john_h.1

<p>It is noteworthy that the Texas Improper Photography statute at least had a purpose that related to photography. Namely that the photography use constituted some potential harm. The sensibilities of the photographed. Which could only occur with photography in that way with the photography. Those sensibilities were not enough but other photography dissemination statutes involving sensibilities, such as voyeurism, do. There was some rationality and relevance behind it. <br /><br />This bill bans a constitutionally protected practice for reasons that have nothing, whatsoever, to do with photography. As bad as that is alone, it allows non-protected conduct of no material difference to the goal sought. Just one of the various reasons the proposed legislation is arbitrary and unconstitutional on its face. Not just as applied. <br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"The area of the law that has been applied to this issue is freedom of the press. What area of the constitution would you apply to your argument?"</p> </blockquote> <p>The cases in the law enforcement situations happen to have journalistic purposes to the communication or expression. Other cases recognize expression and communicative intent as a general freedom of speech issue as to photography. As long as there is an intent to communicate the results of the photography to others then freedom of speech cover the other communicative purposes.<br /><br /> Obviously.</p>

<p>Sure it is "facially" valid to criminalize non- traditional journalists from exercising the same exact activity as as journalists do. It is "facially" valid to criminalize ALL conduct they do while traditional journalist can do ANYTHING that doesn't violate another law. It is facially valid to criminalize 2nd Amendment firearm rights because you happen to be exercising 1st Amendment rights at the same time. <br /><br />Facially valid. Meaning it either is or isn't valid. As opposed to "as applied" analysis depending on circumstances which this bill doesn't do at all. IOW, it is eminently reasonable unless it isn't. </p> <p>So much for progress.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"if they have some sound basis for selecting 25 feet -- which we don't know because it this law is sustainable"</p> </blockquote> <p>Now the 25 foot limit is only reasonable <strong>IF</strong> there is some justification MAKING it so. None is which is known. Before it was claimed to be "eminently reasonable" per se.<br /><br />Progress.</p>

<blockquote> <p>the issue is not whether or not restrictions can be imposed on photographing or videoing the police, but what is the basis for the restriction.</p> </blockquote> <p>No one said otherwise.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"The abortion clinic case is clearly distinguishable because it is a universal free speech right that is held by every citizen."</p> </blockquote> <p>As though photography for expressive purposes isn't.</p> <p> </p> <blockquote> <p>The case of photographing the police has been determined to be a freedom of the press issue, not a general free speech issue.</p> </blockquote> <p>The claim now is that there is no right to make images or video of scenes that happen to include police (in ANY scenario all of the sudden) for social expression, for evidence gathering to provide for others, for education, ect. ect. All expression and all practical purposes being automatically suppressible. <br /><br />Sure.</p> <p> </p>

<blockquote> <p>"The "rebuttal" here and much of the argument assumes a right that does not exist in US law -- the absolute right to photograph."<br /> It doesn't assume that at all. It discusses arbitrary application which many discussed. A common and well settled fatal flaw. Yet, it is completely ignored. I guess it can't be acknowledged since it makes a mockery of the claim that the restriction is "EMINENTLY reasonable".</p> </blockquote> <p>The <strong>Ward</strong> decision upheld restrictions on account they were content-neutral. The restriction here will prevent content for close ups, for ability to capture a scene and allow others who can also exercise free speech and those that don't access. It doesn't allow for situational circumstances at all. The other basis was that it was a narrowly tailored restriction. This one obviously is not as it bans ALL the protected activity no matter the circumstances. Ward was a circumstance based case. It is an off point case.</p> <p>The <strong>Branzburg</strong> case relies, in part, on another case the saying First Amendment does not guarantee the press a constitutional right of special access to information not available to the public generally. This bill concerns allowing the public to be within the area, just not anyone photographing. Ridiculously off point. <br /> <br /> Another case <strong>Branzburg</strong> relied upon involved someone causing disruption impeding traffic. This bill requires no disruption. Other cases cited include matters where the public is excluded. This bill doesn't. The case is off point.<br /> <br /> <strong>Chavez</strong> was the case where the photographer was actually disruptive as the basis for the decision. Not an issue here.</p> <p>Let's indulge in relevant information instead, shall we?</p>

<blockquote> <p>"For Texans legally carrying a firearm, the buffer zone required would be 100 feet under Villalba's proposal."</p> </blockquote> <p>This one targets two Bill of Rights Amendments simultaneously with no apparent reason. If someone were waving a pistol around at the scene of an arrest, there would be a genuine issue but, again, one that is widely and easily addressed by other laws relating to disturbances and interference. Someone with a concealed weapon would cause no disruption whatsoever on account of having a firearm. Moreover, the bill requires the firearm restriction ONLY if it is with someone using a camera which serves no ascertainable purpose and there is no history of photo taking citizens getting out of hand with firearms. Making it a compounding arbitrary restriction on multiple well established rights. Nothing says overturn me more than a law of arbitrary application trampling on multiple Bill of Rights. Plus, it applies ONLY BOTH RIGHTS ARE OCCURRING AT THE SAME TIME. Compounding the compounding.Notwithstanding a singular claim, here, of that scenario being not only reasonable but "eminently" so.</p> <p>Edit: It also exempts "journalists". Adding yet another layer of constitutional exclusion and another layer or arbitrary application. Who is going to know the difference when it matters? Will the exemptees be wearing "PRESS" cards in their hats?</p> <p>http://benswann.com/tx-bill-restrict-filming-of-police-segregate-journalists/</p>

<blockquote> <p>"going to law school and becoming a lawyer. I can tell you that the parallels are applicable and this law is sustainable under the First Amendment... ...a 25 foot rule is eminently reasonable."</p> </blockquote> <p>Eminently? After all the well reasoned (and ignored) rebuttals here about how, in practice, the restrictions can be unworkable and ONLY apply to 1st Amendment activity. Trotting out the "I am lawyer"card to make oneself appear more authoritative, as you have, can be unbecoming but I'm going to do so myself, this particular time, to state 'as a lawyer" I find the assertion as laughable.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"how many cops beating dudes have you shot video of?"</p> </blockquote> <p><br />Each scenario can be different and effect whether distance related positioning for what is sought to be photographed. Some one may want a close up of something or avoid long lens compression effects and countless other factors. </p>

<blockquote> <p>These are not selfies here, but evidential photos. </p> </blockquote> <p> People photograph police for many reasons that are not for producing evidence. If it were the only reason, you would be calling for restrictions on gathering evidence which is particularly unsupportable.</p>

<blockquote> <p>"are photographers incapable of taking pictures from 25 feet away?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Sometimes. Obviously. Many camera and lenses people happen to carry may make such imagery useless. Others might be in the way (which defeats the entire purpose of having a distance limit since it only applies to 1st Amendment photography activity rather then proximity itself). The expression related activity can be limited in many ways by such an arbitrary rule which necessarily restricts the nature of 1st Amendment expression to distance based standards.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p><br />"Does anyone ever think about all the reasonable restrictions placed on photographers in operational settings?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Yes. There are adequate laws that interference already which is what those are based on.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p><br />"Has anyone ever accompanied an operational military unit?"<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p><br />This doesn't involve a military operation so it is irrelevant.</p> <blockquote> <p><br />"Photographers can frequently cause a risk to those they are photographing and themselves by interfering with the activity being photographed."</p> </blockquote> <p>Non photographers can cause the same thing. As stated before, this is already addressed with interference laws.<br /><br /></p> <blockquote> <p><br />"I think this is not an unreasonable restriction"</p> </blockquote> <p>Based on no ascertainable grounds it seems.</p>

<p>http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2015/03/25/texas-cop-watcher-bill-under-fire-from-various-groups/</p>

<blockquote> <p>"In anticipation of this possibility, had a letter from the company explaining that I was shooting on behalf of them."<br /><br /></p> </blockquote> <p>Why?</p>

<blockquote> <p>To be legal and binding, you need to use a service like DocuSign.</p> </blockquote> <p>It is probably more accurate to say that it is legal and binding to serve as the equivalent of a signed paper document. Although the post did specifically reference signing, it could be interpreted to mean an e-signature is necessary for contract formation in general. Even verbal contracts are binding and electronic communications provide crucial evidence of a meeting of the minds that verbal lacks. There are some instances where signed documents are important because the kind of contract requires it or for situations calling for more robust protocols. I'm not suggesting to skip e-signatures at all, just that people shouldn't get the notion that a lack of an e-signature is the be all and end all defense to contract formation and enforceability.</p>

<p>Use a flash.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<blockquote> <p>"i'm not claiming autorship"</p> </blockquote> <p>We figured that out when merely reading the subject title of "how does HE do it?" In any event, if you ask the photographer, they might give you the answer. The correct one.</p>

<p>"I am in TX and only file federal and there is no such question."<br /><br /><br />Oh, there's questions alright... http://www.window.state.tx.us/taxinfo/taxforms/01-forms.html#Sales</p>

<blockquote> <p>"If client insist to pay by credit card, what are the better options to process the payment?"</p> </blockquote> <p>I might be concerned about the 'insisting' part. It may merely be their own concern of having a convenient remedy should there be a problem with fulfilling your obligations or other innocent reason but, it opens the door to potential abuse. Even if the odds of that are low, it tends to defeat the purpose of contractual advance payment schemes designed to prevent after service payment problems.</p>

<p>I have an issue with the claims about "artificial demand" and "perceived scarcity".<br /><br />Unless there is a misrepresentation as to the numbers at a given time, the market is merely running its course which, itself, determines and sets those values. Whether the photographer's product is worthwhile to spend money on or is incorrectly perceived as a good investment for potential investment purposes are separate issues despite their potential to alter the sale price that can be attained.<br /><br /><br /><br /></p>

<p>It would seem diversification, including hard copy (non digital) back up for critical images, is prudent in any back up scheme. As is duplicative off site storage, migration ect. ect. Future events, individually and society level, cannot be guaranteed.</p>

<p>Micheal's post is essentially the argument that would be made if it came down to a fight and it might work. The odds are better if those facts were undisputed. Part of and usually the main reason for having a written contract is to ensure there is no dispute of what the agreement is or that there was one. Without it there is wiggle room to claim there were other arrangements or understandings. In other words, game playing. Keeping the full retainer is going to be a struggle even if successful. Consider a 'settlement'.</p>

<p>Assuming that the amount of money involved makes it a worthwhile exercise.</p>

<p>It may involve a photographer but this is just a breach of contract issue. I would make an appropriate attempt to personally communicate and work out a final arrangement as suggested and, if that fails or is not honored, then treat it as a contract breached. Since you already have images, the irreplaceable part, you should be able to make a claim for money damages.</p>