Photographers legal rights (Page 4): Understanding the reality of a situation and applying common sense may get you farther than bulldozing your way with legal facts.

PhotoFem

Understanding the reality of a situation and applying common sense may get you farther than bulldozing your way with legal facts.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

By the time you prove you are legal, you may spend some time in jail and cost you a lawyer. If you see a situation best walk away. I could pull out a press pass but I won't just walk away and you might even say sorry. It ain't wort the trouble.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

ebcobol wrote:

... Taking any photo of a child could be construed as porn.

Interesting concept... If that is true then the child's parent is equally complicit in producing child pornography.

Hence both the photographer and the parent need to be charged.

The only alternative is the obvious recognition that your original premise is patently false.

mikeroetex Loc: Lafayette, LA

rpavich wrote:

The UHH is the ONLY site where I could find this particular statement made. I searched and searched. Do you have some sort of official Miami-Dade County ordinance reference that I can look at?

I'm skeptical.

Amazing how often urban legend becomes fact. Here is an article from just a little over as year ago, stating that photographs in public may make a parent uncomfortable, but it isn't illegal.
https://www.palmbeachpost.com/lifestyles/parents-respond-should-illegal-take-pics-kids-public/qEvqKXkxNzaheJYTZFYHQM/

I doubt the law has changed for two reasons: 1) It would have gotten several Google hits, 2) no way they would have finished counting votes yet!

dcampbell52 Loc: Clearwater 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 .

While this is generally true... it isn't 100% true or accurate. Clearwater has a "public" park with a bandstand and large grassy area for viewing concerts. They have regular concerts with fairly big name acts (current and past rock groups, jazz bands, blues, etc. They fence and gate off the access to this area for the 3 day long concert events and sell tickets. During those times, event participants are restricted to the rights listed on the ticket (which may include size of camera and or lenses, or ability to photograph, record or otherwise make copies of the event. While this is "technically" on public property, admission is charged and participants can NOT bring in ice chests, food of beverages from outside. All must be purchased from the inside venders. Offenders may have their equipment confiscated and may face criminal charges. Public access granted by civic authorities does have it's limits and they have staffs of attorneys to make sure that these can not be circumvented.

ole sarg Loc: south florida

Your rights are only as deep as your pockets!

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Jaackil wrote:

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!

Wow. Just wow. Why are you attacking me? Ok. Number one I take photos of wildlife over people. Therefore, a group of people standing around holds no interest in a photography sense. A flock of pigeons in a group having a chat, that would be worth a photo. Two, I didn't view them in a sexual way, but scantily clad women in 8c is unusual enough to notice. Three, where did you get the idea that I'm suggesting I'm better than you, for not taking a photo of teenagers having a group chat? Please calm down dude. I'm not saying I'm a better person than you. It would be arbitrary if I did in any case.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Wow. Just wow. Why are you attacking me? Ok. Numbe... (show quote)

Re read what you wrote. You didn’t say it you implied it by saying what a good person would do. I am not attacking anyone. Seems to me you are the one who needs to calm down. I am not the one getting all bent out of shape here.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

There are legal rights and there is moral responsibility. Thanks to the previous answers that recognize moral responsibility. I believe we all have an obligation to try to be reasonable and not harass other people and that's what the particularly aggressive statement of legal rights suggests. Also, there are places you can't legally photograph although they are usually posted. Why is it important to take pictures of other people's children or wives/girlfriends or whatever may bother them? As stated, if you're doing it for commercial gain you need formal permission and if you're doing it for your own purposes why? Let them be and take pictures of all the other things and places.

BebuLamar

ole sarg wrote:

Your rights are only as deep as your pockets!

I hate that but I must accept that is true.

Larz

Jaackil wrote:

Re read what you wrote. You didn’t say it you implied it by saying what a good person would do. I am not attacking anyone. Seems to me you are the one who needs to calm down. I am not the one getting all bent out of shape here.

I agree with this assessment.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Picture Taker wrote:

By the time you prove you are legal, you may spend some time in jail and cost you a lawyer. If you see a situation best walk away. I could pull out a press pass but I won't just walk away and you might even say sorry. It ain't wort the trouble.

This is a great example of hyperbole. Give us one example of a photographer being arrested and or jailed for taking a picture legally in the US please.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

jaycoffman wrote:

There are legal rights and there is moral responsi... (show quote)

Let me play devils advocate here. What about a person taking personal responsibility? There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. This has been affirmed by the courts over and over in the US. What about if you don’t want your picture taken don’t go where you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I do not understand the “morality” of relinquishing legal rights to someone who does not have legal rights to take them away from you. That is a very dangerous thing.

nimbushopper Loc: Tampa, FL

Jaackil wrote:

Let me play devils advocate here. What about a person taking personal responsibility? There is no expectation of privacy in public spaces. This has been affirmed by the courts over and over in the US. What about if you don’t want your picture taken don’t go where you don’t have a reasonable expectation of privacy? I do not understand the “morality” of relinquishing legal rights to someone who does not have legal rights to take them away from you. That is a very dangerous thing.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

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.

What are you talking about!!???? "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" WHY would the police want to "confiscate" your memory card or camera????? Ridiculous. Do you have any knowledge of the huge man with a gun or the police taking the camera and the enclosed card or just the card? Why would they take a camera? Crazy statement, just crazy.