What exactly is a "public" place?

Roy Mathers wrote in post #6006518
So I could walk into any City Hall or State Capitol and take pictures without hindrance?

That would be the other 1%.

The above two posts illustrate why I think bumgardnern's definition was a little awry!

Roy Mathers wrote in post #6006518
So I could walk into any City Hall or State Capitol and take pictures without hindrance?

Sure you can, within reason. We have people taking pictures in our capitol all the time. "Within reason" is what matters. Not being disruptive, not venturing into off-limits areas (like people's offices), following rules about the use of flash photography, etc.

I recently attended a graduation ceremony at the US Secret Service training compound here in the Washington DC suburbs. They gave us a quick bus tour of the compound which was interesting. We got to see the hogans alley style shooting gallery... a REAL front half section of an older Air Force One plane used for training - which they jokingly refer to as Air Force One-Half, and the mock city where they train which was the most impressive... and a few other smaller training spots. Needless to say we didn't get to see inside some of the buildings.

Anyway, the training agent on our bus explained that they have a pool in one building we passed - for water survival training. But the interesting thing, and reason this came to mind while reading this post, is that he said they had to make the pool like 1 foot less in size than a standard olympic sized pool becuase the agent claimed that any US government owned pool over a certain size has to be open to public use to a certain extent. And they joked that it would be hard to have USSS agents training in the pool with little kids running around yelling marco polo Anyway, just thought people reading this thread might find that somewhat relevent example amusing.

griptape wrote in post #6005832
As for people, if they are in the mall, and the mall doesn't ask you to stop, you can take pictures of them because there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. They are out in a mall that anyone can go to, and should expect for other people to see them, including people with cameras. You can't use the images for commercial purpose without their consent, but you can use them for personal use (if you just REALLY need to finish that "people I don't know walking around the mall" series).

If what you say is true, how do paparazzi make a living selling photos to tabloids? Surely all those celebs are not signing releases allowing those revealing and/or embarrassing pictures of themselves to be published. I was under the impression that because the pictures were taken in a location where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy no consent was required for any usage.

BTBeilke wrote in post #6007542
If what you say is true, how do paparazzi make a living selling photos to tabloids? Surely all those celebs are not signing releases allowing those revealing and/or embarrassing pictures of themselves to be published. I was under the impression that because the pictures were taken in a location where there was no reasonable expectation of privacy no consent was required for any usage.

Paparazzi fall under the "editorial" use of images I believe.

And from what I gather from all the responses, it is not always a solid black line that helps you determine if a place is public or private. Some places are public, but another place (of the same type) may be private.
Am I getting this right?

Exactly, paparazzi falls under editorial. You couldn't take a paparazzi image of, let's say paris hilton, and put it on a billboard with her endorsing Coca Cola.

griptape wrote in post #6007737
Exactly, paparazzi falls under editorial. You couldn't take a paparazzi image of, let's say paris hilton, and put it on a billboard with her endorsing Coca Cola.

OK, I see what you are saying. I interpreted "commercial" as meaning selling the picture for money as opposed to strictly personal use. So then the original statement should read:

You can't use the images for commercial purpose without their consent, but you can use them for editorial or personal use...

BTBeilke wrote in post #6007866
OK, I see what you are saying. I interpreted "commercial" as meaning selling the picture for money as opposed to strictly personal use. So then the original statement should read:

You can't use the images for commercial purpose without their consent, but you can use them for editorial or personal use...

If I say you can't use them for commercial purposes, it's implied that you CAN use them for other purposes.

Yup. Paparazzi use their pictures "editorially." That makes a paparazzo an editor. And any writer (myself included) can tell you exactly what an editor is! (But not here! This is a family forum!)

My definition of public is not wrong but you could call it incomplete. It is some what of a legal "yes, no" answer.

Here is another definition. I tried to find a copy of Blacks but seem to have misplaced it. "A public place is generally an indoor or outdoor area, whether privately or publicly owned, to which the public have access by right or by invitation, expressed or implied, whether by payment of money or not, but not a place when used exclusively by one or more individuals for a private gathering or other personal purpose."

I prefer my first definition. It has flaws, but I believe it is a better definition of a public place. My emphasis being on public. My definition falls short when it comes to government owned secured facilities, but that is where other laws also supersede this access. By including places open to the public by invitation (aka privately owned places that are open to the public) into the definition we have many legal ramifications which we should not be comfortable with. My point being this is a complex legal issue.

griptape wrote in post #6007915
If I say you can't use them for commercial purposes, it's implied that you CAN use them for other purposes.

If you say so. I found the original statement confusing because you explicitly listed personal use as an alternative to commercial usage as if those were the only two primary options. Your original statement could just have easily implied that all uses other than personal required consent of the subject(s). At least that is the way in which it read to me.

I've got my hands full with my wife's expectation that I should be able to read her mind at all times. In other areas of my life I strive for far more unambiguous communications.

The paparazzi issue is also a confusing one. Generally speaking photos taken by them are "sold" for editorial use. Often times they are working expressly for a media outlet. Their are cases when the paparazzi have been sued over usage.

20droger wrote in post #6006716
A public place is often confused with a place that has public access. Many places, such as malls and store, have free public access. That does not make them public places, just places open to the public.

Also, places owned by the public may or may not be public places. Schools are typically owned by the public, but they are not public places. They are regulated public properties, which would perhaps better be thought of as government-owned places. The government, in this case, has the status of a private entity. The fact that you are "part owner" of the government is irrelevant.

Parks, beaches, and, yes, Area 51 fall into the govenment-ownership category. Access is defined by regulation. In the case of a beach, the regulations are simple (and usually obvious), and may include hours of operation, no alcohol, no dogs, etc. In the case of Area 51, the regulations are a bit more strict.

Another way of looking at it. Let's say you own a large block of Microsoft stock. This makes you a part owner of Microsoft. Does this give you leave to freely go where you want and photgraph what you wish on Microsoft's property? Not on your life! Part ownership of an entity does not grant license.

Thanks, the regulated public properties and schools example was what I was looking for. Other examples I had in mind were public jails. I hadn't really thought of the Area 51 or secret service examples, 'cause I just assumed that the military works, ah, differently.

So what's necessary to go from a public space to a regulated public property? Why can the gov'ment regulate park hours, but not sidewalk hours? Or can they, but just don't? (Hmm, maybe they do: signs on roads saying "no trucks", etc.)

20droger wrote in post #6006716
Remember that "Sue" is not only the name of a pretty girl, it is also a verb.

Judging by the Sue's I know, neither noun nor verb is all that pretty.

We here in Arizona have a good example of govenmental restrictions over what would normally be considered a free-use public area, the roads.

Many if not most of our roads pass over open country and follow the contours of the land. This means lots of dips. Most of these dips have signs that say "Do not enter when flooded" (known locally as DNEs). This is because this part of the country is subject to flash flooding, especially during monsoon season (July through September).

There are six such marked dips between the highway and my house, and they are often flooded at this time of the year.

What you are supposed to do when you encounter a flooded dip is: 1. find a different route (not always possible); or 2. wait for the flooding to subside (may take a couple of hours or more). Many people choose to traverse the flood. Usually this works, but not always.

If you enter a flooded dip on an otherwise open road, and get stuck, you WILL be cited. If you require rescue, you WILL be obliged to pay for the rescue (which is very expensive). If the flooding was so bad that ADOT (Arizona Department of Transportation) put up barricades, and you went around them, you WILL be in deep doo-doo.

This is so common out here that there is invariably a news clip showing someone being rescued by helicopter during or after virtually every rainstorm (their car is usually on its way to the Gulf of California via the water route). The state simply got tired of saving all these idiots at public expense. They therefore passed a law making it the offenders expense. We call this "the stupid motorist law."

And yes, it is an example of government regulation of an open public place, the road.