Pixiq

And what if a photographer were there with a large format camera? Takes more than 5 minutes to set the thing up, let alone get meter readings and take the image.

Well, it should be interesting when this one gets challenged in court.

Wow. I wonder how long this has been on the books??? When I was in college, my photography class took a four-day trip to DC and we all took our cameras. We stayed in many spots longer than five minutes, and nobody bothered us... but this was in 1997.

the newspaper article was less than complete. Yes, there is a local law about 5 minutes but it refers to people who are under sections 521 (business licenses for photography for profit or gain) or 522 (individual photographers).

I am not an attorney but I did spend the night in a Holiday Inn.....

521 STREET PHOTOGRAPHY: BUSINESS LICENSES

521.1 No person, firm, or corporation shall engage in the business of taking photographs of any person or persons upon the streets, sidewalks, or other public spaces of the District of Columbia, for profit or gain, without first having obtained a license to do so from the Mayor.

522 STREET PHOTOGRAPHY: INDIVIDUAL PHOTOGRAPHERS

522.1 No individual not licensed under §521 shall take a photograph of any person or persons, for either direct or indirect profit or gain, upon any of the streets, sidewalks, or other public spaces of the District of Columbia persons, without first having obtained a license to do so from the Mayor as provided in this section

523.3 While engaged in taking photographs, no person licensed under §521 or §522 of this chapter shall impede traffic as defined in the District of Columbia Traffic Acts; nor shall any photographer remain longer than five (5) minutes at any one (1) location on the streets, sidewalks, or other public spaces.

"You see Officer, five minutes ago I was over there and now I'm over here getting a better angle. I define my location as the actual area I displace, about two square feet."

[http://www.pixiq.com/user/2614]
michael I see what the point of the law is now, it's to prevent random hawkers trying to make a business out of taking photos of tourists. The way it is written though, a licensed photographer taking photos at a wedding (with a permit) in any public venue would legally have to shoot for five minutes and leave.

I see some serious potential prior restraint violations related to having to get a license from the mayor. What are the requirements? What are the fees? Are they written down? Are they enforced even-handedly? What is your recourse if you are denied?

We need to keep in mind that the first amendment is one of the most strongly enforced of ALL of the amendments and allows virtually unlimited power to the individual person. Prior restraint is extremely rare to win in court. And the supreme court has ruled over and over that some reasonable time and place restrictions can sometimes be made. And most of those restriction tend to only be enforceable against gatherings of people. Individuals or small groups protesting can generally do as they want as long as they don't block traffic or driveways..

I think photographing anything in that awful place is a waste of time and effort. Those who would arrest you for doing so, obviously believe that it is a place so ugly and immoral that they would prevent one from being too exposed to it's affects on good and fully human people who visit there.