Legalities of photographers

[foned]

It had nothing to do with disrespecting the cops, we were all being very respectful. as far as asking for the cops opinion, im not some asshole teenager being a dick to the cops. all of us were incredibly cool. we were drinking before a show because the booze they sell in there is 7 dollars a cup, and i personally, as well as my friends have issues with high priced beer.

anyway, that is a pretty bull**** argument, first off, they chose their profession, they are to uphold the law, to say that they face death every time they get out of their car is a bit excessive, especially for colorado. regardless, they chose the job, they should do it professionally. I was simply asking the legality, not your opinion. but since you decide to give away your rights, i will choose to excersize mine to the fullest. the cop was a dick. most of them were cool, but he was simply being a bully, because he knew he could. he faced no danger in that situation what so ever. if your not going to defend the liberties our founding fathers were so adament about protecting, then i will step up and do it (when my friends wont be the ones paying the price.)

to say i was being 'interrogated' would be a bit of a stretch. as i clearly pointed out had you chose to pay attention to the entire post, i was standing there bored. waiting for my ID back. I wasn't even one of the people that was ticketed. As far as they knew i wasnt drinking. I was honest and told them i had, and gladly handed over my ID and let them pat me down. I even asked one of the cops later if i could get his picture, to which he declined, and i said 'its cool'.

Not to mention, to bring up the quality of the pictures, i find that to be irrelevant. to me they were cool, and thats all that mattered. they wouldve gone nice with the rest of the road trip pictures.

Had i been the only one that couldve been in trouble, the pictures would still exist.

 

[foned]

not to mention, we were in a public park, at red rock, where photos are, for the most part encouraged i would assume, so as far as private property, i dont think that would come into the legality at all. They allow drinking in the park, they allow it in the amphitheater, it has to be under 3.2% though, and apparently (not mentioned in the flyers, or website) not in glass. which is why we were ticketed, not for 'suspected public intoxication'.

 

[Senor Hound]

Dude, This has "Patriot Act" written all over it...

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think its okay law-wise to photograph undercover police officers. I'm pretty sure they can see that as an obstruction of justice since they could say you were trying to blow their cover or something.

I know its now illegal to take photos of certain structures like certain Dams and Bridges and buildings. Its not very strongly enforced, but for example, I work about 2 miles away from a huge reservoir dam, and if the park rangers see you taking too many photos of it, they'll tell you to stop (and they can).

Anyway, I'm not saying its right, but I think they might have had the right.

 

[skieur]

That's just not true....

Photography can be considered not acceptable or not allowed on private property.

but

They can never take your equipment, media, or rolls from you regardless.

Photography may be "not allowed" by the owner of private property, but that in NO WAY makes it illegal.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Dude, This has "Patriot Act" written all over it...

I know I'll get flamed for this, but I don't think its okay law-wise to photograph undercover police officers. I'm pretty sure they can see that as an obstruction of justice since they could say you were trying to blow their cover or something.

I know its now illegal to take photos of certain structures like certain Dams and Bridges and buildings. Its not very strongly enforced, but for example, I work about 2 miles away from a huge reservoir dam, and if the park rangers see you taking too many photos of it, they'll tell you to stop (and they can).

Anyway, I'm not saying its right, but I think they might have had the right.

IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.

skieur

 

[usayit]

Photography may be "not allowed" by the owner of private property, but that in NO WAY makes it illegal.

skieur

skieur... where did I ever post it was illegal?

 

[skieur]

"Assuming you were on public property, they have no right to confiscate or make you delete those photos. " from USAYIT

To put it differently, whether you are on public property or not, they have NO right to confiscate or make you delete those photos....so as I said public property has nothing to do with it.

A warrant or an arrest would be necessary to even take your camera equipment into custody and that could only be done if taking photos was illegal.

Are you following the logic?

skieur

 

[usayit]

Are you following the logic?

Sorry I'm not... simply put, I didn't say it was illegal.


...

I am a bit disappointed those that found the OP not standing up for his rights is something to hold against him/her. We don't know the details of the situation... the only person(s) that can really make that decision are those directly involved. If they did not feel comfortable standing up to the police officer, then let it be..... Taking an isolated incident, making it unpleasant for the police officer, and unpleasant for you is not the way to have laws changed. If anything the sympathy is with the officer trying to keep peace (as someone already mentioned in their post). You can file a complaint with the department which is the proper and smart course of action. (I urge that you do regardless). If the OP still feels like more should be done, start writing letters....

Often the smartest thing to do is to explain your rights to the officer and walk away (assuming you have not been placed under arrest)... don't push it.

Have any of you actually went through the whole process to the end? I have.. it was not pleasant... (I was young and stupid too) I won't do it again unless you guys are willing to fly down, protest on my behalf, and put up $$$'s for a good defense. You guys forget... Police don't care about wrong or right while on the street. They simply charge you with the "catch-all" called Disorderly Conduct or whatever they can conjure up. Either way, they have no problems wasting your time at the police station.


Assuming local laws don't have anything against public swearing or cursing, you are well within your right to curse out a police officer. I dare anyone of you to try it....

 

[Senor Hound]

IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.

skieur

I have a problem with this. As I said before, I live near a gigantic concrete dam (its called Bull Shoals Dam if you want to look it up), and they don't allow photography of it. They know tourists take photos from afar, and they're okay with that, but if you get too close, they won't allow you to take photos, and if you take an inside tour, you're not allowed to have ANYTHING in your possession other than an ID, or else it will be taken away.

And it may be legal to take photos anywhere, but maybe not necessarily of anything. I still think they could try and nail you with obstruction of justice if you tried to fight them. Since the Patriot Act, they can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to (and the courts let them get away with it).

I'm not saying I'm a fan of this sort of restrictions (I'm actually quite opposed), but I seriously think there may be more to this being an undercover operation.

EDITED TO ADD: Check out this link. It seems that whether its legal or not, you're gonna be in for a battle. And none of the stories I could find entailed what they could have said was blowing an undercover agent's cover.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

 

[astrostu]

IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.

skieur

Yeah, I agree with Senor Hound ... I think you're wrong on this (based upon what I've read on the myriad of other similar posts on this topic). It is legal to take photos anywhere that's public property or publicly viewable. But any government or private property owner can take away that right. Go into pretty much any US government installation and you cannot take photos. In fact, you aren't even allowed to have camera phones (one reason I don't have a camera phone). Go into a store and the manager/owner does have the right to tell you you cannot take photos on their property. They can't confiscate your equipment nor make you delete the photos, but they can ban you from taking photos and they can ban you from the premises.

Granted, this has nothing to do with the original post, really, but I think it bears mentioning.

Check out this link. It seems that whether its legal or not, you're gonna be in for a battle. And none of the stories I could find entailed what they could have said was blowing an undercover agent's cover.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

Ya know, I hate to say it, but I almost hope this happens to me at some point. I'd love to sue the police for 1st and 4th Amendment violations in a case such as this.

 

[tirediron]

IT IS LEGAL TO TAKE PHOTOS ANYWHERE with the possible exception of secret military installations, courts, or areas such as washrooms, change rooms, etc.

skieur

I too have issues with this. Granted Canadian law isn't identical to US law, but it is fairly close, and I suspect that many of the same things apply. There are a hole list of things of which you can not take photographs. As has been mentioned, a store owner or property has the right to deny you access and or prevent ('though not physically) from taking pictures. Photographs of copyrighted work, original art, etc can be violations (ergo, not allowed) photographs where an individual (and this may be where the OPs police had an issue) is obviously the main subject of the photograph may be illegal depending on the news-worthniess of the situation. The US Patriot act also brings up another list, including, if I'm not mistaken most federal buildings.

My opinion is that with respect to the original post, both sides acted inappropriately. The OP (IMO) chose a less than opportune time and subject to photograph, and the police for their (I suspect uneforceable) strong-arm tactics.

Did the OP do the right thing? I suspect he did the prudent thing. Why cause more irritation in an already unpleasant situation simply for "your rights". As far as rights go, if you think you're hard done by, try visiting some other parts of the world!

 

[Crosby]

Often we speak of rights and photographers and the police. On one hand our rights are being taken away by being asked to delete photos. Our rights are even more trampled on when shooting "sensitive" subjects in this case a potential crime scene. Point is as photographers we have a responsibility as well. We have to be sensitive and respect the position of the police when being confronted. That means not shooting pictures while being interrogated. That means being respectful of their position. When you are being interrogated you have the right to remain silent and you have the right to a lawyer. That is it and they are not kidding. If I was the cop in question I would smashed your camera into little bits to prove my point. In the future do not disrespect the police while you have a camera in your hand. Your actions make all photographers look bad.

)'(

I haven't read the whole thread yet, couldn't get past this one...

I am always respectful to police officers.
I appreciate cops for what they do even when they can be major pains.

Sure, cops that I know are regular people and if they can bully you into doing what they want, they will... they are trained to do that, kind of like a drill instructor at boot camp.

But, they cannot smash your camera, they cannot make you delete files from your camera! They can give you a ticket when normally they wouldn't.

You could fire that camera away and say it is for the judge to see when you go to court, you have the right to build a case. Police cars have cameras in them, why can't you? Cops don't want you to take pictures because the law is bent on law books, and if a picture shows something that even suggests they did something wrong, you could get off the hook and they could get in trouble.

I like cops, they are regular people that deal with bad people (usually). They do not have to be disrespectful to the citizens, sure, if you are being violent or threatening, then no holds barred... but traffic and minor mistomeanors(sp?), they should be as respectful as they want me to be respectful to them, and I don't mind telling them that.

Bottom line: I'd have done the same in that situation, yeah it sucks. I'm sure, hindsight being 20/20, you could have done some other things like, go to the chief the next day or call a lawyer, or be thrown in jail, but we all have battles to fight and which one says alot...

 

[craig]

Read the whole thread it is a doosy. I think it is cute that everyone has battles to fight. Go for it if you like. I am just stating my opinion.

Love & Bass

 

[Senor Hound]

Read the whole thread it is a doosy. I think it is cute that everyone has battles to fight. Go for it if you like. I am just stating my opinion.

Love & Bass

Out of curiosity, how would you handle this situation? And some may find it patronizing to refer to their battles as, "cute." But I have a feeling you know that.

 

[skieur]

I have a problem with this. As I said before, I live near a gigantic concrete dam (its called Bull Shoals Dam if you want to look it up), and they don't allow photography of it. They know tourists take photos from afar, and they're okay with that, but if you get too close, they won't allow you to take photos, and if you take an inside tour, you're not allowed to have ANYTHING in your possession other than an ID, or else it will be taken away.

And it may be legal to take photos anywhere, but maybe not necessarily of anything. I still think they could try and nail you with obstruction of justice if you tried to fight them. Since the Patriot Act, they can do a lot of stuff they shouldn't be able to (and the courts let them get away with it).

I'm not saying I'm a fan of this sort of restrictions (I'm actually quite opposed), but I seriously think there may be more to this being an undercover operation.

EDITED TO ADD: Check out this link. It seems that whether its legal or not, you're gonna be in for a battle. And none of the stories I could find entailed what they could have said was blowing an undercover agent's cover.

http://www.nbc10.com/news/9574663/detail.html

American Constitution ..photography is covered under freedom of expression. Journalistic rights cover photography as well. Dams and other structures cannot be copyrighted under the Millenium Act, unless they are habitable and even then there is a photographic exemption in the law. There is absolutely nothing in the Patriot Act or any security legislation that forbids photography of infrastructure such as dams, bridges, trains, water related buildings etc. either. YOU CAN LEGALLY TAKE A PHOTO OF ALMOST ANYTHING with as I said before exemptions such as top secret military installations or documents.

As to security procedures, they are not legal. Taking anything away from someone without a warrant is simply AGAINST THE LAW.

You guys should actually READ the laws.

skieur