If this bill were to pass you could go to jail for a first degree felony if you don't have written consent from the owner of the pasture in the background of your landscape image.
I checked out this law maker's website. It's so.
Posted by David Bostedo on March 10, 2011 at 11:08 PM
That's very weird. What's so special about farms? Why should I be able to take a picture of a non-farmers field, but not a farm field? What's the justification?
Regarding the justification you mentioned Buck, and more importantly, keeping people from trying to document things they think are wrong seems like a terrible reason, and antithetical to the first amendment (freedom of the press - and I realize this law would apply to people who aren't actually media members).
I think it's interesting to think of what would happen in hillier states, where shots of BG farmland are much more prevalent. All those Palouse shots? Illegal. Shots of Shenandoah mountain valleys? Illegal. Shots of central Pennsylvania countryside? Illegal.
The post 911 world has just gone crazy with the laws. This is so unconstitutional that I don't even see how anyone could consider it. And would it be retroactive? All of Florida's farm land has been photographed many times. Seems like it would be impossible to prove anything in any case.
Posted by Jim Bennett on March 11, 2011 at 1:19 AM
I also can't see how this wouldn't be held as being unconstitutional in court. I suppose that they would also be able to file charges against Google Earth for all of their satellite images of Florida farms?
Now I could understand if someone wanted to require a release for using a photo of their private property for commercial purposes, but that doesn't seem to be what this law is about.
Posted by Bill Chambers on March 11, 2011 at 8:09 AM
As Daniel Ewert alluded to in his earlier posting of this, it may have something to do with keeping the likes of PETA or some other organization from filming farms. Only a guess of course. I urge all of my fellow Floridians to write your state congressionman and ask them to vote against this ridiculous measure. Seems like typical knee jerk reaction of introduce first, think later.
Posted by Jim Bullard on March 11, 2011 at 8:43 AM
The first part forbidding "entering onto" a farm without permission I suspect is already covering in trespass law except that this bill expressly requires "written permission". That could prove awkward for delivery services. The prohibition of photography from outside the property however strikes me as unconstitutional. You already can not use photos of someone's property for commercial purposes without a property release but to say you can't take pictures at all without permission? That sounds like what's going on in Libya and other dictatorships around the world.
Posted by Carol Hyman on March 11, 2011 at 12:15 PM
Let's face it boys and girls, we're now living in a Steven King world!!!!!
And I for one, don't like it.
Carol
Posted by David Bostedo on March 11, 2011 at 12:55 PM
Let's face it boys and girls, we're now living in a Steven King world!!!!!
Nah - there are always weird bills proposed and weird thoughts in people's heads, and those who want to infringe on civil liberties. Take a look at a history of ACLU cases; Or think about the civil rights movement - it's not like things were "normal" back then.
What has changed maybe is the tenor of some of the bills or laws, supposedly backed up as being for security or protection of things. I full suspect as Jim did that this won't past muster constitutionally.
Interesting that there is an ever increasing proliferation of public "security" cameras watching everything we do, at all hours of the day and night, in all areas of the US but this guy wants to call making an image of a barn in a field during sunset a felony!!!
GET REAL!!!!
Posted by Mark Stahlke on March 16, 2011 at 12:44 PM
It looks like the War on Photography is spreading to Iowa.
Discussion
9 repliesIf this bill were to pass you could go to jail for a first degree felony if you don't have written consent from the owner of the pasture in the background of your landscape image.
I checked out this law maker's website. It's so.
That's very weird. What's so special about farms? Why should I be able to take a picture of a non-farmers field, but not a farm field? What's the justification?
Regarding the justification you mentioned Buck, and more importantly, keeping people from trying to document things they think are wrong seems like a terrible reason, and antithetical to the first amendment (freedom of the press - and I realize this law would apply to people who aren't actually media members).
I think it's interesting to think of what would happen in hillier states, where shots of BG farmland are much more prevalent. All those Palouse shots? Illegal. Shots of Shenandoah mountain valleys? Illegal. Shots of central Pennsylvania countryside? Illegal.
It just doesn't make sense.
Now I could understand if someone wanted to require a release for using a photo of their private property for commercial purposes, but that doesn't seem to be what this law is about.
And I for one, don't like it.
Carol
Nah - there are always weird bills proposed and weird thoughts in people's heads, and those who want to infringe on civil liberties. Take a look at a history of ACLU cases; Or think about the civil rights movement - it's not like things were "normal" back then.
What has changed maybe is the tenor of some of the bills or laws, supposedly backed up as being for security or protection of things. I full suspect as Jim did that this won't past muster constitutionally.
GET REAL!!!!