# Trespassing and Police



## RBMKAlpha

So has anyone here ever been questioned/arrested/fined by the police for trespassing? I was in an interesting industrial area in Erie, and there was a vacant lot where a factory had been razed. There were no "no trespassing" signs but it was in the open and I was a little hesitant to go wandering around that area.


----------



## Artemis

Most the time ive heard the security/police arent in the right to move you along, obviously if its got a locked gate with no trespacing then they are.

I doubt youd be fined, but asked to move along may happen, ive heard countless stories.


----------



## Viajero

I actually got my hands on a Press Pass for my towns newspaper. I have not had the chance to use it yet, But i am sure i will get a little more slack from and police/security.

I was actually at a farm the other day, that had no no trespassing signs. The farm was abandoned, and right behind it there was a huge quarry. Turns out the farm was owned by the company who owned the quarry. A guy came by and told me if I did'nt leave I would be arrested. So I left. Cannot wait to use my Press Pass. :thumbup:


----------



## bobaab

btw, photo's taken at spots where u're not supposed to be is still legally yours.  They cannot confiscate (sp?) your camera or film or memory card legally.  There's a good thread about photography legality issues somewhere on the forums here..


----------



## NYY

Thanks for the info, i've been thinking of trespassing a local resevoir lately


----------



## LittleMan

most of the time (for me anyways) if you're caught, it's usually by the owner of the property... so the police won't be involved unless the property owner calls them.  That usually never happens so usually the property owner is the one who tells you to leave.


----------



## Wally

NYY said:
			
		

> Thanks for the info, i've been thinking of trespassing a local resevoir lately


 
Not a good idea. Reservoirs are often very well gaurded due to the fact that they are a terroist target. Not a very good idea to trespass there


----------



## Soocom1

A little while back I had posted on another forum points similar to those made here. I was hit so hard by those who had already experianced this, that I eventually had to go to this web site: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

You will get a wealth of information from it, and a downloadable guide to what you can and cannot do.

Also there is a book to read:

The Law (in plane english) for Photographers.
by: Leonard D. Duboff

Allworth Press; Revised edition (May 2002)
ISBN: 1581152256


----------



## df3photo

Well, Ive been yelled at by security in pittsburgh because we set up a camera down town off the sidewalk in a grassy area and where shooting one building. They said it was private property and I needed to be "OKed" by the building owner... so I moved the camera less then 6 foot to the side walk and continued shooting. Once on public property you can shoot anything. even someone sunbathing in there backyard topless... (not that i have... cause I havent...)
 Here is a post I put up awhile back, Its a link to a lawyers page. check it out.  http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=17157

 good luck!


----------



## NYY

Wally said:
			
		

> Not a good idea. Reservoirs are often very well gaurded due to the fact that they are a terroist target. Not a very good idea to trespass there


It's not exactly a resevoir, I'm not sure how to really describe it. But it doesn't seem to be protected at all. The fence that blocks it off is about 6.5' tall, with no barbed wire or anything. i found at least 8 man made holes cut out of it. I finally did go through one of them just to check it out, i even left my camera in the bag just in case a security guard happened to be there. it turned out to be something like a manmade lake, surrounded by very dense woods. i heard leaves crunching not too far from me, so i ran back like a gazelle.


----------



## Iron Flatline

I went down to the LA Harbor to take pictures of the cool cranes at night from a public street. Security came and told me to move along, to which I answered that it was my right to take pictures from a public street. Well, of course they called for back-up, two more pick-up trucks full of fat guys came, they started jostling me around. Then the cops came, broke it up, and told me to move along. I reiterated my rights, was given a funny look, and told that they'd be glad to take me to the precinct to tell someone "who cares." 

My rights were completely irrelevant to the people involved - they hire bullies, and they use national security as an answer for anything, and the cops are disinterested in protecting our rights. So go ahead and print out the .pdf that spells out your rights as a photographer and citizen, but don't honestly think anyone of these people is going to care. At best you might get arrested, have your gear taken, and then returned to you (badly man-handled) a day or so later when they determine that you did nothing wrong. Not sure that warrants spending a night or so in an LA jail - where regardless of your rights, it takes 48 hours to process you out.

Sorry about the bitterness. Maybe it's a little more friendly in other parts of the world.


----------



## Oldfireguy

I don't ever think it ever hurts to ask permission. If told no then move on or come back and talk to someone a little higher up than a security officer who is getting paid minimum wage to do what they are told to do.

Iron Flatline you have learned just how much we have given up as citizens because of an attack against us. I could go on and on but I don't want to turn this into a political post.

If it's posted "No Trespassing" then you really have no right to be there in the first place. That's when you can get into trouble. There are a lot of reasons for posting trespassing signs. Maybe the 40 foot hole you fall into was the reason or the chemicals you just sludged into. Sometimes it's for your own good.

I'm sure in the U.S. nobody would ever sue for getting hurt on your property while taking pictures.


----------



## NYY

I think the best thing to do if you're confronted by security personel is to be respectful, and tell them your intentions. If you immediately bring up your legal rights, that makes you all the more suspicious.


----------



## Iron Flatline

Agreed NYY. I'm not ranting here, it just happened last week so I'm still peeved. I'm of the same school of thought that being nice is usually quite effective, and for me the most natural setting. I'm hardly some manifesto-swinging college student (any more.) I also find that asking almost always results in permission. It was just so weird to be on a public street and to be told by a thug with a plastic badge that I better move along...or else.


----------



## rachell

I was having similar questions and ran into this awesome pdf that not only goes into details about property and trespassing rights, but also gives wonderful examples.  The pdf is at http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf


----------



## Lucie

In my current town, a local photographer was arrested and fined $10,000 for shooting on railroad tracks.  Even though there wasn't a train scheduled to arrive anytime soon.   Apparently, the only railroad tracks you can shoot on are those that are abandoned.


----------



## Hertz van Rental

In the UK there is no actual law against trespass.
All that can be done is to ask you to leave and you do so by the quickest route.
You can, however, be prosecuted for criminal damage in connection - if you have caused any. So you cannot force an entry. You can only trespass with impunity if you gain access through an existing entrance.
There is one exception, though, and that is the railways. Trespassing on a railway track - whether there is a train coming or no - has a special law covering it as it is seen as a potential threat to life.


----------



## Soocom1

On the following web site, this story appeared on the hobby of &#8216;railfanning&#8217; or fans or railroads. One individual was stripped of his right to visit one location because of over-zealous law enforcement. 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56984-2002Nov14

This one should be of interest to all you NY Yankees.... 

http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002199058 

How many people have ever heard of railfanning before? 

There is a legitimate concern over terrorism, but not to the expense of our freedoms and liberties.

What I can only guess in this case (given I do not live in Kansas) is that the fine came from the TRESSPASS and not the actual photographing.  I have yet to find a single law anywhere saying you cannot photograph any railroads. What you cannot do is trespass on those tracks or railroad property. Not only is it criminal to do so, but also very dangerous. If you can correct me on that&#8230; great.


----------



## hot shot

me moved on for trespassing never 

one way to get round it out here in lincolshire is to check a map for rights of way so long as you in the same feild or rea of the right of way theres not tooo much they can do about you, you just erm got lost 

only been seriosly arrested once when i was at the top of bass malting ( old beer factory ) and got done for removing a widow didnt stick as the serious rust on the breack showed that it was a wee bit old


----------



## FOTO-GRAFFIC

Hertz van Rental said:
			
		

> In the UK there is no actual law against trespass.
> All that can be done is to ask you to leave and you do so by the quickest route.
> You can, however, be prosecuted for criminal damage in connection - if you have caused any. So you cannot force an entry. You can only trespass with impunity if you gain access through an existing entrance.
> There is one exception, though, and that is the railways. Trespassing on a railway track - whether there is a train coming or no - has a special law covering it as it is seen as a potential threat to life.


 
You have to add to that airports, military establishments - especially one in Berkshire and all sites owned or operated by AWRE. All for obvious reasons. There is of course here in the UK Traffalgar Square and the Southbank - Ken Livinston has employed a group of strangely dressed people to stop and ask you what you are photographing. They are street wardens that dress like they are out of a childrens programme but with an IQ of a house brick ( applogies to any house brick that maybe on the site).
They were hassling an American lady in Traffalgar Square because she was photgraphing her children and they wanted to know if they were her children - they went on their way when her husband arrived and he was big and didn't look like he wanted discuss the matter with them. I get pulled a lot by Police and security but if you state your reasons and don't upset anyone I have always been allowed to continue - if they don't want you to then there is always another day and get permission before you turn up. I know this doesn't help any one outside the Uk but it does highlite how cautious we need to be when abroad even in the land of the free:er:


----------



## alanH

Has anyone in the Uk ever had there camera confiscated, my older bro. was shooting an animal rights demo in London and the police confiscated his equipment and he never got it back.


----------



## FOTO-GRAFFIC

alanH said:
			
		

> Has anyone in the Uk ever had there camera confiscated, my older bro. was shooting an animal rights demo in London and the police confiscated his equipment and he never got it back.


 
Sounds serious - there are laws that allow Police to confiscate  a camera or devices used for recording but they are now allowed to keep it. In fact they have to have very strong reasons to confiscate. They can request you stop filming but if you are in a public place then you have the right to do so. they wouldn't do this to a jouno and they don't have any more rights than anyone else - forget the press card it's meaningless today - ask any PAP. An amature was arrested in Traffalgar Square and his equipment taken away and he spent the night in the cells. he was released without charge the following morning and his equipment was returned to him and he sued the Met and I believe he won his case but the Met didn't appologise as they believe they are above such things - no wonder they don't get much co-operation from the public. That said I shot some police in London (with camera before I get a armed response team round my house) and they were only to happy to pose. 
Has you brother asked for his equipment back.


----------



## alanH

My brother did ask for his camera back but unfortunatly no could explain where it was.


----------



## hot shot

thats a breach of human right i do beleave try talkin to the press they might be intresed in it


----------



## essjayyell

Being a skateboarder and keen photographer I've done my fair share of trespassing. I've only been caught by the police a few times, and security guards countless times. Police usually just ask for your name and details and tell you to move on. I've never been arrested or fined. You just be nice to them and they'll usually treat you the same.


----------



## Don Simon

alanH said:
			
		

> Has anyone in the Uk ever had there camera confiscated, my older bro. was shooting an animal rights demo in London and the police confiscated his equipment and he never got it back.


 
I wouldn't be entirely surprised if your brother himself was confiscated. Since they're apparently trying to ban all forms of protest it wouldn't surprise me if they've banned photographing protests too. Also the police in general don't like being photographed themselves - well, it wouldn't do to have someone photograph them shooting an unarmed man repeatedly in the head, would it?

Terrorism is a concern. Pedophilia is a concern. But they're not reasons to leave your camera at home or not take photos in certain areas in case someone gets the wrong idea. IMHO wherever you're allowed to walk you should be allowed to take photos. You can't wander into a military base, and you can't take photos of a military base. Fair enough. But I've been told I can't take photos on a train platform, when I made it clear that I wasn't using flash and my camera clearly didn't resemble any form of weapon. Some people just like giving orders and telling you what you can't do, and will seize any opportunity to do so. Ignore their demands and ask speak to someone with more authority. Even better, learn the law and recite it. They really, really hate that. :mrgreen:


----------



## D-50

I was just in DC and apparently you cannot use a tripod to take a photo of the white house, I'm sick of the country using Natinoal Security as an excuse for everything.. I guess the terrorist did their job by altering the freedoms we have.


----------



## journeyman

I live in Pittsburgh and they seem to be really uptight about private property and that.  I was thrown out of the local marina by some guy who threatened to call the cops, and I went back later and got the shots .  But I like going there a lot so eventually I pushed my luck and the cops told me it was private property and to move along.

I also heard rumor that if you try to take a picture of the PPG building looking up they'll threaten to confiscate your camera because their worried about security.  Though I have never seen a picture taken in this manner that could provide a shread of useful information on attacking the building.

I have a big problem though asking permission to go somewhere to take a picture in theroy does it not seem like your asking permission to make art? Not cool in my book.


----------



## Ductapeman

"I'm going to violate some laws, and intrude on someone's personal property, and it'll be okay because I'm an artist." Oooookay-- (There are places I know of where if you try that you will be shot at, and not with cameras, and I doubt they will care if you are an "artist" or not. Be careful, and _please_ don't tell me you did/are going to do this, all right?


----------



## John_05

the only place ive had a problem with my being there (in NY) was on railroad tracks, but i can understand that.

ive been to a few cemeteries here, and i was only asked to leave once. i dont watch much tv, and its been so long since ive read a newspaper i almost forget what one looks like, and apparently there had been some vadalism in the cemetery i was in. if that hadnt happened, im sure the police wouldnt have had a problem with me being there. like ive said in a couple other posts, they know me pretty well now, and they know my intentions. combine that with the fact im 6'1", almost 270 pounds, and not the friendliest looking person, and i guess they assume my presence alone would scare off any delinquents. im pretty pale in complexion, so i can see their point. i must look spooky in a dark cemetery at night. :lmao: 

all kidding aside, ive shot from alot of places you would think they would prefer people to not be like roof tops, the top of parking ramps, empty streets, parks after sunset, etc. as long as youre pleasant with any police or security people to encounter, more often then not, they will treat you the same way back. you will run into the occasional jerk that only wants to exert his authority, but leaving and coming back in a day or 2 is much better then getting into an argument with police or security. i know people just want to maintain the rights they have had for eons, but it isnt always a good idea to try to tell a police officer the law. most all will assume because of their position, they know more about the law then anyone else. we all know that isnt always the case, but you will never get a cop to believe it, or admit to it. i will admit ive gotten a little "mouthy" with the police, but in the end it does no good. you are just wasting time you could be spending finding a new location to shoot from, and your making yourself look less than friendly in the eyes of the police. i prefer to just leave, and then come back another time. 

ive never had the experience of the police wanting or threatening to take my cameras, but i will say this. if they want to take my gear, they better have a warrant. i refuse to hand anything to anyone that ive saved for years to get. we all know if something happened to your equipment while in "police custody", they would never admit they broke it, and you would be stuck replacing it yourself. i would be more then happy to accompany my gear to the shift commander or whoever is in charge so they can look at the pics ive shot (digital), but theres no way im handing anything to them to take. it either goes home with me, or never leaves my hands. as for film, if they want a roll of film, so be it. ill rewind it, and hand it to them. the film i buy is not expensive, but they had better plan on giving me prints of whatever they develop. :lmao:


----------



## Orgnoi1

Lucie said:
			
		

> In my current town, a local photographer was arrested and fined $10,000 for shooting on railroad tracks. Even though there wasn't a train scheduled to arrive anytime soon. Apparently, the only railroad tracks you can shoot on are those that are abandoned.


 
Railroad tracks arent public property... even abandoned ones are private and you could be fined if arrested even on those... unfortunate fact of life when you shoot trains (as I do) that the railroads are not into having photographers killed by incompetence... so make it clear by example what will happen when you shoot there...


----------



## newrmdmike

to legally use photographs from anywhere not in the public eye you need a property release in order to publish, otherwise you may be sued. 

(correct?)


----------



## Rob

newrmdmike said:
			
		

> to legally use photographs from anywhere not in the public eye you need a property release in order to publish, otherwise you may be sued.
> 
> (correct?)


As with everything in this world, it depends on where you live, local laws, regional laws, national laws, times-of-heightened-paranoia laws... 

Generally, the answer would be no, you do not need a property release form, assuming that the photograph was taken from public property or in other ways accordant with the law. As with anything in this world however; it's never that simple. Let's say for the sake of argument that you legally took a picture of Acme Corporation's headquarters in a perfectly legal fashion from a public place. Then you put on a caption saying "these guys are evil" and published it. You should probably be fine huh? Maybe not if you included their logo, because that's copyright.... maybe not if local laws prevent you from making defamatory images targetting a business... Maybe not if you don't want the wrath of Acme corporation on your case.

Model releases and permissions are good to have things, especially if you are selling to litigiously aware corporations. However, in reality it's pretty hard to sue someone for taking a picture and publishing it (especially when it's a building).

There's loads to this subject and it varies (legality-wise) enormously from place to place. In the UK, we are pretty relaxed about buildings (with a couple of exceptions) and you would never need a property release to sell or publish a picture of a building (that I can think of!). It's perfectly OK to go up to the British secret intelligence service headquarters and take a picture of the building, complete with bristling CCTV cameras. I wouldn't recommend lurking for extended periods, but you get the idea.


Rob


----------



## LWW

BTW, a press pass does not give you the OK to trespass on private property.

LWW


----------



## usayit

df3photo said:
			
		

> Once on public property you can shoot anything. even someone sunbathing in there backyard topless... (not that i have... cause I havent...)



Assuming you are not on a ladder shooting over a fence that completely blocks public view with the purpose of providing privacy.  In that situation, one could argue that the topless person had an "expectation" of privacy.


----------



## rmh159

Iron Flatline said:
			
		

> I went down to the LA Harbor to take pictures of the cool cranes at night from a public street. Security came and told me to move along, to which I answered that it was my right to take pictures from a public street. Well, of course they called for back-up, two more pick-up trucks full of fat guys came, they started jostling me around. Then the cops came, broke it up, and told me to move along. I reiterated my rights, was given a funny look, and told that they'd be glad to take me to the precinct to tell someone "who cares."


 
I think this brings up a good point about police.  They do have the right to arrest you regardless of your "rights".  What's limited is how long they can hold you without charging you.

When in college my one law professor gave an example (it was about 5 years ago so if the details aren't 100% forgive me... but the idea still stands) that if you were walking on the street with a licensed gun that isn't concealed or being waved around / pointed at anyone you're LEGALLY not breaking any laws.  However if a cop sees this you're going to jail without a second's hesitation.

So while carrying a camera isn't exactly the same thing as carrying a gun the point is if the cop wants to take you to jail and then release you later without charging you ... you're pretty much F-ed.


----------



## table1349

rmh159 said:
			
		

> I think this brings up a good point about police.  They do have the right to arrest you regardless of your "rights".  What's limited is how long they can hold you without charging you.
> 
> When in college my one law professor gave an example (it was about 5 years ago so if the details aren't 100% forgive me... but the idea still stands) that if you were walking on the street with a licensed gun that isn't concealed or being waved around / pointed at anyone you're LEGALLY not breaking any laws.  However if a cop sees this you're going to jail without a second's hesitation.
> 
> So while carrying a camera isn't exactly the same thing as carrying a gun the point is if the cop wants to take you to jail and then release you later without charging you ... you're pretty much F-ed.


Actually, as a 25 year law enforcement officer, no you can't be arrested regardless of your rights.  Not without legal repurcussions if you so choose to pursue them.  The problem is that what your rights are and what you precieve as your rights are often two different things.  Your example from you law professor is a perfect eample of what I mean.  In many (possibly most) jurisdictions it is against the law to carry a firearm.  Registered or not.  Only those with carry *conceal* permits are legal in carrying a *concealed *handgun.  The open display of a firearm is not concealed, nor is it lawful, except for law enforcement and ON DUTY security personel in most jurisdictions.  (The state of Arizona is the only exception to this one I am aware of.  It's still 1872 there.)

As for the photographer being arrested and fined $10,000 for being on the railroad tracks taking photos.  Railroad tracks are private property covered by Federal Law and have been for many many years.  It has always been a crime to trespass on railroad property and the fine for doing so is $10,000.  It is stated in plain view on signs along railroad tracks, rail bridges etc.  This is nothing new.  

A little common sense is very helpful when being questioned by the police about photographing in a certain area or thing.  First if you are not on public  property or have permission from the property owner to be where you are, You are done, game over, shut up, appoligize and leave quietly.  There is no argument as there is not an "ART" excption in the Constitution.  

If you are on public property, and are questioned, be polite, and direct in your answers.  Have good photo identification on your person that is current and up to date.  Don't say stupid **** or make up some BS about why you are photographing what you are.  If your desired venue in photography is lug nuts on the right rear tires of trucks then say so.  Don't go into a long disertation about artistic freedom.  (Why anyone would take photos of the lug nuts on the right rear tires of trucks I don't know, but each to their own)  If you happen to have a couple of examples of your work great, offer to show them. Do yourself a favor and do not argue.  If asked to leave, do so.  They may be wroing, it happens, you have other recourses after the fact.  The fact is, that if you argue, even if you are in the right and then resist their actions, you can be charged with obstruct or resist.  This is a legal charge even if the officer is wrong.  His/her being wrong does not give you the right to resist or obstruct.

As for dealing with security guards (rent a cops) you are on your own.  They are a pain in our @## as well.  

The bottom line is, if you are on public property in a place you are allowed to be, (interstate highways are public property, but it is not legal to be on foot in the roadway) or you have permission from the property owner to be where you are, you should be fine.  If not, you took it upon yourself so be ready for what comes.


----------



## Soocom1

Several points here. 
First to gry: In New Mexico, you can carry a loaded UN-concealed firearm everywhere except the usual forbidden places. Schools, Post offices, etc. 
You can carry a loaded CONCEALED firearm on your person while on YOUR property etal: your house, AND vehicle. (NM defines a vehicle as extension of the home). Or you can get a CC license for carrying it concealed and loaded on your person.  

Law enforcement personnel generally has their heads screwed on straight. Unless it is an obvious violation, they generally leave you alone. The rent a cops on the other hand have a problem understanding this because they are not required by law to KNOW the law.  Quiz most cops, and they have an understanding of the Constitution. Most rent a cops (with a few exceptions) generally are the wanna-bees that don't know anything more than the BS taught in our glorious Public Education system. I have again had a nice conversation with an individual who actually thought that digital cameras were NOT permitted within 100 feet of a public building. He cited the Patriot Act, and said that it destroyed the Forth Amendment. I then had him read the Patriot act word for word, and he found out like me, that it doesn't say anything of the sort.


----------



## Illah

I worry less about the law and more about the hobos and whatnot, but I live in San Francisco.  We have lots of hobos, many who clearly carry shanks in their back right pocket (I guess it's like a fashion statement or something).  Now most of these guys are just transients - these aren't crazy drug addicts - but it's still an iffy situation.

As for the law, my dad was a cop.  His advice to me when dealing with the police was just to be a nice guy.  Don't talk *at* them as representatives of the 'law', talk to them like you would anyone else.  Most of the time they'll tell you to move on, go home, whatever.  I made a shady run through a yellow light that turned red right before I got in the intersection and was pulled over.  Told the cop I was sorry, explained what happened, and all was well.  Just don't be a prick and start screaming how the light was yellow and how their salaries are paid with our tax money.

I have a funny feeling that guy fined $10K on the railroad tracks made an ass of himself to get that fine.  Most cops aren't looking to prosecute anyone and everyone, but if you start acting like a prick they're happy to stick you with whatever they can.

--Illah


----------



## table1349

Soocom1 said:
			
		

> Several points here.
> First to gry: In New Mexico, you can carry a loaded UN-concealed firearm everywhere except the usual forbidden places. Schools, Post offices, etc.
> You can carry a loaded CONCEALED firearm on your person while on YOUR property etal: your house, AND vehicle. (NM defines a vehicle as extension of the home). Or you can get a CC license for carrying it concealed and loaded on your person.



Interesting to know about New Mexico.  I was aware of the AZ laws but not New Mexico's.  Here in Kansas you can carry a concealled or unconcealed firearm on your own property, home or business.  A vehicle on a public roadway however is public, and carrying of a loaded firearm is not allowable.  A gun must be unloaded, ammunition stored seperatly and not within reach. such as the locked trunk.  We now have the CC law that will start after the first of the year.  I have no problems with that.  However the posters remarks were of an unconcealed weapon in public and again, AZ is the only state I know of that allows the carrying of an unconcealed weapon by any lawful individual.


----------



## denvermax

yesterday i was shooting a local oil refinery at like 2 in the morning and site security questioned me. they thought i could potentially using the photos for sabatogee!


----------



## Claff

I got hassled by the security people at the Hollywood Forever cematery, just cause I was shooting macro shots of the vintage Rolls Royce hearse parked near the entrance. They said I should go inside and ask for permission to shoot, which they'd probably grant, but it ticked me off enough in the first place that I just got back in the car and went elsewhere.


----------



## Personalized Stamp

RBMKAlpha said:
			
		

> So has anyone here ever been questioned/arrested/fined by the police for trespassing? I was in an interesting industrial area in Erie, and there was a vacant lot where a factory had been razed. There were no "no trespassing" signs but it was in the open and I was a little hesitant to go wandering around that area.


 

Based on what law they'll arrest you if there are no signs?


----------



## quad b

I've been taking some photos of the Sydney Harbour Bridge lately, and both times I've been up there, I've been told by security that I can't take photos of the bridge abutments or detailed shots of the pin joints etc. They say I can only take photos of the bridge as a whole and from a distance. This is only since 9/11 and the Bali bombings. I know they're protecting us/the bridge BUT I think it's pretty crap that I'm not allowed to take these pics.


----------



## toastydeath

Anyone taking actual reconnasance photographs of an area does not want to be noticed, and will not be clicking away with an obvious camera.  Your local SWAT team knows this just as well as violent criminals/terrorists do - they roll by drughouses in unmarked cars, video cameras rolling.  They don't send someone out to stand in front of the building and take pictures of the lamp posts with careful consideration for angles and lighting.

"Protecting the bridge" is a poor excuse, but is required to generate the atmosphere necessary to intimidate rights away in more critical areas (protest photography, police interactions, etc).  

For those of you truly concerned with the police, you need a friend to play noninteractive bystander with a concealed camera.  No matter what you do, if you fear your rights are going to be removed, this is standard practice.  As the kind officer mentioned earlier, you DO have recourse if your rights are violated.  If I ever feel the need (and I don't) to be in a place where that becomes an issue, I would rather spend the money on some video equippment and _wireless_ mics.  Just let the chips fall where they may, if that occurs.  I am always kind, be polite, cooperative, and understanding.  I used to work very closely with the police, and there are some fine people out there.  There are also some really rotten ones.  If I go to jail for unfounded reasons, my buddy not only has the audio and video at a safe distance for me when I contact my attourney, but can testify as well.  

An overzealous police officer will then kindly pay for a pair of new d200 bodies and that tilt-shift lens I want.


----------



## Lol999

i got pulled by "security" the other day whilst in my nearest city. I was photographing a building from what I thought was the pavement but now realise was "private" property. I was snapping away and I hear a shout asking me to stop photographing the building. Turns out it's the building manager who tells me that some of the businesses don't like having their logos photographed. I apologise and plead ignorance and put the camera away. Turns out they had also had paedos pointed out to them by the police using the area to photograph kids so everyone with a camera gets pulled and asked to move on. He was actually a pretty decent guy when we got chatting and suggested some spots in the city I could get good photographs. I gave him my card and off I went. My standard action when confronted is this:
1) Put the camera away and fasten your bag. That way it's not up for grabs from idiots who think they can confiscate it.
2) Apologise immediately and plead ignorance to any violation
3) Start walking towards a "public" area. Most securrity will be happy to follow you flexing their chest/belly satsified that they "showed you who's boss".
4) If they want a confrontation continue doing 3)

I've never been pulled by the police but I know this much, ain't NO ONE getting my gear off me. They can examine it in the presence of me and a solicitor and that's as much as they are doing. I'll have my day in court first.

Lol


----------



## terri

Lol999 said:
			
		

> i got pulled by "security" the other day whilst in my nearest city. I was photographing a building from what I thought was the pavement but now realise was "private" property. I was snapping away and I hear a shout asking me to stop photographing the building. Turns out it's the building manager who tells me that some of the businesses don't like having their logos photographed. I apologise and plead ignorance and put the camera away. Turns out they had also had paedos pointed out to them by the police using the area to photograph kids so everyone with a camera gets pulled and asked to move on. He was actually a pretty decent guy when we got chatting and suggested some spots in the city I could get good photographs. I gave him my card and off I went. My standard action when confronted is this:
> 1) Put the camera away and fasten your bag. That way it's not up for grabs from idiots who think they can confiscate it.
> 2) Apologise immediately and plead ignorance to any violation
> 3) Start walking towards a "public" area. Most securrity will be happy to follow you flexing their chest/belly satsified that they "showed you who's boss".
> 4) If they want a confrontation continue doing 3)
> 
> I've never been pulled by the police but I know this much, ain't NO ONE getting my gear off me. They can examine it in the presence of me and a solicitor and that's as much as they are doing. I'll have my day in court first.
> 
> Lol


Sounds like you did everything right. Usually just the act of packing it in and moving on is enough to defuse these kinds of situations. I got run out of a flea market, of all places, something about my being a spy for a competing flea market (who knew?!)  but there was NO signage about photography not being allowed. They weren't happy but there was nothing they could other than allow me to apologize and leave.


----------



## Orgnoi1

rmh159 said:
			
		

> that if you were walking on the street with a licensed gun that isn't concealed or being waved around / pointed at anyone you're LEGALLY not breaking any laws. However if a cop sees this you're going to jail without a second's hesitation..


 
Just for sake of specifics in NY since that is where the quoted person is from...

If you are carrying a HANDgun around and it isnt concealed.. it IS illegal... NY State (not NYC) only issues two types of handgun permits: Concealed and Premise. So once a handgun is no longer concealed for any means other than what your handgun permit states, you are breaking the law.


----------



## cosmonaut

I know this sounds old fashion, but I have found if you take the time and trouble to ask permisson most with go way out of their way to help you get what you want....
           Cosmo


----------



## bryanwhite

NYY said:
			
		

> ...i've been thinking of trespassing a local resevoir lately


 The other thing about this, there's no need to trespass, at least not here in my neck of the woods.  They are so big on education here, they'll take anyone up for a small fee, with proper planning (I think they only require about four days notice).  Let them know what you would like to do, and often you will get your way, and a good talk about how we should respectfully use (not completely stay away from because we are such lepers) the land and environment around us.

As far as areas with tight security,  I have a very interesting story here, interesting because of the result because I was compliant.  I was shooting a safety video for a transportation company at the Portland Airport.  After about 20 min of tapinig, the police showed up, wondering what I was doing.  Because I had a badge from the airport on, matching my driver's license, and because I was perfectly willing to let them and the TSA see my footage, as well as asking questions about where I should and should not shoot, they left an officer with me, who further acted as my escort and did things like answering bystander's questions while I shot vehicles going by.  It was great.

Being in the motor coach industry, an area not understood too well by many police officers because the regulations we operate under are downright strange (we are regulated as a car in regard to speed but not weight, although my weight is not governed as a truck either, but I do have to keep a logbook like a truck, for instance), I keep a copy of the booklet the Government printed out for me on hand at all times, so if I do pull over, it is me being compliant, respectful and obedient, and [their] book being the thing fighting them, if anything does.  The other thing I do is present the book in a very non-confrontational way, "Well, you know, I'm not sure about that," (D*** straight, I'm sure about it), "maybe I'm wrong.  I have a Federal DOT book here, may we look it up?"

Please note, I have nothing against the police, I really like all the police I have ever had interaction with (a few, I got their card and we kept in touch, when I have a question, I ask them, they like that, etc.)  If you keep in mind that it's a human being you're talking to, not a badge, you'll go much farther.




			
				Soocom1 said:
			
		

> What you cannot do is trespass on those tracks or railroad property. Not only is it criminal to do so, but also very dangerous.


Yes, trains sneak up on you.  I went to an unregulated crossing (no lights/signal) and sat there about ten fifteen feet from the tracks, facing one direction.  I had a couple trains go by that I didn't hear until they were right on top of me.  If I do shoot on tracks, I have a watchout whose only job is to watch for trains.  If you aren't in a position to see the train coming, it will sneak up on you.  It's amazinig how little noise they project ahead of them.  Then, consider how little of the train is actually touching the ground.  Each wheel is a steel wheel on a steel track, and neither bend much.  That means that on each wheel, less than a finger width (and even THAT is being generous) is in contact with the rail.  For an entire mile-and-a-half train, the total surface area of contact with the ground is probably less thanthe surface area of the windshield of your car.  It's the only reason the trian is able to roll down the tracks, but it also makes it very, very slow to stop since there's so little traction.  Think about that next time you're trying to beat a train through a crossing.

Trains are extremely dangerous in those regards, hence the downright mean, narrow-minded execution of law with the railroad companies, because hitting you with a train is much meaner.

[/soapbox]

EDIT: Stupid...me...forgot...to...check...dates... Didn't mean to necro the thread  :taped sh:


----------



## RMThompson

Wow you dug deep to find this thread, but an interesting read throughout.

I am planning on doing some street photography in Tampa soon, and I think some of the pointers will come in handy!


----------



## bnz506

Im from NYC and there are huge misconceptions about the law on taking photos in the subways and on the trains. It is legal but cops and MTA personnel are uninformed and are always hassling photographers ever since 9-11. I pretty much carry this print out as a part of my camera gear:




> *Rules of Conduct*
> 
> Rules governing the conduct and safety of the public in the use of the facilities of the New York City Transit Authority and Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority
> *a. **Section 1050.9*
> Restricted areas and activities.
> 
> 
> No person, except as specifically authorized by the Authority, shall enter or attempt to enter into any area not open to the public, including but not limited to train operator's cabs, conductor's cabs, bus operator's seat location, station booths, closed-off areas, mechanical or equipment rooms, concession stands, storage areas, interior rooms, catwalks, emergency stairways (except in cases of an emergency), tracks, roadbeds, tunnels, plants, shops, barns, train yards, garages, depots or any area marked with a sign restricting access or indicating a dangerous environment.
> No vehicle, except as specifically authorized, may be parked on Authority property.
> No person may ride on the roof, platform between subway cars or on any other area outside any subway car or bus or other conveyance operated by the Authority. No person may use the end doors of a subway car to pass from one subway car to another except in an emergency or when directed to do so by an Authority conductor or a New York City police officer. *Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part. *
> No person shall extend his or her hand, arm, leg, head or other part of his or her person, or extend any item, article or other substance outside of the window or door of a subway car, bus or other conveyance operated by the Authority.
> No person shall enter or leave a subway car, bus or other conveyance operated by the Authority except through the entrances and exits provided for that purpose.
> No person may carry on or bring to any facility or conveyance any item that:
> is so long as to extend outside the window or door of a subway car, bus or other conveyance;
> constitutes a hazard to the operation of the Authority, interferes with passenger traffic, or impedes service; or
> constitutes a danger or hazard to other persons.
> 
> 
> Nothing contained in this section shall apply to the use of wheelchairs, crutches, canes or other physical assistance devices.


 
I am going to visit my parents on the 24th I am interested to know if there are any laws against photography in the airports. I'm sure there arent since Ive seen many airport photographs.


----------



## skates94

Great thread:

As a police officer for the past 5 years the only thing that I ask for is respect....... not as a police officer but as a human being. If in my contact with you while I'm performing my duties you treat me with respect I will treat you with the same respect. In the end my decision in regards to your situation will be more than fair...... because you treated me as a human being.

Besides, the fact that I'm on this website shows I have a passion about photography and you never know who you are dealing with. That police officer who may be asking you about why your on private property photographing whatever may be an avid photographer themselves and after taking care of "business" will be more interested in your shared hobby.

Take care and stay safe.


----------



## DeepSpring

I have a questions maybe someone in law enforcement can answer.

So from this topic I have come to the conclusion that if I am standing on a public sidewalk I can take a picture of anything out in the open correct?

So I was hanging outside of The Sherman Oaks Galleria one night, it is this sort of out door mall. Here is a picture so you can understand what I'm saying http://www.robotoys.com/GalleriaFront.gif
A man came up and was standign on the side walk, at the very left of the frame. infront of the stairs. He was standing on city property. He had a Panasonic DVX 100A video camera on a prety hefty looking tripod. He also had a  few accessory belts on. Not even a minute after the guy sets up a security guard comes over looking extremely mad, the man picks up the tripod and runs away. 


Since he was on public property and shooting what was out in the open for anyone to see I cant understand why he was chaced away.


----------



## skates94

DeepSpring

I wish everything was black and white but we all know there is alot of gray area in the middle. For the most part you should be able to stand on "public" property and take photos of whatever makes your heart content BUT you may encounter some resistance. For example if you were to travel to Downtown Chicago and photograph the Sears Towers (tallest building in North America) you would probably be questioned as to why you are doing so and what your purpose with the photos is. 

As someone stated earlier:
Carry a valid government issued id card w/you
Carry some of your work
Be polite and direct, if photography is your hobby and you enjoy taking pictures of pigeons on park benches.. then say so

If directed to move along...... I would suggest you do so. Even if your right. Many times a police officer may ask someone to do something and when that person does not do it they often find themselves being charged w/something..... disorderly conduct is usually the catch all.

Hope this helps


----------



## eddiesimages

I completely agree with Skates94. I also am a police officer and have been for 23 years. A person's attitude is everything. Not just with taking photos, but in all situations. If you're polite and can explain why you are taking photos most reasonable officers will understand and won't harass you. If you have an attitude and start off the conversation with something like ' it's none of your business, I'm in a public place and I have a right to do it', you're going to have trouble. Most officers are just trying to do their job and in today's world part of that job is watching for any suspicious activity, such as photographing buildings. You never know, the reason an officer even approaches you could be because some citizen called and made a complaint about suspicious activity and he has to approach you. Most officers are just regular guys trying to do a job and like Skates94 said, if you give respect you will get it back.


----------



## Orgnoi1

I am going to make a bold statement... so sorry if I offend anyone...

but in reading the last few posts I am just going to say this... 

What has this world come to? Since when has photography been a suspicious event or a crime? I fully understand that everyone has jobs to do... but it also does not give anyone the right to "kick someone out" of public property for doing nothing wrong. I am the most polite person anyone will meet... in person... but it really boils my "you-know-whats" when people who are misinformed about the law are the same people upholding it. No offense to the two officers that posted... obviously both of you are photographers or you wouldnt be here in the first place. But something as simple as taking a picture in broad daylight of the Sears Tower shouldnt be even insinuated as a crime. A simple terry stop for such an issue should NEVER result in someone having to move off the public location or stop doing a harmless hobby.

When we stop allowing our citizens from doing harmless hobbies such as photography we may as well succumb to the terrorists... for they have already won.


----------



## eddiesimages

It is sad what the world has become. But photography has indeed become a suspicious activity. Not long ago a person was stopped in Charlotte, NC, not 20 miles from my home for doing nothing but taking photos of uptown buildings. Turns out the person was linked to Al Kaida. He was using those very photographs for terrorist activities. He was tried and convicted for plotting to blow up some buildings. We cannot close our eyes to anything during these trying times.


----------



## xfloggingkylex

flyinsalt said:


> It is sad what the world has become. But photography has indeed become a suspicious activity. Not long ago a person was stopped in Charlotte, NC, not 20 miles from my home for doing nothing but taking photos of uptown buildings. Turns out the person was linked to Al Kaida. He was using those very photographs for terrorist activities. He was tried and convicted for plotting to blow up some buildings. We cannot close our eyes to anything during these trying times.


 
sadly you get the super hero cop who feels the need to throw his (or her) weight around, flaunting their authority as if they were some higher power.  It's sad that a few of these hotshots can ruin the reputation of the people who serve and protect the people, and I want to emphasize serve and protect.

Luckily I haven't had any run-ins with police asking (or telling) me to leave, so I can't throw in any personal experience.


----------



## table1349

Having read and followed this thread and others like it there seems to be one reoccuring theme in the stories of people being stopped and questioned.  It doen't for the most part seem to be the police, rather private security personel.  (You notice I didn't use the word Officer)  In my 25 years as an officer/detective it has become abundantly clear that private security personel DO NOT know the law or their boundries under the law.  

In my jurisdiction *All* security personel that work outside of a single business, must attend a training and be licensed by my department.  Most of the single businesses that employ their own personel also run their people through our class and have them licensed.  We teach them the several things including the law, especially in regards to what they can and can not do.  

It has saved my department from many a headache, and for those that fail to learn, they quickly loose their license, resulting in the loss of their job. 

The simple fact remains,  If you are in Public on Public property, you have the right to be there and to take pictures.  If a law enforcement officer approaches you, be polite, be precise with your answers, show your identification happily and explain what you are doing in a calm, polite manner.  If you are approached by some sort of security personel, *be calm*, *be polite* and ask them to call a law enforcement officer if you have the time and the desire to photograph what you were intending to.  Or dial 911 yourself.  If you do so, be prepared to wait and follow the above suggestions about contact with a Law Enforcement Officer.

 They know when they have overstepped their bounds and it will most likely resolve the situation before the need of a law enforcement officer.  I suspect that the person mentioned above with the video equipment fled, rather than being chased off because they did not know better.  

If by chance you are detained by the security personel and they make it clear that you are not free to leave, do not resist them.  Rather wait for the law enforcement officer to resolve the immediate situation.  If you are unlawfully detained by some security personel, remember, your name will look good on the sign for that shopping mall or highrise.  (Ther are legal, civil remidies for such being detained wrongfully by some security personel)


----------



## skates94

flyinsalt... you hit the nail on the head. I have lost count of the number of people I have stopped with confirmed links to terrorism. It's frightening to learn much of the information that we are privy to. Sadly, I will never leave my home w/o my firearm. Some idiot terrorist in Rockford, Illinois was about to blow up a shopping mall the Friday before Christmas:

http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/166248,CST-NWS-terror09.article

People.... this stuff is happening right under your noses! We are not safe anywhere.


----------



## castrol

The terrorists have already won. They hate us with such a passion they will
do anything and everything to kill every last one of us and if they can't do that,
they will make us slaves to a country that won't allow any freedoms of any
types. Rest assured, there was a HUGE victory on 9/11.

That being said, many, MANY people have photographic memories. At what
point do we quit allowing people to actually look at a building for fear they
might figure out some way to blow it up? It's getting out of control. "Excuse
me sir, you have to come with me?" B..but...why? "Well, you looked up from
the sidewalk at the building while you were walking by. That constitutes
a thread of possible terrorism. Please come with me."

It amazes me how ones hobby can sway you back and forth from the right
to the left and back again. Seems all the hobbies I like are hated by one
side or the other.


----------



## theusher

castrol said:


> The terrorists have already won. They hate us with such a passion they will
> do anything and everything to kill every last one of us and if they can't do that,
> they will make us slaves to a country that won't allow any freedoms of any
> types. Rest assured, there was a HUGE victory on 9/11.
> 
> That being said, many, MANY people have photographic memories. At what
> point do we quit allowing people to actually look at a building for fear they
> might figure out some way to blow it up? It's getting out of control. "Excuse
> me sir, you have to come with me?" B..but...why? "Well, you looked up from
> the sidewalk at the building while you were walking by. That constitutes
> a thread of possible terrorism. Please come with me."
> 
> It amazes me how ones hobby can sway you back and forth from the right
> to the left and back again. Seems all the hobbies I like are hated by one
> side or the other.



I don't want to turn this into a political thread, but your post is spot on. The terrorists did win by destroying the fabric and landscape that made the country great to begin with. 9/11 was the beginning of the end of freedoms enjoyed in this country for decades.


----------



## montresor

Very sad indeed. I've never been stopped, interfered with or arrested, even though I've photographed in some rather unusual urban settings, including the maze of alleyways in downtown Cleveland between the old and new edifices (got some lovely stuff back there too!). I once shot pictures of bridges and light rail transport with police standing nearby, fully cognizant of what I was doing. That said, Cleveland police are pretty good about assessing many risks, and as a lightweight little guy with glasses whose camera bag threatens to topple him over, I apparently looked harmless to them. Which, of course, I was.

Nevertheless, I will admit that many's the time I've elected not to take a photo, simply because of these Orwellian concerns.


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE

This Link Was Great  :hail: 



Soocom1 said:


> A little while back I had posted on another forum points similar to those made here. I was hit so hard by those who had already experianced this, that I eventually had to go to this web site: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
> 
> You will get a wealth of information from it, and a downloadable guide to what you can and cannot do.
> 
> Also there is a book to read:
> 
> The Law (in plane english) for Photographers.
> by: Leonard D. Duboff
> 
> Allworth Press; Revised edition (May 2002)
> ISBN: 1581152256


----------



## dewey

I always cooporate with law enforcement... If I am on public property I laugh and provoke security guards for fun.  

I will however not produce an ID just for standing somewhere... it's just not required by law in the good ole US (that may be in the patriot act somewhere).  Will I go to jail for it?  Of course not, but it's never been a problem... of course I would have my DL hanging around my neck in NYC. 

A good example would be a few days ago.  I was pulled off to the side of the road photographing an oil refinery.  OOoooooooo no not an oil refinery!  The little refinery security guard caught up to me at my third setup and asked for my ID.  I asked who he was, and he explained he was a security guard.  I explained to him that I was on public property and was taking photographs for peaceful purposes.  I also explained he had no right to see my ID, to which he replied he was calling the police, which he did.  After a few more scenery changes around the refinery the police arrived and asked me what I was doing.  I explained I was taking photos, and explained I had never strayed from public property, and I explained I had researched the issue with the Edmonton Police Service AND the RCMP and they both said it was okay to photograph refineries.  I gave him the officer name and ID from both agencies I spoke to, to which he said he knew it wasn't illegal to photograph them, but that he was called out because I was tresspassing.  His next question with a bit of a laugh was "do you plan on tresspassing tonight?"  Of course I said no.  With a look of "why did I come out here" the cop then had a LOUD talk with the security guard and they both left.

Score one for photographers! :thumbup:

As far as railroads, yeah get a long lens and stay away from the right of way.


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE

skates,    
I had a run-in  a few nights ago. My wife and I were going out for dinner at nine o'clock. It's I noticed three police cruisers flying down the road.  They pulled up to building next to my apartment building. Turns out in elderly Man dailed 911 because he couldn't get his car started.  Two of the three cops were under the hood.  I had to take a few photographs.  After the third photograph I used one with a flash.  One of the officers yelled "don't you have anything better to do".  I replied "no not really".  I noiced the flashlight having my direction.  I told my  wife to get quick.   a few seconds later the large  was coming my direction.  It's I pulled out, and proceeded down the street.  The way the side streets are we could've had hidden. But I really wanted dinner.  Five seconds later a cruiser came up behind us. Followed us for a bout a mile. As I was watching in the rearview mirror I knew that gut wrenching sign was that happen, the police lights came on.  A female officer approached the car.  She asked for license to registration and insurance.  I asked her , what did I do officer.  She repeated her demand. i repeat my question.  This she told me was part of her investigation.  When she came back to the vehicle, he do you could not photograph police cruisers or police officers without written consent in the future. After she walked away, i was laugnhing my head off. How would you have handle that situation as a police officer?




skates94 said:


> DeepSpring
> 
> I wish everything was black and white but we all know there is alot of gray area in the middle. For the most part you should be able to stand on "public" property and take photos of whatever makes your heart content BUT you may encounter some resistance. For example if you were to travel to Downtown Chicago and photograph the Sears Towers (tallest building in North America) you would probably be questioned as to why you are doing so and what your purpose with the photos is.
> 
> As someone stated earlier:
> Carry a valid government issued id card w/you
> Carry some of your work
> Be polite and direct, if photography is your hobby and you enjoy taking pictures of pigeons on park benches.. then say so
> 
> If directed to move along...... I would suggest you do so. Even if your right. Many times a police officer may ask someone to do something and when that person does not do it they often find themselves being charged w/something..... disorderly conduct is usually the catch all.
> 
> Hope this helps


----------



## Garrentee

I wanted to shoot an abandoned amusment park in my girlfriends home town...there are fences and no truspassing signs everywhere...i didnt want to get in trouble for going in there so i just went down to local police dept. and told them i was doing a photo documentary on old amusment parks in new england...cops were very nice, strolled back to ask his supervisor and came back with the answer of yes!! but be carefull and if you get hurt its on you!!

Even though i lied about the documentary it never hurts to ask!!! they might just say YES...


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE

Garrentee said:


> I wanted to shoot an abandoned amusment park in my girlfriends home town...there are fences and no truspassing signs everywhere...i didnt want to get in trouble for going in there so i just went down to local police dept. and told them i was doing a photo documentary on old amusment parks in new england...cops were very nice, strolled back to ask his supervisor and came back with the answer of yes!! but be carefull and if you get hurt its on you!!
> 
> Even though i lied about the documentary it never hurts to ask!!! they might just say YES...


lol   would that be rockey point?


----------



## Garrentee

lol, no adelicateimage it actually used to be called lincoln park, in westport, MA...theres a rickety old wooden roller coaster thats falling apart and its an awesome spot!!


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE

cool , not enough parks now anywhere.


----------



## EOS_JD

Hertz van Rental said:


> In the UK there is no actual law against trespass.
> All that can be done is to ask you to leave and you do so by the quickest route.
> You can, however, be prosecuted for criminal damage in connection - if you have caused any. So you cannot force an entry. You can only trespass with impunity if you gain access through an existing entrance.
> There is one exception, though, and that is the railways. Trespassing on a railway track - whether there is a train coming or no - has a special law covering it as it is seen as a potential threat to life.


 
Not quite true Hertz - there is a law against tresspass (not the same in Scotland though).  Read this

http://www.sirimo.co.uk/media/UKPhotographersRights.pdf


----------



## RMThompson

skates94 said:


> DeepSpring
> 
> I wish everything was black and white but we all know there is alot of gray area in the middle. For the most part you should be able to stand on "public" property and take photos of whatever makes your heart content BUT you may encounter some resistance. For example if you were to travel to Downtown Chicago and photograph the Sears Towers (tallest building in North America) you would probably be questioned as to why you are doing so and what your purpose with the photos is.
> 
> As someone stated earlier:
> Carry a valid government issued id card w/you
> Carry some of your work
> Be polite and direct, if photography is your hobby and you enjoy taking pictures of pigeons on park benches.. then say so
> 
> If directed to move along...... I would suggest you do so. Even if your right. Many times a police officer may ask someone to do something and when that person does not do it they often find themselves being charged w/something..... disorderly conduct is usually the catch all.
> 
> Hope this helps


 
Disorderly conduct is usually defined as such:



> A person who recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally: (1) engages in fighting or in tumultuous conduct; (2) makes unreasonable noise and continues to do so after being asked to stop; or (3) disrupts a lawful assembly of persons;


By that definition, wouldn't the arresting officer be the one guilty of disrputing a lawful assembly of persons?

Listen, Ill carry my ID with me at all times, but Im not going to carry my work with me, that's ridiculous.

Furthermore it doesnt matter if taking pictures is a hobby a job or I am a journalist doing it for the paper... in FACT it doesn't even matter if I am a terrorism using the picture to plot an attack. The fact remains it's LEGAL to take the pictures. That's like saying it's illegal to LOOK at the building to plot an attack. Therefore the reason for my picture taking doesn't matter... so the officer has no right to now. 

Would I be that rude? It depends on the officer honestly. He wants to arrest me, so be it. I'd love to see my day in court over it.


----------



## Kingpatzer

It does depend on the officer. I've met more than a few who simply shouldn't be allowed to carry a badge. 

Don't get me wrong, most cops are great guys doing a very hard and often thankless job. 

But there is a substantial minority with serious control issues. They're basically school yard bullies who never grew up and managed to find a job that caters to their issues. 

Most communities of any size have one or two (or more) and they do create problems.

Luckily, most prosecutors are well aware of who the problem officers are.

Be polite. But if someone's stepping on your toes, it's always nice to have a good lawyer's number on your cell phone . . .


----------



## RMThompson

Be fortunate that your experience has been mostly good officers, mine is closer to 50/50!


----------



## RMThompson

flyinsalt said:


> It is sad what the world has become. But photography has indeed become a suspicious activity. Not long ago a person was stopped in Charlotte, NC, not 20 miles from my home for doing nothing but taking photos of uptown buildings. Turns out the person was linked to Al Kaida. He was using those very photographs for terrorist activities. He was tried and convicted for plotting to blow up some buildings. We cannot close our eyes to anything during these trying times.


 
Ugh... he STILL wasnt doing anything wrong when he was TAKING the pictures. It's the equivalent of buying wood from Home Depot, and then taking that wood, making a sword out of it, and using it to kill someone. Buying the wood was still legal

Taking pictures of a building on public property is and should be legal. It's out in the open, for all to see. 

Remember FREEDOM? I'd rather be free than secure, but that's just me. It's finding the balance that's hard.


----------



## RedDevilUK

Skates94 said:
			
		

> For example if you were to travel to Downtown Chicago and photograph the Sears Towers


the trouble with this and any other famous landmark is, thats the point??

im from Manchester, UK and if i was in Chicago, the very first thing i would do is take a picture of the Sears Tower....every major city in the world has a famous landmark, and we would all want a photo of it while we was there wouldnt we.

i guess the best way to detract from the accusation of being a terrorist, would be to have a partner or friend stand in front, and to be included in the picture... like a proper tourist 

You could always crop them out of the final picture when you get home lol


----------



## skates94

Guys,

I'm sorry I didn't keep an eye on this post and it is a great post but between the kid's and a couple of jobs my time here was limited.... I hope that's changing.

If you still check this post here are some answers to your questions:

ADELICATEIMAGE
I can't speak for other states but in Illinois you can take all the pictures you want of police cruisers, officers, and the like. Your post says that you drove away and ultimately got pulled over. We need probable cause to make a traffic stop but that being said most people can't drive a mile without breaking a moving or equipment law. When you are stopped and the Officer asks for your license, insurance, and registration.... give it to them immediately. In Illinois failure to do so will result in arrest for disobeying a police officer. After giving the information to the officer then ask what you did wrong if they haven't already informed you. I would have no reason to bother you.

RMThompson
The definition for disorderly conduct in Illinois is different:
(720 ILCS 5/26&#8209;1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26&#8209;1)
Sec. 26&#8209;1. Elements of the Offense. 
(a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
(1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to 
alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or

Question, If someone drove to your residence and stood on the street which happens to be public property most of the time and took pictures of your house from every angle you could imagine and then took pictures of your family while they were outside the home would that alarm you? Would you call the police? Should the police respond and ask the person what they may be up to and attempt to identify them? Or would you let it go as a photographer taking advantage of their right to photograph anything they want from public property? Maybe that guy has a criminal history a mile long and is just checking out your house for his next burglary or worse. 

Most officer's will not bother you unless we receive a complaint at that time we have to act. After we find out you have no bad intentions you will be on your way.

RMThompson
I'm sorry that your experience with the police has been 50/50 as you put it but I assure you most of us are fair and reasonable individuals. Today that is hard to believe because the media rarely shows the good stuff cops do.


----------



## D40

First day with my new camera I had a security officer tell me to stop taking pictures at a nice public outdoor shopping center. He told me that it was private property and I was not allowed to take pictures. I read on it and it sounds like he was wrong. Yes it was private property but if the public is allowed free entrence and can come and go as they please then you can take photos there as well. Anyway, instead of getting arrested I went ahead and left.


----------



## ADELICATEIMAGE

Thanks Skates,

One Other Question. I Was Stuck In Traffic For 1hr. I Pulled Over After The Accident Site, I Was Standing 1000 ft Away. using A 300mm lens Getting A Few Photos Of A SUV On Its Side. I Want To Build A Small Portfolio, Hoping To Get a  freelance position down the road with statewide paper. I Shoot 15-20 photos,  A state trooper say me after 10 mins. walked over and asked who i was shooting for. I Would have been very proud if i could have said so and so. instead i said a blog on auto safety.  His Reply " NEGATIVE". Than I Left. Do you have any advice?   1000mm? lol     :hail:  :greenpbl:





skates94 said:


> Guys,
> 
> I'm sorry I didn't keep an eye on this post and it is a great post but between the kid's and a couple of jobs my time here was limited.... I hope that's changing.
> 
> If you still check this post here are some answers to your questions:
> 
> ADELICATEIMAGE
> I can't speak for other states but in Illinois you can take all the pictures you want of police cruisers, officers, and the like. Your post says that you drove away and ultimately got pulled over. We need probable cause to make a traffic stop but that being said most people can't drive a mile without breaking a moving or equipment law. When you are stopped and the Officer asks for your license, insurance, and registration.... give it to them immediately. In Illinois failure to do so will result in arrest for disobeying a police officer. After giving the information to the officer then ask what you did wrong if they haven't already informed you. I would have no reason to bother you.
> 
> RMThompson
> The definition for disorderly conduct in Illinois is different:
> (720 ILCS 5/26&#8209;1) (from Ch. 38, par. 26&#8209;1)
> Sec. 26&#8209;1. Elements of the Offense.
> (a) A person commits disorderly conduct when he knowingly:
> (1) Does any act in such unreasonable manner as to
> alarm or disturb another and to provoke a breach of the peace; or
> 
> Question, If someone drove to your residence and stood on the street which happens to be public property most of the time and took pictures of your house from every angle you could imagine and then took pictures of your family while they were outside the home would that alram you? Would you call the police? Should the police respond and ask the person what they may be up to and attempt to identify them? Or would you let it go as a photographer taking advantage of their right to photograph anything they want from public property? Maybe that guy has a criminal history a mile long and is just checking out your house for his next burglary or worse.
> 
> Most officer's will not bother you unless we receive a complaint at that time we have to act. After we find out you have no bad intentions you will be on your way.
> 
> RMThompson
> I'm sorry that your experience with the police has been 50/50 as you put it but I assure you most of us are fair and reasonable individuals. Today that is hard to believe because the media rarely shows the good stuff cops do.


----------



## Snyder

When it come to photography you HAVE TO PUSH THE ENVOLOPE to get the shot, or your just wasting your time. Sometime you have to take risks. Back when I was in tech school for photography we had a photo assignment in washington D.C. about three of us was taking photos around the capital and some cops where setting up a road block so we start taking some photos. One cops come over and asks why are we taking photos and we tell him we are photographers. He ask for some ID I show him my ID and he leaves. Though I have certain clearence where normal photographer cant go or take photos.


----------



## RyanLilly

alanH said:


> My brother did ask for his camera back but unfortunatly no could explain where it was.


Probably on ebay. 

Not sure about the UK, but here in the US its directly in the constitution, government may not deprive people of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law.

Basically cop cant just take your stuff because they feel like it.

The only thing a cop has said to me is when I was shooting in a busy area was,

 "hey keep that camera close to  you body; otherwise someone could just run down the street and snatch its out of your hand"

I think most people run into problems with private security who are not trained properly.


----------



## Seefutlung

Viajero said:


> I actually got my hands on a Press Pass for my towns newspaper. I have not had the chance to use it yet, But i am sure i will get a little more slack from and police/security.
> 
> I was actually at a farm the other day, that had no no trespassing signs. The farm was abandoned, and right behind it there was a huge quarry. Turns out the farm was owned by the company who owned the quarry. A guy came by and told me if I did'nt leave I would be arrested. So I left. Cannot wait to use my Press Pass. :thumbup:


 
A Press Pass does not allow you to trespass. There are many types of press passes. A press pass issued by your company/newspaper is nothing more than a photo business card worn around your neck. Some/many may be easily impressed by this business card, in which case you can bamboozel you way into places where normally police/security will keep you out. 

A press pass issued by a government agency is an official credential which allows you to cross over police lines, but isn't good at events. 

Event passes are issued by the venue or the promotors/producers of the event and are issued on a per event basis.

There may be exceptions to the above, but generally that is how it works.

Gary


----------



## RMThompson

Just out of pure curiosity, how and when does the government issue these behind-police-lines press passes? Part of me wants to believe that a free society and that any photographer with the interest of covering a news event can have the right to achieve this, but we all know that's not true.


----------



## DPW2007

I will definitely be looking at my legal rights when taking photography. Many a time, I have been asked to leave 'public' property (like around the London Eye and Westminster Bank) because I have been taking photos with a tripod and camera, or delete my images and stop taking photographs.

It's probably down to money and greed and God knows where these security guards come from. I'll argue my case more next time for sure if I am within my rights.

David


----------



## Seefutlung

cosmonaut said:


> I know this sounds old fashion, but I have found if you take the time and trouble to ask permisson most with go way out of their way to help you get what you want....
> Cosmo


 
Didn't work with my last girlfriend.


----------



## Seefutlung

DPW2007 said:


> I will definitely be looking at my legal rights when taking photography. Many a time, I have been asked to leave 'public' property (like around the London Eye and Westminster Bank) because I have been taking photos with a tripod and camera, or delete my images and stop taking photographs.
> 
> It's probably down to money and greed and God knows where these security guards come from. I'll argue my case more next time for sure if I am within my rights.
> 
> David


 
In the US, the authorities usually frown upon tripods in heavily trafficated public areas as this may contribute to accidents. I suspect other states have similar concerns.  

Most western nations all subscribe to similar policies on copyright and ownership of images.  In most countries deletion of your images and messing with your equipment is not within the jurisidictional power of said authorities.


----------



## usayit

RMThompson said:


> Be fortunate that your experience has been mostly good officers, mine is closer to 50/50!



Just wanted to say to the law enforcement officers in this thread.. you all sound like reasonable people giving us good input.  Thanks...

Unfortunately, my experience with police officers in my area is more like 10/90.  I can't remember one time that I had a personal encounter with a police officer that represented the uniform without coming off as a bully with a badge.    There was one time that my father visiting from out of town was lost trying to find my home.  He lead my father to my house and greeted me with a smile...  That was the 1 good experience and he was a police officer in my local town.

In regards to taking photos... I've been harrassed many times.  Usually they are not interested in any explaination or discussion about the issue.  So I usually keep my mouth shut and do whatever they ask.  yes.. sad... sucks... what a state have we become!

BTW.. a Disorderly Conduct charge is employed very loosely around here.  Pretty much a catch all that police officers use to make it really inconvenient for you.  Yes.. 9/10 it won't stick but only after you have been held for several hours.   My professor in photography mentioned that this did happen to a student taking photos at a playground... student released once the teacher vouched for his intentions but left without his negatives.


----------



## Alex_B

I have been asked to erase images by security guards already. i refused to do so which lead to some discussions, but nothing more.


----------



## Seefutlung

RMThompson said:


> Just out of pure curiosity, how and when does the government issue these behind-police-lines press passes? Part of me wants to believe that a free society and that any photographer with the interest of covering a news event can have the right to achieve this, but we all know that's not true.


 
I only have first hand knowledge of how the system works here in California, so I cannot speak for other states. The California Highway Patrol issues a state-wide press pass to members of the "working press" which is accepted by all police agencies in California (and other states as well). The applicant must submit "tear sheets" of their published work along with a letter from an editor endorsing the application. After a background check an official government press/media credential will be forwarded to the media group sponsoring the individual for a pass. CHP Passes are issued on an as-needed/as-applied for basis.

Passes are limited in this society because of liability and limited space for access. A press pass also informs the police that the individual assumes all liability that is associated with crossing a police line. If anybody with a camera is allowed to cross a police line I suspect that their would be more people inside the line than outside the line getting in the way of first responders reacting to the call. So by limiting access to those that have the greatest opportunity of reaching the most people ... authorities have retained control of the scene/situation while still perserving the public's right to know.

Additionally, a press pass also assumes that the holder of such a pass has the experience and professionalism not to be a problem while performing their duties inside the police line.

Gary

PS- There are also a Federal media pass for shooting the prez. Similar process as the state pass but you also have to take a trip down to the FBI for fingerprinting and photos.
G


----------



## Seefutlung

skates94 said:


> DeepSpring
> 
> I wish everything was black and white but we all know there is alot of gray area in the middle. For the most part you should be able to stand on "public" property and take photos of whatever makes your heart content BUT you may encounter some resistance. For example if you were to travel to Downtown Chicago and photograph the Sears Towers (tallest building in North America) you would probably be questioned as to why you are doing so and what your purpose with the photos is.
> 
> As someone stated earlier:
> Carry a valid government issued id card w/you
> Carry some of your work
> Be polite and direct, if photography is your hobby and you enjoy taking pictures of pigeons on park benches.. then say so
> 
> If directed to move along...... I would suggest you do so. Even if your right. Many times a police officer may ask someone to do something and when that person does not do it they often find themselves being charged w/something..... disorderly conduct is usually the catch all.
> 
> Hope this helps


 
Question: If you are on public property and:

1) A police officer tells you Not to photograph the Sear Towers (as an example) ... shouldn't one question the officer as to why he/she is making such a request.  And if the reply is something 9-11, Patriot Act ... BS ... then maybe the photog should ask the officer if they could speak to his/her Watch Commander???

2)  A security guard requests to not to take photos while you are on public property ... should you call the police (not a 911 call) and see if an officer can inform the security guard of your rights?

All this would be performed respectfully and politely.  

Wouldn't this course not only help resolve the immediate situation but also may make life easier for those photogs that may follow later.  Or by doing so only would only stir up the pot more?

Gary


----------



## table1349

Seefutlung said:


> I only have first hand knowledge of how the system works here in California, so I cannot speak for other states. The California Highway Patrol issues a state-wide press pass to members of the "working press" which is accepted by all police agencies in California (and other states as well). The applicant must submit "tear sheets" of their published work along with a letter from an editor endorsing the application. After a background check an official government press/media credential will be forwarded to the media group sponsoring the individual for a pass. CHP Passes are issued on an as-needed/as-applied for basis.
> 
> Passes are limited in this society because of liability and limited space for access. A press pass also informs the police that the individual assumes all liability that is associated with crossing a police line. If anybody with a camera is allowed to cross a police line I suspect that their would be more people inside the line than outside the line getting in the way of first responders reacting to the call. So by limiting access to those that have the greatest opportunity of reaching the most people ... authorities have retained control of the scene/situation while still perserving the public's right to know.
> 
> Additionally, a press pass also assumes that the holder of such a pass has the experience and professionalism not to be a problem while performing their duties inside the police line.
> 
> Gary
> 
> PS- There are also a Federal media pass for shooting the prez. Similar process as the state pass but you also have to take a trip down to the FBI for fingerprinting and photos.
> G


 
Gary,

Kind of intereting how it works in California.  Here in Kansas we do not let the press in anywhere that anyone else can not go.  They are not treated different in that respect.  A press pass will get you into the daily briefing or into the infromation officer.  It will get you an interview at the scene with a supervisor when they are free, but not inside the scene or any closer to the scene than anyone else can get.  

The Federal Media pass here is not quite that easy.  Maybe we don't get the pres here that often, but you better be looking for that pass at least a month before and Secret Service handles the background check etc.


----------



## table1349

One of the things I see in this thread alot it Public Property.  I get the feeling that people do not really understand what Public Property is and how it can be and is regulated.  Granted this can be different from State to State, but in general Public Property is that held in trust by the goverment for the free and equal use by all.  

A shopping center IS NOT public property, it is private property. Neither is a parking lot, unless it is owned by a City, County, State or Federal Goverment.  A location may be open to the public, but that does not make it public property.  The property owner is just granting the general public entry to private property with out the necceary protocal of requesting and receiving permission to enter for the stated purpose of the business.   

If the land is owned by a goverment entity they can still impose rules on that property for the safety and well being of the users and for the care and upkeep of the property.  Got you Mt. Rushmore and you will pay to park in a goverment parking lot to visit the site.  

The goverment can and does also impose rules on the use of public property.  While it may seem petty, setting up a tripod on a sidewalk can get you some grief.  Most areas I am familure with require that sidewalks be kept clear.  Setting up a tripod, even for a few minutes is impeding the use of the sidewalk for it's intended purpose.  

This may seem like a truely petty point, until someone parks a car on the sidewalk with a 4-Sale sign on it infront of your business or a bunch of protesters block the sidewalk and refuse to let others pass by, enter or leave a location.  Then it is a big deal and we get called.  What people forget is that the only way it is fair right and just for us to enforce the law on the protester blocking your door is to also ask you to not use your tripod and block the sidewalk.  Yes the purposes of the two are differnt, but the action of blocking the sidewalk is still the same.  

In the few times I have had to respond to a complaint call of someone taking pictures and the problem dealt with location, the photographer was usually on private property I am sad to say.  Other times the photographer has been using the public property in a dangerous or illegal mannor.  (A moron that thought it would be cool to take picture of oncoming cars by setting up his tripod in the middle of a very busy street and expected traffic to go around him)  In a few of the cases the security guard or property owner was just plain wrong.  (The securty guard was very happy when I told the guy he could not have his tripod on the sidewalk and take pictures.  He got upset when I explained to the photographer that the 5 feet of grass between the sidewalk and the curb for the street was also city property and he was free to shoot from there, as he would no be blocking anyones access to the sidewalk.  Too bad for the security guard) 

Seefutlung's last post sums up pretty well how to  handle some of these situations and is good advise.


----------



## Seefutlung

gryphonslair99 said:


> Gary,
> 
> Kind of intereting how it works in California. Here in Kansas we do not let the press in anywhere that anyone else can not go. They are not treated different in that respect. A press pass will get you into the daily briefing or into the infromation officer. It will get you an interview at the scene with a supervisor when they are free, but not inside the scene or any closer to the scene than anyone else can get.
> 
> The Federal Media pass here is not quite that easy. Maybe we don't get the pres here that often, but you better be looking for that pass at least a month before and Secret Service handles the background check etc.


 
Oops ... you're right about the Secret Service handles the credentialing ... I just remember having to go to the FBI for fingerprinting.

Again, here in California, the CHP pass will get you across police lines at a crime/fire/et al scene. But you still have to follow the orders from the police/fire authorities about where you can and cannot go.

Gary


----------



## RMThompson

@Gryphonslair, 

All that is well and true, but the simple fact is just because it is PRIVATE property doesn't mean that I am NOT supposed to take pictures there. In fact, unless stated otherwise, the standing rule is that you ARE allowed to take pictures. If the owner/management of said private property, changes their mind they do have the right to kick you OFF the property but they do NOT have the right to have you delete any of the images, and you still can legally publish pictures taken there. (Assuming the pictures were legal.)

Even if I TRESPASS onto a property, the pictures taken are MINE, and no one can force you to give them the photos or destroy them, and again you can legally publish pictures taken there. (Assuming the pictures were legal, meaning they don't invade privacy, they don't falsely cause endoresment, they are not copyright infringement, etc.)

A mall is one place I've shot at and got some funny looks... but no one has ever told me to stop. I shot behind the mall the other day and the security guy drove up and asked what I was doing, I invited him to be in a shot, (with a hot model even) he declined, and later came back to ask how we were. All was well.


----------



## table1349

RMThompson said:


> @Gryphonslair,
> 
> All that is well and true, but the simple fact is just because it is PRIVATE property doesn't mean that I am NOT supposed to take pictures there. In fact, unless stated otherwise, the standing rule is that you ARE allowed to take pictures. If the owner/management of said private property, changes their mind they do have the right to kick you OFF the property but they do NOT have the right to have you delete any of the images, and you still can legally publish pictures taken there. (Assuming the pictures were legal.)
> 
> Even if I TRESPASS onto a property, the pictures taken are MINE, and no one can force you to give them the photos or destroy them, and again you can legally publish pictures taken there. (Assuming the pictures were legal, meaning they don't invade privacy, they don't falsely cause endoresment, they are not copyright infringement, etc.)
> 
> A mall is one place I've shot at and got some funny looks... but no one has ever told me to stop. I shot behind the mall the other day and the security guy drove up and asked what I was doing, I invited him to be in a shot, (with a hot model even) he declined, and later came back to ask how we were. All was well.



RMThompson

My post was not about ownership issues but what is and is not public or private property in keeping with the OP's original post.  

As for the ownership of the photos you are half right.  If you are trespassing on private property a land owner or security guard can not order you to delete your pictures or seize your camera equipment.  However if the land owner wants to prosecute and you are there when the police arrive the police can seize your equipment.  They can not delete the photos, of that you are correct.  

If you are being charged with trespassing in a criminal court and a law enforcement officer has  probably cause to believe that there are photos contained in that camera or on film or digital media that you have on you when you are arrested then it can be seize as evidence and they can request a search warrant for those the images.  The images alone may turn out to be excellent evidence of the commission of the crime of trespassing.  If it is digital photographs the search warrant will also have provide the officers the EXIF data showing all kinds of useful information that could be used to pinpoint the location you photographed from and again provide evidence of the commission of the crime.  Is this something that is done everyday?  NO, No NO.  By the way did I say NO?  Is it legal under the law.  Absolutely.  

As for ownership of the photos taken while trespassing,again your belief is not completely correct.  A Judge can order the photos seized or destroyed.  It has long been held by the courts and up held by the Supreme Court that the fruits from the commission of a crime *DO NOT* belong to the criminal.  You can't rob a bank, hid the loot, get caught, convicted, sentenced and serve your sentence and expect to get out and the money is yours.  Doesn't work that way.  

It is also well understood by anyone with an I.Q. in double digits that in almost all cases such as you described it is going to be far more expensive to go to file a case and argue before the court that the photos, video etc should be destroyed than the photos are worth.  If you are trespassing on my land shooting a few pictures of my cattle, (why you would I don't know, they are pretty boring) and I either tell you to leave I sure as *Heck* (insert proper sentiment here) am not going to pay some lawyer a few grand to go to court and have those images destroyed. That would be ludicrous, but it would be legal.  There have been cases where certain individuals or corporations have decided that it was in their best interest to seek such actions, but in the grand scheme of things it is quite rare. 

As for legally publishing them, again it is going to depend on what the cost is going to be to someone or some corporation who feels they are being hurt by those photos.  Ask Bob [SIZE=-1]Bob Guccione for one.  Over the years he has lost a few of those cases as have some members of the [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]Paparazzi[/SIZE][SIZE=-1].  I believe that Mac-E-D's has been the plaintiff on a couple of those types of cases as well as Disney over the years.    Again they are rare, although Mac-E-D's tends to be one of the most [/SIZE][SIZE=-1]litigational corporations around.[/SIZE] 

The bottom line is in the Real World what you are describing is  in virtually all cases just not worth the time, effort and expense to deal with someone who trespassed to take a few pictures as is allowable under the law so it very rarely gets challenged or noticed.  From a law enforcement prospective it would be a gross waste of time to do the things mentioned above for a simple trespass case. With a few very rare exceptions it would be stupid to waste that kind of time on that kind of investigation. That does not mean however that it can not be done.


----------



## skates94

Hopefully I can answer most of your questions from above here.... Please remember that I'm giving you the perspective of an Illinois police officer so the laws may vary in your state

ADELICATEIMAGE
In reference to you taking photos of a car accident..... that's fine and dandy but I believe if I read your post right it says that you stopped on the roads shoulder. That is where we can tell you to move along because it is illegal to park on the roadway for other than emergency purposes.... if you refuse to move we can issue a citation and tow your vehicle. Many times with accidents we may try to make the accident scene larger out of respect for the victims. I have seen plenty of photo's fom fatal accidents and we try to give these people some respect and dignity in their last moments. Most of the time we will close off a very large area around the scene to protect evidence and yes keep people out. If you can park your car in legal manner and take photos without crossing into a restricted area (crime scene) then snap away.

Seefutlung
Your right, if you are on public property then take as many photos as you want. If you believe you are right and a police officer tells you to move along I would suggest you do that and call the police department to speak with the supervisor. I understand that you may be right for your actions but unfortunately sometimes this may escalate a situation. It's better to remove yourself from the situation and get the supervisors name when you speak with him.... he will probably tell you that it's okay to take your pictures at which point I say get back out there and do it. If you have additional contact with that original officer you can advise him you just spoke with Sgt. Whatever and he said it was okay for you to be out there.

Most of you have it right......... Unfortunately private security guards making minimum wage are not very informed when it pertains to criminal law. However, if you are on private property that allows public access that does not automatically mean you can take photos. When I was much younger I worked as a mall security guard and we did not allow any photographs taken on the property. If you violated that rule you were escorted from the property and served with a trespass notice. if you returned..... you were arrested. 

NOW, the fact is Police Officers have better things to do then bother the photo taking community. Unless we get a complaint we will usually not bother you.

Take Care and Stay Safe


----------



## Battou

I had an encounter with a security guard this past weekend. Thankfully he wasn't a ignorant fool. I had been out taking some night shots around town, I had been out for a few hours when I decided to return home. I live right beside the industrial district between the railroad tracks and the river. I decided to head home via the industrial district, about half way down the road I got thinking the few lights that dotted the road would make for a decent shot so I started setting up my tripod. Knowing full well he was there I opted to set up on the far side of the road right under one of the street lights so he could clearly see what I was doing. I got set up, composed my shot and was about to hit the shutter release when he put the light of his spotlight in my eyes, I stood up and instinctively returned the favor with my maglight. Prolly not the right thing to do but any police officer here can tell you just how this happens, using a flashlight in this manner is a passive means of neutralizing a possible threat and it becomes second nature, but I digress. I asked him "what was the meaning of that" as I was under the impression he could clearly see what I was doing. Apparently setting up the tripod gave him the impression I was setting up a firearm. I personally have never seen a tripod used for a firearm (bipods, yes but tripods, no) but, in his defense the local punk kids do get their jollies by shooting up abandoned buildings with their .22's and is in fact why he was hired on to that location. Once he saw the camera he literally no longer cared and I was free to take my shot. Had I gotten aggravated it could have gotten ugly. 

Broken record I know but, If confronted by security (public or private) it is far better to keep your head about you and communicate, Don't assume you are in the right and they are in the wrong as it is entirely possible that the neither of you are in the wrong pending the situation.


----------



## nossie

Wow I feel really bad for the photographers, train spotters, cops and the security guards in the USA. In my imagination it's going in the direction of North Korea to live there, soon they'll discretely close down sites on the Internet and you'll have an countrywide Intranet to help brainwash the fear into you.
Seems to me everyone is walking on eggshells in the name of national security.

The cop is tense because he's trained to consider everyone as a potential threat, the photographer is tense because he can't relax with his hobby and take a few snaps without having to justify it to every nark leading him to frustration and getting cranky and stressed, the train driver is tense because instead of enjoying the scenery and sending out a good will wave to onlookers he's on the lookout for terrorists and dreaming up the worst suspicions for train spotters he's seen for years, the humble train spotter is tense because all he wanted to do is sit there and relax and watch the train rumble by while he's eating his Haslet sandwiches now he's getting indigestion. And this is in the land of freedom?!

I read in a online somewhere about an English man (in New York haha) that was actually arrested for doing a theme shoot on the Bridges in NYC. In the same article somebody else was investigated by the police at the request of security for taking a picture of a sports bowl. The cop left with a "Thanks Bill" to the security guard.

This insane behaviour affects all walks of life in the USA and to be true I feel sorry for you all there, for what you have to put up with and what you have been conned into believing by your government. I really don't think it's a good quality of living. You can keep your house with a swimming pool and two cars if I can't hang out by the railway. And that would matter to me since I grew up by the railway works here in Dublin, in fact we used it as a play ground. Often we'd get run off for our own good because we were up to mischeif but not because of national security and we were never gonna get a charge sheet out from a cop. Mostly because a cop wouldn't waste the time of day coming down to wag a finger at us.

If you go and shoot trains and railway buildings it's encouraged. The drivers will sound the horn and wave, maybe flash the lights. A good ol' smile for the camera. If you ask the driver he might take you along for a couple of stops if not you can always apply for a pass to ride in the loco and you'll be sure to get at least 2 in a year. Then they've got tours of the works and you can go snap mad on that day in all the secret hidey places.

You're losing all that good will and good vibes in the USA. Go tell your politicians to F$%£OFF with their terrorising of the American people. I know they've played the heart strings of Americans very well but lads it's over move on and be happy again and stop treating each other with so much suspicion.

It's a part of life now for a photographer to overcome all that tension. He has to wait for the daylight, he hopes for the weather, he waits for people to move out of the way, he waits for the bird to perch and now added to the list of patient tasks he has to be an ambassador for photographers everywhere and take the tension out of people interested in what he's doing for whatever reason.

So if rentacop, supercop or your local friendly hard working well meaning and truly looking out for your welfare cop comes up to you investigating what you're doing treat him to a little tour of work and thoughts for being there. Try to get him enthusiastic. Talk about your gear and what you're trying to achieve. Start with "I got this lens here especially to try..." You might even get a few assignments out of it? You might even get to use his gnarly cop car as a prop. You might become an ally to him as I once did when I was asked if I would be so kind as to let the police see all the photos I took that day in the park because we had an incident with a lady and a man in a white van, hence they like having the extra eyes and recording around.

Good luck with it y'all.

I wonder what it's like in Canada.


----------



## nossie

> Question, If someone drove to your residence and stood on the street which happens to be public property most of the time and took pictures of your house from every angle you could imagine and then took pictures of your family while they were outside the home would that alram you? Would you call the police? Should the police respond and ask the person what they may be up to and attempt to identify them? Or would you let it go as a photographer taking advantage of their right to photograph anything they want from public property? Maybe that guy has a criminal history a mile long and is just checking out your house for his next burglary or worse.


 
[ooops I didn't realise there are 2 pages of this thread.]

It's great to have the input from Skates94 and gryphonslair99. I think they should have their own forum "Know the Law" channel. I'll sponsor 1 large Jelly donought _WITH_ sprinkles if someone else will provide the coffee.

From reading your posts I can see that as always it's a tough job on the beat trying to let people breath but maintain the law. I particularly like this reality check quoted above for those of us that feel restricted and it should be understood by all so that we see if from an Officer's point of view. And it's all too true that what sells on TV is the dirty cop that lost it and beat up a minority. But that kinda brings me back to my point of everybody being tense.
I think the connection with you 2 Officers in here is a very positive one. It's striking how calm your tone is/are when you face so much flac - even though this is your relaxation time. Also the clarity when quoting the law is very enlightning.

I hope you will quote more stories and situations that we can relate to because like the guy who snapped the cops and drove of, he can't see how he may have asked for trouble either by provoking them or by acting suspiciously.

_P.S. I have a few parking tickets I need cleared up_


----------



## f8lranger4x4

I was one time when I was takeing pictures at night. They asked me what I was doing and I explained and that was that.


----------



## shundaroni

Gry - You've been very informative, and accurate as far as I've been able to tell.

Some people tend to want to operate in a world full of philosophical objectivity. The "I'm within my rights" attitude is fine and wonderful when arguing a principle or making a stand. But no one should expect that simply debating the ideals of liberty is going to put you at an immediate advantage over police officers or even rent-a-cops. 

In the U.S., you have every right to dispute actions that you deem restrictive to your liberty. But, to be sure, it's not as simple as saying, "Hey Cop, I'm a free man and it's a free country." Or even, "Statute D subsection E says blah blah...therefore get bent". Especially in the case of a police officer, the term "probable cause" is pretty vague, so anything they find suspicious by THEIR definition is grounds to give you a bit of a hassle--even potentially detaining you for a period. And fighting a police action isn't just a one-day ordeal. If you feel your rights have been violated, you still have to get a lawyer, go through months (if not years) litigation, and you still might lose out. Is it worth being a smartass? Are you really making a principled stand that will ultimately make an impact? Is it worth the time and money to be "right?" 

As a libertarian, I hate infringements upon liberty, but I'm no fool. This is a world of subjectivity, and there is no such thing as black and white (hell, even cases of murder have different designations). Being aware of your rights is wonderful, but don't presume that it's a good idea to get cocky about it in the face of law enforcement. Aside from the general subjectivity of life, the "Good Ol' Boy" system is still very much in effect in the States, and you might find yourself biting off more than you wanted.

Just be smart, be polite, and live to shoot another day. I've been asked questioned by an officer once for shooting near a train track. Even though it was private property (as defined earlier in this thread), being polite earned me a nice break and nothing more than a "be careful" from the officer.


----------



## THORHAMMER

shundaroni said:


> As a libertarian, I hate infringements upon liberty, but I'm no fool. This is a world of subjectivity, and there is no such thing as black and white



I was thinking about that and I kept hearing a voice inside my head...

If there is no black or white (absolutes) 
then you could not ever assert that there are no black and whites . 
the assertion is a black and white statement. 

I agree with what you are saying BTW,, I just need to lay off the coffee.

:lmao:


----------



## shundaroni

THORHAMMER said:


> I was thinking about that and I kept hearing a voice inside my head...
> 
> If there is no black or white (absolutes)
> then you could not ever assert that there are no black and whites .
> the assertion is a black and white statement.
> 
> I agree with what you are saying BTW,, I just need to lay off the coffee.
> 
> :lmao:


 
Ha. I love it. :greenpbl:

The more accurate statement would be "Most issues are probably gray." Just enough uncertainty to remain gray itself.


----------



## skates94

> It's great to have the input from Skates94 and gryphonslair99. I think they should have their own forum "Know the Law" channel. I'll sponsor 1 large Jelly donought _WITH_ sprinkles if someone else will provide the coffee.


 
Thanks nossie........... but doughnuts aren't my thing. The coffee on the other hand is a little bit of an addiction.


----------



## table1349

skates94 said:


> Thanks nossie........... but doughnuts aren't my thing. The coffee on the other hand is a little bit of an addiction.



I'm afraid I would have to second that skates94.  A nice healthy whole grain muffin and perhaps a large sports drink or a big glass of water.


----------



## Sideburns

Soocom1 said:


> On the following web site, this story appeared on the hobby of railfanning or fans or railroads. One individual was stripped of his right to visit one location because of over-zealous law enforcement.
> 
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/ac2/wp-dyn?pagename=article&node=&contentId=A56984-2002Nov14
> 
> This one should be of interest to all you NY Yankees....
> 
> http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1002199058
> 
> How many people have ever heard of railfanning before?
> 
> There is a legitimate concern over terrorism, but not to the expense of our freedoms and liberties.
> 
> What I can only guess in this case (given I do not live in Kansas) is that the fine came from the TRESSPASS and not the actual photographing.  I have yet to find a single law anywhere saying you cannot photograph any railroads. What you cannot do is trespass on those tracks or railroad property. Not only is it criminal to do so, but also very dangerous. If you can correct me on that great.



Well I know in Canada, the railroad tracks are owned my private companies.  If you go on them, 1- you're trespassing on private property, and 2- you're breaking the law by being on railroad tracks.

There's a reason.  People die every day from getting hit by a train.


----------



## chris_arnet

I got questioned by police when i was taking pictures of a house burning down and the firefighters losing the battle. Im still not sure what i did wrong, I COULD SEE MY HOUSE FROM WHERE I WAS STANDING!!!



oh, and:


----------



## patrickt

I've talked to police officers when I was taking pictures but never had a problem.

1. If you're on a public sidewalk you can take pictures of anything you want. Not true. Shooting into a window or onto private property where an expectation of privacy would exist. Following a young woman and snapping pictures of her. Shooting "up-skirt" shots of kids.

2. If it's a public place you can take pictures. Not true. There are public places that are private property. A church, a mall, a store. The owners and/or managers can make the rules.

3. If it's public property you can take pictures. Not true. Whoever is responsible for the public property can make reasonable rules as they see fit. Museums, courts, parks, swimming pools, jails, police stations.

4. Rules against tripods and such are paranoia over security. Not true. It's a reaction to rude and inconsiderate photographers who block walkways, stairwells, and anything else they please. Most of our old churches and all of our museums prohibit tripods.


----------



## chris_arnet

ah, i guess #1 would apply to that situation...


----------



## D-50

Heres a question if its ilegal to stand on public property and shoot into provate property how come the paparazzi do not get sued all the time?


----------



## skieur

patrickt said:


> I've talked to police officers when I was taking pictures but never had a problem.
> 
> 1. If you're on a public sidewalk you can take pictures of anything you want. Not true. Shooting into a window or onto private property where an expectation of privacy would exist. Following a young woman and snapping pictures of her. Shooting "up-skirt" shots of kids..


 
Shooting into a window from a public sidewalk is not a problem. If there is a person there, then it is a different matter. Shooting onto private property is also not a problem. As to an expectation of privacy, that depends on the situation. For example, getting someone in a shot of a street cutting their front lawn could not be construed as violating anyone's privacy. Following a young woman could be considered stalking or harassment. Snapping pictures of her on a public sidewalk is not illegal.



patrickt said:


> 2. If it's a public place you can take pictures. Not true. There are public places that are private property. A church, a mall, a store. The owners and/or managers can make the rules...


 
US Supreme Court defined a public place *NOT as public property* but as a place to which the general public has access in the Walt Disney\Sony lawsuit several years ago. So yes, you can take photos and use them in any way you see fit, but the owners can also tell you to leave and if you do not do so, you are tresspassing.  Note however that you retain your photos and use of them.



patrickt said:


> 3. If it's public property you can take pictures. Not true. Whoever is responsible for the public property can make reasonable rules as they see fit. Museums, courts, parks, swimming pools, jails, police stations....


 
Not quite accurate. Public property ie. jails are not necessarily a public place. Nevertheless rules have no enforcement in law. A museum may not want you take pictures but they certainly cannot have you charged for doing so.



patrickt said:


> 4. Rules against tripods and such are paranoia over security. Not true. It's a reaction to rude and inconsiderate photographers who block walkways, stairwells, and anything else they please. Most of our old churches and all of our museums prohibit tripods.


 
In the street there are bylaws related to hindering pedestrian traffic and loitering which are used to cover tripod use or the requirement of a permit to use such equipment.

skieur


----------



## skieur

D-50 said:


> Heres a question if its ilegal to stand on public property and shoot into provate property how come the paparazzi do not get sued all the time?


 
The simple answer is that it is NOT illegal.  It is protected under basic journalistic rights covered in constitutions and charters of rights of Canada, the United States and other countries.

skieur


----------



## patrickt

Paparazzi do get sued but under the law, celebrities have a lower expectation of privacy than do normal citizens.

http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html


----------



## skieur

patrickt said:


> Paparazzi do get sued but under the law, celebrities have a lower expectation of privacy than do normal citizens.
> 
> http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/intro.html


 
Interesting info. but I do not see any contradictions to anything I have said.  It is still not illegal in general terms to shoot on, or onto private property, particularly if you are not shooting a person.  If you are shooting a person, as indicated toward the end in the summary, in a public place (which can be private property given the Supreme Court decision) it is generally NOT "actionable".

skieur


----------



## skieur

patrickt said:


> Paparazzi do get sued but under the law, celebrities have a lower expectation of privacy than do normal citizens


 
Actually that is changing. Celebrities are making the logical and legitimate case that the presence of a few photographers in a public place draws a lot more general attention(not always wanted) to the celebrity than the random shots of any street photographer to a normal citizen. There have been mixed rulings in Europe on this issue and american celebrities are starting to make the same case in the US.

skieur


----------



## Michaelaw

I was shooting in a mall once and was told by security guards that I could not take pictures without permission. I had no problem with this and just stopped shooting. I asked the security guy why I wasn't allowed to shoot in the mall and he told me that the store owners were afraid that someone would take pictures of their store layout and copy it. Now I've been to one worlds fair a picnic and a rodeo and thats the stupidest excuse I've ever heard. My brain comes equip with a memory, I can take one look at your "layout" then go back home and draw it out. Better yet, I'll draw it out in your store on the page behind my shopping list. Now in this same mall, there are thousands of tourists and locals plainly taking snaps of everything and anything with their point and shoots and cell phones, nobody gives them any grief. The minute you bring out a DSLR you're told to stop. If photography is not allowed, then it should not be allowed period. So, when the day comes that I want to copy a store layout, I'm going to use my Sony Ericson camera!


----------



## monkeykoder

Just my opinion on trespassing.  Where I grew up there was no worry about the cops catching you for trespassing but if the property owner caught you and didn't want you there your body might never be found...


----------



## KristinaS

Viajero said:


> I actually got my hands on a Press Pass for my towns newspaper. I have not had the chance to use it yet, But i am sure i will get a little more slack from and police/security.
> 
> I was actually at a farm the other day, that had no no trespassing signs. The farm was abandoned, and right behind it there was a huge quarry. Turns out the farm was owned by the company who owned the quarry. A guy came by and told me if I did'nt leave I would be arrested. So I left. Cannot wait to use my Press Pass. :thumbup:



I apologize if this was already addressed in someone else's post. I only skimmed the first of this thread's three pages, but I wanted to mention that having a press pass does not automatically give you permission to be somewhere you are not supposed to be. You can't trespass on someone's property and flash a pass and think it's okay. As a member of the press, I can tell you that having a press pass is the same as having a blank piece of paper. It doesn't mean crap. More often than not, you will need permission beforehand for many circumstances. 

This also goes for events. There is a misconception many people have that anyone with a press pass can get into any event. False. For just about any event I've ever gone to that requires admission, I've had to make arrangements ahead of time. And unless you have a viable reason for being there, you'll probably be turned down.


----------



## skieur

newrmdmike said:


> to legally use photographs from anywhere not in the public eye you need a property release in order to publish, otherwise you may be sued.
> 
> (correct?)


 
No, that is not the case in Canada, US, Britain, Australia or most western countries. Think of it this way. You can't copyright property.  There are however some common sense exceptions.  It would not be wise for example to publish a beautiful shot of a house in a tourist magazine with its address. If the consequence was tourists all over his property taking pictures, he would probably sue you for invasion of privacy by creating the situation through the use of your photo.

skieur


----------



## ShePaintsOrange

I'm not sure if this is a regional hunting thing where I am in Missouri, or if it's found other places as well. It is known here, that if fenceposts, trees on property edge, etc. are marked with purple paint or fabric, you are not to trespass.

I used to live in a historic neighborhood, and on occasion people would stop to take photos of the houses.  I always ran outside and told them they were welcome to do so as long as they waited for me to remove any papers or gardening supplies I had piling up on the porch.

On the opposite end, I'm not a pro, but like taking photos of fall foilage and I always ask property owner's permission first.  Generally if I say I'm just taking foilage photos as a hobby and I think they have the absolute BEST tree that year, and I'm willing to drop a print off for them, they're more than happy to let me do so.  Sometimes they talk my ear off though.


----------

