Regarding the photography law

The copyright is 2003, so it's even more out of date than you say.

I don't know for certain, but when out on an apug.org shoot this past weekend one of the members commented that you can now "get into trouble" for shooting a government facility (and then we happily shot photos of a courthouse 🙂). Even if that's so, I doubt anything else has changed.
 
In the US each transportation system has it's own rules about photography. The subway's web site should state the policy. You can email the subway's public relations person as well.

If a private security person or law officer tells you to stop, you have to stop. They should not tell you to stop unless there is a real reason.

The US Homeland Security laws ambiguously prohibit photography of essential infrastructure. So photographing track details, tunnels and bridges may cause problems.

When a person uses public transportation, in the US, they have no expectation of privacy. So you can photograph them. How you use the photographs is a different issue altogether.
 
law around the world very similar :
Do not take pictures
1. subway
2. train
2. train station
3. railroad
4. airports
5 . all office buildings inside
6. military ,police, e.tc.
Anywhere you can be stopped and asked for ID and reason why you are here with camera
 
Last edited:
I believe the most they can charge you with is Trespassing...you do not have to delete any pictures or give up your film...If they ask you to stop and you do then there is nothing they can do...even if you're on Private Property...as long as you stop...if you continue to get hassled by anyone call the police right away...The First Amendment...Freedom of Speech is your friend...

I have copies of the same information that you found...quoting what is there will baffle them enough for you to get out of most situations...If they come back with The Patriot Act tell them that the Patriot Act does not over ride the First Amendment...

The Subway is a public area BUT may be on Private Property...you can be asked to leave...Shooting there is NOT ILLEGAL but may be frowned upon...
 
Last edited:
willie_901 said:
<snip> If a private security person or law officer tells you to stop, you have to stop. They should not tell you to stop unless there is a real reason. <snip>
Click to expand...

My experience in the US is the opposite of this. I frequently find those in positions of authority who tell people they cannot photograph based on what they think they heard somewhere and not actual laws. Now one must choose their battles wisely. You don't want be be told "I guess you were right after all. I hope you slept well in the cell last night but you can go now."

In the last few years, I have had to very politely but firmly take both a Amtrak head conductor and our local police chief to task about my rights to photograph. Both eventually acknowledged they were originally in error.
 
Bob Michaels said:
In the last few years, I have had to very politely but firmly take both a Amtrak head conductor and our local police chief to task about my rights to photograph. Both eventually acknowledged they were originally in error.
Click to expand...


And I Thank you for doing so...remember this bumper sticker..."Question Authority..."😱
 
Last edited:
PCStudio said:
law around the world very similar :
Do not take pictures
1. subway
2. train
2. train station
3. railroad
4. aitports
5 . all office buildings inside
6. military ,police, e.tc.
Anywhere you can be stopped and asked for ID and reason why you are here with camera
Click to expand...
Not in my part of the world...
Dirk
 
juno_lau said:
I found this and want to keep a copy with me all the time,

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

but is it update enough?
It was written in 2006...

and another question is,
is the subway a public area?
can I take picture of the other passengers and police officers in the subway?
Click to expand...

A person I know from the national Railroad Historical Society is fighting his arrest for taking pictures of subways in New York. I believe they have the ACLU lined up to assist. If I see the article in the railfan press, I'll post a link.
 
Let me stress how much your reaction must be situation and location specific. There is a time and place to make a point and a time to exercise good judgment. While I have stood up, there have been times when I realized I did not want to be released from jail the next day. I have asked small town law enforcement if I could just get in my car and leave town, never to return. "That's a good idea, Boy" (and I am 67 years old) I spend a lot of time photographing in Cuba. I am very cooperative with authorities there as I do not want Jimmy Carter to make a trip to visit me.
 
Juno...

I've been shooting a body of work on subway musicians for the last couple months. I think I even have some shots with police in them. I don't think you'll have issues unless you look mischievous or you are actually taking a photograph of an officer. I actually remember not long ago seeing a series of photographs the city put up of a photographer who wanted to catch the "day to day routine of the subway" (or something like that). So, lots of people are taking photos in the subway, I wouldn't be too concerned. On a side note, I've been kicked out of subways in Canada before where security threatened to confiscate my equipment. This was before 9/11.

Bob has very good advice to pick and choose your battles. I recently learned that the NYPD tend to have a lot of time on their hands when I got charged with a "failure to comply" for riding my bike on a path in Central Park that apparently bikes where not allowed on (even though the path was 50 feet wide and had bike taxis all over the place). So, given my experience with them, I would just say my bit in an assertive, but not aggressive way and then leave.
 
The most important thing to do if stopped is to remain calm. You do not know who you are dealing with. Tell the authority who and what you are doing and show them a copy of the laws. A friend of mine was hassled in a Walmart in the New York area for photographing guns in the sporting goods area.( Most stores and shopping mall forbid photography.) They took him to a lock up area! He (68 years old) he feigned an attack and they let him go. Another time while photographing a demonstration in NYC a cop smashed his Leica with a night stick. He walked away rather than take the cop to task and risk a few broken ribs.
I myself was once stopped by the KGB while i was photographing a March snowstorm. I showed him my passport after he flashed his KGB ID. He asked why I was photographing. I told him for personal and not professional. If I had said professional he would have asked where is my required permission. It pays to be humble and not to antagonize authorities, especially if you are a foreigner.
 
PCStudio said:
law around the world very similar :
Do not take pictures
1. subway
2. train
2. train station
3. railroad
4. aitports
5 . all office buildings inside
6. military ,police, e.tc.
Anywhere you can be stopped and asked for ID and reason why you are here with camera
Click to expand...

In most civilized countries you are not obliged to answer (nor are you restricted as suggested in the quote above), but as Bob and others suggest, it is often a good idea to be polite, as a matter of civility and practicality. I draw the line at ID unless legitimately demanded (almost never in a free country).

A soft answer turneth away wrath, but if you're dealing with a security goon with an exaggerated idea of his own importance, you may wish to invite him to call the police and make an even bigger fool of himself.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
PCStudio said:
law around the world very similar :
Do not take pictures
1. subway
2. train
2. train station
3. railroad
4. aitports
5 . all office buildings inside
6. military ,police, e.tc.
Anywhere you can be stopped and asked for ID and reason why you are here with camera
Click to expand...

In working in and around the bridges in San Francisco. I've been followed and watched by the local police. They never approach me, but watch from a close (30-100ft) distance. Even if just metering a scene, no cameras - they watch. I was doing work on the Port and had full credentials from HLS and the USCG. I was never asked for any ID. When on the water, the CG asked for a day's notice at best or several hours at worst, if I planned to work near any bridge footing. They wanted a full description of the craft and my approx. work time.

If i look like a tourist and carry a minimal of gear.. not working out of my car, I'm usually ignored. I had one SFPD cop watch me for a long time while I metered a scene and took notes for work in better weather. When working on Treasure Island, where the CG has a base. It was impossible for me to do anything without a rep from the Cost Guard present. Tourists were sneaking around at off hours, in full view of security cameras taking digital snapshots. I couldn't make a move even with the full security check and documentation i had.

I resorted to taking one photo on TI on Thanksgiving morning, when I knew the security staff would be friendly. They watched for a while, checking to see that i was doing exactly as was planned and left me alone, checking on me about every 15 minutes, until I was off the island. This is all post 911. Life was easier for photographers before 911.
 
Last edited:
Long time ago my friend was a member of Photo club . He had a picture ID as a Photo Club Photographer . That ID worked very well in risky 🙂 places
I believe that was a good idea .
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
In most civilized countries you are not obliged to answer (nor are you restricted as suggested in the quote above), but as Bob and others suggest, it is often a good idea to be polite, as a matter of civility and practicality. I draw the line at ID unless legitimately demanded (almost never in a free country).

Cheers,

R.
Click to expand...


I wish this stance on ID was practical, police here in the U.S. are not always going to adhere to this way of thinking. As long as they say they are engaging in some sort of investigation and want to include you in that investigation (an investigation could be as simple as asking why/what you are photographing) they can and will demand ID. Court decisions have upheld their "right" to hold people who can not produce ID. I would think long and hard before denying any LEO your ID in most situations, however repugnant one may find the apparent infringement of their rights.

That said, working with a lot of cops, people treat them like trash on a regular basis ( I know, I know, that's what they get paid for etc etc) For every instance of a police officer behaving piggishly towards a civilian, there are two of a civilian behaving as poorly towards an officer.

Swallowing one's pride and ceasing whatever behavior they found objectionable and then seeking legal recourse later can save a lot of grief and possible physical harm in the short term.
 
Last edited:
PCStudio said:
Long time ago my friend was a member of Phot club . He has a picture ID as a Photo Club Photographer . That ID worked very well in risky 🙂 places
I believe that was a good idea .
Click to expand...

With the Port of SF involved, I had a Home Land Security check and a US Coast Guard check. I was cleared and given a document with phone numbers on the Doc. for 24 Hr. verification by anyone questing my work. This was a project involving Port history and Port workers. And, it didn't involve anything sensitive. The only people who had questions about my cameras, were Union Reps. Who, after checking me out, were very helpful in giving me access to property of historic interest. Non of the people I encountered were stupid. They were all Pros. and very careful about what I was allowed to do.

In one extreme situation, I needed access to an older work area. The Ship Repair Contractor couldn't spare a workman to stay with me during my work time. They were worried about images that might show proprietary repair methods. I told them I would give them my film before leaving, and they could messenger it to the lab and have it returned to them. We would then meet and edit any questionable negatives out and destroy them in their presence. I try to be flexible ..

Much of the photo work was about trying to save blue-collar jobs on a port, that are being eaten up by the money interests in the city. The son of a very prominent political person was moving to develop the Port and end all of those jobs. This is an on going issue. There were people on the Port Commission who were against this, but couldn't be public about their feelings. So, they allowed me to document the current (at the time) working situation.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom