Possible problem for Photographers

Van Living Forum

Help Support Van Living Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Has the bill been passed into law yet? Is it defunct? This could be much ado about nothing if it has already died. But that doesn't mean the idiots behind it won't try again. Same kind of utter nonsense we gun enthusiasts face. As always, "follow the money", and see who it leads to.
 
Most of my response is political so i will not say it.



Now that is done, any judge with any hope of being reelected will kick it upstairs until it reaches a high court that will shoot it down. This goes against our most basic freedoms.
 
Luckily the bill didn't make it and most likely pandering to the ranchers.
 
the national park service tried this last year. you think Wyoming might be pandering to their ranchers, seeing how ranching is probably more than 50% of their economy? gee imagine that. what next the energy industry. highdesertranger
 
Doing anything for commercial purposes (including photography) has always required a Special Use Permit on all US Public Lands. It's never been that picayune though. According to Wyoming, I'm technically illegal since I'm posting pictures to a blog and make money off it.
Bob
 
Doubt it's enforceable. Even with my annual national park pass I've recieved information specifically geared to encourage photographers to participate in a contest for the best photos of the parks themselves. So I guess if anyone asks you're just attempting to create a worthy submission for their yearly contest?
 
" with intention to submit to a federal or state agency" Intention. Pidot is exaggerating. Question his intention.
 
66788 said:
The key is "intends to submit it to..."   That requires a specific intent in the mind of the photographer at the moment he takes the picture.   Proving what is in the mind of a person at a specific moment is difficult at best.

I wouldn't worry  too much.

On the contrary.  They don't have to prove it, they just have to charge you with it.  Then you end up spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer to defend yourself.  They're looking for a "chilling effect".  They don't really care if you beat it or not.

Regards
John
 
Optimistic Paranoid said:
On the contrary.  They don't have to prove it, they just have to charge you with it.  Then you end up spending thousands of dollars on a lawyer to defend yourself.  They're looking for a "chilling effect".  They don't really care if you beat it or not.

Regards
John

How true How true! All to often we are now "guilty until proven innocent"  :mad: :mad:
 
66788 said:
The key is "intends to submit it to..."   That requires a specific intent in the mind of the photographer at the moment he takes the picture.   Proving what is in the mind of a person at a specific moment is difficult at best.

I wouldn't worry  too much.

Or the person could be determined to be a scout for a terrorist group. Git ya off to Gitmo. No judge. No trial. No jury. No lawyer. No rights.
 
wayne49 said:
Or the person could be determined to be a scout for a terrorist group. Git ya off to Gitmo. No judge. No trial. No jury. No lawyer. No rights.

The patriot act expired a couple of days ago I think. So they can't "legally" do that anymore. For whatever the hell that's worth... Oh snap, nothing political... Never mind.
 
MikeRuth said:
How true How true! All to often we are now "guilty until proven innocent"  :mad: :mad:

I usually say, "Presumed guilty until actually proven guilty."
 
Top