JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

You missed the post saying the California law is also for voice recording, not photos.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

No it does not. It means that you can’t have a type of business that the city fathers found annoying. The can make reasonable prohibitions as to what businesses can or can’t do. They aren’t going to let a strip joint locate next to a school. It is a reasonable limitation on business activity.

radiojohn

I believe it is clear it is aimed at a street photographer engaged in the business of offering to take photos for $$.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

Apparently I did miss that.

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

The government does not have to follow the roles they make.. only is. Isn't right.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

I'm not sure of the details, but I believe I read where the United States Ninth Circuit Court ruled in favor of photographers, providing they are photographing in the public domain. This court is considered one of the most liberal in the country and is housed in San Francisco, also considered one of the more liberal cities in the country. If this court considers that photographers have rights granted in the public domain, it doesn't matter what California says, as the feds trump the states.

Again, I am hazy on the details, but I believe The U.S. Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals said the Copyright Act protects the photographers' copyrights, which cannot be trumped by state laws protecting people who are photographed. This came about in Maloney v. T3Media. Again, I'd have to research to provide the citation.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

I am not clear as to why this ordinance was created. However, it was created in 2014. Something may have happened to force it’s creation.

I will hazard a guess. Photographers were being targeted by law enforcement as “terrorists.” Because photographers were photographing everyone and anything street oriented they were perpetrated as terrorists. After it was learned that photographers highlighted potential targets in the past.
I don’t believe this to be entirely true but I am cautious of photographing people in public. I have always respected others and hope that others do same. I am very leery of using my camera in public for fear that someone may covet my goods over another.
If I photograph someone I attempt to let them know of my intentions.

This is still an interesting ordinance that may violate and challenge constitutional rights.

Still, I hope this thread doesn’t end up in the nether regions of The Attic.

PS: How is your granddaughter?

frankraney Loc: Clovis, Ca.

Hi Steven
This is why it caught me eye. It seen to be written vaguely. I would think it would be better written as, a business license is needed to take photos for commercial use...

My granddaughter did well while it lasted. Her business finally had to be closed. The business dropped. Boudoir photography is a specialty and it's hard to keep it going all the time, unless you are top in the business. She was good and made some good money while it lasted and got flown to a lot of places. She has taken a break and is remodeling her house in Flagstaff. She is still doing some portraits and some real estate I think. But nothing full time right now. Thanks for asking

How are you doing.

clint f. Loc: Priest Lake Idaho, Spokane Wa

The statute became effective in 1964. Long before the general terrorism scare of the 2000’s. It is not about photographing on the street it is about having a business of photographing on the street. Not unlike the “green river ordinance” that towns use to prevent door to door salesman from plying their trade. I did not read the rest of the statute but if one were to do so it would answer a lot of peoples questions. This statute affects absolutely no one on UH. No one here has indicated that the go to Clovis to make a business of taking photos of people on the city’s streets. We could all go to Clovis, and photograph people on the street. While a few fist fights might break out based on some of the threads, we could take every body and lens we own and as long as you didn’t offer the prospective for sale (a business) we’d not be arrested or fined, never be tortured, beat up or shot as some people think all policemen do.

Scruples Loc: Brooklyn, New York

You made it much clearer to me. As for the ordinance, so many are made which keep real law from entering the books. But thanks for clearing it up for me, at least. By the way, please accept my apology.

BandeauRouge Loc: usa

reading it at face value, it is agains tthe law for a person to go about selling photos and then selling them to the person.