private property photography

[arpi]

The other day I was driving with the camera on the right seat. I stoped on a light and took a picture of a building. Next thing, a security guards runs towards me and tells me that I took picture of private property and that I need to park my car on the side of the road so that he can take some information. I am thinking that this guy is just a security guard with no aurothization to stop my vehicle but somehow I decided to play cool and I agreed. He tells me that I cannot take pictures of private property and that he needs to see a picture ID. I ask why and he responds because of 9/11. I played cool alll the way but I felt he was oversteping his authority as a security guard for stoping my vehicle from a public road and and I don't know if I should write a complain letter to the property owner.

what do you think?

[chtgrubbs]

Unfortunately this seems to be the state of things these days. I do alot of architectural photography and if any cop or rent-a-cop sees you then you are probably going to get hassled.

[arpi]

what do you think would have happened had decided to ignore him and keep driving away? an FBI agent at my door?

[R1 Kid]

I would side against the letter of complaint. When I go to Fontana Dam in TN. I feel weird taking photos of the dam. I have heard of people getting their film taken away for doing things like this. Glad you kept your cool. Don't worry they'll just run your name against the known terrist list and see if anything comes back. If it even goes that far, which it probably won't.

[LazyPhotographer]

More proof that, basically, humans are idiots. ;-)

I was in an office complex parking lot of taking pics of flowers. The flowers were on the edge of the lot, away from the buildings and it was a BIG lot. A security guard comes over, on a bicycle, and tells me I can't shoot the flowers for security reasons. The buildings were BEHIND me and never would have been in the pictures anyway. Geesh.

People like to panic for some reason. I'd just skip it and not make any noise about it. You'll be better off not getting your name spread around as a potential terrorist. Every cop and rent-a-cop at Dunkin' Donuts will have your name & address soon enough.

[arpi]

I am now thinking of funny situations. what if he ask for a my picture ID but I respond that before I do that I need to see his first, then I take a picture of his picture ID inside my car (if he gets mine I get his, right?). What other funny tricks do you think I could do?

[Carzee]

Well, its post 9/11. All kinds of situations in the public square can be construed as a threat to public safety. Inspecting phone lines or something for a fault? A sewer? You better have ID/authority. Etc.
"In the good 'ol days", pics of domestic military real estate and activities of service personnel was a no-no unless it was a "public open day", ceremonial, displays etc. It was general knowledge.

The point is that there are always some exceptions and over a certain period of time, a general understanding comes about, a line is drawn and we get to know just when things were off limits.
I think we are in the first decade of a similiar "settling" period when updated (more constricted) norms are being established.

So, we adjust and make allowances for the photographic "new norms". For the duration of the war. A war some citizens are in denial about.

[stoneylonesome]

File a complaint, You are standing on public property you can take the photos. Good gawd you can walk all over Washington D.C. taking photos of everything. I would have asked him for his credentials and to show me in writting where it says I can't take photos that should shut him up. Give an Idiot a little power and you create a monster.
We still are free and we still have a constitution. He was infringing on your rights to free speach. If they don't want photos taken of there building put up a fence and post signs "NO PHOTOS"

[arpi]

well, if someone with a gun (yes they had guns) stops me and demands my personal information (name, address, driver license number, etc) and they are not an authority (police, firefighter, etc), I think I should ask for theirs too. And I don't mean their employee ID. I mean the address, name and everything just as they got mine. If they ask why, I would answer that I fear someone breaking in my house after 9/11 and I want to have someone acountable.

[Carzee]

Take their photo as well! For the record. Like the street protesters who log the cops that they assault.

[arpi]

yeah, but I would like to do that with a $20 camera on the seat just in csae he decides to do a search of my car or to take posesions of the camera. it looks like they can do anything a cup can do, like stoping vehicles, asking for ID, etc.

[Tom W]

The other day I was driving with the camera on the right seat. I stoped on a light and took a picture of a building. Next thing, a security guards runs towards me and tells me that I took picture of private property and that I need to park my car on the side of the road so that he can take some information. I am thinking that this guy is just a security guard with no aurothization to stop my vehicle but somehow I decided to play cool and I agreed. He tells me that I cannot take pictures of private property and that he needs to see a picture ID. I ask why and he responds because of 9/11. I played cool alll the way but I felt he was oversteping his authority as a security guard for stoping my vehicle from a public road and and I don't know if I should write a complain letter to the property owner.

what do you think?

Next time, tell him to go pound sand. You're on a public throughway and he IS overstepping his authority. There's a reason that some people don't quite make it to the police force.

I wouldn't write a letter to the property owner. I'd just take another shot a few weeks from now and if he decides to confront you, give him a nasty gesture and drive off. Provoke him a bit, though. And tease him. Make him angry. But keep your distance and don't break any laws.

I admit that I'm feeling particularly ornery tonight. :)

[Tom W]

yeah, but I would like to do that with a $20 camera on the seat just in csae he decides to do a search of my car or to take posesions of the camera. it looks like they can do anything a cup can do, like stoping vehicles, asking for ID, etc.

A security guard has no authority to search your vehicle on public property. Even on private property, the security guard holds no authority to search a vehicle either, though there are exceptions that involve employer/employee relations. Tell the butthead to get a warrent.

It sounds like this particular character has a bit of an ego issue.

[mattsiesco]

Same thing happened to me basically! I was taking photos of the walkway of the US BANK CENTER in Milwaukee and I saw this guy watching me and figured he was just curious, but then I walked around the corner and came and told me I couldnt take photographs of the building because of 9/11. I apologized and went on, but they never make you delete your photos, so the security isn't really doing that much.

[arpi]

I don't recall where I first heard of this story on NPR, perhaps it was here in one of the postings or perhaps I stumbled across it on my own, but it's worth a listen...
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=4705698
Hugh


thanks for the link. In the cases they were taking in the link the officers were real cups, but I just thought about something. Next time I it happens, I call the real police! yeah! I call 911 and say that there is a guy with a gun that has forced me to stop my car and I need help. Lets see how the security guy likes that.

[chtgrubbs]

I found this link on the NPR page. Every photographer should check it out. I think it should be made into a sticky.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[jimsolt]

There is a way to express your disaproval of this behavior. You can do it in private and you can encourage your friends to join you in your protest.

VOTE for candidates at every level of government who will fight for your rights -- not take them away from you.

It can be very effective.

Jim

[cerveza4lu]

I agree w/chtgrubbs. I found that site awhile ago and downloaded the flyer. I keep it in my photo backpack so I have it on me whenever I'm taking pics. I can't remember the forum I was on, but there was a guy who was shooting pics at a public pool of his kid and because of his "biker" appearance he was seriously hassled.

[Huckaback Photo]

Chtgrubbs
What a brilliant piece of information you provided the link for, I just followed it through to the UK link and its all there in black and white , vary usefull indeed.
the thought about having a sticky is a good one, also it should be compulsary reading for all who go out and about on the streets with a camera.

I shall circulate this to all my photographer friends for sure.
Many thanks Chtgrubbs dont know which part of the world you are, but you just did a big favour for us all.

Martin (Huckaback Photo)

[jfrancho]

I found this link on the NPR page. Every photographer should check it out. I think it should be made into a sticky.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htmThanks, I would have felt more comfortable taking pics of a bridge under construction the other night, had I read this.

[Rob612]

A security guard has no authority to search your vehicle on public property. Even on private property, the security guard holds no authority to search a vehicle either, though there are exceptions that involve employer/employee relations. Tell the butthead to get a warrent.

It sounds like this particular character has a bit of an ego issue.

Not sure about the private property part, but I live in another country, got to ask to some friends in Glocktalk.com about that. For the rest, this character really sounds like one of those armchair commando types...

[stoneylonesome]

Not sure about the private property part, but I live in another country, got to ask to some friends in Glocktalk.com about that. For the rest, this character really sounds like one of those armchair commando types...

Well here in the USA our constitution protects us from that:

Amendment IV
The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

So you can be pretty sure that some rent-a-cop doesn't have the power to search you or your vehicle, and to think this was written in the 1700's some pretty smart duds.

[jfrancho]

Some pretty smart dudes, indeed....I love this place.

[CappuccinoDavid]

hmm, your luck you in the US...

[stoneylonesome]

hmm, your luck you in the US...
Last time I checked Kentucky was still in the US :lol: :lol: :lol:

[CappuccinoDavid]

Last time I checked Kentucky was still in the US :lol: :lol: :lol:

Yes but I been in places (not in the US) that has strick law about photography. And shooting the wrong thing can get you in to deep trouble.

[Hellashot]

I doubt that it is against the law in the US to photography anything. Where you ARE when you photograph can be a problem (on private property). You can videotape anything also - but without sound.

[jfrancho]

In New York State, you can tape a conversation as long as one of the participants knows it is being recorded. Therefore, a tape of a conversation you have with someone else is perfectly legal, since you are aware of the device. A little tidbit I learned from a lawyer. Remember that privacy laws can vary from state to state, hence the trouble Ms. Tripp had.

[lostdoggy]

In New York State, you can tape a conversation as long as one of the participants knows it is being recorded. Therefore, a tape of a conversation you have with someone else is perfectly legal, since you are aware of the device. A little tidbit I learned from a lawyer. Remember that privacy laws can vary from state to state, hence the trouble Ms. Tripp had.

You can record a conversation if you are part of the conversation or with approval of one the third party in a conversation that you are not part of. Ie, if John and Mary was having a conversation on the phone and John said it is ok with him that you record the conversation then it is legal. Anytime you are part of the conversation you have the right to record it. I had this discussion with a friend who told his employee that it was illegal in NY to record the discussion they were having and took the girl's tape and erased it. I told him that he was very lucky that she didn't bring a recorder and record him admitting to erasing the first recording. She could have accuse him of all sorts of charges such as sexual harrassment, eg.

[lostdoggy]

Rent-a-cop. If you wheren't on private grounds what rights does this rent-a-cop has to see your ID. I would definitely have call for a real cop. Here in NYC where all the Post 9/11 are happening there are public notice as to where you are not allow to photograph. Subways was one of them but has been lifted. Bridges are still in affect. As far as I know after the OK bombing all FED building are of limits.

We are fortunately in perpetual Orange alert here in NYC.

[jfrancho]

You can record a conversation if you are part of the conversation or with approval of one the third party in a conversation that you are not part of. Ie, if John and Mary was having a conversation on the phone and John said it is ok with him that you record the conversation then it is legal. Anytime you are part of the conversation you have the right to record it. I had this discussion with a friend who told his employee that it was illegal in NY to record the discussion they were having and took the girl's tape and erased it. I told him that he was very lucky that she didn't bring a recorder and record him admitting to erasing the first recording. She could have accuse him of all sorts of charges such as sexual harrassment, eg.That is true too, and fits the criteria I described. Just to be clear, you cannot record a conversation between two people that are unaware it is being recorded. That would be eavesdropping.

[thor67]

thats when I reach for my Glock 9mm

[Steve Parr]

I wouldn't write a letter to the property owner. I'd just take another shot a few weeks from now and if he decides to confront you, give him a nasty gesture and drive off. Provoke him a bit, though. And tease him. Make him angry.

And that accomplishes what, exactly?

It sure isn't going to ever make them more friendly to photographers, which seems to be the problem in the first place...

Steve

[floydianslip6]

Firstly unless the site is owned by the state or federal government the rent a cops that work there probably have very little authority. In the future don't be so quick to give up your rights. If you've been to my site you know I'm ALWAYS on private property and I have but 1 main rule: Run from security, stick around for cops.

Security typically has little to no actual authority, they speak in a suggestive manner so most people go along with it. I will attempt to post something more informative tomorrow since I have SEVERAL links about stuff like this but I'm just to exhausted tonight.

[CoolToolGuy]

This has been hashed over, but:

Were you on the private property when the guard approached you?
Were you on the private property when you took the picture?
If the private property owners don't want pictures taken, let them put the building where it can't be seen (away, or underground).
Sounds like more Barney Fife to me.Have Fun,

[arpi]

Were you on the private property when the guard approached you?

nope. I was driving on the road

Were you on the private property when you took the picture?

nope

Well, theoretically I could have just droven away and ignore the guy, but I somehow I didn't because I kind of understood his position and it was my first time and I wasn't aware of my rights. But! next time I may put my rights to the test and see what happens. It is good to be aware of your rights and go with that information in hand just in case.

cheers

[UncleDoug]

It is good to be aware of your rights and go with that information in hand just in case.

cheers

Best thing I've heard out of this thread.

[zacker]

well, if someone with a gun (yes they had guns) stops me and demands my personal information (name, address, driver license number, etc) and they are not an authority (police, firefighter, etc), I think I should ask for theirs too. And I don't mean their employee ID. I mean the address, name and everything just as they got mine. If they ask why, I would answer that I fear someone breaking in my house after 9/11 and I want to have someone acountable.

I think you did the right thing...think of it like this, if it were your property they were guarding, youd want them to be thourogh. you could, however, tell them your calling the Police and you will not provide them with ANY info till an officer comes to the scene.
-zacker-

[Steve Parr]

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here:

I get the distinct impression that, by and large, photographers want to challenge authority, and are less respectful of "posted" areas than non-photographers. The reasons behind this, I think, are varied, but a major one seems to be they want to do it because they can do it.

If I see a sign that says “No Trespassing”, I won’t. It’s not that I’m afraid of getting caught or anything like that, but simply nothing more than I’m respectful of a property owner’s right to not want anyone within the bounds of the property, fence or no fence.

I’ve been hammered for this opinion here in the past, but some of the comments here are from the type of mindset which is what causes people to be wary and skeptical of photographers in the first place. I believe that if photographers showed a bit more respect to the property and wishes of others, then people would, by and large, not immediately think that all photographers are up to no good.

Some of the more interesting comments I’ve seen:

I doubt that it is against the law in the US to photography anything.

Not true. Go stand outside the fence of the US Naval Station in San Diego with a 600mm lens and point it at an Aegis Cruiser. You will be visited by a contingent of the US Marine Corps, and rightfully so…

If they don't want photos taken of there building put up a fence and post signs "NO PHOTOS"

Do you honestly think that would stop someone? People here, in the past, have feely admitted to trespassing to get a photo. Do you think a “No Photos” sign would’ve stopped them? I certainly don’t…

Next time, tell him to go pound sand.

Or, better yet, try to find out what basis he’s using to ask about what you’re doing. Things like “tell him to go pound sand”, even if spoken by only one person with a camera, will help paint all photographers with the same broad brush. It’s one of the reasons some people are distrustful of photographers…

I'd just take another shot a few weeks from now and if he decides to confront you, give him a nasty gesture and drive off. Provoke him a bit, though. And tease him. Make him angry. But keep your distance and don't break any laws.

This goes along with the previous one. It accomplishes nothing; nada. Zip. Squat. Zilch.

Oh, wait, no, it does. It gets them pissed off. That accomplishes nothing; nada. Zip. Squat. Zilch.

I just think that the idea of “I have a camera and I’ll go where I want to” is counter-productive, and tarnishes the image of photographers more than it should be. What, exactly, is lost by being respectful of the wishes of someone else? A certain shot? Well, maybe. Are you going to win a Pulitzer with that shot? Probably not. Nothing is gained, and much, I think, is lost.

I think someone who trespasses to get a shot, if they’re identified, should be prosecuted. Yes, we have a right to take pictures. We must, however, also be respectful of the rights of a person who does not want to be photographed, and does not want their property photographed.

Bottom line: If we’re not willing to acknowledge and respect their rights, we should not have the gall to insist that they acknowledge and respect ours…

Steve

[RAitch]

Looks like we have USA and UK covered... has anybody found any Canadian specific information? I'm sure it's different from the USA somehow (since we have different legal systems).

[UncleDoug]

Steve,

You won't believe this but I must agree with you on this statement...

Bottom line: If we’re not willing to acknowledge and respect their rights, we should not have the gall to insist that they acknowledge and respect ours…

But, it needs to be flipped around as well. Someone tells me, especially someone with a badge, not to photograph in an area and I'm 1,000,000,00.00% sure I'm right to be photographing, you bet I'm going to stand my ground and do a little educating myself.
And this could be picked apart into minutia, about specific individual scenarios her and there.

Seems to me EVERYONE needs more eduction into this subject.
Not just photographers.

[Jaymz]

Bottom line: If we’re not willing to acknowledge and respect their rights, we should not have the gall to insist that they acknowledge and respect ours…

Steve

Very well said.

[arpi]

Steve, the comments you quoted (not your opinion) somehow made me laugh just because. But here is my bottom line:

It is up to the moral feelings of the day how I will react. There is just a difference of perceptions between either side. Either can be justified depending on the point of view.

[Steve Parr]

Seems to me EVERYONE needs more eduction into this subject. Not just photographers.

Agreed...

Steve

[Steve Parr]

It is up to the moral feelings of the day how I will react.

"Moral feeling of the day"?

What does that mean?

My morals, and how I choose I should conduct myself, rarely shift from day to day...

Steve

[UncleDoug]

Agreed...

Steve

Right on!
This will be a good year.:D

Cheers!

[archosman]

nevermind!

[RTMiller]

I took this picture last week in the presence of several members of the Secret Service. Does anyone honestly think that the White House is less secure because I (or anyone else) took a picture of it? We really need to keep our eye on the ball and try not to lose focus on the real threats out there.

http://rtmiller.smugmug.com/photos/50165337-L.jpg

[Steve Parr]

I took this picture last week in the presence of several members of the Secret Service. Does anyone honestly think that the White House is less secure because I (or anyone else) took a picture of it? We really need to keep our eye on the ball and try not to lose focus on the real threats out there.

http://rtmiller.smugmug.com/photos/50165337-L.jpg

I don’t think we’re discussing who or what is more or less secure, but rather discussing the rights of someone not wanting photography on private property, and the responsibilities a photographer might have to respect the rights of the property owner…

Steve

[CoolToolGuy]

I took this picture last week in the presence of several members of the Secret Service. Does anyone honestly think that the White House is less secure because I (or anyone else) took a picture of it? We really need to keep our eye on the ball and try not to lose focus on the real threats out there.



Wow, I'm really surprised you weren't apprehended. :lol: After all, you could use the photo to determine the height of the trees, and then plan to topple them at just the right minute, setting the car passing under the tree on fire, which would spread to the White House, . . . :lol: :lol: :lol:

I agree with your point. We are still in backlash mode from 9/11, and it needs to settle into what's important and what's reaction.

Have Fun,

[Steve Parr]

I agree with your point. We are still in backlash mode from 9/11, and it needs to settle into what's important and what's reaction.

Can't disagree with that.

Do you consider a property owner's rights and desires unimportant?

Steve

[blue_max]

I fully respect laws I can understand.

If I saw a gate that was open and I saw a beautiful shot (of whatever), I would enter and take the shot. I would not break and enter, nor would I cause any damage. If confronted by the owner, I would immediately stop, apologise and leave. If privacy was important, the gate would be locked tightly shut and I wouldn't be able to see anything.

Now, obviously that is a generalisation. It would depend where the gate was etc. but that is my general view. If the owner was there, I would ask their permission. The key is dialogue in most situations.

Often, a sign that says 'private property' is for the benefit of people with criminal intent.

Graham

[delinian]

I suppose in the hypothetical, the only image that's worth the trouble, is one you can profit from, after litigation fees??

[blue_max]

I suppose in the hypothetical, the only image that's worth the trouble, is one you can profit from, after litigation fees??

I am not sure of the legal position if you leave when asked. The worse that you have done is stray through an open gate. The fact that the gate was open suggests there is actually nothing of commercial value (for my hypothesis anyway:lol: ).

Graham

[CoolToolGuy]

Can't disagree with that.

Do you consider a property owner's rights and desires unimportant?

Steve

No, not at all. But if I'm on some property that has no restrictions posted, I am wary of Barney Fife approaching me demanding my camera. Advise me that the activity is not allowed, I'm still wary, but more likely to comply.

As I mentioned in the other thread related to this topic, even if I am trespassing on private property (intentionally or otherwise), my person, vehicle, and equipment are my private property and I have similar rights to that - which are not surrendered because I'm located on someone else's private property.

Have Fun,

[zacker]

i guess if i saw someone on my property taking pics, id ask what they were doing. The security guard was probably just doing his job in getting info incase there was a crime... thank god no one got murdered there that night, guess who the cops would come after first.
(ok ok, too much "Law And Order for me i guess)
lol
-zacker-

[arpi]

"Moral feeling of the day"?

What does that mean?

My morals, and how I choose I should conduct myself, rarely shift from day to day...

Steve

If they don't change much that's because your circumstances (and your point of view) don't change much either from day to day. With "Moral feeling of the day" I meant that those feelings are not something set but that change with the circumstance (and necessarily with the change of time) in which they are made. To actually understand some points of view it is not enough to just think about them from another point of view but to see them from where they were made (which can be unwillingly impossible at times). at least, it is good to know that they can be as valid as yours even if they are just the opposite. This is because morality is based on feelings. Was I confusing?

[Steve Parr]

If they don't change much that's because your circumstances (and your point of view) don't change much either from day to day. With "Moral feeling of the day" I meant that those feelings are not something set but that change with the circumstance (and necessarily with the change of time) in which they are made. To actually understand some points of view it is not enough to just think about them from another point of view but to see them from where they were made (which can be unwillingly impossible at times). at least, it is good to know that they can be as valid as yours even if they are just the opposite. This is because morality is based on feelings. Was I confusing?

Yes.

Steve

[arpi]

Oh well, I tried :p

[Steve Parr]

I guess my impression, overall, is that most folks here believe that unless something is hidden from view, locked up, and protected by an armed patrol, they can take a picture of it, regardless of what the withes and rights of the property owner might be.

I think that's a poor way to approach photography, but I'll be happy to be counted amongst the minority.

You may have a "right" to take the picture. It doesn't necessarily mean you should. With every right comes an equally important responsibility. It seems to me that, for the most part, a lot of people here only want to be concerned about themselves, with little regard for what someone else might want.

That's my impression, based upon what I've read here...

Steve

[blue_max]

I guess my impression, overall, is that most folks here believe that unless something is hidden from view, locked up, and protected by an armed patrol, they can take a picture of it, regardless of what the withes and rights of the property owner might be.

I think that's a poor way to approach photography, but I'll be happy to be counted amongst the minority.

You may have a "right" to take the picture. It doesn't necessarily mean you should. With every right comes an equally important responsibility. It seems to me that, for the most part, a lot of people here only want to be concerned about themselves, with little regard for what someone else might want.

That's my impression, based upon what I've read here...

Steve

That's quite judgemental. If you saw a beautiful flower on the other side of a fence, would you take a picture of it through the fence? If, however, you mean would I sneak up to someones window and try to take a picture of them, then I am with you all the way.
Both extreme examples, but effectively the same 'crime'.

Graham

[MEXICAN GIRL]

what do you think would have happened had decided to ignore him and keep driving away? an FBI agent at my door?

something like it happened to me, just when I thought everything was forgotten, I got a phone call, the jerk who stopped me took my license plate number, I did get a warning.

[Steve Parr]

That's quite judgemental.

That may be.

But I've gotten that impression based on what I've read here.

Taking a picture of a flower through a fence is far different than flipping off a security guard and telling him to pound sand while you run away from him.

Again, this is my impression, based on what I've read here. I'm not asking that anyone adopt the same view...

Steve

[snappa]

Blue_max, I don`t think your analogy is accurate at all really. To take a picture of a flower through a fence may be regarded as using some sort of photographic license. To sneak up to somebodys window and take a picture would mean you are trespassing. Trespass is illegal in the UK although not punished to any great extent unless you are caught in any one of the ever increasing list of places where you cannot take photographs.

[Mark_Cohran]

Essentially in the US if you are on public property you can photograph anything that can be seen from where you stand, with some specific restrictions, i.e. where specific ordinances have been enacted to restrict photography (the bridges and subways in New York City come to mind). The military installation is a poor example, because while the commander has the right to restrict photography on the installation, shooting from outside the installation is perfectly fine. In this day and age you may be questioned, but the military has no jurisdiction over civilians unless they are actually on the installation.

Private property rights should always be respected, and I don't trespass or enter restricted areas to do my photography, but at the same time I refuse to be intimidated into surrendering my ability to enjoy my environment and to record what I see around me. Most times simply being polite and respectful will work, but sometimes you also need to be firm.

Mark

[Steve Parr]

The military installation is a poor example, because while the commander has the right to restrict photography on the installation, shooting from outside the installation is perfectly fine.

Again, if you're pointing your big white lens at an Aegis Cruiser, you're going to get a visit...

In this day and age you may be questioned, but the military has no jurisdiction over civilians unless they are actually on the installation.

And when the civilian authorities are called, you'd better believe they'll show up in a hurry...

Private property rights should always be respected, and I don't trespass or enter restricted areas to do my photography, but at the same time I refuse to be intimidated into surrendering my ability to enjoy my environment and to record what I see around me.

Unfortunately, there are those who will, in fact, trespass to get a shot. They want their rights to be respected, yet they seemingly care little of the rights of others...

Most times simply being polite and respectful will work, but sometimes you also need to be firm.

Agreed. We've seen at least one example, though, in this very thread, where the suggestion was made that a person not be polite, but in fact should be antagonistic. I asked what purpose that would serve, but got no response. Truthfully, such conduct accomplishes nothing...

Steve

[BruceC]

I would have just waved and drove off. If I had time maybe I would have taken his picture too.

[floydianslip6]

I think someone who trespasses to get a shot, if they’re identified, should be prosecuted.


You must love my website then :p

In all seriousness I do wish people were more respectful of places. It would make what I do a lot easier, that's for sure.

[colliewalker1]

Give an Idiot a little power and you create a monster.


Agreed - perhaps would be security guards should have to pass an intelligence test!:rolleyes:

[Steve Parr]

Agreed - perhaps would be security guards should have to pass an intelligence test!:rolleyes:

Perhaps photographers should have to get a license, which can then be revoked, and a camera impounded, if a law is broken. Kinda' like what a drunk driver gets to deal with.

Sounds silly, doesn't it?

The fact of the matter is that many reputable security companies do required testing prior to sending someone out to guard a site.

Basically it comes down to this: If you're not going to respect the property, wishes, and rights of others, don't get all upset when others fail to do the same with you...

Steve

[snappa]

mcohran, The military installation is indeed a poor example. About twenty years ago I had the extreme good fortune to work on a lot of US airfields in the UK. Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Upper Heyford, Woodbridge and Bentwaters, before they closed, to name but a few. I can only assure you that security was as tight then as it is now. I can only imagine that it was because something was being stored on those bases a la Greenham Common.
At every base I would go off base at lunchtime with a view to taking some piccies of the planes. At every base, irrespective of where I was on the perimeter, I would get about ten minutes before the jeep, and MPs, turned up. Very politely, but very firmly, I would be warned about taking any photographs even though I was outside the base.
Steve was 100% correct when he said that the civilian authorities would show up post haste. It only happened once but, believe me, it was pretty difficult explaining it away to the local constabulary who wanted to confiscate my camera stuff.

[stoneylonesome]

I took this picture last week in the presence of several members of the Secret Service. Does anyone honestly think that the White House is less secure because I (or anyone else) took a picture of it? We really need to keep our eye on the ball and try not to lose focus on the real threats out there.



Not the best example to use in this discussion the White House is not Private it is the Peoples of the USA's house in a sense the President is just a tenent, he is there by our chosing. It is not private property, yes there are certain security issuse that must be addressed.

[Blue Deuce]

I wonder if an artist who sets up an easel and starts painting a picture of a building, dam, power plant, etc. is met with the same scrutiny as a photographer taking the exact shot ?

[Mark_Cohran]

mcohran, The military installation is indeed a poor example. About twenty years ago I had the extreme good fortune to work on a lot of US airfields in the UK. Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Upper Heyford, Woodbridge and Bentwaters, before they closed, to name but a few. I can only assure you that security was as tight then as it is now. I can only imagine that it was because something was being stored on those bases a la Greenham Common.
At every base I would go off base at lunchtime with a view to taking some piccies of the planes. At every base, irrespective of where I was on the perimeter, I would get about ten minutes before the jeep, and MPs, turned up. Very politely, but very firmly, I would be warned about taking any photographs even though I was outside the base.
Steve was 100% correct when he said that the civilian authorities would show up post haste. It only happened once but, believe me, it was pretty difficult explaining it away to the local constabulary who wanted to confiscate my camera stuff.

Well, all I have to go on is my experience of 20 years in the military as a nuclear trained technician on nuclear weapons carrying vessels (probably the tightest security in the world). I was also a photographer during those twenty years. I've shot from inside the base, outside the base, and even pointed my lenses at cruisers, aircraft carriers, submarines and other various craft. Not once did I ever get asked to put away my camera, nor did the Marines visit me, nor the civilian authorities. Of course, I made sure I was aware of all the pertinent regulations, and I didn't do any photography in restricted areas. That's why I think the installation example was poor.

Once again, there are constitutional protections in place about warrantless seizure and arrest. Sure, in today's environment, you may get a visit, but your camera and your film (or digital media) may not be taken without warrant unless you are on the base. At most, you will have to explain why you took the photo, but you shouldn't be afraid to do that, and you shouldn't be afraid to do what is perfectly legal.

Mark

[Steve Parr]

Well, all I have to go on is my experience of 20 years in the military

Funny, I was just about to say the same thing...

Steve

[dewmuw]

mcohran, The military installation is indeed a poor example. About twenty years ago I had the extreme good fortune to work on a lot of US airfields in the UK. Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Upper Heyford, Woodbridge and Bentwaters, before they closed, to name but a few. I can only assure you that security was as tight then as it is now. I can only imagine that it was because something was being stored on those bases a la Greenham Common.
At every base I would go off base at lunchtime with a view to taking some piccies of the planes. At every base, irrespective of where I was on the perimeter, I would get about ten minutes before the jeep, and MPs, turned up. Very politely, but very firmly, I would be warned about taking any photographs even though I was outside the base.
Steve was 100% correct when he said that the civilian authorities would show up post haste. It only happened once but, believe me, it was pretty difficult explaining it away to the local constabulary who wanted to confiscate my camera stuff.

You must be unlucky. As a teenager I visited load of UK air bases (Kinloss, Lossiemouth, Mildenhall, Lakenheath, Bentwaters, Valley, Leuchars, st Morgan, etc) with my brother who was very keen on photographer aircraft at that time. never once did we get stopped, asked to stop or moved on. He even got some good shots of the pilots waving to him as they taxied along the runway.

[RAitch]

Were those shots taken after 9/11? I'm sure some were before that if you were there for 20 years.
It's funny how the world changes in a heartbeat... and how people's perceptions are changed.

I know locally here (chemical valley) that all of the plants are on the look out for suspicious activity. There is also a "site watch" where companies communicate with each other when they notice some weird activity (in case it spreads to their site).

On a couple occasions, I've heard of photographers being questioned by the regional security patrols... but I haven't heard any stories of abuse/damage/confiscated film or equipment. Perhaps that's because the photogs didn't look like terrorists (tongue in cheek comment).

I've stopped my car around here and have taken pictures of the plants (for artistic purposes) and can tell you I didn't feel comfortable doing it. I felt as if somebody passing by was calling security and I'd have a visit shortly.

The scare is real... and people (corporations) are doing everything in their power to protect themselves from danger. The security levels are raised, and for good reason. At the same point, this is only a precaution and some people decide to take that to their next level.

I'm certain that not everybody knows their own rites (photographer/company/private property). For that reason, the bounds from both sides are overlapping as they both try to find the part of the "gray zone" that goes too far.

I for one don't know my actual rights... and am still waiting to here any Canadian legal content. I'm sure there are other people (security/police) that are also unsure. This is a dangerous area and should be handled with tack and care. There's no sense waving the bird around screaming profanity at somebody asking questions if you "think" you're in the right.

We all break laws... sometimes we know we're doing it. Other times it's the law enforcement officers that are doing the wrong.
We could argue about who has the rights... but it's such a gray zone that we'll never land on anything. (different countries/standards/cultural differences)

If you know/think what you're doing is wrong/illegal... it very well could be. The fact that it "might not be" doesn't mean it'll be a good idea. Be prepared to be challenged... and pay potential concequences for your actions. Same as everything else in life.

[Steve Parr]

RAitch, that was about as perfect a response as I've seen...

Steve

[snappa]

At the risk of being called pedantic Mildenhall, Lakenheath and Bentwaters are/were all US bases in the UK. There is a subtle difference.
Security was very tight at the US bases due to that which they were allegedly storing/keeping on those bases.
In the UK we have never quite got to grips with the security aspect and there are regular stories of security breaches over here and will be evermore.
At Mildenhall a small compound was provided for photographers near the end of the runway where you could take piccies of the large transport/refuelling planes coming and going. A short drive past the base and a left turn would then afford you a view right into the SR-71 hangar.
At Lakenheath there was a large piece of waste ground high and to the right of the runway but you needed a long lens. Most people would just congregate in the lay-by at the end of the runway.
Bentwaters was very similar to Lakenheath where people would congregate at the end of the runway.
I suspect they were working on the theory of safety in numbers.
There is now a web site that tells you where to go to get the best pictures of military aircraft in the UK. It covers a lot of bases and nearly always involves crossing private property which is trespassing.

[Mark_Cohran]

Were those shots taken after 9/11? I'm sure some were before that if you were there for 20 years.
It's funny how the world changes in a hearbeat... and how people's perceptions are changed.

If you know/think what you're doing is wrong/illegal... it very well could be. The fact that it "might not be" doesn't mean it'll be a good idea. Be prepared to be challenged... and pay potential concequences for your actions. Same as everything else in life.

Some were, some weren't. I retired in 1996, but I still shot in around military installations since 9/11. Last year I was photographing helicopters on an Army base, and 2002 I photographer Navy vessels in Key West.

That last paragraph is an excellent response. It's the common sense approach. I would add, do your research, don't trespess, observe posted restrictions, and hire a good lawyer :)

Mark

[john_ch]

Reading this thread makes me glad I live in Scotland, Unless you are on Crown(royal) or military land there is NO trespess law in Scotland :D

So you can walk where you want as long as you cause no damage

"As late as 1961, the Scottish Landowners' Federation (SLF) was advising the Government that 'There is no law of trespass in Scotland ... the owner ... cannot prosecute for trespass. Force cannot be used to remove his uninvited guests, although if they persist in coming and picnicking regularly, an interdict against them could be obtained' (15 September 1961, NAS file GD 325/2/174). This was in line with the popular understanding; and was the basis for the huge increase in visits to the hills since then (about 8m visitor-days in 1996 in the Highland Region alone), mostly without landowner objection or resistance (though there have been difficulties in some of the lower areas).

As there has been no substantive change in the law since then, it follows that, if the statements above were true at the time (and there is no reason to doubt it), they necessarily remain so now."

[rdenney]

That's quite judgemental. If you saw a beautiful flower on the other side of a fence, would you take a picture of it through the fence? If, however, you mean would I sneak up to someones window and try to take a picture of them, then I am with you all the way.
Both extreme examples, but effectively the same 'crime'.


Actually, no. Neither involves trespass, which is a crime. Only the picture through the window is a tort, and because it invades the privacy of the person inside (at least in the U.S.).

But I agree with you. It's not a matter of rights, it's a matter of applying the same common sense to property owners as to photographers. Privacy seems to hinge on the person having a reasonable expectation of it, and anyone in full public view has no such expectation. "Full public view", of course, does not include what can be seen only with a long telephoto lens.

On the other hand, I also agree that not everything needs to be photographed. Newsworthiness also figures into the privacy issue, and for most of us anything we photograph is not newsworthy because our photographs will never appear in the media. If I put myself on the other end of the camera and would not want to be photographed, then I won't also be the one taking the picture. That seems to me a good moral stance. When I'm wandering around a public place, I don't fret that I might find myself in someone's picture. Thus, I don't mind if they find themselves in mine. But if a person is singling me out by use of a telephoto lens, then it will irritate me. Thus, I won't take such pictures. Some people are unreasonably irritated, of course, and I figure that's their problem, but if they ask me not to take a picture of them, I won't.

Only people and information about people, however, can be private. That does not include buildings. If someone doesn't want a building to be seen, they must hide it, at least in the U.S.

Going waaaaay back to the original post, I have this feeling I would have just kept driving. And if the security guard had pulled a gun on me while I'm standing on public property (or publicly accessible property) for doing so, I would have slapped him with an assault-with-a-deadly-weapon charge.

I once (maybe 30 years ago) photographed striking chemical plant workers at the Dow plant along the Houston Ship Channel. One of the strikers asked me who I was shooting for as I drove away. I just kept driving, pretending not to hear. I got a call the next morning asking who I photographed for. I told them wrong number. I'm sure they just wanted to make sure they got the clipping out of the paper, but they were the ones standing on the public street. I entered the photo in a contest, but it didn't win, heh, heh.

Rick "who photographs around the DC area all the time with never a challenge" Denney

[thetolleyman]

I recently saved and printed a "photographer's rights" PDF file that someone posted on this site. It was written by an attorney in Portland , Oregon and he stated the taking photographs of "private property" from a position in "public property" was legal, almost always. The article sounded legit, he quoted all kinds of legal jiberish and federal codes and stuff.

Just my two cents.

[RAitch]

That doc is posted above in this thread... however, that's only valid in the USA (and there was a UK link).
He also mentioned that the document wasn't to be considered legal advise... so be careful.

It's a dangerous world when people believe the first thing they read (not implying you)... you have to do complete research and make a judgement call based on all of the information you find. Also, you have to be prepared for what's coming if your judgement was wrong.
In a real world, there never is a concrete answer since everything is constantly changing. Just because you found 1 answer on the internet, doesn't make it legit.
There's a good reason why some lawyers will take certain cases (cough OJ cough) while others wouldn't touch those same cases. Some people think they can win... others may not think the same.

[StealthLude]

File a complaint, You are standing on public property you can take the photos. Good gawd you can walk all over Washington D.C. taking photos of everything. I would have asked him for his credentials and to show me in writting where it says I can't take photos that should shut him up. Give an Idiot a little power and you create a monster.
We still are free and we still have a constitution. He was infringing on your rights to free speach. If they don't want photos taken of there building put up a fence and post signs "NO PHOTOS"

DAMN RIGHT!!!!!

[StealthLude]

thats when I reach for my Glock 9mm


1911-A1, next to my 70-200 and clips next to my 580ex? Sounds like a plan.

All we need now is a tatical M16 with a battery grip and hand strap!

what can I say, I love shooting stuff.

[zeker]

Check this site out.

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

It is referenced in an earlier post.

[scrapmaniac]

You must be unlucky. As a teenager I visited load of UK air bases (Kinloss, Lossiemouth, Mildenhall, Lakenheath, Bentwaters, Valley, Leuchars, st Morgan, etc) with my brother who was very keen on photographer aircraft at that time. never once did we get stopped, asked to stop or moved on. He even got some good shots of the pilots waving to him as they taxied along the runway.

I grew up as a USAF brat. We used to have open days once per year where civilians were invited to come on base (in US), climb all over selected aircraft, and talk to the pilots and crew. We took lots of pictures. But let's face it.... the world today is a much different, much darker place.

So what if these 'rent-a-cops' did see someone taking photos and did nothing, but then the next week the building got visited by a car bomber? Then everyone would be yelling about lynching the security guard, politicians would screaming about stronger laws, and the whole thing would snowball.

It's really about common sense, courtesy, and respect. If someone questions me about photos, I can spend five minutes talking to him/her, providing ID, and if that didn't work, then claiming my 'rights' -- but try a little diplomacy first. It will make it a whole lot easier for the next person taking photos.

[Steve Parr]

It's really about common sense, courtesy, and respect. If someone questions me about photos, I can spend five minutes talking to him/her, providing ID, and if that didn't work, then claiming my 'rights' -- but try a little diplomacy first. It will make it a whole lot easier for the next person taking photos.

Absolutely perfectly stated...

Steve

[PIXI_666]

This happened to me when i photographed a school here in Perth, it's a private school called "Guildford Grammar" and has a really beautiful chapel, with nice tree's out the front.
A guy who lived across the street (Used to go to school there, was now a grounds supervisor) came over and told me if i was going to ues it as promotional material i would have to delete all my photo's
So i lied and said i was just a tourist haha...not that i am going to use the photo's anywhay, but i wasn't deleting them - i got good shots! So i was allowed to keep them!
I guess i didn't see the "NO TRESSPASSING" sign out the front haha

But my sister had her wedding photo's at this place, so the photographer must have gotten permission????

Anyway...yes very wierd...and they wont be able to catch ALL people taking photo's of private property - how are we sposed to know????

Del

[Jon Foster]

Someone tell me if I'm wrong here:

I get the distinct impression that, by and large, photographers want to challenge authority, and are less respectful of "posted" areas than non-photographers. The reasons behind this, I think, are varied, but a major one seems to be they want to do it because they can do it.

If I see a sign that says “No Trespassing”, I won’t. It’s not that I’m afraid of getting caught or anything like that, but simply nothing more than I’m respectful of a property owner’s right to not want anyone within the bounds of the property, fence or no fence.

I’ve been hammered for this opinion here in the past, but some of the comments here are from the type of mindset which is what causes people to be wary and skeptical of photographers in the first place. I believe that if photographers showed a bit more respect to the property and wishes of others, then people would, by and large, not immediately think that all photographers are up to no good.

Some of the more interesting comments I’ve seen:

I doubt that it is against the law in the US to photography anything.

Not true. Go stand outside the fence of the US Naval Station in San Diego with a 600mm lens and point it at an Aegis Cruiser. You will be visited by a contingent of the US Marine Corps, and rightfully so…

If they don't want photos taken of there building put up a fence and post signs "NO PHOTOS"

Do you honestly think that would stop someone? People here, in the past, have feely admitted to trespassing to get a photo. Do you think a “No Photos” sign would’ve stopped them? I certainly don’t…

Next time, tell him to go pound sand.

Or, better yet, try to find out what basis he’s using to ask about what you’re doing. Things like “tell him to go pound sand”, even if spoken by only one person with a camera, will help paint all photographers with the same broad brush. It’s one of the reasons some people are distrustful of photographers…

I'd just take another shot a few weeks from now and if he decides to confront you, give him a nasty gesture and drive off. Provoke him a bit, though. And tease him. Make him angry. But keep your distance and don't break any laws.

This goes along with the previous one. It accomplishes nothing; nada. Zip. Squat. Zilch.

Oh, wait, no, it does. It gets them pissed off. That accomplishes nothing; nada. Zip. Squat. Zilch.

I just think that the idea of “I have a camera and I’ll go where I want to” is counter-productive, and tarnishes the image of photographers more than it should be. What, exactly, is lost by being respectful of the wishes of someone else? A certain shot? Well, maybe. Are you going to win a Pulitzer with that shot? Probably not. Nothing is gained, and much, I think, is lost.

I think someone who trespasses to get a shot, if they’re identified, should be prosecuted. Yes, we have a right to take pictures. We must, however, also be respectful of the rights of a person who does not want to be photographed, and does not want their property photographed.

Bottom line: If we’re not willing to acknowledge and respect their rights, we should not have the gall to insist that they acknowledge and respect ours…

Steve

While I can appreciate your opinion I for one won't trespass and I won't take a picture of somebody if I think it will cause them undue distress. There's just no need or reason. But, I am also a former US Marine. Do you think for one second I will allow some rent-a-cop to abuse my rights? I served my country, I've done things you could never imagine in the name of that freedom. So have my brothers, father, grand father and thousands of other soldiers. The freedom we've fought for is laid out in simple English. It's guaranteed by the US Constitution. Nobody will deny those rights to me, my family or anyone else in America. It's my sworn duty to protect those rights until the day I die. The original poster was denied his rights period. He should take steps to protect them. The security "person" needs to be punished. His position dictates the fact that he/she should know his/her exact limits of abilities and responsibilities. If he was acting on behalf of the employer, they must be held accountable as well. It's simple, there's no gray area here.

Jon.

[jfrancho]

That is a point of view I can't help but respect.

[Steve Parr]

I served my country, I've done things you could never imagine in the name of that freedom.

20 years; retired here, Sport; decorated combat vet. And I've got one Helluva' imagination.

I just reread the original post. At no point did the security guard violate anyone's rights. At any time, the original poster could've waved and driven off. It violates nobody's rights to ask to see an ID, or to tell them "I need to get some information".

In what way was he "denied" his rights? Sorry, but of all the rights you fought to uphold, none of them included the right not to be offended.

And, just to help swing this back to a non-politically charged discussion: Frankly, I would've engaged the "rent-a-cop" in a conversation as to why I couldn't photograph that which he didn't want photographed...

Steve

[Jon Foster]

Yes, we should stay on topic if possible but this is unfortunately a political issue non the less. From what the original poster indicated, the security guard "ran" out and stopped him from continuing on. He had him pull his vehicle over to the side of the road and then took his (state issued?) ID for inspection. Now if this had been someone who looked like a bum doing this, would the original poster have submitted? Probably not, but because of the demeanor and type of dress (uniform) the rent-a-cop had on, our photog friend felt he should comply. The rent-a-cop is totally in the wrong here. He interfered with a person minding his business and doing nothing wrong or illegal. If there were a reason to be truly suspicious of the photog, the rent-a-cop should have called the proper legal authorities. Not taken action into his own hands where he has no legal right to interfere.

Jon.

[Steve Parr]

Yes, we should stay on topic if possible but this is unfortunately a political issue non the less. From what the original poster indicated, the security guard "ran" out and stopped him from continuing on. He had him pull his vehicle over to the side of the road and then took his (state issued?) ID for inspection. Now if this had been someone who looked like a bum doing this, would the original poster have submitted? Probably not, but because of the demeanor and type of dress (uniform) the rent-a-cop had on, our photog friend felt he should comply. The rent-a-cop is totally in the wrong here. He interfered with a person minding his business and doing nothing wrong or illegal. If there were a reason to be truly suspicious of the photog, the rent-a-cop should have called the proper legal authorities. Not taken action into his own hands where he has no legal right to interfere. Jon.

And, as is so often the case, we have but one side of the story.

No rights were violated. The poster may not have liked the fact that he was told to stop, but being told to stop by a private security guard doesn't violate your rights, regardless of how you slice it. Was the security guard in the wrong? Yeah, maybe. But "wrong" doesn't always mean "illegal". The poster decided to stop; didn't have to, but he did. No rights violated there.

Again, I would've asked the guy why I couldn't take pictures of whatever it was I was taking pictures of. I may not have given him my ID, but I would've been civil about it.

It seems as though a lot of folks believe that there's no need to be civil at all.

Either way, I'd love to see some of the photos that were shot that day...

:lol:

Steve

[Jon Foster]

I understand your point and your right about only hearing one side of the story but still think the security guard was in the wrong. It sounds like the age old intimidation ploy used by the local bully. And on your cue, I'd like to see the pictures too!

Jon.

PS. 20 years? A lifer. What branch?

[Steve Parr]

I understand your point and your right about only hearing one side of the story but still think the security guard was in the wrong. It sounds like the age old intimidation ploy used by the local bully. And on your cue, I'd like to see the pictures too!

Jon.

PS. 20 years? A lifer. What branch?

Navy. 20 years, 11 days.

Not that I was countin'...

:lol:

Steve

[Jon Foster]

Navy. 20 years, 11 days.

Not that I was countin'...

:lol:

Steve

That's a long time... Out of six of us, my oldest brother was the only one to stick it out to the end. I think he did 24 years but I'm not sure of the exact number. He was Army Ranger's. His eye's were to bad for the Marines to take him :rolleyes: .

Jon.

[mrcoons]

And, as is so often the case, we have but one side of the story.

No rights were violated. The poster may not have liked the fact that he was told to stop, but being told to stop by a private security guard doesn't violate your rights, regardless of how you slice it. Was the security guard in the wrong? Yeah, maybe. But "wrong" doesn't always mean "illegal". The poster decided to stop; didn't have to, but he did. No rights violated there.

Again, I would've asked the guy why I couldn't take pictures of whatever it was I was taking pictures of. I may not have given him my ID, but I would've been civil about it.

It seems as though a lot of folks believe that there's no need to be civil at all.

Either way, I'd love to see some of the photos that were shot that day...

:lol:

Steve

I have to agree with Steve. I've followed this posting with interest since it started and he has stated this the way I wish I could have. Thanks Steve.