A policy statement regarding picture taking
by The Artist, D. El De McClung.
1. The Artist is permitted by Right of Free Speech, as guaranteed by the First Amendment, and Common Law Rules of Sovereign Right, to take, acquire, process, possess, distribute, sell, alter, publish, display, and generally use as The Artist wishes, any picture, photograph, image, whether mechanically produced or otherwise created, regardless of the subject matter, person or persons depicted, or objects contained within the image, in as much as the image is created, made, produced, acquired, or taken by The Artist or his agent as he may appoint, hire, or otherwise contract, in writing or not; and, furthermore,
2. The Artist retains, defends, and declares the Sovereign Right to exercise any and all Natural Rights as may exist by Right of Birth, Citizenship in the Human Family, and the Natural Order of Being.
3. In no event, under no circumstance or condition does The Artist willingly and knowingly forfeit, compromise, deny, or neglect these enumerated, or un-pronounced, Rights to which he has and holds to be his by birthright. Among those Rights are the absolute right to Freedom of Expression, the Sovereign Right of un-encumbered and un-inhibited Speech, whether verbal, written, or by the making of images and objects of material substance.
4. The Artist acknowledges the Inalienable Rights of others to be free of invasions of privacy and other intrusions into their private lives and property. However, public property and individuals who may be on or in public properties are assured of no expectation of privacy in regards to having their pictures taken. This includes being video recorded. That is to say, people who are engaged in any activity upon public property or areas that are open to public view have no expectation of privacy, and can be photographed without their verbal permission or contracted consent. To be perfectly clear, if a person is in a public place or is visible from a public place, he or she can be photographed or video recorded without consent. The private or commercial use of the resulting images belongs to the photographer. To put it bluntly, if you do not want your picture taken do NOT appear in public, or allow yourself to be seen in a public setting. Generally, if I can see you I can legally take your picture, or record video of you. My camera serves as my eyes and records what I see just as my brain records images that I see with my eyes.
5. Examples of private places:
Inside your home. Provided that you can not be seen inside your home via an open door or un-draped window by someone looking from a public street or from their property across the way. Contrary to common belief, and in light of modern technology such as a telephoto-lense, it would not be a reasonable assumption of privacy if one is within one’s home and leaves visual access to the inside of ones home thru an undraped window. If you do not wish to be seen, and possibly photographed, stay behind closed doors and drawn curtains.
Public restrooms/dressing rooms. You are obviously entitled to your privacy in these places. The Government may think otherwise, actually it does think otherwise, so be aware of Peeping Uncle Sam watching you do your thing.
6. Examples of public places:
Everyplace not listed above is public. If you can be seen by others you are not in a private place. An exception can be private property such as a place of business where the public can freely enter. Let’s say that you are walking around in a Wal-mart, going about your personal business shopping, the store can and does capture you on video cameras. You are on store property and they have the right to watch you for security reasons. Again, if you don’t want to be seen, and therefore captured on camera, stay home, or at least stay out of Wal-mart stores. As noted above, public restrooms and store dressing rooms have been ruled by the courts as places where you have the reasonable assurance of privacy (The key word here is “reasonable”, and the government is never reasonable! I suspect that Wal-mart and other such business places are not very reasonable either, but that’s just my opinion.)
If you are walking down the street, on the sidewalk, you are in public view and your picture can be taken with out your consent. The picture belongs to the photographer and he/she can use the image as he pleases.
Catching you in a compromising or embarrassing position on camera when you are in a public setting may be unfortunate for you, but it is not illegal for the photographer to record the event, and use the images in anyway he wishes. Blackmail is of course a criminal offense, but if you are in a public place when your activity is captured by the photographer then you most likely are not concerned about the consequences of your actions or being noticed by passers-by. Blackmail, in this case, would not be a likely intention of the photographer since others could have witnessed your actions as well. Again, if you don’t want witnesses to your activities then stay home or refrain from doing things in public that you might later regret. The unwitting witnesses, or inconvenient, to you, presence of a person with a camera, whether he be a professional photographer or just a casual bystander with the good fortune, for him, to have a camera in hand are not obligated to seek your permission or approval before or after the fact of capturing you on camera. Being in public is clearly your acknowledgment of the fact that you can and may be seen by others. No claim of privacy rights exists under these circumstances. Again, if you can be seen you can be photographed. I can not, at this time, give reference to court rulings that confirm this position, but I am certain that I am correct. The reader is free to send valid documentation to the contrary to my office.
7. Your rights in your house, in my house:
It is a given that in your house you retain all inalienable rights that you are entitled to and have every right to exercise those rights as you see fit. Someone wishing to take your picture in your residence is obligated to get your permission before doing so. If you do not wish to be photographed in your own home then you have every right to say “No.”, deny the request from the picture taker, and the matter is closed. This is assuming that the one with the camera is also in your home at the time. The same holds true if you are anywhere in your house or outside of your house, say, in your yard, or on the front porch and the camera person is also in or on your property. If the one holding the camera is on the public street on public property, or property that does not belong to you, i.e., standing on his front porch, then the question of your privacy is mute. If he can see you from his own private property or from a public location then he can, without your consent, take and use your picture or pictures of your property as he pleases. Once again, if you can be seen from a public viewpoint you can be photographed without your consent, and I would add without your knowledge. Celebrities and politicians know this quite well, and have never, to my knowledge, been successful in prosecuting or sustaining such claims of invasions of privacy. The average person is no better...under the law.
Some have put the question to me regarding pictures taken of persons while they were in my home, or studio. The answer is rather simple. If you are in my home or on my property your rights are somewhat restricted if I wish it to be so. For example, your free speech rights become a privilege extended to you by me, the property owner. If I do not grant you the privilege of speaking freely in my home you can not freely speak your mind while you are a guest in my home. The condition extends to the boundaries of my property, including my yard. That authority also applies to a place of business, which is a private entity under the control of the owner of that business property. Being the master of my private property gives me the power and authority to say what goes on, or does not go on, on my property, albeit my home, my land, or my business establishment. Refer to the Constitution for details in regards to private property. Bear in mind that the Constitution refers to the Government and what it may or may not do and not necessarily to you as a private citizen. For example, the Government is prohibited from spying on you without a valid warrant. (Current criminal acts performed by the present government not withstanding.)
In as much as I am the Master of my home and have dominion over it, I can take photographs and record video of someone who may be in my home, or on my property, including my place of business without first acquiring their permission. I can do so without their knowledge. It is not required that I inform them of my intentions or my actions before hand or after the fact. The small notice at the entranceway of business places informing you of the fact that you are being observed by surveillance cameras is only a matter of politeness on the part of the store, and such notices are not required by law. State laws and local ordinances may state otherwise, but since the business place has the legal right to operate security measures as it deems necessary to protect itself from theft and so forth it would seem un-necessary and redundant to be required by law to post such rights. The same rule that applies to security measures taken by a place of business applies to a private home...not necessarily for the same reasons. By entering into my private home, or any property that I hold dominion over, i.e., my place of business, my yard, etc., you acknowledge that I hold the priority interest in who may enter upon my property and that I am the sole authority as to what goes on therein. As a guest, if I invite you, or as a conditional visitor if I have not expressly invited you, you are bound to accept the conditions and terms that I may evoke or pronounce as the owner of the property. If you wish not to accept the conditions and terms for me allowing you to enter upon my property, or if you fail to abide by the terms I set forth, you are free to leave or simply decline to enter in the first place. In other words, it is your choice as to whether or not you wish to come onto my property and whether or not you wish to stay depending on your willingness to accept the rules governing your privilege of being in/on my property. I mention these things to point out a concept that many in American society fail to comprehend or refuse to acknowledge. My house belongs to me and I am master of all that it contains; you are master of what is yours. Freedom separates us from each other, and binds us all to the principle of mutual respect for that freedom.
Preserving my rights is dependant upon respecting your rights. Knowing what is genuinely legal and validly illegal is our responsibility as citizens of a society. One can not have a functioning civilized society, at least not for very long, if the citizenry is ignorant of the rules of social intercourse. Freedom becomes an illusion if emotions are allowed to prevail as legal standards. A society of laws, particularly well understood and clearly defined laws consistent with universal principles, is preferred over a society ruled by Man. Specially when that man, or group of men, is or is allowed to be...a tyrant. One who is inclined to abuse his power and authority, whether his position was legitimately obtained or not. (Refer to George W. Bush, both a tyrant and a traitor who occupies the White House presently by way of questionable and no doubt dubious means.) When emotions are allowed to dictate the application of laws hysteria will surely follow. As in the case of taking pictures of children.
8. Taking pictures of your children, taking pictures of someone else’s children.
Hysteria grips American society these days. That hysteria perpetuates the mis-application of the laws of the land, and allows the excuse for the making of new laws that are both un-necessary and detrimental to our freedom. First emotions are effected and manipulated, then hysteria is fueled and fired up by those who would promote their own agenda. An agenda of tyranny disguised as compassionate concern for the welfare of our children, the safety of all our lives, the security of our country. To be sure the purpose and intentions of these mis-guided individuals and groups that support, indeed call for such laws as are being made and enforced upon the innocent and only occasionally the guilty are doing us all a disservice and ultimately serving ignorance and the agendas of the hysteria mongers. At times their rants and emotionally charged demands for the utter destruction of their ill-perceived villains seems to mimic the historical witch hunts of Salem, Mass. One would think that human intellect had evolved somewhat more than appears to be evident these many generations later. It appears to be doubtful.
Addressing the issue of taking pictures of children, yours, mine, and theirs, in regards to the law, valid law, is simple enough. Children, just as adults, enjoy no special privilege when it comes to being seen and photographed in a public place. If you do not want your children to be the subject of photographers, people with cameras, exposed to the looks or even stares of others, or Lord forbid, the object of joy in the eyes of adoring worshipers of youth, then keep them confined to their rooms. Your children that is, not the innocent onlookers that you conjure up in your own mind to be in leagues with the devil. Assuming people are up to no good based on the simple fact that they just happen to be holding, or using a camera is the equivalent of declaring someone is a witch just because they happen to be holding a broom. As I have said before, hysteria is rampant in this society and most destructive not only to the one “assumed” to be in the wrong but to the one who is being hysterical. One of the symptoms of hysteria is the denial that one is, in fact, being hysterical. Acting on hysteria, or assumptions not well founded, is more dangerous to a society, and to all the individuals in that society, than the perceived dangers that gave rise to the concern in the first place. Assumptions, premature conclusions without the facts and details of the situation and circumstances being fully known and appreciated is reckless and foolish, if not down-right wrong. Might I add, almost always wrong. Wrong primary because the conclusion is based on a shortage of valid or logical grounds for that conclusion.
Assuming that a person with a camera is doing something mischievous or criminal is short on facts and long on speculations based on one’s own troubled emotions or mis-information, and perhaps, tainted by propaganda introduced into your mind by social engineers and others with devious agendas. Un-founded assumptions are always suspect, and should never be given too much credibility. And assuming that the government has your best interests and well-being at heart is a foolish delusion at best.
Thus, taking pictures of children who are in a public setting is not illegal, and should not be illegal. Constitutional restraints prohibit such laws in any event. The parent’s consent is not required. Nor is the subject’s permission required. Those who believe otherwise are mis-informed, or in denial. Public means public. Nothing hard to understand here.
9. In my home.
When a person(s) comes into my home, which also doubles as my studio, they are subject to my rules and my conditions for them being there. It should be understood, though it is sometimes not so clear to some, that I hold sovereign dominion over my property. I can not imagine why they would think otherwise, but some fail to realize that truth. I can not emphasize this point enough. If you enter my property you are bound by my rules. If you have a problem with my rules you are free to leave, or not come in. In any event, if you do decide to stay I have the right to take your picture or record you on video without your permission. Is that clear enough for you? Any doubters are free to consult with any attorney who has memorized the Constitution of the United States of America. (I wouldn’t trust a lawyer who could not recite at least the first 5 Amendments, but then, it is up to you, isn’t it?)
At any rate, just so you know, I take pictures, I make art. That’s what I do. No need for a sign posted at the entrance of my driveway as an announcement of the fact. And, just in case you have the false notion that I have to tell you that you are being recorded or photographed, forget that idea. It doesn’t apply to private property. Remember those security cameras at the Wal-mart store...well, same thing holds true for me and my property...even if my true intentions are to capture your image for artistic purposes. Those warnings offered by the phone company and other commercial entities advising you that your call may be recorded for quality control and training purposes are not the same thing as what I do, or can do, in my own home, so don’t be fooled into believing that the rule applies to me, or you. Or anyone else in their own homes for that matter. I’m sorry to expose another commonly held myth. Actually I’m not sorry, you should already know this.
10. There is a law in Texas.
I read somewhere recently that there is a law in the great state of Texas that states that no one can take a picture of anyone, anywhere without that person’s permission. I don’t doubt that there are states and local municipalities that have statutes or ordinances on their books that contradict the Constitution of these several United States of Amerika. Neither do I doubt that there are state and local legislative bodies that have a majority of nitwits and scallywags sitting in the halloed chambers of their legislatures. The majority, an overwhelming majority, of the senators and congresspersons in Washington DC are known traitors and ass-whips of the lowest caliber. Just because a simple (and I do mean “simple”) majority of them raise their hands and pass a bill into law does not change the fact that the law is wrong, or un-Constitutional, or worse, just plain stupid and void of common sense! As for me, I am presently just a humble artist who enjoys shooting pictures with my camera. Let us hope that it does not become necessary, in order to preserve and defend our liberties from those who would terrorize and enslave us, to trade our cameras for more lethal instruments. If current trends continue it may be required that we, the freedom loving patriots of America, re-issue the Declaration of Independence and take our country and our liberty back from the traitorous bastards that have practically destroyed this country.
11. They say: “It’s the law.”
I suppose I am obligated to obey a governmental decree based on the words of fifty one senators who perchance decided that some act should be illegal based on a majority vote? A majority of a legislative body who has time and time again violated their oath to protect and defend the Constitution? I think not! I should ignore my own good sense and disregard everything logical and proven to be sound thinking in favor of the deciding vote of a handful of scallywags who have happened to fool the electorate into voting them into office over and over again in spite of their treasons and obvious un-ethical indiscretions. Again, I think not!
There are legal laws and then there are illegal and invalid laws. Obscenity laws for example are clearly invalid, not to say blatantly un-constitutional. No law means NO LAW as Justice Black was fond of saying. No law means NO LAW...period!
What does this have to do with taking pictures? A great deal actually. Pictures of children, pictures of nude people, pictures of people engaged in sexual acts, et al, are all under attack by the government, law enforcement, the media, special interest groups who claim to be concerned for the morals of the people and the well-being of the children. As I mentioned before, hysteria and ignorance are rampant in this society. Where hysteria runs amuck so follows irrational fears, unjustifiable paranoia, emotional scarring that might endure for a lifetime, a loss of our freedoms, and then only more hysteria. This madness must come to an end! Rational and logical thinking must prevail. The laws must conform to the Constitution and be consistent and compatible with the natural rights of the individual. All individuals, no matter their age, gender, or personal philosophy, are entitled to be free of political and social oppression. They should also be free of the “assumption” that they are up to no good just because they enjoy taking pictures or engage in the profession of making photographs.
I am an artist. I use my camera as a tool to capture images. Those images are art in and of themselves. Sometimes these raw images may need refined and transformed further into fine art. I have no intention of forfeiting my inalienable rights as a free man or as an artist on the grounds that someone might believe (or assume) that they have the authority to decide, to dictate to me, what I can or can not do with images that I have made, that I own, that ultimately are my property to do with as I please, even if they might be disagreeable to someone’s tastes or personal standards. And I will never, I repeat, never tolerate an individual or group of individuals who may assume the appearance of authority to interfere with my inalienable rights to be and do as I please, so long as I am not interfering with or infringing upon the inalienable rights of others. The burden of proving any such infringement is on the accuser.
I would advise due diligence and a close adherence to due process for those who would attempt to falsely accuse or frivolously charge this artist with an infraction of anyone’s legitimate rights. As for certain present and enacted laws there are none so vial as those laws and ordinances which violate the principles of liberty and transgress against the spirit of the Constitution. The Artist, being this Man and sovereign citizen of Humanity, holds utter contempt and disdain for laws that conflict with the U.S. Constitution, and there are many, and vow with genuine devotion to Freedom to stand firm against such invalid and oppressive laws and those who treasonously enact and enforce them. Be assured that I will engage in an enthusiastic and aggressive defense against those who would bring callous distraction to my life and who would cause undue harm to the progression of my life’s work. Enough said.
The Artist, D. El De McClung January 1, 2009
