USA - Ansel Adams Act - we need this in Australia

[Kym]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/5893/text

This is so basic and we need it here as well.

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.

[Ionica]

"This is so basic and we need it here as well."

Definitely!!!

[ameerat42]

What a land of contradictions!

[Ian Brewster]

If Bills of Rights make USA perceive it's more liveable I'll stay in Oz, thanks.

[Mark L]

And if "Bills of Rights" happened here, would you go there?

I think what Kym has posted is some people taking a very sensible approach to something that sensible has become a little lost on.

[Hawthy]

Been to the States. Love it. Great people. Magnificent scenery. If this amendment helps to share that most picturesque nation with the rest of the world, all power to it.

[ameerat42]

...This is so basic and we need it here as well...

Maybe, but that's all

[farmmax]

https://www.congress.gov/bill/113th-...bill/5893/text

This is so basic and we need it here as well.

We are not quite at the stage of the USA problems, but seem to be headed there. If enough people feel we need to have something similar to an Ansel Adams Act here, perhaps someone would like to start a petition at www.change.org and we can all start signing.

[bricat]

At least photographers have something to hang their hat on now when approached by over zealous security personnel

[arthurking83]

The problem with overzealous security personnel is not in what the current the laws allows(or not), it's their awareness of these laws.

Any such attempt to introduce similar laws here or in the USA doesn't automatically create a situation where the ignorance of the laws are negated .. nor that any dimwitted security person can actually understand plain and simple language use!

I like the majority of the contents in Sec 3, paragraph c .. but I can't see why no fees/licenses/insurance should be allowed for commercial purposes.
If you've ever seen some of the commercial productions take over of areas of interest, I think fees and such like charges should be maintained for their use of an area.

Also restrictions on the use of potentially damaging(or dangerous) equipment in public places, should be made law on all fronts.
It seems like every other hour, a new article on 'drone' image capture(still or video) is posted somewhere on the net.
The proliferation of such devices(and or any other new types yet to surface) could impact on safety to the unsuspecting general person.

Imagine a situation at some point in the future where every numbskull decides drone photography is the way of the future and the skies are literally thick with drones, all crashing in to each other and then onto us!
No thanks! .. drone use should be as regulated as all other forms of flight capable devices and transportation.

And going back to the topic of ignorant security personnel .. should any such law be successful, in particular, paragraph d of Sec 3 should burned into the retinas(or tattooed onto a readily accessible body part) of any security person currently (or in the future) be in active service!
It's a dead cert that they will not be familiar with any such law should it be enacted.

[Steve Axford]

You speak good sense, Arthur.

[bricat]

And the public ARE fully conversant with these laws?

[arthurking83]

Which laws?

If you're referring to the laws set out in the article pointed too by the OP, it should be noted that these are not yet 'laws' in the USA yet.
This document is a proposal for a set of laws such as those written in the document. If they get passed, then there is a very high likelyhood that something will be altered.


And .. to be fully sure of my reply's intention, I didn't mean to offend anyone by claiming that security personnel are dimwits.
Dimwits permeate every corner of society, and believe that I see it every day in transport!
It's just that dimwitted security personnel do have the ability to impact us photographer types to a high degree.

[zollo]

It's just that dimwitted security personnel do have the ability to impact us photographer types to a high degree.

Disagree. I've never been approached by security on any beach I've been photographing, but have been made to feel like a criminal by the General public, even on an empty beach at 0530 where the chance of kids or topless women photography was less than zero. I am of the view that I would much rather try to explain my photography to a half sensible security worker than a fully 'sensible' member of public. Also, security know, that bothering you outside of permissible locations such as private property that they are working, is not their duty. ( I used to work security and even though my Cert 3 in Security Operations is 6 or more years old, I clearly remember being taught this ) Now certainly there are 'dim' security personnel out there, but if you encounter 1, and you feel you have been wronged, contact their employer and chances are, it won't happen again in a hurry. Try that with a member of the public.

[ameerat42]

Salt! You only need a pinch, Zollo. While they're blabbering away put a pinch in your mouth.
(Actually, that might enrage them!!)

I haven't had this happen because of photography, but ignoring them gets some interesting results. Some stop.

[arthurking83]

At the risk of taking this thread off topic, I have also encountered some reasonably sane security people as well.
It's just that it's the not so clever types that always get remembered more vividly.

Many moons ago, when all the world was still at Defcon 10!! .. I had a delivery for one of the service centres at a (coal)power station.

on my way back, I stopped to get a few artsy/abstract images of the power station area.
Not 5 mins after I plonked the tripod on the ground, two guards happened along to quiz me on what I was doing there.
Of course 9/11 and Bali still fresh in everyone's minds .. I explained to them I was an amateur .. I'm getting weird photography shots they probably wouldn't understand .. etc, etc....

Showed them the images of flower closeups with blurry smokestacks in the background, and some close up(telephotos) abstract shapes of the smoke stacks .. etc.
They laughed, but their parting comment to me was "quickly get what you need and go .. otherwise they'd get their posteriors punished by their superiors!"

Basically, I packed up and headed off to less green pastures(the grass was very green and lush there), out of respect to them having came across as good blokes doing their job with a sense of understanding.

What the amusing part of this short tale was that I'd stopped at an area set aside by the power station people as an allocated rest/play/stop/viewing area.
There was a BBQ area, with picnicky tables and all.
In our short conversation, I questioned the guards, about whether they thought it was ironic that I'm not really allowed to stop at an area set aside as an area for people to stop at

And what if I were stopping with my family having a BBQ, and taking snaps with my smartphone .. would have I been questioned then, etc.

[cupic]

Well all need to talk to our local representative in Govt and voice our right to freedom in photographic terms .
Too long its been tried up in red tape
Out there people


cheers

[Mark L]

And the public ARE fully conversant with these laws?

When/if they become laws elsewhere, does it matter if the public is conversant?
Photogs probably should be though.

[Bennymiata]

Amen.