DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> US Courthouse grounds private property?
Pages:  
Showing posts 26 - 50 of 57, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/26/2008 08:58:21 AM · #26
Originally posted by Photomom1981:
I pose as a tourist while a case is going in, the guy walks out free after court or even in custody.. here i am taking pictures of the cute little birdy, and all of a suddon pull a gun cause I didn't think he should walk free or live in prison for what he/she did.. get where I am going with that?


Heh. I can do that without carrying a camera to get in my way. As Doc's experience indicates the quickest way to get noticed is to carry one.
08/26/2008 09:05:05 AM · #27
Originally posted by violinist123:
I have to say that this country is really starting to suck.


Starting? It's been in full out suckin' mode since Bush got elected to a 2nd term.
 08/26/2008 09:43:40 AM · #28
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If photography is banned, then why wouldn't it be banned for everybody? what basis could a public institution use to come up with such a principle?

With courthouses, as with hospitals, the photography restrictions serve to protect the privacy of the clients and workers.

I was at a courthouse some time ago which had some interesting architectural details in the lobby; I asked one of the guards, and he told me which office to visit to get a permit to shoot (haven't done it yet); presumably the permit would specify any conditions or restrictions, like not including any people. I guess I don't have a problem with that.
 08/26/2008 09:55:45 AM · #29
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Certain public facilities ARE subject to restrictions on photography. Military bases for one.


I would not even think about pulling out my camera and start photographing a military base............lol I am not getting shot
 08/26/2008 09:55:46 AM · #30
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Certain public facilities ARE subject to restrictions on photography. Military bases for one. I would expect that Federal courthouses, prisons and other DOJ facilities or at least portions of them are much the same.


Meh. Military bases...maybe. Courthouses? I don't think so. Do all the photographers for the papers and TV stations covering news have to get special permission?

HAHA. I'm searching around for a homepage or contact number and come across a PDF that basically gives you a floorplan of the building. Stuff like this just drives me nuts.


lol wow so you can find something like that on their website but they may not let us take photos outside the building

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 09:59:38.
 08/26/2008 10:32:47 AM · #31
Originally posted by jtf6agent:
I just shot a guy who stabbed his mommy becuase she told him to turn the music down.


Choose your words carefully. ;)
 08/26/2008 10:53:59 AM · #32
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
If photography is banned, then why wouldn't it be banned for everybody? what basis could a public institution use to come up with such a principle?


Security... I don't imagine these people simply toss a coin in the air in order to make a decision. Things like threat risk analysis do come into play when deciding who gets access and who doesn't.

Although not familiar with the process in the USA, I would think that those responsible for security have a good working relationship with the press, and ensure that only accredited individuals can access certain areas.

In a similar vein, the press readily comply with these guidelines as it ensures that they have a good location to record activities, and that the said area is not filled with non press individuals.

Mine is sheer speculation and I eagerly await the response you get when you get to speak to someone in authority.

Ray
 08/26/2008 11:18:55 AM · #33
I look forward to hearing back what the doc found out about their policy. I was able to get lots of shots of our courthouse a few months back, and I was all over the place outside, including laying on my back on the grass shooting upwards. Then again, it was Saturday.
 08/26/2008 12:46:27 PM · #34
OK, I had a conversation with a supervisor at the courthouse. He said the policy is "no photography" on the grounds anywhere (from the outer sidewalk is fine). Interestingly he said the justification for this is a court order from the District of Oregon which basically treats the grounds as private property (even though he says it's considered public for other considerations such as protests). Also interestingly he said it has been the case for "twenty years" and such a policy predates 9/11. I'm not quite sure what he means here as the courthouse has only been around since 2006, but maybe the same policy existed for the old courthouse or something (if there was one). He gave me a contact at the GSA which runs the building to see if I can get a look at this court order. I left a message, but I'm not sure if I'll hear back from him or not.

It's probably legit, although it seems sad to me. To actually check up on such a thing would likely require wading through a ton of bureaucratic tape. I'll give it a try, but maybe they know I'll only try so hard.
 08/26/2008 12:48:23 PM · #35
Write your congressman. If he/she isn't too busy pretending that a convention full of insiders is the country's "new hope" maybe they will entertain the thought of codifying what a photographer can and can't do in law.
 08/26/2008 01:00:12 PM · #36
DrAchoo, I have had to definately do some photography around restricted areas for the newspaper I work for. Trust me, I have spent some good long hours on the phone with 15 different agencies trying to get permission to shoot one building. Does the media have to go through the bs too? Yeah, fortunately, we get paid for that time from our publishers though :)
 08/26/2008 01:19:58 PM · #37
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
...the policy is "no photography" on the grounds anywhere (from the outer sidewalk is fine)...


Reminds me of when I was in Okinawa...the F22 Raptors where there doing a bit of training (more likly showing their power off for other countries to fear). Well they set up one Raptor in a hanger and allowed anyone with a military ID to go in and talk with the crew, have a guided tour around it and even take pictures PROVIDED you were outside of the yellow rope that surrounded the aircraft.

It was kind of crazy cause inside the rope, that you went in on the tours, was like 10 feet at it's widest point, and you weren't allowed to take pictures in there, but step outside the rope and you could snap all day long (I was there for like 3 hours getting autographs from the flight crew on this picture.

So anyone with a little bit of telephoto could probably get just as much detail from outside the rope as inside. Heck the base newspaper guy had a huge piece of glass on his camera. I don't even think they had rules about tripods either.

(BTW...they said the Japenese (and I'm sure other countries) hated the aircraft cause all it's bombs are in it's belly so they couldn't see what it was carrying like most aircraft lol)

Message edited by author 2008-08-26 13:20:33.
 08/26/2008 02:16:43 PM · #38
There are all kinds of restrictions on 'public' buildings - hours of operation for one. I can dig a hole in my yard or cut down a tree but I can't to that on 'public' property, now can I?
The White House and lots of federal buildings have rules about access, photography and more. I agree that it's kind of silly to try and stop photography - if one was planning to attack a building or free a prisoner on his way to court there are plenty of other ways to do the recconaissance. I was chased for taking pics of the SIGN of a prison from the side of the road. It was for some challenge or another a few years back. Most prisons (state ones) have big signs that say 'no stopping' on the roads around it (this one didn't). I guess I could have been planning a prison break LOL

But if it was your job to protect the building or occupants or such, would you make a rule that said 'no loitering'? Probably, and someone hanging around taking pics would fall into that classification, but it's even better to say no photography.

I agree most of the no-photo rules are not going to affect the evil doers of the world butI understand the reasoning behind them, and you or me or all of DPC won't get them changed.
 08/26/2008 02:31:56 PM · #39
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Most prisons (state ones) have big signs that say 'no stopping' on the roads around it (this one didn't). I guess I could have been planning a prison break LOL

 08/26/2008 06:07:05 PM · #40
Was at court today and yes it seems that you cannot shoot the building only the people entering it. Never used to be a problem.
 08/27/2008 09:11:36 PM · #41
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 21:11:47.
 08/27/2008 10:29:06 PM · #42
Well, my property deed says I own to the middle of the road, but then it also says the 'state' ha a right of way for the road and utilities of X number of feet (15 feet from the side of the road into my yard). So I suppose technically it's private property so I could stop someone from standing on my half of the road and taking pictures. I don't know to make that happen unless perhaps I was a big corporation LOL
 08/27/2008 11:12:12 PM · #43
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Well, my property deed says I own to the middle of the road, but then it also says the 'state' ha a right of way for the road and utilities of X number of feet (15 feet from the side of the road into my yard). So I suppose technically it's private property so I could stop someone from standing on my half of the road and taking pictures. I don't know to make that happen unless perhaps I was a big corporation LOL


Conversely, it could be argued that people could stand 15 feet onto your property and tell you that they were on public land. :O)

Ray
 08/27/2008 11:29:43 PM · #44
Originally posted by violinist123:
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.


Wow. Well, you never get quite the full story, but I just don't know what to think about such a thing. I think the hard part is if sidewalks can be private property, then it's hard to know when the cop is telling it like it is, or just blowing smoke up your ass. Really, in the arrest I'd think they should have stopped pushing him once he was one step on the street, but what do I know?
 08/27/2008 11:38:26 PM · #45
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by violinist123:
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.


Wow. Well, you never get quite the full story, but I just don't know what to think about such a thing. I think the hard part is if sidewalks can be private property, then it's hard to know when the cop is telling it like it is, or just blowing smoke up your ass. Really, in the arrest I'd think they should have stopped pushing him once he was one step on the street, but what do I know?


Well I doubt this would have been an issue if he was shooting some joe schmo from the same sidewalk.

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 23:39:01.
 08/27/2008 11:56:16 PM · #46
Originally posted by violinist123:
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.


Pushing someone out into the street seems to be kinda stupid. Dangerous too. ABC guy should have just fell over backwards on the first push. Went to the hospital rather than jail.
All charges will be dropped anyway. This just shows how important that we don't find out who our countries leaders are cavorting with. I'd have figured one of the big 3 would have gotten away with it. I bet Al Qaeda could have photographed all of them and never raised a whiff of suspicion
from the police. LOL

Message edited by author 2008-08-27 23:58:03.
 08/28/2008 09:00:46 AM · #47
Maybe Orwell was right. Just a bit off on the date.
 08/28/2008 11:27:23 AM · #48
Originally posted by violinist123:
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.

Hopefully he sues the city and presses charges against the cop.
Nothing will change until actions like this start affecting the department and individuals who abuse their power.
 08/28/2008 11:42:17 AM · #49
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by violinist123:
Not a courthouse, but this seemed relevant.


Wow. Well, you never get quite the full story, but I just don't know what to think about such a thing. I think the hard part is if sidewalks can be private property, then it's hard to know when the cop is telling it like it is, or just blowing smoke up your ass. Really, in the arrest I'd think they should have stopped pushing him once he was one step on the street, but what do I know?


They had to keep pushing to show how tough they were.

But I agree that there is more to the story, and perhaps they nicely asked him to move first.
08/28/2008 12:09:56 PM · #50
From the associated press. A bit more of the story:

"An ABC News producer covering the Democratic convention was pushed into traffic by a sheriff's deputy on Wednesday and then arrested, the network said.

Asa Eslocker was arrested on charges of interference, trespass and failure to obey a lawful order.

Authorities said Eslocker repeatedly had been told to stop blocking a sidewalk and an entrance to Denver's Brown Palace Hotel. He wasn't arrested until three hours after the first warning, police said."
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 11:52:17 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 08/14/2025 11:52:17 AM EDT.