Slashdot Mirror

I'm including these links and PDFs.

The Photographer's Right

ACLU Photographers' Rights

Photography, The Law, and Photographer's Rights

Legal Rights of Photographers

I suggest you read the Photographer's Rights site.

There have been security guards who have harassed photographers for taking photos of buildings because the building designs are "copyrighted." You are allowed to take a photo of a copyrighted object. (If you couldn't, someone wearing a shirt bearing the likeness of any copyrighted fictional character could end all street photography in an area.) You may or may not be able to publish said photo (depending on the circumstances), but you can certainly take the photo and enjoy it for your own private use. Nobody is saying that the copyright of the original changes hands, but you own the copyright of any photo you take.

Awhile back, Toyota tried to claim that they owned a copyright on any Toyota vehicle and so any photographs containing Toyotas were owned by them regardless of who took the picture. (They actually used the DMCA to take down photos involving Toyotas.) Needless to say, they didn't succeed and you can take a photograph of any Toyota in public without having to turn said photo over to Toyota.

Private places can tell you up front that photography is not allowed (e.g. museums where the exhibits would suffer from the flashes or movie theaters). If they do, they can kick you out for photographing where you were told not to. What they can't do, though, is order you to delete those photos. They can contact the police, try to have you arrested, and sue for the photos to be destroyed. They can't demand that you hand over your camera so that they can delete the photos or detain you until you delete the photos yourself.

Here's what might be a more useful link: The Photographer’s Right

Given Google is in the US, I'm going by US based laws:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law#Public_property

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

It is legal to photograph or videotape anything and anyone on any public property.

Photographing private property from within the public domain is legal, with the exception of an area that is generally regarded as private, such as a bedroom, bathroom, or hotel room. In some states, there is no definition of "private," in which case, there is a general expectation of privacy. Should the subjects not attempt to conceal their private affairs, their actions immediately become public to a photographer using an average lens or video camera.

If you are in a city park for what ever reason, I can pop up a camera and video tape you as much as I want.

That depends. If they have a sign which says "No photographs" then they CAN request that you delete the photos. If they don't have a sign, then any pictures taken before they informed you of the policy are yours and they have no rights to demand them from you.

You can, of course, stand on the public sidewalks and take all the pictures of their lot you wish.

They can REQUEST whatever they want, but no one has the right to confiscate your film or make you delete it.

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

IAAL and you have fundamentally misunderstood what has happened here. Since you like to educate yourself, I'll share some of my precious time ;)

IANAL, but I'll point out that you forgot to add "this is not a legal advice". You forgot the fact that courts routinely strike clauses in contracts that are considered unconscionable, or over burdening. IANAL, but I'm pretty sure that any court in a commonwealth country or the US would strike down any condition of entry that allowed a mall security guard to confiscate private possessions. As far as I know, the best they can do is ask you to leave (or charge you with trespassing). You also forgot to mention that country and state law can place limits on what such conditions of entry may reasonably demand. You should also look into California law which prohibits some conditions on corporate places generally open to the public. By the way, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is prepared by someone who also appears to be a lawyer, and appears to be better informed about the facts than you are. By the way, IANAL, and this is not legal advice...

There is no gray area of taking pictures of specific people inside a store, because, a) it is completely lawful to take pictures of people in public, and b) the California court case I've cited a million times shows that being inside a store counts as being in public.

The problem again is you've started with the supposition that being inside the store is "public" and then use it to say that a person can take photographs in it in a circular argument. Many here disagree that an Apple store or any retail location is "public" in the first place. Your California case may not apply as it says areas like shopping malls which are private cannot forbid free speech based on First Amendment rights of assembly in the common areas. Pruneyard gave groups and individuals the right to ask people to sign peitions, pass out fliers, etc in the common areas of the center. It did not address (1) that right extends to the individual stores within a shopping center and (2) photography was never addressed. Certainly you can ask someone to sign a petition in the hallway, you can't do so inside any particular store without their permission.

In the Photographers's Right by Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law says this about photography and private property:

Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations.

In essence you can take pictures outside their store but must have their permission to do so within the store.

I am not a lawyer. But I think it is more than that. The same laws that allow people to video or photograph things going on in public should apply unless the police are doing something in a place that allows them an expectation of privacy. Otherwise they are in public. If I am correct, I believe that if you video or take pictures in public, people cannot come after you monetarily since they had no expectation of privacy.

In Canada, the supreme court ruled (and this is my understanding of it) that if there is enough of a social benefit, the privacy of a person is outweighed. I pretty sure that applies for photos taken in public and possibly in private. This is why newsworthy photos and video are covered, and usually where other people are incidental to a photo (i.e. part of the background crowd). But if you take a picture of someone and try to sell the picture for your own profit (even if you call it 'art'), you need explicit consent. When I did a lot of photography, I would always carry model releases in my camera bag just in case there was an interesting shot of someone. It came in handy a couple of times.

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

The above link contains a PDF that explains your rights.

Basically it comes down to this: your images/video is your property, which is protected by the court system. Anyone wanting your property needs to file a case against you (be it criminal or civil) in order to compel you to release/destroy/stop sharing, etc. your images.

AFAIK that is not correct-- if you are in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy, then a photographer may photograph you, or your children, or house, or car, and then publish the resulting photo without any notice or permission to you. I am sure the same would doubly apply to articles or interviews barring any slander / libel issues.

Taken from http://krages.com/phoright.htm

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

Even in public there is such a thing as privacy.

True. But it is extremely limited.

From the PDF:

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

Yes, but how far did you push back when you were challenged?

It's really pretty clear that a photographer has certain rights to shoot photos anyplace in public in the U.S.A. Government has often tried to intimidate photographers, under the guise that "national security" demands they cease, or alternately, lower-level security protests under false claims that some "policy" was violated.

The Amtrak photography incident comes to mind: http://carlosmiller.com/2008/12/27/amtrak-police-arrest-photographer-participating-in-amtrak-photo-contest/

A good guide to your REAL photographer's rights can be found here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Having a gun pointed at you is a pretty strong intimidation tactic, yet if you're confident you're in the right, you can still stick up for your rights in that situation. Some soldier driving out to meet you in a Hummer is probably NOT prepared to fire a weapon at a civilian photographer. WAY too many consequences for an action that extreme. So you *could* have let them arrest you and take your camera, rather than complying ... and you'd have a really GOOD chance of coming out the victor.

But let's face it.... that skyline photo probably wasn't something you wanted badly enough to fight for it.

Do you have it in a fenced in back yard?

What about the "traditional" points of view but at other wavelengths? If your house is transparent to spectrum X - should you have a reasonable expectation of privacy in say your bedroom?

Some photography laws allow for pictures of private locations from the street, but not using telephoto optics - does that apply to satellites and airplanes use? Perhaps you could make the jurisdiction argument, but if your "camera" is located outside of the jurisdiction, but the person pulling the shutter is within the jurisdiction (e.g. programmed flight, camera, and receives images) does that muddy the waters?

I don't think this excellent reference even addresses the issue at hand.

If I recall correctly, /. had a similar thread some time back and someone posted to something official that was recommended to carry with you in your camera back about having the right to photograph public places.

I've googled and can't seem to find it. Anyone?

Try googling "photographer's rights card":
http://www.billadler.net/Photographer's_Legal_Rights_Card.pdf
or
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Don't delete any photos. Get a copy of The Photographer's Right from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm, and stick it in your camera bag if you're worried. Just because some rentacop has an attitude doesn't mean you need to change your behavior.

Unless you're on private property, which is true most of the time.

Don't delete any photos. Get a copy of The Photographer's Right from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm [krages.com], and stick it in your camera bag if you're worried. Just because some rentacop has an attitude doesn't mean you need to change your behavior.

Good advice. Also, get a bottle of K-Y jelly, and stick it right beside The Photographer's Rights. It might be a good idea to pre-lube your anus prior to starting the argument, in case they decide not to let you keep the bottle after your arrest.

Don't delete any photos. Get a copy of The Photographer's Right from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm, and stick it in your camera bag if you're worried. Just because some rentacop has an attitude doesn't mean you need to change your behavior.

This is a good strategy, but it rather assumes that said rentacop can a) read b) will act on an unsubstantiated legal opinion got off the web over his training/orders and c) will tolerate any challenge to his authority

As a person that benches, I've taken thousands pictures of trains and infrastructure outside of museums. I do this simply because, broadly put, as long as I'm on public property, I'm fine. Hell, out of the seven years I've been taking flicks, I've only been approached once and it wasn't by any sort of authority figure: just a local rail yard worker telling me I'm not allowed to take pictures. I simply said that I am allowed to take pictures (I was standing in a park and ride lot for the local bus system) but turned and left because there weren't any more freights on their way in or out.

But that's just my anecdote. For those that ride and want to photograph rail systems (Metro, Metra, Amtrak, et al.) well, as asinine as their policies are, you have to follow them as long as you're on their property. I used to ride Detroit's People Mover every day and would see signs in the stations stating that if there is going to be any sort of photography to contact DPM's public relations department.

Don't delete any photos. Get a copy of The Photographer's Right from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm, and stick it in your camera bag if you're worried. Just because some rentacop has an attitude doesn't mean you need to change your behavior.

Indeed, that is correct.

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

Ummm... they really can't force you to delete any pictures: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

They may try to tell you that they can, but they can't. That page is by an actual attorney, BTW.

IANAL, but....

In the Nevada desert? State owned property? Then I doubt they have a legal leg to stand on. However, if it's on private property, then they can probably stipulate what gets done with the photos. Stupid? Yes. Legal? Maybe.

Photographers, print this out and carry it with you at all times: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. It was written by lawyers who do actually know a thing or two about photography and the law.

-S

I urge people who do a lot of photography to print this out and keep it with them. It is a page that details the rights of photographers.

It can be found at http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm.

Coercion, assault, conversion, false imprisonment, and violation of your constitutional rights. The security guard messed up when he threatened to tackle him if he tried to leave. Photographers Rights

A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
© 2006 Bert P. Krages II

The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.

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

How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.

In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person's name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
© 2006 Bert P. Krages II

The Photographer's Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.

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

How to Handle Confrontations
Most confrontations can be defused by being courteous and respectful. If the party becomes pushy, combative, or unreasonably hostile, consider calling the police. Above all, use good judgment and don't allow an event to escalate into violence.

In the event you are threatened with detention or asked to surrender your film, asking the following questions can help ensure that you will have the evidence to enforce your legal rights:

1. What is the person's name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

The officer was at least correct about it not happening today. Becker's post was made on May 9th, so I think we can assume that today refers to that date.

Anyway, this link seems pertinent: Krages's The Photographer's Rights

This is called the "first amendment."

http://photography.about.com/od/copyrightinformation/ss/PhotoRights.htm

Except a store is private property. And if the store has a no photography policy, and the ATM company has industrial secrets or something, then they can have the picture confiscated, and the police would need to take the person in to custody to ensure no copies of the picture were created.

.

No, they can't. A store may not legally confiscate your photos. They can ask you to leave, they can sue you to prevent you publishing the photos, but they can not prevent you from taking them nor confiscate them afterwards without a court order.

Confiscating is either theft or conversion, threatening to do so is coercion. A law officer may take custody of your possesions when effecting an arrest, but may not confiscate your film without a court order.

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

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

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.

The general rule in the United Kingdom is that if you take photos then you're a terrorism suspect

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

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.

.... just as it's illegal to photograph people who are clearly identifiable in public and selling those photos.

Yet there is an entire industry that does just this to people in the public eye. Is there some legal exemption for people who have been previously in same lame film or made a pop song?

And that's supposed to be news. I said editorials but should have included news as well. On the other hand I can't go down to the lake near me and shoot photos of people at the park then sell them without a release form if the people are clearly identifiable. In my photography class we spent more than a day discussing what was legal and what wasn't. Actually back then as it was right around 9-11 people were being stopped for shooting photos by the police. Police tried to confiscate one student's camera. Shortly after that a lawyer came out with The Photographer's Right handbook.

The rest of what you say is rubbish.

Falcon

In USA "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 http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm)

2 questions:

If taking the picture is illegal, why is the AmTrak police officer forcing the person to destroy the evidence? (This should be coercion and quite illegal)

If taking the picture isn't illegal, why is the police officer coercing the person to destroy their property?

Don't let cops get away with shit they shouldn't be allowed to. (Relevant page by a lawyer with a very nice brochure)

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

"The Photographer's Right", Bert P Krages II, Attorney at Law

Sometimes agents acting for entities such as owners of industrial plants and shopping malls may ask you to hand over your film. Absent a court order, private parties have no right to confiscate your film. Taking your film directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion. It can likewise constitute a civil tort such as conversion. Law enforcement officers may have the authority to seize film when making an arrest but otherwise must obtain a court order.

"The Photographer's Right", Bert P Krages II, Attorney at Law

Nowhere in his original account (http://www.duanek.name/Amtrak/index.htm) does he state that he was taking the pictures for the contest. It seems to be that the journalist chose to heavily emphasize the contest angle, perhaps to go for a more compelling story. Unfortunately, the journalist's choice to spin it as a case of the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing, he missed the bigger picture. Photographers are increasingly faced with arbitrary restrictions and demands that are not based upon the law, but based on fear. Forums at places like dpreview.com and flickr are often abuzz with stories of cops making unreasonable demands.

The only way to counteract this is with knowledge. If you happen to like taking pictures of subjects in public spaces, http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm is an enlightening read. This link (http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf) says essentially the same thing, but lays it out with a real-world example.

Also, to the editors, perhaps having a link to the current version of the contest (http://www.amtrak.com/servlet/ContentServer?pagename=Amtrak/am2Copy/Hot_Deals_Page&c=am2Copy&cid=1093554057903&ssid=224) would be good. I was skeptical that they actually had continued running the contest until I found that.

If you are taking photographs in a public place, know your rights. Take a copy of this with you:

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

Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos.

You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)

If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.

IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet he made about this.

Those companies have no right to ask you to delete photos.

You don't even have to show them the pictures you took, since photography when you aren't trespassing isn't a crime. (Secure areas of military installations and nuclear facilities aside.)

If you are allowed to be there, you aren't committing a crime until they ask you to leave and you don't. They can say "Stop taking pictures or leave" if you are on private property and that is said by a representative of the property you are on. In public, you can photograph pretty much anything, especially police and other security personnel.

IANAL, and laws might be different in your state, but here is a lawyer talking about this, and a nice little pamphlet he made about this.

One lesson from an incredibly expensive joke of a "terrorist" case in Australia is that a photograph of a landmark is proof you are going to blow it up. Be careful with those holiday snapshots!

I don't know if there's anything like it in Australia but in the US we have this handbook, "The Photographer's Right", photographers started to carry. In a photography class in college I was taking when 911 happened, we heard about how photographers started to go through questioning when they were taking photos. One student there was working on a class assignment when police or private security personnel tried to confiscate his camera. It was a bizarre tyme for photographers then.

Falcon

"I joked that the camera had no film (get it, digital, ha-ha), but the security officer was not amused and said he would have to take my camera and arrest me if I took any more pictures. WTH?"

Not to mention that them taking your camera is called "theft", and it can be prosecuted. If they damage your equipment, that is "destruction of private property", if they delete your images from your card, that is also "destruction of private property".

Check out the Legal Rights of Photographers document for this EXACT example (page 4 of the pdf).

From another site on the matter: "...Taking your film film, asking the following questions directly or indirectly by threatening to use force or call a law enforcement agency can constitute criminal offenses such as theft and coercion."

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

These links have probably been posted elsewhere in this thread, but just in case...

Here are some legal guidelines anyone can follow. Save the "I think you can..." for yourselves and stay away from the IANAL comments.

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

And here's a direct link to the 1 page PDF: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Print it out and keep it in your photography bag. There's a 4 page Photographer's Rights booklet I have at home that's more comprehensive and includes some common scenarios. I can't think of the name of it though. If someone can, please post it.

Here are some legal guidelines anyone can follow. Save the "I think you can..." for yourselves and stay away from the IANAL comments.

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

And here's a direct link to the 1 page PDF: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Print it out and keep it in your photography bag. There's a 4 page Photographer's Rights booklet I have at home that's more comprehensive and includes some common scenarios. I can't think of the name of it though. If someone can, please post it.

In reality we need to find out what our rights are and use them to educate those who would make out lives difficult.

The Photographer's Right

This was posted on a slashdot recently and is worth having a look at.

You should probably print a copy of The Photographer's Right and carry it with you. It should help out in situations like that.

That's not entirely true. I know that in New York you are NOT allowed to take pictures of other people without their consent.

If that was true, then you couldn't set up any meaningful kind of CCTV security system.

That is NOT true at all, see Arrington v New York Times Co., 434 N.E.2d 1319 (N.Y. 1982). There isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Shopping malls and other private areas can have restrictions, but they can't restrict taking pictures of the building from a public area. You only need permission and a model release if the photograph is going to be used commercially, which excludes news and "fine art" usage. That means that you can even photograph children in public and sell the picture to a newspaper without anyones permission. If a cop stops you, they can't require that you either show them your pictures, or to delete pictures. Don't trust me, ask a lawyer.

(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)

Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)

However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.

Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.

By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...

For comments around public photography and laws around photography in the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=56
For the USA:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.photosecrets.com/law.html
Lots of links for different countries:
http://www.photolawnews.com/
There are also guides for Australia I believe, and other countries.

I need to stuff a copy of The Photographer's Right in my camera bag in case something like this ever happens...