Don, I found the bill HB5692 on the legislature web page: http://www.michiganlegislature.org/mileg.asp?page=getObject&objName=2004-HB-5692 Open the short PDF named "committee analysis" It's almost humorous. I understand the concern for protecting people's privacy but the way it reads it seems overly troubled by underwear and nudity. Is it OK to photograph people in their personal space as long as they are "decent." :-) Some kid gets caught in the girl's locker room with a cell phone cam and every state legislator has to swing into action passing laws. It's a "It must be true, I read it in the checkout line" mentality. There are all kinds of laws on the books protecting privacy that would cover voyeurism. Same as there are for driving while impaired that would cover the use of cell phones BTW. What difference does the kind of technology a person uses to break the law make? AZ Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us > -------- Original Message -------- > Subject: Re: bad law -- or is it?? > From: "Don Roberts" <droberts@xxxxxxxx> > Date: Sun, May 09, 2004 11:22 am > To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > <photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > > As I understand it, this law was designed to prohibit people from using > > camera phones to photograph others in locker rooms etc. Has this now > been expanded to include all public spaces? Existing law seems to > cover > the situation where you photograph someone you think looks like a dork > > and then air the photos. As you know, you can't use those photos for > commercial purposes but you also can't use them to expose others to > ridicule, I believe. These laws have always been hazy, hard to > interpret and even harder to enforce. Any time freedom of expression > may be invoked the scene gets chaotic. Would you repeat the wording of > > the law? I'm not sure it was all that clear in the first post. > Don > > lookaround360@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote: > > >Gregory, > > > >I'm not sure of your point and my question wasn't intended to start a > philosophical or political debate (much > >as I love that sort of thing). I'd just like to be armed with facts > when confronted in public places taking > >pictures of strangers or whatever. I know what the rules used to be > but now I'm concerned that some security > >person or paranoid will pester me. If fellow photographers see trends > in public opinion about their rights > >changing then that is worth discussing. Most things can be resolved > with a little public awareness. > > > > > >AZ > > > > > >Build a Lookaround! > >The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. > >NOW SHIPPING > >http://www.panoramacamera.us > > > > > > > > > > > > > >>-------- Original Message -------- > >>Subject: Re: bad law -- or is it?? > >>From: "Gregory Stempel" <fyrframe@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >>Date: Sun, May 09, 2004 9:05 am > >>To: "List for Photo/Imaging Educators - Professionals - Students" > >><photoforum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > >> > >> > >> > >>when you please is when you live alone on a rock in the middle of > >>nowhere.<<< Even that rock is probably owned by someone else. > >> > >>I am in constant amazement at how often we humans convert something > >>intended for good to something allowing us evil. Who are we exactly? > >> > >>Take care, > >>Gregory david Stempel > >>FIREFRAMEi m a g i n g > >>www.americanphotojournalist.com > >> > >> > > > > > > > > > > -- > ============================================================ > Don Roberts * Bittersweet Productions * Iowa City, IA > * * > And the Devil whispered behind the leaves, "It's pretty, > but is it Art?". -- Rudyard Kipling > ============================================================
