Candid "legal" questions!

[swiftparkour94]

I was shooting in a parking lot today outside of local stores. The thought "Is it legal?" came to mind considering that I'm no longer on the sidewalk and have entered potentially private property. Is there a black and white answer for this? (pun intended).

Another question...can I shoot in stores since there is a difference between store policy and the law?

Still fairly new to candid and street photography....I believe I am improving. If it matters, I live in the USA, in California

 

[Tony S]

Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow. This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations (most of them post no photography at the entrances). They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.

It's legal, but the owners can remove you for doing it if they don't want you to. They really don't even have to post it, they can just say "go, we don't like what you are doing".

 

[swiftparkour94]

Private property rules are what ever the owner wants to allow. This includes most malls which are privately held by corporations (most of them post no photography at the entrances). They may have rules to tell you to stop taking pictures, but their only real recourse if you do is to have you removed from the property and given a no trespass order, which means if you come back then the cops can take you in.

It's legal, but the owners can remove you for doing it if they don't want you to. They really don't even have to post it, they can just say "go, we don't like what you are doing".

Hmm ok. That's really weird because normally when people shoot candid they claim they legally can in the streets, but not in stores. I've seen videos of them saying to property owners "Oh no, were shooting this on the sidewalk in the public, not in your building". I guess I'll take my chances anyways and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property

 

[Tony S]

Re-read my post. You can shoot legally and unbothered from the street, I didn't say anything to the contrary. It's when you are off the public right of way and on private property when you are at the whim of what the property owner wants to allow to take place.

 

[swiftparkour94]

Re-read my post. You can shoot legally and unbothered from the street, I didn't say anything to the contrary. It's when you are off the public right of way and on private property when you are at the whim of what the property owner wants to allow to take place.

Oh ok that sounds more clear now, thanks

 

[Judobreaker]

Hmm... It's not that black and white...
You're not always allowed to shoot the interior of a building, even if you are on the sidewalk.
Try shooting the insides some government building with a longer lens through the window and see if they accept it...

 

[swiftparkour94]

Hmm... It's not that black and white...
You're not always allowed to shoot the interior of a building, even if you are on the sidewalk.
Try shooting the insides some government building with a longer lens through the window and see if they accept it...

You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property. It doesn't matter if your shooting inside of there though it'd leave you very conspicuous and you'd be led to questioning or interrogation, especially if it's one run by the gov or city

 

[vfotog]

Hmm... It's not that black and white...
You're not always allowed to shoot the interior of a building, even if you are on the sidewalk.
Try shooting the insides some government building with a longer lens through the window and see if they accept it...

You take take pictures of whatever you want if you're on the sidewalk, which is on public property. It doesn't matter if your shooting inside of there though it'd leave you very conspicuous and you'd be led to questioning or interrogation, especially if it's one run by the gov or city

You're definitely wrong. Because of invasive paparazzi, there are now paparazzi laws in place in California. If you are out in a public, but are using say a telephoto lens to shoot through someone's window, it's an invasion of privacy and not legally allowable.

 

[Steve5D]

...and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property

I don't believe that you can be compelled to delete images, regardless if you were trespassing or not when you shot them...

 

[bratkinson]

Legality and practicality probably differ here.

The legality of standing on someones or some corporations private property without permission is quite clear...you can't. It's called trespassing. This applies to whether you are simply taking pictures or selling hotdogs. I've been asked to leave a remote corner of an active factory parking lot on a Sunday afternoon (factory not open) while out taking pictures of trains passing that spot. They were right, I was in the wrong, and immediately complied.

The practicality of standing there is that it is most likely very harmless to the owner or anyone/anything I'm taking pictures of....EXCEPT... And here's where the lawyers come in...if, for example, you climbed a tree or ladder, or even stood on an icy lot and fell, or simply fell getting out of your car...then there's LIABILITY for the property owner to consider. That's what "drives" corporate America, as well as some individual property owners, to disallow any trespassing for any reason. I certainly don't want to lose my house because you climbed a tree on my property without my permission and broke your leg. And many courts these days consider the 'deep pockets' of a 'big company like xxx' and award millions of dollars to someone who was clearly in the wrong but 'got hurt' while doing so. I can quote many such instances.

But, if you are standing in a publicly owned place such as the sidewalk, street (watch out for cars!), or even a public (vs private) airport, feel free to shoot away. Note, however, that many bus stations are private property such as Greyhound, Trailways, etc.

 

[TCampbell]

The laws vary by country, state, and municipality. But usually the laws will somehow encompass the following:

You may generally shoot photos of anything you want which is generally visible and exposed to the public if you are standing on public property, with a few exceptions.

You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area. As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)

You may NOT shoot a photo of someone in a place where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". For example... you may NOT shoot a photo in a public restroom ... even though it's public property (also... that's just creepy.) Keep in mind that "reasonable expectation of privacy" is up to a jury to decide... if someone is outside in their own backyard, but they've planted shrubbery or erected privacy fences and you're finding a clever way to shoot around them... you're probably going to have a hard time convincing a jury that they weren't trying to create a private space and that you've violated it.

You may shoot a photo of something on private property as long as you are standing on public property AND the subject is plainly visible (you don't need to do anything special to get the shot because it was in plain view.)

When standing on private property (even private property which is generally accessible to the public such as a shopping mall, a hotel lobby, etc.) you must abide by the rules of the property owner. If there are no rules, then you CAN shoot photos. If they ask you to stop then you must stop. They cannot confiscate your camera (that would be theft) and then can destroy your photos nor can they force you to destroy your photos. But they can escort you from the premises and tell you not to return. If you do return, then you've trespassed and could be charged as such.

These rules just have to do with whether you're allowed to snap the photo. What you can do with the photo after you snap it is a whole new set of rules.

If you're taking the photos because you plan to engage in commerce with them then there are more rules which may apply. But as long as you're just taking the photos for your own personal enjoyment then generally you can safely take a photo as long as the subject is visible either on public property or on private property where you are not prohibited from shooting.

Paparazzi is a whole different subject. The paparazzi are generally taking photos of famous people. Usually you'd need a model release in order to use those photos and the subjects typically wouldn't grant such a release. But it turns out the 'press' gets an exception to the rule. The press does NOT need a model release to use photos of people. The paparazzi are essentially working for the press (even if they are freelance photographers (and usually they are), their only intended use of the photo is to sell it to the press.) The paparazzi could not sell the photos to, say, a company who wanted to use the celebrity's image as part of their ad campaign, but they CAN sell the photo to a newspaper or magazine who may use it in an article without needing a model release. That's how they get away with do something that any other photographer would NOT be allowed to do.

 

[jwbryson1]

You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area. As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)

I believe this is not correct. The Transportation Security Administration (TSA) acknowledges that photography is permitted in and around airline security checkpoints as long as you're not interfering with the screening process.

The TSA Blog: Can I Take Photos at the Checkpoint and Airport?

 

[skieur]

...and if I get caught and asked to leave or delete the images then I will. I think what's confusing me most is, stores are publicly open yet are on private property

I don't believe that you can be compelled to delete images, regardless if you were trespassing or not when you shot them...

That is legally correct in the US, Canada, and other countries.

skieur

 

[skieur]

The laws vary by country, state, and municipality. But usually the laws will somehow encompass the following:

You may generally shoot photos of anything you want which is generally visible and exposed to the public if you are standing on public property, with a few exceptions.

You may NOT shoot photos of anything regarded as a classified or secured area. As an example, the security screening area at the airport is considered such a place (you may NOT shoot a photo which depicts this area.)

There is a list of US top secret areas that cannot be photographed. If the area is not on the short list, then you can take a picture of it.

You may NOT shoot a photo of someone in a place where they have a "reasonable expectation of privacy". For example... you may NOT shoot a photo in a public restroom ... even though it's public property (also... that's just creepy.) Keep in mind that "reasonable expectation of privacy" is up to a jury to decide... if someone is outside in their own backyard, but they've planted shrubbery or erected privacy fences and you're finding a clever way to shoot around them... you're probably going to have a hard time convincing a jury that they weren't trying to create a private space and that you've violated it.

Correct.

You may shoot a photo of something on private property as long as you are standing on public property AND the subject is plainly visible (you don't need to do anything special to get the shot because it was in plain view.)

Correct.

When standing on private property (even private property which is generally accessible to the public such as a shopping mall, a hotel lobby, etc.) you must abide by the rules of the property owner. If there are no rules, then you CAN shoot photos. If they ask you to stop then you must stop. They cannot confiscate your camera (that would be theft) and then can destroy your photos nor can they force you to destroy your photos. But they can escort you from the premises and tell you not to return. If you do return, then you've trespassed and could be charged as such.

Correct, but you still own the rights to any photos that you have taken.

These rules just have to do with whether you're allowed to snap the photo. What you can do with the photo after you snap it is a whole new set of rules.

If you're taking the photos because you plan to engage in commerce with them then there are more rules which may apply. But as long as you're just taking the photos for your own personal enjoyment then generally you can safely take a photo as long as the subject is visible either on public property or on private property where you are not prohibited from shooting.

As long as you do not use the photo for advertising purposes, it could have been taken on public or private property whether trespassing or not.

Paparazzi is a whole different subject. The paparazzi are generally taking photos of famous people. Usually you'd need a model release in order to use those photos and the subjects typically wouldn't grant such a release. But it turns out the 'press' gets an exception to the rule. The press does NOT need a model release to use photos of people. The paparazzi are essentially working for the press (even if they are freelance photographers (and usually they are), their only intended use of the photo is to sell it to the press.) The paparazzi could not sell the photos to, say, a company who wanted to use the celebrity's image as part of their ad campaign, but they CAN sell the photo to a newspaper or magazine who may use it in an article without needing a model release. That's how they get away with do something that any other photographer would NOT be allowed to do.

There is an legal argument over whether famous people should have an expectation of privacy, when they are not involved in some official function related to their role in entertainment, politics, etc. There have been some preliminary rulings in some areas of Europe but it has not been totally resolved. Editorial and artistic use for financial gain from a photo taken in a public place is the right of everyone, NOT just the press, under the law in the US and Canada.

skieur

 

[FitzTML]

Here's a nice little one page summary of photographer's rights in the US:
Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page
It's always good to consult a legal professional and I am not one of those.