In a win for photographers, the city of Atlanta has announced that they will be repealing an ordinance that limited the rights of street photographers after the The Atlanta Journal-Constitution and legal experts questioned the legitimacy of it.
Widely decried as being in violation of the First Amendment, the ordinance (originally enacted in 1977), Sec. 30-1316, specifies:
It shall be unlawful for any person to engage in the business of taking photographs, intended to be offered for sale, of persons on the streets and sidewalks of the city in front of any place of business other than the person’s own, unless the person shall have secured and have with such person at the time the written consent of the owner or manager of that place of business. The taking of photographs of persons on the streets in front of the place of business of another without the written consent of the other shall be deemed an offense under this section, whether or not a charge is made at the time of taking the photographs, if the photographs are taken for the purpose of sale.
Many legal experts have not only denounced the ordinance as unconstitutional, but have also noted that it is a federal offense to prevent or interfere with a person attempting to use a constitutional right. The local president of the International Brotherhood of Police Officers, Ken Allen, noted his disapproval and expressed disbelief that it was still being enforced, given that Atlanta police officers were recently given training on the rights of street photographers, which included clear instructions not to interfere with photographers in such situations.
The National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) also expressed their disapproval, sending a letter to city officials that noted: "Photography is strictly protected by the Constitution as (in this case) both an expressive form of speech and for newsgathering." They continued: "Nationwide, photographers are increasingly subject to harassment by police officers, who, under color of law, cite privacy, safety and security concerns as a pretext to chill free speech and expression or to impede the ability to gather news. The NPPA is concerned that this ordinance has provided the police with unbridled discretion to abridge the rights of photographers covering matters of public concern.”
Many consider this a rightful restoration of First Amendment rights.
The City of Atlanta maintained that no person has been cited under this ordinance and that reported instances of it being enforced were not representative of the stance of the city. Nonetheless, under increasing pressure from many fronts, the city has not only issued an explicit directive that it shall not be enforced, but has also begun the process of repealing it.
In a social climate where the rights of a citizen to document events in public spaces and the photographer/police officer relationship is at the forefront, many consider this a big win for photographers.
Nice article, but those photos are interesting. They were not taken in Atlanta. Maybe not even in the U.S.
Thank you! Yes, they were taken in Paris.
Yes, the Atlanta police are not enforcing this unconstitutional law in Paris.
This is not "a a big win for photographers". It's a temporary non-failure in maintaining the status quo. The fact that photographers must repeatedly rally to fight this kind of retrograde harassment by know-nothing legislators is an ongoing loss - of time, income and liberty - for photographers. I wish we could sue the pants off these jerks for violation of civil rights so the next State Representative Cletus Dingleballs who frets about hippy terrorists with cameras will think twice about enshrining his pandering ignorance in law.
It must be really frustraiting being photographer in certain parts of the States. I hear about all the times photographers are being arrested and harrased by the police.Its a real mixed up world. Especially when you read the school masacare in Roseburg was the 45th school shooting in this us this year. Its ok to walk around with a gun but not a camrea it seems.
Schools are "gun-free" zones so it's not Ok to walk around with a gun.
The rule for photographers is in the city what is the rule for guns there?
Sorry, the CC in Oregon it is okay to carry. It's against state law for a CC to ban firearms on community college campuses.
The 9/11 thing was very bad for people's rights & freedoms world wide. And seeing the enactment date on this particular by-law is disturbing. I know other states have come up with some variation on this kind of thing too. But in all honesty, nothing approaches the crazy way people in larger metro areas of Europe have become over this issue.
Paris, London, Munich, and cities if this size all have private security that ring up the coppers to come collect you.. and or your information once a camera is seen. London is very very bad for this.
Really ? Then I was very lucky! This September I spent 2 weekends in London shooting people, not one complained about my D800, maybe because I was in touristy areas and there are DSLRs all over the place, I did shoot the usual, but focused mostly on people.
Nah... Not in my experience at least.
There are a few wannabe heroes here and there, but generally no one bothers. At most you prompt a leading question and make them reason for a second.
I wave a camera or carry on my hip all around. Every day. Sometimes one on each side (film and digital). No one really cares.
For touristy places, people care even less.
In the rare occasions that I have seriously been told off, it was by private security inside of private property for me deliberately walking over their policy; so that's reasonable of their part. (Including setting up a tripod in the National Gallery entrance stairway at peak time. I know...)