Pages: [1]   Go Down

Author Topic: Arkansas strangeness  (Read 5466 times)

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Arkansas strangeness
« on: March 30, 2015, 05:42:25 pm »

The AR senate passed a law SB 79 http://www.arkleg.state.ar.us/assembly/2015/2015R/Bills/SB79.pdf
that is intended to allow individuals to sue photographers for commercial use of photos with the recognizable individual. Exempted are a narrow group of broadcast news uses. Also exempted are uses of photography for data collection. So, red light cameras legal. Internet news reporting, illegal. Car and all camera and computer equipment of reporter/ photographer to be confiscated, without recourse. This sounds like a recipe for abuse in a state that needs all the tourism money it can get.

Pro PJ photographers' group take on this: http://asmp.org/SB79#.VRm8dGPoNDU

It is my opinion that this bill was made to protect AR business against investigative journalism by free-lance journalists, and specifically, to protect the factory pig farms and other polluters.
Logged

E.J. Peiker

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 891
    • http://www.ejphoto.com
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #1 on: March 30, 2015, 07:46:11 pm »

Yup, that's exactly what the bill is about.
Logged

Eric Myrvaagnes

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 22814
  • http://myrvaagnes.com
    • http://myrvaagnes.com
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #2 on: March 31, 2015, 12:37:12 am »

Arkansas won't get my tourist money until they remove that law.
Logged
-Eric Myrvaagnes (visit my website: http://myrvaagnes.com)

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #3 on: March 31, 2015, 11:46:48 am »

I haven't run out of good sites in Southern MO yet. And any trip to AR would likely be to the Buffalo River, a federally owned site with campgrounds.
Logged

Colorado David

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1178
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #4 on: March 31, 2015, 12:17:08 pm »

I got the ASMP email and have passed it along on other websites.  If it becomes law, it surely will be struck down in federal court.  It is a blatant attack on the 1st Amendment.

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #5 on: March 31, 2015, 04:39:10 pm »

Governor just vetoed it.
Logged

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #6 on: March 31, 2015, 04:48:44 pm »

Governor just vetoed it.

Hallelujah!

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #7 on: March 31, 2015, 07:10:02 pm »

Now the Gov. has the "Religious right to discriminate against gays, women, Jews, and brown people with funny names" bill ready to sign, and by all signs, he's more than willing to sign. Of course, AR is hardly a hotbed of technology, does not have a popular convention city, and no-one with a scrap of ambition wants to move there. So, AR doesn't have much to lose.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #8 on: April 01, 2015, 09:40:30 am »

You folks are being too hard on us poor Arkies!!. 

The bill in question has been around bounced around for a while, and it only pertains to attempting to make a profit at the expense of others. This IMO only really matters if you have taken a shot with a person in the photo, and are trying to sell the shot.  This is just like working in stock photography and not getting a signed release.  At least the way I see it.

Feel free to come to Arkansas and shoot the scenery, just make sure no one is in the picture.  Albeit at times that can be hard, but that is why I have made content aware one of my best friends.  There are plenty of spots in this great state where you can still photograph and not have an individual in the photo.

WHAT does get me worried, is the prospect of the Federal and or State Gov's making it so that you can't photograph without a permit.  Last year this issue came up in regards to the Federal Lands.  If you were photographing in a National Park for a profit, i.e. are you going to sell the shot, then you needed a permit.  I don't know where that law/rule went either.

Paul


Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

Slobodan Blagojevic

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 18090
  • When everyone thinks the same, nobody thinks
    • My website
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #9 on: April 01, 2015, 09:52:00 am »

You folks are being too hard on us poor Arkies!!. 

The bill in question has been around bounced around for a while, and it only pertains to attempting to make a profit at the expense of others. This IMO only really matters if you have taken a shot with a person in the photo, and are trying to sell the shot.  This is just like working in stock photography and not getting a signed release...

That is already covered by the existing laws. This one goes way beyond it, in the definition of what the commercial use is, as well as in draconian penalties, like seizure and forfeiture of your camera, car and computer (hmmm...why did the leave house out of it, after all you were sitting in it while processing that photo?).

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #10 on: April 01, 2015, 11:14:37 am »

I want to like my neighboring state, Paul2660, and I don't believe for a minute that the AR legislature attitudes are shared by a large majority of AR citizens. I do think that the bill is aimed at freelance news photographers (nowadays the "only" kind of PJs) and citizen bloggers/instagrammers/FBers disseminating photos via internet. The "for profit" - offering an unrelated e-book for sale, or being a B and H associate, or listing your photographic services would constitute proof that the website was a "for profit" entity. The law doesn't need to stand up in court - it just needs to provide a pretext for businesses and police associations to threaten to sue or actually sue, effectively quashing the information. A SLAPP suit, in other words.
Logged

Paul2660

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 4066
    • Photos of Arkansas
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #11 on: April 01, 2015, 11:29:42 am »

As a full time photographer, who lives and worked 100% of time in Arkansas, I see no problems, as I don't photograph people in my work, in fact I work to avoid them.  After reading the entire bill, it seems clear to me it's pointed to video/stills from cell phones, where such works is posted online many times with damaging results to an individual.  More than likely more states will follow this as currently such work is pretty wild and un-constrained. 

There is way too much freedom and lack of understanding of just what you can do when you hit the post it button.  Many folks do not take even a second to think about it. 

Time will tell. 

Paul


Logged
Paul Caldwell
Little Rock, Arkansas U.S.
www.photosofarkansas.com

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #12 on: April 01, 2015, 12:29:17 pm »

I consider releases standard operating procedure, and sign a fair number of the releases myself.

Video or stills from cell phones:
Do the names, "Oscar Grant (Oakland BART subway)" and "Eric Garner (Staten Island)" mean anything to you? These are incidents where videos or photographs show police killing an unarmed man. This is news. This is important news. This is what the law would be used to try to suppress - in effect, citizen journalism. Anything that draws readers to a blog that may have some unrelated ad can be construed as "for-profit". States are having a harder time passing laws that make it illegal to photograph police.

My impression is that the case law for ensuring freedom of news/"political"/controversial expression on the internet is still being made, and that news organizations don't have to back up their freelancers and sure as h_ don't keep photographers on staff any more, so freelance PJs should expect to be hung out to dry (possibly losing their tools of the trade, eg, the cameras and car).
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #13 on: April 01, 2015, 12:36:31 pm »

Do the names, "Oscar Grant (Oakland BART subway)" and "Eric Garner (Staten Island)" mean anything to you? These are incidents where videos or photographs show police killing an unarmed man. This is news. This is important news.

"commercial use of photos with the recognizable individual" - just blur the face before commercial use... time consuming ? your problem.
Logged

AlterEgo

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 1995
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #14 on: April 01, 2015, 12:38:28 pm »

The "for profit" - offering an unrelated e-book for sale, or being a B and H associate, or listing your photographic services would constitute proof that the website was a "for profit" entity.

and that's true - it is for profit... at least be honest about the intent of using the website to sell books or services or getting referral fees
Logged

NancyP

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 2513
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #15 on: April 01, 2015, 02:19:24 pm »

This LuLa website sells products. Many amateur bloggers just put up an Amazon partners link or PayPal donation link. Even if the amateur blogger gets zero money, the presence of the links can be construed to prove that the amateur's site, celebrating the glories of the tiger beetle or some such, is a for-profit entity.
Logged

Praki

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Offline Offline
  • Posts: 146
Re: Arkansas strangeness
« Reply #16 on: April 02, 2015, 05:30:15 pm »

Saw the date on the post and thought it was a April Fool's joke. But alas not!
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up