# illegal to take pictures in public places



## Skyeg (Apr 12, 2004)

yesterday i had my camera on the subway here in boston.  i took a picture of my friend and an MBTA police officer imediatly came over to me and asked me to go with her and "cooperate" they wanted me to take the film out of it, but i protested as it was for school.    they told me it was illegal to use cameras on public property,  such as train stations due to the federal antiterrorism laws or somthing.....has anyone ever herd of anythig like that?


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 12, 2004)

That a good question, but its actually two scenarios, take photos on public property and on  public transportation.  IMO on public property is legal. Now the transportation question is whole different question with current world we live in.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 12, 2004)

I've seen lot's of stories like this.  Photogs shooting national landmarks are getting hassled.  

This sucks.  You could research the laws; make sure the officer isn't misinformed.  These laws are new, and I doubt everyone understands them.    

You will probably find that even though your tax dollars paid for the subway, it's actually owned by a private corporation, so technically you're on private property.  

The masses have decided that it's okay to supress freedom and information because freedom and information are very dangerous.  If this p*sses you off, then about the only thing you can do is try to raise a stink.  If you could find a local reporter interested in your experience...

I wonder if you could get permission to photograph if you could prove you're not a terrorist?  Submit to a background check; "Well, Boss, turns out he is just a local photography student, and not the international terrorist we initially took him for."


----------



## terri (Apr 12, 2004)

> The masses have decided that it's okay to supress freedom and information because freedom and information are very dangerous.



 :LOL:   Stick 'em, Matt!!!   

Skyeg: stories like this are indeed on the rise; I am waiting for the day when street photography is flatout outlawed.    :?   Unless we raise a stink, trust me, it'll happen.   

You no doubt encountered a security-type person who, while well-intentioned (because he'd no doubt been lectured to keep his eyes open for *suspicious* behavior, in light of recent international subway and train events) is probably misinformed.   An instance where, even though he probably figured you weren't breaking any particular law, he felt justified in what he was doing.    A better trained officer might not have reacted this way; I think the petty invasions will come from these kinds of security types.   

Are you going to pursue it?   You should.   Call the place and see if you can get an idea of what their actual policy is on passengers with cameras: if they don't have one, call a reporter like Matt suggested.


----------



## metroshane (Apr 12, 2004)

What if I take my sketch pad on the subway?


----------



## oriecat (Apr 12, 2004)

This is such bullsh*t!!  Someone else had a similar story recently, I can't recall who it was...

How much more did they hassle you?  How long did they detain you?  You got to keep your film, right?  You should definitely look into it more and figure out where the issue is.  The officers may need more training (and to get off their highhorse power trips).  This is why we need to see the Patriot Act repealed, before all of our rights are eroded away!!
http://www.ccmep.org/2002_articles/General/120702_photograph_cheneys_hotel.htm


----------



## havoc (Apr 12, 2004)

Its simple, welcome to republian freedom, or their  version of it. If you want to change things, elect a democrat. Unfortunatly there were enough stupid people out there to believe that George Bush was the right man to lead this country LOL Most people i talk to who voted for Bush said they won't make the same mistake again. 

Of course we all know that Jeb Bush and the state of Florida illegally stole the election. Perhaps as americans we should look into repelling the electoral college, without it we would have had a Gore presidency as well....


----------



## Harpper (Apr 12, 2004)

Skyeg said:
			
		

> they told me it was illegal to use cameras on public property,  such as train stations due to the federal antiterrorism laws or somthing.....has anyone ever herd of anythig like that?


If this is true it would be one of the stupidest laws I've heard of. Talk about an ineffective way to stop terrorism. The only thing it'll stop is people like us from taking pictures. There are so many other ways to get a copy of what a place looks like that this law is basically pointless. 

Using an artist to sketch a drawing from memory comes to mind. Even a non artist can remember enough and sketch a basic "stick figure" drawing so that the need to take pictures would not be needed. Also digital cameras are so small now a days that someone could easily take pictures while hiding the camera in their coat without being noticed. I'm sure terrorists can think of many more ways so what's the point of having this law?


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 12, 2004)

Harpper said:
			
		

> Also digital cameras are so small now a days that someone could easily take pictures while hiding the camera in their coat without being noticed.



What about cell phone cams!?!  Any one of those people yakking away on their cell phones could actually be photo-snappin' terrorists!!!


----------



## bean (Apr 12, 2004)

ksmattfish said:
			
		

> What about cell phone cams!?!  Any one of those people yakking away on their cell phones could actually be photo-snappin' terrorists!!!



Cell phones are actually banned from some public places in some states(correct me if I'm wrong of course) because there are some sick people out in the world out there that use their cell phone cameras for...uh... :? 

Around here they don't really care where you take pictures but I'm sure they'll pass some sort of a law.  I see plenty of people whip out camcorders wherever and I'm worried about being inconspicuous with a small digicam


----------



## TheProf (Apr 13, 2004)

Yes Oriecat this is all because of the Patriot act.  This is insane we are loosing our country to fear, and GW is the pusher.  

I live abroad right now GW being one of the reasons, the other is the bad economy (which IMHO is GW as well) And I am so saddened to see the freeist country on earth crumbling.  I dont live in a free country and I see how things could be for the US and it aint pretty.  

Kerry is our only hope to get out of this so all you out there Vote!


----------



## Jeff Canes (Apr 13, 2004)

To hell with the Fourth Amendment


----------



## spicychicken (Apr 13, 2004)

do a search for the photographers rights on google or something.  i have a copy of that and some releases in my camera bag with me.  then again, with the new world we're living in here, there may be exceptions.

for example, I live right outside nyc and a know for a matter of fact that you are not allowed to take photos on or of the bridges because there are actual signs there.

its sucks big time.

as far as i know, public property is open game, but if your state/area has a new law concernin terrorism then there might be an exception.


stick it to the man! fight the power!


----------



## oriecat (Apr 13, 2004)

Do those signs on the bridges cite what law or part of the code authorizes that?  I would love to read the actual text.


----------



## GerryDavid (Apr 13, 2004)

spicychicken said:
			
		

> for example, I live right outside nyc and a know for a matter of fact that you are not allowed to take photos on or of the bridges because there are actual signs there.



Makes sense, its not like there are a million pictures of every possible scene in ny or any city already.  :0)  better stop people from making any.


----------



## PhotoJoe (Apr 14, 2004)

Wow. This board gets political! I had no idea. I guess I'll throw in my depreciated .02 here, even though I'm pretty certain many will disagree with me.

Does it suck that we have all taken a hit to our personal freedoms? Yes. But know your history. There are many examples of far more severe yet temporary curbs on personal freedom in the US during times of war. Would anyone like to argue that we are not at war? 

Now, why are we at war? Whose fault was 9-11? If your answer is anything other than radical Islamist terrorists murdering 3000 civilians on 9-11, I hope you take some thought filled time to reconsider your opinion. 

Did our Government fail us on 9-11. Yes. But even more, we all failed us. If you can point a finger at any American, Democrat, Republican, or Independent, and blame them for dropping the ball pre 9-11, I hope you are looking in the mirror while you do it. We have all failed our own democracy, by not participating (low voter turnout), not paying attention (like good little consumers), and not wanting to pay financially for our freedom and security (massive budget cuts in the 90's that MOST AMERICANS wanted as a peace dividend after the cold war ended). I am convinced that is one of several main reasons why we were vulnerable.

I am often falsely labeled a "conservative". Not too many "conservatives" I know are agnostic, pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, and anti-Drug War. But when I look for someone to blame 9-11 on, just after the radical Islamist terrorists, I blame all of us, including Clinton, and Bush, and millions of other complacent sleeping Americans.

But you know what? When I see the obvious loss of a great big chunk of our personal freedoms, I am not moved to think that Bush, a fellow American that I often disagree with, is to blame. As you might have picked up on, I blame the people that have been making war on us for decades. 

It seems to me that the only way we will ever regain our freedoms, and avoid losing more, is to undeniably defeat our enemies (oh yeah, and end the Democrat, Republican, complacent American sponsored  decades long drug war). When that goal is accomplished, it will be impossible for the US Gov't to sustain curbs on our freedoms. I have faith that the spirit, strength and wisdom of the people of this nation will make this a reality. If on the other hand, we look to appease and co-exist with terrorists that have openly declared, and demonstrated a tremendous capacity to murder us, then we will never be free again.

But that is just my .02


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 14, 2004)

Politics aside, laws forbidding people to take photos in public places do not make us any safer, which is what they were created to do.  

Terrorists do not follow the law, and high technology makes information gathering easier than ever, whether it's downloading the thousands/millions of photos already taken of public places, or using high tech hidden cameras to fool the local cops.  Or even low tech means such as sketch pads or note pads. 

Laws like these punish citizens, and they don't add a bit of safety.  I have a 2 year old daughter.  I want her to be safe.  I also want her to be able to take snapshots on her vacation when she gets older.  I would rather live in a free society that is aware of terrorism, than a locked down society that is "safe".


----------



## Chase (Apr 14, 2004)

I guess my questions here are these....

Have we even really established with certainty that any of these laws forbidding taking photos in public places actually exist as a result of the patriot act? Someone mentioned signs on various bridges, but were those signs put up following the creation of the patriot act or did they exist before hand? Are the law enforcement/security officers that are stopping some people from taking these pictures actually citing a law, or are they going out on their own and making the decision to stop you? And, if in fact these laws do exist, are they federally driven, or are they being created by local government?

I honestly don't know the answers to these questions, maybe some of you do.

While out taking photos with Photogoddess a week or two ago, we made several stops around the city. One stop was at Union Station in Los Angeles (train terminal) that is reportedly on high alert as a likely terrorist target. We were there late at night, 4 of us with cameras, running around taking pictures of the trains and tracks. While being almost completely ignored, one security guard finally questioned us when we were outside the front of the building of all places (far away from the train areas). Photogoddess told him we were photography students working on a project and we all went about our business. This leads me to believe that some of you have been running into some real "hero" type characters that like to show their authority, regardless of whether or not it is really the law. 

Lastly, I'm going to leave my views of the patriot act and politics out of this conversation, and I'd sure prefer to see less politics discussed on here. Politics is one of those areas where conversations get needlessly heated and everyone seems to feel the need to tell other people what is right or wrong. The bottom line is that most people have already made their minds up and chances are you aren't going to change them.

I'd claim that was my 2 cents worth, but I'm thinking that was more like $1.50.


----------



## graigdavis (Apr 14, 2004)

I told a story about a month ago that I was approached by a rent-a-cop while i was taking pictures at a mall.  he said it had to do with copywrite laws for the store fronts.  He never mentioned about terrorist stuff.

I was taking some pictures in the subway though and I kind of wondered if I would be approached or anything.  But nothing happened then.  

The same day though I had to go through a bunch of checks and questions by police officers to take my camera and bag into an NBA game.


----------



## PhotoJoe (Apr 14, 2004)

> I'd sure prefer to see less politics discussed on here.


I don't want to defy this wish, so I will be brief. I just couldn't let the sole political discussion on this board be so one sided. 

The post that started this thread, sounds to me like a story where the guard was wrong. Post 9-11, and under the patriot act, I have photographed the Golden Gate Bridge, as well as Hoover Dam. At no time did anyone ask me a single question. That was just my personal experience, and not meant to characterize the totality of the reality.



> laws forbidding people to take photos in public places do not make us any safer



Maybe, or maybe not. If you are standing on public property, taking photos of a nuclear plant, I hope someone spots you, and at least asks you what you are doing. Only because we are at war, not because it makes us safer in some general sense.



> high technology makes information gathering easier than ever, whether it's downloading the thousands/millions of photos already taken of public places



For a terrorist attack, my guess is that the Jihadis would rather have the most current images available, just in case something has changed.



> or using high tech hidden cameras to fool the local cops.  Or even low tech means such as sketch pads or note pads.


 
True. There are ways around it, but most of the casing that the terrorists have done has been out in the open, like an average citizen. It's part of what makes them such bastards.



> I would rather live in a free society that is aware of terrorism, than a locked down society that is "safe".



I agree, however that is a black and white, either/or statement, and I don't think that these are mutually exclusive. Besides, the drug war robbed us of most of our freedoms long before our photo taking was placed in jeopardy by the patriot act. Again, I don't condone making picture taking illegal, but I also don't have a problem with a guard asking you a few questions if during war time, you are photographing places that might be considered vital infrastructure.

Alright. That's all. I'll stop.


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 14, 2004)

I've never heard of anyone having problems up here in Canada but I'm sure it's happened.

If I was living down the Good ol' US of A, I would arm myself with the local laws, the constitution and any thing related to free rights...go out and shoot all sorts of stuff.  If and when questioned/stopped buy the authourities...start raising a stink about how this proves how the terrorist have won.  What's the point of "fighting for freedom" only to repress it?

 

That's my 2 cents but with the exchange rate, it's not very much


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 14, 2004)

PhotoJoe said:
			
		

> I also don't have a problem with a guard asking you a few questions if during war time, you are photographing places that might be considered vital infrastructure.



I don't have any problem with questions either; that's definately part of freedom of information.  I have no problems with an officer checking IDs, asking questions, and even taking a little cell phone pic of their own to run through ID computers.  The original post stated that the photographer was told to stop photographing, and possibly had his film confiscated, no questions asked.  A few questions would have probably resolved that he was a photo student of no threat, rather than a terrorist.

This is occurring all over the USA, whatever the laws really are; there are posts about it on every photography forum.  I don't think many law enforcement officers are up on the specifics either.  When I fly I carry a copy of the rules from the National Transportation Safety website with me so I can show the folks at the X-rays machines what the rules are about carrying film onto airplanes.  I've had to show it at least once on every trip.  

I do not believe that making photography of potential terrorist targets illegal has ANY bearing on our safety.  If we are going to make laws based on vague generalizations (such as "terrorists use photos to plan", I mean they also use cars, computers, guns, cell phones, video cameras, and on and on and on...), then I suggest religion made illegal, because all terrorists, from MacVey to Bin Laudin boldly parade the righteousness of their religion as justification for their actions.   Obviously that's absurd, and I think that stopping photogs from photographing is also.    

When they outlaw photography, only outlaws will be photographers!!!


----------



## bigpoppaplump (Apr 14, 2004)

Hi there, this is my first time in this forum, and saw this post.

I am a journalist and a photographer and there is absolutly no law about takeing pictures in a public place. there is also no law saying you need a persons permission to publish a photo taken in a public place.

the whole idea is that if they didnt want to be seen they wouldnt be there in the first place.


----------



## Tammy (Apr 14, 2004)

Saw these link and thought they might be of interest

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.photosecrets.com/p14.html

and the Patriot Act

(I did a search on photography with no results, and camera only appeared a few times, but none seemed to apply to this topic of discussion - but it is 132 pages long so I certainly could have missed something)


----------



## danalec99 (Apr 15, 2004)

Chase said:
			
		

> This leads me to believe that some of you have been running into some real "hero" type characters that like to show their authority, regardless of whether or not it is really the law.



Could be true!! I was in Boston last weekend taking pictures of everything that my eyes met. Buildings, Parks, Subways etc etc. No one stopped me!


----------



## Skyeg (Apr 15, 2004)

i think a large part of why i got stoped and my camera taken away briefly was the fact that im an 18year old wearing metal plated boots with wierd cloths and wierd hair.  i think if i was a 30y/o wearing khakis nice shirt she would have left me alone. 

iv since looked into the laws and found out it is illegal to photograph MBTA employees and property, but not illegal to take photos that dont contain MBTA property or emploees as a primary subject.  i dont feel i was breaking this law.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 15, 2004)

Somebody with a similar story posted this link on another photo site.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


----------



## alsoran (Apr 15, 2004)

There was a similar story in Better Photgraphy (Aust) concerning rights and the ability or lack thereof to take photographs in National Parks. However the distinction (or once again lack thereof) in this case was the difference between Pro and Amateur photographers. Sorry no link was available for the story but I was just wondering we have seen above the problems people have had in some US states but has anybody been stopped or had problems in other countries. 

I heard in South Africa during the cricket world cup that all cameras were banned from the stadiums as official photographers had been given exclusive rights. That said the cup was sponsered by pepsi and if you entered the ground trying to wear a Coca-Cola shirt you had to remove it.


----------



## ksmattfish (Apr 18, 2004)

Another site all about this topic...

http://freedomtophotograph.com/


----------



## jack (Apr 19, 2004)

sometimes photography is tolerated if you dont use a tripod,
(thats a typical pro/amateur distinction in the minds of
plastic 'officials' i've experienced).

conversely if you use a monopod as a steady cam in other
situations, you can get away with a lot - perceived as "media".

so who  knows ? if you look sheepish, you will get pinched lol.

get a clown suit. clown photography is rarely challenged.


----------

