Kmgw9v Loc: Miami, Florida

"In Miami-Dade county it is 'considered' illegal to photograph children without parent's consent".
What does that mean? Aside from other considerations, Is it legal or is it in violation of law?

Larz

Thanks Shellback, I was looking for this.

dennis2146 Loc: Eastern Idaho

While I do agree with your first sentence, the rest sounds like gibberish.

Elderly people who are in, “homes”, are not in their homes but rather in care facilities. People are getting paid to care for them and common federal, state and local laws and ordinances would apply as to any other workplace.

If you are renting an abode and signed a lease with a no smoking clause which you failed to obey, there would be no laws broken and no Criminal case. It would be a Civil case.

Sometimes laws can be absurd and that is what judges and attorneys help to decide. Remember though that in court cases 50% of attorneys are losers.

Dennis

ELNikkor

Back in '88 riding my Suzuki along the California coast road, I came across a beautiful scene at sunset. When I stopped to take a photo, I saw a sign saying that the scene was private and could not be photographed! I was offended that scenery (a tree by the ocean) could be restricted. Being a rebellious biker, I looked around, no one was there, so I took the photo, and am glad I did; to this day, it is one of my favorites.

tgshoe Loc: North Texas

I would imagine that someone stating an opinion on a forum, worldwide or not, would be stating it in relation to their location. Such as your are in the UK and when stating your experience/opinion would be in relation to the UK. Much in the way when i state my opinion, based on my understanding, it would be in relation to where I am. In This case the US specifically Texas. Your opinion of what is acceptable has little to do with what is legally allowed. Laws are written, at least in the US, and are easily verified. Opinions on the other hand are subjective and generally not easily explained nor verified. Sometimes even by those that hold them!

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

SMH I don’t know where people come up with this crap. If you want to practice law in a photography forum at least go to law school.

You bring up a couple of good points.
First. If approached by a law enforcement officer a photographer needs only to be armed with one simple phrase. “Do you have a warrant?” They will either know the law or call their supervisor who had better. You won’t need $$$ for a lawyer. A photographer has a constitutional right against illegal search and seizure in the US.
Just because someone is in a custody battle does not give them any special priveledges or rights in public it is up to them to take prudent care in public places same goes for people in Witness protection, who are advised to use caution in public to protect their identity. A photographer is under no legal obligation to help them protect their identity. The responsibility is on them.
Yes you are correct parks, and public transportation may curtail your rights so may malls stores schools etc which although they are public spaces they reserve some privacy rights. How ever they must serve notice to not photograph conspicuously, conspicuously means In a manner that is clear and obvious to the average person. So if you get on a bus and there is a sign clearly visible that says you can’t. You can’t. If the bus driver pulls the bus over and says you can’t you still can. If the bus driver pulls the bus over and hands you a written notice from the transit authority stating it is not allowed you may not take any further images however they can do nothing about the ones you took prior to being served notice.
Just for clarification I am talking about in the confines of the United States only. This applies to the whole US it does not differ by state or county.

tgshoe Loc: North Texas

Yea! What he said. LOL. Everyone has to learn to distinguish between what is written in law and what their personal opinions/feelings are.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

A couple of days ago I saw a group of female teenage dancers dressed rather scantily. They were clearly around 15. Now of course I did not take photos, especially as they were not dancing at the time. By law there is no reason why I couldn't, it was a public place and clearly would not have been for any commercial purpose. I had no wish to take a photo, but in spite of the law being on my side, would it have been decent to take a photo of these strangers?

I do get what you are saying. However, there is law, and then there's being a good person. They are not always the same.

Larz

The grammar and punctuation didn't remind me of someone who went to law school. I would recommend ignoring the non-lawyers and go back to the links to the attorney who has researched the issue.

BebuLamar

And if someone draw a gun on me! No I can't fight for my rights unless I am alive!

gvarner Loc: Central Oregon Coast

I just snap away. I once had a man question my activity at a park. I calmly told him it was my great grandson's birthday and I was getting his pics. He seemed satisfied with that. Case in point - I never consider the issue until or if it comes up.

CPR Loc: Nature Coast of Florida

Carrying a spare old memory chip in your shirt pocket is not a bad idea. If you see trouble coming take it out and hold it in your hand. If someone gets really upset just open the camera, take it out and break it in half. Apologize, not for taking the photo, but that the person is upset.

PhotoFem

Your question is interesting. If I was a woman, would I have the same challenges in photographing people in a scene?
Probably not.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

So what you are saying is you are a better person than me? You didn’t take the picture because you viewed them in a sexual way. I took the picture because I didn’t see them in a sexual way. But you are a better person than me? Classic!

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Carl, one has to be careful and research what may be considered public spaces. Due diligence pays off. Getting confrontational can make it difficult for other photographers in the long run.
--Bob