New Law: Illegal to photograph, even from public property

[opus]

Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.dvafoto.com/2011/03/two-u...ng-operations/

I believe it applies to Florida and Iowa.

Discuss.

[Loupey]

The author of that article assumes it means it would be illegal even if taken from public property without permission by the owner.

Can anyone find the exact wording in the proposed bills that specifically state that? I scanned Florida's SB1246 and Iowa's HF589 and could not find it.

[mjs1973]

There was a post about this in the N/W forum about a month ago. Here is a link to that thread.

Here is a link to Florida's SP1246

I think the big red flag in this is in section 2 where it reads "at or OF a farm".

I understand the "at" part. If I want to go onto someone's private property, I need permission, but if I want to take photos OF someones property, say from the road, that's the scary part. It doesn't specifically say from public property, but it also doesn't say that it's OK to take photos from public property. Seems like it leave a lot of room for interpretation of just what is OK and what isn't as far as where the photos were taken from.

[Greg McCary]

So what's that going to do to the Google map truck that rides around shooting everything for street views? I am sure it is passing farmland too.
If you took the pictures before the law goes into effect would your old pictures be illegal to own?
I hope it doesn't get any support.

[jetrim]

What's particularly troubling about Florida's bill is that the author has already come out and suggested it would only be selectively enforced. The congressman from Tampa has been quoted as saying "I don't think law enforcement would bother with enforcing this against tourists who are just taking pictures".

[OldClicker]

What's particularly troubling about Florida's bill is that the author has already come out and suggested it would only be selectively enforced. The congressman from Tampa has been quoted as saying "I don't think law enforcement would bother with enforcing this against tourists who are just taking pictures".

That is scary. 'We enforce it with those we don't like.' (Not that this is anything new, but saying it up front is.) - Terry

[Photo-John]

I read about this a while ago. It's ridiculous and hopefully it won't get anywhere. Farming has a strong lobby in this country and that worries me, though.

[zerodog]

I can see photos at a farm without permission. That would be like someone coming in your yard and taking pictures without asking. So making that illegal in my book is ok. But, taking pictures from public land of the farm? That sucks. How many cool photos of livestock and landscapes would not have been taken if this was the case?

[Greg McCary]

What's particularly troubling about Florida's bill is that the author has already come out and suggested it would only be selectively enforced. The congressman from Tampa has been quoted as saying "I don't think law enforcement would bother with enforcing this against tourists who are just taking pictures".

That reminds me of the years I went to stock cars races. A very large number of people leaving the race had obviously been drinking and State troopers were everywhere directing traffic as they all filed out to the highways on their way home. Doing nothing. The power of money.lol

[Photo-John]

I can see photos at a farm without permission. That would be like someone coming in your yard and taking pictures without asking. So making that illegal in my book is ok. But, taking pictures from public land of the farm? That sucks. How many cool photos of livestock and landscapes would not have been taken if this was the case?

I think it's important to clarify the reason for this law. Not that it makes me agree with it. But it is illuminating. Supposedly, the law was proposed to protect farmers from activists who would get jobs or otherwise use artifice to get access to farm property and then take pictures of things to pring them to the public's attention. Some examples might the treatment of animals or employees on farms. Farmers (probably mostly corporate farms) want to be protected from PETA or other activist groups going undercover and using photos or film to hurt their businesses. This is understandable, even if the undercover news story is part of our culture. But we already have laws protecting people from photography on their own private property. So this new *proposed* law, banning photography from public property is definitely overreaching and probably even unconsitutional. It would also set a very, very bad precedent for future photography-related laws.

[Photo-John]

I read an article today that said the proposed law has been changed. Now the law would make taking pictures *on* a farm without permission a misdemeanor. This is very different from the original proposal and, in my opinion, doesn't change a thing. Basically, it just adds another criminal charge the authorities can throw at you if you take pictures on private property without permission. Now you can get charged with misdemeanor picture-taking (or whatever they call it) as well as trespassing. As I understand it, the part about taking pictures from public land has been completely dropped. So as long as you're taking pictures from a public road or property where you have permission to be, you're in the clear. Here's a link to the new article I read today:

http://americanindependent.com/17472...-a-misdemeanor

I'm glad to see that someone with sense took a look at this and revised it. And once again - this is a *proposed* law. It hasn't been passed so it's only a possibility. A scary one, though.

[Greg McCary]

In our state I believe the law is, if there is no no trespassing sign you are not breaking the law but if there is your are. If you are on private property that is.

[Skyman]

Just another reason to be glad I am not in the "land of the free"

seriously though, do they think a law like this will stop animal rights activists?
It might make some of the more the moderate activists less likely to act, but it will probably make the hardcore activists more likely to take extreme actions. It also means that when animal abuses do come to light they are going to be more horrible as there is less scrutiny of the industry.

[MNRyan]

In our state I believe the law is, if there is no no trespassing sign you are not breaking the law but if there is your are. If you are on private property that is.

I believe the same can be said about the laws here in MN.