Iowa Law Would Criminalize Publishing Farm Exposes

18 03 2011

Author’s Note: This is a cross- post from my NPPA Advocacy blog.

Recently we told you about a bill banning photography of farms in Florida. We have learned that there is a similar bill, prohibiting photography (among other things) of farms and crops without the permission of the owner. The Iowa bill has been compared to the Florida bill, but a quick read of the bill shows that it is far worse. To Iowa’s credit, it appears that photography from the street wouldn’t be affected, however, mere possession and distribution of undercover photography of a farm would be a crime. This elevates editors and news organizations to the status of criminals if they publish, or even possess undercover footage of farms, crops or animal facilities.

Specifically the bill states that “distribution or possession” of photographs that were illegally obtained (through violations of earlier portions of the bill). Under the proposed law, “A person is guilty of animal facility interference if the person. . . [p]ossess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility which” is  a “reproduction of a visual or audio experience occurring at the animal facility, including but not limited to a photographic or audio medium” without the consent of the owner.

To give some perspective to the blatant unconstitutionality of this bill consider this – the only time that the Supreme Court has upheld a law that bans distribution and possession of any kind of photography it was a law against possessing and distributing child pornography. As powerful of a lobby farmers are, elevating exposes of farms to the level of child pornography is absurd and I can’t see how this would hold up. Just last year the Supreme Court ruled that a law banning possession and distribution of video of cruelty to animals was unconstitutional. See U.S. v. Stevens, 130 S.Ct. 1577 (2010). The intent of that law was to prevent animal cruelty but even it went too far (the NPPA signed an amicus brief advocating for the overturning of that bill).

The government can’t even prevent the possession and distribution of documents that put U.S. security interests at risk so it is hard to imagine how the public relations interests of farms would be considered more compelling than U.S. security interests.

Several years ago (2001), in a case called Bartnicki v. Vopper, the Supreme Court ruled that when a news organization lawfully obtained a recording, they could not be held liable for the publication of the details of the recording, even though the recording itself was illegally obtained. The Iowa law would make a news organization liable for publishing a recording, even if the news organization had nothing to do with obtaining the recording.

The NPPA has contacted lawmakers in Iowa regarding the bill.

Journalists and Photographers in Iowa should be very concerned about this bill. While it would no doubt be struck down in court, it is much easier for all of us if it never makes it to the governor’s desk.

From HF589:

Sec. 9.1(a)(2) makes it a crime to “Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the animal facility” which was taken without permission of the owner.

Sec. 14.1.b makes it a crime to “Possess or distribute a record which produces an image or sound occurring at the crop operation which was” taken without permission of the owner.

Advertisements




Can the Media be Restricted from Broadcasting High School Athletic Events in their entirety: Oral Arguments in the Seventh Circuit.

16 01 2011

There were oral arguments on Friday in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit in the WIAA v. Gannett case. You may remember this case originated a couple of years ago when a Wisconsin newspaper webcast several high school football tournaments against the wishes of the tournament organizers, the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association. The WIAA sued, initially in state court, seeking a declaration that it had broad rights to own the descriptions and depictions of the games. The case was moved to federal court and the complaint was changed to involve fewer claims.

Currently the primary issue involves whether or not the WIAA can contract with a private company to exclusively license the rights to broadcast the entire game (beyond just highlights). WIAA is a “state actor” which means that in effect, they are like the government, and they cannot restrict speech any more than a city or state government could.

A panel of three judges began by peppering the newspaper’s attorney, Robert Dreps, with hypothetical questions about whether or not a school could restrict coverage related to school plays, or operas, which have copyright protections. Dreps explained how previous courts have ruled that there are no copyright protections in athletic competitions. The judges also raised questions about whether or not the case should ever have been moved to federal court. At one point one of the judges compared the broadcast of the games to a broadcast of the oral arguments themselves. In addition, the issue of whether a ruling in favor of the newspapers would affect broadcast agreements in college basketball games was raised.

These issues are not simple, and because of that, the debate is fascinating. If you have time, it lasts less than an hour. At play are cross-section of many issues, including First Amendment, copyright, and internet law. News organizations all over the country should be paying attention to this case and its outcome.

A recording of the oral arguments can be heard here and there is an article about the original case here.

(editor’s note: this is a cross-post with my NPPA Advocacy blog)





Updates

6 06 2010

A couple of nuggets:

This blog piece highlights the most famous newspaper in Hollywood, used for years in Hollywood as a prop.
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/06/04/lol-the-reoccurring-prop-newspaper/

If you are an ethics fan, like many journalists are, this video, about “The Prisoner’s Dilemma.” It’s an extraordinary piece of journalism, as well as a fascinating look at the legal system.

http://video.nytimes.com/video/2010/06/04/nyregion/1247467961918/the-innocent-prisoner-s-dilemma.html





Photo groups file suit against Google

7 04 2010

Well, several photo groups, along with some photographers, have filed suit against Google regarding their google books project.

I won’t repeat what has been said in the various articles. You can read about it:

In the New York Times;

On the ASMP website;

Read the complaint itself.

One thing I will say is that the recent Supreme Court ruling of Reed Elsevier v. Muchnik has paved the way for this case.

Here is why.

Many of the photographers covered  in the Google Books photographers class action suit have likely not registered their copyrights. This means that they could not bring suit themselves and still get statutory damages. But in the Muchnik case, the Supreme Court ruled that the court can still have jurisdiction over a copyright case in a class action, even if the members of the class covered by the settlement have not all registered their copyrights. Of course the google suit asks for statutory damages for each infringement, and a court is not likely to award statutory damages for infringements where the copyright is not registered. But getting a judgment and getting a settlement are two entirely different things. The way is now clear for a settlement.

Photographers should be aware of the danger of class actions suits. Google may get hit in the pocket book, but there is always a risk that photographers who aren’t in the original suit will not see much of the money. Here’s hoping that the photo groups don’t let that happen.





How to be a safe and lawful Bluebonnet-er

28 03 2010


Shooting bluebonnets is one of the classic spring pastimes for photographers in Texas. For those of us who don’t shoot flowers for a living (and who does, really) it is a great way to rediscover the joy of just taking pictures for an afternoon.

But as with all things, it is important to keep it safe. I was happy to find this article (thanks to Helen Montoya Henrichs) that clarifies a few things- namely, that it is not illegal to pick the bluebonnets (but it is totally uncool to drive your car over them). Oh, yeah, and, no trespassing.

http://www.txdps.state.tx.us/director_staff/public_information/pr032602.htm





Being specific- and the definition of “public relations use”

9 11 2009

I don’t know if I have mentioned it before, but a contract can’t conceivably have all of the possible terms available in the universe (although some try). So if a term is missing from a contract, or if it is ambiguous, the court will try to fill in the blanks. In other words, the court will interpret any part of your contract that is unclear. For that reason, you should be clear about the important parts- like usage.

In my research, I came upon a  case which is a good example of how clear usage terms can make all the difference in a lawsuit. The case is Steve Altman Photography v. United States, 18 Cl. Ct. 267 (Cl. Ct. 1989)

Basically what happened was that the photographer and his client, a government agency, had an ongoing relationship and a subsequent dispute over a couple of different uses. Two parts of the case interested me. The photographer claimed that the agency violated his copyright twice, once by releasing an image to a magazine and again by using a (separate) photo in an annual report. Both allegations combine to make a good lesson.

“PR Use” and Release to a Magazine

121708_whitesands_1305_awcc2a9

I simply hate pages with lots of text and no photos. So here. Enjoy. © 2008 Alicia Wagner Calzada

For the first allegation, the photographer had granted “public relations use” for an assignment. The agency gave a copy of a photo from the assignment to a magazine. Was the copyright violated?

First, the court, without more specific indications of the intentions of the parties (at the time of the contract), interpreted “public relations” based on the dictionary definition:

“”Public relations” refers to the “business of inducing the public to have understanding for and goodwill toward an . . . . institution.” Webster’s New Collegiate Dictionary, 932 (1975).” Id.

Second, because the photographer came up with the terms, the court construed the contract most favorably to the other party- basically, as the person drafting the terms, you have a responsibility to be clear, and you don’t get to benefit from being vague. Thus the court found that releasing the photos to the magazine fell under “public relations” use.

More Specific Usage Terms– “1982 annual report”

In the same case the same photographer had also licensed some photos for an annual report, specifically “to be used in 1982 annual report and for P.R. release.

Because these terms were more specific, when the agency use the images in the annual report for a different year (1983), the court ruled that there was a copyright infringement.

So you see how being specific made all of the difference. Imagine if the client had used one of the photos from the first instance in an annual report. The court could have used the second contract as proof that annual report use was not included in public relations use. Or it could have decided that the absence of a specific limitation meant that there was no limitation.

Moral of the story, be specific, lest someone else is left to read your mind. After all, if you end up having a judge interpret your contract, you have lost the client.

If you use a general license, list the possible uses. If you need help filling in the blanks, a great resource is PLUS (Picture Licensing Universal System). They have an awesome feature called the “License Generator” which you can use to fill in the usage section of your contract. Try It!

Happy Shooting.

-A





Coaliation against Google Books settlement.

27 08 2009

Thanks Robert House for this link to an article about the growing coalition arguing against the Google Books settlement.

http://bits.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/08/26/coalition-lays-out-arguments-against-google-books-settlement/