Know your rights as a photographer.

[DerekL]

I'm pretty much seeing nothing but red right now... Wired published an article today (http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2013/02/john-schabel-airplane-passengers-portraits/) claiming that you could be arrested for taking photographs of aircraft in flight today, which is a blatant falsehood. I hate it when the media lies. I really hate it when they blatantly lie, pander to fear, and trade on their readers not being aware of the truth seemingly for the purpose of getting hits.

The truth is, photography is a right protected by the Constitution and that right has been affirmed again and again in court.

Take a moment to read the links below and know your rights as a photographer;
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[Village Idiot]

I'm pretty much seeing nothing but red right now... Wired published an article today (http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2013/02/john-schabel-airplane-passengers-portraits/) claiming that you could be arrested for taking photographs of aircraft in flight today, which is a blatant falsehood. I hate it when the media lies. I really hate it when they blatantly lie, pander to fear, and trade on their readers not being aware of the truth seemingly for the purpose of getting hits.

The truth is, photography is a right protected by the Constitution and that right has been affirmed again and again in court.

Take a moment to read the links below and know your rights as a photographer;
http://www.aclu.org/free-speech/know-your-rights-photographers
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

But they didn't lie. You can be arrested for taking photos of airplanes in flight. It may not be a legal arrest but if a cop feels like arresting you for it, then it's up to you to go through the hassel of being taken in and possibly spending a night in jail and proving your innocence in court.

 

[DerekL]

But they didn't lie. You can be arrested for taking photos of airplanes in flight. It may not be a legal arrest but if a cop feels like arresting you for it, then it's up to you to go through the hassel of being taken in and possibly spending a night in jail and proving your innocence in court.

The ordinary understanding of the statement "you can be arrested for that" is that the activity in question is illegal (or at best highly questionable). To me, sensationally implying that an activity is illegal or even questionable in the headline without correcting it in the body of the text amounts to deliberate misrepresentation - or in simpler terms, lying.

It's such lies that allow our freedoms to be slowly eroded, and it's irresponsible journalism to support such erosion.

 

[jpakstis]

I'm pretty much seeing nothing but red right now... Wired published an article today (http://www.wired.com/rawfile/2013/02/john-schabel-airplane-passengers-portraits/) claiming that you could be arrested for taking photographs of aircraft in flight today, which is a blatant falsehood. I hate it when the media lies. I really hate it when they blatantly lie, pander to fear, and trade on their readers not being aware of the truth seemingly for the purpose of getting hits.

This is interesting to me, not as a photographer (unless I could get arrested for taking candids of our toddlers), but as a criminal attorney. Just remember that being stopped and questioned does not rise to the level of arrest, but is a "stop" (under Mapp v. Ohio) and a "threshold inquiry." In fact, being asked basic questions does not even rise to a stop. An arrest is defined a situation wherein a "reasonable person in the place of the individual would not feel free to leave."

What's particularly weird (and, along with the OP, in my opinion deceiving) is that the article, despite its alarmist title, does not even touch on a discussion of the legality of the photos themselves or whether the photographer was in a legally permissible position to take the photos. I was thinking that maybe now an individual without a boarding pass could not be at a gate or something. Its a completely alarmist title to an otherwise very interesting article.

 

[jpakstis]

But they didn't lie. You can be arrested for taking photos of airplanes in flight. It may not be a legal arrest but if a cop feels like arresting you for it, then it's up to you to go through the hassel of being taken in and possibly spending a night in jail and proving your innocence in court.

But this is false equivalency. This is like saying a cop can arrest you for breathing.

 

[73mountaineer]

But this is false equivalency. This is like saying a cop can arrest you for breathing.

True. There can be no situation of proving innocence in court without a charge based on a legal statute, and no criminal complaint based on "taking pictures of airplanes"; there would have to be a valid criminal offense listed.

 

[Edcculus]

Despite the alarmist title, the article had nothing to do with any legal disputes over where or how the photographer got the pictures...Thats my big problem with some of these pseudo news tech blogs/sites. The articles are usually fairly good, but they all have alarmist titles to encourage click counts. You click on the article thinking you are about to read something about a photographer getting arrested in the smackdown of the century.

I completely agree with the OP. Some of the title might have some hint of truth to it today. If you show up to an airport with a huge telephoto lens and a camera, you may get questioned, or even asked to leave. Arrested, no.

 

[DerekL]

I completely agree with the OP. Some of the title might have some hint of truth to it today. If you show up to an airport with a huge telephoto lens and a camera, you may get questioned, or even asked to leave. Arrested, no.

The key takeaway point from the other links is that if you're on public property - you can't even (legally) be asked to leave so long as you're not creating a disturbance, being a nuisance, etc...

 

[Edcculus]

The key takeaway point from the other links is that if you're on public property - you can't even (legally) be asked to leave so long as you're not creating a disturbance, being a nuisance, etc...

On an analog film forum I visit, I've seen many photographers say they've had problems in Canada while taking pictures of buildings/architecture. Especially the Gooderham Building (flatiron building) in Toronto. One guy was even told to delete the pictures from his RB67!

Apparently there is some law in Canada that allows for copyrights of buildings. This law is often misinterpreted by law enforcement and building management as photographs of certain buildings being illegal. While it would probably be illegal to make an exact replica of the Gooderham Building somewhere else, it is not illegal to photograph it, or make reproductions/prints of said photograph.

 

[Alacrity59]

On an analog film forum I visit, I've seen many photographers say they've had problems in Canada while taking pictures of buildings/architecture. Especially the Gooderham Building (flatiron building) in Toronto. One guy was even told to delete the pictures from his RB67!

Apparently there is some law in Canada that allows for copyrights of buildings. This law is often misinterpreted by law enforcement and building management as photographs of certain buildings being illegal. While it would probably be illegal to make an exact replica of the Gooderham Building somewhere else, it is not illegal to photograph it, or make reproductions/prints of said photograph.

I'd never heard this. I did research a few years back and was operating under the premise that in Canada anything a person can see is fair game with the exception of invasion of privacy . . . I.e., you may be able to see into someone's house but they have a right to privacy. I've got to do some more research on this. Seems un-Canadian!

 

[ksb63]

We used to go take pictures of the boats at night but after 9/11 and homeland security not supposed to without a permit. We were shooting and were informed that we needed permit and where to get it(at least he waited till we had about 30 pics).

 

[AllenG]

We used to go take pictures of the boats at night but after 9/11 and homeland security not supposed to without a permit. We were shooting and were informed that we needed permit and where to get it(at least he waited till we had about 30 pics).

Several places require permits to set up tripods, downtown Chicago for example. It's not a security thing, it is a pedestrian congestion and revenue thing.

 

[AllenG]

In the US, photographs taken in public places are fair game. One can take them, display, and sell. That's why paparazzi can make their living.
Model releases are recommended for any commercial photography. They are liability wavers and do not pertain to copyright.

 

[Village Idiot]

But this is false equivalency. This is like saying a cop can arrest you for breathing.

It has happened. Carlos Miller, the photographer who runs http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ was arrested for taking pictures of officers and has documented other violations of people's rights.

One specific one that comes to mind is that a mother of 3 was arrested for taking photos of a helicopter display that's accessible from public property. http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport

Cops aren't allowed to delete photos from cards, but there are cases where that's happened. That's destruction of evidence.

And why couldn't an officer arrest you for breathing? It would get thrown out, he'd probably get fired, and the jurisdiction he works in would probably get sued, but he could do it, couldn't he? I mean at least usually one of those things if not all of them happen when a cop falsely arrests a person for taking pictures. There's no law against taking photos of an officer on duty in most states and even when there is something that can even be remotely considered a law that doesn't allow that, it's just used by an officer to prevent others for taking photos of them. Like wire tapping laws where I believe in Iowa the DA that had to deal with a juridiction arresting people (more than one occasion) stated that the cops were abusing the law and to stop arresting people for photography. The head of the police in that jurisdiction said that he would have his officers keep on arresting citizens for photographing cops on duty anyways.

Even security guards that don't have to power to detain still try and act like a cop. There have been stories where security for companies have told people that they can't photograph something when they legally can or have tried to detain people for something they're legally entitled to do.

It's an abuse of power and most of the times when a person is arrested for photography it's because of someone on a power trip.

If you weed through Carlos Miller's blog to find the stories that aren't sensationalist, you'll see where this is something that frequently occurs in some parts. Look up the one about the metro station in DC where a reporter was told he couldn't have his crew filming even after it was made clear by the administration that people could film and take photos in that station.

 

[Village Idiot]

True. There can be no situation of proving innocence in court without a charge based on a legal statute, and no criminal complaint based on "taking pictures of airplanes"; there would have to be a valid criminal offense listed.

Believe it or not, cops don't know all the laws. They forget the laws. They interpret the laws differently than the original intent to suit what they need at the time. They're not perfect people and can make mistakes. It's when those mistakes go unchecked they become reinforced as proper procedure to a person. This is even more true when people are threatened with arrest and don't stand up for their rights. If you're stopped and told you could be arrested for taking a photo of something you're legally entitled to take a photo of an walk away without challenging the cop, then he thinks he's right. Even then, if you get a cop that things that there's some kind of homeland security issue and doesn't know any better, you could end up getting arrested for it.

 

[73mountaineer]

It has happened. Carlos Miller, the photographer who runs http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ was arrested for taking pictures of officers and has documented other violations of people's rights.


One specific one that comes to mind is that a mother of 3 was arrested for taking photos of a helicopter display that's accessible from public property. http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport


Cops aren't allowed to delete photos from cards, but there are cases where that's happened. That's destruction of evidence.


And why couldn't an officer arrest you for breathing? It would get thrown out, he'd probably get fired, and the jurisdiction he works in would probably get sued, but he could do it, couldn't he? I mean at least usually one of those things if not all of them happen when a cop falsely arrests a person for taking pictures. There's no law against taking photos of an officer on duty in most states and even when there is something that can even be remotely considered a law that doesn't allow that, it's just used by an officer to prevent others for taking photos of them. Like wire tapping laws where I believe in Iowa the DA that had to deal with a juridiction arresting people (more than one occasion) stated that the cops were abusing the law and to stop arresting people for photography. The head of the police in that jurisdiction said that he would have his officers keep on arresting citizens for photographing cops on duty anyways.


Even security guards that don't have to power to detain still try and act like a cop. There have been stories where security for companies have told people that they can't photograph something when they legally can or have tried to detain people for something they're legally entitled to do.


It's an abuse of power and most of the times when a person is arrested for photography it's because of someone on a power trip.


If you weed through Carlos Miller's blog to find the stories that aren't sensationalist, you'll see where this is something that frequently occurs in some parts. Look up the one about the metro station in DC where a reporter was told he couldn't have his crew filming even after it was made clear by the administration that people could film and take photos in that station.

Believe it or not, cops don't know all the laws. They forget the laws. They interpret the laws differently than the original intent to suit what they need at the time. They're not perfect people and can make mistakes. It's when those mistakes go unchecked they become reinforced as proper procedure to a person. This is even more true when people are threatened with arrest and don't stand up for their rights. If you're stopped and told you could be arrested for taking a photo of something you're legally entitled to take a photo of an walk away without challenging the cop, then he thinks he's right. Even then, if you get a cop that things that there's some kind of homeland security issue and doesn't know any better, you could end up getting arrested for it.

Here and above you are talking about illegal arrests and abuse of power, which is an entirely different subject, and truthfully not one that would survive long in this forum. I think we have established that photography in public areas where you are lawfully allowed to be is legal, and an arrest for that act is not a legal arrest. While a debate regarding the ethics and behavior of government officials, in this case, the police, is a valuable conversation to have, the place to have it is somewhere else, not B&B.

Thanks for keeping that in mind, should you choose to continue this discussion.

 

[jpakstis]

It has happened. Carlos Miller, the photographer who runs http://www.photographyisnotacrime.com/ was arrested for taking pictures of officers and has documented other violations of people's rights.

One specific one that comes to mind is that a mother of 3 was arrested for taking photos of a helicopter display that's accessible from public property. http://www.murthalawfirm.com/mother-3-arrested-pictures-tourist-attraction-airport

Cops aren't allowed to delete photos from cards, but there are cases where that's happened. That's destruction of evidence.

And why couldn't an officer arrest you for breathing? It would get thrown out, he'd probably get fired, and the jurisdiction he works in would probably get sued, but he could do it, couldn't he? I mean at least usually one of those things if not all of them happen when a cop falsely arrests a person for taking pictures. There's no law against taking photos of an officer on duty in most states and even when there is something that can even be remotely considered a law that doesn't allow that, it's just used by an officer to prevent others for taking photos of them. Like wire tapping laws where I believe in Iowa the DA that had to deal with a juridiction arresting people (more than one occasion) stated that the cops were abusing the law and to stop arresting people for photography. The head of the police in that jurisdiction said that he would have his officers keep on arresting citizens for photographing cops on duty anyways.

I'm not saying it can't happen, but it is so far beyond the realm of acceptable behavior to have no effect on future conduct. Just because one cop decides to go nuts for whatever reason that does not mean then from that moment on no one can do that thing. If the article said something to effect of "its OK to take photos of planes, but just be sure you are in a spot you are legally allowed to be and be sure to have proper identification and/or credentials on hand" that makes sense because its designed to help future photographers. But if the point is "cops are crazy and will arrest you for anything" its not instructive.

 

[Taylor of Bank Street]

Interesting stuff.
I should be prepping for something right now, but this is far more interesting.

A few micro-points:
-People are speaking from the perspective of at least a couple different jurisdictions. There's the potential for this to get a little confusing in a hurry. The U.K., Canada, Australia and the U.S. may all have their own distinct response to this issue.

-At least from a Canadian perspective, I don't really think of any right as absolute. This becomes especially clear when you have two sets of rights collide.
In a Canadian context the Charter starts to scope things off right off the bat via s.1:
“the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it subject only to such reasonable limits prescribed by laws as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society”.
I can't speak with much knowledge on the U.S., where I imagine the bulk of the BnBers are from, so just to mention this in passing.

-A google of: 'national security photographs public' pulls up some gems. The NYTimes article links to another blog which is worth a skim. It mentions the U.K.'s National Terrorism Act and how it seems to have at one point allowed broad stop and search provisions, but in 2010 had been changed.

I know of stories of people who've been told to put their cameras away in train stations etc. It's critical infrastructure and I think the world is still re-calibrating itself after 9/11.

Look forward to seeing what comes out of this thread when I return.

 

[Village Idiot]

I know of stories of people who've been told to put their cameras away in train stations etc. It's critical infrastructure and I think the world is still re-calibrating itself after 9/11.

Look forward to seeing what comes out of this thread when I return.

In the US, if it's publice property you can stand there and photograph it. With the Metro thing in DC, the company that's custodian of the facility was trying to tell people they couldn't photograph there even though it was a public facility. Delegate Eleanor Holmes Norton actually got involved and after a lengthy battle and some hearing it was mandated that the Metro people needed to clarify their photography policy to reflect this and that they needed to train their people. Even after that, there have still been incidents...

If you're standing on public property it's totally legal for the most part. There's only one or two Metro stops that photography isn't allowed and I know for a fact that one of them is the Pentagon Metro stop. That stop is on government property.