Laws of taking pictures in public

[Nevermore1]

My guess is most of the time it is someone just taking harmless photos because they enjoy taking them, not because they are a pedophile or looking to kidnap a child but unfortunately that's the way society thinks today.

If "society" were a person, they would be locked away in an insane asylum.

I think people have become paranoid these days. I don't freak out if someone happens to take a picture of my kids. I certainly inadvertently take a lot of pictures of "other people's kids". That's what happens when you go to public places.

Yes, they are paranoid these days. It doesn't help that schools (at least in my area) are trying to scare kids by telling them that if there is someone hanging around a playground watching you or taking pictures of you then that means they may want to harm you and you should be afraid of them. I work very hard to teach my kids otherwise, that most likely it is just a nice person who enjoys spending time around kids. If you are at a museum or zoo or event/festival of some type there is no way to avoid getting pictures of kids and I don't think that's a problem. It's if you go to a playground to specifically take pictures of other peoples kids that it can become a problem especially if you are not bringing a kid there to play as well (since for some reason people seem to think if you have a kid with you then you must be ok, stupid of people to think like that). It's not right that it could be a problem but with how paranoid some parents are it can be hard to avoid.

 

[tecboy]

Finally, do I have the right to tell someone to beat it if they want me to delete a picture?
I am not worried about someone getting violent with me as it is not a choice people are likely to make with me, but legally speaking, can I just move on with no legal backlash?

Safety always come first. I feel the same way as you do. If they asked you not to photograph, then don't photograph and walk away. Photograph somewhere else where you feel comfortable or come back some other times. If they asked you to delete a picture, then delete it and avoid confrontation. It is not worth it.

 

[480sparky]

If asked to delete a photo that's perfectly legal to take, I'd have no problem.

Deleting it in-camera will merely mean I delete from the card in Slot 1. The file on Slot 2 is still there.

I have my shot, and the PO'd lawyer-wanna-be is happy.

 

[Josh66]

It's not right that it could be a problem but with how paranoid some parents are it can be hard to avoid.

What gets me is that these same parents have no issue at all with their kids being under constant 'surveillance' at school, or while out shopping. But take them to a public playground and no holds are barred.

Misplaced trust, maybe.

 

[480sparky]

FWIW, if you DO delete images, just put a new card in your camera, keep shooting, and when you get home run some recovery software.

 

[table1349]

Please notice the OP is in CANADA! Laws in other countries will not apply.

Please notice the OP is in CANADA! Laws in other countries will not apply.

Oy... Didn't notice that. I think it would be "mostly the same", but don't take my word for it...

Note to moderators........................Can we get a face palm emoticon??? :mrgreen:

Maybe like this one?

 

[480sparky]

Not to moderators........................Can we get a face palm emoticon??? :mrgreen:

Sure.

But the emoticon has got to go 'cuz it's not 'artistic'.

 

[unpopular]

Just no upskirts. It'll get you in trouble... trust me.

 

[table1349]

Just no upskirts. It'll get you in trouble... trust me.

Trust me my @$$. There is a story here. Details.....we want details. :lmao:

 

[TreeofLifeStairs]

Unpopular, are you in Massachusetts?

 

[table1349]

Not to moderators........................Can we get a face palm emoticon??? :mrgreen:

Sure.

But the emoticon has got to go 'cuz it's not 'artistic'.

This one is artistic.

 

[JoeW]

I have read a few threads here that talk about respect and manners with taking pictures in public of people and events.
Am I legally allowed to take pictures of anything or anyone in public? If I can see it with my eyes, what is the issue?

I can understand that some may think it is creepy to be taking pictures of a park full of kids, but kids playing is a beautiful thing.
I have had someone come up to me at a community event and ask me to put my camera away.
I responded respectfully back, informing them I am a part of this community and my pictures are not for commercial use.
They left me alone when they found out my wife was putting on the event, but what rights do they have?

When someone comes up to my kids and wants to take a picture, they are all in with some funny faces, or creative poses.
This does not bother me at all.
Sometimes I think people watch way to much crime TV where the weirdo always has a camera.

Finally, do I have the right to tell someone to beat it if they want me to delete a picture?
I am not worried about someone getting violent with me as it is not a choice people are likely to make with me, but legally speaking, can I just move on with no legal backlash?

Okay, I am not a lawyer. And I'm not Canadian (though I've been to Canada with my camera probably 20-30 times). Those caveats noted....

1. Generally speaking, you are allowed to shoot whatever you want in a public setting in the USA. But there are some restrictions (that vary with location, circumstances, and venue). For instance, there are some jurisdictions that have sought to ban pictures of farms (even if taken from public space or road). The idea is to keep PETA from taking pictures of animal industrial practices. Another example is that if you were to be seen taking pictures of TSA screens, that is illegal (b/c it could deny the privacy of others). So it's not so simple as saying that if it's public and you can see it, then you have the right to shoot it. For instance, the new Massachusetts law banning "up skirt" photography is a good thing but it clearly indicates that just b/c you're in public and can see something doesn't mean you can legally take a picture of it. Another time I was attending the air show at Pax River NAS in MD. To drive to the airfield, you drove past secure facilities. I was on public space where you didn't need a clearance to be. But the signage indicated that to take pictures of some of the facilities that were visible from that public space would be illegal and a violation of Federal law and they had guards there attempting to enforce that. There are a host of pubic buildings you can go in to (like Monticello) where photography of any sort indoors is banned. It's public space, you can see it with your eyes, but no pictures allowed (and it's not just flash photography...ALL photography).

2. If you take pictures of power plants or refineries from public land and staff see you and get your license plate, there is a pretty good chance that you'll get a visit from the police. In fact, anything that could be a potential terrorist target (like taking pictures of security at the front of an embassy) may draw the same response. Don't get me wrong, it's legal but it's also legal for the police to then contact you, ask why you were taking pictures, and get more details.

3. I know of a number of groups/roles where they've been instructed not to allow pictures to be taken of particular individuals. I was at the museum of the American Indian in DC, saw a stroller come by with a nanny of 4 sleeping infants and went to take a picture. Oops--the nanny told me she wasn't to allow anyone to take pictures of the kids. Then the private security showed up and demanded my SD card. Turns out the family/families had concerns about kidnapping (foreign) from their country despite living in the US and part of the security plan was to prevent pictures being taken of the kids, the family vehicles, the residence. Security made it very clear to me that they were going to leave with my SD card or they were going to watch me delete the photo. They also started making calls to US Federal law enforcement sources to check my credentials and insure I was legit (I had a press ID tag on my bag so they got my name pretty quickly).

4. The example you cite (a party hosted by your wife, therefore not a "public" event) could potentially be an instance (depending upon the state) where people could legitimately argue that you are required to get signed releases (b/c these are not public figures and it's not an event open to the public or newsworthy).

5. I was taking pictures on public land of Lorton Federal prison (the guard towers and front gate) back in 1988 or "89. I was detained, my film seized and exposed. We can debate whether or not that was legal or not, the point was that when guards with guns ask you to accompany them and then seize your cameras, you don't have a lot of options.

6. Last of all, you can shoot a lot of things but owning the photo doesn't mean you have the right to display, market or sell the photo. And that's why we have model releases.

 

[480sparky]

This one is artistic.

Pffft.

 

[Steve5D]

I once saw a father approach a photographer who had been taking photos of the father's kids in Balboa Park in San Diego.

The father told the photographer to delete the photos of his kids. The photographer's unfortunate reply was "Sorry, but I don't have to".

Without another word, the father grabbed the camera and pulled. Since it was around the photographer's neck, the photographer was pulled to the ground. The father removed the CF card and threw the Canon 7D and 100-400mm lens onto the ground. The photographer got up and grabbed the father, who then proceeded to completely kick the snot out of the photographer.

The entire episode lasted less than a minute.

San Diego's Finest were there in no time, and they took the father into custody. I'd say it's a fair bet that he was charged and plead guilty, and he was probably sued by the photographer for new gear and medical bills, not to mention lost wages. But I'm also fairly sure that the photographer endured a rather painful recovery. I'm sure he made several trips to the dentist for reconstructive work. I'm sure he had tender ribs for weeks where the father's boots impacted his chest. I'm sure his bruises eventually healed.

There comes a point when you have to weigh the good against the bad. This photographer's refusal to delete photos was rewarded with an epic ass kicking. Sure, the father got arrested and sued, but the photographer literally got his teeth kicked in because he felt he was "right". I have to wonder if the suffering and the ass kicking was worth it. I wonder, given the outcome, if the photographer now believes he made the right choice with his flippant reply.

I'm a big guy, and I probably know how to handle myself better than most, but I learned a long time ago that there's always someone out there who can, and given the right circumstances will, kick your ass. I wonder how many people who say "No one can make you delete photos" would be willing to stand by that position while they're teeth are being actively removed by a motorcycle boot.

I can't think of too many images for which I would be willing to sustain a beating like that photographer took. The trouble is that there's no way to know who can and can't do it. If someone comes up and asks me to delete a photo of them or their kids, yeah, I'll delete it.

So, yeah, stand on principle if you want. Sure, you'll be "right"; good for you. But if you happen to cross the wrong person, Godspeed...

 

[minicoop1985]

General rule: if you can see into a bathroom, avoid shooting it. Legal or not, well, it's just... strange. I say this because I knew someone who wanted to take photos of the restrooms of Miller Park before the glass was frosted (they were too high up for the general public to see anything, but still). Creepy, creepy bastard he was.