Candid "legal" questions!

[Garbz]

You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.

Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow. This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations

Both of these can't be held as a quote of law. These things vary greatly from country to country. I.e. some of the differences I know between for instance USA and Australia: Shopping malls are publicly accessible in the USA and therefore considered public in most states for the purposes of privacy rules (including photography). In the USA your right to photograph extends WAAAAAY beyond the sidewalk and street. In Australia on the other hand it's a strict opposite. If you're not on public land then it's up to the owners and this includes things like buildings or services which are run by the government but privately owned such as buses, train stations, and in a more bizarre case the entire south side of my city which is owned by the Southbank Corporation... Now to make matters more complicated where I live you have the right to take photos until told otherwise after which you're trespassing on private property, and any photos you captured until the point where you're asked to stop / leave are yours to keep, but snap a photo afterwards and it will be considered as being taken during a crime.

The second point can be quite different as well. As far as I am aware in the USA if you can do something from public land it's your prerogative. Shoot with a 500mm lens into a government building (terrorism laws are the exception here, but it's not a case of privacy). In Australia and in many parts of Europe they apply the reasonable person clause. If a person can reasonably expect privacy then they deserve it. I've heard this referred to as the iPhone clause. If you can capture it from the street with an iPhone it's fair game, but if you need a long lens, or need to climb a tree to see over a fence etc you're out of luck if you get caught.

 

[TCampbell]

The TSA screen area may have changed. It was always a rule that never made sense to me. While I cannot photograph an officially classified area, I _also_ can't visit the classified area either... I don't have clearance. So I always thought it was odd that general members of the public could walk through the TSA screening area and see everything in plain sight... but whip out a camera and you'll have several agents telling you that you can't do that.

BTW, I actually _have_ seen TSA officers prevent people from using cameras because the screening area was in the background -- telling the people that they're not allowed to use cameras there (granted, just because the TSA officer says so doesn't necessarily mean they are correct. But they can make your life miserable while you sort out what you may and may not legally do.)

As my layer friends are fond of reminding me: you can do anything as long as you're certain that you can convince a jury to take your side.

 

[vfotog]

Paparazzi is a whole different subject. The paparazzi are generally taking photos of famous people. Usually you'd need a model release in order to use those photos and the subjects typically wouldn't grant such a release. But it turns out the 'press' gets an exception to the rule. The press does NOT need a model release to use photos of people. The paparazzi are essentially working for the press (even if they are freelance photographers (and usually they are), their only intended use of the photo is to sell it to the press.) The paparazzi could not sell the photos to, say, a company who wanted to use the celebrity's image as part of their ad campaign, but they CAN sell the photo to a newspaper or magazine who may use it in an article without needing a model release. That's how they get away with do something that any other photographer would NOT be allowed to do.

this part is wrong. Paps are allowed to do what they do not because they are press but because basically anyone is allowed to take photos of anyone in PUBLIC. There is no reasonable expectation of privacy on public streets, so they can take photos of famous people or total unknowns. The entire genre of photography (street photography) exists because of this. The Pap laws exist to restrict them from harassing their subjects and also so that people won't be doing things like using long lenses to shoot through windows into people's homes, which are protected.

 

[KmH]

You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.

Note that not all sidewalks are on public property.

As Steve5D mentions, here in the USA you cannot be compelled to delete images, nor do LEOs have the authority to confiscate your memory card unless they have a search warrant.
Private security guards have even less authority than do LEOs.

LEOs often do not know as much about the applicable laws as photographers do, and/or simply use their authority to make stuff up that sounds plausible.
LEO = Law Enforcement Officer

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

 

[sapper6fd]

They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.

Cops will "take you in" for Tresspassing in the US? My god. Glad I live in Canada! you can be given a Tresspass order preventing you from coming back on the property by the property owners here, if you violate that its nothing more than an $85 fine from the police! The only time the police can arrest you for Tresspassing here is when you are commiting what is called "Tresspass by Night" which is where you are caught tresspassing at night and in posession of breaking and entering tools. At which point you dont even need a tresspass order for them to take you in.

 

[skieur]

You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property.

Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow. This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations

Both of these can't be held as a quote of law. These things vary greatly from country to country. I.e. some of the differences I know between for instance USA and Australia: Shopping malls are publicly accessible in the USA and therefore considered public in most states for the purposes of privacy rules (including photography). In the USA your right to photograph extends WAAAAAY beyond the sidewalk and street. In Australia on the other hand it's a strict opposite. If you're not on public land then it's up to the owners and this includes things like buildings or services which are run by the government but privately owned such as buses, train stations, and in a more bizarre case the entire south side of my city which is owned by the Southbank Corporation... Now to make matters more complicated where I live you have the right to take photos until told otherwise after which you're trespassing on private property, and any photos you captured until the point where you're asked to stop / leave are yours to keep, but snap a photo afterwards and it will be considered as being taken during a crime.

The second point can be quite different as well. As far as I am aware in the USA if you can do something from public land it's your prerogative. Shoot with a 500mm lens into a government building (terrorism laws are the exception here, but it's not a case of privacy). In Australia and in many parts of Europe they apply the reasonable person clause. If a person can reasonably expect privacy then they deserve it. I've heard this referred to as the iPhone clause. If you can capture it from the street with an iPhone it's fair game, but if you need a long lens, or need to climb a tree to see over a fence etc you're out of luck if you get caught.

Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

skieur

 

[swiftparkour94]

Thanks so much everyone for the useful advice! Here's something else I've been pondering...can I shoot candid on a cruise ship? Not that I can afford one, I'm just wondering.....it seems extremely tough to answer and I can't figure it out myself!

 

[KmH]

You would check with the cruise ship owners since you would be on private property.

As far as what constitutes a 'reasonable expectation of privacy' you would need to check with whichever governments water the cruise ship happens to be in, assuming the ship is inside government controlled waters. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Territorial_waters

 

[skieur]

Thanks so much everyone for the useful advice! Here's something else I've been pondering...can I shoot candid on a cruise ship? Not that I can afford one, I'm just wondering.....it seems extremely tough to answer and I can't figure it out myself!

A cruise ship is a "public place", so until and unless you are told otherwise by staff, you can take photos and use them for any purpose commercial or otherwise, but advertising.

skieur

 

[Garbz]

Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

Good catch but on a technicality. Either way you won't retain the rights to your photos on private land if you're trespassing. Try and get that past the courts.

 

[HughGuessWho]

Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

skieur

Except when charged with Criminal Trespass... just sayin'...

 

[2WheelPhoto]

The internetz is the place to go for legal advice....we're all legal experts here

 

[skieur]

Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

Good catch but on a technicality. Either way you won't retain the rights to your photos on private land if you're trespassing. Try and get that past the courts.

Sure you will. It has already been done in well known civil cases in the US, a famous one in Canada, and I am sure, Australia as well since the same law applies.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Not quite totally correct. Trespassing is CIVIL not CRIMINAL which means that if you take a photo after being told that your are trespassing, the only thing that they can fine you for is trespassing even in Australia.

skieur

Except when charged with Criminal Trespass... just sayin'...

NO, Not true. A case in New York, where the judge indicated that taking photos was not a crime even when trespassing, therefore the photographer retains rights to all images taken.

skieur

 

[skieur]

You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area. As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)

I believe this is not correct. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges that photography is permitted in and around airline security checkpoints as long as you're not interfering with the screening process.

The TSA Blog: Can I Take Photos at the Checkpoint and Airport?

Yes, there is a SHORT list of US classified areas such as area 51 in Nevada, where photography is forbidden but it is very short. If the area is not on the list, then photography is permitted.

skieur