It is illegal to take photos
Sep 27, 2023 08:19:53 #
From a city sidewalk in Clovis, CA.
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
Sep 27, 2023 08:26:47 #
Maybe they mean hucksters trying to sell shots of people?
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
Sep 27, 2023 08:31:28 #
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe they mean hucksters trying to sell shots of people?
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Maybe. Got you have a business license to approach someone. But taking photos is permitted in public places and it looks like that is included.
They just had a two day balloon fest and I missed it, I was in the hospital again with optical nerve swollen.
Sep 27, 2023 08:43:52 #
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe they mean hucksters trying to sell shots of people?
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
BINGO
Sep 27, 2023 08:58:25 #
StanMac
Loc: Tennessee
I read that ordinance to mean you cannot set up a photo service business on the street for taking photos of people for compensation. You’ve seen in some old photos where photographers set up their view cameras and hawk their services to passersby I’m sure.
Stan
Stan
Sep 27, 2023 09:02:31 #
They have not suspended the US Constitution. So you can take photos in a public place. The ordinance appears to say that persons cannot be engaged in the business of taking photos of people then selling them. I recall when I was a child that photo grow oils take pics on the street then try to sell the photo subject the photos. It is a nuisance.
Sep 27, 2023 09:35:31 #
Longshadow wrote:
Maybe they mean hucksters trying to sell shots of people?
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
"Engage in the business of..."
Not for personal use?
Some countries prohibit any such photography, containing people.
Even in Communist Yugoslavia, I was able to photograph a police officer directing traffic {after talking to him and getting his permission} in 1973 - I had a rangefinder camera with a 45mm lens at the time.
Sep 27, 2023 10:16:34 #
Yes, perhaps this is a case of a badly worded ordinance (shocking - a government bureaucracy that makes mistakes!?) - - changing the working from “No person shall engage in the business of taking photographs…” to something like “No person shall engage in taking photographs as a business ….” would clarify things. Of course, nowadays, I don’t know how that would deal with someone who identifies as a horse or a fish…
Sep 27, 2023 10:17:30 #
larryepage
Loc: North Texas area
frankraney wrote:
From a city sidewalk in Clovis, CA.
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
Interesting replies. I'd suggest giving it a try and see what happens, if you are brave enough (not really). Municipalities have all kinds of rules that go beyond federal and state restrictions, even here in the State of Texas. My guess is that this ordinance was passed in response to a specific problem and that the burden of proof that an offender is not in business ends up being on the person charged. The reason for enacting the law may have been very different from the commercial use question.
Sep 27, 2023 10:25:30 #
I also believe that the word "business" was specifically added to this ordinance for it would be a form of 'tax evasion' to conduct a business without a license (paid fee) and taxes on any proceeds from the sale of photos taken.
I say this for there is no reference to "without permission". Keep in mind that Al Capone did not go to prison for all the murders and crimes he was connected to, he went to prison for not paying taxes on the proceeds.
One cannot evade death or taxes and even when you are dead, the taxman will be there to take his share of what you have left.
I say this for there is no reference to "without permission". Keep in mind that Al Capone did not go to prison for all the murders and crimes he was connected to, he went to prison for not paying taxes on the proceeds.
One cannot evade death or taxes and even when you are dead, the taxman will be there to take his share of what you have left.
Sep 27, 2023 10:45:29 #
I am no lawyer but there are two things I know, in a public place there is no privacy and street photography is not illegal in those places.
I also noticed the phrasing "engage in the business of..." Perhaps they mean someone making business.
Anyone wishing to do street photography in Clovis, California should talk to the authorities first to avoid a misunderstanding and pray you talk to the right person.
I also noticed the phrasing "engage in the business of..." Perhaps they mean someone making business.
Anyone wishing to do street photography in Clovis, California should talk to the authorities first to avoid a misunderstanding and pray you talk to the right person.
Sep 27, 2023 11:27:35 #
Sep 27, 2023 11:38:01 #
frankraney wrote:
From a city sidewalk in Clovis, CA.
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
While doing some research for some I came across this and could not understand it lawfully. Section 5.8.31.
How can they do this?
I think I understand the intent of this ordinance, to stop hucksters from taking pictures of pedestrians then approaching them to sell the photo. I wonder what would happen if a newspaper photographer ("engaged in the business") took a photo of a building/etc. from the sidewalk and some pedestrians happened to be in the frame of the photo. It may boil down to how petty the prosecutor's office wants to be and who is brave enough to fight in court.
Sep 27, 2023 11:41:19 #
Old, outdated laws on the books - it’s dated 1964 and the courts have changed photo rules since then...
Sep 27, 2023 11:41:34 #
one_eyed_pete wrote:
I think I understand the intent of this ordinance, to stop hucksters from taking pictures of pedestrians then approaching them to sell the photo. I wonder what would happen if a newspaper photographer ("engaged in the business") took a photo of a building/etc. from the sidewalk and some pedestrians happened to be in the frame of the photo. It may boil down to how petty the prosecutor's office wants to be and who is brave enough to fight in court.
News may be different?
(But not explicitly stated.)
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.