Your Right To Take Pictures (in the USA)

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 …108&highlight=p​hotography

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

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

Steve

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!

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,

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

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.

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

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.

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.