I had someone to call cops on me

lrn2freedomofthepress
lrn2freedomofthepress

lrn2freedomofthepress has nothing to do with photography.

Amendment 1 - Freedom of Religion, Press, Expression. Ratified 12/15/1791.


Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
This is a freedom granted to EVERYONE, not just photographers.

The ownership of a camera also does not make someone a member of the press.

So, photographers are exercising their freedom granted in the american constitution to everyone. What's your point? A camera may not make someone a member of the press, but that does not in any way limit the constitutional rights of photographers who are not members of the press.

skieur


The point is, there are NO SPECIAL PHOTOGRAPHERS RIGHTS. You only have the same rights and the same responsibilities as every other person.
 
lrn2freedomofexpression
lrn2freedomofthepress

Yes, Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Use One's Property...as in photographic equipment.

skieur

Now you are trying to add your take to the constitution. You have no more rights to use that camera than the next person does to use a flashlight or radio. That's the point, there are no special rules for photographers.

Remember, your freedom of expression and freedom to use one's property still stops at another persons freedom.

Not trying to add my take at all. That is how the press and for that matter most US judges see it. As to special rules for photographers, (if we are talking about the same thing), they have developed from case law, application of other laws to photographers, and the procedures that have been instituted by police departments to avoid civil rights violations and law suits.

As for freedom, I find it laughable that some who resent being photographed in a public place by an amateur photographer as a violation of their privacy ignore the multiple times that they have been photographed and videotaped by security cameras.

After 9/11, Americans gave up many of their freedoms in exchange for the "mirage" of security. I applaud American photographers who are fighting to retain their freedoms.

skieur
 
Yes, Freedom of Expression and Freedom to Use One's Property...as in photographic equipment.

skieur

Now you are trying to add your take to the constitution. You have no more rights to use that camera than the next person does to use a flashlight or radio. That's the point, there are no special rules for photographers.

Remember, your freedom of expression and freedom to use one's property still stops at another persons freedom.

Not trying to add my take at all. That is how the press and for that matter most US judges see it. As to special rules for photographers, (if we are talking about the same thing), they have developed from case law, application of other laws to photographers, and the procedures that have been instituted by police departments to avoid civil rights violations and law suits.

After 9/11, Americans gave up many of their freedoms in exchange for the "mirage" of security. I applaud American photographers who are fighting to retain their freedoms.

skieur

What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but they are not photography specific. They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.

The procedures you are talking about are not just related to photographers either. Take a sketch pad to some secure facility site and start making sketches of the site and see if you don't attract the same attention that you would with a camera. You will probably attract more attention. A camera is just one form for recording a particular scene or view.

As for freedom, I find it laughable that some who resent being photographed in a public place by an amateur photographer as a violation of their privacy ignore the multiple times that they have been photographed and videotaped by security cameras.

I find it laughable too. Public view is public view. That is why I find it even more laughable when people complain about security cameras in public places.

I am no fan of the paparazzi. I found it very funny a few years ago. I don't remember the person that did this, but they hired a photographer to play paparazzi with a particularly annoying paparazzi photographer that was following them around.

The hired photographer followed the paparazzi around photographing them and their home, family, vehicles etc. The paparazzi got the point when they found that they were not able or at least didn't feel comfortable with acting in their same manner when they were being photographed nor did they like their family and personal life exposed. Apparently the paparazzi didn't like being paparazzied by another person.
 
oh ,my god !
i want to say nothing !
the word is so big that different people has different character!
 
FREQUENTLY cops are really not well versed in the rules around photography at all.
How can we be versed in something that doesn't exist???

Show me one mention in the constitution about photography or photographers rights. Ok, show me the photographers "rules" in the Bill of Rights. There aren't any.

Photographers have no more rights than any other person without a camera and no less. Putting a camera strap around your neck gives you no additional legal protections. And being on "public property" is not cart-blanc to do what ever you want. Remember that your rights stop where another persons rights begin. Everyone has the same protections and the same responsibilities under the laws and under the Constitution of the United States.

For those that live outside of the United States, you will have to check the laws of the place that you live.

You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said. He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution." This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.

That's why the US legal code is so friggin' long. There are various statutes that do restrict photographers, and otherwise photographers can do whatever they want (and no, I do not know of them off-hand and wouldn't know exactly where to look, though previous posters to this thread have linked and quoted them). It's perfectly legal to go around photographing things from public property that that does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. Laws come in that have restricted it so that you can't photograph things where you have a reasonable expectation of privacy (like through a crack in some blinds). But asking one to find some place in the Constitution that states photographers are free to take pictures is just kinda a silly request/statement.
 
On the other hand, should I be happy that we have those people around as next time they could prevent real crime from happening?

Not likely, I have found those annoying people with nothing better to do with their lives are rarely, if ever, around at the right time when something bad is actually happening. When there is a burglar in your house they're trying to see who is playing music too loud, or still making noise at 9PM at night. Ironic, isn't it?

An old woman approached my girlfriends mom about a party that her sister threw one night while their parents were out of town. She knew about it, so it wasn't one of those parties. The old woman worded it as, "The next time your daughters decide to throw a party, maybe they'll remember to close the blinds." I cut in and told her that no one was forcing her to stand at her window spying on other peoples business and that maybe the next time she didn't like something, then to close her own blinds.

I honestly hate people like that.
 
You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said. He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution." This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.

AHA! Thanks. I knew something felt wrong about that.
 
What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but they are not photography specific. They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.

Why not? Like if a photographer sues a cop for confiscating their equipment and deleting images. Sure it boils down to destruction of property/evidence, but it lays down an official precedent that says a law enforcement officer can't just take a photographer's camera and delete images from their camera because you don't like it and you think it's wrong.

That's directly regarding photography.
 
This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.


[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RYHhBJPTHqo[/ame]
 
I think it may be a regional thing because in 30+ years of photographing in NYC and Philly no one ever bothered me about taking pictures anywhere. Yet when I lived in Chicagoland for about 4 years recently I was stopped several times in different parts of the area (mostly in the burbs) and asked what I was doing and why - people seem to be more suspicious around there.
 
This is what may happen if you think your free to film or take photos in public and test your rights with the police.

Sounds like this guy was technically correct on several points, but practically speaking, he didn't handle it very well (nor did the police for that matter).

For those who are truly concerned about how to behave in an encounter with the police, you may find the following link helpful; it's the ACLU's "bust card", intended to combat racial profiling, but the basic rights should apply to all of us.

Know Your Rights: What To Do If You?re Stopped By The Police (Bust Card) | American Civil Liberties Union

All in all, a legal debate with an officer during a stop is probably not advisable...you can dig yourself a deeper hole (as the guy in the video did, cracked windshield and all). This is especially true if you think the officer is being unreasonable in the first place; you're unlikely to successfully sway their opinion. As others have mentioned earlier in the thread, the best bet is probably to diffuse the situation as efficiently and quickly as possible. If you feel your rights were violated, you're better off contacting an attorney from your home, not a jail cell.
 
You seem to be setting up a straw man argument from what manaheim said. He said "rules," you converted that to "Constitution." This is like manaheim saying that cops aren't versed in the rules relating to murder, and you saying that there are no such rules because they aren't in the Constitution.

AHA! Thanks. I knew something felt wrong about that.

Ask any LEO what they enforce. They do not enforce rules. They enforce laws. The constitution is the original set of laws on which this country is founded. They are not a god given right, but one crafted by man for the good of man as an individual and as a collective society.
 
Have to disagree a little with you gryphonslair99. Whats in the constitution is a lot of god given rights. The constitution just protects those rights from being infringed upon by an overbearing government.
 
What case law are you speaking of that provides special rules for photographers? There are cases brought by photographers that clarified a point of law, but they are not photography specific. They are point specific applicable to all that fall into that particular point of law, not just photographers.

Why not? Like if a photographer sues a cop for confiscating their equipment and deleting images. Sure it boils down to destruction of property/evidence, but it lays down an official precedent that says a law enforcement officer can't just take a photographer's camera and delete images from their camera because you don't like it and you think it's wrong.

That's directly regarding photography.


You started getting the point and then fell back into being a photographer, it's not about photography, it is about the 4th Amendment, search and seizure. That is the point I am trying to make. There are no special rules, laws or constitutional guarantees granted to photographers.

Every 4th Amendment issue is judged on it's own merits based on the facts of the incident be it photographs/photographers, computers/users-owners, or left handed 3 wheel widgets/and their owners. Some 4th Amendments situations are painfully obvious and some are not requiring the intercession of the courts to make a determination.

If you want to avoid hassles and make situations like these easier to deal with and get on with your life or shooting, you need to understand not only all of your rights, but all of your responsibilities. When evaluating a situation look past the trees and see the forest.
 

Most reactions

New Topics

Back
Top