# Shooting in Public Places (legal)



## Karen2582 (Oct 1, 2010)

Hi,
 I'm wondering if anyone knows of the legal steps (if any) needed before taking shots in a public place (downtown area, beach, park, etc) I'm building my portfolio and just want to make sure I'm not breaking any laws! Thanks


----------



## farmerj (Oct 1, 2010)

Karen2582 said:


> Hi,
> I'm wondering if anyone knows of the legal steps (if any) needed before taking shots in a public place (downtown area, beach, park, etc) I'm building my portfolio and just want to make sure I'm not breaking any laws! Thanks



You are in a public place, you don't need to take any steps.  Go shoot and enjoy.


----------



## Destin (Oct 1, 2010)

Step 1: Grab Camera

Step 2: Go take photos

If its a public place, thats all there is to it. Private Property can be harder, for that you can need permission and/or permits. 

The only exception to this is that setting up a tripod on a busy sidewalk or such, where people could trip on it may end with a police officer asking you to take it down. You can get tripod permits for some public places though (grand centeral station comes to mind here)


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2010)

Destin said:


> Step 1: Grab Camera
> 
> Step 2: Go take photos
> 
> If its a public place, thats all there is to it. Private Property can be harder, for that you can need permission and/or permits.


 
It is not quite that simple. In a sense it could be said that you can take photos on private property BUT you cannot trespass on private property in order to do so.

1. If it is a public place but private property such as an arena, museum, plaza etc., then unless there are signs banning photography, you can take as many photos as you like, until told otherwise and publish the ones you have taken later.

2. If there is a sign banning photography, then you trespass when you start taking photos and will probably be escorted off the property by security guards.

3. On true private property that is not a public place, the issue is one of trespassing, NOT taking pictures.

4. Permits are required ONLY for photographic productions with perhaps a crew, truck, models, auxilliary lighting, etc.

5. As far as use of the photos is concerned, you need a model release from a person who is the main subject of a photo that is used for ADVERTISING purposes as in promoting a product etc., that the person may not use or perhaps a political party that the subject may not support etc.

6. When shooting people in a public place by the way it is important to ensure that you are not by accident portraying the person in a negative way. Shooting a prominent person with a strip club sign in the background might get you sued, despite your rights.

7.  When shooting children in a public place, it is a good routine not to have anything in the
     photo that would identify the child by name and nothing to indicate the specific location
     where the shot was taken.

skieur


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 1, 2010)

And if you go out in public, watch out.  There are apparently a lot of other photographers packing heat, and you might get shot.  :er:


----------



## skieur (Oct 1, 2010)

Big Mike said:


> And if you go out in public, watch out. There are apparently a lot of other photographers packing heat, and you might get shot. :er:


 
Yes, for a fellow Canadian, I was surprised to hear this as well.  I sure would not want to get into a confrontation with the police for taking photos, while also carrying a firearm.  

skieur


----------



## Karen2582 (Oct 1, 2010)

Thank You everyone! So...taking pictures of a child at a pumpkin patch is fine right? I thought so...but figured I'd ask you guys! Learning alot from this site Just need to get a model release.


----------



## Big Mike (Oct 1, 2010)

Well who owns the pumpkin patch?  If the owners ask you to stop and/or leave, then that's what you have to do.

Also, while shooting a random child might be legal, it might not be the best thing to do, at least not without getting permission first.


----------



## crimbfighter (Oct 1, 2010)

My only suggestion beyond what has already been mentioned, is to always ask for permission if you're photographing people, and it's reasonable, of course. If you're shooting a crowd at 200mm, obviously it's not realistic. But, if you're singling out one person or something, it's common courtesy to ask, ahead of time if possible, but certainly after you get the shot. Many people get freaked out, concerned or sometimes scared when they spot a camera lens pointed at them without knowing why. This can be especially true with parents when they see their kid being photographed. And those people may spend days/weeks or longer being concerned over who you were and why you took their photo. It can just be a huge amount of undue stress on them. There are some on here who will disagree with me, and may have valid points, but this is my opinion, based on my experience so take it for what it's worth.

The other thing is to always consult the local law enforcement or local government body, like a town hall or similar. The reason being, local laws can be more restrictive by addressing things that state or federal laws don't. There may be local ordinances for tripods on sidewalks or loitering or something like that. Chances are you wont have any issues, but it's always in your best interest to make sure.  The other reason I say to contact them yourself, is because there are folks on here from all over the world. I noticed you're in the US, and there are people answering your question from Canada. This doesn't mean they aren't intelligent or know what they're talking about, but at the end of the day, they are sitting at home while you could be on the receiving end of a ticket, embarrassing situation or a$$ chewing because you're in an area or situation they didn't know about. So, all I'm really saying, is advocate for yourself and do your own checking with your local folks before you move forward. 

skieur, Big Mike and the others made some excellent points and I'm not saying to disregard what they say, just supplement it with your own checking to make sure all your bases are covered.

So, that's my opinion, which is often only worth little more than $0.01


----------



## Karen2582 (Oct 1, 2010)

Oh it's not a random child. I've been using my friends kids to build my portfolio. They have been asking me to. I would never take pics of random kids!


----------



## crimbfighter (Oct 1, 2010)

Karen2582 said:


> Oh it's not a random child. I've been using my friends kids to build my portfolio. They have been asking me to. I would never take pics of random kids!



I don't think anyone is assuming you would, we're just trying to make you aware of some common issues and "what not to do" scenarios.


----------



## LokiZ (Oct 1, 2010)

skieur said:


> Big Mike said:
> 
> 
> > And if you go out in public, watch out. There are apparently a lot of other photographers packing heat, and you might get shot. :er:
> ...



Yeah I was just mentioning this at work to another photographer. (As related to that post.) My comment is oh wow, so now in the presence of a photographer he/she may either shoot you or on the other hand he/she may shoot you. :scratch:


----------



## ucddyan (Oct 1, 2010)

I am by no means an expert here, but have looked into this issue before.  If it's just for your portfolio you shouldn't have any problems (accept with a tripod, as mentioned before).  

If you're shooting for a client, however, (i.e. wedding parties) or for commercial gain (you're going to sell the photographs, even if the picture is just of a building or a place) you may need to acquire a permit with the city.  I know this is the case for Golden Gate Park specifically and San Francisco in particular, and I believe the city of New York has these type of rules also.


----------



## mtiffany (Oct 1, 2010)

i looked into this too...read this its VERY helpful.  http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf


----------



## skieur (Oct 4, 2010)

crimbfighter said:


> My only suggestion beyond what has already been mentioned, is to always ask for permission if you're photographing people, and it's reasonable, of course.


 
No.  Being polite and asking permission has to be balanced with maintaining your rights as a photographer.  Use your rights or lose them because practice can become law.

I think a photographer needs to be very careful, when shooting in a public place and using the photos later, but that does NOT mean asking permission because it is not required.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Oct 4, 2010)

ucddyan said:


> I am by no means an expert here, but have looked into this issue before. If it's just for your portfolio you shouldn't have any problems (accept with a tripod, as mentioned before).
> 
> If you're shooting for a client, however, (i.e. wedding parties) or for commercial gain (you're going to sell the photographs, even if the picture is just of a building or a place) you may need to acquire a permit with the city. I know this is the case for Golden Gate Park specifically and San Francisco in particular, and I believe the city of New York has these type of rules also.


 
No, there is no reason for you to be asking permission when it is NOT necessary.  I am sure that any city likes to CONTROL the use of photographs of their city monuments and in some cases charge for doing so.  That does not mean that any such "rules" have any legal basis whatsoever or that they have a right to institute rules that contradict state and federal rights and statutes.

skieur


----------



## kalmkidd (Oct 5, 2010)

no steps you need to take in public, just be prepared. me and jaszek met up in time square last week a snapped a pic and the guy that walked into it flipped out, saying its illegal to take his pic, after about 15mins trying to explain to him and near punching his teeth out we found a cop to back me up.

*if i see a interesting child subject i ask the parent professionally, give them my card so they know im legit and not a pedo lol, and promise them a copy via email.*


----------



## scl (Oct 5, 2010)

A friend of mine was shooting a friend at a city park, which wasn't busy, no big deal right? He was escorted out of the park by the ranger because he didn't have a permit. Also we have outdoor malls here, very nice and pretty. When I asked if I could shoot a client there I was told yes if I could pay the $5000.00 fee and after asking why we use to be able to but can't now (for free) that it has been looked upon as a possible terrorist action!


----------



## Sharfy (Oct 5, 2010)

It really depends on the community you are taking photos.  like here in middle east you can,t do point and shoot beacuse there are some people who are so traditional and arab people dont want any imag of them taken without permission. So in every situation it is best to ask permission even though in western countries you can fo take pivcture in public places but again its very best to ask people involve in all times.


----------



## crimbfighter (Oct 5, 2010)

skieur said:


> No.  Being polite and asking permission has to be balanced with maintaining your rights as a photographer.  Use your rights or lose them because practice can become law.
> 
> I think a photographer needs to be very careful, when shooting in a public place and using the photos later, but that does NOT mean asking permission because it is not required.
> 
> skieur





skieur said:


> No, there is no reason for you to be asking permission when it is NOT necessary.  I am sure that any city likes to CONTROL the use of photographs of their city monuments and in some cases charge for doing so.  That does not mean that any such "rules" have any legal basis whatsoever or that they have a right to institute rules that contradict state and federal rights and statutes.
> 
> skieur



To the OP, be careful when taking advice like this. He has merit in what he's said, but frankly, the world is a more complicated place than he's implying. And, you would be amazed how far a dose of common courtesy can go. Some people have the attitude that as long as it's legal, to hell with everyone else who doesn't like it. Oddly enough, I actually agree with that mentality, to an extent. Though that attitude can get you some photos you might not get otherwise, I ask, at what cost? That practice can in fact be detrimental to their end goal of protecting a photographers rights. Do the decent thing and try to get permission if it's reasonable. Skieur, I know we're simply not going to see eye to eye on this, so we'll have to agree to disagree, make our points and let the OP decide how they want to proceed.


----------



## skieur (Oct 5, 2010)

crimbfighter said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > No. Being polite and asking permission has to be balanced with maintaining your rights as a photographer. Use your rights or lose them because practice can become law.
> ...


 
It is not a matter of attitude or common courtesy.  It is simply a matter of exercising one's rights and Americans tend to have fewer these days because of terrorist paranoia.  I am not suggesting anyone harass a subject with a camera or stick it in his/her face.  What some photograpers in this forum have pointed out and I agree with, is if it is done from a distance or quickly and closer with a smile then there are most often no concerns or issues and you get the shot you really want.

Beyond the law, the photographic reason for NOT asking permission is that you are after a natural rather than a stiff, posed shot resulting from getting permission.

skieur


----------



## Joves (Oct 5, 2010)

skieur said:


> crimbfighter said:
> 
> 
> > skieur said:
> ...


 I agree. Im one of those radical MFRs when it comes to my rights. It does not matter wether it is photography or life in general, I stand up for my rights when I know I have a leg to stand on. And that is where most people get into trouble. There are some who believe they can shoot anywhere at anytime and, this is the furthest thing from the truth. There are places which are private property that are open to the public, ie malls, museums and so on. You do not have the right to shoot on their property as you please, they can tell you to stop and, you have to comply. Now if it is visable from a municipal sidewalk then you can shoot it. If they dont want you to photograph it from there then that is too bad, they have the option to put a fence up that blocks the view. On city streets everything is open this is property you pay your taxes on so it is open to all of the public. If you are out in public you have no expectation of privacy and, neither does anyone else. There are some cities/states that are attempting to change this. 
 So to answer the OPs question shoot at the pumkin patch untill the owner says no, unless it is in a public park then shoot all you want. First I bet the punkin patch owner will not object in the first place because, the families who come there are shooting photos of the events they are attending so, your shooting will be nothing different.


----------



## crimbfighter (Oct 5, 2010)

I completely understand your point. Frankly, you're preaching to the choir on this. We just have different ideas of how to go about it. We also have different ideas of which issues are important. I have seen some spectacular photos of people, which would have been impossible to capture without the element of surprise. Still doesn't mean I agree with the practice. It probably stems from the fact I have camera lenses shoved in my face every day. And it's not because I'm popular, but because of the uniform I wear. Folks often think they're correcting some injustice because they can capture my face on camera in uniform without my permission. Even when I politely ask them not to take my picture, they often refuse. That represents most of the contacts I have with other photographers. And even though I know that behavior doesn't represent the majority of photographers, it's still the personal experiences I have with the issue. And frankly, I wish it would stop. I have a family to protect, and history has shown folks can abuse this right. As an example, there's actually a website, created by an ex-con, run by convicted criminals that does nothing but compiles photos (and they don't get those photos by accident) and personal information, including home addresses, names of family members and more, of current law enforcement officers. And if you write in to ask them to remove your info, they won't. And, they will flag your information as a "confirmed" law enforcement officer. Cops, and their families, have been targeted by criminals using this website. Anyway, my point is, each issue, or right, means something different to everyone. From a photographers point of view, it's an important right to protect, and I understand that. On the flip side of the coin, the person on the lens end of the camera has to be considered, too. To sum up, everyone on here is making valid points as to how and why this issue is important. I think in the end this is a personal issue that each person will have to make their own decision on based on their personal beliefs.


----------



## skieur (Oct 5, 2010)

crimbfighter said:


> I completely understand your point. Frankly, you're preaching to the choir on this. We just have different ideas of how to go about it. We also have different ideas of which issues are important. I have seen some spectacular photos of people, which would have been impossible to capture without the element of surprise. Still doesn't mean I agree with the practice. It probably stems from the fact I have camera lenses shoved in my face every day. And it's not because I'm popular, but because of the uniform I wear. Folks often think they're correcting some injustice because they can capture my face on camera in uniform without my permission. Even when I politely ask them not to take my picture, they often refuse. That represents most of the contacts I have with other photographers. And even though I know that behavior doesn't represent the majority of photographers, it's still the personal experiences I have with the issue. And frankly, I wish it would stop. I have a family to protect, and history has shown folks can abuse this right. As an example, there's actually a website, created by an ex-con, run by convicted criminals that does nothing but compiles photos (and they don't get those photos by accident) and personal information, including home addresses, names of family members and more, of current law enforcement officers. And if you write in to ask them to remove your info, they won't. And, they will flag your information as a "confirmed" law enforcement officer. Cops, and their families, have been targeted by criminals using this website. Anyway, my point is, each issue, or right, means something different to everyone. From a photographers point of view, it's an important right to protect, and I understand that. On the flip side of the coin, the person on the lens end of the camera has to be considered, too. To sum up, everyone on here is making valid points as to how and why this issue is important. I think in the end this is a personal issue that each person will have to make their own decision on based on their personal beliefs.


 
I am surprised that any police association or community would allow such a web site to exist.  There are several legal actions that could be taken including a class action law suit by the relatives of police officers for invasion of privacy.  Intimidation constitutes assault in most if not all states, so multiple charges of assaulting a police officer would also seem to fit the situation. The server for the web site could also face charges for publishing material that incites or encourages violence against the police.  The list of possible charges goes on.  Somebody seems to be legally asleep to permit this web site to continue to exist, if your description is accurate.

skieur


----------



## crimbfighter (Oct 6, 2010)

skieur said:


> I am surprised that any police association or community would allow such a web site to exist. There are several legal actions that could be taken including a class action law suit by the relatives of police officers for invasion of privacy. Intimidation constitutes assault in most if not all states, so multiple charges of assaulting a police officer would also seem to fit the situation. The server for the web site could also face charges for publishing material that incites or encourages violence against the police. The list of possible charges goes on. Somebody seems to be legally asleep to permit this web site to continue to exist, if your description is accurate.
> 
> skieur


 

As do I, and every other cop I know. The other scary thing they do, is list if someone is an undercover officer. Which can put those officers in life threatening situations when they are undercover. They even go so far as to offer cash rewards for current photos of undercover officers and informants, and advertise you can pay for entire profiles with disposable, prepaid credit cards to conceal the buyers identity. It's a scary thing, it really is. There have been several legal attempts to take down the website, but nothing seems to stick. I'd list the website, but frankly I don't even want to acknowledge it's existance. And I know everyone would be clicking the link, just for curiosities sake, but it's hits on his site I won't condone... The problem, is that fundamentally, it's not any different than any other public resource. It's all publicly available information, though hard to find and usually scattered around. All that's happening is it's being compiled into one central, easy to find resource. It's really no different than Google. Many people argue it would be like trying to hold Webster responsible for an alphabet killer... It's a very tough and frustrating issue, and unfortunately just a fact of life for me. 

Anyway, we better stop this back and forth before we take the OP's thread way off topic.  My appologies to the OP for already highjacking it this far!


----------

