Photographer's Rights?

sara505 · September 5, 2014

I didn't see an obvious location for this question so I thought I'd start here, since PJ photographers are more likely to encounter this situation.

Last evening, while returning home to the Vineyard, I was photographing the ferry, M/V Martha's Vineyard, when a young Steamship Authority worker approached me and told me that I was in a Homeland Security area and was not allowed to photograph a public transport vessel while vehicles were loading or unloading. I explained to him that I was not photographing any vehicles but he insisted that I stop. Since I already had the shot I was after, I didn't push it, but I was pretty sure he was wrong - haven't we already covered this, many times over, the question of photography in public?

I re-read this, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm, and still think I'm right - that there was nothing to prevent me from photographing the steamship ferry. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Sam · September 5, 2014

You be right..........................don't let them condition you!!!

Sam

torags · September 5, 2014

Unfortunately they are right,..... they - homeland security make the laws...

9/11 took a lot of our rights away

You gotta live with it or pay the price... Hell I don't like to take my shoes off at the airport... but...

sara505 · September 5, 2014

torags wrote: »

Unfortunately they are right,..... they - homeland security make the laws...

9/11 took a lot of our rights away

You gotta live with it or pay the price... Hell I don't like to take my shoes off at the airport... but...

What about this paragraph from the link above:

As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them. (emphasis mine)

Torags, can you document your statement or is it simply something you personally believe to be true?

sara505 · September 5, 2014

After all, taking off shoes and being screened by the TSA prior to boarding a plane is a different category than photography.

torags · September 5, 2014

"Torags, can you document your statement or is it simply something you personally believe to be true?"

Sarah, I personally believe it to be true as a result of shooting in the US and other countries.

If you want to fight with the shooting site "control" do it, whining won't solve any issues

sara505 · September 5, 2014

torags wrote: »

"Torags, can you document your statement or is it simply something you personally believe to be true?"

Sarah, I personally believe it to be true as a result of shooting in the US and other countries.

If you want to fight with the shooting site "control" do it, whining won't solve any issues

Okay, well the world is rife with beliefs, much of it erroneous as pertains to photography in public. No fighting or whining here, simply trying to clarify. If you have something constructive to add, I'm all ears.

kdog · September 5, 2014

Assuming you were on public property at the time (e.g.,municipal pier) it sounds like he snookered you. I carry a copy of the Krages document in my camera bag just for such occasions.

sara505 · September 5, 2014

kdog wrote: »

Assuming you were on public property at the time (e.g.,municipal pier) it sounds like he snookered you. I carry a copy of the Krages document in my camera bag just for such occasions.

I think it was public property. Part of the area is a parking lot, part of it is a street. It would be worth finding out ownership. I now have a copy of that document in my bag. If I'm wrong, I'm wrong - that's fine - but since there's so much dubious opinion, much of it wrong, I am simply trying to clarify. As the Krages document states - even the so-called people in charge, many of them being low men on the totem pole trying to make themselves into big shots - even they don't know what they're talking about half the time. Oh yeah, they love to tell you how, since the president was here a couple of weeks ago, "oh yeah, this is serious stuff." Smoke and mirrors, in my opinion.

kdog · September 5, 2014

Here's a good court case to cite next time:

"Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Challenging government regulation restricting photography on federal property)"

(Be sure to read the last sentence.)

sara505 · September 5, 2014

kdog wrote: »

Here's a good court case to cite next time:
"Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Challenging government regulation restricting photography on federal property)"

(Be sure to read the last sentence.)

Yes, I also found that and did read it with interest and believe it is relevant to my question.

The issue at hand, it seems, is whether or not I was on public or private property. Stay tuned.

sara505 · September 5, 2014

So, no mention of whether the photo is okay? :-)

Earache · September 5, 2014

sara505 wrote: »

....As the Krages document states - even the so-called people in charge, many of them being low men on the totem pole trying to make themselves into big shots - even they don't know what they're talking about half the time.

^^^ This is, unfortunately, an all-too-common occurrence during citizen-Authority Figure encounters.
They stand-out in our life experiences I think, because they involve some of our basic notions about Liberty, privacy, and personal freedoms... and it highlights the imbalance in power between the Government and the individual.

Of course, there are thousands (millions?) of dedicated, reasonable, and well-trained Security Professionals - of every type - that do great work, and I salute them.
However, positions of Authority do sometimes attract individuals of varied motives, intent, and skill-level. The Internet is packed with videos and stories documenting citizens
trying to assert their rights and experiencing oppressive, misinformed, and often, violent reactions from Authority Figures..... Is this the normal/average scenario? No, not by a long-shot...
however, if it happens to you or a family member, this type of experience will be more likely to leave a negative, lasting impression (scar?) than say, bad service at a restaurant.

If you were in an area where the general public is permitted to normally ingress and egress
public transportation - given the ubiquity of cameras/smartphones these days - it would seem unreasonable/impossible to attempt to prohibit photography.
Genuine bad-guy malignant surveillance will never be detected by "Steamship Authority" workers, and is seldom conducted by nice ladies such as yourself Sara,
with a 5DmkII dSLR sporting a 100-300 telephoto lens. Haven't they seen James Bond at work?

JMO

Love the photo!

sara505 · September 5, 2014

Earache wrote: »

^^^ This is, unfortunately, an all-too-common occurrence during citizen-Authority Figure encounters.
They stand-out in our life experiences I think, because they involve some of our basic notions about Liberty, privacy, and personal freedoms... and it highlights the imbalance in power between the Government and the individual.

Of course, there are thousands (millions?) of dedicated, reasonable, and well-trained Security Professionals - of every type - that do great work, and I salute them.
However, positions of Authority do sometimes attract individuals of varied motives, intent, and skill-level. The Internet is packed with videos and stories documenting citizens
trying to assert their rights and experiencing oppressive, misinformed, and often, violent reactions from Authority Figures..... Is this the normal/average scenario? No, not by a long-shot...
however, if it happens to you or a family member, this type of experience will be more likely to leave a negative, lasting impression (scar?) than say, bad service at a restaurant.

If you were in an area where the general public is permitted to normally ingress and egress
public transportation - given the ubiquity of cameras/smartphones these days - it would seem unreasonable/impossible to attempt to prohibit photography.
Genuine bad-guy malignant surveillance will never be detected by "Steamship Authority" workers, and is seldom conducted by nice ladies such as yourself Sara,
with a 5DmkII dSLR sporting a 100-300 telephoto lens. Haven't they seen James Bond at work?

JMO

Love the photo!

Eric - three words: I love you. (yes, Sam will be calling imminently regarding this response, but Sam, you know I love you too!)

torags · September 5, 2014

Earache wrote: »

^^^ This is, unfortunately, an all-too-common occurrence during citizen-Authority Figure encounters.
They stand-out in our life experiences I think, because they involve some of our basic notions about Liberty, privacy, and personal freedoms... and it highlights the imbalance in power between the Government and the individual.

Of course, there are thousands (millions?) of dedicated, reasonable, and well-trained Security Professionals - of every type - that do great work, and I salute them.
However, positions of Authority do sometimes attract individuals of varied motives, intent, and skill-level. The Internet is packed with videos and stories documenting citizens
trying to assert their rights and experiencing oppressive, misinformed, and often, violent reactions from Authority Figures..... Is this the normal/average scenario? No, not by a long-shot...
however, if it happens to you or a family member, this type of experience will be more likely to leave a negative, lasting impression (scar?) than say, bad service at a restaurant.

If you were in an area where the general public is permitted to normally ingress and egress
public transportation - given the ubiquity of cameras/smartphones these days - it would seem unreasonable/impossible to attempt to prohibit photography.
Genuine bad-guy malignant surveillance will never be detected by "Steamship Authority" workers, and is seldom conducted by nice ladies such as yourself Sara,
with a 5DmkII dSLR sporting a 100-300 telephoto lens. Haven't they seen James Bond at work?

JMO

Love the photo!

Well doesn't even have to be an accredited security guard or policeman...

It can be a couple of ruffians in a bad neighborhood - if you're shooting street; who don't want their pictures taken - be lucky they don't take your cam...

Consider this.. don't try to assert your constitutional rights at any controlled shooting site. Instead develop devious means to get the shots

TonyCooper · September 6, 2014

Whenever I read about one of these incidents, my first thought is about the wrongness
of it, but my second thought is "What did you do about it?".

The Massachusets Steamship Authority is headquartered in Woods Hole MA. (P.O. Box 284, 02543)
Wayne C. Lamson is the General Manager.

Why not write Mr Lamson and ask him if the employees do have the right to forbid photography
and politely relate your experience and the conditions?

It wouldn't hurt to cc: your US Representative or Senator or Richard A. Davey. Davey is the
Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation.

Perhaps knowing that his employees are abusing the public in this manner will result in Mr Lamson
making it clear to employees what the true laws and rules are.

Most of these incidents are the action of some employee who does not know the official
stance but decides to exert his authority on what he thinks is the official stance.

Juano · September 6, 2014

TonyCooper wrote: »

Whenever I read about one of these incidents, my first thought is about the wrongness
of it, but my second thought is "What did you do about it?".

The Massachusets Steamship Authority is headquartered in Woods Hole MA. (P.O. Box 284, 02543)
Wayne C. Lamson is the General Manager.

Why not write Mr Lamson and ask him if the employees do have the right to forbid photography
and politely relate your experience and the conditions?

It wouldn't hurt to cc: your US Representative or Senator or Richard A. Davey. Davey is the
Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation.

Perhaps knowing that his employees are abusing the public in this manner will result in Mr Lamson
making it clear to employees what the true laws and rules are.

Most of these incidents are the action of some employee who does not know the official
stance but decides to exert his authority on what he thinks is the official stance.

I think this is a very good idea. If you decide to follow Tony's advice, keep us posted on the results.

It's good to see you around Sara!

sara505 · September 6, 2014

TonyCooper wrote: »

Whenever I read about one of these incidents, my first thought is about the wrongness
of it, but my second thought is "What did you do about it?".

The Massachusets Steamship Authority is headquartered in Woods Hole MA. (P.O. Box 284, 02543)
Wayne C. Lamson is the General Manager.

Why not write Mr Lamson and ask him if the employees do have the right to forbid photography
and politely relate your experience and the conditions?

It wouldn't hurt to cc: your US Representative or Senator or Richard A. Davey. Davey is the
Massachusetts Secretary of Transportation.

Perhaps knowing that his employees are abusing the public in this manner will result in Mr Lamson
making it clear to employees what the true laws and rules are.

Most of these incidents are the action of some employee who does not know the official
stance but decides to exert his authority on what he thinks is the official stance.

Tony, I was planning on calling the SSA office on Monday morning.

sara505 · September 6, 2014

torags wrote: »

Well doesn't even have to be an accredited security guard or policeman...

It can be a couple of ruffians in a bad neighborhood - if you're shooting street; who don't want their pictures taken - be lucky they don't take your cam...

Consider this.. don't try to assert your constitutional rights at any controlled shooting site. Instead develop devious means to get the shots

Good advice. I once was accosted - grabbed on the arm - by a school teacher/guardian type person after photographing a group of teens on the street.

Because I'm a woman, I do get a lot of passes, though.

WhatSheSaw · September 7, 2014

I have not had trouble photographing loading and unloading of Washington State ferries. I was at the base of the entrance ramp in full view of state personnel responsible for directing traffic and controlling passenger access and they were very friendly to me. It has been a couple of years, so maybe things have changed. But this was after they arrested a guy trying to bring explosives by ferry to blow up the New Year's Eve celebration in downtown Seattle. At the time, I was using a Panasonic FZ28 super zoom camera with a smaller footprint than the 5D.

I like the photo, especially the sunset reflection on the side of the ferry. I might prefer to see separation between the end of the ferry and the post.

puzzledpaul · September 7, 2014

Different situations, but possibly of interest.
A few yrs ago I was asked by a ranger in St. James's Park (London) about the intended (commercial?) use of the pics I was taking (mainly, but not exclusively, birds) ... ie whether I was a pro or not.
(presumably HRH 'owns' all the wildlife there

)

Since I was the only one picked out for this, I assumed it was probably because of the gear I was using ... 40D / 400 5.6 / Tripod ... in the midst of PnS cams and phones.

On another occasion I was questioned about why I was taking pics of the control room in one of the newer tube stns ... but for some reason their eyes started to glaze over when I started talking enthusiastically (in nerd mode) about being interested in 3D modelling, and how 'cool' it all looked for anyone wanting reference pics / ideas for a model of a starship bridge.

pp

sara505 · September 7, 2014

WhatSheSaw wrote: »

I have not had trouble photographing loading and unloading of Washington State ferries. I was at the base of the entrance ramp in full view of state personnel responsible for directing traffic and controlling passenger access and they were very friendly to me. It has been a couple of years, so maybe things have changed. But this was after they arrested a guy trying to bring explosives by ferry to blow up the New Year's Eve celebration in downtown Seattle. At the time, I was using a Panasonic FZ28 super zoom camera with a smaller footprint than the 5D.

I like the photo, especially the sunset reflection on the side of the ferry. I might prefer to see separation between the end of the ferry and the post.

Good to know, WSS. And thanks for feedback RE photo. I may have another frame that shows the piling a bit farther away.

sara505 · September 7, 2014

puzzledpaul wrote: »

Different situations, but possibly of interest.
A few yrs ago I was asked by a ranger in St. James's Park (London) about the intended (commercial?) use of the pics I was taking (mainly, but not exclusively, birds) ... ie whether I was a pro or not.
(presumably HRH 'owns' all the wildlife there )

Since I was the only one picked out for this, I assumed it was probably because of the gear I was using ... 40D / 400 5.6 / Tripod ... in the midst of PnS cams and phones.

On another occasion I was questioned about why I was taking pics of the control room in one of the newer tube stns ... but for some reason their eyes started to glaze over when I started talking enthusiastically (in nerd mode) about being interested in 3D modelling, and how 'cool' it all looked for anyone wanting reference pics / ideas for a model of a starship bridge.

pp

Your point is well taken. Sometimes gear makes all the difference. I can do things with my phone or G12 that I could never get away with with my 5D (especially with longer lenses). I also know that I get a lot of passes because of my gender.

sara505 · September 7, 2014

sara505 wrote: »

Your point is well taken. Sometimes gear makes all the difference. I can do things with my phone or G12 that I could never get away with with my 5D (especially with longer lenses). I also know that I get a lot of passes because of my gender.

Oops, I didn't mean "passes" quite the way it sounds...

TonyCooper · September 7, 2014

sara505 wrote: »

Good advice. I once was accosted - grabbed on the arm - by a school teacher/guardian type person after photographing a group of teens on the street.

Because I'm a woman, I do get a lot of passes, though.

On this one, I'm with the teacher. He/she should not have touched you, but it was ok to stop you. The teacher is there to look out for the child's interests. As a parent (now a grandparent) I don't want my family members caught in what could be an embarrassing photo to them. Unless I take the photo of course.

sara505 · September 8, 2014

TonyCooper wrote: »

On this one, I'm with the teacher. He/she should not have touched you, but it was ok to stop you. The teacher is there to look out for the child's interests. As a parent (now a grandparent) I don't want my family members caught in what could be an embarrassing photo to them. Unless I take the photo of course.

Tony, I understand. I am also a grandparent of four (all under the age of 5), two whose images are not allowed on the Internet - and yes, I did have to ask a friend who was at a party at my home last weekend to take down a photo of my granddaughter she had posted on FB - but technically and legally, if you are in public, you are fair game.

bdcolen · September 8, 2014

sara505 wrote: »

I didn't see an obvious location for this question so I thought I'd start here, since PJ photographers are more likely to encounter this situation.

Last evening, while returning home to the Vineyard, I was photographing the ferry, M/V Martha's Vineyard, when a young Steamship Authority worker approached me and told me that I was in a Homeland Security area and was not allowed to photograph a public transport vessel while vehicles were loading or unloading. I explained to him that I was not photographing any vehicles but he insisted that I stop. Since I already had the shot I was after, I didn't push it, but I was pretty sure he was wrong - haven't we already covered this, many times over, the question of photography in public?

I re-read this, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm, and still think I'm right - that there was nothing to prevent me from photographing the steamship ferry. If I am wrong, please enlighten me.

Hi, Sara - Unfortunately, the Steam Ship Authority people may be right on this one. There were allot of weird things that happened after 9/11 regarding photographing bridges, airports, bus stations, and on and on. It may be absolute BS, but I'd do some pretty extensive checking before getting into a wrestling match on this one, especially if your wrestling partners is armed with gun, club, or mace.

sara505 · September 8, 2014

bdcolen wrote: »

Hi, Sara - Unfortunately, the Steam Ship Authority people may be right on this one. There were allot of weird things that happened after 9/11 regarding photographing bridges, airports, bus stations, and on and on. It may be absolute BS, but I'd do some pretty extensive checking before getting into a wrestling match on this one, especially if your wrestling partners is armed with gun, club, or mace.

Well, 'cept that Krages doc was published in 2006 - nah, not getting into a wrestling match over this, saving my energy for the big stuff. ha.

billweckel · September 9, 2014

Does anyone know why the caveat "while vehicles are loading / unloading"? Is this activity somehow more sensitive than when the ship is just sitting at the pier, or underway? I don't get it...

Sam · September 9, 2014

billweckel wrote: »

Does anyone know why the caveat "while vehicles are loading / unloading"? Is this activity somehow more sensitive than when the ship is just sitting at the pier, or underway? I don't get it...

The government efforts to "make us safe" are at best misguided, at worst draconian, controlling and designed to condition the American public to obey.

It isn't about logic. I have seen and it's not uncommon for guards / police, to stop someone with a big white lens from photographing but let some guy take photos of his girlfriend with a cell phone or P&S camera.

I sincerely believe we as American citizens have an obligation to uphold the constitution and keep the government in line. We do this through legal non violent means. We should not let things like this go un- challenged.

Sam

sara505 · September 9, 2014

billweckel wrote: »

Does anyone know why the caveat "while vehicles are loading / unloading"? Is this activity somehow more sensitive than when the ship is just sitting at the pier, or underway? I don't get it...

It made no sense to me, either. Something to do with not revealing to the enemy the boarding procedures?

Photographer's Rights?

Comments