Proposed Arkansas Law Requires Model Release to Post Photo Online - or be sued

the way the lawyers read it is that if you use a photograph with people in it for commercial purposes you need a release from that person. That seems to be the standard law anyway.

what seems to be the added burden is this you post your photograph online and someone would like to use it for a one-time publication here you might need to get a release from the people in it, what not you still need a release from that person for commercial use?

does this law also affect for instance, street photographers or other photographers that take pictures randomly in public where there is no expectation of privacy, and then post them on their Facebook wall or Flickr wall, can be held liable because that website can be viewed in Arizona but yet the picture is not for commercial use?
 
They need more stupid laws because the schools have turned out too many lawyers, and mommy and daddy want their baby esquires out of the f-ing nest so they can run around at night in their long johns without getting laughed at!
 
Some are saying it is an extra burden.
http://asmp.org/sb79#.VRh47PzF-K4

Part of it reads like the standard way of doing business. News is exempted, but commercial work and promotion is not. However, commercial use including promotions for sports is exempted. Why don't those in sports have to get releases for anybody that shows up in their promotions?
 
TXForester said:
Some are saying it is an extra burden.
http://asmp.org/sb79#.VRh47PzF-K4

Part of it reads like the standard way of doing business. News is exempted, but commercial work and promotion is not. However, commercial use including promotions for sports is exempted. Why don't those in sports have to get releases for anybody that shows up in their promotions?
Click to expand...

Because those in the law-making business like sports but do not care for culture, that's much too artsy and complicated stuff to begin with...

In the Netherlands we nowadays have a law that states all police efforts are billable to the event organiser, but soccer events are exempted. Guess what, that's the sort of events were 90% of police effort in events goes into. The other 10% is festivals, concerts, manifestations etc. all cultural or political stuff.
 
No worries... the First Amendment protects artistic/editorial use. A Texas law that had a different purpose but also imposed consent was found unconstitutional by a Texas court. It never even got to Federal court. The proposed Arkansas law will not stand either.
 
Reading this from home in Northwest Arkansas, I wish I could say I was surprised at the actions of our legislature. As a lifelong street photographer by avocation, with some exhibitions, occasional print sales, donations of work for sale to benefit not-for profit organizations, rare commercial work, I hope that others are as outraged as some of us in Arkansas, and lobby using the links that ASMP has provided. It's worth responding, as the Governor has the option of not signing the bill, rather than vetoing it, in which case it will become law on 3/31/15. If it does become law, websites that even originate outside the US could cause their owners to be liable for photos--even those of non-Arkansas residents--if the site is viewable in Arkansas.
 
That's the way I read it. I asked how can an Arkansas law affect me in Texas. A lawyer friend said "Mike any time you engage in commercial activity that touches another state, you can face exposure wherever the activity can be viewed."

Don't worry about your legislature. You aren't alone. Our legislature isn't any better.
 
quadtones said:
...If it does become law, websites that even originate outside the US could cause their owners to be liable for photos--even those of non-Arkansas residents--if the site is viewable in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

That's hilarious!

So now I'm certain the law will be killed once it reaches first level of Federal Appeals court.
 
While I suspect that it will be killed in an appeals court, I wonder what my elected representatives were thinking. Perhaps they think that they should regulate the web a bit like the Chinese government, and selected content simply would not be available to Arkansas residents. I would note that they have also, at the same time, been in the process of trying to outlaw the importation of California wines to Arkansas, in retaliation for California not allowing the importation of Arkansas chickens. The rationale is that the chickens are not being killed humanely.

And so it goes. It will be interesting to see what ASMP, other organizations and private citizens with websites including photos of individuals on the street, where there was no particular expectation of privacy, are going to do.
 
Last edited:
quadtones said:
...

And so it goes. It will be interesting to see what ASMP, other organizations and private citizens with websites including photos of individuals on the street, where there was no particular expectation of privacy, are going to do.
Click to expand...

They will do nothing. When the first case is appealed, They may support and otherwise assists the defendant(s).
 
Peter Wijninga said:
Yet one more reason not to live in Arkansas.
Click to expand...

Didn't need any more. After six months between Little Rock and El Dorado I came to that conclusion. Never saw a company office that they were allowed to lock you in even if there was a fire. That pretty much did it for me.

B2 (%-O
 
To bad it's near impossible to block all IP's from Arkansas. Maybe I should put a warning on my website telling all those from Arkansas are not allowed to view my images. I'm joking of course. How ludicrous if they think they can sue someone living outside the US.
 
willie_901 said:
No worries... the First Amendment protects artistic/editorial use. A Texas law that had a different purpose but also imposed consent was found unconstitutional by a Texas court. It never even got to Federal court. The proposed Arkansas law will not stand either.
Click to expand...

The law specifically excludes action against what is protected by the 1st amendment. Perhaps street photography will become protected by the 1st amendment.
 
oftheherd said:
The law specifically excludes action against what is protected by the 1st amendment. Perhaps street photography will become protected by the 1st amendment.
Click to expand...

Thanks for this clarification. It seems the professional press and every photoblogger in the universe is completely misrepresenting the facts.

I am relieved to learn this law has zero impact on candid photographers who abide by the existing case precedent defining individuals' expectations of privacy.

I will ignore the law from now on.
 
Well, the "First Amendment" at best only protects US citizens (if at all), while the "Internet" is global. Maybe this law only applies to Arkansas's version of the Internet?

I don't really see how this law is enforceable.

~Joe
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom