A Texas lawmaker recently attracted death threats after proposing a law that would make it illegal for photographers to take pictures of police officers from within 25 feet of them. Colorado is moving in the opposite direction.
The state is considering several bills that would increase police oversight, and one of the bills outlines punishments for police officers who interfere with people who are lawfully using their cameras.
We reported over the weekend that Arkansas lawmakers had passed a privacy bill that could potentially kill street photography by requiring (in most cases) that photographers get written consent from strangers they photograph. Photographers who don't could get sued by their subjects.
The photography world was in an uproar over the bill and worked hard to get it vetoed by the deadline at the end of the day today. There's now some great news: the bill has been vetoed by Governor Asa Hutchinson.
Texas House of Representatives lawmaker Jason Villalba sparked quite a controversy earlier this month after proposing a bill that would make it illegal to photograph a police officer from within 25 feet. People were so angered by the idea that Villalba has received death threats from angry members of the public.
A week after Los Angeles agreed to train its law enforcement that public photography is not a crime, a bill has been proposed in Texas that would make it a crime for citizens to photograph or film police from within 25 feet of where the are.
Update: There have been new developments. Please see below.
There's a new bill passing through the Arkansas State Legislature that may be concerning to photographers who operate camera drones. The bill is titled, "Concerning The Use Of An Unmanned Vehicle Or Aircraft That Captures Images; To Create The Criminal Offenses; To Provide For Civil Liability," and it criminalizes certain camera drone usage and the possession of photos captured during that usage.
A new "Ansel Adams Act" introduced in Congress could have big implications on photographers' rights across the United States. The bill aims to "restore the First Amendment rights of photographers" by removing restrictions on taking photos in public places.
In a bill meant to bring California's privacy laws into a drone-heavy 21st century, the state just signed an act into law that will make it both illegal and very expensive for anybody seeking to invade someone else's privacy by taking photos of them with a camera drone.
Excessive Photoshopping has gotten a lot of press in recent years, and anti-Photoshop advocates might finally get what they've been seeking thanks to a new bill that just hit Congress.
Back when Detroit was known for its motors more than its money problems, a young engineer by the name of Bill Rauhauser got his first taste of street photography, a "hobby" that would soon become his lifelong career.
Last Thursday, we told you about the newest anti-paparazzi bill to hit the California State Assembly. Focused on expanding the definition of harassment, SB 606 was drafted for the specific purpose of protecting the children of celebrities -- some hollywood actresses have already spoken out in support of the bill.
As with many a legal mater, however, not everyone is in favor of the bill. While most would agree that protecting children from being harassed by paparazzi is a worthy goal, the NPPA is now officially speaking out against SB 606, warning the public that this bill's vague wording "threatens first amendment rights."
A short form bill was recently introduced into the Vermont House of Representatives that ought to have photographers curious, if not worried. That's because this particular bill seeks to "make it illegal to [photograph] a person without his or her consent ... and distribute it," essentially outlawing most forms of public photography.
New Hampshire House of Representatives member Neal Kurk (R) recently backed a bill that plans to ban almost all aerial photography in the state by classifying it as a class A misdemeanor. The bill, HB 619-FN, seems to be aimed at protecting people's privacy; however, the fact that it specifically excludes government officials from the ban has raised concerns regarding just that.
Earlier this week we reported that it is now easier for photographers in the UK to pursue copyright infringement cases without having to shell out big money for a lawyer. While that law change is likely a big boon for photographers, there are other proposed law changes that have some photographers up in arms.
A big win for photographers in Canada: as of today, you now officially own the copyright to all your photographs regardless of whether they were commissioned. The development comes as a result of Canada major copyright reform bill (Bill C-11) taking effect this morning. One of the stated goals of the new copyright law is to, "give photographers the same rights as other creators."
In the past year -- and especially with the growth of the "occupy" movement -- police interfering with photographers or pedestrians trying to snap a photo of them has been in the news quite a lot. Just yesterday we reported on the Olympics' security guards who landed in hot water after harassing photogs shooting from public land. In the past, this was no problem, as police officers had little to fear in way of personal liability when they interfered; however, a new Connecticut bill -- the first of its kind -- may soon change that.
This looks like a screenshot of a satirical article by The Onion, but …
New Jersey is considering a new law that would make it a third-degree crime to photograph children without parental consent. More specifically, bill A3297 would prevent people from shooting photos or videos of children when "a reasonable parent or guardian would not expect his child to be the subject of such reproduction".
A couple weeks ago we reported that a lawmaker in Florida was trying to make photographing farms …
A bill recently introduced by Florida state senator Jim Norman would, if passed, …
Photographers have been buzzing about the Digital …