Photographer's rights upheld

In today's NY Times: http://lens.blogs.nyti​mes.com …building/?ref=t​odayspaper

The right to photograph federal buildings from a public location was upheld. It seems that it was never denied by law, but that didn't stop security agents from harassing photographers when they didn't like what they were taking pictures of.

Now we just have to hope that someone in charge of security teams passes this tidbit on instead of filing it in the circular file and staying with the old regs. Change comes slowly in official rules enforcement.

FYI, I believe there's a post on this already. But yes, more great news.

I wish my local reservoir company would allow photography of the reservoir and nature areas.
They offer a "watershed recreation pass" that for $50/year you get a key and can go inside the fences for walking the trail system they built. Except they prohibit photography within their grounds.

I feel that that's a ridiculous restriction IMO because how could a photograph hurt the reservoir in anyway. I'm not a terrorist and I don't plan to pollute the water.

They say they have security that walks thru hourly and will stop and photography but they also restrict fishing yet I see people fishing everyday off the bridges around the reservoir.

Just sucks IMO

lol . . . are you guys in touch with the reality of today's world?

Its not unique to the US. The police and private security goons here in the UK regularly make themselves look idiots in the press. The weekly magazine Amateur Photographer is publicising details of every event they get to hear about.

The powers that be (including the Metropolitan Chief Constable and Home Office) claim that instruction have been issued to the lunatic elemernts in the police force to calm it down. So far I've seen little or no sign of it. Given the lack of common sense of some in "the job", maybe I should not be surprised.

Riveredger wrote in post #11131948
lol . . . are you guys in touch with the reality of today's world?

So you are saying we should not be able to photograph federal buildings?

sigma pi wrote in post #11133827
So you are saying we should not be able to photograph federal buildings?

I'm saying that you should be able to understand why it would be an issue for those in charge of security.

Riveredger wrote in post #11134213
I'm saying that you should be able to understand why it would be an issue for those in charge of security.

Ah ok. But a simple google search comes up with this
http://maps.google.com …e=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Its kind of a moot point. What could some one be taking a picture of that would be sensitive to the security of the building?

sigma pi wrote in post #11134262
Ah ok. But a simple google search comes up with this
http://maps.google.com …e=UTF-8&sa=N&hl=en&tab=wl

Its kind of a moot point. What could some one be taking a picture of that would be sensitive to the security of the building?

Add to that "street view" and who needs to physically be there?

Shutterbug Doug wrote in post #11134490
Add to that "street view" and who needs to physically be there?

Which in a round about way feeds back into the question of "Why are you photographing this building?"

Maybe that's what goes through the mind of some of the truly overzealous security types?

- Google Earth
- Street View

"Maybe this guy/gal is looking for something in more detail? I'd better check it out..."

Just a thought...

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #11134505
Which in a round about way feeds back into the question of "Why are you photographing this building?"

Maybe that's what goes through the mind of some of the truly overzealous security types?

- Google Earth
- Street View

"Maybe this guy/gal is looking for something in more detail? I'd better check it out..."

Just a thought...

What would be so important to security on the outside of the building? Do they think that my camera can see through walls and get passwords? what about just walking buy and looking with my eyes to see detail?

just playing devils advocate.

DisrupTer911 wrote in post #11131283
I wish my local reservoir company would allow photography of the reservoir and nature areas.
They offer a "watershed recreation pass" that for $50/year you get a key and can go inside the fences for walking the trail system they built. Except they prohibit photography within their grounds.

I feel that that's a ridiculous restriction IMO because how could a photograph hurt the reservoir in anyway. I'm not a terrorist and I don't plan to pollute the water.

They say they have security that walks thru hourly and will stop and photography but they also restrict fishing yet I see people fishing everyday off the bridges around the reservoir.

Just sucks IMO

i had an incident in the devils tower park one time, park ranger got all pissy and said we needed a permit to be using DSLRS because we were probably going to sell our work. he actually made a few of the guys delete their video.

Fat Buff Guy wrote in post #11136074
i had an incident in the devils tower park one time, park ranger got all pissy and said we needed a permit to be using DSLRS because we were probably going to sell our work. he actually made a few of the guys delete their video.

Who did that guy think he was, the Department of Pre-Crime?

And this is the exact reason why I carry an extra cf card with me, always , just incase I'm told to delete something, a small slight of hand,switch, and delete

Takes seconds