Photographers legal rights (Page 2): Yes, perhaps he wasn't required to show the policeman his images, but things might have gone better for everyone because he did. He also deleted...

LCD

Yes, perhaps he wasn't required to show the policeman his images, but things might have gone better for everyone because he did. He also deleted the images in order to make the whole thing go away. The woman probably verged in the mental and there would have been no reasoning with her.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

rpavich wrote:

Yeah...more nervous nellies who are afraid of their own shadow.

I'm unwatching this mess before it starts.

I am going to keep watching to see what kind of ridiculous dumpster fire this turns into. I just love all of the outrageous and wrong comments from all the wannabe lawyers. I am betting this gets to 5 pages or more before it hits the digest Tommorow and probably 15 or more pages before it is done.

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

Carl A wrote:

Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

Unless it is a government agent preventing you... then it depends on the particular circumstances.
These are more like privileges than actual rights.

SharpShooter Loc: NorCal

jerryc41 wrote:

If kids happen to fall within the area of your viewfinder, you could find yourself confronted by a huge man with a gun.

Yes, that's true. I have a pretty nice collection of guns and those big guys are probably still crying!!! LoL
And yes, I got my shot!!!
SS

G Brown Loc: Sunny Bognor Regis West Sussex UK

Carl A wrote:

Photographers have a right to photograph public activities that
occur in a public space this includes but is not limited to from and
a public space.
streets,public transportation systems, plazas.
parks, and other places that the public is allowed to be .
Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

Law is a minefield of conflicts - the more convincing the lawyer, the better the outcome.
Consider 'the smoking ban' generally accepted that you can smoke in your own home. Elderly people are 'homed' in care homes and legally they can smoke there. Care homes are workplaces and you cannot smoke in a workplace. what can you legally do? answers on a post card....
Many rented homes now have rental regulations banning smoking in their premises...Yet a rental lease defines it as your legal place of abode (home Address etc). So stick to the law and lose the roof over your head.
Nothing so absurd as 'rights' and 'laws'.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

Carl A wrote:

Photographers have a right to photograph public activities that
occur in a public space this includes but is not limited to from and
a public space.
streets,public transportation systems, plazas.
parks, and other places that the public is allowed to be .
Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

So what. As long as your rights do not infringe upon another person, your OK. But common sense must prevail. If your photographing young kids in a playground you must be aware of the current public concern about child safety, expect to be approached, you had better have a good reason for doing what your doing. Same on a beach, photographing beauties scantily dressed, or photographing high school cheerleaders in front of their parents, common sense must also be taken into consideration along with your SUPPOSED RIGHTS as a photographer.

BuckeyeBilly Loc: St. Petersburg, FL

Carl A wrote:

Photographers have a right to photograph public activities that
occur in a public space this includes but is not limited to from and
a public space.
streets,public transportation systems, plazas.
parks, and other places that the public is allowed to be .
Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

Here is an article that should be read by all here on UHH. It is a question and answer format with an attorney named Carolyn Wright whose practice is solely about the area of photography.

https://blog.kenkaminesky.com/photography-copyright-and-the-law/

It is lengthy but hang in there because the topic here eventually gets discussed.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

rpavich wrote:

That's a personal decision and that's fine but a photographer isn't required by law to show anyone his/her images, even the police. Sure..the'll try and get you to believe that's their right but it's not.

You are absolutely correct rpavich!

tgshoe Loc: North Texas

jerryc41 wrote:

Legally, that's true, but "might makes right." If kids happen to fall within the area of your viewfinder, you could find yourself confronted by a huge man with a gun. The same applies to cops. They'll want to confiscate your memory card or camera. That's illegal, but so is resisting them. Laws are great, but only if people know them and obey them.

It is only illegal to "resist" a lawful order from a law enforcement officer. So therefore, in this example, requiring you to give your camera or memory card is illegal and therefore not required by you under the law. Exception to this, and there are always exceptions, is if they have a warrant to obtain said camera/card for evidence and they believe it contains info required in an investigation. Not merely so they can erase the fact they themselves have broken the law/public trust.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

rook2c4 wrote:

Unless it is a government agent preventing you... then it depends on the particular circumstances.
These are more like privileges than actual rights.

Actually they are rights. The 1st amendment; a free press. There isn't a distinction between a news organization and what you shoot as a private citizen in that regard.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Carl A wrote:

Photographers have a right to photograph public activities that
occur in a public space this includes but is not limited to from and
a public space.
streets,public transportation systems, plazas.
parks, and other places that the public is allowed to be .
Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

Anyone stating law on a forum which is worldwide, should have the decency to state which country and area the law applies to. Additionally, this mentality is likely to do more harm than good in most situations. Of course if a crime is taking place, or in a time of war, yes take photos. But while taking photos in a quiet park, show some decency to people who really may not want their photo taken. Nobody should feel like they have to ask someone not to take photos. The photographer should go out of their way to not make people feel uncomfortable.

rpavich Loc: West Virginia

[quote=ToBoldlyGo]Anyone stating law on a forum which is worldwide, should have the decency to state which country and area the law applies to. Additionally, this mentality is likely to do more harm than good in most situations. Of course if a crime is taking place, or in a time of war, yes take photos. But while taking photos in a quiet park, show some decency to people who really may not want their photo taken. [quote]

Why is the standard of decency that someone objects? That's arbitrary. I could just as easily make up some other arbitrary rule to follow.

Everyone objects to everything....get over it.

Quote:

Nobody should feel like they have to ask someone not to take photos.

Another arbitrary rule to follow?

I'll state another arbitrary rule "nobody should feel like they should have to avoid taking photos just because someone doesn't like it"

Quote:

The photographer should go out of their way to not make people feel uncomfortable.

Another arbitrary "should".

Everyone is offended at everything; doing legal and lawful things trumps hurt feelings or mock outrage.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

Carl A wrote:

Photographers have a right to photograph public activities that
occur in a public space this includes but is not limited to from and
a public space.
streets,public transportation systems, plazas.
parks, and other places that the public is allowed to be .
Attempts to prevent this this photographer from exercising
these rights may subject you to criminal and civil penalties
for harassment and coercion .

So, just for argument's sake, someone complains and asks law enforcement to intervene.

What would you do? How much will it cost to bring a lawsuit against whomever? How much time and money do you have to put towards your crusade to prove a point? What is the likelihood you will not win and a judge will rule that you should have exercised some common sense?

Photographers also have a right, no, obligation, to be sensitive, observant and empathetic.

If a woman is with her kid and she is in a custody battle, or if you shoot someone in WITSEC, just sayin'

Parks and public transportation are governed by rules that can curtail your "rights".

Ok looking forward, you spent $30k on attorney fees to defend your rights and the countersuit. What are you going to do with the pictures you took?

SMH. . .

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

rpavich wrote:

Another arbitrary "should".

Everyone is offended at everything; doing legal and lawful things trumps hurt feelings or mock outrage.

Take this example. Should I be allowed to play music late at night loud enough that people can hear, but not loud enough to break any laws?

Please learn that EVERYTHING is arbitrary. Humans make up all our own silly little rules and some are law, some are not. End of the day, we should all learn to get along with others, not expect others to not be annoyed by something many people would be. Be nice to people, have some respect. Your original post here shows neither.

ebcobol

On the other hand, you are not going to retain your rights by folding. Taking any photo of a child could be construed as porn.