Dannj

“…engage in business” is the operative phrase here. As worded, the code does not prohibit taking photographs per se.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

"business" is a flexible term. "It's none of your business," has nothing to do with an actual, money-making business. "You have no business being here. Get out." You'd think that whoever made that law would have been more specific. On the other hand, laws are sometimes worded vaguely enough so that anyone can be arrested for anything. If you take a picture of a building and a person is somewhere in the background, could you be arrested?

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

Jerry of course what you say is true concerning the word, business. Did I say something that would go against that common sense thought or are you just speaking in a general manner for everyone?

I do think this ordinance is written in a vague manner and if challenged could be cause for it to be reworded. Many laws are written to be so vague not even the officers have a real idea of what is going on.

Dennis

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I think that some of you are missing the points of my comments.
First...rights are a two way street. Exercising a right involves recognizing that it exists. It also acknowledges that others have rights also. As my wide great aunt used to say...your rights have to end where mine begin.

Second, privacy rights have long been interpreted differently for known public figures and for ordinary anonymous citizens. It can be a huge mistake to ignore that difference.

The most important thing, however, has nothing to do with rights (real or perceived) or any law or rule. Having the right to do something does not give a photographer or anyone else the freedom or the OK to be an intrusive jerk about anything. There is a whole list of people with special interests (photographers, radio operators, and any number of others) who have a habit of doing all manner of annoying things just because they can and because they can justify in their own minds that is OK and maybe even important to do so.

So. If you see me, come on over. I would enjoy meeting you and having a visit. But I do not have any interest in being in your photo album.

Hip Coyote

It is illegal to take photos in Clovis. All photos. Even of your children. Cops will be called and then it get real. Maybe deadly force. Who knows?

And when I was in law enforcement we wrote tickets for no gloves in the glove box. I once arrested a guy for exposing himself to a blind man (mopery in the first degree.). He went to the joint.

That or it is a legacy section trying to address the old practice of photographers. Taking pics on the street then pestering people to buy them.

A little bit of civics might tell us that the way the section is written it is clear this is a section prohibiting an annoying business practice.

BebuLamar

That is why you need lawyers.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You can find videos all over YouTube of cops arresting people for public photography, even if there wasn't a local law prohibiting it. In many cases the photographers sued and the cops ended up defunding their own department.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

what is a “photo grow oil”?
😂

Hip Coyote

Deleted

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I think it’s more fair to say the constitution means nothing to self-serving politicians, who are interested in feathering their own nest at the expense of the people.

California Politicians are certainly not the only ones with that affliction.

Dannj

I’ve seen a few videos like that and they seem to be posted by people taking pictures for the sole purpose of triggering police involvement.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

That is true. And poorly trained cops fall for it and get sued. Our constitutional rights are protected.

Dbrow411 Loc: South Daytona, FL

"display as fine art street photography no release is needed."

I'm not lawyer but I would consider selling a photo as fine art to still be a commercial use and would require a release. The only exception that I'm aware of would be the use of the photo in a journalistic context.

smf85 Loc: Freeport, IL

What’s being prohibited is a specific commercial activity; most likely the process of photographing people and selling the photos and the process of offering this or similar services. The legality of taking photos is not challenged. The language use implies that somewhere else in the codified statutes is a definition of the ‘business of…’.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

With all due respect I believe you are talking apples and oranges. There is a HUGE difference between me taking your picture from a reasonable (up for grabs depending on the person and distance) distance without bothering you and getting right in your face annoyingly so. But even then it may not be illegal, just annoying. In almost all of America if I see you on the streets I can legally take your photograph. Would I be rude? Maybe so.

Dennis