Harassed For Taking Pictures

[KmH]

Any kind of lawyer whether they be for defendant or plaintiff can convolute arguments to serve their cause but in the end, justice prevails.

That is totally naive. :er:

 

[KmH]

I think it's "if face is shown, or can be made out.".

Nope!

First, it's not the photographer that gets to decide, it's the person in the photo and the courts that gets to decide if they are recognizable or not.

Any indentifier works for recognizability: a scar, a tattoo, a mole, custom made clothing, etc, there doesn't even have to be a face in the shot.

 

[jake337]

Top Flight Security of the World Bytch!

 

[HomelessBoy]

Good game lol...

 

[fwellers]

I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics.

Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?

Can I hear some discussion about what is "public" ?

Thanks,
Floyd

 

[Hickeydog]

I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics.

Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?

Can I hear some discussion about what is "public" ?

Thanks,
Floyd

The way I understand the law (and I'm NO lawyer), a privately owned public place, like a bar, McDonald's, ski resort, etc, is that you can take pictures to your heart's content, as there is no expectation of privacy, but the owner can ask you to leave, and if you don't, then you're trespassing.

Of course, I could be 100% off on this.

 

[DennyCrane]

I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics.

Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?

Can I hear some discussion about what is "public" ?

Thanks,
Floyd

The way I understand the law (and I'm NO lawyer), a privately owned public place, like a bar, McDonald's, ski resort, etc, is that you can take pictures to your heart's content, as there is no expectation of privacy, but the owner can ask you to leave, and if you don't, then you're trespassing.

Of course, I could be 100% off on this.

This is essentially correct, but if there's a posted sign prohibiting photography on private property w/o permission, you must comply. Like at a concert hall where some big act is playing or something. However, in my case, where it was public property and a public place, take all the pictures you want of whatever you want. Again, there are limits of things where there ARE expectations of privacy... someone keying in their PIN at an ATM, looking up someone's dress, using a long zoom to photograph inside a private residence. It's all very common sense. Don't photograph something you shouldn't look at anyway, photograph in a public place, and you'll be fine.

 

[Redbaron]

Obviously common sense should prevail - if someone was taking inappropriate photos of someone, or photos of my son and I deemed it inappropriate I'd certainly be having words. Anything else is fair game IMO.

Taking photos of military installations in former Soviet block countries is a bad idea as well...... trust me

 

[SituationNormal]

Update- I got an email from the local manager of the security company. He wants to talk to me, so I'll give him a call on Monday.

So how did the conversation end up going? I'm curious as to the managers response.

 

[photo guy]

That is kind of like one of my local restaurants. Burger King. Hosts car shows and wants customers and public to come and look and take photos but has a sign on each entry to the building saying no photography allowed. Double Standard in my opinion. Many, many people were at the last show taking photos and went in to eat so I think they should relax about it so they keep getting business. Funny thing though, they have surveillance cameras inside watching everyone and everything but no warning signs of any kind on their entry doors notifing anyone about it which is law in my state stating it has to be posted.

 

[SituationNormal]

Not necessarily a double standard. The signs on the doors are prohibiting photography from being taken from inside the building; not from the parking lot.

 

[MLeeK]

I think those involved are not briefed or do not understand their security risks. The management simply deployed them without giving them clear directions. In such a case, their supervisor should come forward and explain why photographs are not allowed. I am sure if there are good reasons, I too will support the instructions.

Therein is the reason that there are "rules" for not photographing security personnel and their locations, etc. It's the heightened security and the very real threat of an attack like 9/11. It is illegal to photograph any of the bridges in NYC for that reason. Unfortunately as photographers we are going to see more and more of this security/police harassment and PROBABLY will see the laws actually change. The reason? How do you determine who is taking photos for a terrorist organization?
The kicker there will be that the terrorists will be the ones taking photos with a spy camera. I am pretty confident that the terrorists aren't the ones standing out there with DSLR's and a bag of gear taking photos... they are walking through the gates legal as hell with a little point and shoot in their pocket which is allowed.
So, it'll get harder and harder on us in order to give the US Public a "feeling" of being more secure from terrorism when in all actuality all they are doing is harassing the law abiding photographers. A criminal is going to be a little more sneaky than to stand out there with a big ol' DSLR to his eye and a bag of gear on his back the size of a toddler.

 

[MLeeK]

I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics.

Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?

Can I hear some discussion about what is "public" ?

Thanks,
Floyd

The way I understand the law (and I'm NO lawyer), a privately owned public place, like a bar, McDonald's, ski resort, etc, is that you can take pictures to your heart's content, as there is no expectation of privacy, but the owner can ask you to leave, and if you don't, then you're trespassing.

Of course, I could be 100% off on this.

This is essentially correct, but if there's a posted sign prohibiting photography on private property w/o permission, you must comply. Like at a concert hall where some big act is playing or something. However, in my case, where it was public property and a public place, take all the pictures you want of whatever you want. Again, there are limits of things where there ARE expectations of privacy... someone keying in their PIN at an ATM, looking up someone's dress, using a long zoom to photograph inside a private residence. It's all very common sense. Don't photograph something you shouldn't look at anyway, photograph in a public place, and you'll be fine.

It BECOMES private property when it is leased to the Bills. Kind of like if you rent from the public housing authority. That's publicly owned property. It is leased for all intents and purposes by the renter who then makes it private property.


On the flip side... I will be shooting at Ralph Wilson on the field on 11/3 for one of the high school championship games. Press pass and all.