The right to take photo in public area
Photoskipper
Registered Users Posts: 453 Major grins
Photoskipper
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
0
Comments
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2011/02/18/BALJ1HPCGT.DTL
That is the reason i moved to nature photography and avoid street photos. The birds and insects do not know how to complaint.
Candid shot is fun but just too risky.
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
This one line sums it up. "We agree he has to obey an order to leave even if it's wrong," the attorney said.
If that were to happen, this type of thread would be a thing of the past. While many love to talk about what they would have done, think about the time and money spent on this losing effort.
Website
Although I understand your statement, it's that attitude that allows unscrupulous, dishonest police and public officials to exist.
It's always easier to look the other way when it's not your head being pounded into the sidewalk. I bet that if you were the victim, you would would want someone to step forward and do the right thing.
You can not expect others to do for you what you will not do for them.
Sam
How did this become about unscrupulous or dishonest police officials?
I have been approached many times by various law enforcement officials and never once have I been harassed. Even when I was told to leave the scene it was done in a respectful and professional manner. Of course maybe this is because I treated them in a respectful and professional manner.
Arguing what you think is your rights with a cop on the scene can never amount to anything.
Answer me this. Do you honestly expect the cop to thank you for the lesson about the law and go about his merry way?
If I were the victim, I would take the appropriate action and speak to my lawyer. I am smart enough to know that arguing with the cop is only going to make the situation worse. I do not proclaim to know all the laws, and I am sure that the cop on the scene doesn't know all the laws, so to what end is arguing with the cop going to help?
Website
The first link is a news story of the police abusing their power, the second second appears to be valid.
I was responding to the nature of the first and the comment implying (to me, maybe wrongfully) we should immediately comply with a police officers commands even if illegal. Suggesting we should take the easy way out regardless of right or wrong because the trouble would be too much.
"Arguing what you think is your rights with a cop on the scene can never amount to anything.
Answer me this. Do you honestly expect the cop to thank you for the lesson about the law and go about his merry way?"
You are right about unnecessarily confronting an officer on the spot. You do need to use common sense. The situation will determine a reasonable course of action.
When it comes to our rights we ether stand up and protect them or we loose them.
NOTE: Standing up for your rights doesn't mean being stupid or confrontational but it could mean some trouble for you.
Using photography as an example if every photographer immediately deleted images and stopped photographing without objection any time a security guard or police officer demanded, (assuming public property, etc.) you can bet your right to photograph anything would be gone.
Sam
Sam
There are no "rights" regarding photography (except the press 1st amendment).
There are "laws" regarding photography. A huge difference.
Laws vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction, so does the interpretation of those laws.
To defend your actions in accordance to those laws, it must take place in a legal arena. Cops are not taught the laws regarding photography or most others for that matter. They are usually doing what they are told, or what they feel will eliminate the situation at that time. Right or wrong, failure to comply with that cop on the scene will lead to other troubles.
Most areas have laws on the books about obeying a police officer. As far as I know, that law doesn't change whether you believe that they are right or wrong.
If a cop asks or tells me to leave, I will leave. If I want to fight about it, I will do it in the proper place and time. The time to argue about it is never on the scene with that cop.
If a cop asks me to see my images, I will show them. (keyword being "ask").
If a cop demands to see my images or that I delete them, or wants to confiscate my camera, that is a violation of my personal property rights (4th amendment) and those of self incrimination (5th amendment) (if that may be the case) which are "rights".
Being asked or told to stop taking images is not covered in the Bill of Rights. That is covered by local or state laws and is 100% a civil matter. This is why you may be required to get permits or permission to shoot in certain areas.
Before I choose to shoot my mouth off, I consult my attorney to see if I even have a legal leg to stand on.
Website
I don't think you made your case here at all.
The biggie is the one I left quoted.
WE don't decide what our rights are under the Constitution. The Courts do.
Pick the battles you can win.
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
Really? Show me any "right" that mentions photography in the U.S. Constitution or any State Constitution that doesn't apply only to the press.
Now before you come back with something that you read on the internet and want to quote as fact, or something you were told by someone who read something on internet, that isn't what I asked for. You said it was a right, please share the exact "right" from any clause in the Constitution that supports your claim.
I can show you things about Mickey Mouse on the internet, it doesn't make him real.
If there was any "right" about photography, it wouldn't vary from state to state.
Website
US Constitution, Amendment 9:
The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.
This amendment seems to have been passed with one purpose in mind - to quash any argument that we don't have a right to do something just because the right is not specifically listed in the Constitution. Which is, of course, a very common argument today whenever the government oversteps its bounds or intrudes more into the lives of the People; those who use the argument either don't know about the 9th Amendment, or choose to ignore it.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ninth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
This is not a constitutional issue. Laws restricting photography are either local ordinances, copyright issues or property rights issues.
Your interpretation of the 9th is shared by some and disputed by other legal scholars. However it has nothing to do with photography.
I've been hassled on numerous occasions by police or private security while shooting. Invariably I've found that some civil conversation with the folks resolved the issue. Usually I was left alone and there were times when they were correct and I had to stop or adjust what I was doing.
More importantly than all the legalities is good ole common sense. There may be times when you run into authorities that are completely wrong. The question then becomes is the risk worth the issue of your "rights". Many years ago I was taking pictures of an anti-war demo. The cops decided to break it up through the liberal use of their billy clubs. I was taking pictures of the cops beating on folks and received a number of rather rude comments from some of the cops. I decided that I wouldn't be intimidated and kept on shooting. This activity was interrupted by a blow to my head and I was knocked to the ground. The officer continued to beat on my kidneys a bit while I laid on the ground protecting my camera.
The end result was some mediocre pictures, a headache, some stitches and some very sore kidneys. It was a good lesson in risk assessment though.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Were you subsequently arrested for anything?
Did you file a complaint against the cop who beat you?
Did you file a lawsuit against the department?
If your story is 100% accurate, and you did nothing to escalate the situation or provoke the cop, then you were the victim of assault and excessive use of force. You most likely had the grounds for both a criminal complaint against the officer and a massive lawsuit against the department.
THIS is the kind of thing that people mean when they say, "stand up for your rights or they will disappear." Sure, you received a beating, but it's not just the beating itself that's at issue, it's how you followed up on it. If the beating was illegal, then you should have filed charges against the cop and a lawsuit against the department; if nobody stops someone who breaks the law, they will continue to do so with impunity.
I understand when you say that some things are not worth the risk or the price you pay to keep them, but your Constitutional rights ARE worth defending if they've been violated.
Website
It would have been hard to file a complaint against an unknown officer. Them weren't the days when they went very far anyhow. How many cops were prosecuted after the police riot in Chicago in 68?
Again you talk about constitutional rights when thats not the issue. In 99.9% of the incidents with photographers being hassled its an issue of local ordinances and not the bill of rights. You start spouting off about the 9th amendment to a cop who is dealing with what they see as a trespass issue and the will pat you on the head and then cite you. If you instead talk to the officer instead of acting like a Son of Liberty you more than likely be able to resolve the issue.
You have to use your common sense. I know that its my right to take photos of folks in public areas. I also know that some folks don't know that tibit of the law. If I'm doing street photography and somebody objects to being photographed I will always bow to their wishes and not assert my "right".
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
Common Sense is the greatest gift ever bestowed. Some choose to heed it others not.
All of this constitutional discourse is rather good overall. It shows that many people care about their country and their rights. Much of the conversation also shows many have short memories and/or never experienced the summary denial of their rights. When we look back at our history collectively and think about voting rights for instance, it amazes me that it took so long for that 'right' to actually be a right that is legally protected: For all colors and sexes.
HarryB found out first hand about freedom to assemble (amongst other rights held). I think most people DO care about their rights. and Do know when to exercise them. I'd also like to think most folks have and use their common sense, but I cannot prove that one.
But Harry, we're NOT talking about a citable offense.
You mentioned a trespass citation. We're talking about taking photos in a public place. No trespass - how can you trespass in a public place? That one would get laughed right out of court.
Are there actually local laws or ordinances that prohibit photography? Show me one; I'd be very interested to read the actual text of a law, ordinance, or code that says, "Photography and/or videography is prohibited in XXX location." I'd be interested to see that one go to court. Laws like that will only be on the books until someone challenges their Constitutionality.
I think you're misunderstanding my stand on this. I am NOT advocating confrontation with a LEO, I'm saying that if you are cited for taking photos in a public place, you should fight it in court and get the citation dismissed. I'm also saying that if a LEO threatens you with arrest for doing something that is not illegal, it is, of course, prudent to avoid arrest, but sometimes it's better to allow yourself to be arrested, thus forcing the LEO to defend his illegal actions in front of a judge.
Someone has to be Rosa Parks sometime when it comes to public photography. I'll freely admit that I don't think I have the guts to do it myself, but that doesn't mean that I think we should all lie down like lambs and have our rights stripped away from us by the unfounded fears that people have about public photography.
Mother of 3 Arrested for Taking Pictures of Tourist Attraction at Airport
http://www.flickr.com/groups/photography_is_not_a_crime/discuss/72157626167832464/
flickr.com/photos/photoskipper/
A former sports shooter
Follow me at: https://www.flickr.com/photos/bjurasz/
My Etsy store: https://www.etsy.com/shop/mercphoto?ref=hdr_shop_menu
http://www.democratandchronicle.com/article/20110624/GROUP01/306240010
She didn't win anything yet. A federal district court judge denied the motion for a default judgement.
http://behret.smugmug.com/ NANPA member
How many photographers does it take to change a light bulb? 50. One to change the bulb, and forty-nine to say, "I could have done that better!"
http://boywithgrenade.org/2011/06/06/cop-threatens-to-break-videographers-fucking-face/
http://www.flickr.com/groups/laprotest/
Moderator of: Location, Location, Location , Mind Your Own Business & Other Cool Shots
Actually Harry she did win. We along with her won as well. She had the courage to stand up for her rights.
As government, federal, state and local, increasingly take our rights away as governments are wont to do, we do need to stand up and tell them we object.
If we don't stand up for our rights. we will lose them. I am not in any way advocating violence here, but it is our responsibility as citizens to voice our concerns.
Kudos to Good who looks to be an average citizen, had the courage to do the right thing. And yes, doing the right thing sometimes will cost you, but if all are unwilling to step forward we will surly all loose.
Sam