goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

======

David

You have a right to feel uncomfortable but, there's a difference between your personal feelings and what the existing law is.

The subject which is being discussed, is a ever and ongoing situation that occurs all over the United States whether it be in Parks, malls, on the beach, or national parks,.

Even as a law enforcement officer, yes, under the right circumstances I too would have a problem with someone taking pictures of my kids given a specific set of circumstances but I know what the law is and in the open Arena, open environment of a public time and place, there is no such thing as right to privacy with regards to creating images...

As for me, I would just govern myself accordingly, knowing that I have no right or no legal position to be able to tell someone else that they have to stop. I would conduct myself in a manner which protects me.

Again, I will close my discussion with my disclaimer... . Everyone is entitled to their opinion, all opinions should be allowed and we all should be respectful towards each other. That's the way I see it. Thank you

Cheers
George Veazey

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

While the 1st Amendment is an important part of this county's heritage it unfortunately likely doesn't extend it's protection onto private property... Additionally local governments often have ordinances that control the use of their "Public" parks for commercial use.

This actually effects me here in Fairfax County Virginia... The Fairfax County Park Authority had a public hearing about a decade ago in which they asked for county resident input about implementing an ordinance to require a "Commercial Photographer's License" in order to shoot for hire within their Park's borders...

It was a very heated hearing... I was given five minutes to speak my concerns (same as the dozens of other commercial shooters in my market) Bottom Line? The fee was lowered from $200 per year to $20 per year and no reservation was required if the aggregate number in the group was less than a half dozen or so.

I still pony up the annual $20 to the Fairfax County Park Authority... Not a problem, and I appreciate that after a massive protest by local photographers at their public hearing they realized there may be other more appropriate ways to raise revenue.... lol

btw, although I carry my Fairfax County "Professional Photographers Permit" I have yet to this day had to show it. Oh well... Please stay safe and enjoy the beauty outside...

forensics7 you may want to broach your query in the Sports Photographer's Forum.
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-103-1.html
Lots and lots of these UHH members shoot school athletic events for hire or on spec.

krl48 Loc: NY, PA now SC

forensics7....leave your camera in your car and take as many pictures as you can shoot with your smart phone.

Few will notice, and even fewer will think twice about it.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Phone good, big camera bad........

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

============

Thomas...

In your post, you have written the following

... "While the 1st Amendment is an important part of this county's heritage it unfortunately likely doesn't extend its protection onto the private property..."

With regards to that, I would suggest that there is a distinction between the photographer standing on the private property itself, and the photographer standing on public property shooting in the direction of and taking a picture of the protected private property.

The cleanest example which I can give to you is if any photographer is standing on a public street or a public sidewalk adjacent to or near a government building or military base, that individual cannot be stopped, legally, from taking pictures from a roadway of a military base or private property. The philosophy is if it's in public view, there is no expectation of privacy. Therefore, there is no protection.

The same holds true if, any photographer is standing on public property, and takes a picture of a private individual who is standing on private property. And yes, that scenario is governed under First Amendment and it is supported by the Supreme Court.


As a retired member of 30-plus years of local law enforcement, I worked a narcotics unit and had a very close working relationship with our state attorney. I have a very good understanding of the rights to expectation on private property. The key is, in the end, if a person believes that or thinks that they are in a protected area where they cannot be seen. If they clearly can be seen, there is no restriction on public

For example, we had a situation where a lady was sunbathing, minus all of her in her backyard, and one of our sergeants look through the Crooked Slots of a fence, and as he stood with his eye up against the spot and was able to see the lady and photograph her. The State's Attorney's Office ruled the lady had an expectation of privacy and the sergeant's conduct was not allowed for court purpose

Another example is, when I was working narcotics, I asked our state attorney if we could use one of the parabolic microphones, similar to what is being used in sports today, to listen in to phone conversations of dopers who were talking payphones at convenience stores on the corner of the street. I was told no. That individual, although he was committing an illegal act, had a right to privacy because, because of the distance between us he had an expectation of privacy therefore we could not collect evidence in that fashion.

One more example I can give you is, during my assignment to narcotics, we were allowed to photograph, from second-story window, pictures and video of dope dealers who are doing dope deals on private property, when the buyer would in fact get out of their car walk on to the private property, and make a hand-to-hand deal at the front door or somebody's house. In that situation, we had permission to be where we were, at the position where we have the authority to stand, that is in a residence with permission next door, and we were photographing a dope dealer who was standing on private property, and he could be seen from the roadway. Those cases went to court, the videos were shown oh, and we would win the cases.

In closing, there are many elements to be considered. And I will say again, everyone is entitled to their opinion, we all should respect other individuals opportunity to voice their opinion and maybe everyone can learn.

Cheers
George Veazey

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

==============================================
Thomas...

To help, I would also share one more piece of information with you... See the below quote and URL

Although, this NOT the exact piece of info I actually wanted to find, it is close enough and will allow you to continue your search and investigation regarding the use of photography and protection under the 1st amendment of the U.S. Consitution... I will list it below...

I know this is a hard concept for some to 'connect' however, it is 'protected'

Read the following quote and click on the below URL:

.... "As a form of expression, photography is protected in the U.S. by the First Amendment to the Constitution. But photographers are often forced to defend their right to take pictures (and record video) in public places. That has been especially true since the 9/11 terrorist attacks and the passage of the Patriot Act. As we report elsewhere this month, police in many jurisdictions treat photography as a suspicious activity. And police have interfered with photographers not only for photographing buildings and infrastructure, but for recording police activity.....

The above can be found at: https://pdnonline.com/photography-business/legal/photography-and-the-first-amendment-legal-cases-photographers-should-know/

==========================

I hope the above helps.. and if I find a 'more direct' supporting document, I will be happy to share


Cheers
George Veazey

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

==============================================

Thomas...

Below is one more source for you which is published by the ACLU.

I hope this will help

Check the following URL: https://www.aclu.org/issues/free-speech/photographers-rights#:~:text=Taking%20photographs%20and%20video%20of,officials%20carrying%20out%20their%20duties.



Cheers
George Veazey
######

Thomas902 Loc: Washington DC

George not really interested... Just reflecting on my experience to the OP...
That said I try to be on point before I post...
Please review this inference...
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/about/faq/do-individuals-have-first-amendment-rights-on-others-private-property/

Seems that certain State Court Systems have acted to broaden the the freedoms granted by the 1st Amendment.
"...the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls."

I could care less... And I'm not licensed to practice law... I only hold a cosmetologist license to practice Makeup Artistry in the State of Maryland... Which btw, allows me to work in commercial beauty salons within Maryland and other states which have reciprocity...

While I appreciate your thoughtful suggestions I'm not going down that rabbit hole...
Way too much work on my plate to play faux lawyer...
Hopefully others here will take you up on your desire for a debate...

Wishing you all the best on your journey George

forensics7 Loc: Davidson, NC

Yep- good idea I plan to contact the local guys tomorrow.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

Trying to help and share personal experiences as facts, which furthers the conversation and broadens knowledge
... Your approach is your business... You offered yours first, so I thought I would offer mine

Also, I have looked at your URL, and it appears that it is agreeing with me... BUT, communions maybe lost here in the interpretation of 'our words'...

Apparently, that is a "rabbit hole" you do not wish to visit......... OK
..... I will surely honor your request.

Have a good day Thomas...


Cheers
George Veazey

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

============================================================

Dale...

Because of my background in Law Enforcement and my personal involvement in photography, I decided I wanted to further investigate the question of your post... I have been retired for 14 years, just wondering what is 'up to date and if anything had changed...'

I did find the below info and URL, and because you asked and because you also have been in Law Enforcement, you might be interested in some additional information that is at the "federal level"

Although this website is NOT government based, it does appear to have good information, and I am sure, with further research, it can be found and validated.... that is what I plan to do also because, I too photograph in the public, and I would like to know the answer... Just two months ago, I was in the same situation as you,,,, although I was NOT challenged, I was concerned that I would be. I was photographing my Grandson at a public soccer field... Same Situation

So......... the below URL is listed, and you go about 80% down the page the title of:
........... PHOTOGRAPHY AND PUBLIC SPACES

See the below URL:
https://www.freedomforuminstitute.org/first-amendment-center/topics/freedom-of-the-press/photography-first-amendment/

Look for the section which talks about... "One helpful case is Perry Education Ass’n. v. Perry Local Educators’ Ass’n.,(1983). This case refined what is known as the public forum doctrine and established a three-level hierarchy of public forums.....


What would be good, and I will continue to search is an actual "Fed Court Ruling" in print which can be display to authorities should one be questioned...

I am still looking

Cheers
George Veazey

forensics7 Loc: Davidson, NC

Yea- I know numerous parents take photos with cell phone at sidelines of the field however they don't have a zoom or provide capable photos someone would buy or enlarge for the most part. Part of what I do is fun and challenging and part is experience and maybe making a few bucks from those that want photos of their athlete. So I won't be using my cell phone.

forensics7 Loc: Davidson, NC

Thanks again George- i will check this out. Seems like the Supreme Court won't back someone taking photos for fun or their own use but if its communicative- back to the parents or for a business etc then the photographer is protected.

sb Loc: Florida's East Coast

But generally, as previously stated, the soccer league's "rules" do not pertain to public property unless they are leasing the property and the lease states that their rules apply. Several states, though, have passed laws against taking photographs of children who are not yours.... I would suggest that if photographing soccer players you frequently shout encouragement to one of the players to reduce suspicion....

Those of us who have participated in political campaigns have become very aware of similar laws and similar confusion regarding campaigning. When collecting signatures to put someone on a ballot I have been told that I could not collect signatures in front of the public library (wrong), in a public park during a July 4th festival (also wrong) and was even told that I couldn't have a table or collect signatures at the city's weekly Friday Festival. With that one I asked them to schedule a meeting for me with the city attorney and I would be there with someone from the local ACLU to discuss the illegality of what they were telling me. They called me back the next day and said: "of COURSE you can have a table".... Now when Walmart or Publix told me that I could not petition in their parking lot, I moved on....

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

This is rather simple. It may be a public park. In that case, there is no sense of privacy on public land. However, if an organization pays for the use of the public property, it becomes private property for the duration of the agreed times and dates. So, the crucial issue is to determine the agreement the organization has with the city for use of the park.

Additionally, if you are making money for photographing you'll need releases from all who appear in photographs. This applies whether it's public or private land.
--Bob