Photography and the Law

[Bynx]

Rekd, Im wondering why you are being such a putz about this?

 

[Rekd]

Rekd, Im wondering why you are being such a putz about this?

I'm just pointing out "mistakes". The author doesn't like it. That fuels my need to point out more.

It's a viscous circle. :lmao:

Seriously, I don't think this article should point people in the wrong direction. It's got holes that could get someone in trouble and I'm just pointing it out.

 

[Paul D. Van Hoy II]

I actually had an NYPD officer, stationed at the Holland Tunnel, pull me aside and hostily harass me because I made a photo (out of my stationary car window) of the Holland Tunnel. He proceeded to tell me that photographing the tunnel had been ruled illegal (as well as many other structures and buildings throughout NYC) since 9-1-1. It was hard not to laugh or let my frustration show. I simply pretended to delete the images upon his request and then played dumb and drove on. It's a crying shame that such ridiculous and erroneous laws are being used to bully photographers. It has become such commonplace that I have long since resigned myself to protest - I simply choose my battles, which are far and few in between these days.

Toronto Wedding Photographer

 

[skieur]

Do Not:

Show any identification because it is not required to security guards at all, or to the police, unless you are arrested.

I would suggest if a LEO asks you for an ID you show it to them. If you don't, you risk being arrested. At least in the US. (Yes, you CAN be arrested and detained for up to 3 days without being charged with anything. )

Very true, it is usually more helpful to be cooperative any ways.

In terms of your rights: USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!

skieur

 

[Rekd]

I would suggest if a LEO asks you for an ID you show it to them. If you don't, you risk being arrested. At least in the US. (Yes, you CAN be arrested and detained for up to 3 days without being charged with anything. )

Very true, it is usually more helpful to be cooperative any ways.

In terms of your rights: USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!

skieur

Exactly which rights stand to be lost by showing an LEO your ID when he asks? And in the unlikely event you come up with one (or more), exactly what type of circumstance would you say warrants risking 3 days in the pokey vs showing the LEO your ID and walking away?

Honestly, this just keeps getting better and better... :lmao:

 

[Bynx]

I think the point of the article is to point out that you, as the photographer have certain rights. When those rights are stepped on by LEO then you have 2 choices. You can either give them up or you can stand up for them. Its up to you to decide how important those rights are to you. The article is also not the defacto word on the law. Its a guide to give some thought on the issue. If there is something that concerns you then seek further info. Who wrote this article? skieur posted it, but are you also the author?

 

[Rekd]

I think the point of the article is to point out that you, as the photographer have certain rights. When those rights are stepped on by LEO then you have 2 choices. You can either give them up or you can stand up for them. Its up to you to decide how important those rights are to you. The article is also not the defacto word on the law. Its a guide to give some thought on the issue. If there is something that concerns you then seek further info. Who wrote this article? skieur posted it, but are you also the author?

I am not one to give up my rights. I'm an avid gun-nut and believe in personal responsibility and privacy from State Officials.

That being said, knowing when to tell the LEO to **** off and when to simply let them see your ID is key. I'm betting 99 times out of a hundred you're going to be better off simply letting the LEO see your ID. If you refuse it is very very likely that you'll be in for more harassment and probably even be detained.

The article has a couple of obvious and potentially dangerous errors, which I clearly pointed out. The author (skieur), obviously takes offense to people critiquing his work but that's too bad: He's trying to tell people that it's ok to do things that could potentially get them arrested or shot.

 

[Bynx]

Rekd, I dont have a vested interest in the article but I dont find your remarks from the getko to be just pointing out flaws. For some reason you have been on the offensive from your second post spacing out INTERNATIONAL like skieur cant spell. Your first question was answered in the first paragraph if you had read it. And, if by law, you are not required to identify yourself to an LEO, then why should you? Most people do indeed kiss cops asses when confronted by them. But if one is clearly not doing anything illegal then why should you cooperate to the satisfaction of the cop? It might be easier to just show him a drivers licence, but he is overstepping his authority if he asks in the first place. Perhaps the cops should learn the law and what boundaries they are entitled to cross. I was taking pics a couple years ago of a crossing guard. She asked me to do it since she was leaving the job for cancer treatment and wanted a souvenir of her last duties. So during the afternoon I stood between two buildings taking her picture as she helped the kids cross the street. I heard a voice say "What are you doing?" My reply was, without taking my eyes from the camera viewfinder, "What's it to you?" He informs me he is a cop and I turn and look at him and his badge. Then I repeated my first response "and What's it to you?" Im wondering whats on his mind and he asks if Im taking pics of the kids. I did go as far as tell what I was doing and why. Then I went back to my camera and continued to take pics. Then I see him drive over to the woman and has a brief talk with her and he drives away. Had he asked for my identification I would have refused. I was clearly in the right and my actions, while perhaps suspicious, was easily explained. I dont think I would ever be cooperative with a belligerent cop with nothing to do. Sometimes its just the principle of the thing. But you seem to not realize that. Instead you would kiss a$$ rather than stand up for your rights. I think it was a good posting by skieur and Im not going to continue any further with anything that Im sure you are going to come up with Rekd. You have made it clear to me you are just a trouble maker.

 

[MagpieDave]

Hello - I have just joined this site in the hope that I can find an answer to a question I have.

What is the legal situation if I take a photograph of someone's house with the intention of using it in a book. It was the people who lived in the house in the 1890s and early 1900s that are the subject of the book. The small number of houses in question are in England and Scotland.

Don't know if this makes any difference but the book will eventually be for sale but is for a limited audience only and therefore will not generate profit - but hopefully cover printing costs.

Do I need the current owner/occupiers permission to use the photograph?

What else do I require?

Thanks

Dave

 

[Bynx]

Good question Dave. I looked it up on Google and found everything from yes to no. The common sense approach is, if you are using the photo for artistic or editorial purposes you dont need permission if you are shooting it from a public area. If you are using the photo for commercial use, whether you make a profit or not, then permission should be required. Lets set a senario and see what you think. Someone takes a small film of your house from the street without approaching you. A few months later a new tv series becomes a hit. The star of the show lives in your house which now appears weekly at the start of every episode. I dont know the legal implications of this, but Im sure you are entitled to something. Your house is now very popular and there is a never ending line of cars driving by taking pictures. Your life is affected. Its an extreme case but whether permission is needed or not has to cover a whole range of situations and usage. Just my 2 cents.

 

[KmH]

Hello - I have just joined this site in the hope that I can find an answer to a question I have.

What is the legal situation if I take a photograph of someone's house with the intention of using it in a book. It was the people who lived in the house in the 1890s and early 1900s that are the subject of the book. The small number of houses in question are in England and Scotland.

Don't know if this makes any difference but the book will eventually be for sale but is for a limited audience only and therefore will not generate profit - but hopefully cover printing costs.

Do I need the current owner/occupiers permission to use the photograph?

What else do I require?

Thanks

Dave

TPF is an international forum and property release laws vary all over the planet, meaning you may receive advice that does not apply where you are.

Here in the US, you do not need permission, or a release, to use photos of the outsides of homes that will be used for editorial purposes. If made from public property, like the side of the road, you do not need permission to make the photos.

However, your best bet is to consult with a attorney qualified to practice law in your country.

 

[CCericola]

I agree with KmH. If you are unsure about the law consult an attorney. The OP did not intend for his article to be a legal reference. It is just a jumping off point with a plain speak interpretation of common laws that affect us. Take it for what it is.

 

[skieur]

Consulting an attorney, sounds very logical, but attorneys are not generalists who are familiar with all the laws. Unfortunately you would need a top media lawyer who knows the case law and the most recent interpretations of laws affecting photographers in your area.
That caliber of lawyer tends to be only in large cities, so "talking to a knowledgeable lawyer" is much easier to ADVISE, than to actually DO for most photographers, particularly if they just need some answers to straightforward questions.

So try some more reasonable suggestions, people!!!!

skieur

 

[CCericola]

Consulting an attorney, sounds very logical, but attorneys are not generalists who are familiar with all the laws. Unfortunately you would need a top media lawyer who knows the case law and the most recent interpretations of laws affecting photographers in your area.
That caliber of lawyer tends to be only in large cities, so "talking to a knowledgeable lawyer" is much easier to ADVISE, than to actually DO for most photographers, particularly if they just need some answers to straightforward questions.

So try some more reasonable suggestions, people!!!!

skieur

Maybe it is different in Canada but most firms in any US town can either find answers to your questions or refer you to someone who can. This is the most reasonable suggestion. Even if the lawyer you are looking for is in another city there is this series of tubes Al Gore created to help you.

 

[asmireet]

Thanks for sharing