Restrictions to Photography

[johnnygoesdigital]

Re: Technical Camera Images

Stopped, yes. Forced to delete photos? Definitely not! That's what's crossing the line. Who's to say what a photographer might find interesting? Something called presumption of innocence seems to have been lost somewhere along the way with this 'war on terror' business.

I agree that making a photographer delete images is extreme, and I never had that experience, but there is a hyper sensitivity in these metro areas. NYC has many amazing angles, and many do photograph NY's scenery, such as the Brooklyn Bridge with no issues. To those who are not familiar with NYC, some are very sensitive to this, as many would be terrorists have indeed been caught with photos/videos of NYC landmarks, so again, i'm not surprised by the tank farm security response considering its location.

We as photographers have to be respectful too. On an editorial assignment for a magazine covering the aftermath of Hurricane Irene, I decided to put my camera down when I observed that it was upsetting a woman whose home was carried away by the flood. Sometimes taking these images is a privilege and not always a right. In most cases, simply asking permission gets you lots of access. Besides, if you publish them you need a release for anything recognizable, anyway.

 

[stephengilbert]

"In most cases, simply asking permission gets you lots of access. Besides, if you publish them you need a release for anything recognizable, anyway."

Really; you think that John's asking the security guards if he could take pictures would have made them cooperate? And where does it say that you need permission to publish a photograph of something "recognizable?"

I thought the First Amendment applied to images as well as words, but what do I know? I learn something new every day.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Generally, you'll need a release for most editorial or commercial photography. Not always required, but my editor won't publish without it. Even website photo's might require some kind of release. My travel and destination assignments normally don't require a release though.
Given today's litigious society, I find that simply asking permission for photographing certain locations or people is the respectful thing to do. And yes, I think the guards would have been more cooperating in photographing the tank farm, if only he had asked.

I was once stopped at a security gate for a National Guard base, on an unscheduled stop for an assignment. No photographs were allowed even though I was standing on public property. I asked permission to photograph, and was met by the base commander, who gave me a personal photography tour of the helicopter base. He gave me unprecedented access, just because I asked. The term "media", is practically a dirty word, so lets be respectful. Why is this even an issue?

 

[jlm]

the guard did tell me i did not look like a terrorist...
the problem y'all are not seeing is that in the trenches you are not confronted by anyone capable of making an informed civil rights decision, instead they are bored, working for minimum pay, and have to guess at the best way to satisfy their boss and keep their own job security.
Sometimes they won't give permission if you use a tripod (south street seaport public property, at 8am, no one around, i was stopped shooting the piers). Once shooting a Con Ed transformer plant in brooklyn again public property, once shooting the waste treatment facility(!!) in Greenpoint, all from a public road.

I also have personal permission from the administration to shoot in the Navy Yard (City of NY property), where I lease 10,000 sq ft for my shop (since 1986, yes 25 years!)

 

[Bob]

Massachusetts has its own quirks
http://www.malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartIII/TitleI/Chapter214/Section3A

means don't ever sell street photography where faces are recognizable without a release.
That is what I am told is the way that this is being applied.

 

[johnnygoesdigital]

Jim,
The navy yard is an amazing place to photograph. I was excited when there was talk of a movie studio in that location. That must be fun to have a shop there, and be a photographer!

 

[KeithL]

the problem y'all are not seeing is that in the trenches you are not confronted by anyone capable of making an informed civil rights decision, instead they are bored, working for minimum pay, and have to guess at the best way to satisfy their boss and keep their own job security.

All the more reason to stand up to them.

 

[Vivek]

the guard did tell me i did not look like a terrorist...

That to me is more serious of an issue. How can anyone tell based on your look or my look as to who we are!

There have been very serious examples of this kind of "identification".
See: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-16403636

The tripod issue has been discussed thoroughly. It is a law in many places. Especially, you aren't supposed to put a tripod on the pavement (I think it was meant well as a safety hazard).

Dams, several other such infrastructures are off limits to photography. Laws to this effect were written a long time ago though they were not strictly enforced all the time.

With regards to Google maps and such- people should take up that issue against security folks and Google instead of turning it around to use against the laws that rule the places. Google have done a lot of criminal things. There has been massive settlements for stealing intellectual property, copyrighted books, etc, etc. It is laughable that no one has been put in jail for that. However, this does not give any right for anyone else to steal!

 

[nowherean]

Pixiq runs extensive articles on photographer's rights and features many resources that assure our rights as photographers. It's very disturbing for me to observe how many violations in that respect have been committed by police officers who are ignorant of laws when it comes to photography.

 

[nowherean]

YOUR RIGHTS AS A PHOTOGRAPHER.

1. Almost anything you can see you can photograph.
If you can see it, you can take a picture of it. If you are standing on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. It is important to realize that taking a picture is different than publishing a photo, which leads to point number two.

2. As long as you are not invading someone’s privacy, you can publish their photo without permission.
You can take someone’s picture in any public setting and publish it without consequence (even if it portrays the person in a negative way) as long as the photo isn’t “highly offensive to a reasonable person” and “is not of legitimate concern to the public.” You can even publish photos if you took them on private property. While you may be punished for being on private property, there is no legal reason why you can’t publish the photo from prison!

3. As long as you aren’t using someone’s likeness for a purely commercial purpose, you have the right to publish the photo.
You can use your photos of other people without their permission for an artistic or news purpose, but you can’t use them for a commercial purpose (such as an ad). You could sell a photo of a person without their permission, but you couldn’t use the photo in an ad saying the person endorses your product.

 

[KeithL]

I've just been sent a link to this wonderful footage of a confrontation between a "meathead" and a photographer.

Scunthorpe photographer faces down abusive security guards at Golden Wonder factory who want to enforce imaginary law against taking pictures from the public pavement - Boing Boing

 

[jlm]

loved it. very similar "arguments" from the guards in my circumstance.

 

[Vivek]

Cool, Keith!

At one point he was responding

"I have no intention of shitting"

:ROTFL::thumbs: