When taking pictures?

[zombiesniper]

There is a farm near where I take pictures and sometimes it has great spots for birds. I'd never even think of setting foot on it.

My son and I were once given permission to walk in and get a shot of an egret which was cool. I still see hawks and other birds I'd love to shoot there and even though I was given permission once I still won't do it.
I see it as I need permission each time unless specifically told I can come and go as I please.

 

[table1349]

So am I to assume that if the Peeping Tom only needs to take a few steps onto your property to watch you 12 year old daughter take a bath that's OK? Remember, like trespassing, window peeping is a usually a misdemeanor.

To be fair, I never said it was ok. Just that I would take a few steps.

Also, that's not a fair comparison, so I reject it and will not take the bait.

It's easy to rationalize something when you want to do it and you know it is wrong. The only difference is who is making the rationalization, the trespasser or the window peeper. Both know it is wrong and both feel it is ok for them to do so as it is not a big deal.

 

[table1349]

I've been arrested many times, but not for trespassing, (never convicted though).

And lord know we don't want to know what you were arrested for.

Well not unless you have twenty seven eight-by-ten Colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

 

[Woodsman]

If I am shooting a building I take what shots I can from public property and not trespass. I have had enough problems on my own property with GeoCachers and now Pokemon Go have the local and provincial police warning people it is not OK to Trespass for a game. I would not want to add to the insanity for a photo.

 

[tecboy]

I was asked not to take pictures at the public places, twice.

 

[astroNikon]

I was asked not to take pictures at the public places, twice.

What if you make a disguise for your camera. A box that looks like a large CellPhone.

Or simply get a Nikon Df .... they're just different.

 

[TCampbell]

Many museums or state parks you're either not supposed to be taking pics of a model/ family or you're supposed to buy a permit. I only go to these places when I'm taking pictures of my girlfriend or my sisters family for fun and learning .

I think disney world has similar rules.

If it truly is a "public" space then I'd object to such a rule being imposed on a private individual taking photos for their own enjoyment (even if it's of their friends, family, etc.)

These rules were originally very reasonable and designed because a company coming in who wanted to use that public land (which is supposed to be available for "everyone") would bring in trucks loaded with filming equipment and claim it was public land (and expect the public to be kept away while they use that space). When there is so much equipment that it's going to be preventing others from being able to use the space, that's a problem. Those people need to secure permission and follow rules.

However... some towns decided they could use this excuse as a money-grab opportunity and tell professional photographer who having nothing more than a camera that they need a permit (even though they aren't bringing in truckloads of equipment.)

The US National Parks have fairly clear guidelines and explain that as long as you aren't bringing in equipment beyond your camera, lenses, and a tripod ... you're ok. If you're bringing in lights, generators, backdrops, etc.... now you need a permit.

When I worked for a photography studio, we made arrangements to use a particularly beautiful location that had a mansion on the property and beautiful grounds (it was originally private land and then donated to another organization -- but not a public organization). The organization gave us permission to use the land. The studio made an annual donation to the private organization by way of a thank-you and to maintain its welcome to use the area. I don't have a problem with that. Those places are expensive to maintain and obviously I'm not out there weeding the gardens and mowing the grass myself. I'm happy to provide a donation that will, in some way, help to provide for the care and maintenance of the beautiful facility as way to express my gratitude for being permitted to use it and hope I'll be welcomed back in the future.

Where I have a problem is when it's a public park that we've already paid for -- and that our state, county, or city government taxes are already paying to maintain.

Most professional photographers have price packages designed to make enough money to cover their overhead and a reasonable profit. A photographer would be forced to increase the price of a package to cover the cost of the permit and pass that on to the client (who probably is a taxpayer ... already paying to use the very park where they'd like to be photographed -- a park they wouldn't have to pay these additional fees to stand in the same spots as long as nobody was nearby with a camera. So there's really no rational justification for the permit unless they plan to bring along so much equipment as to create a safety hazard or prevent others from having reasonable access to the same shared space.

If it's private land (such as Disney), they can do whatever they want.

 

[Woodsman]

I was asked not to take pictures at the public places, twice.

I guess it depends on what public place means. I meant from a street or sidewalk. There are a lot of places people consider public when they are not, such as malls. I know mall security get real hyper about cameras these days. The building or property owners have the right to request you not to take photographs even if its open to the public.

I was verbally accosted on a sidewalk many years ago when I was taking a picture of a late afternoon moon between two buildings. This was from a sidewalk on the main street of Toronto so I was not impressed and was not going to back down on this one. It was a store owner from somewhere behind me and he was going crazy. I was not even pointing the camera in his stores direction. First I knew he was there was when he jostled my arm to ruin the shot When he threatened to "try" to take my camera thats when I asked a friend to call the cops. He immediately backed off and stormed away.

 

[table1349]

Many museums or state parks you're either not supposed to be taking pics of a model/ family or you're supposed to buy a permit. I only go to these places when I'm taking pictures of my girlfriend or my sisters family for fun and learning .

I think disney world has similar rules.

If it truly is a "public" space then I'd object to such a rule being imposed on a private individual taking photos for their own enjoyment (even if it's of their friends, family, etc.)

These rules were originally very reasonable and designed because a company coming in who wanted to use that public land (which is supposed to be available for "everyone") would bring in trucks loaded with filming equipment and claim it was public land (and expect the public to be kept away while they use that space). When there is so much equipment that it's going to be preventing others from being able to use the space, that's a problem. Those people need to secure permission and follow rules.

However... some towns decided they could use this excuse as a money-grab opportunity and tell professional photographer who having nothing more than a camera that they need a permit (even though they aren't bringing in truckloads of equipment.)

The US National Parks have fairly clear guidelines and explain that as long as you aren't bringing in equipment beyond your camera, lenses, and a tripod ... you're ok. If you're bringing in lights, generators, backdrops, etc.... now you need a permit.

When I worked for a photography studio, we made arrangements to use a particularly beautiful location that had a mansion on the property and beautiful grounds (it was originally private land and then donated to another organization -- but not a public organization). The organization gave us permission to use the land. The studio made an annual donation to the private organization by way of a thank-you and to maintain its welcome to use the area. I don't have a problem with that. Those places are expensive to maintain and obviously I'm not out there weeding the gardens and mowing the grass myself. I'm happy to provide a donation that will, in some way, help to provide for the care and maintenance of the beautiful facility as way to express my gratitude for being permitted to use it and hope I'll be welcomed back in the future.

Where I have a problem is when it's a public park that we've already paid for -- and that our state, county, or city government taxes are already paying to maintain.

Most professional photographers have price packages designed to make enough money to cover their overhead and a reasonable profit. A photographer would be forced to increase the price of a package to cover the cost of the permit and pass that on to the client (who probably is a taxpayer ... already paying to use the very park where they'd like to be photographed -- a park they wouldn't have to pay these additional fees to stand in the same spots as long as nobody was nearby with a camera. So there's really no rational justification for the permit unless they plan to bring along so much equipment as to create a safety hazard or prevent others from having reasonable access to the same shared space.

If it's private land (such as Disney), they can do whatever they want.

Many good points and on some aspects I agree, however when a business takes over a piece of public land such as a park etc. they have now converted it's use to that of a private entity to make money from. Your taxes were paid to support the good of all with such parks etc. same as everyone else, not to give a business person, no matter what business person a right to use that land for profit at the expense of others. If a business wishes to make money off the public property they should pay a reasonable fee to do so. Remember I and every other person paid their share of taxes as well for equal use of that same public property with out the expiation of profit.

I will agree that some places have imposed what would seem to be unreasonable fees and unreasonable rules but there is a system of law to get those things changed.

 

[table1349]

I was asked not to take pictures at the public places, twice.

I guess it depends on what public place means. I meant from a street or sidewalk. There are a lot of places people consider public when they are not, such as malls. I know mall security get real hyper about cameras these days. The building or property owners have the right to request you not to take photographs even if its open to the public.

I was verbally accosted on a sidewalk many years ago when I was taking a picture of a late afternoon moon between two buildings. This was from a sidewalk on the main street of Toronto so I was not impressed and was not going to back down on this one. It was a store owner from somewhere behind me and he was going crazy. I was not even pointing the camera in his stores direction. First I knew he was there was when he jostled my arm to ruin the shot When he threatened to "try" to take my camera thats when I asked a friend to call the cops. He immediately backed off and stormed away.

Yep, when in doubt, let the cops sort it out. Not the mall cops, the real cops. And realize that even they can sometimes make a mistake. If they do, do not pass discussion to arguing and if you don't win the discussion then do as they say and report it to their supervision and the city Law Dept. Many an inservice training topic has been generated by a misunderstanding of the law buy LEO's.

I remember a few years ago when I was still in patrol, ok that would be many years ago, getting dispatched to a very popular city park in the heart of downtown. When I got there the complainant was a photographer who wanted me to throw some people out that were having a picnic in the spot he wanted to do a photo shoot at. It happened to be the top of a little man made waterfall area that is extremely popular for photographs. The people were legally sitting there enjoying a late afternoon picnic and did not wish to move.

The photographer was livid when I explained to him that this was a public park, that the people had a perfectly legal right to be there and a right to not move if they choose not to. I further went on to explain that if he wanted to reserve that location he could do so by contacting the park department, give them the time, date and pay the $25.00 fee. If he did so and such a situation occurred then we would indeed have them leave as he had reserved the area.

 

[TCampbell]

Many good points and on some aspects I agree, however when a business takes over a piece of public land such as a park etc. they have now converted it's use to that of a private entity to make money from. Your taxes were paid to support the good of all with such parks etc. same as everyone else, not to give a business person, no matter what business person a right to use that land for profit at the expense of others. If a business wishes to make money off the public property they should pay a reasonable fee to do so. Remember I and every other person paid their share of taxes as well for equal use of that same public property with out the expiation of profit.

I will agree that some places have imposed what would seem to be unreasonable fees and unreasonable rules but there is a system of law to get those things changed.

The idea that you also paid for equal use of the public property does't quite apply because the photographer situation isn't special. For example... if another member of the public arrived at some location in the park first and they're using that space for something (throwing a baseball back and forth) then a different member of the public would not be within their rights to tell the other party that they have to leave because they want the space. In other words, everyone temporarily and simplicity reserves their own "space" simply by being there. Whatever legal activity they want to do in that space is fine. Taking photographs is a legal activity just as having a picnic or reading a book is a legal activity. You wouldn't impose a fee on book-readers claiming that by them reading a book in that space they are depriving other people of the use of that particular spot on the ground. So why would you treat a photographer special?

It might be different if it were, say, a food vendor... who wanted to set up in the same spot every day. The photographer doesn't use the spot every day... they might use it one time ever... or they might use it a few times per year. Regardless, it's the person being photographed who is really being cheated. Suppose you are a senior in high school and you would like your senior portrait to be taken in that park. Why should you have to pay an extra fee to allow a photographer to take your photo in that location? The photo is really for your benefit... not the photographer's. The photographer isn't making money off the use of the park -- they're making money off the user of their skills, time, and their photography equipment (wherever they shoot -- the park had little to do with it.)

And the rules can get ugly... I've encountered some places that want to impose a fee because you seem to be holding "a professional camera" (whatever that means) even if the photographer is a not a professional. Now suddenly even private individuals are expected to not pursue their hobby in a public park (unless they apply for a permit and pay a fee)... even thought everyone else seems to be permitted to pursue their other hobbies in the same park.

 

[table1349]

Sorry, should have been more clear. The photographer mentioned above was a professional photographer doing a paid job.

And yes if you want to run a business, for an hour, a day or everyday on public property then charging a reasonable fee is perfectly reasonable, photographer, restaurant, or book store wanting to set it's book reading area up on the public sidewalk. It is a business making money by using public property.

 

[Gary A.]

Per the explaination, it seems the fee is to reserve the spot and not for actual usage. If a book reader wants to reserve a particular spot and not face a first-come-first-serve situation, then, I suspect they can pay to reserve the spot. A public park/facility is paid for and typically set aside for the general public to enjoy. A commercial enterprise is a whole different thing. A commercial enterprise hasn't any privilege or right to use a public facility without the approval of the jurisdiction governing that public facility.

 

[Gary A.]

I've been arrested many times, but not for trespassing, (never convicted though).

And lord know we don't want to know what you were arrested for.

Well not unless you have twenty seven eight-by-ten Colour glossy pictures with circles and arrows and a paragraph on the back of each one.

Here I am about to be arrested. The photo is of George Brett, (I think that was his name), an AP photog under arrested. I was arrested, (but not convicted), for taking a snap of Brett getting arrested. After taking that final photo, I turned around and was walking away when the long arm of the law (see above), grabbed me from behind and arrested me as well.

 

[robsteth]

To get outside shots you really do not have to trespass, to get INSIDE shots you do.....