Ansel Adams Act

Photography is Not A Crime
Photography is Not A Crime.

An unexpected surprise from Tea Party stalwart, Steve Stockman of the 36th district of Texas. [edit – Rep Stockman is no longer in office]

To restore the First Amendment Rights of Photographers.

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the “Ansel Adams Act”.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.

Congress finds as follows: (1) In recent years, the Federal Government has enacted regulations to prohibit or restrict photography in National Parks, public spaces, and of government buildings, law enforcement officers, and other government personnel carrying out their duties. (2) In recent years, photographers on Federal lands and spaces have been threatened with seizure and forfeiture of photographic equipment and memory cards, and have been arrested or threatened with arrest for merely recording what the eye can see from public spaces. (3) Even in the absence of laws or regulations, Federal law enforcement officers, other government personnel, and private contractors have been instructed to prohibit photography from public spaces, and threatened photographers with arrest or seizure of photographic equipment. (4) Arresting photographers, seizing photographic equipment, and requirements to obtain permits, pay fees, or buy insurance policies are abridgments of freedom of speech and of the press. (5) The First Amendment of the United States Constitution states, “Congress shall make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press.”. (6) Still and motion photographs are speech. (7) The photography by Ansel Adams and other famous photographers helped bring home to Americans the beauty and fragility of our natural resources. (8) Ansel Adams’ photographs helped build public support to make Yosemite into a National Park. (9) Future “Ansel Adams” must not have their paths blocked, regulated and made more expensive with fees and fines, or be threatened with arrest and seizure of their equipment.

SEC. 3. RESTORATION OF FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO PHOTOGRAPHERS.

(a) In General.–It is contrary to the public policy of the United States to prohibit or restrict photography in public spaces, whether for private, news media, or commercial use. (b) Should a Federal agency seek to restrict photography of its installations or personnel, it shall obtain a court order that outlines the national security or other reasons for the restriction. Such court order shall allow restrictions of photography when such photography may lead to the endangerment of public safety or national security. Nothing in this Act shall restrict Federal agencies from taking lawful steps to ascertain whether or not photography may consist of reconnaissance for the purpose of endangerment of public safety or national security or for other unlawful activity. Nothing in this Act shall be construed to repeal, invalidate, or supersede section 795 of title 18, United States Code. (c) Prohibition on Fees, Permits, or Insurance.–No Federal Government agency shall require fees, permits or insurance as a condition to take still or moving images on Federal lands, National Parks and Forests, and public spaces, whether for private, media, or commercial use. (d) Prohibition on the Seizure and Forfeiture of Photographic Equipment.–Federal law enforcement officers or private contractors shall not seize any photographic equipment or their contents or memory cards or film, and shall not order a photographer to erase the contents of a camera or memory card or film.

(click here to continue reading Text – H.R.5893 – 113th Congress (2013-2014): Ansel Adams Act | Congress.gov | Library of Congress.)

Since it is something proposed by Rep. Stockman, I’m suspicious of the fine print, but from a brief glance, this is a welcomed law. 

Protecting Boeing from Evil Photographers
Protecting Boeing from Evil Photographers

I wonder if it will curtail the propensity of certain security firms from blocking photography. Boeing is the most obvious culprit, but there are other buildings where a photographer is nearly always harassed from taking a photo, even when standing on the public sidewalk.

Via

In the United States, the work of photographers and photojournalists is protected under the 1st Amendment which states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. And, in a perfect world, the constitutional rights granted by the amendment would never be violated. But, perfect the world is not and it seems like photographers are being unjustly accosted on a regular basis.

Think of all the news stories you’ve read that pretty much read the same: a photographer from Any City, USA was arrested, threatened with arrest, threatened with seizure of equipment, or otherwise harassed for exercising their First Amendment right of taking photos in a public place. A quick search on DIYP alone using the “Photography Is Not A Crime” keyword yields you a dizzying amount of such stories. Not to mention the motions made by the Federal Government, which restrict and sometimes prohibit photography in National Parks.

(click here to continue reading The Ansel Adams Act Goes To Congress; Details Clear Laws Protecting 1st Amendment Rights Of Photographers – DIY Photography.)

—-

edit, and I don’t know how I missed this, but this bill was put on the floor in the 113th Congress, and Steve Stockman didn’t win election to the 114th Congress, so I’m guessing the dream is dead…

Diver – Chicago River was uploaded to Flickr

Working on the Riverwalk I believe.

http://www.cityofchicago.org/city/en/depts/dcd/supp_info/chicago…

or, for instance:
http://www.chicagomag.com/city-life/October-2014/What-the-Chicag…

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/qh7VRz

I took Diver – Chicago River on June 20, 2014 at 01:30PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 27, 2014 at 05:22PM

Even This Breath Will Expire was uploaded to Flickr

Accidental self portrait in a mirror

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/pyeKB1

I took Even This Breath Will Expire on December 22, 2014 at 02:38PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 22, 2014 at 11:39PM

iPod Classic Returned From The Dead was uploaded to Flickr

What a pleasant surprise! Left it plugged in overnight on an underutilized iMac, and after it charged up the iPod Classic, went into recovery mode. Yayy, I have a working iPod Classic again…


previously: http://ift.tt/1wARac2…

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/qoczbu

I took iPod Classic Returned From The Dead on December 15, 2014 at 12:12PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 15, 2014 at 06:13PM

Shirts vs. Skins – Venice Beach was uploaded to Flickr

not sure who won

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/psBM8E

I took Shirts vs. Skins – Venice Beach on February 02, 2013 at 02:04PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 14, 2014 at 03:02PM

Evening Comes Early Enough For A Stroll was uploaded to Flickr

Division and Damen in a light rain

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/prjGmW

I took Evening Comes Early Enough For A Stroll on April 13, 2014 at 07:33PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 12, 2014 at 03:31PM

McLaren’s Barn was uploaded to Flickr

Eagle Lake Road. The McLaren’s might have sold this barn, actually, but they used to own it anyway.

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/q3UmR1

I took McLaren’s Barn on September 18, 2014 at 01:39PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 08, 2014 at 03:59AM

There’s A Place From Where I Came was uploaded to Flickr

Frostpocket

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/qhQ2xC

I took There’s A Place From Where I Came on September 04, 2013 at 02:30PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 04, 2014 at 08:06AM

Our Cup Is Going To Empty Itself was uploaded to Flickr

Sugar Maple and other fallen leaves in the rain, Frostpocket, Ontario.

I cheated a little: this is a photo of a wheelbarrow filling with rain water. There were two leaves, but I added a couple from the ground.

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/qh985T

I took Our Cup Is Going To Empty Itself on September 14, 2014 at 05:54PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on December 03, 2014 at 03:48AM

A Photo For All And None was uploaded to Flickr

Spadina, and Dundas, Toronto

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/qbFSR5

I took A Photo For All And None on September 20, 2014 at 11:09PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on November 28, 2014 at 05:32PM

Disgust With Yahoo’s Use of Flickr Photos Without Compensation Of Artists Or Even Permission

Every Story Has A Moral
Every Story Has A Moral.

I’m surprised by the tone-deaf procedure here. Yahoo is pissing off a lot of their content providers. Part of the problem though is that not everyone understands the nuances of Creative Commons.

But she’s not happy about a recent move by Yahoo Inc., Flickr’s owner, to make canvas prints from the photos she and others post to the site, sell them for up to $49 apiece and keep all of the profits.

“It ticked me off that somebody else is selling them when I was giving them away,” said Ms. West, a retired writer in Boxborough, Mass., who goes by “Muffet” on Flickr.

Ms. West is among millions of contributors to the Creative Commons, an online repository of images and writings that their creators allow others to reuse and repurpose, free, under certain conditions. Artists can specify, for example, whether their works can be used for commercial purposes and ensure they receive credit in any derivative work.

(click here to continue reading Fight Over Yahoo’s Use of Flickr Photos – WSJ.)

Yahoo should add getting explicit permission from the artist to this new policy. Yahoo should also share some of the revenue with the artists, even if it was a small amount. If they did those two things, I’d be more supportive. 

There Is Nothing Really To Turn Off
There Is Nothing Really To Turn Off.

For me, this is why I almost always upload photos with a watermark, and resize my photos so they are less than one MB in size. I doubt very much if my low-res jpeg files would be acceptable enough quality when printed, but I’ve never tried, so I could be wrong. 

I also agree with Nelson Lourenço 1,000,000 percent: I don’t mind my photo being used to illustrate blog posts or even news articles, in fact I like it, provided proper credit is given; however, selling prints of my work without sharing the proceeds sounds like exploitation to me. Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should.

Yahoo’s plan to sell the images appears “a little shortsighted,” said Flickr co-founder Stewart Butterfield, who left the company in 2008. “It’s hard to imagine the revenue from selling the prints will cover the cost of lost goodwill.”

The Wall Street Journal contacted 14 photographers with Creative Commons-licensed works on Flickr. Eight said they didn’t object to Yahoo’s move and are happy to get additional exposure for their work. “Any amateur photographer would love to have his or her photos hanging on walls around the world,” Andreas Overland, a Flickr user in Oslo, Norway, said in an email.

Six others objected to the company profiting from their works.

“When I accepted the Creative Commons license, I understood that my images could be used for things like showing up in articles or other works where they could be showed to public,” Nelson Lourenço, a photographer in Lisbon, Portugal, said in an email. Yahoo “selling my work and getting the full money out of it came as a surprise,” he said.

(click here to continue reading Fight Over Yahoo’s Use of Flickr Photos – WSJ.)

It isn’t that hard to change your Creative Commons license but again, you’ll have to first do a little research into what the terms mean, as Yahoo doesn’t explain the differences well enough for casual photographers.

Site of the Doctors' Commons
Site of the Doctors’ Commons

Update, of course Thomas Hawk beat me it, writing:

I think it’s important that each photographer fully understand how the license that they are using with their photos online works. It is first and foremost the photographer’s responsibility to understand licensing. Creative Commons is a wonderful and liberal way to share your photos. It’s not for everyone though. You choose how your photos are licensed on Flickr though. By default Flickr licenses images “all rights reserved,” the most restrictive license available. So only photographers who have gone in and changed their license to a more liberal license would be affected by this.

I license my images Creative Commons Non-Commercial. This is one of several variations of the Creative Commons license. This means that people can use my images for personal use or non-profit organizations can use them, but folks like Yahoo/Flickr and others can’t sell them commercially without my permission.

If you are going to license your photos Creative Commons with no restriction, then you ought to be prepared for this type of use. If it’s not Flickr selling them, anyone else can, legally. If you are uncomfortable with this idea, then you should not use Creative Commons without any sort of restriction. If you like the idea of Creative Commons but are uncomfortable with commercial use without being compensated, then consider changing your license to Creative Commons Non-Commercial like I license mine.

I think a lot of people though don’t consider the full implications of the license that they choose and like Stewart I wonder if the revenue is worth potential lost goodwill in this case. Some people will inevitably be put off when they see that the community (and Flickr is as much a community as a company) that is hosting their photos for them is now selling them without sharing the profit or asking for permission. Reminding people to read the fine print of their photo license that they chose without really considering it thoughtfully might not be the best answer to that complaint. People on Flickr LOVE to complain about anything and everything.

(click here to continue reading Thomas Hawk Digital Connection » Blog Archive » The Controversy Around Flickr Selling Creative Commons Licensed Photos.)

Some Will Come and Some Will Surely Go was uploaded to Flickr

South Loop, Chicago

embiggen by clicking
http://flic.kr/p/pcLhEE

I took Some Will Come and Some Will Surely Go on November 30, 2013 at 04:18PM

and processed it in my digital darkroom on November 22, 2014 at 03:03PM