Page 21 of 36 FirstFirst ... 11192021222331 ... LastLast
Results 201 to 210 of 360

Thread: Law on photography update

  1. #201

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    I did not. The crime is loitering with intent. Loitering on its own is o.k. The officer would have to prove intent.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intention_in_English_law

    Anyway, I left my tent at home.

    I assume that bit applies to me if I visit your country.


    Steve.
    LOL - the mens rea element of loitering is merely "intending to stand around doing nothing." After all, you're not loitering by accident or under compulsion, are you? Is someone forcing you to loiter? Are you "inadvertently" loitering? Sleep walking perhaps?

  2. #202
    http://www.spiritsofsilver.com tgtaylor's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    4,729

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by tgtaylor View Post
    I beg to differ.

    If, for purposes of enjoyment of a legal right, you are separating a class in two different entities, as you appear to be doing, for entitlement to that right namely the photographic "hobbyists" who seeks nothing more than personal edification and gratification, and the "communicative" photographer who seeks to "communicate" an idea or opinion, then the due process and equal protection clause of the 14th Amendment would have a very strong and decisive bearing on the issue. The separation of a class into two different classes for purpose of entitlement would be legal under the 14th Amendment if, and only if, there exists a compelling public interest supporting such a sub-classification. I can see no compelling public interest being served by classifying photographers as hobbyists or communicative for purposes of free speech protection. Can you?
    Quote Originally Posted by tgtaylor View Post
    Fourteenth Amendment to US Constitution

    Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    I enjoy your random bits of direct quotations from here and there, without any explanation on how it would be relevant to the issue under discussion.
    The old saying that "you can lead a horse to water but you can't force him to drink" is apt here.

  3. #203
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Isle of Wight, near England
    Posts
    707

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    LOL - the mens rea element of loitering is merely "intending to stand around doing nothing." After all, you're not loitering by accident or under compulsion, are you? Is someone forcing you to loiter? Are you "inadvertently" loitering? Sleep walking perhaps?
    The mens rea element must be an intent to commit a criminal offence as just standing around doing nothing is not an offence in itself.

    The way you word it, the offence would be loitering with the intent to loiter.


    Steve.

  4. #204
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Law on photography update

    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"

  5. #205
    Steve Smith's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    Isle of Wight, near England
    Posts
    707

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    I guess the caveat is the permit. Unlawful to photograph without a permit.
    Isn't that classed as private property? In that case the property owners require you to have a permit. That doesn't make it an offence to photograph without one though. It's just a breach of their terms and conditions which they expect you to adhere to.


    Steve.

  6. #206

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    The mens rea element must be an intent to commit a criminal offence as just standing around doing nothing is not an offence in itself.

    The way you word it, the offence would be loitering with the intent to loiter.


    Steve.
    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.

  7. #207

    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    2,588

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Steve Smith View Post
    Isn't that classed as private property? In that case the property owners require you to have a permit. That doesn't make it an offence to photograph without one though. It's just a breach of their terms and conditions which they expect you to adhere to.


    Steve.
    I believe the Chicago L is a public mass transportation system. It would be perfectly legal for a city to impose a permit scheme for photography of public places as long as the permit scheme met the necessary constitutional requirements.

  8. #208

    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    North of Chicago
    Posts
    1,756

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Kirk Gittings View Post
    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.

    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
    ____________________________________________

    Richard Wasserman

    https://www.rwasserman.com/

  9. #209
    Kirk Gittings's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Location
    Albuquerque, Nuevo Mexico
    Posts
    9,864

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Wasserman View Post
    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
    Hasn't been my experience at all. Found permits all but impossible to get. Maybe if you are a large production company bring allot of revenue to the city.......
    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"

  10. #210
    Moderator
    Join Date
    Apr 2009
    Location
    Northern Virginia
    Posts
    5,614

    Re: Law on photography update

    Quote Originally Posted by cyrus View Post
    But at best in that situation, all you're doing is showing that he was a communicative photographer. And we already know that communicative photographers are protected by the first amendment. So there would be nothing established by a ruling by the court in the photographer's favor.

    What you really need is a non-communicative photog who goes to court, and says that even though he was taking a photo for purely his own enjoyment, THAT TOO should be a protected right. Good luck.
    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

Similar Threads

  1. report from Chicago
    By Kirk Gittings in forum Digital Hardware
    Replies: 195
    Last Post: 15-Jan-2011, 21:07
  2. "movement" Now Official
    By Keith Fleming in forum On Photography
    Replies: 34
    Last Post: 26-Dec-2010, 22:53
  3. Ending Film camera sales + print fading challenge
    By John Flavell in forum Cameras & Camera Accessories
    Replies: 307
    Last Post: 28-Aug-2005, 21:19
  4. digital vs traditional photography
    By Ellis Vener in forum On Photography
    Replies: 155
    Last Post: 18-Jul-2005, 05:33
  5. observations on hand held large format photography
    By Mark Nowaczynski in forum Style & Technique
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: 20-Dec-2000, 11:16

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •