Twist on the right to take photographs in public: On numerous occasions I have been at outdoor "Art Fairs" held in very public locations. Some of the people who display their work...

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

On numerous occasions I have been at outdoor "Art Fairs" held in very public locations. Some of the people who display their work, outside on the periphery of their assigned areas post signs prohibiting photographs. I understand the desire to protect the originality of their work and have always honored the signs or the verbal instructions from the artists. I have no particular desire to test the legal limits of the requests. I realize that privately owned malls can impose regulations involving the use of cameras. But there are times I would like to capture the spirit of some very creative work. It goes without saying that I have no desire to plagiarize, steal, copy, sell or otherwise infringe on the Art. Is it illegal to make a photographic representation of what I see in a public place?

repleo Loc: Boston

I am sure the artist would be happy to sell you a copy if you find their work that inspiring.
That's the way it is supposed to work.

erinjay64

If displayed in public-on a street, for example-the work is fair game, and photographable. If displayed in a more private place-a mall, a store parking lot, etc-limits can be placed on your ability to photograph items / people. A park, or fairgrounds, or a street closed off by barriers, might be considered private property, rather than public property, since it belongs to a city, or a county, which-after all-is a corporation with some private status as well as public status. Whether you actually have to, or not, it is best to respect the wishes of artists, fair goers, etc, and not photograph what they don't want photographed. If you want to push it, and photograph anyway, stand off the property-across the street, on a sidewalk-and use a telephoto lens to photograph subjects from that distance.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Anything you can see from a public street or other public place is fair game to photograph provided there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (like a person in their bathroom or bedroom with the blinds closed and you are shooting through the crack with a 1000mm lens or if it's specifically restricted like a national monument or military base.)

Artists may not like it, but that's not the same thing as being illegal.

Photograph what you like in public and let them have their fit.

jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

lesdmd wrote:

On numerous occasions I have been at outdoor &quo... (show quote)

Making public places private seems to be a trend lately. If it's public, you can take pictures. But the organizers can call the police and have you taken away in handcuffs. Several months later, you will probably be found not guilty at your trial. There's the law and there's reality. Anyone can post a sign saying anything, and having you arrested for not obeying the sign is a distinct possibility.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

jerryc41 wrote:

Making public places private seems to be a trend lately. If it's public, you can take pictures. But the organizers can call the police and have you taken away in handcuffs. Several months later, you will probably be found not guilty at your trial. There's the law and there's reality. Anyone can post a sign saying anything, and having you arrested for not obeying the sign is a distinct possibility.

It's not a crime to disobey a sign. If you aren't committing an actual crime, you won't get arrested. If someone has an event of private property and posts "no cameras allowed" the best they can do is ask you to leave. If you do you are good to go. If not, you will be guilty of a misdemeanor trespass.

If it's public property, sign or no sign, you aren't committing a crime.

Demianr

I NEVER would slight an artist who requested no photographing. Way too many get ripped off and most are barely making it.
Being rude in this case because it is your "right" to do so is just that being rude.
If I were doing a newspaper or magazine coverage shoot I would ask if they want to be included, even though that is a clear first amendment issue to do so.
I have never been turned down by the way.
Being polite and thinking beyond oneself pays off in the long run

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Demianr wrote:

I NEVER would slight an artist who requested no photographing. Way too many get ripped off and most are barely making it.
Being rude in this case because it is your "right" to do so is just that being rude.

Your arbitrary assertion is that doing something that's legal is "rude" because someone else doesn't like it.

I disagree and counter with my own arbitrary assertion that it's not rude.

Such is the nature of arbitrary assertions.

lesdmd Loc: Middleton Wi via N.Y.C. & Cleveland

rpavich wrote:

Your arbitrary assertion is that doing something that's legal is "rude" because someone else doesn't like it.

I disagree and counter with my own arbitrary assertion that it's not rude.

Such is the nature of arbitrary assertions.

By your definition, does doing something legal rule out that it can also be rude? Is it not inconsiderate to take a photograph simply because one wants to despite being politely asked to not do so? And doesn't being considerate, when it puts no real burden on me, make living amongst other people easier?

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

lesdmd wrote:

By your definition, does doing something legal rule out that it can also be rude?

Never said that.

Quote:

Is it not inconsiderate to take a photograph simply because one wants to despite being politely asked to not do so? And doesn't being considerate, when it puts no real burden on me, make living amongst other people easier?

Again, I disagree that just because someone doesn't want you to do anything that doing it automatically means you are rude.

Example. I'm now requesting that you never post here on the 'hog again and if you do, you are automatically rude.

Does that follow?

usnpilot Loc: Ft Myers Fl

rpavich wrote:

Again, I disagree that just because someone doesn't want you to do anything that doing it automatically means you are rude.

Example. I'm now requesting that you never post here on the 'hog again and if you do, you are automatically rude.

Does that follow?

Your attitude towards the wishes of others makes me glad you aren't my neighbor. IMHO you are both rude and inconsiderate.
Have a nice day.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

usnpilot wrote:

Your attitude towards the wishes of others makes me glad you aren't my neighbor. IMHO you are both rude and inconsiderate.
Have a nice day.

Good for both of us I guess.

Hbuk66 Loc: Oswego, NY

Simply owning a camera does not give me any special rights to shoot where ever and when ever I want, any more than owning a gun does...

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

Hbuk66 wrote:

Simply owning a camera does not give me any special rights to shoot where ever and when ever I want, any more than owning a gun does...

And of course, nobody here as said that it does.

The question isn't that we do or don't have certain rights; the question is that if someone doesn't like the fact that we are exercising our rights is it wrong or rude to stop doing something legal?

Lots of folks thinks it is but apparently that idea doesn't apply to their 1st amendment right of free expression of their opinion here on the 'hog. :)

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

I show my work at art fairs and shows. If someone came up and asked if they could photograph my work because they liked it, I would request that they purchase it from me. If they're doing it for a newspaper, I would ask to see their credentials. I put my work out for sale to make back some of the expense of making it. Someone photographing it is stealing in my book - they're trying to get my work for nothing. Why should I allow them to do that? And why am I the bad guy for asking them to not steal my work?