What about in places where you need a permit to photograph-like on the Chicago L? I guess the caveat is the permit. Unlawful to photograph without a permit.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
There is no need for an intent to commit a crime - the necessary intent* is to commit the actus reus (or failure to act when there is a duty to act.)
*of course some crimes don't need an "intent" - negligence is sufficient.
But anyway this is law school 101 stuff and growing apart from the point of this thread.
The Chicago Transit Authority welcomes photography with handheld cameras for non-commercial purposes. Tripods, etc are a different matter, but I have the feeling that they might be pretty easy to work with as the city encourages film productions.
http://www.transitchicago.com/business/photopolicy.aspx
Last edited by Kirk Gittings; 21-Oct-2011 at 08:47.
Thanks,
Kirk
at age 73:
"The woods are lovely, dark and deep,
But I have promises to keep,
And miles to go before I sleep,
And miles to go before I sleep"
That's what you need to make your point, maybe. What most of us need is a formula for staying within the protection of the first amendment, given that one seems to exist that does not seem overly narrow. We don't have that now because the definitions have not been tested.
Porat didn't establish the communication requirement, it just applied it to photography. I'm with Tuan, it seems to me nonsense that photography is not communicative, unless a photographer really boxes himself into a narrow place. And if he does have no intention at all of others seeing his work, does he really deserve first amendment protection?
Rick "who displays photos, such as they are, on the web" Denney
Bookmarks