Photographer's rights

[MIkhail]

From reading posts today, it seems that a lot of photographing people, at least here in US, don’t realise the rights they have.
Here is what Attorney at law Bert P. Krages II explains:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm


Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary,
the following subjects can
almost always be photographed lawfully
from public places:
accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e.g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers


The General Rule
The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.
Examples of places that are traditionally
considered public are streets,
sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit
photography on their premises
but have no right to prohibit others
from photographing their property
from other locations. Whether you
need permission from property ownersowners
to take photographs while on their
premises depends on the circumstances.
In most places, you may reasonably
assume that taking photographs
is allowed and that you do not
need explicit permission. However,
this is a judgment call and you should
request permission when the circumstances
suggest that the owner is likely
to object. In any case, when a property
owner tells you not to take photographs
while on the premises, you are
legally obligated to honor the request.

 

[Avotius]

wait...didnt America pass a law not too long ago where we could not photograph police officers anymore?

 

[jsrockit]

wait...didnt America pass a law not too long ago where we could not photograph police officers anymore?

I think you are allowed to photograph them... I've done it in NYC.

 

[Chris101]

wait...didnt America pass a law not too long ago where we could not photograph police officers anymore?

No, cops are fair game. In Texas however they passed a law that you can't photograph butts any more.

 

[jsrockit]

No, cops are fair game. In Texas however they passed a law that you can't photograph butts any more.

Even with permission?

 

[roadmouse]

Very interesting article!
Thanks for sharing

 

[Chris101]

Even with permission?

Permission (consent, which is like permission, but more narrowly defined) seems to be the threshold, as is arousal and gratification of "any person":

Sec. 21.15. IMPROPER PHOTOGRAPHY OR VISUAL RECORDING

(a) In this section, "promote" has the meaning assigned by Section 43.21.
(b) A person commits an offense if the person:
(1) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is not a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person;
(2) photographs or by videotape or other electronic means records, broadcasts, or transmits a visual image of another at a location that is a bathroom or private dressing room:
(A) without the other person's consent; and
(B) with intent to:
(i) invade the privacy of the other person; or
(ii) arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person; or
(3) knowing the character and content of the photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission, promotes a photograph, recording, broadcast, or transmission described by Subdivision (1) or (2).
(c) An offense under this section is a state jail felony.
(d) If conduct that constitutes an offense under this section also constitutes an offense under any other law, the actor may be prosecuted under this section or the other law.
(e) For purposes of Subsection (b)(2), a sign or signs posted indicating that the person is being photographed or that a visual image of the person is being recorded, broadcast, or transmitted is not sufficient to establish the person's consent under that subdivision.

 

[Chris101]

Fred: interestingly I asked Krages specifically what were the key cases that delineated our basic rights to photograph. I wanted cites not just referring to the opinion of some attorney that wrote a book. I got nothing but words that this was a constitutional right that is generally accepted in the court system. Now I am convinced he is right in this general acceptance. But there appears to be no landmark decision like Brown v. Board of Education or Roe v. Wade.
...

There is, of course, the famous case of Nussenzweig v Dicorcia which was argued in the Supreme Court of the State of New York. While this case did not DECIDE the right of photographing people in public, it is generally accepted that the arguments presented in the case, in favor of the photographer, are so strong that no case has been brought where those arguments could be used.