I know this has come up before, but I wanted to add this for my U.S. friends, and those visiting from other countries. Summer is here, and we will be at parks, beaches, public swimming pools, outdoor events, sporting events, and all that fun stuff. I wanted to know what I am free to photograph, so I went right to the source: THE LAW. Below is a the site for The American Civil Liberties Union, and you can't get much definitve than that. It is clear and concise about where, who, what, etc. you are legally allowed to photograph. (I now carry a photocopy of it in my camera bag, although I can't really see a time when I'd ever need it.) You can also read the law about things such as: being harassed by the police, photographing in federal places, and airports, and being told to stop photographing, to name a few. It has helped me relax more when photographing out in public, at events, etc. I hope it is of some benefit to someone else. http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
I do have a question, and I'm wondering if anyone can answer it. There is a nuclear plant nearby, and I'm wondering how much hassle I'm likely to get into if I photograph it from the adjacent public beach. Am I asking for trouble? I want to try and capture people casually enjoying the sand and surf with a looming cooling tower behind them. Any ideas?
Hmmm..."Taking photographs of things that are plainly visible from public spaces is a constitutional right." Where in the constitution is that right presented? Or which constitutional right is the ACLU interpreting as permitting the "taking of photographs of things that are plainly visible..."? I can guarantee you anyone could find a lawyer who would happily argue that. I'm not trying to be confrontational, I'm just doubting that the ACLU's opinion is "THE LAW," as you state.
I guess the question is, is photographing something that might be controversial worth the risk? I think since 9/11 there has been more scrutiny (valid or not) of what people are seen photographing.
There was a case several years ago of a photographer charged with copyright or trademark violation for photographing and selling posters of his photo of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. I don't remember all the details of the case, and I think perhaps in the end the court ruled in the photographer's favor, but only after a long legal battle wherein the court originally ruled in the Rock Hall's favor. Can a building be trademarked? What's the definition of a trademark?
For me, I'm too old and tired to risk getting bogged down in a lawsuit for my hobby (photography). If someone ever asks me to put the camera away or delete photos of their car/dog/building/sister-in-law/banjo whatever, I will do so. There are so very many interesting things to photograph...I'll find something else. :)
Thanks so much for posting this. I am crossing the border into the US next Thursday. Sadly only an over night trip into the Niagara Falls and Buffalo area...exciting just the same. I will be searching for some good photo opportunities while I'm there :)
@sjoblues Thanks for commenting, and I agree wholeheartedly with you- anything that involves "the law" is always subject a lawyer's deft touch. The ACLU has taken it's information from federal statutes, not really just the Constitution. Also, other jurisdictions and states may have different statutes - yep, it can get sticky. As far as trademarks and intellectual property go, well, you could investigate the subject. But what fun is that?? I just like photographing, and like you, if I'm ever asked to delete something, I'll gladly do so. I want to have fun, not confrontations.:)) Take care, Les
@pschtyckque Awesome idea for a photo! I don't think you'd get into trouble, but that's my opinion. Here's the law:
To quote the ACLU, "When in public spaces where you are lawfully present, you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes federal buildings, transportation facilites...."
Also, if no photographs are not allowed, signs should be clearly posted.
Me, I'd go for it. HOWEVER, some states and jurisdictions may have special statutes that you might want to investigate. Hope that helps more than it confuses you! Les
@pschtyckque I'll look too; what state do live in?? Here's what I mean about state statutes: This guy in VT was threatened with treason for photographing a nuclear power plant - how scarey is that!! http://www.rense.com/general17/reportercouldface.htm
Take care, Les
@pschtyckque Hi Chris - Yeah, it freaked me out for sure. I'l keep at it.
By the way, a couple of weeks ago, I was deeeep in the woods enjoying some birding, and strayed oh-so-far off the barely visable paths. Stumbled onto the damndest thing I've EVER seen, and it wasn't a rare bird. In short, I had wandered onto what was the launch site for small, underground missiles that carried nuclear warheads!!! They're called NIKE sites. It is in a small town, and was only 15 minutes from where I grew up. OMG! Nukes in my backyard. Everything was dismanteled in 1963, and tunnels, bunkers, etc. were filled with cement (EXCEPT the one I found, and the bomb shelter.) Really was a chilling experience. Brrrr. Was actually trespassing; the land is currently owned by the electric company. Anyway, take care, Les
Look I am an attorney and will fight to the death for our constitutional rights. But in the end you got to ask yourself "is it worth it?" I've been in quiet a few situations with my camera taking pics where I've been wrongly hassled by security, and even though I know my rights, you got to weigh things out, understand the world we now live in, and ask yourself "is it worth it?" 99% of the time it is not and move on.
The section on photography and public spaces is worth reading, particularly the final paragraph.
@pschtyckque I would have no concerns with photographing San Onofre from the public beach. This is such a public and popular location that the security at the station will be very familiar with people photographing it.
@sjoblues Don't confuse the right to take a photo and the right to profit from that photo. Anyone may legally take a photograph of a building such as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from a public location. If you profit commercially from that photograph however, you may require a liability release from the owner of the building. These are two very different issues. Property and model releases are familiar territory for those involved in stock photography. You do not require releases for uses such as uploading the image to this website.
@michaelelliott I'm with you, Michael..........The world we live in now is very different from the one I was photographing in decades ago. Tensions, fears, and suspicions are heightened, and I understand that, and I don't want to add to them. I just move on too. Take care, Les
@abirkill Alexis, thanks for adding that tremendous link. It was VERY informative. It was also interesting to read about specific cases that are now cited as precidents. You also mentioned something I left out, (not wanting to complicate things) but it is an important point: Laws for taking and using photos are not the same. Thanks for your valuable contribution, Les
@abirkill Alexis, I've worked in publishing my entire life and edit a national trade magazine, I've worked with illustrators and photographers and stock agencies for decades...I do understand the difference between the right to take a photo and profit from it. The lines can blur, however, and again, there are always lawyers who are available and willing to argue for anyone who wants to make a challenge.
There is also the mindset of suspicion that has became ingrained in the global culture since 9/11. I realize there are people who consider it their life's mission to "challenge authority," and to that I can only shrug and say, "Choose your battles wisely." People are too quick to get riled up and pugnacious. As Leslie said, "Tensions, fears, and suspicions are heightened, and I understand that, and I don't want to add to them. I just move on."
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I do have a question, and I'm wondering if anyone can answer it. There is a nuclear plant nearby, and I'm wondering how much hassle I'm likely to get into if I photograph it from the adjacent public beach. Am I asking for trouble? I want to try and capture people casually enjoying the sand and surf with a looming cooling tower behind them. Any ideas?
I guess the question is, is photographing something that might be controversial worth the risk? I think since 9/11 there has been more scrutiny (valid or not) of what people are seen photographing.
There was a case several years ago of a photographer charged with copyright or trademark violation for photographing and selling posters of his photo of the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame in Cleveland. I don't remember all the details of the case, and I think perhaps in the end the court ruled in the photographer's favor, but only after a long legal battle wherein the court originally ruled in the Rock Hall's favor. Can a building be trademarked? What's the definition of a trademark?
For me, I'm too old and tired to risk getting bogged down in a lawsuit for my hobby (photography). If someone ever asks me to put the camera away or delete photos of their car/dog/building/sister-in-law/banjo whatever, I will do so. There are so very many interesting things to photograph...I'll find something else. :)
To quote the ACLU, "When in public spaces where you are lawfully present, you have the right to photograph anything that is in plain view. That includes federal buildings, transportation facilites...."
Also, if no photographs are not allowed, signs should be clearly posted.
Me, I'd go for it. HOWEVER, some states and jurisdictions may have special statutes that you might want to investigate. Hope that helps more than it confuses you! Les
Take care, Les
And that article is frightening!
By the way, a couple of weeks ago, I was deeeep in the woods enjoying some birding, and strayed oh-so-far off the barely visable paths. Stumbled onto the damndest thing I've EVER seen, and it wasn't a rare bird. In short, I had wandered onto what was the launch site for small, underground missiles that carried nuclear warheads!!! They're called NIKE sites. It is in a small town, and was only 15 minutes from where I grew up. OMG! Nukes in my backyard. Everything was dismanteled in 1963, and tunnels, bunkers, etc. were filled with cement (EXCEPT the one I found, and the bomb shelter.) Really was a chilling experience. Brrrr. Was actually trespassing; the land is currently owned by the electric company. Anyway, take care, Les
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment
The section on photography and public spaces is worth reading, particularly the final paragraph.
@pschtyckque I would have no concerns with photographing San Onofre from the public beach. This is such a public and popular location that the security at the station will be very familiar with people photographing it.
@sjoblues Don't confuse the right to take a photo and the right to profit from that photo. Anyone may legally take a photograph of a building such as the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame from a public location. If you profit commercially from that photograph however, you may require a liability release from the owner of the building. These are two very different issues. Property and model releases are familiar territory for those involved in stock photography. You do not require releases for uses such as uploading the image to this website.
@michaelelliott Good points. Something to keep in mind.
@abirkill Awesome. Thanks for the head's up. I work a few miles away, so I may have to make a lunchtime trip. :-)
"Fuck 'em and their law"
There is also the mindset of suspicion that has became ingrained in the global culture since 9/11. I realize there are people who consider it their life's mission to "challenge authority," and to that I can only shrug and say, "Choose your battles wisely." People are too quick to get riled up and pugnacious. As Leslie said, "Tensions, fears, and suspicions are heightened, and I understand that, and I don't want to add to them. I just move on."