Question Photographers Rights

Sandy

Yesterday I was at an event at the PDC. On the way out I snapped a few shots of the building. The security guard told me that I could not take photographs of the building. At another time I was told that I could not photograph children playing at the park. Can someone explain the law regarding public photography.

DavidTO

Sandy wrote:

Yesterday I was at an event at the PDC. On the way out I snapped a few shots of the building. The security guard told me that I could not take photographs of the building. At another time I was told that I could not photograph children playing at the park. Can someone explain the law regarding public photography.

Read this thread.

Andy

Sandy wrote:

Yesterday I was at an event at the PDC. On the way out I snapped a few shots of the building. The security guard told me that I could not take photographs of the building. At another time I was told that I could not photograph children playing at the park. Can someone explain the law regarding public photography.

the photographer's rights

gus

Buildings are fair game. I was once told i couldnt take a shot of a building & i told him to cover it up if he wanted me to stop.

Ive been a secuirity guard...I know the rules. You touch a member of the public or their equip & you had better get a good lawyer on the phone. You take a photo of my daughter & my DNA will not consult the relevant laws. To me ,direct/deliberate photos of other peoples kids is off limits.

Please take this as an opinion...

gus.

Sandy

H, thank you for your reply. Please understand, I do photography because I enjoy it, not to injure anyones DNA. Concerning the building, while I understand why we must be cautious. I did not want to confront him because he was instructed by his superiors, so I left.

I'll read the laws, thanks Andy.

Andy

copyrighted buildings

Humungus wrote:

Buildings are fair game. I was once told i couldnt take a shot of a building & i told him to cover it up if he wanted me to stop.

Ive been a secuirity guard...I know the rules. You touch a member of the public or their equip & you had better get a good lawyer on the phone. You take a photo of my daughter & my DNA will not consult the relevant laws. To me ,direct/deliberate photos of other peoples kids is off limits.

Please take this as an opinion...

gus.

yabbut these guys say that their buildings and scenics are copyrighted

i guess i don't listen very well:

(lone cypress is copyrighted)


rockefeller center sculpture


the chrysler building

Eric&Susan

andy wrote:

yabbut these guys say that their buildings and scenics are copyrighted

That's funny because on that list is Disneyland. Home of every darn tourist and their camera. Also this year for their 50th anniversary they are asking people to submit pictures of themselves AT Disneyland for a montage they are putting together.

Eric

gus

Mcdorkalds have just tried some corporate bullying here by trying to make one of the local footy teams take the prefix 'Mc' of the teams shorts.

I just wonder how long before this type of corp filth will try & stop people using red or yellow.

---

In their latest episode of commercial stupidity, McDonalds in Australia have taken on an amateur football team. The team is sponsored by a local solicitor named Malcolm McBratney, and the teams have "McBrat" emblazoned across the back of their uniforms. McDonalds have claimed that this is a breach of their trademark rights because everything starting with "Mc" or "Mac" belongs to them. (It should be an interesting fight, because Mr McBratney's specialty is intellectual property law.) Apparently they think that there is some confusion in the public mind between rugby union and hamburgers. Perhaps they are right. Whenever the forwards pack down for a scrum the spectators will think "What a pack of arses", which will immediately remind them of the idiots at McDonalds headquarters.

---

.

Angelo

Sandy wrote:

Yesterday I was at an event at the PDC. On the way out I snapped a few shots of the building. The security guard told me that I could not take photographs of the building. At another time I was told that I could not photograph children playing at the park. Can someone explain the law regarding public photography.

Sandy: Lots of good info here but I'll chime in with specific experience at the PDC. You said you snapped some shots "on the way out". If you were still on their property they have standing to prevent you from photographing. Considering the site it's easy to want to cross onto their property to get better shots.

You can shoot the buildings all day long if you're standing on San Vicente or Melrose.

As for the children in the park you'd have to be more specific. Anyone in public space is fair game (legally) but people will have differing opinions about being photographed.

I enjoy hitting some of the Farmer's Markets around town. Only once has a mother asked me not to take pictures of her child.

Sandy

Angelo, I was on their property for an event. I have taken many photos of the PDC and have submitted photos to them. In the past I have taken photos right in front of security and wasn't stopped.

I ususally ask permission to photograph someones children. There is the odd occassion of a kid flying off an embankment on a skateboard. I see no harm in this as long as there is no ill intent.

wxwax

What looks like a public street might not be one. In downtown ATL I've been vigorously challenged for shooting pics of a building across what appeared to be an ordinary street. A security guard told me the sidewalks on both sides were owned by a development company that did not permit folks to take piccies of their buildings without permission. When I turned off my camera and asked him to clarify that the sidewalk was not public property, he got on his two way to call for backup. So I left. I never have checked to see if he was right.

Sandy

If the sidewalk is commonly used by the public, it is possible that there is an easement on the land for a public use.

cambler

Just remember - they can ask you to stop, they can tell you to stop, and they can levy charges against you for trespassing, but they cannot take your camera, film or CF cards from you.

I could rattle out horror stories, but that would just ruin your day :

gus

cambler wrote:

Just remember - they can ask you to stop, they can tell you to stop, and they can levy charges against you for trespassing, but they cannot take your camera, film or CF cards from you.

I could rattle out horror stories, but that would just ruin your day :

This is correct. Waxy he called your bluff. Security have rules to operate under..however upset parents dont.

gus

wxwax wrote:

asked him to clarify that the sidewalk was not public property, he got on his two way to call for backup.

You confused him....that simple.

wxwax

Humungus wrote:

You confused him....that simple.

I wish. He pointed out the unusual stone on the sidewalk and said that anywhere that had that stone was private property.

The "horror stories" that cambler refers to are what I wanted to avoid when I left. They may not be allowed to take your camera, detain you, etc. - but there's no guarantee that they know it. And they'll call the cops, and there will be a big, time consuming, anger-raising event.

When I chose to leave, that is what I wanted to avoid. It wasn't worth it.

I've been meaning to research the issue a bit, but I've been too lazy.

gus

You have diff laws there maybe but here private property has to be closed off for them to exercise any restrictions ,they can say what they like on a sign but they cant touch you unless someone is in danger or willfull destruction,its like a store security guard asking to look into your bag....you simply say "no" & there isnt a damn thing they can do here other than get a police officer to restrain you if they can find one.

If a person can freely walk into the area then its a public access area. If i am working on the road & i dont fence off my worksite to show clear restriction to the public & make clear,safe alternate arrangements then someone can walk straight in, get hurt & im history.

Then again if any of it ended in court im sure we would all be wrong with against a lawyer. Its an odd argument as every situation/person will be different.

.

wxwax wrote:

I wish. He pointed out the unusual stone on the sidewalk and said that anywhere that had that stone was private property.

The "horror stories" that cambler refers to are what I wanted to avoid when I left. They may not be allowed to take your camera, detain you, etc. - but there's no guarantee that they know it. And they'll call the cops, and there will be a big, time consuming, anger-raising event.

When I chose to leave, that is what I wanted to avoid. It wasn't worth it.

I've been meaning to research the issue a bit, but I've been too lazy.

luckyrwe

Many times it appears to be the camera equipment that intimidates the security guards. if you had a Canon Snappy or other $24.99 or less camera, you will most likely not be hassled. However if you just carry a 70-200 IS or 35-350 zoom, everyone will ask you for camera advice. In other words, you will get noticed. It's like the guy who owns a Red Corvette and happens to be on the freeway with a highway patrolman. He may be 100% legal, but he sure is an attention getter.

For those folks who photograph children, I am sure you can get away with it if you are under age 27, female, have kids with you yourself, and are dressed nicely. On the flip side if you are male, balding, overweight, in your 40s (uh-oh, that's me ) then you will get stares, just like the red corvette. It's stereotyping, but then again we are talking about the wits of security guards, not detectives.

I have been fortunate enough to shoot children and then show the digital image to a parent, and offer to e-mail them the image for free. Sometimes this results in more pictures, but most of all it makes them happy, they can fear photographers less, and it's just a nice thing to do, like loaning a cell phone to a stranger who needs to make a call. It's practically free.

T4Tots

I have a photographer friend who is male and over 40 and he has asked me (and sometimes my children) to accompany him before just to ease the minds of parents when he is shooting pictures of their kids...makes me glad to be a female mom of 4. The stereotyping and fear is there, but it seems to disappear if you have kids with you.

bfjr

T4Tots wrote:

I have a photographer friend who is male and over 40 and he has asked me (and sometimes my children) to accompany him before just to ease the minds of parents when he is shooting pictures of their kids...makes me glad to be a female mom of 4. The stereotyping and fear is there, but it seems to disappear if you have kids with you.

That's a good way.
I know it would put me at ease. I don't like when I see a photog taking pics of my grandkids, and I'm a photog
I don't shoot kids at all anymore, sign of the times :pissed :cry
Too many Sickos, not enough Bullets!! :gun2

Angelo

Sandy wrote:

Angelo, I was on their property for an event. I have taken many photos of the PDC and have submitted photos to them. In the past I have taken photos right in front of security and wasn't stopped.

I ususally ask permission to photograph someones children. There is the odd occassion of a kid flying off an embankment on a skateboard. I see no harm in this as long as there is no ill intent.

I think it's just a sign of the times. Everyone is ready to react thaks to heightened levels of anxiety.

I just keep shooting and avoid verbal sparring or confrontation but then I'm 6'1", 230 lbs. and don't worry too much about intimidation!

Angelo

wxwax wrote:

What looks like a public street might not be one. In downtown ATL I've been vigorously challenged for shooting pics of a building across what appeared to be an ordinary street. A security guard told me the sidewalks on both sides were owned by a development company that did not permit folks to take piccies of their buildings without permission. When I turned off my camera and asked him to clarify that the sidewalk was not public property, he got on his two way to call for backup. So I left. I never have checked to see if he was right.

Real property statutes in the US allow for assumption of rights over property if there is an "overt, hostile and consistent use of the land". The only way to combat the imposition of a right-of-way on your private property to post your rightful claim and/or fence the property boundaries.

Many sidewalks all over the country have stones or brass plaques claiming ownership to spaces that might otherwise appear to be public. You'll see many of these in NYC and other highly developed metropolitan areas of the country. The reason is that the design of a given building might have a much deeper set-back than the legal boundary of the site, in which case the sidewalks appear to be wider than the actual claim to a pedestrian way imposed by the municipality. In this case, a claim marker is planted to protect the ownership of that strip of land even though the public cross it regularly.

Ordinarily, these markers do NOT lay claim to the entirety of the pedestrian way (sidewalk).

tsackmann

Photographers Becoming Security Concerns
I realize there are a few different threads on the subject of the legality of shooting photos in public but I just heard this today.

Photographers Becoming Security Concerns
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698
Morning Edition, June 16, 2005 · Photographers across the country have complained of getting harassed by law enforcement officials citing security concerns since the September 11 terrorist attacks.

Follow the link to listen to the radio program.