Broward Judge Slaps Down Fort Lauderdale PD For Harrassing Photographers

After the Fort Lauderdale police illegally tried to enforce a city statute prohibiting photography in public places and arrested a number of photographers (myself included), attorney Normal Elliot Kent pressed for, and was issued an emergency court order prohibiting the Fort Lauderdale Police Department (FLPD) from harassing photographers taking photographs within public areas of the city.

The city ordinance they attempted to use to illegally restrict the First Amendment rights of members of the press only prohibits commercial photography without a permit on the beaches of Fort Lauderdale, the off duty FLPD officers working detail on the set of Rock of Ages illegally expanded the ordinance to include photography from any public area near the set, as set which was discovered to not be properly permitted with the city and as such was within itself a public area.

»blogs.nppa.org/advocac​y/2011/06/···-public/

»blogs.nppa.org/advocac​y/files/20···rder.pdf

Wayne

That's good to know, my school is in ft. lauderdale, I have taken pictures all over the city and never had problems with the police. I didn't even know they were filming a movie there.

wow that sucks it must of been a headache, is it true that florida is one of the few states that u need premission to photg. a person (like in the park)

Juggie305 wrote in post #12646609
wow that sucks it must of been a headache, is it true that florida is one of the few states that u need premission to photg. a person (like in the park)

That isn't true in any of the states. The general rule of thumb is if you are in public, your property or private property which you are permitted to be on, you can photograph anything/anyone in public.

Norm Kent is the man.

alabama1980 wrote in post #12648426
That isn't true in any of the states. The general rule of thumb is if you are in public, your property or private property which you are permitted to be on, you can photograph anything/anyone in public.

Well, generally. There are exceptions with regard to commercial activities and other activities that reasonably endanger the public or impledes the rights of others to enjoy the area, or harms the area. Governments can control photography in those kinds of circumstances. It's still the old "Your right to swing your fist stops at the tip of my nose" concept.

alabama1980 wrote in post #12648426
That isn't true in any of the states. The general rule of thumb is if you are in public, your property or private property which you are permitted to be on, you can photograph anything/anyone in public.

Right, but you can't use their image for commercial purposes without their permission. Common sense needs to rule, however; that wouldn't stop a guy from coming up and punching you in the nose for taking a picture of his gf or kid.

Granted, you would need a model release to use the photos for commercial use. However, remember that "editorial use" does not have the same restrictions. Many pro and semi-pro photographers would classify their work as Press Photography or photojournalism which usually doesn't need a release. (I know almost everyone here knows that).

As for Government restrictions, you would have a hard time proving the need for a restriction except in the event of National security (not National security and event security are two totally different things).

For those whose photography is art (even if you make money on it), ask yourself if challenging a restriction is worth your art. If your photography is part of the Free Press, remember the more they want you to not take a photo, the more likely it is newsworthy (yes, there are exceptions).

Although I occasionally do some freelance press photography, I would hardly classify myself as even semi-pro, however I am very glad that the legal system still occasionally moves toward a Free Press instead of away from it. I am also glad that you artists in Fort Lauderdale will continue to be able to practice your art.