictions. Our situation isn't perfect but it sounds as if we currently have less draconian restrictions - though not everyone understands what a public place actually is. Many, myself included, have fallen foul of taking photos inside railway stations believing them to be public - which they are in one sense. However, they are owned by companies and those companies have the right to allow or disallow photography.

However, as a believer that individuals should have freedom of speech and expression, I hope the legislation allows anyone and everyone to talke photographs of whatever they want, so long as they are in / on a public place when taking them.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

I don't think we need new legislation and more bureaucratic red tape here in the states. We just need the law to be upheld. We need education of law enforcement, other government officials and more importantly, the citizens of the United States.

http://philforrest.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/photography-in-the-new-york-city-transit-system/

Phil Forrest

 

[johannielscom]

IIRC correctly, Ansel Adams shot his best work not in public-filled places but in mountainous solitude.

Sympathetic plan, possibly unnecessary act (can't comment on that, unknowledgeable on the current US laws) but definitely a name chosen for effect rather than for appropriateness.

 

[OurManInTangier]

I don't think we need new legislation and more bureaucratic red tape here in the states. We just need the law to be upheld. We need education of law enforcement, other government officials and more importantly, the citizens of the United States.

http://philforrest.wordpress.com/2009/05/01/photography-in-the-new-york-city-transit-system/

Phil Forrest

Words and sentiment that I would agree with. I'm in the UK and often feel that people appear to believe that the laws are far tougher than they actually are. A more knowledgeable police force, security firm staff, general public and photographers would make a vast difference.

IIRC correctly, Ansel Adams shot his best work not in public-filled places but in mountainous solitude.

Sympathetic plan, possibly unnecessary act (can't comment on that, unknowledgeable on the current US laws) but definitely a name chosen for effect rather than for appropriateness.

Yes, I thought that. An odd choice, perhaps simply a well known photographer to use?

 

[Freakscene]

This is not about individuals who hike in with a view camera. It is a legal instrument to facilitate large companies making a mess in national parks and on other national assets without having to pay for appropriate supervision, controls and clean-up.

Anyone who has been in a large number of US national parks will note that due to budget cuts the infrastructure, facilities and services of many (with the exception of a few of the very famous and popular ones) are badly run-down. This act would remove one of the parks services' most important revenue streams, and the best way to cost recover the wear and tear from large commercial shoots.

Marty

 

[lynnb]

Marty, that's an interesting comment. Sometimes (more often than not?) the language used to label legislation is the direct opposite of what is actually intended. If what you say is correct (and I have no reason to doubt it), then I hope an unintended consequence of the proposed legislation is to ensure that lawful photography in public places is not the target of bureaucratic harassment.

 

[lynnb]

there is further comment and information over on Mike Johnston's TOP site