# Photoshoot with police troubles



## dragsternj (Apr 11, 2011)

Hi

Had to shoot a hospital facade for a clients brochure. case study. i didn't think much about it went there took some pics from across the street than entered the premises and took another 2 or 3. Security guard comes out tells me that i can not take pictures and i have to delete them. I told him i won't, he called the cops blocked my car until the cops arrived. Long story short they verified that i was how they called it "legit" told me that hospitals are "soft targets" and that "in this day and age" one can not just take pics of everything. All in all no fun.

So if you have to shoot something like it, ask security for permission which you like will not get but it saves you the cops.

I kept the pics though. Anyone had run ins like it ?


----------



## sierramister (Apr 11, 2011)

Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.


----------



## dxqcanada (Apr 11, 2011)

Was the Hospital your client ?
... and if so, did they give you permission to take pictures on/in the property ?


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 11, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.


 Refrain from what?  Accepting jobs?  Taking pictures?  Opposing the abuse of power that goes on every day?


----------



## SNBniko (Apr 11, 2011)

It's illegal to film police officers in Chicago now.  Funny how that law came about after 2 or 3 camera phone recordings of police brutality.  

I'm guessing the OP was taking pictures of a facade his client installed, for the client's brochure?  In which case the client should have called the hospital and told them what was up.

I was taking pictures of musical instruments in a local shop and got yelled at... I apologized profusely, and she calmed down and said that a rival music shop had taken pictures in her shop and used them in their advertising.  I told her I understood and that my pictures were just for practice, and she allowed me to continue to take photos.  

Understand that if someone was on your property taking detailed pictures of your house, you'd likely be offended.  It's the security officer's job to be that person, as the property is not public.


----------



## sierramister (Apr 11, 2011)

I may be mistaken, but the OP doesn't seem to suggest that he was shooting for the hospital.  No, you shouldn't walk in to hospitals if you aren't permitted to and start shooting. 





O|||||||O said:


> sierramister said:
> 
> 
> > Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.
> ...


----------



## skieur (Apr 11, 2011)

dxqcanada said:


> Was the Hospital your client ?
> ... and if so, did they give you permission to take pictures on/in the property ?


 
I have taken both photos and video in hospitals that include staff without permission.  I don't see a problem or issue in that.

skieur


----------



## Trever1t (Apr 11, 2011)

I see no harm in it nor do i agree with anyone telling me I can't shoot anything in public. I can understand not wanting photography inside a building but outside, give me a break. 

As far as photographing or video of police...I seriously wonder if they can enforce that!


----------



## ghache (Apr 11, 2011)

secruity guard was being an asshole, cop had nothing else to do.

i take pictures of anything anywere and i have never been harrassed by anyone. not even mall cops


----------



## sierramister (Apr 11, 2011)

Need help with HIPAA laws


----------



## rabman (Apr 11, 2011)

I don't believe HIPAA  laws apply to walls and buildings, only people.  The OP could have used better judgment and informed the hospital administration in advance, but as long as patients were not being photographed  there is no HIPAA violation.  Yes, if the hospital authorized the photographer, they would need to ensure patient privacy is being protected.  People take pictures at hospitals every day.


----------



## dragsternj (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.


 

confused . I was asked to take an outside shot of a hospital. no people . Can not see how that gives you a bad name.
most of the pics had been taken from across the street which is not even hospital property.


----------



## sierramister (Apr 12, 2011)

Outside isn't a problem....But you went inside to take pictures.  It's a hospital.  And it sounds like he wasn't authorized by the hospital, but by another client.  So when someone walks in to a hospital to take pictures with a bunch of pro gear, they don't belong if they weren't invited.  And yes, if the hospital is completely unaware of why you are there and you didn't get previous permission, they don't know WHAT you're taking photos of, and HIPPA laws apply because for all they know you're trying to snap photos of people inside.


----------



## ghache (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Outside isn't a problem....But you went inside to take pictures. It's a hospital. And it sounds like he wasn't authorized by the hospital, but by another client. So when someone walks in to a hospital to take pictures with a bunch of pro gear, they don't belong if they weren't invited. And yes, if the hospital is completely unaware of why you are there and you didn't get previous permission, they don't know WHAT you're taking photos of, and HIPPA laws apply because for all they know you're trying to snap photos of people inside.


 


He was outside the hospital. not inside, there is nothing they could do. he was across the street...


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Outside isn't a problem....But you went inside to take pictures. It's a hospital. And it sounds like he wasn't authorized by the hospital, but by another client. So when someone walks in to a hospital to take pictures with a bunch of pro gear, they don't belong if they weren't invited. And yes, if the hospital is completely unaware of why you are there and you didn't get previous permission, they don't know WHAT you're taking photos of, and HIPPA laws apply because for all they know you're trying to snap photos of people inside.



A law doesn't apply to a person because another person or group assumes it does. And further more, using HIPAA laws to place blame on a photographer is a stretch.

According to this website, the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, HIPAA laws apply only to covered entities.
For Covered Entities

That's like some one assuming that a photographer is a terrorist because they have a larger camera. That doesn't make them a terrorist. We all know how those cases turn out, right?


----------



## Big Mike (Apr 12, 2011)

skieur said:


> I have taken both photos and video in hospitals that include staff without permission.  I don't see a problem or issue in that.
> 
> skieur


I just had a vision of you casually walking through an operating room, taking a photo of the operation and then strolling out.


----------



## sierramister (Apr 12, 2011)

dragsternj said:


> Hi
> than entered the premises and took another 2 or 3.


 
HIPAA applies to the hospital.  The hospital has an obligation to maintain privacy of names and faces (as seen in the 18 articles that need protection).  Sure, it's on the hospital and not the photographer, but it gives the hospital the responsibility to maintain privacy, and they are going to kick you out if you walk inside.


----------



## spacefuzz (Apr 12, 2011)

I was stopped by a guard while taking pictures outside a hospital, but on hospital property.  We had a nice discussion and when he learned I was only taking pictures of the fountain / architechture he let me continue (as long as I didnt point my camera towards patients).  Seemed perfectly reasonable to me.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Need help with HIPAA laws





sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again. It gives us all a bad name. I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.



Good lord.

Sierra, maybe you should do a little more research before spewing this garbage around.  Decency?  Decency is a matter of opinion, not law.  I don't think he did anything indecent.  Whose to say your definition of it is greater or less than mine?  No one.  Therefore the point is nullified.

Generally speaking in the US, you can take pictures of anything unless it is explicitly forbidden... usually applies only to secret government installations and the like.  If you're on public space and taking pictures of publicly viewable items, you are all set.  You can't wander onto someone's private property and take pictures... but that's a rule about trespassing.  Technically you could still take pictures while you were trespassing, but they're going to nail you for trespassing.  Not for taking the pictures.  

No one (including the police) can force you to delete your pictures once taken, nor can they touch your gear or confiscate same.

How far you assert yourself in these things depends very much on how much you feel like being dragged into the police station and being worked over for standing up for yourself.

I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV.  Laws vary from town to town, state to state, and country to country.  Do your research and understand your rights before you shoot... oh and before you go blathering about crap you know nothing about on internet forums and giving a whole lot of people absolutely the wrong idea.


----------



## dragsternj (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> dragsternj said:
> 
> 
> > Hi
> ...


 

I am not going to debate with you but you should read what people actually write. it was OUTSIDE. I had nor did i want to have people in the shot. As stated it was OUTSIDE shot of the BUILDING.

What you should concern yourself with is that it seems to become more frequent that a photographer is being told what photos he/she can take and what not. Granted if i would have given it more thought and if i would have had even an inch of doubt that it would cause issues i would have asked permission , but i was under the impression i can take pictures of hospitals, malls, my kids school and the empire state building. 

one more time for you OUTSIDE , BUILDING, NO PEOPLE, MOST FROM ACROSS STREET


Thx *manaheim excellent post*


----------



## Buckster (Apr 12, 2011)

I was stopped once while shooting photos of a Federal Courthouse in Louisiana. After a few short questions about my intent, they concluded I was no threat and let me proceed.

For the intertube lawyers: Misinformation about your photography rights continues to spread - USATODAY.com



> The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are allowed to photograph _anything_ with the following exceptions:
> 
>  Certain military installations or operations.
> 
> ...


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Need help with HIPAA laws





sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again. It gives us all a bad name. I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.





sierramister said:


> dragsternj said:
> 
> 
> > Hi
> ...




Do you have any experience dealing with HIPAA laws?  I conducted a HIPAA audit and work in a medical devices and services company.  I deal with HIPAA every day.  As someone else said... attaching this to HIPAA is a rather extraordinary reach.


----------



## fwellers (Apr 12, 2011)

I just go on record in all these kind of threads, with my super intelligent and well thought out reply to 'camera control'. It's all BULL^%&T !
I've been harrassed and questioned more than once recently, bringing the whole thing a little closer to me.   Being a lover of freedom over laws, I will ALWAYS struggle against this. And I can't stand to see anyone, especially on a Photography forum willingly and 'loyally' giving ground on this issue.


----------



## KmH (Apr 12, 2011)

dragsternj said:


> sierramister said:
> 
> 
> > Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.
> ...


Your profile doesn't indicate what country you are in, muddying the specific legal issues greatly.

The security guard hassled you for shooting inside. 





> than [sic] entered the premises and took another 2 or 3.


 and that's where you contribute to possibly diminishing the reputation of all photographers.

The hospital grounds are likely private property, and they have every right to prohibit you from taking photos, but the security guard (nor a LEO) has no legal right to make you delete any photos you may have already taken. However, the hospital can sue you if you subsequently use any of the photos you took inside commercially.

If the security guard asks you to leave, and you don't, then you can be detained and charged with trespassing.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Apr 12, 2011)

I thought we were living in the land of the *FREE? *


----------



## ghache (Apr 12, 2011)

Schwettylens said:


> I thought we were living in the land of the *FREE? *


NOT, 

If you wanna move to the land of the free, pack your stuff and move north.


----------



## sierramister (Apr 12, 2011)

Your original post is muddy on the issue of whether you entered the building.  To me, entering the premises meant you went inside the building.  You have every right to shoot outside the building, although at a hospital I'm sure there are some places that they would not want you to be for safety reasons (ambulance areas, emergency room entrances, etc).  If in doubt, ask for permission.  





dragsternj said:


> sierramister said:
> 
> 
> > dragsternj said:
> ...


----------



## sierramister (Apr 12, 2011)

My assumption was that he walked inside.  To walk inside a hospital and start taking photos for commercial use without permission is wrong.  And inside a hospital, patients have a right to privacy.  Powered by Google Docs


manaheim said:


> sierramister said:
> 
> 
> > Need help with HIPAA laws
> ...


----------



## kundalini (Apr 12, 2011)

HIPPA has nothing to do with this scenerio.  I work with medical equipment and have to have on-going HIPPA training.  I also walk in hospitals with my big assed camera in plain site and take photos of our construction sites.  Never an issue with me.


----------



## RockstarPhotography (Apr 12, 2011)

I always TRY to get permits.  Sometimes its not feasible though.  I have only been approached by a security guard once while taking pictures of a car at a parking garage.  He didn't care, just came to see what we were doing and have a smoke break.  lol


----------



## dragsternj (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> My assumption was that he walked inside.  To walk inside a hospital and start taking photos for commercial use without permission is wrong.  And inside a hospital, patients have a right to privacy. /QUOTE]
> 
> Agreed on the inside thing.  thing is i was not in doubt but will be more careful from now on.


----------



## CCericola (Apr 12, 2011)

There was a similar problem in my area with Hospitals. A new hospital has just finished construction. Its a beautiful building. A photographer took shots of the building from the other side if a 4 lane highway. The picture was being used for a brochure for a company that makes medical equipment. Both the medical equipment company and the photographer were sued by the hospital because the photo included the name and logo of the hospital. The hospital did not do business with the equipment company and because the equipment company used a picture of the Hospital building and the hospital logo, the hospital argued that it implied that they endorsed this equipment company in some way. They also sued the photographer for photographing and selling an image of their logo. The hospital won against the medical equipment company and the suit against the photographer was settled out of court. I believe the photographer paid a fine.


----------



## ghache (Apr 12, 2011)

I would let them bring me to jail and call my lawyer in before i delete pictures off my cards just to prove they are wrong.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> My assumption was that he walked inside. To walk inside a hospital and start taking photos for commercial use without permission is wrong. And inside a hospital, patients have a right to privacy.


 
There you go again... "wrong". Emotionally loaded, but no legal substance. 

It is perfectly legal for me to wander through a hospital and take pictures of people. Rude? Possibly. Kind of annoying? Almost definitely. Illegal? Not a bit. 

Emotion and your personal opinions have no place in interpreting the laws here, and laws are what we're discussing. You don't happen to agree with the practice, then by all means don't do it, but don't sit there and tell other people what they can and cannot do based upon your non-researched non-qualified emotional so-called "viewpoint".

It's not illegal. It's not against HIPAA. Discussion concluded. Lock thread. Next?


----------



## KmH (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> To walk inside a hospital and start taking photos for commercial use without permission is wrong.  And inside a hospital, patients have a right to privacy.


It's only wrong if the hospital prohibits taking photos, however, it would be professional to check with hospital mangement before making any images.

Patients in common areas of the hospital, like hallways and lobbies, could not have a reasonable expectation of privacy.


----------



## henkelphoto (Apr 12, 2011)

Guys, 

It seems that everyone here thinks all hospitals are government run, therefore going inside and taking photos is okay. Not all hospitals are public run facilities. There is one public (i.e. government run and paid for) hospital in my city. All the rest are privately owned. Therefore, inside these hospitals, one must have permission to shoot photos, just as someone would need permission to shoot photos in someone's home. They don't need a reason, they don't need HIPA, all they need is to say no and ask you to leave. 

I work for a newspaper, and I can tell you, there is hardly a business in town that I can walk into and ask someone if I can shoot photos. Almost in every case, I will be told, "This needs to be cleared with *CORPORATE*", which, of course, is an easy way of passing the buck and not having to make a decision on their own. This has even happened to me when I asked the corner gas station to photograph their pumps for an article on gas prices.

I cannot even walk into the public hospital here without prior permission. And I mean that, if I walk into the hospital with cameras (I don't even have to lift one up to my eyes), security will walk up to me and ask what I am doing. There is no law that says they can do this, but we all have to pick our battles and unless it is extremely important, it's far easier to just let it go rather than go to the police station, then court. It's just not worth the time and expense for me or my company.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

henkelphoto said:


> Guys,
> 
> It seems that everyone here thinks all hospitals are government run, therefore going inside and taking photos is okay. Not all hospitals are public run facilities. There is one public (i.e. government run and paid for) hospital in my city. All the rest are privately owned. Therefore, inside these hospitals, one must have permission to shoot photos, just as someone would need permission to shoot photos in someone's home. They don't need a reason, they don't need HIPA, all they need is to say no and ask you to leave.
> 
> ...



I think you're sort of skipping a step.

It's legal to take pictures on private property until you are asked to stop.  Even a posted sign can be taken as being asked to stop, but in the absence of either a sign or someone telling you otherwise, it's legal to shoot.

Now OBVIOUSLY if you start taking pictures at nearly ANY hospital, someone is GOING to ask you to stop, so if you just use a little common sense it's reasonable to expect that you're going to be asked to stop and therefore why would you even bother starting to begin with?  However, the point here isn't courtesy or decency... the point here is law.  Law taken to the strictest point basically says I can run as fast as I can with my camera and shoot pictures in a hospital and as long as no one manages to stop me long enough to tell me to stop, I am not breaking the law.


----------



## KmH (Apr 12, 2011)

Oh, but you are likely breaking the law (trespass). You're just not being caught at it.


----------



## Buckster (Apr 12, 2011)

KmH said:


> Oh, but you are likely breaking the law (trespass). You're just not being caught at it.


It's not trespassing until someone tells you to leave and you refuse.


----------



## sierramister (Apr 12, 2011)

Laws vary by state.  In TN, you must be authorized to enter the premises of a state hospital.  33-2-806 - Trespassing on hospital or developmental center grounds Penalty. :: 2010 Tennessee Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia 



Buckster said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, but you are likely breaking the law (trespass). You're just not being caught at it.
> ...


----------



## Buckster (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Laws vary by state. In TN, you must be authorized to enter the premises of a state hospital. 33-2-806 - Trespassing on hospital or developmental center grounds Penalty. :: 2010 Tennessee Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
> 
> 
> 
> ...


Full Title of the cited law:
*2010 Tennessee Code*
*Title 33 - Mental Health and Developmental Disabilities*
*Chapter 2 - Services and Facilities *
*Part 8 - State Facilities *
*33-2-806 - Trespassing on hospital or developmental center grounds Penalty.*

That paints a slightly different picture than the one you're trying to defend. Obviously, walking into "One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest" is different than walking into "General Hospital", and would not be permitted.

Please stop now - I'm getting embarrassed for you.


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

Buckster said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > Oh, but you are likely breaking the law (trespass). You're just not being caught at it.
> ...


 
Yeah, it would be challenging to be considered trespassing for walking into a hospital. People in that state would be dying left and right for fear of breaking the law.

I'm dying...

But going to the hospital will get me arrested!

And then I'll die!

In jail!

AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAIGGGGGGGGH!!!!!!!


----------



## manaheim (Apr 12, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Laws vary by state. In TN, you must be authorized to enter the premises of a state hospital. 33-2-806 - Trespassing on hospital or developmental center grounds Penalty. :: 2010 Tennessee Code :: US Codes and Statutes :: US Law :: Justia
> 
> 
> 
> ...



 omg I didn't see this before I responded.

This guy just has to be a troll.


----------



## dragsternj (Apr 12, 2011)

Guys it is/was no intention to start an argument. I was merely trying inform people that something which i thought is not a big deal (taking a picture of a building) can turn into something rather unpleasant. And if i have to ask permission to shoot a hospital building from public property, what else can i not shoot and  who else do i have to ask the next time? The owner of Yankee stadium ?


----------



## SNBniko (Apr 12, 2011)

Did they confront you when you were on public property?  No.

They confronted you when you were on hospital grounds.  I'm not saying what they did was right, but if you were close enough to the building to have the security guard come out and say something, I'm going to take a wild guess and say you weren't on the city sidewalk.  They do have the right to ask you to leave, past that they can't do anything.


----------



## skieur (Apr 16, 2011)

Big Mike said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > I have taken both photos and video in hospitals that include staff without permission. I don't see a problem or issue in that.
> ...


 
:lmao:  Actually, it was an ICU with the patient all wired up to equipment on his birthday.

skieur


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 17, 2011)

Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can ANYONE force you to remove/delete photos you have taken. If you publish those photos then someone might have some sort of legal claim, but simply snapping the shot of ANYONE or ANYTHING within your eyesight is NOT illegal. 

No one, including a police officer, has any right to touch you, detain you, or touch your equipment without cause. Trespassing, being in restricted areas, etc are NOT reasons to have your photos confiscated. 

Only a JUDGE can order this in a court of law. NOT on the street. You have every right to tell them to take you in (if you have the guts!) And I WOULD! No one will EVER take my photos!


----------



## Village Idiot (Apr 18, 2011)

doziergraphic said:


> Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can ANYONE force you to remove/delete photos you have taken. If you publish those photos then someone might have some sort of legal claim, *but simply snapping the shot of ANYONE or ANYTHING within your eyesight is NOT illegal.*
> 
> No one, including a police officer, has any right to touch you, detain you, or touch your equipment without cause. Trespassing, being in restricted areas, etc are NOT reasons to have your photos confiscated.
> 
> Only a JUDGE can order this in a court of law. NOT on the street. You have every right to tell them to take you in (if you have the guts!) And I WOULD! No one will EVER take my photos!



I do take issue with this. There is such thing as reasonable expectation of privacy and what you're saying is that it's not illegal to photograph anything within eye sight. I'm sure it wouldn't be found legal for a person to sit outside of people's houses and shoot away to try and capture whatever they can through the windows.


----------



## KmH (Apr 18, 2011)

doziergraphic said:


> but simply snapping the shot of ANYONE or ANYTHING within your eyesight is NOT illegal.


As pointed out, that is not a true statement.


----------



## crimbfighter (Apr 18, 2011)

doziergraphic said:


> No one, including a police officer, has any right to touch you, detain you, or touch your equipment without cause. Trespassing, being in restricted areas, etc are NOT reasons to have your photos confiscated.
> 
> Only a JUDGE can order this in a court of law. NOT on the street. You have every right to tell them to take you in (if you have the guts!) And I WOULD! No one will EVER take my photos!


 
I also take issue with this statement. There are in fact circumstances in which an officer can confiscate your camera w/o a warrant issued by a judge, while on the street. This falls under the 4th Amendment - protection against unreasonable search and seizure. The exigent circumstances clause allows an officer to confiscate, or seize, an item without a warrant if they reasonably believe the item contains evidence of a crime and waiting for a warrant puts that evidence at immanent risk of being destroyed, damaged or altered. There is plenty of case law to support this. It generally applies to entry to areas where a reasonable expectation of privacy applies, but it also applies to things like confiscating phones, computers, cameras and more. This does not mean photos can be deleted, and doesn't even mean an officer can search the camera, but it can be confiscated while a warrant to search it is obtained. However, don't assume this means it will/can happen all the time. The officer needs to reasonably believe the camera contains evidence of a crime, ie. photos you took while you were clearly standing on that secret restricted military base when you're stating you weren't on the property. The crime is standing on the base and lying about it, the photos are evidence of that crime. And chances are as soon as you get the chance, you will delete the photos, which is destruction of evidence. Also, this doesn't mean they can be deleted w/o consent. An officer can never delete photos w/o consent regardless of custody of the camera.

You are perpetuating misinformation and causing people to become even more confused about their rights and responsibilities. As far as I'm concerned, people shouldn't listen to either of us, they should seek advice from local law schools, libraries and other concrete resources like written case law and interpretations. First things first, buy a copy of the constitution w/ amendments and read them for what they actually are, then go from there.


----------



## skieur (Apr 18, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> doziergraphic said:
> 
> 
> > Under NO CIRCUMSTANCES can ANYONE force you to remove/delete photos you have taken. If you publish those photos then someone might have some sort of legal claim, *but simply snapping the shot of ANYONE or ANYTHING within your eyesight is NOT illegal.*
> ...


 
Legally, a resonable expectation of privacy assumes that either you cannot be seen from public property or the blinds, drapes, etc.are pulled on any windows that are close to public view. A woman sunbathing in the nude in her backyard was shot by a photographer from a sidewalk that overlooked the backyard. The judge ruled that since the sidewalk overlooked the backyard she was "in public view" and therefore had no reasonable expectation of privacy despite being in her own backyard.

So doziergraphic is more right than wrong. Sure there are exceptions such as washrooms, changerooms, upskirts, top secret documents and locations such as area 51 and others on an American list but overall there are few laws against taking photos of anything.

skieur


----------



## Josh66 (Apr 18, 2011)

skieur said:


> ... and others on an American list but overall there are few laws against taking photos of anything.


 What, Canada has no secrets?


----------



## skieur (Apr 18, 2011)

crimbfighter said:


> doziergraphic said:
> 
> 
> > No one, including a police officer, has any right to touch you, detain you, or touch your equipment without cause. Trespassing, being in restricted areas, etc are NOT reasons to have your photos confiscated.
> ...


 
Considering that doziergraphic is talking about the average situation I would say that he is not perpetuating misinformation.  You are talking about an extreme, rare situation that will never be applicable to most photographers, unless they are in locations where police abuse of the law is prevalent, so perhaps you are being somewhat misleading.

Police seized a camera from a photographer and used the excuse that photos in the camera proved that the photographer was trespassing.  A judge ruled that taking pictures is not illegal and therefore seizing the camera was covered under "unreasonable search and seizure" and the photographers rights were violated.

Realistically, most photographers will not be having their cameras seized because they shot a crime in progress, while the police wait for a warrant.  Sure it is legally possible but not very likely.

skieur


----------



## skieur (Apr 18, 2011)

O|||||||O said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > ... and others on an American list but overall there are few laws against taking photos of anything.
> ...


 
The only secret Canadians have, is how badly our leader screws everything up,...oh wait...that is not a secret after all.


----------



## crimbfighter (Apr 18, 2011)

skieur said:


> Considering that doziergraphic is talking about the average situation I would say that he is not perpetuating misinformation.  You are talking about an extreme, rare situation that will never be applicable to most photographers, unless they are in locations where police abuse of the law is prevalent, so perhaps you are being somewhat misleading.
> 
> Police seized a camera from a photographer and used the excuse that photos in the camera proved that the photographer was trespassing.  A judge ruled that taking pictures is not illegal and therefore seizing the camera was covered under "unreasonable search and seizure" and the photographers rights were violated.
> 
> ...


 
Respectfully, skieur, I both agree and disagree. You're right, I was talking about a very extreme circumstance, that I would expect 99.9% of photographers will never encounter. I was simply articulating there is/are circumstances in which your camera could be confiscated, legally, and using finite terminology to describe these situations is a mistake, and therefore, in my opinion, misleading. Our legal system is very fluid and very little is set in stone. Most things are open for interpretation and application dependent on the totality of the circumstances. I don't know specifically about the situation you are talking about, so if you could post a link to the court ruling, I would appreciate it. When a situation like this presents itself, a court may rule two separate ways with the same facts presented depending on the totality of the circumstances. The severity of the offense has a lot to do with it. To prove a simple civil forfeiture (citation) for trespassing a judge would likely never support it, but to prove a more severe charge (criminal offense) such as (in Wisconsin) Trespass to a Medical Facility or a Federal Trespass charge by the feds (like on a military base) a judge may just as likely uphold the seizure as lawful. 

This is why I also mentioned people should research the issue using reliable methods and make a decision for themselves rather than listen to you or me.


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 20, 2011)

Even if your camera is confiscated, you have the right to get it back in the same condition WITH the photos you took UNLESS a judge order them destroyed. A security officer in a private place has no right to take your personal belongings without expectation of safe return and NO DESTROYED IMAGES. THat is theft, even in private place.

I stated if you take my gear you better take me in with it. Otherwise it is theft. Have no clue about other countries, but you cannot provide an example, EVEN me committing a felony, that my camera or card can be DESTROYED on the spot by anyone, even a police officer, unless I'm proven guilty by a judge.

If you DO shoot in an area that is restricted, then you are not in a public spot. I understand you cannot wander into a gov't building with 'no photography allowed' signs and expect to not be stopped. And if they tell you they are going to HOLD your gear or you cannot enter the builoding, that is fine, but they can't destory images you took. Only FORCE you to leave, or call proper authorities to have you removed or arrested if you broke a law by taking the photos. Them destorying the photos on spot is ILLEGAL! Even in a private home.

If you break into someone's home, the owner catches you and takes YOUR wallet but doesn't call the cops, it's still illegal for HIM to take YOUR wallet. Extreme, but if you wanted to 'turn yourself in' and admit your crime you could then have THAT person arrested as well for theft of your wallet. He has not right to take it even if you are committing a crime. He has to call the police, he cannot take YOUR stuff and say 'well he was robbing me, so I took his stuff - fair deal!' While we all would agree it's just - it's not legal.

And if in Chicago you cannot take pics of a police officer, he cannot just TAKE your media card - if it's against the law then you would be arrested AND TAKEN IN TO FACE A JUDGE! But he still cannot just take my card and send me home. Either I've broken the law and need to be arrested or he cannot take my personal belongings. Otherwise police offices would just start taking expensive cameras and keeping them. If you're breaking the law, then they cannot take the gear unless they take you with it.

If you disagree, please give me an exact example of why this isn't true. Not just, 'yes they can in some places.' No way unless you are committing a crime that YOU would also be ARRESTED for. 

Common sense here when talking about public vs private. Same as nude vs porn - there is a huge difference (and I'll know it when I see it!)


----------



## crimbfighter (Apr 20, 2011)

There's no point in arguing with you on this, because you're going to believe whatever you believe, regardless of facts. To anyone who wants to learn the truth, for themselves, take a course in constitutional law and talk with their local law enforcement. Don't just take the word of anyone on the web.


----------



## skieur (Apr 20, 2011)

crimbfighter said:


> There's no point in arguing with you on this, because you're going to believe whatever you believe, regardless of facts. To anyone who wants to learn the truth, for themselves, take a course in constitutional law and talk with their local law enforcement. Don't just take the word of anyone on the web.


 
The facts seem to be that he is basically correct from a legal standpoint, despite some possible rare exceptions that do not apply to 99% of photographic situations.

skieur


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 20, 2011)

sorry if someone already posted this - very informative.

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

granted - it was published in 2006, and it's one attorney's opinion, not sure anyone on here is actually an attorney, but it does state even in private areas no right to take your equipment.


----------



## crimbfighter (Apr 21, 2011)

skieur said:


> crimbfighter said:
> 
> 
> > There's no point in arguing with you on this, because you're going to believe whatever you believe, regardless of facts. To anyone who wants to learn the truth, for themselves, take a course in constitutional law and talk with their local law enforcement. Don't just take the word of anyone on the web.
> ...


 
You're right, and I was strictly referring to that very small exception and not referring to this from a more global perspective. I think it was my fault for not properly setting the tone of my comments before I started replying. To anyone following this thread, I want to be clear, what I was referring to is a very extreme and unlikely case, though legal and possible, most people will never encounter a circumstance like that. The remaining 99.99% of contacts, an officer would never have the legal cause to confiscate your camera. And by not being clear about it, you're also right, skieur, I was probably being as misleading the other direction as I was implying doziergraphic was.


----------



## crimbfighter (Apr 21, 2011)

doziergraphic said:


> sorry if someone already posted this - very informative.
> 
> Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
> 
> granted - it was published in 2006, and it's one attorney's opinion, not sure anyone on here is actually an attorney, but it does state even in private areas no right to take your equipment.


 
This does appear, at face value, to be a fairly accurate,  reasonable and unbiased reference material for people to use. Though it actually confirms many of the things I said, it also adds much more information that is relevant to the Average Joe situation. I'd be interested in reading his full book. Thanks for posting the link.


----------



## Snyder (Apr 21, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again. It gives us all a bad name. I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.



What bad advice, have you ever heard of photojournalism?


----------



## The_Traveler (Apr 23, 2011)

KmH said:


> sierramister said:
> 
> 
> > To walk inside a hospital and start taking photos for commercial use without permission is wrong.  And inside a hospital, patients have a right to privacy.
> ...


 
The issue of reasonable expectation does not apply when people are patients. HIPAA rules say that a healthcare facility must take reasonable precautions to insure that the privacy of their patients is not violated. Since a hospital has no control over the use of pictures once outside the hospital, virtually every hospital forbids uncontrolled photography inside common areas.  They make some allowances for inside patient rooms and places like nursery viewing suites but common areas - no.


----------



## doziergraphic (Apr 25, 2011)

sierramister said:


> Please refrain from doing this again.  It gives us all a bad name.  I'm not going to argue about what rights you have, but you have a responsibility to uphold decency in photographing subjects.


 
I suppose if you're a tourist taking snapshots. Like if you walk upon a bloody car wreck, do you whip out your camera and start taking photos of a dead body? My guess is most people here would feel it's 'not decent' to do it. But if you are a news photographer, or a photojournalist taking disaster photos, war photos, etc., I don't think there is such a thing as 'upholding decency' standards.

You take the shot THEN you decide if it's 'decent.' But NO ONE is taking my gear without taking me in with it. Arrest me or prepare to fight for any of my belongings. Private or pubic place. You're going to ask me to leave OR you are going to have to physically take it from me - good luck with that!


----------

