Representative Betty Nuovo, of the Vermont State House, recently introduced a bill that if passed would "make it illegal to take a photograph of a person without his or her consent, or to modify a photograph of a person without his or her consent, and to distribute it." This could have some ugly consequences for photographers in Vermont and if it passes there I would not be surprised to see other states try to follow suit. Let's examine this more...
The bill which was introduced is currently only available in short form from which I have copied and pasted below. But in short what Representative Nuovo seems to be proposing would eliminate the ability for photographers to take photos of virtually anyone and use those photos in their portfolio or distribute without their written consent. This could ultimately be quite detrimental to photographers in that area. Sadly things like this can be discussed in legislative branches of our government and passed without anyone ever noticing unless our industry gets involved.
Here is a link to the email address, and phone number of all the representatives including the sponsor Betty Nuovo. It might be in our best interest to educate ourselves about this bill and if you have any complaints about it contact her office directly. Before contacting a representative please read the important update below.
IMPORTANT UPDATE: Here is some further clarification on the bill from one of our readers. It turns out it was a constituent bill filed on behalf of one of her constituents. Small state democracy allows bills like this to enter the process, but they rarely go anyplace. In this case, the Judiciary Committee isn't going to do anything with it. Representative Nuovo is a terrific legislator with an excellent record of supporting openness and citizen interests. This constituent bill contrasts sharply with that record, but, at least individuals have a mechanism to have their voices heard in Vermont.
Here's her response:.
"This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovo" - [Thanks Tom for the additional information.]
[Via Reddit]
I wrote her, and this was he response:
"Hi,
This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature.
Rep. Betty Nuovo"
I received the EXACT same response.
It might be a good idea for Trevor or an editor to update this story with the responses from Rep. Nuvo and the other Vermont legislators.
Thanks guys. Article has been updated.
I live in Vermont and sent Representative Nuovo a short email asking
what the bill is all about. It turns out it was a constituent bill filed
on behalf of one of her constituents. Small state democracy allows
bills like this to enter the process, but they rarely go anyplace. In
this case, the Judiciary Committee isn't going to do anything with it.
Representative Nuovo is a terrific legislator with an excellent record
of supporting openness and citizen interests. This constituent bill
contrasts sharply with that record, but, at least individuals have a
mechanism to have their voices heard in Vermont.
Let's cut Representative Nuovo some slack. It sounds like she has been
getting a sudden earful since awareness of this February bill went
viral. Here's her exasperated response to my email:.
"This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it
up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my
bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it
is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not
believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This
bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovo"
response received this afternoon from rep. nuovo: "Hi,This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovo"
From the Source:
Hi,
This bill, H-233, is BY REQUEST it states it right on the bill, look it up under the Vermont Legislature. What that means is that it is not my bill, it is a bill REQUESTED by a constituent who really wanted it so it is a constituents bill, every Vermont Legislator knows this. I do not believe in it but legislators do put in bills that are REQUESTED. This bill is not going to be taken up by the Legislature. Rep. Betty Nuovo
I communicated with Rep. Nuovo this afternoon. She assured me that this bill is merely a "REQUESTED BILL" as requested by one of her constituents and that she considers this to be an absolute non-starter. She is certain no such legislation will ever make it to the floor of the state house.
I'm a VT photographer and when I saw this article I wrote an email to NPPA. Their lawyer wrote a strong letter to te VT Legislature, saying drop the bill immediately, and this is the response he got. All of us VT photographers are breathing a sigh of relief.
From: Bill Lippert
To: Mickey H. Osterreicher
Cc: Maxine Grad
Sent: Thursday, February 28, 2013 8:02 AM
Subject: Re: H-233
The House Judiciary Committee, of which I am Chair, has no plans to take up this bill for consideration.
Rep. Bill Lippert
Sent from my iPhone. BillLippert@gmavt.net.
Rep. Bill Lippert Vermont House of Representatives 2751 Baldwin Road, Hinesburg, VT 05461. 734-0593 cell. 482-3528 h/o.
Do a little fact-checking before stirring up the hornets nest next time. Also important to note that this, like a real attempt by state legislators in NC to name a state religion, is completely unconstitutional and would be meaningless and unenforceable if it were passed.
research first please. don't make the ppl hysterical ...
I feel like this would only effect the most famous photographers.
so if a schmuck gives a legislator a bill in VT the lawmaker hasta introduce it??/
wow seems like a waste of money. Thats the place of a townhall meeting so the crazy old coot can stand up and say his/her few words and then we can move on to new business
Anyway, i hate it when people with cameras stick their lens into mine or anyone's else face and say in the good name of street photography. Well, at least have courtesy and ask for permission.... In the end, we screw ourselves up by having the legislation put up a bill like this... !
Vermont is a very small state. I live in Jamaica, Vermont and I know my legislators as neighbors and friends. We allow freedom of speech to get all sides heard. However, when you have a knee jerk reaction and a bill is proposed that bill will get no traction in the House or Senate. Rep. Nuovo did the right thing by honoring the citizen request.
Democrats love to ban things!
Sign a Model Release Form! Simple as that...Come on guys, enough with the idiotic posts..
If passed, does this mean we can also sue the fed or city government for taking a video or picture of us at intersections ... or store owners for security cameras in alleys and garages?
After some searching today... a source close to the bill in Vermont has stated (after the recent backlash when the news picked up on it) has deemed it unofficially "dead". Just awaiting a response from Nuovo who originally proposed the asinine and moronic bill.
Good to know our politicians are wasting even more tax money on hindering the first amendment, while using the same bill of rights to argue less than related, unfounded policies this country has no agreement on.
Darn that constitution when it can't be used to back a BS proposal.
Think Boston
If they had not been to view all the photos taken at that
Incident, would they been able to ID the two brothers as soon as they did? Photographing on a public street comes under the freedom of speech in my mind.