Likewise, it should be a criminal offense to build a farm in such a manner that it could be photographed from an adjacent highway.
And how much money will be wasted trying to enforce that law???
""or other property where legitimate agriculture operations "" so if you know where an illegal farm is, you are free to photograph to your hearts content...
Actually, this is not surprising and not new at all. There have been many, many discussions here on 365 wondering about where people have the right to shoot photos, and one common term is always applied: public property.
Photographers have always been protected by the law to shoot any photos they want in public spaces including government-owned property, parks, sidewalks, streets, beaches, and malls (though sometimes that comes into question since it is privately-owned property).
However, shooting on a person's farm is, indeed, illegal. And although I am a photographer who makes a living selling and licensing landscape photos I have to agree with the intent of this law.
Private property is just that: private property. You can't build a house on it, you can't sell to to someone else, you can't cut down a tree, and you can't shoot a photo, especially if you intend to make a profit from that photo.
funny, but I started thread on a similar issue way back in Dec 2009 and today http://365project.org/brizmako/profile replied adding this to the thread about how things are in Oz...
"Here at least, there is nothing illegal about taking photographs in public spaces. This includes beaches, streets, parks, riverbanks, waterways, bridges, roads, footpaths and anywhere else you can consider a public space. This includes many privately owned/managed/classified areas that are open to public use and/or thoroughfares such as railway stations, bus terminals, privately managed parks such as Southbank Parklands, Museums, etcetera. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject or composition of the photograph, either...but there can be some exceptions to this which I will touch on in a moment.
You can stand in a public space (footpath, road, etc) and photograph private structures and facilities. If it's viewable to the average citizen, it is okay to photograph and/or film it.
On the other side of the coin, however, your neighbour is allowed to put a video surveillance camera up on the side of his house that points directly at your house under the guise of home security (although this is a grey area that is open to civil arbitration). The media can stand on the footpath at your front gate and harass you whenever they see you and, as long as they keep talking constantly restricting your ability to tell them clearly to leave your property, they can follow you right up to your front door. If someone is photographing a bird in flight that crosses in front of your window while you are leaping about nakedly pretending to be Errol Flynn, that is perfectly legal (and you really should at least put some undies on...really).
Commercial business premises are a different kettle of fish, however. Due to the nature of the locale, you must abide by their rules re photography and digital image collection or you can be asked to leave by staff or security representing the management. This is wholly a civil matter and police will not become involved unless there is a disturbance or fracas which falls under the purview of a criminal offence".
I am of the opinion that this Bill is being lobbied heavily for by the factory farms. Seems they want to keep their dirty, unsanitary, and cruel farms from being photographed, so as to stir the public into making farming more humane and healthy. Sucks that I live in a state that would even sponsor such a bill.
here is what I sent to Norman. This artical sure ruffled my feathers
I was just made aware of the ridiculous attempt to make taking pictures of farms off limits without written permission.
I just don’t get it, who is paying you off to attempt such a thing, maybe it is a farm in operation that hires illegals and
they don’t want to be seen. Or is it maybe farms that are growing crops that should not be grown. I don’t understand,
who or whom is being protected and for what reason. The portrayal and photo’s of farms has been forever a topic to
be loved and cherished as seeing a way that many communities came to be settled. If this thing goes through it will
truly be a sad day for many many people, not you of course. I for one will be more than likely committing a felony
because if I see a great barn, or a field of flowers, or anything else that will make a great photo I will stop and take it.
How many more things are you misguided political (whatever) going to try and take away from the very people that
helped get you into office. How about working for those people instead of the ones with the big wallets???????????
Not only is that so so so stupid and a tad suspicious, I am also a little irked that the journalist cannot be bothered the write correctly "A Florida bill would make it a felony to take photographs on or of farms without express written consent " Isnt that 'off'?!
Hey ho. Its deffo a world gone mad, but then I read a lot of bills that are up for debate in the States that are completely stupid, and they rarely get another mention. Lets hope not, because today the farmer, tomorrow everywhere.
@jasonbarnette As a photographer, I am fairly shocked that you can agree with this.
@ashleyjwilson Seems this Bill is for the State of Florida and will not impact any of the other 49 states. @blightygal Taking a photo on a farm would indicate that the photographer is standing on private property. Of/At a farm means that you are standing on another property or even on public rights of way, you would not have the right to take a photo of the farm or point your camera at the farm and take a picture. The wording may not seem normal, but amazingly is quite specific and clear for legislation.
@blightygal I don't agree with this, but rather understand. Now, I will agree with some of the other comments in this discussion regarding the intent of this law: I do believe it is politically motivated. However, seeing as how this is a site about photography I will keep my comments in that frame of reference.
As a photographer, I have limits. Contrary to what some people have stated, all photographers are not protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. This does not, however, protect every John, Dick, and Jane with a camera.
Limits exist. I do not always agree with them, but I also know that just because I own a camera it does not give me a right to go anywhere I want and shoot anything I want. Did you know it is illegal to shoot photos inside of courtrooms, jails, police stations, and fire departments? How about this: it is illegal to shoot photos inside hospitals and clinics because of patient protection rights.
Finally, it is also illegal to shoot photos on or of military bases, property, and exercises.
Limits exist. I don't agree with them all. I think this particular one in Florida is politically motivated though we may never know the true intent of the law.
Am I being blond?? He doesn't state why??? If we had a reason for the Bill it may make sense.. but where is the reason for the Bill? or is he just being a Dick for the sake of being a Dick?
What a waste of taxpayer money. Could they not come up with something important to write a bill about? That is the one thing about this country that drives me nuts. Idiot.
Too bad you can't edit titles. I really *meant* to title this, Photoraphy = Felony?! Unfortunately, I was also reading about federal crimes for work. Sigh.
@jasonbarnette As a ex-national press photographer am fully aware of the laws, in the UK anyway. I was suprised tho as another photographer that you would agree, if only in principle that this was ok. Yes, I realised shooting ON a farm is illegal without permission, but from a public place its not a problem. And it isnt intrusive is it? Its not like people are marching up to the window of a farmers home and poking their lens through.
Anyway, it wont go through, its a silly bill and impossible to police.
Interesting. I like to photograph barns and abandoned houses, etc. On April 14, it was snowing and stopped to shoot a barn. A woman pulled up and asked what I was doing. I replied that I am taking a picture of the barn. She asked if I got the owner's permission. I replied, no, I am on public property (Highway US287). She continued to harass me until I just left. I was in a pissy mood the rest of the day.
Write a Reply
Sign up for a free account or Sign in to post a comment.
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
And how much money will be wasted trying to enforce that law???
""or other property where legitimate agriculture operations "" so if you know where an illegal farm is, you are free to photograph to your hearts content...
Photographers have always been protected by the law to shoot any photos they want in public spaces including government-owned property, parks, sidewalks, streets, beaches, and malls (though sometimes that comes into question since it is privately-owned property).
However, shooting on a person's farm is, indeed, illegal. And although I am a photographer who makes a living selling and licensing landscape photos I have to agree with the intent of this law.
Private property is just that: private property. You can't build a house on it, you can't sell to to someone else, you can't cut down a tree, and you can't shoot a photo, especially if you intend to make a profit from that photo.
funny, but I started thread on a similar issue way back in Dec 2009 and today http://365project.org/brizmako/profile replied adding this to the thread about how things are in Oz...
"Here at least, there is nothing illegal about taking photographs in public spaces. This includes beaches, streets, parks, riverbanks, waterways, bridges, roads, footpaths and anywhere else you can consider a public space. This includes many privately owned/managed/classified areas that are open to public use and/or thoroughfares such as railway stations, bus terminals, privately managed parks such as Southbank Parklands, Museums, etcetera. It has absolutely nothing to do with the subject or composition of the photograph, either...but there can be some exceptions to this which I will touch on in a moment.
You can stand in a public space (footpath, road, etc) and photograph private structures and facilities. If it's viewable to the average citizen, it is okay to photograph and/or film it.
On the other side of the coin, however, your neighbour is allowed to put a video surveillance camera up on the side of his house that points directly at your house under the guise of home security (although this is a grey area that is open to civil arbitration). The media can stand on the footpath at your front gate and harass you whenever they see you and, as long as they keep talking constantly restricting your ability to tell them clearly to leave your property, they can follow you right up to your front door. If someone is photographing a bird in flight that crosses in front of your window while you are leaping about nakedly pretending to be Errol Flynn, that is perfectly legal (and you really should at least put some undies on...really).
Commercial business premises are a different kettle of fish, however. Due to the nature of the locale, you must abide by their rules re photography and digital image collection or you can be asked to leave by staff or security representing the management. This is wholly a civil matter and police will not become involved unless there is a disturbance or fracas which falls under the purview of a criminal offence".
I was just made aware of the ridiculous attempt to make taking pictures of farms off limits without written permission.
I just don’t get it, who is paying you off to attempt such a thing, maybe it is a farm in operation that hires illegals and
they don’t want to be seen. Or is it maybe farms that are growing crops that should not be grown. I don’t understand,
who or whom is being protected and for what reason. The portrayal and photo’s of farms has been forever a topic to
be loved and cherished as seeing a way that many communities came to be settled. If this thing goes through it will
truly be a sad day for many many people, not you of course. I for one will be more than likely committing a felony
because if I see a great barn, or a field of flowers, or anything else that will make a great photo I will stop and take it.
How many more things are you misguided political (whatever) going to try and take away from the very people that
helped get you into office. How about working for those people instead of the ones with the big wallets???????????
Hey ho. Its deffo a world gone mad, but then I read a lot of bills that are up for debate in the States that are completely stupid, and they rarely get another mention. Lets hope not, because today the farmer, tomorrow everywhere.
@jasonbarnette As a photographer, I am fairly shocked that you can agree with this.
@blightygal Taking a photo on a farm would indicate that the photographer is standing on private property. Of/At a farm means that you are standing on another property or even on public rights of way, you would not have the right to take a photo of the farm or point your camera at the farm and take a picture. The wording may not seem normal, but amazingly is quite specific and clear for legislation.
As a photographer, I have limits. Contrary to what some people have stated, all photographers are not protected by the First Amendment. The First Amendment of the United States Constitution guarantees freedom of the press. This does not, however, protect every John, Dick, and Jane with a camera.
Limits exist. I do not always agree with them, but I also know that just because I own a camera it does not give me a right to go anywhere I want and shoot anything I want. Did you know it is illegal to shoot photos inside of courtrooms, jails, police stations, and fire departments? How about this: it is illegal to shoot photos inside hospitals and clinics because of patient protection rights.
Finally, it is also illegal to shoot photos on or of military bases, property, and exercises.
Limits exist. I don't agree with them all. I think this particular one in Florida is politically motivated though we may never know the true intent of the law.
@jasonbarnette As a ex-national press photographer am fully aware of the laws, in the UK anyway. I was suprised tho as another photographer that you would agree, if only in principle that this was ok. Yes, I realised shooting ON a farm is illegal without permission, but from a public place its not a problem. And it isnt intrusive is it? Its not like people are marching up to the window of a farmers home and poking their lens through.
Anyway, it wont go through, its a silly bill and impossible to police.