# Photography and the Law



## TPF Staff

_Note: The following article is not intended to replace legal counsel. It is meant only to be a general, common-sense guide. Should you find yourself needing legal advice from an incident involving your photography, it is recommended you seek it in your local jurisdiction. _
_-TPF Ed._


*Photography and the Law*​ 
submitted by TPF member *skieur*​ 
_Generalizations_

The law is very similar in many western democracies because the concepts of freedom tend to be similar. The right to take photos and have them published is covered in Constitutions and Charters of Rights as the right to self-expression through photography and the right to enjoyment of property: namely your photo equipment.

I don&#8217;t pretend to be a lawyer, but my work in photography has required that I be familiar with the various laws. I have also not covered all of the exceptions to some generalizations since many of them are based on common sense and there may be new laws coming in to some countries or locales. Be aware also that new photo situations are always occurring that make the law subject to interpretation by a judge.

_Taking Photos in _<?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comffice:smarttags" /><st1:address>_A Public Place_

A</st1:address> public place is defined in laws as a place to which the general public has access. It does NOT mean public property. A shopping centre, library, museum, park, is still a public place although it may be private property.

You can take photos of almost anything in a public place. Buildings may be copyrighted but that applies to their design and photography does not violate the copyright of a building. It is not against copyright to take a photo of any architectural work or piece of art or sculpture in a permanent public place. Copyright by legal definition applies to a creation in a permanent and substantial form, so light displays would not meet that requirement and therefore not be copyrightable.

_Street Photography of People_

It is the right of a photographer to take photos of any person in a public place. If the photo is used for &#8220;commercial&#8221; purposes, then a release is needed. &#8220;Commercial purposes&#8221; is defined as advertising, NOT any purpose for money.

This means, for example, that a photo of a person taken in the street could be displayed in a gallery and sold as a piece of art without a release. Editorial use which is also allowed without a release is interpreted somewhat broadly. It is NOT for example limited to on the editorial page of a newspaper. An article on street photography in a photo magazine could be done without releases for the photos.

_Other laws and restrictions related to street photography:_

Assault

In law, assault is more broadly interpreted than just touching someone or hitting them. Intimidating someone by sticking a camera in their face or blocking their movement on the sidewalk by taking a photo of them, could be legally interpreted as assault.


Loitering

Setting up a tripod and/or other photo equipment on a sidewalk might be considered loitering depending on location and the policeman involved.

Right to Privacy

Everyone is guaranteed a reasonable expectation to privacy. This means that photographing a victim of an accident or violence while he/she is being attended to by a medic would probably be considered a violation of his/her right to privacy despite being in a public place. On the other hand, photographing people doing normal street activities is legal.

In <st1:country-region><st1lace>Canada</st1lace></st1:country-region>, however, a recent judgment states that a release is needed if the person is the *main* *subject* of the photograph which is later published. The photo can still be taken, but a release is necessary for publication. In <st1lace>Europe</st1lace>, this is true in some countries but not in others.

Voyeurism

Needless to say, taking photos in a bathroom, change room, up skirts, etc. is illegal and subject to criminal charges. This may extend to taking photos of someone within their own home from the street or another location but not necessarily to a back yard, depending on its location to public view.

Prowling by Night

On private property, this &#8220;peeping tom&#8221; law makes it illegal to loiter, and that is in addition to trespassing.

Trespassing

Generally speaking, if you are in a public place like a shopping centre, arena etc. and you are then told to leave and do not do so, you are then trespassing. If security guards on private property tell you that photography is forbidden and you continue to shoot, then you are trespassing, too. Your photos, however, are your property as well as equipment, and not subject to seizure without a warrant - in most locations.

&#8220;No photography&#8221; signs may mean that you are trespassing as soon as you take a picture. Without such signage means that, until you are told otherwise, you can take any pictures you want.

On private property, you are immediately trespassing in a number of situations. I will attempt to cover some of the most applicable. Where there are No Trespassing signs, fences, gardens, farms, cultivated land, small trees, closed gates, lawn etc. if you choose to ignore these blockades and photograph, you are trespassing.

An open gate, a roadway that is not signed as private, a welcome sign or mat, a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter. 


Celebrities

In <st1lace>Europe</st1lace> particularly, there has been the issue that celebrities should be free from the bother of being photographed during normal activities in the community. The general law in some areas is that they can only be photographed if they are performing or in some public function.

Secrets Act

Taking pictures of a top secret location, document etc. is forbidden but NOT items such as bridges, government buildings, railways, harbours, air fields etc.

Photography Permits

More common in U.S. parks than in Canada, the purpose is to control large scale productions with perhaps a truck, lights, generator, photographic crew, technicians, etc. that can almost take over a park and prevent regular patrons from enjoying it.

As long as you are not too noticeable, you will likely avoid being confronted by a park authority person about your picture taking.

_Ownership of copyright: employee or employer?_

The misconception is that if you take a photo during work hours then your employer owns the copyright to the photo.

The legal issue is the nature of your job. If part of your job description involves taking photos then the employer owns the copyright to any photos you take. On the other hand, if you are a traveling sales representative and you take a spectacular news photo while out on the road, then you own the copyright to that photo, whether you were being paid by your employer at the time or not.

Smart employers or those who are more familiar with the law, tend to pay employees extra for anything that they do, beyond their normal job description particularly when photos, or video are involved. That gives them the legal rights to the product or media production.

Photography Contracts

A frequent complaint on photo websites is that of an amateur who gave a photo to a friend or associate and found it later in a magazine or newspaper without any credit or remuneration as the original photographer.

Without any evidence to the contrary, many judges would say that, if you give away one of your photographs, you are also giving away the rights to that photo. The person you give it to can either give it to someone else, or sell it for publication, etc.

Without a contract stating otherwise, the person who commissions a portrait can legally claim to own the rights to the photo since, like above, he becomes an employer hiring an employee to take photos.

A photography contract must not only indicate how much is being paid, but what the payment is for, and what rights the photographer retains to his/her photos.

_If Confronted_

*DO:*

Be aware of your rights: You do NOT have to show anyone the photo, erase it, hand over your camera or equipment, or allow any search to take place.

Politely ask what the problem is. You may respectfully need to point out that taking photos is not illegal of your particular subject in your location, or indirectly ask him/her what law has been violated.

Realize that, if asked you must leave private property or stop taking photos. That alternative is the possibility of a trespassing charge.

Try to avoid the prospect of any of the &#8220;catch-all charges&#8221; such as public mischief or a disorderly conduct charge, by not creating a scene or complaining about what a security guard or police person cannot do.

Realize that if you have already taken the photos you want, then it does not matter who is right or wrong, it is time to leave gracefully.

Consider shooting from a different location, if you have the appropriate lenses and the shot is sufficiently important.

Politely ask the full name and details of the person confronting you.

*DO NOT:*

Delete the photo, since it implies the other person has the authority to demand it and it can make things worse for the next photographer being encountered by that person.

Hand over your equipment, since no one has the right to seize it, unless you are arrested by police.

Apologize for taking photos, since that is not illegal or wrong.

Be aggressive or defensive. Either one implies that you are trying to justify your actions despite knowing that they were wrong.

Argue over irrelevant matters. Whether there is a sign or not, if you are on private property and they have told you that photos are not allowed, then you must stop taking photos or leave, to avoid a trespassing charge.

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

Answer unnecessary questions which will put you on the defensive. &#8220;Do you usually go around, taking photos of &#8230;&#8230;?&#8221; Redirect things back to the matter at hand. What is illegal about taking pictures? <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comfficeffice" /><o></o>
<o></o>
<!-- / message --><!-- sig --><o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
<o></o>
*Summary<o></o>*
<o></o>
This is a general guide only. I hope that it will help you to realize as well, the individual nature of legal situations in the area of photography when you are reading about them in the news or on the net. It may be, for example, that taking the photos was not illegal, but it was the use of the photos afterward that lead to the law suit. It may also be that if you read these types of articles carefully that the photographer was not arrested for taking photos, but rather for trespassing, assault, disturbing the peace, loitering, etc.
<o></o>
When reading the laws directly, look for clear wording such as &#8220;must&#8221; and &#8220;required&#8221;,  as well as for wording that is open to interpretation and definition, such as &#8220;fair use&#8221;. Words may be clearly defined at the beginning of the law or left somewhat open to interpretation.
<o></o>
When reading about particular judgments, they tend to be meaningful only if they set a precedent, and that is only true if they represent a legal interpretation of some section of the law and have been upheld on appeal. A judgment related to photographing celebrities for example, may not extend to photographing the general public.
<o></o>
For more specific references I would suggest _Canadian Copyright La_w by Lesley Ellen Harris (who has also published on American copyright law, as well), and _Media Law Handbook _by Stuart Robertson. It is useful to look at the original laws which are available as well, sometimes as an appendix in the back of better books on the law.
American law on photography tends to be very similar to Canadian law, partially due to cross border intellectual rights and photojournalism.
<o></o>
One of the best references that I have seen, so far on the Internet is:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php#You_are_guaranteed_the_right_to_take_photographs
<o></o>


----------



## RockstarPanda1718

this is interesting :thumbup:


----------



## Rekd

Good stuff for sure. One question for now: Are international laws so similar that they warrant such a broad brush?


----------



## skieur

No reference was made to "international" laws in the article, Rekd!


----------



## Rekd

skieur said:


> No reference was made to "international" laws in the article, Rekd!


 
You're in Canada, skieur! I'm in the US! 

(_Or did I mis-interpret the definition of "international"?_ :roll: )

Here, let me re-phrase it so you'll understand... 

Do those laws reflect US law, or just Canada law? (You know, i n t e r n a t i o n a l)


----------



## skieur

Let me re-phrase:

READ THE ARTICLE!

Any serious photographer who shoots in both Canada and the U.S. realizes that basic rights to take photos are similar.

Any local bilaws are legally questionable, if they violate basic US Constitutional or Canadian Charter rights depending on the location.

skieur


----------



## elevateudesign

great post, very interesting.


----------



## Rekd

> *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. )


----------



## elevateudesign

Rekd said:


> *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. )
Click to expand...


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


----------



## Rekd

> *Tresspassing:*
> 
> An open gate, a roadway that is not signed as private, a welcome sign or mat, a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter.



If you walk up to a home with a welcome mat or doorbell and assume that mat or doorbell is permission to enter and take pictures you risk being arrested. Or shot. 

At least in the US.


----------



## elevateudesign

Rekd said:


> *Tresspassing:*
> 
> An open gate, a roadway that is not signed as private, a welcome sign or mat, a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you walk up to a home with a welcome mat or doorbell and assume that mat or doorbell is permission to enter and take pictures you risk being arrested. Or shot.
> 
> At least in the US.
Click to expand...


Funny here in Utah if you are inside your home and to catch a person so much as putting a finger inside your house unwelcomed you have the right to shoot them I know if someone came threw my door and raised something up like you would a camera I would shoot. I would say about 30% of this state carries concealed and they are working on passing a law at the moment to make it so Utah residents don't have to have a CFP to carry concealed, which will push it to about 75-80% carrying concealed. I don't think it is right are the going to give us CFP holders all our money back as well as finger print cards etc of course not!   

Sorry little off topic...


----------



## skieur

Permission to enter the property NOT the house.   Shooting canvassers, political candidates, even door to door salespeople is frowned upon, even if they enter your property and go up to the front door and ring the bell.

skieur


----------



## Rekd

skieur said:


> Permission to enter the property NOT the house.   Shooting canvassers, political candidates, even door to door salespeople is frowned upon, even if they enter your property and go up to the front door and ring the bell.
> 
> skieur


 
OIC. So when you said...



> a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter.


you didn't really mean to imply...



> a door with a bell, may all imply permission to enter.


Gotcha! Thanks!


----------



## skieur

An American judge indicated that a bell on the door implied permission to enter the property in order to ring the doorbell.

skieur


----------



## Rekd

ROR! 







Ok. :lmao:


----------



## Bynx

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


----------



## Rekd

Bynx said:


> 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

elevateudesign said:


> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> *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. )
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Very true, it is usually more helpful to be cooperative any ways.
Click to expand...

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

skieur


----------



## Rekd

skieur said:


> elevateudesign said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Rekd said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> In terms of your rights: USE THEM OR LOSE THEM!
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

 
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

Bynx said:


> 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

MagpieDave said:


> 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

skieur said:


> 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


----------



## alvarez57

Paul D. Van Hoy II said:


> 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


 

I live here in New Orleans. I was taking photos of a ship on the Mississippi Levee when someone on a car shouted to me I couldn't take pictures. I shrugged my shoulders and left. Pulling off to the road, I saw the guy give me a hard look whilst on the phone. Next day I got a call from the given Parish Homeland Security Officer inquiring if I was the lady shooting the picture on the levee!!!!  I asked him if it was illegal and he said no...but they just wanted to make sure I "was not a terrorist"(????) and that no one had stolen my car..... so no, it's not illegal but puts you on the spot.


----------



## alvarez57

skieur said:


> 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


 

Which I appreciate.


----------



## skieur

alvarez57 said:


> Paul D. Van Hoy II said:
> 
> 
> 
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I live here in New Orleans. I was taking photos of a ship on the Mississippi Levee when someone on a car shouted to me I couldn't take pictures. I shrugged my shoulders and left. Pulling off to the road, I saw the guy give me a hard look whilst on the phone. Next day I got a call from the given Parish Homeland Security Officer inquiring if I was the lady shooting the picture on the levee!!!!  I asked him if it was illegal and he said no...but they just wanted to make sure I "was not a terrorist"(????) and that no one had stolen my car..... so no, it's not illegal but puts you on the spot.
Click to expand...

 
Taking photos of buildings, levees, railways, boats etc. is NOT illegal in the US, Canada, and all other western countries that I am aware of.  In the US, there is a small limited list of installations that are top secret such as the not-so-secret Area 51 but most photographers are unlikely to be close to those installations.

skieur


----------



## ereldar

I work for a company that does 3D panoramic "tours" and we previously only did private businesses that asked, but we would like to do a "street view" that would show the downtown part of the city with links on the image to the businesses we've previously worked with.  Is this considered photography for advertising, do we need release or is this all good?


----------



## skieur

ereldar said:


> I work for a company that does 3D panoramic "tours" and we previously only did private businesses that asked, but we would like to do a "street view" that would show the downtown part of the city with links on the image to the businesses we've previously worked with. Is this considered photography for advertising, do we need release or is this all good?


 
Since you are using LINKS as well as the images, it would be a good idea to get a release since the businesses would probably be happy to get the publicity in any event  It also reminds the businesses of your services which is to your benefit.

skieur


----------



## hammondfra

thanks for this informative post


----------



## ereldar

skieur said:


> ereldar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a company that does 3D panoramic "tours" and we previously only did private businesses that asked, but we would like to do a "street view" that would show the downtown part of the city with links on the image to the businesses we've previously worked with. Is this considered photography for advertising, do we need release or is this all good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are using LINKS as well as the images, it would be a good idea to get a release since the businesses would probably be happy to get the publicity in any event  It also reminds the businesses of your services which is to your benefit.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...

 

Thanks for your quick reply.  The links would only exist if we did advertising work for that company, the issue is with people who might be in the picture, do their faces need to be blurred or is it ok to just leave it?


----------



## skieur

ereldar said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ereldar said:
> 
> 
> 
> I work for a company that does 3D panoramic "tours" and we previously only did private businesses that asked, but we would like to do a "street view" that would show the downtown part of the city with links on the image to the businesses we've previously worked with. Is this considered photography for advertising, do we need release or is this all good?
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Since you are using LINKS as well as the images, it would be a good idea to get a release since the businesses would probably be happy to get the publicity in any event It also reminds the businesses of your services which is to your benefit.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks for your quick reply. The links would only exist if we did advertising work for that company, the issue is with people who might be in the picture, do their faces need to be blurred or is it ok to just leave it?
Click to expand...

 
If it is a "street view" that does not centre in on a particular individual, I would just leave it.

skieur


----------



## jaykilgore

Theres several excellent books out there written by lawyers;

Amazon.com: The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers (9781581152258): Leonard D. Duboff: Books

And

Amazon.com: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of) (9781584281948): Bert Krages: Books

I carried BOTH of these books until I was almost able to quote them word for word. I educated cops on this lol


----------



## skieur

jaykilgore said:


> Theres several excellent books out there written by lawyers;
> 
> Amazon.com: The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers (9781581152258): Leonard D. Duboff: Books
> 
> And
> 
> Amazon.com: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of) (9781584281948): Bert Krages: Books
> 
> I carried BOTH of these books until I was almost able to quote them word for word. I educated cops on this lol



Books are certainly helpful, but sometimes it is necessary to "read between the lines" since some writers have an agenda as well.  I always remember a famous lawyer whose sessions on copyright I attended.  One session I attended as an employee/user of copyright and the other I attended as an employer/administrator.  The lawyer had 2 completely different "spins" on the law for each group.  For the employees/users it amounted to don't even think about "bending the interpretation of copyright law" or you will get sued.  For the administrators, it was more that you are likely to get sued only in more extreme situations and many issues can be settled without the courts.  She also for the administrators pointed out defenses for threatened law suits.

skieur


----------



## jaykilgore

skieur said:


> jaykilgore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres several excellent books out there written by lawyers;
> 
> Amazon.com: The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers (9781581152258): Leonard D. Duboff: Books
> 
> And
> 
> Amazon.com: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of) (9781584281948): Bert Krages: Books
> 
> I carried BOTH of these books until I was almost able to quote them word for word. I educated cops on this lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Books are certainly helpful, but sometimes it is necessary to "read between the lines" since some writers have an agenda as well.  I always remember a famous lawyer whose sessions on copyright I attended.  One session I attended as an employee/user of copyright and the other I attended as an employer/administrator.  The lawyer had 2 completely different "spins" on the law for each group.  For the employees/users it amounted to don't even think about "bending the interpretation of copyright law" or you will get sued.  For the administrators, it was more that you are likely to get sued only in more extreme situations and many issues can be settled without the courts.  She also for the administrators pointed out defenses for threatened law suits.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


The problem is the law is written to NOT have any specific end result. It's illegal to kill someone, but here in Colorado, we have "Make my day" law which is I have the right to shoot you in the face if you come into my home and nothing will happen to me.

The above books are to get familiar with laws. Most cops won't bother you if you start to spout it off. We're photographers, lets stick to photography and let lawyers do their thing.


----------



## 480sparky

Note to self:  Don't visit jaykilgore at his house.


----------



## jaykilgore

You can come to my home, just don't come in the middle of the night..with the intent to rob me.

I tend to get paranoid at that time of night lol


----------



## photosanity

Thanks for sharing.  Def. need this!


----------



## taffy_lee




----------



## whitemore55

Great post. This is really a useful article. Thank you for sharing. I like it.:thumbup:


----------



## skieur

jaykilgore said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> jaykilgore said:
> 
> 
> 
> Theres several excellent books out there written by lawyers;
> 
> Amazon.com: The Law, In Plain English, For Photographers (9781581152258): Leonard D. Duboff: Books
> 
> And
> 
> Amazon.com: Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights and Liabilities of Making Images (Legal Handbook for Photographers: The Rights & Liabilities of) (9781584281948): Bert Krages: Books
> 
> I carried BOTH of these books until I was almost able to quote them word for word. I educated cops on this lol
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Books are certainly helpful, but sometimes it is necessary to "read between the lines" since some writers have an agenda as well. I always remember a famous lawyer whose sessions on copyright I attended. One session I attended as an employee/user of copyright and the other I attended as an employer/administrator. The lawyer had 2 completely different "spins" on the law for each group. For the employees/users it amounted to don't even think about "bending the interpretation of copyright law" or you will get sued. For the administrators, it was more that you are likely to get sued only in more extreme situations and many issues can be settled without the courts. She also for the administrators pointed out defenses for threatened law suits.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> The above books are to get familiar with laws. Most cops won't bother you if you start to spout it off. We're photographers, lets stick to photography and let lawyers do their thing.
Click to expand...


It is to your advantage to know the laws as written as well as the case law interpretations by the courts that have been appealed and won. When it gets beyond that into interpretations by lawyers then you need to read much, more carefully.  I have read a considerable amount of what could be termed "pro" and "anti" photographer related interpretations of the law and copyright by lawyers.

skieur


----------



## RRRoland13

Thank you for sharing! I would like to add though that you can also get the badge numbers of the Officers/Guards off their uniform its usually at their chest or shoulder area..


----------



## skieur

RRRoland13 said:


> Thank you for sharing! I would like to add though that you can also get the badge numbers of the Officers/Guards off their uniform its usually at their chest or shoulder area..



Except when they illegally remove them, such as during the G20 protest where you live.

skieur


----------



## cdimitric

So I have a few questions in regards to your post:

1) Basically I can take a photo of anyone in a public place and use it for anything (almost) except advertising? So I can use it to sell in private galleries (as stated) and eve publish them in newspapers and even sell them on stock photography websites?

2) Would any government owned or run area, other than a top secret one, be considered a "public" place? For example, beaches, courthouses, judicial buildings (basically areas where government officials meet)?

3) Can I take pics of models in public places, such as a street corner, without a tripod and not need a permit?


----------



## skieur

cdimitric said:


> So I have a few questions in regards to your post:
> 
> 1) Basically I can take a photo of anyone in a public place and use it for anything (almost) except advertising? So I can use it to sell in private galleries (as stated) and eve publish them in newspapers and even sell them on stock photography websites?
> 
> 2) Would any government owned or run area, other than a top secret one, be considered a "public" place? For example, beaches, courthouses, judicial buildings (basically areas where government officials meet)?
> 
> 3) Can I take pics of models in public places, such as a street corner, without a tripod and not need a permit?



1. Yes, you can take a photo of anyone in a public place and use it for almost anything except advertising in the U.S. and most of Canada. There was a ruling in Quebec that complicated things a little, in the sense that Quebec rulings questionably apply to the rest of Canada, since their justice system has some differences. Yes, you can sell it in private galleries and publish it in newspapers. Mine have been published in newspapers of children without releases. Stock photo sites may require you to get releases but that is the website NOT a legal requirement.

2. Only US government sites on a top secret list like Area 51 are subject to photographic restrictions and that is a very short list which most photographers would likely not shoot even by accident. Government buildings, courthouses, judicial buildings, etc. are OK. I even shot the Ontario Provincial Parliament in session during a debate. You may not be able to shoot inside a court in session in many areas but other than that there are few legal restrictions.


I should note hear that local bylaws or ordinances against for example shooting trains, subway systems etc. have not been tested on appeal as being legal. In the US it may be against the Constitution: Freedom of Expression (through photography). In Canada, it is probably against the Charter of Rights for the same reason. The same for some other western countries.

3. You can take photos of models in public places without a permit depending on the nature of the shoot. Permits are for photographic productions that literally take over most of a street, involve multiple staff and technicians, lighting, generators etc. and disturb pedestrians, traffic flow, local businesses, etc.
If you are careful about not attracting a crowd, not staying too long in one particular area and not using equipment that is in the way of pedestrians or cars than you should be able to legally defend the fact that a permit is not necessary.

skieur


----------



## CherriU0123

Really Great... :thumbup:


----------



## RRRoland13

skieur said:


> RRRoland13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing! I would like to add though that you can also get the badge numbers of the Officers/Guards off their uniform its usually at their chest or shoulder area..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when they illegally remove them, such as during the G20 protest where you live.
> 
> skieur
Click to expand...


your right but what i mean is in most cases (which should be all the time).. better?


----------



## skieur

RRRoland13 said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> RRRoland13 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thank you for sharing! I would like to add though that you can also get the badge numbers of the Officers/Guards off their uniform its usually at their chest or shoulder area..
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Except when they illegally remove them, such as during the G20 protest where you live.
> 
> skieur
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> your right but what i mean is in most cases (which should be all the time).. better?
Click to expand...


Yes. I should add that I think every photographer should learn how to file a police report, and lay a charge whether there is co-operation or not from the police or the prosecutor's office.

Small claims court with minimum cost can still enable a law suit of $5,000 to $25,000 in some areas that include legal expenses.

If your rights have been abused, you can still take action without it costing an arm and a leg, and you should certainly do so, if the details of the incident are not in question and the law is clearly in your favour which is very often the case.


skieur


----------



## bryandadams

I work as a contracted officer for DHS. I've debated some of these very topics with my supervisor and other officers who claim that it is illegal to film or photograph the interior or exterior of the building and that they cannot film or photograph the officers on an exterior post. First off, the building is owned by a private company not the feds. I understand that there are times that those using telephoto lenses photographing a screening process or security cameras is suspicious activity that doesn't mean it is illegal. The officer(s) posted outside are clearly in public view, as are some of our security cameras. Personally I would find it odd that anyone would want a photo of our building, but to each his own. 

I do think it's a bit telling that on one occasion my supervisor told me over the radio to tell a couple pedestrians that they couldn't photograph the building. I refused. He threatened to write me up if I didn't. I didn't, and he didn't write me up; and he's the type that would write up his own mother. I'm not one to go off on a power trip, and I won't be forced into it; but many people out there assume much more authority than they really have. 

Thanks for the article. Below I have a couple links to related new articles.
Freedom of photography: Police, security often clamp down despite public right
Caught with a camera (washingtonpost.com)
Marc Fisher - Public or Private Space? Line Blurs in Silver Spring


----------



## bryandadams

I Feel that I must issue a disclaimer for the first link below. This is not a document that I've disclosed. It was already in public domain. Interestingly enough I've never seen the document, even though it is something that should've been posted at my place of work. I am going to check monday to see if it's been filed and I may have just skipped it. 
Photographing Federal Buildings From Public Spaces

The last two links are just another example of the idiocy that can be found between law enforcement and photographers. The first is from DC's Fox 5 news and the last is from the Colbert Report.
LiveLeak.com - Union Station Photo Flap
Nailed 'Em - Amtrak Photographer - The Colbert Report - 2009-02-02 - Video Clip | Comedy Central


----------



## x4photo

I just want to thank the moderator who posted this information. I realize it is a generalization, and ultimately you have to check with your local legal council, but this post was, as it was intended, a good sounding board to start off on and did clarify some things for me, now I can go into a legal office better informed. 

I started another post, not finding this post first, looking for information on my rights to photograph people rafting in a public place, on a public river, and sell those pictures, that post has gotten brutal and keeps going off topic on every other logistic of taking photos of rafters and nothing regarding the legal side, and the people in that post cannot seem to understand, that I am not looking for concrete legal advise, but just want to be better informed when I go see a lawyer, and your post helped me figure how to approach the lawyer on how "commercial use" may be interpreted.

Thank You for the "general" info, although being that your a professional photographer, I have a feeling that you cannot disclose that a lot of the info may have come from your lawyer  because some of what you said may not be applicable in other states.

Thanks Again!


----------



## skieur

x4photo said:


> I just want to thank the moderator who posted this information. I realize it is a generalization, and ultimately you have to check with your local legal council, but this post was, as it was intended, a good sounding board to start off on and did clarify some things for me, now I can go into a legal office better informed.
> 
> I started another post, not finding this post first, looking for information on my rights to photograph people rafting in a public place, on a public river, and sell those pictures, that post has gotten brutal and keeps going off topic on every other logistic of taking photos of rafters and nothing regarding the legal side, and the people in that post cannot seem to understand, that I am not looking for concrete legal advise, but just want to be better informed when I go see a lawyer, and your post helped me figure how to approach the lawyer on how "commercial use" may be interpreted.
> 
> Thank You for the "general" info, although being that your a professional photographer, I have a feeling that you cannot disclose that a lot of the info may have come from your lawyer  because some of what you said may not be applicable in other states.
> 
> Thanks Again!



I wrote the article.  The differences between states are somewhat minor, in that basic rights are covered by the Constitution and photography comes under self-expression and enjoyment of property (photo equipment).  

There are bylaws in some municipalities and talk about permits, but if these changes have NOT been tested on appeal, then they are questionably legitimate.

skieur


----------



## lawrencebrussel

This is nice post . Weve just finished our four part series on low light photography.  Low light photography is something that we all must deal with as photographers.  Whether youre taking photos with a point and shoot during an evening out, shooting a wedding party or capturing a landscape at dusk its important to understand the basics of shooting with low light.  Photography is all about light, low light photography is no different and it offers new challenges and opportunities for creativity.


----------



## photo guy

A relative of mine was downtown and took some photos from a public location looking in the direction of the governor protesters who are gathering recall petition signatures, one of the protestors hollered to him to not take his photo even though he was gathering the signatures while on the sidewalk.  The state has already ruled that if they are in public view and gathering signatures on legal documents like this they have no expectation of privacy and are considered a public official.  My relative asked the demonstrator / petition signature collector if he had anything to hide which in turn the person shut up and went back to gathering signatures.  Some of these people are public school teachers who are doing this and not doing their jobs by taking a sick day to do it.  Just shows how some states are finally catching up with the times.


----------



## waday

Paul D. Van Hoy II said:


> 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



Apologies for my first post digging up an old thread, but: I believe there are signs for the tunnel and many other access points to Manhattan that indicate photography is prohibited. They are quite small and placed in obscure places. They are about the size of a sheet of paper--very easy to miss.

Honking the horn is also prohibited in the tunnel.


----------

