# Against Law to Photo Kids??



## GunnSmokeer (Sep 27, 2010)

Is it against the law to photograph kids?
It used to be against the law for convicted Sex Offenders who were on the Registry to photo or video kids without parental permission.
But the new law, as amended this year, seems to include all persons, not just sex offenders.  


O.C.G.A. 42-1-18. 


(a) As used in this Code section, the term 'photograph' means to take any picture, film or digital photograph, motion picture film, videotape, or similar visual representation or image of a person. 


(b) No individual shall intentionally photograph a minor without the consent of the minor's parent or guardian. 


(c) Any individual who knowingly violates this Code section shall be guilty of a misdemeanor of a high and aggravated nature. "

COMMENTS?  Is anybody aware of this newly-changed law?
Is it being discussed among amateur photographers and hobbyists?
Does anybody have any information that shows it was a mistake and oversight, and that the legislature never intended it to apply to normal people instead of just convicted sex offenders?

P.S.  Notice that the law doesn't talk about what kind of photography.  If you're thinking this law only applies to revealing, sexy, partially nude, or otherwise suggestive photos involving underwear or swimwear, think again.
If you think that asking a teenager for his or her permission is good enough, think again. 

If you're looking for a good photo of people enjoying a picnic in a public park at noon one Saturday, and you see a 17 year old mother and her 1 year old boy having a picnic and think they would make good subjects for your photo, keep in mind that while the 17  year old could consent for the baby's photo, only the 17 year old's parents could consent to HER photo being taken!  

Think of the risks of a coach having all the kids on the team line up for a group photo!


----------



## Allen17 (Sep 27, 2010)

I don't photograph any child without the parent requesting the shot, then get a release signed. If I requested the shot, they sign before I shoot. 

Whether its portrait, sports, stock or special event, you need a release to shoot and I would encourage you to address how the image will be used, displayed etc.

Check with the PPA site for more details.


----------



## Hoss (Sep 27, 2010)

Good info and advice.

Hoss


----------



## JustUs4All (Sep 27, 2010)

Don't y'all just love our elected rulers.

That law, as written, could pretty much put an end to televised sporting events in Georgia.


----------



## Browtine (Sep 28, 2010)

It's still listed under the Article that applies to the SEXUAL OFFENDER REGISTRATION REVIEW BOARD (Article 2 of Chapter 1) under Title 42. Title 42 applies to Penal Institutions... and Chapter 1 (Article 2) applies to the Sexual Offender Registration Review Board, with section 18 prohibiting the act... but the wording definitely blurs the line here. 

Every single other law under Title 42, Chapter 1, Article 2  (42-1-12 thru 42-1-19) applies to Sex Offenders so my somewhat educated and experienced opinion is that it still only applies to convicted sex offenders or it would be listed under Title 16, which is all general Crimes and Offenses...

***HOWEVER***... Don't take my opinion as fact, or legal advice!!! I'm a popo, not an attorney... Someone needs to contact the Attorney General to get an Official Opinion from him on it before some poor photographer has to spend his life savings fighting it in court. Grey wording like this can cost someone everything they have in attorney fees if some undiscerning officer decides to try charging someone with it. 

For me, if a complainant raised heck and pushed the issue citing this law, this would be the kind of case where I'd do an incident report with no arrest and let the complainant petition a judge for a warrant hearing to decide whether to charge or not given the wording of this law, and where it falls in the code. I would NOT just hook someone up on this unless there was SOME indication that they were up to no good with the pics.... I'd seize the memory/film as possible evidence to prevent the pics from being used improperly or being destroyed before the process could be undergone of course, but no arrest. Unfortunately not every officer is that way, though.


----------



## Browtine (Sep 28, 2010)

If anyone else wants to dig around in it and see for themselves what I'm talking about, go here...

http://www.lexis-nexis.com/hottopics/gacode/

Click OK-Close on the legal disclaimer page, and you'll be taken to the O.C.G.A Table of Contents. Click on the + sign beside Title 42 to open it's subsections and so on from there to see what I posted.


----------



## FERAL ONE (Sep 28, 2010)

from what i understand, if you are taking an image , like of your child , and another is in the image or in the background you are okay, but if the child is the focal point of the image you better have the release .   i was approached one time at a public gathering where i had my big lens but when i showed my images every thing was cool. it did get me a bit sideways that some mom was stupid enough to think just because i had a big lens i was a perv.


----------



## *MrsUSbowhunter* (Sep 28, 2010)

It may not be that she thought you were a perv. We are told constantly that if we see something out of the ordinary, to report it. You can never be too careful when it comes to your kids. I have seen to many shows (I know, I know, its just T.V.) where they find that the abductor was someone who did tons of research and photographs before abducting.


----------



## JC011 (Sep 28, 2010)

I'm not a lawyer either, but it's easy to see that if this law was applied to everyone (not just convicted sex offenders), that it would never pass a constitutional challenge.  If you go in public or if your children are in public, there is no expectation of privacy attached to their image or likeness.  

Based on where this is in the OCGA, I believe it would be strictly limited to registered sexual offenders.


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Oct 1, 2010)

*Location in O.C.G.A.*

yeah, this law IS in the part of the law books where the special restrictions on sex offenders are kept.  I think the legislators just messed up when they reorganized the law. They probably intended to have a general definitions section that said an "individual" in any of these Articles and Code Sections always means an individual who is on the Registry.

BY THE WAY, I agree that written permission / release is a good idea. But is it really required for photos that are for your personal collection and not used commercially?

If I go to Centennial Olympic Park in Atlanta and take a picture of kids running and splashing in the water fountain (never done it-- I'm saying "if"....) I don't think I need the parents' permission.   I'm documenting what I saw taking place in a public place.  But if I want to be able to sell that image to a printer who will use it to make pretty 2011 calendars, THEN I better have a model release and written permission.


----------



## Ta-ton-ka chips (Oct 1, 2010)

Poo on the law

If it's in public, I can shoot a pic of it

The law is a violation of my Constitutional rights

Too many idiots in Govt


----------



## GunnSmokeer (Jun 22, 2011)

*Fixed the Law*

House Bill 162, signed by Gov. Deal on May 11, 2011 removes the "any individual" language and replaces it with "any person required to register as a sex offender."

So the State finally corrected a stupid error it made long ago. 

People on the sex offender registry have more problems to worry about than this restriction, but it really does make you wonder about group photos, sports team photos, or public scenes like people in Piedmont park on a sunny Saturday where one pic of your camera might photograph 14 kids, 63 adults, 40 dogs, 9 birds, and 5 squirrels all with one click of the shutter.   Would a person subject to this law have to have prior permission from all 14 sets of kids' parents before raising his camera?


----------

