Slashdot Mirror

there is a guide on this stuff, written up by some lawyers, called the The Photographers Right that gives good information. The laws should also apply to video.

I'd agree with everything you said and would only add the following link for a PDF outlining Photographer's Rights:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

I keep a printed copy in my camera bag in case I ever encounter an overzealous police officer or security guard. (I wouldn't be rude about it, but would politely refer to the sheet detailing what my rights are.)

You're also wrong in the UK, the US, Australia and most other countries I can think of, unless by 'claim offence' you mean they can claim they were offended rather than seek legal remedy. What sources exactly have you based your opinion on?

Here's a few of links explaining the situation in the UK, Australia and US for photography of people in public places :

UK
US
Australia

IANAL, but according to the The Photographers Right http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf they car was trespassing, but the pictures are legitimate.

For the most part you are also allowed to take photos of government and (some military) locations. from http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf [read the whole paper for the details that I've ommited]
The General Rule
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks. Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule
There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.

Wait a sec... Was the picture taken from public property? I fail to see how anyone, as a citizen or representative of a public company, could get sued for taking pictures as long as you're not trespassing or violating any laws. If you drive down a (public) street and take a picture of a house and post it on your blog you can get sued? WTF?

Maybe the morons from the lawsuit should sue their mail man and paper boy. They've SEEN the house! Obviously anybody that gazes on their house is violating their privacy. I don't see how what Google's doing is not covered by the typical photographer's rights. Another good site for photographer's rights.

This lawyer http://www.krages.com/bpkphoto.htm has some information on photographers' rights (including a nice summary pdf) and probably also info relevant to the case at hand.

Hmmm...not sure what happened to my PDF link - you can find it here.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm ...which may or may not shed more light...

ACLU Bustcard

There's one like it for photographers, The Photographer's Right. It's based on the Bust Card. It's recommended they carry it with them because a lot of photographers have been stopped and questioned if not have had their cameras taken while out shooting since 911. One student photographer at the college I was attend then was questioned while working on an assignment for a class. So naturally this became a big topic in the photo classes. Some made commends they didn't want to go out in public to shoot.

I'm not sure what I'm supposed to be putting up with, but here's a random sample of attorneys who appear to focus on the sort of hypo you presented. It took me ten minutes to find these via Google:

• one
• two
• three
• four

I'm not sure where you got the $5k retainer figure. Have you actually had that experience? You've tried to get legal help and no lawyers would help you without a $5k retainer?

I have to take issue with your comment about the characteristics of lawyers in general. You're making an incredibly broad generalization that covers a huge swath of territory, encompassing everyone from transactional attorneys who work for the county government, to public defenders, to the lawyers who work at the EFF, to cutthroat IP litigators. Saying "the characteristics of lawyers in general" is like saying "the characteristics of programmers in general." It's an unsupportable statement.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

They can legally stop you from taking photos on their premises. This site has a good pocket guide to photographers' rights.

The police in the US already use IR cameras to catch marijuana farmers, even though it has been ruled unconstitutional. As recently as 2003 there have been reports of feds using the technique in drug busts. My guess is they get around the ruling by not using the imaging as evidence. As for members of the public photographing other members of the public, it is normally legal. The exception is if the subject has "a reasonable expectation of privacy," according to this handout. A good example would be people in their own homes, but I'll bet that private investigators frequently bend that rule. I heard once that there are two states that don't have laws against bathroom security cameras, and two others where it is legal for hotels to install cameras inside their rooms. There are plenty of examples of obvious abuses, too.

Because there is a photographers exception to the portion of copyright that covers architecture. Photos taken from a public place of a building that is in public view don't require any kind of permission from the building's owner to be distributed or used.

No, I don't believe there is an exception.

My understanding is that you may photograph, without permission, anything which may be seen from a public place; however, if the building has a copyrighted design, or artwork, or if the building itself is a trademarked design, you must obtain permission before distributing or using the picture commercially. There is an exception that if the building is not a main component of the image, then you don't need permission.

For example, a tourist can take a snapshot of the Seattle Space Needle; a pro would need permission to distribute that image; an image of the whole Seattle skyline would not require permission.

There's is a photojournalist exception which allows a reporter to use pictures of copyright places and of people without a release when covering a story.

Over 15 years ago, I had a summer job taking pictures of every rural building in the county for the local historical archives. Typically, I'd go up to the farm house explain what I was doing, and they'd let me wander the property. After 2-3 pics of the barn and 2-3 pics of the farm house, I'd go on to the next property. In two months of doing this, I only had a couple of people who said no; and, of those, only one who complained when I took the shots I needed from the road.

Oh, by the way, unless they have a court order, they can't take your film/memory card or camera. The police can't even demand you delete an image (well, they can demand, but you're not obligated to without an order).

A word of caution, my experience is Canadian, but most of the write-ups I've seen have been American, so don't take what I wrote for gospel. You might want to check out the photographer's bill of rights.

E.

Also, you would be surprised to know that they can take your picture, the picture of your children, your car and so on when you are in a public place. In other words you could go and take a pictures of people walking down the street and piss them off but that doesn't mean it will be illegal, you'll also probably get your arse kicked.

Please see Photographer's Rights pamphlet here: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Google Cache:

http://64.233.167.104/search?q=cache:HdiLDCYdmdwJ: www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf+photograp hy+ask+permission+public+place&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2& gl=us

The attention paid to anyone on the street with a camera has gone up since 9/11. If you spend much time taking pictures of a federal building you'll probably get to talk with the security guards. If you are actually standing on their grounds when you take the shots they'll confiscate your gear and at the very least give it a thorough going through before giving it back.

You also have some people who just don't want their stuff photographed. If you look too professional while shooting the Flat Iron building in New York their guys will come tell you that the building's likeness is protected and you can't shoot it, which is wrong but they'll give it a go anyway. I've kept my camera in the face of doped up militia troops in the Congo though, so I'm a harder target for them than most.

Here is a handy printable page on photographer's rights. There seems to be some disagreement about what is allowed and what is not. This should set the record straight. This guy is an attorney and went to all the trouble of making this document, so I'm going to say there's a good chance he knows what he is talking about.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

As a side note - I am also on a mac, using firefox (Actually the Mac optimized "bon echo" build) and it works just fine.

Model releases are different, as the model is the main focus of the photo. In the US and the UK members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when they are in public places. This is the key different, model releases come into play for studio shots. Basically, in public, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes. See ThePhotographersRight.pdf for more details of the US situation; photoattorney.com has more of the same. You can find an overview of Australian law here

Finally the NYTimes covered a case where the subject of a photo in public sued because the photographer use it in an exhibit and was making money. The suit sought an injunction to halt sales and publication of the photograph, as well as $500,000 in compensatory damages and $1.5 million in punitive damages and was brought under the NY privacy laws. It failed because the photo was consider art.

Because depending on your local laws, it is either illegal or VERY bad form to use a photograph of someone without their permission.

if someone takes your picture you can always go to the person and ask that they not use it. If they use it anyway, at the bare minimum you can sue them.

Try being a photographer in Fortress America these days - particularly one with an interest in transportation and industrial settings. Trust me, it sucks. Most of us are pretty much resigned to the inevitable visit from a three-letter agency.

Unfortunately all too true. Though it hasn't happened to me I'd heard of a few photography students out on assignments being questioned while they were taking photos. Some tyme back another slashdot photographer posted this in a message: The Photographer's Right A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography.

Well, maybe Belgium has a law like that. But I think it more likely just intimidation. See Photographers' rights for details. (US, UK and Australia specifically.)

Another example of this would be if you took a picture in Norway that prominently displayed, among other things, me. Even if you are also in the picture, I may hold some rights to it since my face is in it.

Unless he made some slanderous caption like "Drunken American sex tourist leering at me", I think you have no case. Your face belongs to you, a photograph of it taken in a public place does not.

Cops bring up surreptitious charges and laws fairly often, or will try to convince you in a similar manner that you don't have any rights. I have friends that are cops, good cops, that have told me this.

Also, as I have many, many friends that are amateur and professional photographers, they were stunned when they heard this; some have been in similar situations with police and/or security. Luckily, there's this nifty little document I found from an attorney explaining the rights of photographers.

Maybe it is just the *reporting* of these false arrests that are making more news. If that's the case, then it's a good thing. Maybe it's just because there are more people with cameraphones, security systems, and cameras.

But I'm not convinced. Things like arresting somebody for taking a picture of a power plant, etc., etc. were almost unheard of 5 years ago. Of course, we still have to contend with things like Air Marshals putting random photographers on "suspicious persons" lists and the like. That sort of behavior is not at the local level, and it can be attributed to post-9/11 mindset/laws. This is where I think the connection lies. Local law enforcers see their federal counterparts engaging this activity, and they think they can do it, too. It may be a tenuous connection, but it certainly warrants further evaluation.

So long as the press keeps doing its job and reports incidents like this, I don't see us approaching any type of police state. But we photographers must stand up for our rights!

People should be aware of a photographer's rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

What right do the police have to delete my own data?

Pretty much none.

You can publish and sell them. You created the photo, not the architect; the photo's copyright belongs to the photographer regardless of what it's of. See The Photographer's Right: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations." The architectural plans are copyright, not the building itself, and certainly not an image of the building taken by someone else. I'm unsure of how one could copyright a statue or building, though anything is possible these days. A few iconic buildings have their images trademarked, but that's an entirely different matter, and not common.

In what case? In the case linked, it really sounds like the officers had no justification for arrest and that he was perfectly in his rights to photograph.

General rule of thumb is that if you're on public property, you can take the picture. You can't impede emergency crews, you can't be a peeping tom, and you can't take a picture of Area 51, but just about anything else is OK. This guide has been linked by a couple other people and goes into more detail. It doesn't address the copyrighted architecture though.

Here is a handy pamphlet called The Photographer's Right that provides some advice for dealing with a situation like this.

There is a great document put together by a lawyer called Photographers' Rights. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Basically, it is 100% legal to photograph any emergency personal in the line of duty as long as you are not interferring with their work. As well, no one can confiscate your film or digital media. However, both of that is null and void if you do get in the way of emergency personel. If you are on private property, such as a shopping mall, they can ask you not to take photos, but you can't be penalized for it unless you continue against their will.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Lots of good information, and is nice to have on hand, just in case.
Obviously for the US only:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

One of my friends was taking pictures of an industrial facility at night for a photography class - security detained him and destroyed his film.

Because if it was private security, the first thing your friend should have done was call the police and have the security guards arrested for theft and/or destruction of personal property. It is not legal for them to do that. They can ask you to stop taking pictures and if you actually are on their property then you must comply, but they cannot take your film. Well, at least not without a court order.

Check out the Photographer's Right.

You might be interested in this, then:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Paparazzi photographing celebrities fall under the newsworthy exception. Try it with the average guy on the street and see what happens. (Hint: Put some money away for legal fees. Lots of money.)

According to Bert Krage, he summarizes what you can and cannot photograph. People in public have very little privacy rights, unless they move to a secluded area such as a bathroom. Another website talks it being ok as long as it isn't being used for commercial purposes. I even found a site where they explicitly say you can take pictures on the New York City subway.

For example, say I was taking pictures at Disneyworld. I do not have to get permission of every single person that might be in the picture, as long as I'm not doing it for commercial gain. It would be nearly impossible to take pictures if you had to get permission from everyone that might be in the picture.

Bert Krages, a photographer and attorney, publishes an online guide called The Photographer's Right that pretty well agrees with you. I'm sure it's only a matter of time before this matter ends up in court.

Cryptome just linked to The Photographer's Rights (pdf, 147kB) - it's a good reference, but it basically says you can photograph anything visible from public property except national-security-restricted-places and places where people have secluded themselves to have an expectation of privacy (their bathroom).

Thanks for the response. I just read the whole thread and I still can't see how your concerns can be genuine. If we are talking about government you still haven't explained how exactly would this tech be useful for monitoring people. "They" already have thousands of cameras installed everywhere so densly that in a major American or British city you can't walk from your home to your job without being recorded 90% of the time. Government isn't concerned with small always on cameras precisely because they've been using big always on cameras for years. If this technology can be used for anything, it's for giving power back to the people. Now "we" will be able to monitor "them" as well.

As for the right to photograph in public, it's not just my personal take it's everyone's legal right. And my pleasure is none of anyone's business. Just like sex in the bedroom ought not to be regulated, so taking voyeuristic photos should not be a subject of any regulation (unless one posts them and thus causes some [potential] harm, then the question is open).

I mean, I can certainly understand the knee-jerk reaction of "Shit, I don't want a photo of me sneezing, or tripping, or bending over something and showing my panties taken by anyone". But that reaction does not deserve more than a quick rejection. The truth is, we've recognised the rights of paparazzis to photograph pretty much anyone very long ago. You may argue that this only applies to celebrities, but that's not really true, and if your naughty video gets posted to Internet, you can bet you are already a celebrity anyway (like Libby Hoeler or Cay Lynn).

I meant to add this earlier, but I realize I was pretty snippy to you in my initial response so I do apologize. Your comment just really rubbed me the wrong way.
Apology accepted.