Photographers legal rights (Page 5): Must society give up it's rights to enjoy public spaces that it pays for because others cannot excercise good judgement and respect?

Larz

Must society give up it's rights to enjoy public spaces that it pays for because others cannot excercise good judgement and respect?

Larz

Must society give up it's rights to enjoy public spaces that it pays for because others cannot excercise good judgement and respect?

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Larz wrote:

Must society give up it's rights to enjoy public spaces that it pays for because others cannot excercise good judgement and respect?

So you are saying that society should use good judgement and respect the rights of photographers to take pictures in public spaces?

Larz

I'm saying that both parties should use good judgement and respect. Good judgement includes understanding that a parent will go to great lengths to protect their young if they feel their young is threatened.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Larz wrote:

Must society give up it's rights to enjoy public spaces that it pays for because others cannot excercise good judgement and respect?

What about the right to be able to sit in a park and not be photographed? Sadly yes there has to be an element of giving up rights. You do have the right to not be bothered by unsociable behaviour. Most photographers I see are polite and unobtrusuve, but if one is being unsociable, they should listen when asked not to take photos of someone. They shouldn't start spraying them with laws and rights, which is what this thread seems to be saying is ok.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

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 .

You might want to keep in mind that the Internet is international... and that while your statements might be true (partially) in one country, they may not be true in others.

For example, some years ago I was taking photos in a park in Dubai, UAE. I was trying to photograph a statue near the center of the park when a horse-drawn carriage drove into my angle of view. Seeing me and my camera, all the women on the carriage screamed and the police were called. It's common in parks for Arab women to remove their veils, but it's strictly taboo to photograph them without permission. We packed up our picnic lunch and left before the police arrived, since I could have been jailed and my camera equipment confiscated.

I'd also challenge you to try your theory at a US mint, or a military base, or a nuclear facility, or an airport. Try taking photos at Area 51!

All "public property"... but all restrict photography (and even public access).

US national parks also restrict commercial photography. Permissions are required. It's not uncommon for state and local parks to restrict it, too. A city park here in San Jose is very popular for wedding photography, but a permit is required and a fee is charged for that.

Also schools are well within their rights restricting photography. Even public schools. That's been upheld in court. The protection of minors is given greater legal weight than your right to photograph.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Larz wrote:

I agree with this assessment.

Please clarify. I'm genuinely baffled.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

Larz wrote:

I'm saying that both parties should use good judgement and respect. Good judgement includes understanding that a parent will go to great lengths to protect their young if they feel their young is threatened.

If they were showing good judgement in not wanting their children photographed why would they take them to where there is no expectation of privacy? The same laws apply to everyone. Being a parent does not afford you a different set of rules in this case. If you don’t want your children subjected to certain perils it is up to You to avoid those perils. It is not up to everyone else to protect your children.

ToBoldlyGo Loc: London U.K.

Jaackil wrote:

If they were showing good judgement in not wanting their children photographed why would they take them to where there is no expectation of privacy? The same laws apply to everyone. Being a parent does not afford you a different set of rules in this case. If you don’t want your children subjected to certain perils it is up to You to avoid those perils. It is not up to everyone else to protect your children.

Are you implying that parents should keep their children indoors all the time, rather than ask someone not to take photos of them? You talk about rights. It goes both ways. They have every right to privacy.

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

Common sense and respect verses knowing what the "Legal Rites are" means sooner or latter you will paying a lawyer. What is that picture worth?

E.L.. Shapiro Loc: Ottawa, Ontario Canada

This subject appears on this forum regularly. This is a perfectly sane a logical question that deserves discussion but theses threads do, in fact, generally turn in to a "dumpster fire"! After all, most of us are not lawyers, paralegals or jurists so it is logical, if your photographic activities or profession finds you working in public places, private property, entertainment venues or places where children and present, and/or where there are rules and regulations relating to photography on private property it would be wise to do the research, check out local, municipal and county by-laws and/or consult with a lawyer if you have a major project or assignment in mind.

My lawyer has advised me that in most North America jurisdictions, just about any activity, object, building or person appearing in a public place is fair game as long as you don't infringe or encroach on private property. Photographs made for documentary or news-gathering purposes usually do not require model releases. Photographs of people or places for commercial or advertising purposes MAY require model or property releases. Unless there are bylaws prohibiting the photography of children in public places, there is no legal restriction. So...seemingly all of this is logical and sensible except for the fact that we live in a day and age where sensibility and logic may no prevail in many cases. There are serious problems!

So... what are the problems and issues? Sadly enough, many people equate simply photographing a child at play (etc.) is tantamount to child abuse, pronography, and worse and may view innocent photographers as pedaphiles. It make me wanna vomit- but this is a prevalent attitude. Shooting "bathing beauties" on the beach used to be an OK thing but nowadays... if you do that you are labeled a voyeur- a peeping tom or a pervert! Folks call the police and oftentimes officers and security personnelle will overstep their authority- innocent people get arrested, equipment is seized and what's worse, sometimes violence occurs.

Here's my simple solution. COMMON SENSE trumps legal technicalities and unnecessary entanglements. As a professional photographer, I can't afford any loss of reputation and I have better things to do that tangle with overzealous cops or security guards or spend time in police stations or courts. I have better ways of spend my money than on defense lawyers. Whenever I have a job that involves shooting in a public place or private property, I make certain to secure WRITTEN PERMISSION and that all security personnelle are duly advised of my permission and whatever access I need at the location. If I am just shooting for myself, I stay the heck out of playgrounds, beaches and schoolyards! I don't shoot on private property of any kind without first securing permission. I secure model and property releases whether they are required or not. If I am called to shoot a concert, sports evert or any kind of professional entertainment, I make sure I am fully accreted to the venue and the event and issued the official passes.

This might soud like paranoia or overkill. Thing is, I don't listen to every horror story online and tails of woe from every photographer who feels he or she has been unjustly victimized. Many shooters just do dumb things and they wonder why the get into trouble. Some folks think that a camera comes with a license to go anywhere they want and do anythg the want. I've seen folks crossing police and fire lines, jumping onto athletic fields, blocking othere people's view at concerts and worse. I have also seen perfectly innocent photograhers, acting within the law and behaving properly being unjustly and unnecessarily roughed up and mistreated and dragged through legal procedures and expenses only to be fully exonerated. I won't bother y'all with all the gory detail- some of it is unbelievable.

So good folks- if I need kids or adults for a commercial shoot- I call the modeling agency and do all the paperwork. I have been making children's portraits all of my life- parents bring them to my studio. All of my contracts and work order have built in modeling releases. I make sure I have permission to use my portraits and fashion shots as samples of my work or display or online.

An ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure!

PS. I shot news for 3 years and still get commercial assignments to cover political events, VIP arrivals, entertainment and sports events and school activities including kids etc. I find that asking permission and going out of my way to follow the rules oftentimes garners more cooperation and access from security folks and police officers. Actin like the Paparazzi usually turns people off! Arrive early, make contacts, ask for help and cooperation and usually you will get it.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

amfoto1 wrote:

You might want to keep in mind that the Internet i... (show quote)

Actually that is not true. Those places are not considered public space in the eyes of the law. The ones you sited are all considered government controlled space.

Actually the courts have affirmed in several cases the age of the subject does not matter. What matters is was there a reasonable expectation to privacy. Age of consent is not a factor. For example taking a picture of a person on a public street it does not matter if the person is 8 or 80. The same holds true in a public bathroom where there is a reasonable expectation of privacy the test is reasonable expectation of privacy not age.

Jaackil Loc: Massachusetts

ToBoldlyGo wrote:

Are you implying that parents should keep their children indoors all the time, rather than ask someone not to take photos of them? You talk about rights. It goes both ways. They have every right to privacy.

Not in public spaces in the eyes of the law.
No I am not implying that parents should keep their children indoors but they need to understand they do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy when out in public. What I am saying is everyone has the exact same rights in public areas in the US. Parents do not have any special protection under the law in public spaces.

jaycoffman Loc: San Diego

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.

I can't agree. Legal rights are created by society to apply to as many situations as possible and facilitate social interaction. They can not and do not cover all situations and are general by necessity. Humans who act in a moral manner and afford others the most courtesy they can also help facilitate social interaction even more. These people may voluntarily give up a legal right and forgo their own selfish impulse in order to make life a bit easier for someone else. Societ does not require them to do this and if the father of the little girl slugs you because you stick a camera in her face he's violated the law even if you haven't. Yet protecting our young and loved ones from real or imagined wrongs is a basic impulse of most people. So you can either be selfish or ultraistic--the choice is yours even though it seems most of our society chooses selfish (that still doesn't make it right or good).

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

"E.L. Shapiro" puts it properly.