Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
Thread started 30 Mar 2015 (Monday) 19:44
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

Arkansas Senate Passes Bill to Make Street Photography Illegal in State

 
bk2life
Senior Member
583 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Nov 2010
Location: az/ca/hi/afg
     
Mar 30, 2015 19:44 |  #1

https://fstoppers.com …raphy-illegal-state-65704 (external link)
by Zach Sutton
a day ago

(For the bill in its entirety, you can read it here: http://www.arkleg.stat​e.ar.us …2015/2015R/Bill​s/SB79.pdf (external link))

Over the past week, Arkansas Senate has been working diligently to pass SB-79 - known as the Personal Rights Protection Act. While the bill is designed to protect the privacy and rights of the citizens within the state, it also effectively makes Street Photography illegal from viewing or taking in the state of Arkansas.
The bill's full name does a lot as to explaining the bill. Entitled “To Enact the Personal Rights Protection Act: and to Protect the Property Rights of an Individual to the Use of the Individual’s Name, Voice, Signature, and Likeness”, this bill is designed to take an individual's Rights of Publicity to an extreme, by allowing it illegal for them to be photographed or filmed on public grounds without a written consent.



As the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) explains --

The implications of this bill are staggering. For example, an image showing recognizable people posted to the Internet for a use that would not require written consent anywhere else in the world could leave you open to a lawsuit just because someone in Arkansas could view it online.

SB-79 places an unprecedented burden on all photographers whose work could be viewed within the state of Arkansas to either get explicit consent from every individual whose likeness appears in all of their photographs or risk defending themselves in a lawsuit where they will have to shoulder the burden of proving the use of their photographs qualifies as an exempted use



The ASMP and others have banded together to get this bill dropped from Arkansas law. The bill must be vetoed by Tuesday to ensure it does not go into law. The ASMP has asked all photographers (not just photographers in Arkansas) to stand up and write Governor Asa Hutchinson and Arkansas Chief of Staff Michael Lamoureux encouraging them to drop the bill from Arkansas law


-james
5Diii|7D|Nifty 50|Canon 17-55mm-2.8|Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS ii|2x 600EX-RT|ST-E3-RT|CS6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
bk2life
THREAD ­ STARTER
Senior Member
583 posts
Gallery: 18 photos
Likes: 39
Joined Nov 2010
Location: az/ca/hi/afg
     
Mar 30, 2015 19:44 |  #2

this just seems scary to me..


-james
5Diii|7D|Nifty 50|Canon 17-55mm-2.8|Canon 70-200L 2.8 IS ii|2x 600EX-RT|ST-E3-RT|CS6

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
elrey2375
Thinks it's irresponsible
Avatar
4,992 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 275
Joined Nov 2011
     
Mar 30, 2015 20:22 |  #3

This legislative session has been a nightmare for free thinkers in my state. I have written the governor. I have sent emails to representatives and I hope that he vetoes it tomorrow. It is so vague, the burden on those of us who do wedding photography, for example, would be immense. This is beyond frustrating.


http://emjfotografi.co​m/ (external link)
http://500px.com/EMJFo​tografi (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
rgs
Goldmember
Avatar
2,328 posts
Gallery: 147 photos
Likes: 992
Joined Jun 2007
Location: Oklahoma City
     
Mar 30, 2015 21:11 |  #4

Not sure I understand how someone in Arkansas viewing an image of someone made somewhere else would leave the photographer liable in Arkansas. That being said, I live in Oklahoma and will not be taking any work in Arkansas. Can't wait to hear what the stock houses have to say, they are already very restrictive.


Canon 7d MkII, Canon 50D, Pentax 67, Canon 30D, Baker Custom 4x5, Canon EF 24-104mm f4, Canon EF 100mm f2.8 Macro, Canon EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5, 70-300mm f/4-5.6 Di VC

The Singular Image (external link)Richard Smith Photography (external link)
Richard Smith Real Estate Photography (external link)500PX (external link)
Fine Art America (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Luxx
Senior Member
478 posts
Likes: 40
Joined Jan 2013
Location: St Louis
     
Mar 30, 2015 21:29 |  #5

Let me get this straight.
Let's say my kid plays in a soccer tournament in Missouri. I take a few pictures and email them to his grandmother in Arkansas. She puts them on her Facebook page because she is so proud. Some kid he is playing against is in the photo…without his written consent am I now in violation, is my mother. Is this criminal? civil? do I get fined or can I be sued. If sued what damages?




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
ThreeHounds
Senior Member
Avatar
846 posts
Gallery: 79 photos
Likes: 527
Joined Mar 2014
Location: Tallahassee, Florida, USA
     
Mar 30, 2015 21:41 |  #6

I just quickly glanced at this bill, but it seems to just be defining commercial use, but I may be missing something...


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


5D MkIII | 7D | Bronica ETRS
EF 24-105 f/4 L | EF 85mm f/1.8 USM | EF 17-40 f/4 L | EF 70-300 f/4 L | 105 f/3.5 Zenzanon | Tamron SP90 f/2.8 Di Macro VC USM
flickr (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,463 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Likes: 1272
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Mar 30, 2015 22:11 |  #7

I'm no lawyer, but doesn't Section C under Fair Use pretty much clear Street Photography?

(C) Solely to depict the individual's role as a
member of the public if the individual is not named or otherwise
singled out;

Section D also appears to allow sporting event photography, or could be interpreted that way. Still, this is not a well written law and I see nothing in it that allows random people in wedding pics, which are almost always "commercial use." Sure, you can take pics of the bride, groom, and wedding party, but what about all those happy faces in the background?


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,412 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1733
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Mar 30, 2015 22:59 |  #8

The wording certainly is vague. It "protects" against exploitation AND unauthorised commercial use. It defines commercial use (badly) but the snippet posted doesn't define exploitation.


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
OhLook
Spiderwoman
Avatar
19,064 posts
Gallery: 74 photos
Best ofs: 2
Likes: 6829
Joined Dec 2012
Location: California: SF Bay Area
     
Mar 31, 2015 10:49 |  #9

M_Six wrote in post #17498817 (external link)
Still, this is not a well written law and I see nothing in it that allows random people in wedding pics, which are almost always "commercial use."

If I understand past posts on POTN correctly, selling wedding pictures to the couple doesn't make them commercial use.

Many laws are poorly written. You find this out if your activity brings you within shouting distance of one. Enforcement of laws isn't uniform and consistent, either.


PRONOUN ADVISORY: OhLook is a she. | A FEW CORRECT SPELLINGS: lens, aperture, amateur, hobbyist, per se, raccoon, whoa, more so (2 wds.), shoo-in | IMAGE EDITING OK

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Wilt
Reader's Digest Condensed version of War and Peace [POTN Vol 1]
Avatar
41,890 posts
Gallery: 1 photo
Likes: 2613
Joined Aug 2005
Location: Belmont, CA
Post edited over 4 years ago by Wilt.
     
Mar 31, 2015 11:37 |  #10

Dan Marchant wrote in post #17498870 (external link)
The wording certainly is vague. It "protects" against exploitation AND unauthorised commercial use. It defines commercial use (badly) but the snippet posted doesn't define exploitation.

Wording is not merely vague, the wording wrongly used terms and confuses them...
'editorial uses' are described within the context of 'OK commercial uses'
"4-75-1008. Unauthorized commercial use.
35 (a)(1) Except as provided in § 4-75-1010, a person who commercially
36 uses an individual's name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is
As Engrossed: S1/26/15 S2/2/15 S2/12/15 S2/26/15 S3/3/15 H3/13/15 SB79
6 01-20-2015 13:20:50 DLP047
1 liable ...
"4-75-1010. Fair use — Commercial sponsorship.
21 (a)(1) It is a fair use and not a violation of this subchapter if a
22 name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is used:
23 (A) In connection with a news, public affairs, or sports
24 broadcast
, including the promotion of and advertising for a sports broadcast,
25 an account of public interest, or a political campaign;
26 (B) In:
27 (i) A play, book, magazine, newspaper, musical
28 composition, audiovisual work, or radio or television program if it is
29 fictional or nonfictional entertainment, or a dramatic, literary, or musical
30 work;
31 (ii) A single and original work of art that is not a
32 portrait, photograph, or likeness of an individual;
33 (iii) A work of political or newsworthy value; or
34 (iv) An advertisement or commercial
35 announcement for any of the works described in this subdivision "


You need to give me OK to edit your image and repost! Keep POTN alive and well with member support https://photography-on-the.net/forum/donate.p​hp
Canon dSLR system, Olympus OM 35mm system, Bronica ETRSi 645 system, Horseman LS 4x5 system, Metz flashes, Dynalite studio lighting, and too many accessories to mention

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
M_Six
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
7,463 posts
Gallery: 50 photos
Likes: 1272
Joined Dec 2010
Location: East Central IL
     
Apr 02, 2015 15:30 |  #11

OhLook wrote in post #17499296 (external link)
If I understand past posts on POTN correctly, selling wedding pictures to the couple doesn't make them commercial use.

Many laws are poorly written. You find this out if your activity brings you within shouting distance of one. Enforcement of laws isn't uniform and consistent, either.


That may be the case. I'm not a wedding photographer, so I can't say. I could see where a contract between two parties might not be interpreted as "commercial use," so it's entirely plausible.


Mark J.
Gear

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Tom ­ Reichner
"I am a little creepy"
Avatar
13,980 posts
Gallery: 149 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 4095
Joined Dec 2008
Location: Omak, in north-central Washington state, USA
     
Apr 02, 2015 23:49 |  #12

M_Six wrote in post #17498817 (external link)
Still, this is not a well written law and I see nothing in it that allows random people in wedding pics, which are almost always "commercial use."

I think you are misunderstanding the term "commercial use".
Commercial use does not mean that the images are sold - rather, it means that the images are used for advertising purposes. Who uses their own wedding pics to advertise products or services?


"Your" and "you're" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"They're", "their", and "there" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one.
"Fare" and "fair" are different words with completely different meanings - please use the correct one. The proper expression is "moot point", NOT "mute point".

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Dan ­ Marchant
Do people actually believe in the Title Fairy?
Avatar
5,412 posts
Gallery: 19 photos
Likes: 1733
Joined Oct 2011
Location: Where I'm from is unimportant, it's where I'm going that counts.
     
Apr 03, 2015 01:43 |  #13

M_Six wrote in post #17502296 (external link)
I could see where a contract between two parties might not be interpreted as "commercial use," so it's entirely plausible.

Nope. "Commercial Use" in this situation has a specific legal meaning which doesn't actually relate to monetary gain. It means use (not sale) of an image or a person's likeness for the purpose of promoting, advertising, marketing a cause, company, service or product. Giving an image for free to a charity who use it to promote their cause would be "commercial use" even though no money changed hands. The key word is "use" not "sell".

The court have also ruled that artists are allowed to benefit financially from their work and, as such, the sale of photographs or other work is not "commercial use".


Dan Marchant
Website/blog: danmarchant.com (external link)
Instagram: @dan_marchant (external link)
Gear Canon 5DIII + Fuji X-T2 + lenses + a plastic widget I found in the camera box.

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
tandemhearts
Senior Member
583 posts
Gallery: 5 photos
Likes: 165
Joined Mar 2014
Location: SF Bay Area, CA
     
Apr 03, 2015 06:47 |  #14

The Governor vetoed this bill.

On to the thing to get the Internet outraged.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

3,481 views & 1 like for this thread
Arkansas Senate Passes Bill to Make Street Photography Illegal in State
FORUMS Photography Talk by Genre General Photography Talk 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is lf_alex
819 guests, 344 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.