Has anyone ever tried to prevent you from taking photographs in a public place? I’ve read about other photographers who have been harassed while they were capturing images even though they had every right to do so. For the last thirty years, I could say that no one had ever interfered with my photographic endeavors. After last week, that is no longer the case.
I had been asked to photograph a corporate Christmas event in Charlotte, NC. That went off without a hitch. It was a fun, festive event, but I was tired and hungry by the end of the day. I wanted to go home, eat something an relax before I started post processing my RAW images.
As I walked across the courtyard to reach my truck, I just couldn’t resist hauling out the camera to shoot the Christmas lights. The place was wonderfully decorated, and even as tired as I felt, I noticed a number of interesting photo opportunities.
Assault on freedom — the first guard
After about ten minutes, however, a uniformed security woman appeared.
“Sir, you cannot take pictures in this area.”
I was rather surprised — the property owners had gone to great expense to decorate the area with thousands of lights, a 80 foot artificial tree and dozens of lighted topiary plants that looked like dancing bears. Yet they didn’t want to allow photographs of the scene? So much for the “joy of the season” thing.
I wasn’t completely sure that they actually had the right to prevent me from taking photos in a public courtyard where the public is invited to visit shops and a food establishments. Still, I was on their premises, so I meekly packed up my camera and left.
About a 150 feet away, however, I found myself standing on a sidewalk. A public sidewalk, paid in part by taxpayer dollars. Out came the camera again. It was not as convenient as shooting from inside the courtyard, but I was able to capture some nice holiday light images.
“Sir, you cannot take pictures in this area.”
Security guards: two — Freedom: Zero
A different security guard, standing within the courtyard, started yelling at me.
I ignored her.
“SIR YOU CANNOT TAKE PICTURES HERE!”
Sigh. I don’t know which bothered me more; the fact this woman was haranguing me or that a security guard working in the United States of America actually thought she had the right to prevent me from taking photos of a lighted building while standing on a public sidewalk.
I am not a lawyer, but I have been taught through the years that in the USA, a photographer has the right to photograph nearly anything while in a public place. The only exceptions are certain military and nuclear facilities. Otherwise, no one has the right to prevent you from photographing while in public.
The problem is that the security guards I ran into probably never read any of this material. They had obviously been instructed that photographs were not allowed, and were zealously attempting to carry out their duties, failing to realize that they had no right to prevent me from photographing anything I could see while standing on that sidewalk. In fact, strictly speaking, they were breaking the law.
There rather large gray area when it comes to a photographer’s legal rights. Most photo books I have read on the subject insist that (in the USA) a photographer has the right to photograph in any public place. Some even claim that if someone invites the general public into a place — such as a shopping mall — they can’t prevent a photographer from taking photos in that place.
Gray areas allow private guards to violate photographer’s rights
I’m not altogether sure about that. This is were the law gets rather gray — most concerts and theaters have restrictions against photography. I suppose you could make the argument that these events are not “public” since only those who buy a ticket or receive a pass from the owner can attend.
Still, the law is rather clear about photographs in true public places such as streets and sidewalks. Under federal law, no one has the right to prevent you from taking pictures in these areas.
States, counties and cities probably have the right to pass ordinances preventing street photography, but very few have done so. Unless there is a specific ordinance of this nature, no security guard has any legal right to keep you from using your camera while in a public area. But it appears that many guards and property owners are unaware of this fact.
The anti-photo law that made photography legal in New York
Ironically, the clearest rule about photography in public came about when the City of New York attempted to prevent photos from being taken in the NY Subway system. Citing security, the city was set to enforce a strict law that would have required a permit to photograph anywhere in the subway.
Fortunately, there was great hue and cry and the city quickly backed down. In doing so, they made it abundantly clear that all photography or cinematography was permissible in the subway, provided the camera user does not interfere with those using the subway. Thus, because NYC attempted to block photography, then reversed themselves and made it clear it is legal, everyone, including security and police officers now know that a photographer has the legal right to use his camera in the subway. There is no gray area any longer, the city has gone on record that it is legal.
Despite this victory, I am becoming quite concerned about photographer’s rights in the US. Unless photographers speak up and challenge those attempting to make photography a crime, it might become accepted fact that many places are off limits to cameras. The freedom to use your camera in public will be greatly curtailed — creating a great void in the photographic record of US life.
Thomas Hawk’s DIgital Connection blog has a series of lively posts on photographer’s legal rights (or lack of them).
An older post, archived on BoingBoing, describes a freelance photographer’s encounter with security guards in San Francis’s MUNI public transit back in 2005.
Bert P. Krages II, Attorney at Law has prepared a guide entitled Your Rights and Remedies When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
Has this happened to you?
Has this happened to you? Have you ever encountered a security guard, police officer, property owner or anyone else who attempted to prevent you from taking pictures when you had a perfect legal right to do so?
Technorati Tags
So what happened?? Maybe you could finish your story about being asked to stop.
And you probably want to ask a lawyer friend for some advice on the matter!
Very interesting to learn,
Pam Hoffman
http://seminarlist.blogspot.com
The upshot is I was about finished anyways. As I said, I was tired and hungry. I also had a boat load of work to finish later that evening. So I shot a couple more images of the frustrated security person and left.
But this isn’t over. I intend to return to the scene of the alleged crime and take more images. I also want to make fellow photographers aware of their rights. As I said, NYC attempted to require permits to shoot in the subway, then backed down when the public outcry became too loud. I think collectively, photographers need to speak up against unjust restrictions of this sort.
Rest assured, this isn’t the last posting I intend to write on this subject.
Thanks for your comment, best wishes for a Happy Christmas.
— Tom
This depends if you are physically on the property. The moment you step off the property boundaries you can take any pictures you want.
I am not sure about the public places rule, but I am fairly sure of this. So you could stand fifteen feet away from the property line and take as many photos as you want.
This is why you see all the real estate photrography. They can take a photo so long as they are not on the property.
Regarding security guards telling photographers not to take photos. I IGNORE them. Most security guards are from the lowest common denominators, educationally speaking. They don’t know the laws regarding photographing in a public place. I tell them to take a hike and learn the law, and to call a cop. I continue taking my photos. (I have a low tolerance for people who think they know things, but in reality don’t — I think it’s called ignorance.)
Photographers can photograph, even on private property where the public gathers: golf courses, malls, parks.
Photographers in California do NOT have bright line right to “photograph what they see in public”. In practice, objectors to photographers can cause huge legal troubles for photographers at very little risk, and they do so often. One must calculate how much of a fight one wants to endure for every exposure one captures.
No bright line California precedent cases exist to use to defend one’s photography against claims of invasion of privacy. Note Bert Krages’ book about photographers rights includes very few case law citations to back up his statements. In the past, the public did not generally believe they could object to photography. In fact, much of the public enjoyed being photographed. That has changed. With the advent of some many publicized cases of celebrities prosecuting commercial use of their likeness, everyone has become a celebrity and lawyer in their own mind and believe that they too have a right to protect their likeness even from non-trade use of the likeness!
In fact, the appellate Judges in the unpublished Smith v. Hance case, (COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, D047471) stated that since cameras did not exist when the constitution was written, the constitution obviously did not grant a right to photograph. Smith was photographing Hance while standing on a public street.
California’s Civil Code of Procedure 527.6 is a very low-risk way for a subject of photography to harass and restrain a photographer. This code allows a plaintiff to request a Civil Harassment Restraining Order. There is no statute of limitations for incidents claimed as harassing, no right of jury trial, and since it is a summary procedure, the judge can make up his mind in minutes if he so desires.
If the plaintiff connects with the Judge, the photographer can spend many tens of thousands on trial and appeal court decisions. Think a mother and child complaining that the photographer bothered them.
Below is a scenario under appeal in California:
===========================================
Photography is a weapon?
A photojournalist for whom “pictures are words”
necessary for optimum communication, overtly created images of the plaintiffs to document, record, and communicate the events of property trespass dispute, code violations, neighbor to neighbor dispute, the plaintiff’s intrusion at a gay civil rights rally, and other events of dispute between the parties which has continued for a period of 5 years.
The plaintiffs complain that the photography in and
of itself were acts of civil harassment. The Judge’s order of a civil harassment complaint against the photojournalist mandates him, the defendant, to act to deliver to the local Sheriff Department all copies of images which portray the prevailing plaintiffs of the action.
In effect, the civil harassment order mandates that
the photojournalist abandon his First Amendment Rights and provide evidence that could be used to incriminate him.
The plaintiffs demonstrated at trial that they,
while not being serious photojournalists, also used tactical photography in preparation of petitition of the government, however, plaintiff’s photography was very often covertly obtained.
The photojournalist is also enjoined from any future
photography of the plaintiffs whether or not they attempt to perpetrate additional property violations or misdemeanors.
The rationale for this mandate and injunction includes,
and we quote, “You [the photojournalist] use the camera as a weapon”.
The judge did not mean that the photojournalist swung
the camera and tripod so as to physically assault the plaintiff. What the judge did mean by adopting this statement from the testimony of the plaintiff apparently is that the camera threatens to disempower an individual on the order that a gun pointed at the subject disables the rightful freewill of the subject. The camera represents the potential to capture its subject in the raw form of the subject with no opportunity for the subject to manipulate, censor, or control the resultant image captured. (Mrs. Plaintiff’s court testimony was extreme – the camera was physically demonstrated as an extension of the penis.)
Brandishing a camera is the new crime in germination in
this case. Smith v Hance, the appeal decision of a similar California case found that since cameras did not exist when the Constitution was written, there is no constitutional right to use a camera. However, said decision was not published for precedent so the rules in Califonia remain unclear.
If the Judge’s existing orders against the
photojournalist are allowed to stand, the freedom of homeowners, and at large citizens, to use video cameras as legitimate tools preparatory to petition of the government to document and communicate grievances of a continuing or recurring nature will be further chilled and subject to increasing likelihood of needless suppression and prior restraint by the State of California. We believe such chilling is detrimintal to good public policy as it limits the public ability to capture and publish the full truths of our condition.
Each media of communication is particlarly efficient
and apt at communicating particular classes of thoughts and ideas. The produce of cameras – pictures – are uniquely powerful and viscerally direct in ability to communicate certain thoughts, ideas, and emotions of the human condition. State imposed limitation and control of pictures, and the photographer whether amatuer or paid press members, necessarily limits not only the range of human expression but the range of human existance and self awareness – the maximum truth and understanding can not be communicated when the media is of a limited palette. In order to justify such a limitation, the State must show an overriding public need.
In this case, the State has not only failed to meet
this standard, it has not even attempted to consider the need of the public to petition the government with the most powerful tools available, and, the value thereof. The Judge certainly failed to make findings of fact and failed to explain his reasoning in balancing these seemingly competing interests. He simply assumed that each individual has a right to censor images which portray them to the government.
For this reason we believe this case should be taken
to the appellante level so that the interest of the public to permit use of the best tools of communication for a particular topic versus the interests of the individual to manipulate and control their image can be properly weighed against each other and resolved.
Separate from the large public policy issue are simple errors of the trial court. Errors of logic, of misquoting the photojournalist, and most egregiously of simply fabricating facts to fit a simple model the court created to explain a choice few events of the over all 5 year period.
interesting stuff!
interesting stuff!
Doesn’t it occupy lots of time to keep your blog so exciting ?
You also need to understand the fee structure such as stamp duty that you need to take care of as per real estate law.
Hey, I’m having problems loading your site. Only as much as half on the page appears to load, and the remaining is just blank. I am not really sure why…. but you may want to take a look. I’ll check back later on, as that may very well be on my side.