Rules on street photography

[The_Traveler]

For me, it was much closer to 9/11. I was taking some photos of a bank who was a client of the ad agency I was working for. All was fine, until I stepped up onto the federal court house's steps to get a better vantage point. The guard swooped in, brought me inside for questioning, took my ID, who I was and who I was working for.

After an hour and a half, I was let go.

no body cavity search for explosives?

 

[unpopular]

No. They even let me keep my film.

Awful nice of them.

 

[skieur]

You can take shots anywhere, without any permission.

Excellent advice to be arrested by. Try taking photos on a military installation or on government property like the pentagon. In DC, you're allowed to take photos on the metro since it's public, but not on the pentagon city stop because it's goverment land and they set the rules. You're can take photos in private venues, but if the owner doesn't give you consent, they can have you removed if you don't stop. Taking photos in most concert venues is usually not allowed and is posted on tickets and upfront. They can choose not to even let you in if you have a camera.

Actually, legally, you can take photos of US government installations and property that are NOT on the top secret list, and there are not many locations on that list.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Rules?

Make sure your on public property and have fun.

You don't have to be on public property. Shots taken on private property even when trespassing, belong to the photographer.

skieur

 

[skieur]

For me, it was much closer to 9/11. I was taking some photos of a bank who was a client of the ad agency I was working for. All was fine, until I stepped up onto the federal court house's steps to get a better vantage point. The guard swooped in, brought me inside for questioning, took my ID, who I was and who I was working for.

After an hour and a half, I was let go.

What the guard did was illegal in the US, but I bet you were intimidated and did NOT sue or file a police report to lay charges. Photographers cannot stop illegal harassment unless they take action.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.

Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.

So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?

 

[skieur]

Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.

Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.

So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?

So, you were "acting suspiciously", not just taking photos? And of course, you provided identification even when it was not necessary? And of course you could have walked away any time while he was contacting his superior? And of course, a federal courthouse is still a public place until you are told that unless you leave then you are trespassing. And you know that an officer is NOT within his rights to question you until he has arrested you for trespassing,...which was not possible since the officer did NOT follow proper procedure related to trespassing.

So, you obviously are not even aware of your rights.

skieur

 

[scrapfan85]

From what I learned in college (I studied video production). Public images are fair game, you are legally allowed to take someone's picture if they are in public view. That's why Paparazzis are such a huge problem with celebrities, they can get away with that stuff, for the most part, and don't need the person's permission(although how they are able to sell the person's image in a magazine I don't know).

But from what I understand if you are making money of someone's image or going to publish it in any form, then you need permission. That's why I personally don't like taking pictures of people at all, it cuts out the worry of privacy and legal or not, I still feel like I'm invading someone's space if they are AWARE I'm taking their photo, I guess it comes from myself who hates having their picture taken!

 

[unpopular]

Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.

Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.

So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?

So, you were "acting suspiciously", not just taking photos? And of course, you provided identification even when it was not necessary? And of course you could have walked away any time while he was contacting his superior? And of course, a federal courthouse is still a public place until you are told that unless you leave then you are trespassing. And you know that an officer is NOT within his rights to question you until he has arrested you for trespassing,...which was not possible since the officer did NOT follow proper procedure related to trespassing.

So, you obviously are not even aware of your rights.

skieur

And what exactly is the "proper procedure" for trespassing? And you do know that there is a difference between arrest and detainment, right? Also, another important factor here is that I was on the clock and representing my employer. Certainly a professional like yourself would understand that.

 

[skieur]

From what I learned in college (I studied video production). But from what I understand if you are making money of someone's image or going to publish it in any form, then you need permission. That's why I personally don't like taking pictures of people at all, it cuts out the worry of privacy and legal or not, I still feel like I'm invading someone's space if they are AWARE I'm taking their photo, I guess it comes from myself who hates having their picture taken!

That is incorrect, legally. In the US, you need permission for a shot in a public place ONLY if it is used for advertising. There are plenty of court decisions backing this up, as well as the law itself.

skieur

 

[skieur]

Actually, they were completely in their rights. A police officer can absolutely detain someone acting suspiciously - and yes, he was a US Marshal officer, not just a security guard or something. They did not retain any of my property, detain me for an extended period of time, nor pressured or otherwise harassed me. He just asked for identification, verified my identity, and contacted his superior on how to proceed. He was professional, respectful and respected boundaries. I had no reason to feel intimidated.

Simply because the federal courthouse is pulic federal property does now give me a right to trespass. I can't park in their parking lot either. I can't wander around the halls, nor dance on the judges desks. The moment I trespassed, the officer was well within his rights to question me.

So I am not sure what I'd sue for, not getting as much sleep that night as I normally would?

So, you were "acting suspiciously", not just taking photos? And of course, you provided identification even when it was not necessary? And of course you could have walked away any time while he was contacting his superior? And of course, a federal courthouse is still a public place until you are told that unless you leave then you are trespassing. And you know that an officer is NOT within his rights to question you until he has arrested you for trespassing,...which was not possible since the officer did NOT follow proper procedure related to trespassing.

So, you obviously are not even aware of your rights.

skieur

And what exactly is the "proper procedure" for trespassing? And you do know that there is a difference between arrest and detainment, right? Also, another important factor here is that I was on the clock and representing my employer. Certainly a professional like yourself would understand that.

First, trespassing is a civil, not a criminal offence, so unless you were on one of the listed top secret military sites where other laws apply, then any arrest would be difficult for any police or law enforcement officer to justify in the US. In a public place, which includes federal buildings it is assumed that anyone has the right to be there, UNLESS told otherwise by a representative of the owner. In other words, you need to be told to leave, and REFUSE to do so, in order for TRESPASSING to have occured. If you leave, when told to do so, then you are not trespassing and have not trespassed.

Detainment by the way by the police, is illegal without arrest. Legally you can leave at any time, unless an officer says that you are under arrest, but taking photos is not illegal and technically you were not trespassing, so NO charge could be laid. Further the police would be laughed out of court, for suggesting that taking photos was a 'suspicious activity", since that right is covered under the US constitution.

skieur

 

[deeky]

Skieur, for a Canadian (nothing specific to Canadians, just not from the US) you sure seem to know an aweful lot about US law. Do you have a background in the law? Experience? Just curious, looking for some context and justification.

 

[skieur]

Skieur, for a Canadian (nothing specific to Canadians, just not from the US) you sure seem to know an aweful lot about US law. Do you have a background in the law? Experience? Just curious, looking for some context and justification.

Part of production planning for television is knowing all the union contracts of your crew both technical and artistic, and the talent, as well as knowing media related law/television and photography in the area that you are going to shoot in. Among other things it is the best way for television stations to avoid law suits and bailing people out of jail.

skieur

 

[unpopular]

First, trespassing is a civil, not a criminal offence
skieur

This is not true, most places in the world this is the case, but it in the case of the United States, trespassing is a criminal offense.

So I'll just ignore the rest of your post.

 

[haynie90]

you need to get model releases from ever person you photograph whether they are the focal point or just in the background...

for every recognizable face