Anyone care to opine on this one? Another "prohibition" of photos ...

[dmr]

As some of you might know, they are building a new football stadium in Las Vegas for the soon-to-be Las Vegas Raiders. Of course both football and Vegas fans are interested in the construction.

A sign (below, not my photo) has been causing discussion and debate as to the legality of disobeying the orders on the sign to not photograph, and to not post on social media.

My impression (not shared with some others) is that if it's visible to the public from wherever it's legal to be, it's fair game to photograph.

Below is the sign in question, and a link to an article which has a tongue in cheek attitude about it is here:

https://vitalvegas.com/raiders-stadium-construction-is-well-under-way-in-vegas/

Any comments? 🙂

 

[bhop73]

I'd guess it's for employees/construction people working on the project, based on the last paragraph.

 

[Phil_F_NM]

It absolutely is legal to take photos of the site from the vantage point of the sidewalk. Good luck to the Raiders in taking on the 1st Amendment.
As was mentioned above, the notice is probably for employees working on the site.
Then again, in the current political climate, who knows what will happen if and when a photographer has to take a case to court and it is actually tried.

Phil Forrest

 

[Bob Michaels]

Well, to start off with there is the First Amendment to the US Constitution which has been litigated at length, which says this restrictions such as imposed by this sign are not in accordance with US citizens constitutional rights since December 15, 1791 SO LONG AS YOU ARE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Now when you are standing on their property, they can make their rules. Anyone can make a sign but ............. I would just ignore it so long as you are on public property. If someone of authority challenges you simply ask them to do so in a recordable format so you can address it formally with their office during business hours.

 

[Mackinaw]

Wonder if they're using public funds to build the stadium? If they are, good luck telling the public they can't take pictures of their stadium.

Jim B.

 

[Ko.Fe.]

"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". I guess they don't want to you to stick lens through the fence and document it. In this case you are taking pictures of private property. They have their case, you are snapping pictures of private property without permission.

But if it is taken with UWA lens as part of the street view, screw them.

 

[dmr]

One thing is true, however, in Las Vegas, they do (still) sometimes play the game by their own, unwritten, rules!

 

[Dogman]

Taking pictures of private property (or taking pictures of persons) that are openly visible from a public viewpoint is perfectly legal in the US. You don't need permission from anyone to do so. If you trespass on private property to take the picture, that's a different story.

 

[Tim Murphy]

The public is funding $ 750,000,000 of the costs

The public is funding $ 750,000,000 of the costs

Dear dmr,

The stadium is supposed to cost $ 1.5 billion.

Clark County, the municipality where the stadium is being built, has issued bonds to cover half of that so if you aren't on site you can most certainly take pictures as it is publicly funded.

I think the first poster was correct when they said the sign was to keep people on site from photographing the construction.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA 🙂

 

[charjohncarter]

I might be wrong but I seem to remember that Calabasa, CA somehow got around the public property problem 4-5 years ago. If I can find the reference I'll post.

https://www.theacorn.com/articles/calabasas-paparazzi-dont-click/

 

[nickthetasmaniac]

Any comments?

My take is that this seems like poorly communicated site rules, ie. 'as a condition of your entry to site, you are not permitted to take photos and share to social media etc. etc.' (which is pretty standard practice in Aus anyway), rather than site management trying to prevent people off-site from photographing/sharing photos of the site.

 

[Jamie Pillers]

So long as you're standing on public property (say outside the fence), you can take all the photos you want. At least that's the law in California and I assume the law in Nevada must be similar.

 

[sepiareverb]

While the first amendment still exists we can make pictures of the site from the public way. I suspect that this may be on the list of offensive rights that will be legislated to the new Supreme Court shortly.

 

[css9450]

I wonder if they're aware of the guy on Youtube who shows up every Sunday (when they're not working) and films a progress video with his drone? He stays outside the site across the street. Or possibly they're trying to scare him off.

 

[iamzip]

I believe it is intended for people visiting the site. It's not uncommon to see signs like this when visiting manufacturing sites, or government sites, etc. Another intention may perhaps be to keep people aware of their surroundings, as a working construction site can be a very dangerous place, and one shouldn't be staring at ones phone while walking around.