>> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game.
And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not.
It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.
>> where such person knows or has reason to know that he is not licensed or authorized to disseminate or sell such videographic or still image is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor.
First amendment gives authorization. Had they meant the more colloquial "without permission of the subject" they would have said so. They are allowing authorization from a variety of sources, the constitution included. So #2 is fine as basically anything to do with the president, in his role as president, is fair game.
And they said you have to know or reasonably know that you do not have permission. So the inner thoughts of the artist is an issue and it is very hard to prove knowledge of a negative fact. If you think you have permission somehow, then maybe you do. So if the kid thinks the constitution protects his work, maybe that's enough to avoid the law even where the constitution does not.
It's a badly written law. I suspect written by people who know it is doomed to fail.