Your Right To Take Pictures (in the USA)

[CoolToolGuy]

This article is in USATODAY today:

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

It talks about the rights that individuals have, even on private property. It has four links to other content that discusses this, including some legal lingo.

A very interesting and important read for photographers.

Have Fun,

[PacAce]

Hmmm, interesting. There was a time when I was at my wife's office, in the parking lot, taking pictures of a sandpiper by a pond beside the parking lot, when a security guard came up to me and told me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures there. I was told that I needed to get permission first before taking pictures. Although my wife works for a privately owned company and the buildings themselves are limited access (you need a card key to get in or the receptionist has to ring you in), the parking lot is open access to the public (no gates, walls or fences). So, if I read the article correctly, that security guard had no right to hassle me about my taking pictures there, right?

[CoolToolGuy]

So, if I read the article correctly, that security guard had no right to hassle me about my taking pictures there, right?

I read the article, but not (yet) the links, and I read it the same way.

Have Fun,

[MWhite]

Hi new guy here. :D


I found this awhile back when looking into the rights of photographers.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I printed out the PDF file and stuck it in my camera bag for reference.


HTH,
Mike

[subtle_spectre]

Isn't the Bill of Rights an amazing document! The article is a concise, albeit basic, distillation of our rights as photographers. Most people get intimidated when confronted by security guards or such, let alone police. Often times police will demand the camera or media threatening to arrest if it's not handed over...this is unconstitutional, as well as illegal. The reality is that few know it and fewer still have the resources to take remedial action.

Good read nonetheless...thanks!

[Scottes]

...the parking lot is open access to the public (no gates, walls or fences).
I would still think that it's private property, so maybe the security guard's message should have been "You're Trespassing."

[CoolToolGuy]

Hi new guy here. :D


I found this awhile back when looking into the rights of photographers.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I printed out the PDF file and stuck it in my camera bag for reference.


HTH,
Mike

Hi, and welcome to the forum. I hope you will learn a lot here and have some fun along the way.

That is an outstanding idea - Thanks! (reference - doesn't that translate to "Waving in some moron's face?")

Have Fun,

[Duder]

good to know.

[Mark_Cohran]

There's a another website devoted to this topic at: http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/

[PacAce]

I would still think that it's private property, so maybe the security guard's message should have been "You're Trespassing."
I would concur if there was a sign that said "No trespassing" sign but there wasn't any and, as stated ealier, the parking area is a public access area. Anybody can drive into or through the parking area without the need to get permission ahead of time.

[MWhite]

Hi, and welcome to the forum. I hope you will learn a lot here and have some fun along the way.
Thanks for the welcome!

That is an outstanding idea - Thanks! (reference - doesn't that translate to "Waving in some moron's face?")
Exactly! :lol:

Mike

[Scottes]

I would concur if there was a sign that said "No trespassing" sign but there wasn't any and, as stated ealier, the parking area is a public access area. Anybody can drive into or through the parking area without the need to get permission ahead of time.
I don't believe that private property needs a No Trespassing sign. And a Mall is a public access area, yet is still private property and they can stop you from taking pictures.

Note that I haven't read the articles, and I'm not basing this on photographer's rights, just stuff I've heard.

[webejamn]

i didnt read the articals either,
i think that if your taking pictures of some one else or someones kids or some thing like that and they stop you, thats fine, however just taking pictures of stuff should be ok... they should be able to ask you what your doing but not stop you... when i went to mexico city last easter, i was taking pictures in the mall and the security gaurd made me delete my pictures he said if i didnt he would take my stuff away and i would NEVER get it back... all i was doing was taking pictures of a cool car that was cheep there.

[jmoore-16]

Wow - Great stuff.

As I read the article, shots on private property that is freely open to the public is fair game unless the subjects have an implied privacy that you violate. The pictures in a mall are a good example. Everything is fair game unless someone is looking at the teddy that he bought for his mistress and you photograph it. <grin>

I had an interesting situation. I primarily shoot cars. I go to many races and shoot professional series and I was hassled by Roush Racing not to publish or sell any images of their cars as they informed me that the paint schemes are copyrighted and I could only shoot them for my personal enjoyment.

I was in a public place and they can't possibly expect privacy. Just the opposite, race cars are rolling billboards for their sponsors.

Comments?

John Moore

[webejamn]

here where i live the owner of the 49ers has a ranch and he hates people going to take pictures of his zebras and camels and stuff like that, the minute you step on the properity he kicks you off, well his security gaurd does, but when your on the road they dont do anything about it, i dont blame them for not wnating people on their properity but its a camel and zebra in snow, how cool is that

[am_pitbull_terrier]

Great articles/links..... They do open your eyes to some interesting points

i dont blame them for not wnating people on their properity but its a camel and zebra in snow, how cool is that


:lol:

[PacAce]

I don't believe that private property needs a No Trespassing sign. And a Mall is a public access area, yet is still private property and they can stop you from taking pictures.

Note that I haven't read the articles, and I'm not basing this on photographer's rights, just stuff I've heard.
LOL :lol: Scott, the author must have had you in mind when he wrote the article. Read the article. I think you'll be amused. ;)

[Scottes]

LOL :lol: Scott, the author must have had you in mind when he wrote the article. Read the article. I think you'll be amused. ;)
I was amused, but then took it seriously at this sentence from the article: As one lawyer told me, "I don't see why the act of trespass would turn something that occurs during the trespass into a tort if it wasn't one already."
Yup, makes sense.

I'm off to the mall... :wink:

[Tom W]

Wow - Great stuff.

As I read the article, shots on private property that is freely open to the public is fair game unless the subjects have an implied privacy that you violate. The pictures in a mall are a good example. Everything is fair game unless someone is looking at the teddy that he bought for his mistress and you photograph it. <grin>

That's what I gather, though I've seen many malls that state "no photography". I'm sure that there are precident cases for this issue. May even be some jurisdictional regulations.

I had an interesting situation. I primarily shoot cars. I go to many races and shoot professional series and I was hassled by Roush Racing not to publish or sell any images of their cars as they informed me that the paint schemes are copyrighted and I could only shoot them for my personal enjoyment.

I was in a public place and they can't possibly expect privacy. Just the opposite, race cars are rolling billboards for their sponsors.

Comments?

John Moore

The right or implied right to privacy is a separate issue from copyright law. Copyright law prevents you from using the proprietary logos, images, and such of others for financial, tangible or intangible personal gain (an example of intangible gain would be using someone's copyrighted logo to falsly imply some type of association between yourself and that logo that might boost your own reputation).

You certainly can photograph race cars, and you can post images of them on free web sites, or share prints with whomever you please. But if you intend to sell them or use them in a publication, you must gain permission from the proper authority. Use of the images for news allows some exception, and there are also some exceptions where the logo appears in a secondary, unrelated position in an image (though publishers wouldn't print an image of, say, Martin Sheen with a Ford logo in the background without gaining permission from Ford). But for the most part, freedom to photograph doesn't allow freedom of copyright infringement.

[jmoore-16]

Well stated. Thanks Tom.

John Moore

[Hellashot]

This article is in USATODAY today:

It talks about the rights that individuals have, even on private property. It has four links to other content that discusses this, including some legal lingo.
Have Fun,

Right of trespass? I seriously doubt it. I'm a surveyor and my job has a necessity because of finding adjoining property corners that we trespass, but we cannot get a right-of-entry law with prior landowner notification passed in my state. Farmer lobbyists get in the way of it's passing.

Trespass laws, as most laws, are governed by individual states. If what that article said was true, then all our survey crews are photographers! lol

As for that Photographer's Right document - that is one attorney's interpretation. As for the Bill of RIghts - just like you have the right to free speech, you also have the right to be arrested after you make that speech - like saying you want the President of the US killed today or trying to encite a riot.

Anyone can draft a document and keep it with him, it doesn't mean that anyone has to believe or agree what you have is valid. Most places would call the police if you wouldn't leave as I would if I had property that people wanted to photograph and they wanted to enter when I didn't want them to.

[Steve Parr]

As for the Bill of RIghts - just like you have the right to free speech, you also have the right to be arrested after you make that speech - like saying you want the President of the US killed today or trying to encite a riot.

It's illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre, yet it's perfectly okay to yell "MOVIE" in a crowded fire house.

Odd...

Steve

[Big_B]

Are crowded fire houses all that common? ;)

[Tom W]

It's illegal to yell "FIRE" in a crowded movie theatre, yet it's perfectly okay to yell "MOVIE" in a crowded fire house.

Odd...

Steve

Unless, of course, the movie theatre is actually on fire! But I'd probably get to the exit first before yelling fire, being the self-preserving type that I am. :)

[grego]

i didnt read the articals either,
i think that if your taking pictures of some one else or someones kids or some thing like that and they stop you, thats fine, however just taking pictures of stuff should be ok... they should be able to ask you what your doing but not stop you... when i went to mexico city last easter, i was taking pictures in the mall and the security gaurd made me delete my pictures he said if i didnt he would take my stuff away and i would NEVER get it back... all i was doing was taking pictures of a cool car that was cheep there.

If you just do the delete all feature and have the proper software, you can always recover the images back as long as you didn't take another photo on that same card. I know Lexar, with their pro cards give you that ability which is very nice to have.

[mdude85]

Hmmm, interesting. There was a time when I was at my wife's office, in the parking lot, taking pictures of a sandpiper by a pond beside the parking lot, when a security guard came up to me and told me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures there. I was told that I needed to get permission first before taking pictures. Although my wife works for a privately owned company and the buildings themselves are limited access (you need a card key to get in or the receptionist has to ring you in), the parking lot is open access to the public (no gates, walls or fences). So, if I read the article correctly, that security guard had no right to hassle me about my taking pictures there, right?

Most people in positions of "power" or who think they are in positions of "power" will use their implied "power" to try to make themselves feel better at your expense. Once you show a knowledge of the situation beyond the person with "power," that person usually backs down because they know they have entered a situation on false pretenses. Usually no one has any right to hassle you about anything. And yet, they get away with it because the people getting hassled tend not to know any better, and that sort of ignorance is what people who are actually in positions with little or no power, feed from.

[Jon]

Are crowded fire houses all that common? ;)
Dunno about in Merrie Olde, but over here many fire companies are volunteer organizations and they hold Bingo games as fund raising efforts. Crowded? You bet!

[Steve Parr]

Most people in positions of "power" or who think they are in positions of "power" will use their implied "power" to try to make themselves feel better at your expense. Once you show a knowledge of the situation beyond the person with "power," that person usually backs down because they know they have entered a situation on false pretenses. Usually no one has any right to hassle you about anything. And yet, they get away with it because the people getting hassled tend not to know any better, and that sort of ignorance is what people who are actually in positions with little or no power, feed from.

It's ill-advised to make the assumption that the person challenging you doesn't know what he's talking about, simply because you have an article, that you got off the internet, in your pocket...

Steve

[CoolToolGuy]

Most people in positions of "power" or who think they are in positions of "power" will use their implied "power" to try to make themselves feel better at your expense. Once you show a knowledge of the situation beyond the person with "power," that person usually backs down because they know they have entered a situation on false pretenses. Usually no one has any right to hassle you about anything. And yet, they get away with it because the people getting hassled tend not to know any better, and that sort of ignorance is what people who are actually in positions with little or no power, feed from.

If I interpret you correctly, you are saying there is a bit of Barney Fife in many of them. I agree, and I agree with your point that responding to them with something in black & white (or color :D ) will probably back them off a bit.

For me, the biggest point is knowing the limits of their ability to take control of your equipment or your images. If they want to eject me from the property, that is one thing - but my equipment is my private property, and what I'm seeing is that I don't surrender all of my rights just because I might have trespassed on the private property that they are guarding.

Have Fun,

[CoolToolGuy]

It's ill-advised to make the assumption that the person challenging you doesn't know what he's talking about, simply because you have an article, that you got off the internet, in your pocket...

Steve

I wouldn't advise getting in their face, but I also wouldn't presume that everyone with a uniform and/or a badge has a degree in law enforcement either.

Here in Maryland, a man was taken to jail and arrested for presenting a legal tender 2-dollar bill at a local Best Buy - 'nuff said?

Have Fun,

[arpi]

I while back I posted my story of a private property photography encounter that I had with a security guard.

http://www.photography-on-the.net/forum/showthread.php?t=82108&highlight=photography

next time it happens I call the police and see what transpires :p
hey! If anybody feels brave, naaaa....I won't go there

[Steve Parr]

Here in Maryland, a man was taken to jail and arrested for presenting a legal tender 2-dollar bill at a local Best Buy - 'nuff said?

If I'm ever taking pictures inside a Best Buy, that could be handy information...

Steve

[floydianslip6]

As an urban explorer and photographer these are the things I'm well versed in. No one can take your camera, if an officer takes it you still get it back after any encounter is all over with (unless you killed someone with it).

It's not uncommon for new urban explorer photographers to get jacked by theives pretending to be security or a person of authority. I've heard plenty of stories of such cases. There are lots of Urban Exploring sites with more info about your rights on private property. But I know there's some kind of term for profiting from someone elses provate property. Its generally applied with photos and such I just can't think of it.

The moral is trespassing happens and don't let yourself get jacked!

[CoolToolGuy]

If I'm ever taking pictures inside a Best Buy, that could be handy information...

Steve

Well, it was duly authorized officers of the law (not Best Buy rentas) that arrested him - you'd think they should know legal tender when they see it, but if they are uninformed enough believe Best Buy and put someone in jail for that, having a little documentation with you to support your belief could help.

Have Fun,

[rdenney]

Hmmm, interesting. There was a time when I was at my wife's office, in the parking lot, taking pictures of a sandpiper by a pond beside the parking lot, when a security guard came up to me and told me that I wasn't allowed to take pictures there. I was told that I needed to get permission first before taking pictures. Although my wife works for a privately owned company and the buildings themselves are limited access (you need a card key to get in or the receptionist has to ring you in), the parking lot is open access to the public (no gates, walls or fences). So, if I read the article correctly, that security guard had no right to hassle me about my taking pictures there, right?

That's not how I read it. My reading said that any property owner can for any reason ask you to leave. The issue isn't privacy, however, but trespass.

Despite what was in the article, however, an awful lot of the underyling case law summarized in the linked web pages tells me that standing on private property, even if accessible to the public, is still different than standing on public property, in terms of the clarity of your defense.

Rick "who does not argue law with guys who carry guns" Denney

[vjack]

There are lots of Urban Exploring sites with more info about your rights on private property.

I would hope that these sites are not advocating trespassing, as this is certainly grounds for arrest.

[theflyingkiwi]

I would hope that these sites are not advocating trespassing, as this is certainly grounds for arrest.

I wouldn't say that these sites are advocating trespassing, but I think they are more pointing out that when you are taking a photograph while trespassing is 2 different things. While trespassing you are breaking the law and you can be taking to court for that. What you photograph while breaking the law is different. Unless it violates some privacy laws.

Like anything when it comes down to the laws etc, it would pay to see a lawyer etc. As in different states/countries have different laws regarding what you can do and what you can't do.

It is possible for one states/countries to say that any photograph taken while trespassing maybe illegal.

If you are unsure know your rights before you go out.

[rdenney]

I would hope that these sites are not advocating trespassing, as this is certainly grounds for arrest.

No, they are just saying that if photographing isn't a tort, then it won't be a tort just because you were committing the crime of trespass while doing it.

Tort: An act which causes an injury for which the actor can be held liable. "Tort" is to civil law what "crime" is to criminal law.

Rick "not a lawyer but no stranger to courtrooms" Denney

[floydianslip6]

I can't find this really great page that I read a few months ago. Though I'm still looking for it. I feel like the big line, at least for things I do is if someone still cares about a place. For example...
someones house with no trespassing signs... that's creepy to photograph that
active military installations... use your head...
a broken down old factory... those signs are posted so if someone gets hurt there the owner isn't responsible

I feel realizing why the sign is posted is important. If it's truly and issue of privacy you have no business there. If it's an issue of legal responsibility to a place, the line blurs a bit, at least for me.

[Mike6158]

Simply put, if someone asks you to not take photos then you stop taking photos. Unless the photograph is so important to you that you want to risk jail time or some sort of confrontation. Actually... jail time isn't likely unless the situation escalates.

The security guard was out of line IMHO... but apparently he didn't know that. Which brings me back to the first sentence in this post.