Here they go again

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>This is the 21st century Alan, machines now do the milking.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you sure in your friend's case? Maybe he enjoyed doing it by hand. What else would account for his very good relationship with his cows? </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Alan, believe it or not, animals have sufficient intelligence to recognize both gross mistreatment and respect.</p>

<p>In the case I mention, and like dogs and horses and other animals, they simply recognized a former owner and were apparently not stressed by that memory. </p>

[james_c1]

<p>Cool the bird are of the hook. So we have to come up with a bill, lets see Photoshop yes Photoshop. We will ban photographs that use Photoshop. No more fake bird excrement, no more highly manipulated in post exposures. No that not it. I know lets skip the whole bill process and go straight to law. Yes no more pictures of any kind with a camera. That’s the kind of control the people need, they are just up to no good with them anyway.</p>

[AlanKlein]

<blockquote>

<p>In the case I mention, and like dogs and horses and other animals, they simply recognized a former owner and were apparently not stressed by that memory.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Of course they weren't stressed. He wasn't using a 21st Century milking machine. He was using his hands. It's obvious.</p>

[leicaglow]

<p>One word: Monsanto.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Think about it. If someone enters your home and you are not there, according to your definition they are not invading your private property?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There is nothing to think about. My "definition" of invasion of privacy is consistent with legal definition which applies to your previous discussion about photographing people. The proposed legislation has nothing to with photographing people. The discussion of photographing people was irrelevant. Now you're raising property issues and linking it to that irrelevant discussion. Essentially an irrelevant discussion about an irrelevant discussion.</p>

<p>Invasion of privacy is a legal term that relates to shooting people in certain circumstances. It has nothing to do with the proposed legislation. </p>

[aplumpton]

<p>Invasion of privacy can indeed be a legal term, in which case it has to be placed in that context. If that phrase is only considered in that specific manner it would not be possible to use the English language to refer to someone who may be invading the property of another, as in the present case concerning the rights or not of a commercial enterprise or an investigative photojournalist in regard to such invasion.</p>

<p>The only thing that appears "irrelevant" to me are glib comments and the inability of some to discuss an issue from each side. It is also the sad case of many issues facing society today. It seems strange also that Bob, who first raised the question, has not wanted to further engage in the discussion. I am probably no better or worse qualified than him, also being perhaps handicapped as "irrelevant" by my PhD in high temperature chemistry, like Bob's of the same type. Does that place someone outside of some circle of those who are "qualified" to discuss such social issues? I think not. These are social issues which affect all of us. One doesn't need a legal degree to discuss them.</p>

[chelsea]

<p>I eat chicken and beef and pork, I do not have a college degree, and by now many on these boards know that I'm not shy about speaking up in social issues. I am a citizen in a society, therefore that gives me the right to speak up on social issues. As much as our freedoms of speach and democracy are being eroded, we still have them to some extent, and I will take full advantage of it. I want to know where my chicken and beef and pork come from, and I want to SEE the conditions that they are raised under. If those big farm owners spent as much money on looking after the animals as they do in lobbying for ridiculous laws there would probably be no issue. I don't think they're as much worried about the photojournalist as they are about someone from organizations like PETA or SPCA taking on a job in one of those farms and documenting from inside what the conditions are. This is how many of the explosive news items have come to our attention in the first place. There is responsible farming, and then there is mass production to satisfy greed. Let me see how the food I am consuming is being produced, and how it is treated along the way. More cameras and more photographs may lessen the conditions that cause the outbreaks of salmonella and listeria that put us all at risk. If we're going to eat meat, then we all have a responsibility to see to it that the animals that provide that meat are being raised and killed responsibly and humanely.</p>

[david_l3]

<p>An underground marijuana lobby may be behind it. Those growers will sure be happy, just put a few cows by the front fence to make it look legal. Not to mention undocumented workers, or indentured foreign workers, could be used with impunity on an agricultural enterprise.</p>

<p>What's to hide if an ag operation is honest? C'mon, don't need no new gubmint reg'lation for runnin' a farm? </p>

[tom_harvey3]

<p>Chicken Porn!</p>

[john_h.1]

 

<blockquote>

<p>Invasion of privacy can indeed be a legal term, in which case it has to be placed in that context. If that phrase is only considered in that specific manner it would not be possible to use the English language to refer to someone who may be invading the property of another, as in the present case concerning the rights or not of a commercial enterprise or an investigative photojournalist in regard to such invasion... ...being perhaps handicapped as "irrelevant" by my PhD in high temperature chemistry, Does that place someone outside of some circle of those who are "qualified" to discuss such social issues? I think not.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Arthur, you are the one who placed the term in the context of photographing people. You raised it as to liability for photographing people, the number of people and incorrectly stating that there is liability for using images of others merely for "gain". Understanding what an issue is and is not is a qualification for discussing it. None of those matters has anything to do with the issue being discussed which is proposed criminal legislation for photographing certain <em>subject matter</em> on owned land when someone happens to be on that land. For the benefit of others reading this thread, this has been clarified. </p>

<p> </p>

 

[john_h.1]

The actual proposed legislation...

 

http://le.utah.gov/~2012/bills/hbillint/hb0187.pdf

[wayne_crider4]

<p>"AGRICULTURAL OPERATION INTERFERENCE"<br>

Pretty broad term.<br>

Most farmers are good people. They work hard and are committed to nature, natural practices when possible and treating their livestock humanely. It's the sour apples and corporations that are the assholes and apparently fearful. </p>

[AlanKlein]

<p>Living in NYC, I don't know too much about farming. But I could see both sides of this issue. People are concerned about healthy farming and proper care of animals. So they want to show that these things are not being done improperly.</p>

<p>However, I could see the farmer or rancher's concern that they will be brought into a "phoney" and expensive lawsuit trying to defend themselves against people who have filmed and doctored (photoshopped) pictures taken and edited by people who basically don't like what the ranchers or farmers do as a profession, at all. We of all people know how easy it is to be selective about what photos to show or when to edit out film, video and selected photos to make a point on our side. How does the poor farmer defend himself against that kind of "evidence"? Hence the law.</p>

<p>I believe there are plenty of laws on the books that require healthy farming procedures. I also believe that agricultural officials of the government have tools in their hands to investigate including going into the farms to check on these things without the farmer's consent. (This could vary from state to state). Following existing laws, both the "State" and the farmers have to operate within certain legal parameters so there is fairness on both sides of how the "evidence " is obtained and presented. How would you like it if someone took a picture of you spanking your kid through the window of your home and then went to the District Attorney's office to make trouble for you? <em> Vigilante</em> justice can be very unfair. We should be very careful before we allow ourselves from being swayed by it.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>I think this bill is pretty straight forward. You can photograph/record on a farm with the owner's permission, just not without. And you can photograph from public areas.</p>

<p>I've never been in the farming business, but I've done animal research, and I know the tactics activists use. They use their access to enter laboratories at night, grab some animals, get them aggrivated, stage them in all sorts of bizarre and cruel ways, and let loose with the photography, to be released later in promotion of their cause.</p>

<p>One example that comes to mind (the Silver Spring monkey photos that many people would recognize) involved restraining a conscious and struggling monkey in a surgical apparatus used for positioning limbs. Wikipedia has a pretty balanced account of the Silver Spring Monkeys here, and those who were familiar with Taub and his work are absolutely certain of the truthfulness of his account:</p>

<p><a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Silver_Spring_monkeys</a></p>

<p>I think it shows how these conflicts play out. It's these sorts of things the aforementioned bill seeks to punish.</p>

[aplumpton]

<p>John, again you are taking things way out of context. If you reread my original comment you will note that it relates to the property invasion and not people. I mentioned the case of a person being photographed against her will, but that was ancilliary to my main point about access to private property and, as far as I'm concerned, which carries a responsibility to request permission. If you want to stay on the main discussion that is fine. Otherwise, it is your problem if you wish to digress.</p>

<p>I think Wayne, Alan and Sarah provide a balanced view. Rose-Marie's concerns are most warranted of course, in certain cases, but most have seen images of those very concentrated and less than ideal places for raising fowl for meat consumption and they have been usually photographed with the permission of farmers. It's not the access to these places that is the problem, it is the lack of discussion at all levels as to how the situation can be improved. That may start by the farmers receiving a fairer price for their products and the middlemen being less greedy, and also, of course, the consumer taking a better stance.</p>

[johne37179]

<p>Since I can't use an image of commercial or residential property without a release, why should agricultural property be different? I remember about 40 years ago having to get a release from the owner of a race horse that wandered into the background of a location shot.</p>

 

[mike dixon]

"Since I can't use an image of commercial or residential property without a release, why should agricultural property be different?"

 

Using images without a release in a situation where a release is required is a civil offense. You (or the publisher of the images) could be sued for damages. The proposed bill is different in that it makes the act of photographing or video recording agricultural property a criminal offense.

[._kaa]

"Since I can't use an image of commercial or residential property without a release" <br><br>

 

You can't..? I am quite sure you can. What you wanted to say is that you can't *sell it for non-editorial purposes* which is quite a different thing.

[._kaa]

Arthur: "John, again you are taking things way out of context. If you reread my original comment you will note that it relates to the property invasion and not people."<br><br>

 

I have re-read your original comment. It doesn't talk about property invasion it all. It points out that asking permission to photograph while on someone's else property is a common social custom.<br><br>

 

While that may or may not be true in any given culture, there's a vast gulf between a social custom which is flexible, adjustable, and, if the need is great, ignorable and a provision of criminal law. There are excellent reasons why many social customs are not written into law and I'm sure some will come to your mind if you spend a bit of time contemplating the issue.<br><br>

 

A society where a permission is required (under the penalty of law) to do most basic things is neither free nor able to thrive. The US has already taken many steps on this road, I do not wish for another one.

[richardsperry]

"The proposed bill is different in that it makes the act of photographing or video recording agricultural property a criminal

offense."

 

Let's be clear here. It makes it criminal to photograph or video abuse of animals, poor working conditions, poor worker

behavior, and health violations in the production of food for human consumption, on farm property. This is the obvious intent.

 

I certainly am not some PETA activist. But I am certainly appalled when meat producers use bulldozers to put almost

dead cows into the production cue. Or images of feces laden animals entering the food chain. These images would be illegal just to be taken, and they should never be.

 

If this ever becomes law, it definitely should be a law to be broken.

[richardsperry]

Queue.

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>Arthur: "John, again you are taking things way out of context. If you reread my original comment you will note that it relates to the property invasion and not people."<br /><br /> I have re-read your original comment. It doesn't talk about property invasion it all. It points out that asking permission to photograph while on someone's else property is a common social custom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes. The whole discussion was couched in terms of these customs which also included the references to civil liability of shooting and using images of people. As others have recognized, this proposed legislation is obviously not inspired by customs and manners. It is to prevent certain activity from being memorialized and used later as with respect to a distinct industry. Not the niceties of asking permission in general which, for all practical effect, is not the issue or motive.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>This brings to mind the quote (not) from Bismarck about laws and sausages. However, the 1st amendment will clearly cover this. As it is, there are already criminal law provisions covering proprietary business matters (like industrial espionage) and real espionage, etc., when it comes to classified facilities and the like, so this neither breaks new ground nor changes realities when it comes to criminal trespassing. </p>

<p>The problem for the farm industry is there is little they can do to unring the bell if unseemly images get published. Nor are zealous "animal rights activists" going to pay attention to these sorts of penalties. The chances of prosecution are pretty slim even if the law gets passed.</p>

[bobbollinger]

<p>I also think it is a bill aimed at photographers who would/could reveal the reality of the processes of raising meat for the food market. The farmers, corporate or otherwise, have an economic interest in preventing things that harm their business. <br>

But the thing that caught my eye at first was the fact that the politician filing the bill is apparently a veterinarian. That is what the "DVM" after his name means. Now, it would be interesting and possibly enlightening to know exactly how he earns his living as a vet. My guess is he is employed to see livestock in these big corporate farms. I doubt that he is taking care of housepets. </p>