NJ lawmaker wants to criminalize photographing utitlties and airports

Chris says, "A lawmaker in New Jersey is pushing a bill that would make it a crime to photograph or videotape power plants, sewage facilities, etc."

The state Senate Law and Public Safety Committee is expected to discuss a bill today which would make it a crime—punishable by up to 18 months in jail—to photograph, videotape or otherwise record for an extended period of time a power generation, waste treatment, public sewage, water treatment, public water, nuclear or flammable liquid storage facility, as well as any airport in the state.

At the very least, it will allow law enforcement officials across the state to detain the individual or confiscate any recorded materials to further their investigation, according to state Sen. Fred Madden, D-4 of Turnersville, who is the bill’s sponsor.

Continue reading at NJ.com

Via Boing Boing

NYCLU threatens to sue city over new photo policy

"A public Troy New York ice skating rink has decided that photography should not be allowed unless approved by their Executive Director. At least one parent says she’s being arbitrarily discriminated against and not being allowed to film her own kid at the public rink."

James V. Franco writes in the Troy Record:

Jean Hetman, who has a 13-year-old daughter who practices figure skating at the arena, said she has been video taping and photographing her daughter’s routines for about six years, but now she is being told she cannot, and even had the police called on her twice.

"I am more than willing to show my ID and go through whatever mechanism they want to use to determine who is a pedophile and who is not," she said "When it gets right down to it, I can take a photo of whoever I feel like taking a picture of. When you are in a public place you have no right of privacy."

The city maintains the new policy is to protect children from pedophiles.
Melanie Trimble, NYCLU [New York Civil Liberties Union] executive director, said the rink is a public place and Hetman is within her rights to photograph children skating. Furthermore, she said the policy, although unnecessary and probably illegal, is not being applied fairly because Recreation Director George Rogers twice denied Hetman permission while granting other parents permission to do the same thing…

Again: WTF??!? I’m no lawyer, but in the US, public place = right to photograph. As Ms. Hetman said, "When it gets right down to it, I can take a photo of whoever I feel like taking a picture of. When you are in a public place you have no right of privacy." End of story. Hetman is bending over backwards to meet on middle ground as it is: she’s willing to show identification to exercise a legal right! This bogus policy needs to end and Rogers needs to be fired immediately.

This is outrageous, whether you care about photography or not. You don’t get to go around just making up laws because you feel like it. As far as I’m concerned, this is actually worse than somebody arbitrarily declaring wearing-jeans-is-a-felony-Mondays because the courts have explicitly and repeatedly upheld the right to photograph in public places, whereas they haven’t, as far as I know, the right to wear jeans.

I’m curious about what happend when the police were called. Some random clown trying to legislate from the rink is bad enough, but it’s far worse if the police are actually enforcing it.

If you take photos in the US—yes, even you with the camera phone—have a look at attorney Bert P. Krages‘ downloadable flyer, The Photographer’s Right – Your Rights When You Are Stopped or Confronted for Photography. And don’t believe the hype: there’s nothing at all about photography in the original (HR3162, 2001) or reauthorized (HR3199, 2005) versions of the Patriot Act.

For the UK, get the downloadable UK Photographers Rights Guide; for Oz, grab NSW Photographer’s Rights. (If anyone knows of similar sheets for other countries, please let me know!)

Coverage:
Read article at troyrecord.com
Video of local WNYT news coverage (WMV)
Thomas Hawk’s commentary
Bill Pytlovany’s commentary

Via Digg

Paul Newman backs US image rights bill

The BBC writes:

"Actor Paul Newman has joined calls for the legislature in [the US state of –Nicolai] Connecticut to pass a law protecting image rights.

"Newman is among a group of actors backing a bill banning the use of a person’s image or voice without consent for up to 70 years after their death.

"…

"…added that the bill could prevent parodies of famous people and restrict filmmakers from using old footage…"

Continue reading at bbc.co.uk

70 years??

NY photographer held for hours by police over flag photo

Thomas Hawk writes:

"Having been the subject of unwarranted police background checks and being detained when shooting in the streets of Oakland myself, I was dismayed to read about this guy, Ben Hider, who was detained by police for two hours, searched, forced to empty his pockets and frisked. His crime? Taking photos of the flags out in front of the courthouse. Although he was issued an apology this is just unacceptable behavior on the part of the police. Photography is not a crime."

Read article at ABC News

The article says, "…that’s why today a memo was issued offering very clear specifics on what to do with people taking pictures in public places…"

Uh, how about nothing? Photography in public places is legal in the US.

Further reading

Via Boing Boing

NY Times on diCorcia-Nussenzweig street photography case

Philip Gefter writes in the New York Times, "The practice of street photography has a long tradition in the United States, with documentary and artistic strains, in big cities and small towns. Photographers usually must obtain permission to photograph on private property—including restaurants and hotel lobbies—but the freedom to photograph in public has long been taken for granted. Remarkably, this was the first case to directly challenge that right. Had it succeeded, ‘Subway Passenger, New York City’, 1941, along with a vast number of other famous images taken on the sly, might no longer be able to be published or sold…"

This has been a very interesting case. The article also gets into religion vs. privacy and is well worth a read.

Continue reading at nytimes.com

Via ArtsJournal