| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/04/2006 11:53:52 PM · #1 |
Apologies if it's already been posted...
//www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 12:03:47 AM · #2 |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 12:04:02 AM · #3 |
| Hadn't seen it, now I have. You get my thanks at least. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 12:10:48 AM · #4 |
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
What do you think about this? Seems a little simplistic... |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 12:37:37 AM · #5 |
looks good - and somewhat at odds with "conventional wisdom"
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:34:09 AM · #6 |
Pretty interesting. Seems no matter what your rights to take photos are, the security officers can probably still rough you up if they feel like it though.
Part of that says that if you're banned from a place (possibly for taking photos) and you return, it's trespassing.. so if you aren't banned for it, and you take photos on your first visit to the place, you aren't in fact committing trespassing?
I'd be interested to know if one has the right to run from a security officer if they tried to physically restrain you without proof of a crime being committed, even if you were on their business's property...
I think I'll keep shooting stuff, and if the owner comes out I'll just ask them to let me go, or call the police, then let the cops sort it out next time.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:48:32 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Part of that says that if you're banned from a place (possibly for taking photos) and you return, it's trespassing.. so if you aren't banned for it, and you take photos on your first visit to the place, you aren't in fact committing trespassing? |
Considering that it takes being banned from a place to make it traspassing, then yes the first visit would not be illegal or the second or third. It's the visit after the one that they say that your are personea non grata that you'll be charged with traspassing if caught. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:51:32 AM · #8 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Part of that says that if you're banned from a place (possibly for taking photos) and you return, it's trespassing.. so if you aren't banned for it, and you take photos on your first visit to the place, you aren't in fact committing trespassing? |
Right. A necessary component of "trespass" is notification. If they ban you from the mall and you still go back in, you're trespassing. Notification can be individual or general; property can be "posted" to meet this requirement, but generally you cannot be prosecuted for trespassing on unfenced, unposted property, for example.
R. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:53:00 AM · #9 |
Hey Jon, are you going to print out a copy of the photographers rights to carry around with you?
//www.dpchallenge.com/forum.php?action=read&FORUM_THREAD_ID=321287 |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 02:35:30 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right. A necessary component of "trespass" is notification. If they ban you from the mall and you still go back in, you're trespassing. Notification can be individual or general; property can be "posted" to meet this requirement, but generally you cannot be prosecuted for trespassing on unfenced, unposted property, for example.
R. |
OK, I see. But it is technically trespassing if you have a camera out and are using it, and they have a sign prohibiting photography, right? I guess that's what my particular incident was based on...
Originally posted by _eug:
Hey Jon, are you going to print out a copy of the photographers rights to carry around with you?
|
Probably not a bad plan... heh
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 02:37:03 AM · #11 |
I encountered a situation just last week. I was at the local train station, the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego to take some pictures for the urban challenge. It is a local landmark and is seen in postcards and calendars. Carrying my camera in my hand, I walked from the street through the open courtyard area in front which has a fountain in it, and went inside. I took several pictures and then wandered to where the trains come to see if there was anything interesting there. This area is open to anyone and you do not have to have a ticket to be there. A woman in uniform walked up to me and asked me not to take any pictures. I figured fine, maybe it is considered a security issue out here (the area is also easily visible from a streed across from the tracks). No problem. I went back in and took a couple more there in the waiting room. On my way outside I stopped next to the doorway because there was some nice lighting on some birds of paradise. I am outside the station now- near the fountain. There are lots of other people there as well. I took a few shots of the flowers and started to walk towards the street in front. I noticed a man in a security guard uniform sitting next to the fountain. Without getting up he tells me I cannot take any pictures there. I am just shooting the flowers, I told him and showed him one on my monitor. He didn't say anything and I was leaving anyways. I had never encountered anytning like that there berore. At the tracks, yes- once, but never in front.
I was also told by a Segue riding security guard at an outdoor shopping mall at Christmas time not to take any pictures. I don't know if he meant of him or of anything. There I just chose to be more discrete. Here is my "illegal flower" picture: //img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/JeffryZ/BirdOfP.jpg
One of my waiting room shots: //img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/JeffryZ/Waiting.jpg
And one from inside the station on a previous visit: //img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/JeffryZ/WaitingRoom.jpg
The front street and fountain area are directly ahead- the tracks are to the right. It is also a trolley stop.
The bench the guard was on is just out of this shot on the left. The flowers in question would be behind the man in this picture of the outside. Why do I feel I am trying to prove my case? Oh well. //img.photobucket.com/albums/v243/JeffryZ/PICT0129.jpg
Message edited by author 2006-01-05 02:51:50. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 02:55:53 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
I'd be interested to know if one has the right to run from a security officer if they tried to physically restrain you without proof of a crime being committed, even if you were on their business's property... |
I'd be surprised if one *didn't* have this right, or even the right with proof (although if you try and run it would probably be used as further evidence of guilt). A security officer is not a constable.
When looking up information to confirm my beliefs, I came across //www.crimedoctor.com/security_guards_2.htm (the site in general is a good read). I have yet to find any laws against resisting citizen arrests; all ``resisting arrest'' laws I have come across explicitly mention duly appointed police officers (or equivalent verbiage). |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 04:16:29 AM · #13 |
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right. A necessary component of "trespass" is notification. If they ban you from the mall and you still go back in, you're trespassing. Notification can be individual or general; property can be "posted" to meet this requirement, but generally you cannot be prosecuted for trespassing on unfenced, unposted property, for example.
R. |
OK, I see. But it is technically trespassing if you have a camera out and are using it, and they have a sign prohibiting photography, right? I guess that's what my particular incident was based on... |
No. The issue of "trespass" and the issue of "photography" are entirely separate. Basically, they cannot deny you the right to take pictures (this is very loosely stated) but they are within their rights to deny you access to the property, so you won't be ABLE to shoot.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 07:09:58 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right. A necessary component of "trespass" is notification. If they ban you from the mall and you still go back in, you're trespassing. Notification can be individual or general; property can be "posted" to meet this requirement, but generally you cannot be prosecuted for trespassing on unfenced, unposted property, for example.
R. |
OK, I see. But it is technically trespassing if you have a camera out and are using it, and they have a sign prohibiting photography, right? I guess that's what my particular incident was based on... |
No. The issue of "trespass" and the issue of "photography" are entirely separate. Basically, they cannot deny you the right to take pictures (this is very loosely stated) but they are within their rights to deny you access to the property, so you won't be ABLE to shoot.
Robt. |
A property owner absolutely can deny you the right to take photographs on their property, so long as they notify you. If a sign is posted on the front door, that constitutes notification, as does them telling you. Many businesses, including the retailer I work at part-time, post a "no photography" rule on the front door. Absent that type of notification, you basically have a right to assume permission to take photographs unless and until you are told otherwise. Once you are told to stop, you must stop.
~Terry
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 07:19:09 AM · #15 |
Your entry to privately owned areas open to the public may be subject to certain terms: eg printed on your rail or entrance ticket, or denoted by "no photography" signs. If you enter a place where it is a term of your entry that photography is not permitted, by taking photographs you are in breach of that term. The onwer's remedy would include the ability to sue you for any damage that you have caused, or losses suffered as a consequence, or profits made in breach. For example, if you make a photo taken in breach available commercially, you may be potentially liable to hand over your profits, or account for the corresponding lost sales incurred by the owner.
In practice, where a photograph in breach causes no damage to the owners of the space where you took the photograph, their practical remedy may be limited to withdrawing their permission for you to enter the space (by expelling/banning you from the site).
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 07:42:03 AM · #16 |
| mark........... and thank you for the info |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 09:36:42 AM · #17 |
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
I was at the local train station, the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego to take some pictures ...A woman in uniform walked up to me and asked me not to take any pictures. |
I was chased out of a subway station in D.C. for trying to take a motion blur photo of a train, too. This is one of the dumbest results of "homeland security" policies. If a terrorist sat down with a sketch pad for hours and drew the station, I doubt anyone would question it. |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 09:47:04 AM · #18 |
| Although he mentions "you can't use someone's likeness for a purely commercial purpose", he neglects to mention that the same is true for property. Disneyland encourages people to take pictures; it preserves happy memories that make people want to return and even puts thoughts of visiting the park in the heads of their friends. But don't try to use a picture of Sleeping Beauty Castle commercially without permission! |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 09:49:38 AM · #19 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Originally posted by JeffryZ:
I was at the local train station, the Santa Fe Depot in downtown San Diego to take some pictures ...A woman in uniform walked up to me and asked me not to take any pictures. |
I was chased out of a subway station in D.C. for trying to take a motion blur photo of a train, too. This is one of the dumbest results of "homeland security" policies. If a terrorist sat down with a sketch pad for hours and drew the station, I doubt anyone would question it. |
Here is my motion blur in D.C. subway. I use P&S with small tripod.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 09:52:29 AM · #20 |
Oh, believe me, I still got the shots. ;-)
 |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 10:10:46 AM · #21 |
com'on
everybody knows terrorists use DSLRs not P&S or camera phones
'tis a strange world |
|
|
|
01/05/2006 11:26:46 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by ralphnev:
com'on
everybody knows terrorists use DSLRs not P&S or camera phones
'tis a strange world |
Actually, a terrorist using a DSLR is not such a far fetched idea, rather it would be a case of "hide in plain sight".
|
|
|
|
01/05/2006 01:24:43 PM · #23 |
Originally posted by ClubJuggle:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Originally posted by MadMan2k:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
Right. A necessary component of "trespass" is notification. If they ban you from the mall and you still go back in, you're trespassing. Notification can be individual or general; property can be "posted" to meet this requirement, but generally you cannot be prosecuted for trespassing on unfenced, unposted property, for example.
R. |
OK, I see. But it is technically trespassing if you have a camera out and are using it, and they have a sign prohibiting photography, right? I guess that's what my particular incident was based on... |
No. The issue of "trespass" and the issue of "photography" are entirely separate. Basically, they cannot deny you the right to take pictures (this is very loosely stated) but they are within their rights to deny you access to the property, so you won't be ABLE to shoot.
Robt. |
A property owner absolutely can deny you the right to take photographs on their property, so long as they notify you. If a sign is posted on the front door, that constitutes notification, as does them telling you. Many businesses, including the retailer I work at part-time, post a "no photography" rule on the front door. Absent that type of notification, you basically have a right to assume permission to take photographs unless and until you are told otherwise. Once you are told to stop, you must stop.
~Terry |
Yes, but his "remedy" is to escort you off the property. The taking of pictures is not "illegal", it's against his RULES. He has the right to remove you, and to deny you access, but he does not have the right to, say, take your memory card away from you. It's a very important distinction. LegalBeagle is making this distinctiona lso.
Robt. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 09:10:33 PM EDT.
