SouthShooter Loc: Southern USA

Thank you for the information. Well said.

RPaul3rd Loc: Arlington VA and Sarasota FL

Mr. Veazey, thank you for your service in law enforcement and for the lengthy explanation. PW/Sarasota Fl

Miamark Loc: Florida

This really is not a law enforcement issue unless you are photographing people on private property or making an audio recording where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy. Even a photograph of someone on private property is questionable the photographer is not trespassing. At most, we are talking about civil liability but it would not appear to be an issue under the circumstances described. Again, the poster may ask a local attorney.

Nigel7 Loc: Worcestershire. UK.

This is an interesting subject which effects all photographers. You mention that the guy who complained may be British. On that point I just want to clarify that the law in Britain is very much the same as is being explained by other Hoggers from the US.
You are entirely within your rights to photograph for personal, non commercial use, on public land. On private land the owner may set his/her own rules.
However, photographing children is a very contentious issue with many people so a reasonable discussion, explaining what you are doing and showing your photos to the complainant is a sensible reaction, rather than getting confrontational. In the UK there have been many articles on this subject in our press and I do keep a copy in my camera bag. There have even been cases of police officers requesting cameras to delete images. They have no such right without a court order so you can stand your ground. These issues were topical several years ago but, as far as I know, the problem is far rarer now as more people in authority have had the law explained to them.

saminpa2001

I will stop when they stop the photos from cell phones, a photo is a photo period!!!

bittermelon

I agree with this. Forget about the law this and the law that. Maybe the parent simply does a stranger taking photos of their kids. On our public parks, there are signs that say "Adults must be accompanied by children". There are lots of weirdos in this world.

amfoto1 Loc: San Jose, Calif. USA

It is not an issue of public or private land, in this case.

It's the age of the subjects you're photographing.

While in broad terms we're free to photograph on public property, the courts always make an exception when kids are involved. There are just too many unscrupulous people around, so kids get extra protection and the courts err on the side of caution.

You have to jump through some simple hoops for permission to shoot anything at schools, for example. I would imagine it's very much the same with a youth soccer league, whether it be playing on school grounds, on private property or in a public park. Get permission from the event organizer in writing. An email from them you printed out would probably be fine. Take that with you in case anyone questions what you're doing. I also would recommend never posting the images anywhere online without a parent or guardian signed minor modeling release.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do photograph some youth sports. Never without permission and I will not display the images online for the kids, parents and family to view, unless they sign a release for me.

It is much easier to head off issues in advance this way, than to have to deal with the confrontations and problems that can arise at the event.

There are other public properties where photography is restricted or can be problematic and a little effort getting permission in advance can go a long way avoiding issues. For example: airports, court houses, jails, mints, legislative offices and military bases are all public property. But someone showing up with camera and snapping away, even from the public right of way, might be considered suspicious and generate a confrontation. Simply talking with someone in advance might have avoided the problems.

ecommons

If this is a public park, you have full rights to shoot the event. The law says one should not expect privacy in a public setting.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

IMO: NO! At at local BLM protest, several "participants" told me that I "couldn't take photos of individuals without their permission" even though they were on a public street and park. I think "respect" is something that is earned by deed and not something everyone "deserved" merely by existing. "Decency" sure, but that is how you treat others, not something you "owe" them.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

State law cannot supersede the US Constitution. The Supreme Court has ruled very clearly on this issue: The right to take photographs in public places that does not invade a reasonable expectation of privacy (such as photographing through someone's window) is protected by the First Amendment. Although it is considered "polite" you do not need permission to photograph people who are on public lands. Local entities such as police and parents may not know this, and may object, but they do not have legal cause. For more detail consult:

https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-if-stopped-photographing-public

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

The local police are not the arbitrators of the 1st Amendment which protects your right to take photographs on public lands so long as there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (14th Amendment). The Supreme Court has ruled on this very clearly and NO local or state law enforcement agency can legally supersede Federal law regardless of how much they might want to. See
https://www.acludc.org/en/know-your-rights/know-your-rights-if-stopped-photographing-public

Miamark Loc: Florida

The Supreme Court case that you reference deals with warrantless searches of cell phones. In any event, you are correct, that a photographer may photograph people or events on public lands. The are privacy rights that may kick in depending upon the use of the photograph or video. These are not law enforcement issues unless you are on private property in which case there might be a trespass.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

And cameras. It prevents police from requiring you to show them or delete your photos.

Miamark Loc: Florida

The Supreme Court case that underlies the ACLU article that you cite, i.e., Riley v. California, does not deal with First Amendment or Fourteenth Amendment rights of privacy. It addresses the Fourth Amendment exclusionary rule that resulted in the suppression of cell phone data in a search of a cell phone, incident to an arrest of a suspect, without a search warrant. In an event, unrelated to that case, you may photograph police or other activities such as a soccer game (which is where this started) in a public area. If you are in a private area, you may be committing a trespass.

dat2ra Loc: Sacramento

Miamark:
The article I cited discusses the rights of photographers on public lands and the appropriate responses if questioned. It is not restricted to Riley v. California which was not a US Supreme Court case decision consistent with the 1st and 14th Amendments. Anyway, I'm more interested in photography than law so you can have this one as you wish.