UPDATED BELOW
Over the past week, Arkansas Senate has been working diligently to pass SB-79 - known as the Personal Rights Protection Act. While the bill is designed to protect the privacy and rights of the citizens within the state, it also effectively makes Street Photography illegal from viewing or taking in the state of Arkansas.
The bill's full name does a lot as to explaining the bill. Entitled “To Enact the Personal Rights Protection Act: and to Protect the Property Rights of an Individual to the Use of the Individual’s Name, Voice, Signature, and Likeness”, this bill is designed to take an individual's Rights of Publicity to an extreme, by allowing it illegal for them to be photographed or filmed on public grounds without a written consent.
As the ASMP (American Society of Media Photographers) explains --
The implications of this bill are staggering. For example, an image showing recognizable people posted to the Internet for a use that would not require written consent anywhere else in the world could leave you open to a lawsuit just because someone in Arkansas could view it online.
SB-79 places an unprecedented burden on all photographers whose work could be viewed within the state of Arkansas to either get explicit consent from every individual whose likeness appears in all of their photographs or risk defending themselves in a lawsuit where they will have to shoulder the burden of proving the use of their photographs qualifies as an exempted use
The ASMP is not the only ones who have came forward addressing this bill in the negative light. The PPA has also stepped forward, writing an open letter to Governor Hutchinson, stating that with the vague wording of the bill, SB-79 could potentially put thousands of photography studios out of business. The new bill would make it so release forms would need to be obtained from every guest at weddings and other events that may be photographed on a professional level. They have attached their open letter below --
The ASMP and others have banded together to get this bill dropped from Arkansas law. The bill must be vetoed by Tuesday to ensure it does not go into law. The ASMP has asked all photographers (not just photographers in Arkansas) to stand up and write Governor Asa Hutchinson and Arkansas Chief of Staff Michael Lamoureux encouraging them to drop the bill from Arkansas law. You can find more information as to how to write them by clicking here.
For the bill in its entirety, you can read it here.
Update -- 3pm EST March 30th
As a result of the public outcry of Bill SB-79, Governor Asa Hutchinson has chosen to veto the bill in question. Along with his action of vetoing the bill, Gov. Hutchinson released the following statement --
In its current form, the bill unnecessarily restricts free expression and thus could have a chilling effect on freedom of speech and freedom of the press. In addition, SB79 exempts certain types of noncommercial speech while failing to exempt other forms of noncommercial speech. The absence of these exemptions could result in unnecessary litigation and suppress Arkansans who engage in artistic expression.
Great job well done, friends.
[Photo by John David Pittman | Used With Permission]
Amateur and hobbyist would not be protected by the 1st amendment. Two things need to be met for first amendment protections. The courts have ruled “To achieve First Amendment protection, a plaintiff must show that he possessed: (1) a message to be communicated; and (2) an audience to receive that message, regardless of the medium in which the message is to be expressed.” Read some case law.
"Under this overly broad definition, the simple act of charging someone to license a photograph would qualify as “Obtaining money, goods, or services” so virtually every use of a licensed image becomes defined as a commercial use unless it qualifies under the limited list of exemptions in Section 4-75-1010, Fair use — Commercial sponsorship (on page 7 of the Bill). "SB-79 goes much further than most Right of Publicity statutes, which only impose liability for unlicensed use of a name or likeness for advertising purposes, merchandising uses or false implied endorsements. Under SB-79, virtually any license for which money changes hands would be deemed a commercial use unless specifically exempted within the Fair Use section.
Section 4-75-1010, Fair use — Commercial sponsorship, on Page 7 of the Bill only provides for a conditional exemption for the use of a name or likeness in plays, books, magazines, newspapers, etc. This list of “expressive uses” in SB-79 explicitly excludes photographs. And, the exemption for the expressive uses included in the bill only applies if those uses are protected under the First Amendment or the Arkansas Constitution.
Determining how to apply the First Amendment in Right of Publicity cases, though, is neither straightforward nor predictable. Because those carve-outs are conditional, it places a defendant in the position of having to prove that the use is protected by the First Amendment as, otherwise, the use is automatically a violation of SB-79.
SB-79 is written to apply to all images used in Arkansas and to all individuals, so it can be applied to any image that was captured of any person anywhere in the world as long as that image can be seen in Arkansas."
I guess i won't be visiting anytime soon for a holiday. Good luck Arkansas, i wish you all the best.
Sorry but I don't think people should be able to walk around take pictures without people's permission and profit from it. I think people rights of privacy and publicity need to be protected. This would certainly end harassing paparazzi if it was in state that had celebrities and the law was extended to include them. Currently they have few rights and I disagree with that.
And this is not taking away civil rights it's protecting people from having their image used and violating their rights.
I have not read the full law, but based on what I have read on this thread. I have no problem with it. Really why should you be able to take someone's picture profit from it and not even give them the option to decline or even get some pictures or something out of it.
Or what if someone takes someone picture in a public place then sells it as a stock photo and it get's used in an HIV ad and ruins that person reputation, social and sex life. Or two college buddies that have not seen each other in years hug each other and next them you know they image in a billboard or ads for a a gay dating website. Or Vegan that get's put into ad that goes against their beliefs.
Sorry but that's not cool any of it when you did not give your consent to be shot. I used to work for a Stock photo company and they were always trying to get me to be in front of the camera and I said "HELL NO!" and if any of the just for fun pictures we took ended up in the catalog I'd sue. I never signed a release and told them I do not want to be in their catalog.
You want to TF or Hire, what ever two people agree on is fine. But just shooting people without permission is not cool and I think it should be extended to non-commercial use as well when it is used in a derogatory or harassing manner.
That would end all of these people taking pictures of people in walmart and making fun of them in social media. Have some class and compassion seriously people. It would also end a lot of cyber harassment.
Anyone that thinks they have the right to take pictures of people without their permission and profit from it, is a inconsiderate, bottom feeder. You can at least give them a picture and get their permission.
And to those down voting me and disagreeing, how to you justify your stance ethically?
When I first saw them putting up traffic and security cameras up all over town I was deeply concerned about our rights to privacy. It took a long time to get somewhat passed it. So, I guess with this legislation they will be taking all these cameras down, eh? (not holding my breath) and maybe they just don't want us videotaping the police abusing our rights.
How is videotaping the police abusing our rights?
Go back and read that sentence again! The don't want US, video taping the POLICE beating US. Simple grammar man.
Nope, they're specifically allowed per the bill.
There is another bill HB1669 that seems to do the opposite
I haven't seen this mentioned anywhere, but does anything in this bill stop someone who only engages in street photography for fun? For example only posting on their own Flickr account, blog, or Fb page? There is nothing commercial about any of that . . . no money is changing hands anywhere. This would make any comments about selfies at football games invalid as well. Again, nothing commercial about that. Am I missing something? I have read the bill and don't see any language that would be relevant to these examples.
Arkansas Governor has vetoed the controversial bill...
http://www.nwahomepage.com/fulltext-news/d/story/governor-asa-hutchinson...
My reply to an email to the Arkansas Governor...
Dear Mr. Rivers:
Thank you for reaching out to express your concerns. It is always helpful to learn of the ideas and views of Arkansans. The Governor has vetoed SB79.
Sincerely,
Stephanie Neipling, Constituent Services Staff
The Hutchinson Administration
So, had this become law, and given provision 31:
(ii) A single and original work of art that is not a
32 portrait, photograph, or likeness of an individual;
There's no way you could ever sell a photograph of any individual without consent. Say a street photographer captures the vapid look of someone glued to their cell phone. Someone wants to buy a print of it. There's no legal way it could be sold.
That's the way it should be. What right to you have to take a picture of someone on their phone and sell it. Then a company uses it and profits from it and you get paid the person in the picture get's nothing and you think that's fair?
How many here want to protect their copyright, but the person in the picture should not have any rights or need to give consent?
So you think the "Migrant Mother" deserved compensation?
It depends on how its sold. Editorially or Commercially, under the pretty large umbrella of editorial subject matter there would be no need for a model release. A commercial sales campaign used to advertise a product, yes you would nede a release and that has always been the case.
Technology is going to help photographers sneak their street photography! We can be pretty creative and sneaky, ya know! LOL