Legality of taking pictures in Pittsburgh

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/23/2004 04:37:31 PM · #26

I which case I'd say "you know, every time one of you {security personnel} ends up calling their supervisor, it turns out that it really is OK for me to take these photos, as long as I'm not interfering with normal commerce." If they call in, you can read to them from the little pamphlet I linked to.

KevinRiggs

Canon EOS-1Ds

Canon EF 70-200mm f/2.8L IS USM

03/23/2004 04:40:47 PM · #27

I hope this is close enough to the subject:

Currently before the US Supreme Court is a case wherein a man was arrested for failing to give his name to a police officer when the officer asked. He chose to try and walk away. According to the news story that ran nationally yesterday afternoon (and I was feeding the baby so I only paid attention to portions) a man and a woman had a disagreement in an incorporated area around an eating establishment; no blows were exchanged, just words. When she called the police he decided to leave and figure it was all just a bad encounter but the officer detained him and eventually arrested him not for obstructing an investigation (which is what I would have expected) but for failure to given identification. I do remember hearing that Justice Scalia was quite vocal in his questioning regarding the rights of officers of the law to require anyone to represent themselves accurately during questioning. It seems like another Justice was paraphrased to say that if no laws had been broken then a lawful citizen should be allowed to simply walk away from questioning but you'd have to look up the case for yourselves if you are interested.
For my part I always carry model release forms with my name, address and phone number on them and I try to always carry business cards (although sometimes those get depleted and I forget to stock up before going back out). So far I've found that being up front with officers has always worked out for me but (political blurb) I don't happen to like the precedence it sets. I don't think al Qaida or many other terrorist orgs would want still photos as much as they would want videos and if someone really wanted layouts there are much easier ways to get that info than walking in front of a ranger or police officer or guard and taking photos but that's just my take. So I go with the flow and just call my representative to remind him that we're out here and appreciate the job he and the Executive branch are doing but that some of us don't want to give away all our liberties(/political blurb).

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

03/23/2004 04:52:49 PM · #28

Like I said up front, all sorts of civil disobedience and arguing with security guards, getting arrested by the police and having it later thrown out on appeal to a sane judge etc might be nice for someone who is a citizen. But you have a whole lot of rights that legal aliens are not afforded.

The current administration is also doing its best to remove any legal protections that are currently afforded to immigrants, such as basics like habeus corpus and other things you probably all take for granted in the constitution and bill of rights.

TommyMoe21

Canon EOS-7D Mark II

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/23/2004 04:59:31 PM · #29

Originally posted by vsmed1968:

Were you near O'Hare or Midway airport Tommy?

No Victoria, I was in Lisle. Near Rt.53 and Warrenville Rd.

Prof_Fate

03/23/2004 06:08:49 PM · #30

I too live in Pgh, and took pics of PPG on Sat March 13 (St Patrick's day parade was happening). My selfportrait on this site was taken that day - it is a reversed reflection in the PPG glass. My Parallel Lines entry is a block from PPG, and a pic of PPG is entered in a photo contest on another website as we speak. All I can say about hte security guard is that he was out of line, and most Pittsburghers are friendlier than that. Perhaps he is a cop wanna be on a power trip and this is how he gets his jollies. When I was taking pics I had my wife and children with me...OK, a stoller could hold some dynamite I suppose, but no one questioned me (or the 5,000+ drunks in market square) and there were LOTS of cops around (due to the driking in market square and the parade - teh second largest St Pats parade in teh US - a terrorist tarket for sure if you believe the evening news anyway).

I could see government buildings having some issues with photographs, and I know Norfolk Southern Railroad chases people, but as long as you are on public property there is nothing anyone can do legally to prevent you from photographing whatever you can see.

chris

alanfreed

Nikon Z9

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED

03/23/2004 07:20:51 PM · #31

I found the newspaper article I was looking for. It's a little different than what I remembered, but you might find it interesting anyway:

//www.post-gazette.com/pg/04002/257168.stm

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/23/2004 07:23:22 PM · #32

Originally posted by bestagents:

... as long as you are on public property there is nothing anyone can do legally to prevent you from photographing whatever you can see.

chris

They may be able to prevent you from using the images commercially if the building itself is copyrighted or contains a valid trademark.

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

03/23/2004 07:26:59 PM · #33

Originally posted by alansfreed:

I found the newspaper article I was looking for. It's a little different than what I remembered, but you might find it interesting anyway:

//www.post-gazette.com/pg/04002/257168.stm

As I put in my other post, they may be able to restrict your use of a copyrighted image (including a building), but not exercise "prior restraint" and prevent you from photographing it in the first place for personal or educational use ("fair use" under the Copyright Act).

flip89

Nikon D700

Nikon AF-S Zoom-Nikkor 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6G IF-ED VR

03/23/2004 07:30:25 PM · #34

Originally posted by Gordon:

Meant to bring this up while I was there but forgot. I was trying to take some arty pictures in the reflections of a building in downtown Pittsburgh (big mostly glass/black/ steel building, with a skating rink outside)

Some security guard told me I wasn't allowed to take pictures due to the terrorist attacks of 9/11. Said it was standard policy to stop anyone taking pictures of the buildings.

Anyone in Pittsburgh had problems doing that there ? It seems kinda stupid but left me a bit worried. I would have argued but I don't have the same rights as a citizen does and don't really want to get thrown out of the country.

Funny you said that. I was on my usual train on my way home today and happened to ride the first car so I had a good view of the tracks ahead while going through the subway. Perfect for the motion challenge! But the conductor told me to stop taking pictures. And he was quite adamant about it. (I live in Chicago.)

But come to think of it GeneralIE could be correct too. A student of mine was asked to remove some of her Chicago buildings pictures that she posted in some website because she was told that the skyline or whatever it was she had in the pictures was/were copyrighted.

Message edited by author 2004-03-23 19:32:15.

goinskiing

Canon EOS-6D

Canon EF 24-70mm f/2.8L USM

03/23/2004 07:30:34 PM · #35

Originally posted by alansfreed:

I found the newspaper article I was looking for. It's a little different than what I remembered, but you might find it interesting anyway:

//www.post-gazette.com/pg/04002/257168.stm

Thank you for the read. Very interesting.

blemt

Nikon D70

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Nikon

04/02/2004 03:26:40 PM · #36

It's important to try and keep in mind events around you when prepping for a photo shoot. For example, with the rail bombings in Madrid in March, trying to take pictures of a rail station/trains/public transit systems will draw more attention. Those employees have been told to look for suspicious behavior and I'm sure that taking pictures are included in their watch list. There is little uniformity to what authorites in various localities will say.

I live in the DC Metro area. I've had private security people tell me I can't use a tripod in some public access areas. I don't argue. I just remove the tripod and come back at a later date. The one place I don't use a tripod at all is the White House and the Capitol Dome area. I've been told by both Capitol Police and Uniformed Secret Service that tripods are not allowed. I'm not in the mood to challenge either group about my rights. :) If I'm told I am not allowed to shoot other public access areas, I very politely pack up and move on. There's no way for me to know if the Department of Homeland Security has issued some warning to those businesses.

While I do know my rights as a photographer, I choose not to get into an argument with rent a cops who are not in a poisition to back down. :)

[/url]

jmlelii

Nikon D850

Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 200-500mm f/5.6E ED VR

04/02/2004 04:26:13 PM · #37

Originally posted by TommyMoe21:

The same thing happened to me at a Hilton Hotel (exterior). It was the wrong time of day lighting wise, so it was no big deal. The funny thing is, he looked more like a terrorist than I do. It was in a western suburb of Chicago.

So what exactly does a terrorist look like? I want to know in case I run into one.

scalvert

Canon EOS-5D Mark III

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

04/02/2004 05:54:01 PM · #38

Shortly after 9/11, a couple of men made front page headlines when they were arrested near my house for videotaping a reservoir. This was a small Connecticut town with basically no commercial business. Turned out that they were just a couple of unfortunate college students trying out a new camcorder. The whole thing was just ridiculous... why would a terrorist need pictures of a reservoir to cause harm?

It reminds me of the REALLY stupid case of a gentleman in his 80's being hassled by security in Texas after 9/11 for trying to carry a dangerous object onto a plane... his Congressional Medal of Honor! Carrying a business card or model release might help (even though most 7th graders could print a business card).

Prof_Fate

04/02/2004 06:18:09 PM · #39

There was much discussion like this regarding railroad photos after 9.11 and when NS took over Conrail amongst rrailfans. NS is not railfan friendly. While picture taking itself may or may not be 'dangerous', it would provide a 'valid' excuse for being in a restricted area if questioned. The safest thing for security personnel is to chase you (or me) away. As the question was posed earlier in this thread, 'What does a terrorits look like?' - there is no definitive answer.

THe best defense is common sense and carry some form of info that explains what you are doing (inthe case of railfans, carry several railroad type magazines as the rent a cop may have no clue such a hobby / pastime exists).

chris

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/02/2004 10:07:18 PM · #40

Originally posted by bestagents:

'What does a terrorist look like?'

'foreign'

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

04/03/2004 12:50:48 AM · #41

Originally posted by Gordon:

Originally posted by bestagents:
'What does a terrorist look like?'

'foreign'

Like Timothy McVeigh did?

paganini

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/03/2004 01:49:57 AM · #42

I think it basically means, the terrorists have WON after 9/11. Just look at how they reacted.

I'll bet you have less of a hard time taking photos in Israel, than in the US. They know how to deal with threats there and they live with it. They grill the crap out of you before you'd enter the country :)

Pretty soon they're probably going to put in a new Patriot Act II, that would say that anyone with a camera MUST register with the federal government :) And any discharge, i mean, click of a the shutter has to be reported :) And you can't conceal carry a camera either.

paganini

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/03/2004 02:10:05 AM · #43

BTW, it's definitely legal as far as I know to take photos on a public sidewalk, outside of a private building.

As far as the various rules of not using tripods -- i think the cops wouldhave to show you the LAW wher eit says you can't use a tripod to photograph the whitehouse for it to stand. Basically, these security guys are looking for YOUR REACTION when they stop you from photographing. This is especially true when SS or Capitol cops do that. They're trained to question you even though you do have the rights to photograph it with or without a tripod. T hey jsut want to see how you react. (i.e. if you became nervous, etc. then they'll be more suspicious). The SS is very professional, so you can probably just ask them politely about why you can't use a tripod. (i.e. "Is it illegal? if so, can you point me to the statute?") I had worked on a concert once (classical chamber music) where it was hosted in Texas Governor's Mansion when Bush was running for presidency. It was PACKED of SS. They were extremely professional and very polite and if you ask them, they'll tell you why you can't go there or here, etc. They had no problems of me taking photos though, especially outside the premises on teh sidewalk :) It's a different thing when you're inside.

It's these other idiiots (the private security cops, the local cops) that wiould give you a tough time if you don't cooperate with them just by asking a question. I wouldn't worrya bout asking if you were near the Capitol or the White House.

This country has the tendency to be real pussy assed when confronted with perceived threats. It happened in WWII with the Internment camps of Japanese Americans (mind you, these aren't foreigners, they have full "rights" as US citizens) becuase of Hawaii. It happened righta fter 9/11 when a lot of muslims got arrested and put into NYC's prison for a long time. Nearly 99.9% of them had "minor immigration charges", none are charged with terrorism. Some are still there.

You aren't immuned to lose your rights just because you're a citizen. All they have to do is label you an "enemy combatant" and you lose nearly all rights. I guess it's harder to get a citizen than a foreigner -- i mean, all you have todo is tell the guy "Well, you dont' have this stamp on your passport, you're illegal" when maybe the immigration dumbass at the airport forgot to stamp it. Or, "This stamp is fake, you're illegal, arrest him".

Gordon

RIM BlackBerry Curve

Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM

04/03/2004 08:26:07 AM · #44

Yup - I've had no problems and have no complaints about the SS/ capitol building cops/ state troopers. They've come up and talked to me a few times (when I was doing what might have looked slightly weird) and usually ended up asking for camera recommendations. (I realise this can also be a subtle way of asking if I do actually know anything about the equipment I'm carrying around - but it feels a whole lot more friendly)

They've let me use a tripod in side the capitol building too, I just asked first - they seemed pleasantly surprised that I didn't just assume I could and bothered to ask them - they even helped direct people around me for a few minutes :)

muckpond

Nikon D200

Sigma 15mm f/2.8 EX Diagonal Fisheye for Nikon

04/03/2004 09:35:45 AM · #45

just a side note. we probably shouldn't refer to the Secret Service as the SS. LOL.

but, some of you will probably disagree.

RickDN

Canon EOS-10D

04/03/2004 10:45:00 AM · #46

Various levels of Government have always been antsy about photographers. In 1971, we had just come across the border into US from Mexico, at Laredo. I decided I wanted a few shots of the Border station. I was standing over 100 yards away on a public sidewalk in front of a store. Almost as quick as I had my tripod set-up a Border Patrol officer cam running over. Among other things came out that it is a violation of Federal law to photograph a Border check station. He said that if I'd actually taken photos he'd have to seize my film !!
Paranoia is not all that new...
R.

paganini

Canon EF 70-200mm f/4.0L USM

04/04/2004 04:28:21 PM · #47

yeah, they are looking for security risks by asking you if you know your equipment. :) it's all scripted.

The true professionals are really nice to deal with, it's the dumbass $6 dollar an hour security guards that would be rude to people.

Heck, i even got stopped yesterday for photographing in the Wildflower Center by a security guard :) cuz i went in at around 8 am, when the center opens at 9am. I just asked the guy in front if i can get in, and he lets me in (after i paid the bankrobber's fee of $7, when all you have to do is park your car about 200 feet down the road and walked through the back :P). Anyway, this guy was friendly but was really pesky about asking who lets me in, whether I was taking a class. 9 am is just too late for photographing these flowers unless it's overcast.

Originally posted by Gordon:

deapee

Kodak V803

Nikon AF Nikkor 50mm f/1.8D

04/05/2004 01:05:45 AM · #48

if you were a terrorist, planning an attack with a $10,000,000,000 nuclear bomb, wouldn't your leader give you some sort of hidden camera??? anyway...I've run into this problem once or twice. The fact is, it's a public place...you're allowed to take pictures. True, it's a privately owned building, but it is open to the public...but i'm thickheaded.

BrennanOB