PPA Article on shooting on public land

[Village Idiot]

Photographing on Public Lands - PPA Today

Their "Copyright and Government Affairs Manager" said that you may be fined and even have your gear confiscated when shooting "sensitive subject matter" like bridges, mass transit, and private buildings that can be seen from highways or other public access ways.

Am I wrong here in thinking that she should look up the laws a bit more. There's been plenty of cases of over zealous security and police that have tried this and harrassed photographers that have shot bridges, mass transit, and private buildings from public land that have been 100% in their rights to do so.

Any thoughts?

 

[robertwsimpson]

I usually tell the guy to shove it and then run away as quickly as possible.

 

[Village Idiot]

I usually tell the guy to shove it and then run away as quickly as possible.

I mean, I know there are some restrictions, like you can't photograph the pentagon or the metro station that's on pentagon property, but the rest of the DC metro is open for photography.

I think that unless they're talking about those certain circumstances, they're making it sound like any structure that's mention is not supposed to be photographed from public land.

That's wrong and that really doesn't sound like something an organization like the PPA would be posting; especially since they specifically deal with photographers' rights.

 

[robertwsimpson]

I actually got yelled at IN a DC metro station... just by a crazy woman, not security, but I think security would have been less scary!

 

[Village Idiot]

I actually got yelled at IN a DC metro station... just by a crazy woman, not security, but I think security would have been less scary!

There was a big thing about how the large metro station had employees stopping photographers saying that they couldn't shoot there. I think it was union station. It's public property and photographers are allowed to shoot there. They even had a manager stop the local fox news crew from filming about the issue.

Fortunately, one of the local politicians took up the issue and made the company that was managing the public station post clear regulations and train their employees to know that they shouldn't be harrassing photographers. It took a lot of work by some determined locals, but they got it taken care of.

 

[pbelarge]

I have been stopped twice by police for photographing on Federal property.
Once the 2 policemen were A-1 jerks and quite rough with me. I had to delete all files on my camera.

The second time, County and local police swarmed me (4 cars, I forget how many policemen). The policeman who questioned me was much nicer, more professional and explained to me what I was doing wrong and why I should not be photographing what I was. He did not touch me or my camera. He did ask me to show him the files and told me what to delete.

If I know it is a Federal building, I do not take the shot.


I was in NYC not too long ago. I was strolling by the Freedom Tower construction site. I never saw so many security personnel in my life. I did not even take the camera out of my backpack.

 

[farmerj]

sounds like they are talking something entirely different here to me.

Namely that you are required to have a permit to do a client shoot on a public park area.

As to the "sensitive" building issues, it's bunk. Granted, I wouldn't get caught shooting a sensitive area on or by a military base or something like that.

But thank your politicians and their Patriot Act for that one. All in the name of "security". Every one is screaming about it now.