تويت
لا توجد معايير فنية في القانون ..
حقائق الترخيص للمحترفين ..
التصوير الفوتوغرافي الحديث
No technical standards in law
Licensing laws in existence today are for govern mental taxation purposes and do not require any technical standards of photography to be met . When ever state licensing statutes involving regulatory controls became law , they were later declared in valid through court suits .
In the case of Buchman vs. Bechtel ( 1941 ) , 57 Ariz . 363 , 114 P 2d 227 , 134 ALR 1374 , the Supreme Court of Arizona considered the validity of the Arizona statute and held that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Federal constitution and various sections of the state con stitution . The court found that the statute did not regulate the practice of photography in the inter ests of the business or the public but rather , in the interests of professional photographers fortunate enough to obtain a license . The court also found that the statute constituted an unlawful restraint on the disposition of an individual's property , and upon the individual's rights to engage in a lawful business and , that it tended to promote a monoply in a private business .
The Supreme Court of North Dakota struck down that state's statute in State vs. Cromwell ( 1943 ) , 72 N.D. 565 , 9 NW 2d 914. The court held that the statute unreasonably curtailed the right to engage in the business of photography and was , therefore , an improper exercise of the police power and a violation of two sections of the state constitu tion . The court took the position that the business of photography does not require any more knowl edge , training and skill than do most other busi nesses , and , that it afforded no greater opportunity for fraud .
EVEN I.D. and passport photo operations require a license in 6 states . Photo courtesy Polaroid .
Laws declared unconstitutional
Florida's statute was held invalid by the Supreme Court of Florida in Sullivan vs. DeCerb ( 1945 ) 156 Fla . 496 , 23 So 2d 571. The court held that the regulation and control of the practice of photog raphy was in violation of the state and federal con stitution as an invalid exercise of the police power , photography not being a business affected with the public interest .
In the State of Montana vs. Gleason ( 1954 ) , 128 Mont . 485 , 277 P 2d 530 , the Supreme Court of Montana held that the Montana statute gave the licensing board unlimited authority in choosing who is qualified as a photographer and , that such exten sion of authority was arbitrary and capricious and violative of several sections of the constitution of Montana and of Section 1 of the 14th Ammend ment of the Constitution of the U.S. The Court said that the statute created a monopoly , was a restraint of the right of disposition of property , and that it did not affect the public from the influence of pornographic pictures , quoting from Territory of Hawaii vs. Kraft , supra .
William H. Raines in his staff Memorandum No. 365 to Jackson W. White , Director of the Legisla tive Research Commission of the Commonwealth of Kentucky reporting on these foregoing cases concluded his report by saying , " the cases discussed herein were decided during a period in which the courts leaned toward the philosophy that it was within their province to determine the morality , legitimacy and usefulness of a business in order to decide whether a statute bears too heavily upon it - and , in so doing , violates due process .
" The doctrine that due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely has given way to the rule that , insofar as the 14th Ammendment to the federal constitution is concerned , the states have the right to regulate each and every class of business or occupation in which their citizens engage , and that the question of whether the business should be regu lated is a matter of legislative and not judicial deter mination . This doctrine limits the power of the courts to a determination of whether the regulation has a reasonable relationship to proper legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory . Under this doctrine , the legality of legislation estab lishing an examining board for the professional photographers conceivably might be sustained " .
Considering the many variations in the laws and proposed bills , photographers who wish to keep the profession free of government control and re strictive measures to limit competition for those photographers already established , must be ever vigilant and knowledgeable of what their own state legislative bodies are doing at all times . Many bills are introduced by legislators without fanfare , are passed and signed into law without the knowl edge of those whom it affects .
All professionals should constantly keep up with all licensing and taxation laws as to your responsi bilities under such measures . Have your attorney keep you appraised of all the latest rulings . It could save you a lot of time , money and other griefs .
John Faber , Faculty Associate SMP
* Alabama's financial disclosure bill was ruled un constitutional December 1973. ** No action has been made on Wisconsin's licensing bill .
حقائق الترخيص للمحترفين ..
التصوير الفوتوغرافي الحديث
No technical standards in law
Licensing laws in existence today are for govern mental taxation purposes and do not require any technical standards of photography to be met . When ever state licensing statutes involving regulatory controls became law , they were later declared in valid through court suits .
In the case of Buchman vs. Bechtel ( 1941 ) , 57 Ariz . 363 , 114 P 2d 227 , 134 ALR 1374 , the Supreme Court of Arizona considered the validity of the Arizona statute and held that it violated the due process and equal protection clauses of the Federal constitution and various sections of the state con stitution . The court found that the statute did not regulate the practice of photography in the inter ests of the business or the public but rather , in the interests of professional photographers fortunate enough to obtain a license . The court also found that the statute constituted an unlawful restraint on the disposition of an individual's property , and upon the individual's rights to engage in a lawful business and , that it tended to promote a monoply in a private business .
The Supreme Court of North Dakota struck down that state's statute in State vs. Cromwell ( 1943 ) , 72 N.D. 565 , 9 NW 2d 914. The court held that the statute unreasonably curtailed the right to engage in the business of photography and was , therefore , an improper exercise of the police power and a violation of two sections of the state constitu tion . The court took the position that the business of photography does not require any more knowl edge , training and skill than do most other busi nesses , and , that it afforded no greater opportunity for fraud .
EVEN I.D. and passport photo operations require a license in 6 states . Photo courtesy Polaroid .
Laws declared unconstitutional
Florida's statute was held invalid by the Supreme Court of Florida in Sullivan vs. DeCerb ( 1945 ) 156 Fla . 496 , 23 So 2d 571. The court held that the regulation and control of the practice of photog raphy was in violation of the state and federal con stitution as an invalid exercise of the police power , photography not being a business affected with the public interest .
In the State of Montana vs. Gleason ( 1954 ) , 128 Mont . 485 , 277 P 2d 530 , the Supreme Court of Montana held that the Montana statute gave the licensing board unlimited authority in choosing who is qualified as a photographer and , that such exten sion of authority was arbitrary and capricious and violative of several sections of the constitution of Montana and of Section 1 of the 14th Ammend ment of the Constitution of the U.S. The Court said that the statute created a monopoly , was a restraint of the right of disposition of property , and that it did not affect the public from the influence of pornographic pictures , quoting from Territory of Hawaii vs. Kraft , supra .
William H. Raines in his staff Memorandum No. 365 to Jackson W. White , Director of the Legisla tive Research Commission of the Commonwealth of Kentucky reporting on these foregoing cases concluded his report by saying , " the cases discussed herein were decided during a period in which the courts leaned toward the philosophy that it was within their province to determine the morality , legitimacy and usefulness of a business in order to decide whether a statute bears too heavily upon it - and , in so doing , violates due process .
" The doctrine that due process authorizes courts to hold laws unconstitutional when they believe the legislature has acted unwisely has given way to the rule that , insofar as the 14th Ammendment to the federal constitution is concerned , the states have the right to regulate each and every class of business or occupation in which their citizens engage , and that the question of whether the business should be regu lated is a matter of legislative and not judicial deter mination . This doctrine limits the power of the courts to a determination of whether the regulation has a reasonable relationship to proper legislative purpose and is neither arbitrary nor discriminatory . Under this doctrine , the legality of legislation estab lishing an examining board for the professional photographers conceivably might be sustained " .
Considering the many variations in the laws and proposed bills , photographers who wish to keep the profession free of government control and re strictive measures to limit competition for those photographers already established , must be ever vigilant and knowledgeable of what their own state legislative bodies are doing at all times . Many bills are introduced by legislators without fanfare , are passed and signed into law without the knowl edge of those whom it affects .
All professionals should constantly keep up with all licensing and taxation laws as to your responsi bilities under such measures . Have your attorney keep you appraised of all the latest rulings . It could save you a lot of time , money and other griefs .
John Faber , Faculty Associate SMP
* Alabama's financial disclosure bill was ruled un constitutional December 1973. ** No action has been made on Wisconsin's licensing bill .
تعليق