Arkansas to Outlaw Street Photography ... potentially worldwide

4

480sparky

Senior Member
So millions of privately-owned security cameras will need to be turned off because they are aimed at public property.

Woo hoo! Let the looting and mayhem commence!
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
mikew said:
Does street translate to public spaces ie parks,wildlife reserves,some people needed smothering at birth.
Click to expand...

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.

Essentially, if you have a photograph on the internet and there is a recognizable face in that photograph, if it can be "viewed within the state of Arkansas" (which has me voting that we ban the internet from that backwards place) then you must have, and apparently manage to maintain record of the "explicit permission" you obtained from said person or face a lawsuit. I've looked through the bill and cannot see a clear list of what "exempted use" means. The real horror is that, as stated in the ASMP link in the article, "By extending publicity rights to all individuals — not just citizens of Arkansas or celebrities — SB-79 will allow any individual or heir whose likeness is viewable in Arkansas to sue photographers over uses that would be allowed in their state or country." This means that because the image I took in New Jersey is "viewable" in Arkansas, the person from NJ can sue me under the Arkansas law. It's batsh*t crazy legal mumbo-jumbo that goes far beyond what the likely intent was (but who knows?!).
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
480sparky said:
So millions of privately-owned security cameras will need to be turned off because they are aimed at public property.

Woo hoo! Let the looting and mayhem commence!
Click to expand...

You can shoot as many photos as you want and turn your security cameras anywhere you'd like, as long as they are not viewable publicly. So security cameras would be fine since they are not made public, but traffic cameras probably not unless they are sufficiently blurry as to prevent you from recognizing anyone.

It takes the TX law where you need to maintain 25 feet from a cop and makes it laughs at it. You can shoot all you want, but the minute you put it on YouTube you can be sued in an Arkansas court. In fact, if you shoot video of a cop in, say, Ferguson, MO and post it to YouTube without that cop's permission (and the permission of every other individual in video seen or heard), that cop can sue you in the state of Arkansas.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
You can shoot as many photos as you want and turn your security cameras anywhere you'd like, as long as they are not viewable publicly. So security cameras would be fine since they are not made public, but traffic cameras probably not unless they are sufficiently blurry as to prevent you from recognizing anyone.

It takes the TX law where you need to maintain 25 feet from a cop and makes it laughs at it. You can shoot all you want, but the minute you put it on YouTube you can be sued in an Arkansas court. In fact, if you shoot video of a cop in, say, Ferguson, MO and post it to YouTube without that cop's permission (and the permission of every other individual in video seen or heard), that cop can sue you in the state of Arkansas.
Click to expand...


Well, aren't you a real downer! :grief: j/k.

So my next question is, can someone get sued if they have the image on their computer and the next-door neighbor stops by for a cup of sugar and sees it?

What's worse are Oregon's and Texas' drone laws.
 
BackdoorArts

BackdoorArts

Senior Member
480sparky said:
Well, aren't you a real downer! :grief: j/k.

So my next question is, can someone get sued if they have the image on their computer and the next-door neighbor stops by for a cup of sugar and sees it?

What's worse are Oregon's and Texas' drone laws.
Click to expand...

Personal possession seems to be fine here. It's the public accessibility that makes it an issue.
 
Bob Blaylock

Bob Blaylock

Senior Member
BackdoorHippie said:
If the implications of this story are true it's both heinous and ridiculous.

https://fstoppers.com/news/arkansas-senate-passes-bill-make-street-photography-illegal-state-65704

Imagine the implications not just for street photographers, but for everyone with a Facebook, Instagram or Flickr account. It effectively outlaws taking photographs.
Click to expand...

If that does get passed into law, there is no way in Hell that it will survive the very first time it is challenged in court.

Aside from the very obvious First Amendment issues, it also amounts to an attempt by the state to regulate activity that takes place outside of its jurisdiction. There is no way any competent court will uphold that.

A state can only regulate activity that is confined within the borders of that state. It appears that this bill would attempt to claim jurisdiction over photographs taken outside of the state, by people who are not residents of the state, of people who are not residents of the state, and posted to social media sites that are based outside of the state; on the basis that they can then be viewed over the Internet, on those social media sites, from within the state. The resulting images have to cross the state's border before they even come into the state. That makes it interstate commerce, and if there was any authority to impose any legal restrictions, that authority would have to belong exclusively to the federal government.
 
4

480sparky

Senior Member
Roy1961 said:
stupid question, does tv cameras come into play here, news reports showing passersby????
Click to expand...

4-75-1010.Fair use

—
Commercial sponsorship.
(a)(1)It is a fair use and not a violation of this subchapter if a
name, voice, signature, photograph, or likeness is used:
(A)In connection with a news, public affairs,or sports
Broadcast, including thepromotion of and advertising for a sports broadcast,
an account of public interest, or a political campaign;
 
P

Pretzel

Senior Member
As an "artist" who loves the grit and feel of street photography, and/or the cityscape with people milling about, I am feeling deflated, near DEFEATED, that a bill like this would even get this far. Thank goodness it was vetoed.

That's all I have the energy to say right now.
 
J

J-see

Senior Member
If you can no longer take photos, I guess that would imply news agencies or news channels can no longer shoot/film anything. Same logic me thinks.
 
Top