Rights - in a Public Place

[mw_uio]

oday, Sunday 27th, I grabed one roll of Kodak Gold 24Exp. and decided to photograph the street I live on with my F3HP/24.2.8 combo. [light was overcast, and very few people]. I went four blocks south where the street starts from the American Embassy. [no I did not photograph the embassy]. I started with my back to it, and walked north every 50-60 meters or so to photograph the street. I was mainly pointing my camera to off centre, covering the arquitecture. About 8 blocks north, I was almost done, and I wanted to photograph a house that is a restaurant. I walked up to the house, on the sidewalk and the guard hears my foot steps, and sees me with my camera and tells me no, I can not photograph the house. I argued telling him I was on public property, and I have the right to photograph this restaurant. I walked away and tried for a photograph and the guard told me no. I argued a bit more then I walk off. I did not take a photo close up of the house. I have a photo about 50 metres away, before I got to the house. Anyways......

Tomorrow, I will go to the restaurant and speak with the owner and tell them what happened on Jan 27th. . This restaurant is not cheap by any means.

I hope that the rest of us stick up our rights when in a public place.

Now this week I am more curious than ever to findout about photography and the rights of photographers in Ecuador.

MArk
UIO
Ecuador

 

[Steve Bellayr]

Laws differ from country to country. Guards certainly do not know the law. That is why they are guards not police.

 

[bmattock]

Laws differ from country to country. Guards certainly do not know the law. That is why they are guards not police.

The police often do not know the law either.

http://www.outsidethebeltway.com/archives/2008/01/photographer_arrested_in_seattle_gets_8000/

 

[BillP]

Please, before this thread gets any longer, may I make an appeal for anyone posting to make clear the country they are writing from/about?

This is one of those subjects that attracts sweeping generalisations, followed by refutations. Let us accept as a given that the law varies worldwide, the standard of policing varies worldwide, and the general tolerance to street-photography (or the general level of public paranoia) can vary from town to town, let alone nation to nation.

That said, let me just state my view:

Wherever you live, or choose to photograph, make sure you know your rights. If your rights are infringed, then, politely and firmly, make a stand.

Regards,

Bill
(Writing from and about the UK)

 

[arbib]

I would say in most if not all countries....Restaurants ARE PRIVATELY OWED and NOT owned the State or Local Government....

That makes it "Private Property" not "Public Property"

The Street IS Public Property" the Sidewalk is most likely Public BUT part of the land that is private...That means the Home/business owner are required to maintain the upkeep on it.

I would say....The guard was right .......

BUT....there is a certain Public access granted too, because the public has access to the property via Public roads and sidewalks.....would this include a non-intrusive photo of the restaurant?? Don't know. Check Local ordinances

Always a hot topic for a street photographer !!

 

[Thud]

Even though I have the ability to carry a firearm. I rely on an old adage my Dad passed to me a long time ago. It states " The bigger and dumber they are the better it it to walk away then fight. But remember Revenage is Sweet."

 

[peterm1]

I year or two back I was wondering around Bondi Beach Sydney with my wife one evening and when I looked around there seated at a restaurant window seat was Nicole Kidman. She was in full view of the public and as I understand Australian privacy law (such as it is ) I could have pulled out my camera and photographed her. But I am not a paparazzo and did not wish to intrude.

I think I had the right to photograph her had I wanted to, but another factor to consider was that this restaurant attracts celebs (I had seen George Lucas the filmmaker there a few months before) and I could imagine the owner wanting to protect his high profile clientele's privacy so I was not inclined to push the matter - besides I figure its one thing to photograph a bunch of ordinary people in a restaurant because its a nice composition and entirely another to intrude on someones otherwise private moment simply because they are a celebrity.

In short I guess what I am saying is that there is an element of personal discretion involved no matter what the legal rights and wrongs.

Funny aside. My wife would not believe that I had seen Nicole Kidman and refused to even turn around to look (she had already walked past without noticing.) It was only when she saw her photo and a short article in the local paper the next day that she agreed to eat humble pie.

 

[wgerrard]

It's futile to argue with the guard, who has obviously been told to keep people from taking pictures. If you want to press the issue, you need to deal with the building's owner.

 

[delft]

A Restaurant with a guard?? What kind of neighbourhood is that??

 

[bmattock]

I would say in most if not all countries....Restaurants ARE PRIVATELY OWED and NOT owned the State or Local Government....

I cannot speak for 'most countries' and I am not a lawyer (and this is not legal advice).

But in general in the USA, if I am allowed to 'see' something with my eyes, I can photograph it.

That makes it "Private Property" not "Public Property"

Property rights extend to the property line. An owner can control what you do to his property while in or on it - but not that you looked at it (and by extension, not that you took a photo of it from outside his property and thus, his control).

The Street IS Public Property" the Sidewalk is most likely Public BUT part of the land that is private...That means the Home/business owner are required to maintain the upkeep on it.

I would say....The guard was right .......

In the USA, some property owners have attempted to assert copyright over photographic depictions of their property. In general, the courts have rejected this notion. However, I am informed that this is not always true in other countries.

BUT....there is a certain Public access granted too, because the public has access to the property via Public roads and sidewalks.....would this include a non-intrusive photo of the restaurant?? Don't know. Check Local ordinances

In the USA, for example, shopping malls are quasi-public, because they are open to the public even if they are private property. Malls habitually do prohibit photography inside the premises, and this has generally been held to be valid. However, they cannot control photography outside the mall, even if the photos are of the mall.

Always a hot topic for a street photographer !!

Many are the people who feel that permission should be obtained before taking any photograph in public, of anything or anyone. Others are more of the opinion that if I can see it with my eyes, I can take a photograph of it. If you do not wish it to be photographed, then do not display it.

The onus for the person wishing privacy is to keep what they wish to be private - private. The onus is not upon photographers to refrain from photographing things and people who do not wish to be recorded.

In the USA, one may object to a photographer sticking a lens in one's face and feeling justified in doing so; while at the same time, our surveillance society is recording that same scene from a hidden location, such as a traffic signal, bank ATM machine, or private security camera in a nearby store parking lot. Walk any major city and simply look up from time to time. You are being photographed - without your permission - and too bad if you do not like it.

A human photographer is simply someone who can be objected to in person - try complaining to a bank that their ATM took your photo as you walked by and you demand they stop it.

 

[mw_uio]

I live in Quito, Ecuador. Where I live is mixed commercial and residential, 4 blocks north of the American Embassy. Many businesses have contracted private guards. Mnay places have guards 24 hours a day, for examples apartments, universities, banks and other businesses. During the day, things are normally cool. It is at night or off peak times, on the weekends, and few people around, then there could be trouble. I do not believe that you can not stop someone who is on public property [street or sidewalk] from taking a photo. It will take me a few days time to find out more.

Mark
Quito, Ecuador

 

[bmattock]

I live in Quito, Ecuador. Where I live is mixed commercial and residential, 4 blocks north of the American Embassy. Many businesses have contracted private guards. Mnay places have guards 24 hours a day, for examples apartments, universities, banks and other businesses. During the day, things are normally cool. It is at night or off peak times, on the weekends, and few people around, then there could be trouble. I do not believe that you can not stop someone who is on public property [street or sidewalk] from taking a photo. It will take me a few days time to find out more.

Mark
Quito, Ecuador

I have worked in Manaus, Brazil. If you do not have a bodyguard, you do not live long. Day or night. One is warned against even walking to the end of the street from the hotel and back.

 

[bmattock]

Yes. In France a person has the right over his own image and that of his property.
One has the right to photograph a person or his property but no rights to publish it, (without written consent).

So in the OPs question, (in France) the guard can not stop you from taking the photo, but you can't expose or publish the image.

Pitxu.

In the US, it tends to be 'commercial use' that is banned without permission, and that only in a certain sense. A building has no rights, so you can do as you wish with the image. A person can control the commercial use of their own image, so you could not, for example, use a photo of a person without their permission to sell something. However, use in a photo book, for news purposes, or non-commercial display (like in a museum or an art gallery or even on Flickr) would be fine - no permission required.

There is also a general prohibition against using an identifiable photograph to hold a person up to ridicule or to tell lies about them (for example, showing a photo and captioning it a 'fat ugly person' or 'this is a prostitute' and that sort of thing).

People who are 'public persons' such as the famous or elected or public officials also cannot control the use of their image, even for commercial use, if it is taken while they are in public. So you can sell a photograph of a famous person or a politician without obtaining a model release or other permission or license agreement.

Many people, even in the US, do not believe this. As a result, the police sometimes arrest photographers for crimes that do not exist and people sometimes sue only to find out they do not have the rights they think they do.



This young lady thought I needed her permission to take her photo on a public street. She was mistaken.

Many adults think the same thing. This photo was taken at a parade - with television cameras recording the entire event, but when I pointed a camera at this family sitting on a curb, the mother jumped up and put her hand in front of her baby's face to prevent me taking the photo. She then followed me down the street, demanding that I delete the photo or she would call a cop. I have blanked out her husband and baby's faces out of courtesy - I do not have to do so.



Bottom line - in the USA, if you are visible to the public, you are liable to be photographed. If you do not wish to be photographed, stay inside.

 

[Sparrow]

I have to agree with Bill, use it or lose it.
The state, Britain that is, has no compunction in taking my picture 18 times on my drive to work; "personal space and privacy" is becoming an alien concept, in terms of the individual.

 

[BillP]

I have to agree with Bill, use it or lose it.
The state, Britain that is, has no compunction in taking my picture 18 times on my drive to work; "personal space and privacy" is becoming an alien concept, in terms of the individual.

...although, interestingly enough, a year or so ago when I was fighting an accusation of speeding, supported by video "evidence", I was at first denied permission to see the entire video because it showed other motorists in their cars - I was told that this was in contravention of the Data Protection Act, because the inside of your car is a "private place" under the terms of the Act. When I said I was happy to view the video under controlled conditions in the presence of the Police Data Protection Registrar, they suddenly found the latitude to dispatch an officer in a camera van to my home, there to sit on my drive and show me the video over and over again.

I was not prosecuted.

Regards,

Bill

 

[wgerrard]

I have to agree with Bill, use it or lose it.
The state, Britain that is, has no compunction in taking my picture 18 times on my drive to work; "personal space and privacy" is becoming an alien concept, in terms of the individual.

Isn't there a contradiction between asserting a photographer's right to take pictures of people in public against their will, while also asserting that pictures taken by the state represent an invasion of privacy?

(It's my impression that many of the surveillance cameras in the UK are operated by members of the private sector. E.g., the cameras in the car park, in the department stores and other shops, at ATM's, etc. That is certainly the case here in the U.S.)

 

[bmattock]

Isn't there a contradiction between asserting a photographer's right to take pictures of people in public against their will, while also asserting that pictures taken by the state represent an invasion of privacy?

If I may butt in, I find myself dismayed by the prevalence of recording surveillance devices trained on the general public - the lack of trust of our own citizenry is at an all-time high, it seems. I also believe it is quite legal for them to do so.

My problem is with the average citizen who either fails to note the multiplicity of cameras trained on them in an automatic fashion or who knows he is being watched by various forms of big brother and prefers it to being photographed by me or my kind.

(It's my impression that many of the surveillance cameras in the UK are operated by members of the private sector. E.g., the cameras in the car park, in the department stores and other shops, at ATM's, etc. That is certainly the case here in the U.S.)

Indeed. And unlike government recording devices where there is little accountability, with private recording devices, there is none whatsoever, presuming you don't look up in a restroom to find a red light and a lens peeping back.

My point is that if one presumes the devices which record our every public movment are both legal and perhaps necessary, then so to must be my minor depredations into the mind of John Q. Public as I hove into view with camera at the ready.

 

[wgerrard]

My point is that if one presumes the devices which record our every public movment are both legal and perhaps necessary, then so to must be my minor depredations into the mind of John Q. Public as I hove into view with camera at the ready.

While I can muster some abstract angst about the prevalence of surveillance cameras, I have to admit it's never provoked an emotional reaction. When I'm out and about in public, I'm seen by everyone else who's also out there. When I'm in a store, I'm seen by every clerk, manager and customer who chooses to look. A camera is just another eye.

 

[bmattock]

While I can muster some abstract angst about the prevalence of surveillance cameras, I have to admit it's never provoked an emotional reaction. When I'm out and about in public, I'm seen by everyone else who's also out there. When I'm in a store, I'm seen by every clerk, manager and customer who chooses to look. A camera is just another eye.

As with everything, much depends upon intent. When government watches me, I do not presume it is purely for my own good. But I am paranoid, aye.

 

[peterm1]

A Restaurant with a guard?? What kind of neighbourhood is that??

I mentioned in my post below about seeing celebs (Nicole Kidman and George Lucas) at a Sydney restaurant on spearate occasions. In the latter case there was a very obvious body guard standing right outside the entrance. I presume under contract to Mr L not to the restaurant as he was not there on other occasions. I had no desire to photograph him, but had I felt so inclined the presence of a big bloke armed with lots of muscles and a mean countenance may have made me think twice.

On the subject of officals, you Americans seem to have pretty humourless officials. Long before 9 - 11 (or 11-9 as the rest of the world calls it) and all that went with it I was travelling thru Guam, a US protectorate. A very dour customs lady asked me to demonstrate that my Nikonos under water camera was real by opening it up. I told her it had a film in it so she relented a little and told me to fire a shot. I smiled and brought the camera to my face and made as if to photograph her. (Thought it would be a good story to tell later.) Well, was it! I dont think I could have got a much more hostile reaction if I had aimed a gun at her. I very quickly had to put the camera down and apologies otherwise I gained the impression I was in for a term in the hoosgow. Hmmmm. Dont think I will try that again.