Photographers & Copyright & Terrorism

[bmattock]

Starting a new thread, since we seem to be heading this way...

OK, here are some of the basics as I understand them (in the USA) and as expressed by others in another thread:

1) You can generally take photos from public property or OF public property without restriction.

2) You can generally take photos of anyone who is in public without restriction, whether they like it or not (legally, not necessarily ethically). However, as has been mentioned, it is how those photos are later used that has restrictions. In the USA, you cannot use photographs of recognizable people (meaning you could recognize them if you knew them) commercially - that is, for profit. You cannot use them editorially if you they are recognizable and you hold them up to ridicule. Otherwise, do what you like. "Public figures" are often exempted - you CAN hold them up to ridicule, or lampoon them, etc. A photo of the President with his finger up his nose, for example, is fair game.

3) When used commercially, photographs of recognizable people even in a public setting require a signed model release, or you risk being sued for the profits. People 'own' their own likeness as it relates to commercial use.

I was in the Boston Museum of Fine Arts recently. I discovered that I could take photographs of some exhibits, not of others. I asked why, and got tangled and unintelligible responses from dunderheaded security guards - but it seemed to break down to 'who owned' the art in question. If the museum owned it, I could take photos. If not, then I could not. And they absolutely refused to post any 'no photos here' signs - there were instead security guards standing around waiting to make you feel like an idiot and scold you if you tried to take a photo in the 'wrong' place.

http://www.csmonitor.com/2005/0330/p15s01-usju.html

Several months ago, city security guards evicted a professional photographer from Millennium Park, saying he couldn't take pictures of the sculpture known as "The Bean" because its copyright belonged to the artist. When local journalist Ben Joravsky challenged the photographer's eviction, however, the city denied it was enforcing copyright and said it merely required commercial photographers to secure permits before working in the park.

I know that if you are a 'professional' photographer and you desire to take photographs in national parks, you must obtain a permit from the government. If you're a private citizen, no problem, photograph what you wish. Not sure what the difference is to the government.

I know that after 9-11, it is illegal to photograph some bridges and some buildings. Some of them are labeled as such - 2600 Magazine printed a photo on their cover of the Brooklyn Bridge and the sign that said it was illegal to take a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. But the law itself is secret - as a citizen, you can't be told about it. Yes, we obviously know about it - but the part of the law that defines what exact things we can and can't take photos of is (for the first time that I'm aware of) secret. You can break a law that you legally are not supposed to know exists. Huh?

Some interesting links:

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1206.html

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[furcafe]

I'm not familiar w/NY law, but it's my understanding that there are many statutes prohibiting photography of buildings & facilities that have been on the books since WWI & WWII & thus clearly pre-date 9/11 & the Patriot Act (which seems to be cited a lot in photography fora, but has no provisions re: photography by citizens that I'm aware of). They're just being cited & enforced more often since 9/11.

I know that after 9-11, it is illegal to photograph some bridges and some buildings. Some of them are labeled as such - 2600 Magazine printed a photo on their cover of the Brooklyn Bridge and the sign that said it was illegal to take a photo of the Brooklyn Bridge. But the law itself is secret - as a citizen, you can't be told about it. Yes, we obviously know about it - but the part of the law that defines what exact things we can and can't take photos of is (for the first time that I'm aware of) secret. You can break a law that you legally are not supposed to know exists. Huh?

Some interesting links:

http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm

http://www.counterpunch.org/nimmo1206.html

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[bmattock]

I'm not familiar w/NY law, but it's my understanding that there are many statutes prohibiting photography of buildings & facilities that have been on the books since WWI & WWII & thus clearly pre-date 9/11 & the Patriot Act (which seems to be cited a lot in photography fora, but has no provisions re: photography by citizens that I'm aware of). They're just being cited & enforced more often since 9/11.

I believe you are correct that there are laws regarding photography of bridges and buildings that have been on the books for a long time and are just now being dusted off and enforced.

There are also over-zealous cops and security guards who are overstepping their boundaries - these mostly get dealt with by dropping charges, apologizing, etc.

And there is no mention in the USA Patriot Act that specifies what one may take a photograph of. However, the government has acknowledged in court that there are many provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are secret. That is, you're not allowed to know what it says. There are now illegal things that one will not know one has done until one has done it. It is suspected that certain types of photography are included in this. Lovely.

And lest anyone think I'm picking on the USA - it is my understanding that in Great Britain, one must obtain a particular type of license to photograph certain birds - even on your own property. And for some number of years, it was illegal for the news to interview members of the IRA or Sinn Fein or report certain things that were well-reported outside the UK. Take a picture of Gerry Adams and publish it in a newspaper, go to jail. At least, that was my understanding at the time - it has been some decades.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[furcafe]

I'm not so sure about that, although my perspective may be skewed because I'm a lawyer in the belly of the beast so to speak. The Patriot Act is public law, Public Law 107-56 (you can look it up online @ http://thomas.loc.gov/bss/d107/d107laws.html). Now that's not to say that there may not be some executive agency directives or guidelines implementing the statutory provisions that aren't public, but that's not really the same thing as saying that provisions of the Patriot Act are secret (e.g., there are public laws criminalizing the release of military secrets to foreign countries, but the laws don't specify the actual military secrets, like location of missile silos, etc.).

Some Patriot Act (opinion) links:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2087984/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088106/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088161/

http://slate.msn.com/id/2088239/

http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism/PATRIOT/

And there is no mention in the USA Patriot Act that specifies what one may take a photograph of. However, the government has acknowledged in court that there are many provisions of the USA Patriot Act that are secret. That is, you're not allowed to know what it says. There are now illegal things that one will not know one has done until one has done it. It is suspected that certain types of photography are included in this. Lovely.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[dmr]

I'm not so sure about that, although my perspective may be skewed because I'm a lawyer in the belly of the beast so to speak. The Patriot Act is public law, Public Law 107-56 (you can look it up online

What I don't understand is why there is such a reluctance to post "no photographs" signs in areas where photographs are indeed prohibited or not wanted. I think a simple sign (or a circle-slash-camera icon) could prevent much confusion and embarrassment.

At many shows and concerts, yes, they do post such notices. I have seen a photo of a friend of mine standing outside the Area 51 border by the sign that says "no photos" as well as other things such as "deadly force may be used" and such.

However, in a museum, by a bridge, by a work of art in public, in a casino, they seem to insist on confrontation to do the job.

 

[bmattock]

The Patriot Act is public law, Public Law 107-56

Yes, it is. Now, tell me what a "National Security Letter" is. Well, you can't. Because it is illegal to talk about them, describe them, or say what they are for. The ACLU is suing over NSL's, but they are not allowed to identify their client, their client is not allowed to identify himself, and the case cannot be spoken of except in the most vague of terms outside of the court hearing it.

Secret courts. Secret laws. Secret arrests. Unfettered access to every private database and source of information on demand by federal government agencies, without a warrant, without oversight. Unlimited detention of US citizens in undisclosed locations, without charges, without access to the courts or legal representation.

A lawyer in Santa Fe, NM, wrote in an online chat room that President Bush was 'out of control' and was arrested for threatening the President. A man took a photograph of Vice-President Cheney's hotel building and was arrested and had his camera gear confiscated, complete with witnesses - later the police denied arresting him despite all the witnesses!

If that's not a secret law, I don't know what is. Get it? I don't know what is? Secret? Ah, I crack myself up.

Best Regards,

Bill Mattocks

 

[Socke]

A friend of mine is in Miami at the moment, he has been warned by the travel agency not to take pictures of bridges, official buildings, industry, harbours and such.

 

[furcafe]

Not exactly. The Slate article in the 4th link I gave you describes them in some detail, as well as the ACLU/EPIC litigation &, AFAIK, nobody has arrested the writers of the article or anyone else for writing about NSLs. NSLs existed prior to the Patriot Act under the authority of previous statutes. What section 505 of the Patriot Act did was make it a lot easier for the gov't to obtain them. I don't necessarily agree w/this change, but it's hardly a secret.

Now, tell me what a "National Security Letter" is. Well, you can't. Because it is illegal to talk about them, describe them, or say what they are for. The ACLU is suing over NSL's, but they are not allowed to identify their client, their client is not allowed to identify himself, and the case cannot be spoken of except in the most vague of terms outside of the court hearing it.

 

[furcafe]

My opinion is that the lack of signs can ascribed to sheer laziness (not wanting to bother putting up signs) &/or cheapness (not wanting to pay for signs). The only other reason why the authorities &/or property owners would want to avoid putting up signs is that the facility is currently anonymous & such signs would tell the world, including potential attackers: "Hey I've got something important here that I don't want anyone to photograph!" However, my general maxim, honed over many years of bureaucratic service, is never to ascribe to malevolence what can be explained by plain old stupidity, sloth, & incompetence (sort of an anti-conspiratorial Occam's Razor).

What I don't understand is why there is such a reluctance to post "no photographs" signs in areas where photographs are indeed prohibited or not wanted. I think a simple sign (or a circle-slash-camera icon) could prevent much confusion and embarrassment.

At many shows and concerts, yes, they do post such notices. I have seen a photo of a friend of mine standing outside the Area 51 border by the sign that says "no photos" as well as other things such as "deadly force may be used" and such.

However, in a museum, by a bridge, by a work of art in public, in a casino, they seem to insist on confrontation to do the job.

 

[Gabriel M.A.]

My opinion is that the lack of signs can ascribed to sheer laziness (not wanting to bother putting up signs) &/or cheapness (not wanting to pay for signs).

Interesting theory, makes absolute sense...but then again why do they pay for the extra security...or is that what they want us to believe? Hmmm...

The only other reason why the authorities &/or property owners would want to avoid putting up signs is that the facility is currently anonymous & such signs would tell the world, including potential attackers: "Hey I've got something important here that I don't want anyone to photograph!"

I don't understand some of that reasoning: that happens already with all the inconspicuous security cameras, the rude security guards that tell you not to take pictures...you can substitute the signs with the attitude: that attitude says more that they are so nervous about a guy with a camera that, really, anybody who is indeed a "bad guy" would actually fish for such targets posing as a photographer and see which buildings or locations stir the most trouble...and Bingo! Those are the ones to look at!

However, my general maxim, honed over many years of bureaucratic service, is never to ascribe to malevolence what can be explained by plain old stupidity, sloth, & incompetence (sort of an anti-conspiratorial Occam's Razor).

I'll drink to that.