Reliable overview of our rights?

rbiemer

Unabashed Amateur
Local time
7:03 AM
Joined
Sep 17, 2004
Messages
5,091
Location
Cortland, NY
In another thread, Memphis remarked:
... but this group of several thousand photographers seems to have a widely varying interpretation and thoughts on copyright -- shouldn't we as a profession have more understanding of the laws and regulations of our daily craft?
My own "expertise" in this can be summed up as effectively zero.
So, is there a current and reliable source for this info? Book or web; either works for me.
Different rules based on location? And so we'd need to get info relating to our own countries?
Where to start?
Rob
 
Where to Go!?!

Where to Go!?!

Since we all have access to a computer/internet all we need to do to start is look up "Copyright Laws" and then start reading...
This subject should be just as important to us (photographers) as knowing your "Rights" according to the law to photograph...
If I give a print to someone I may or may not know too well I will attach on the back a label with my name ...something like this

Image(s) Property of:
Sam Ybarra
(c)2007 (951)555-1212

I will also label any CD's with this...
It's a very easy thing to do and will allow whoever to contact you concerning this photo and shows that you know about copyright laws...
 
nikon_sam said:
Since we all have access to a computer/internet all we need to do to start is look up "Copyright Laws" and then start reading...
This subject should be just as important to us (photographers) as knowing your "Rights" according to the law to photograph...
If I give a print to someone I may or may not know too well I will attach on the back a label with my name ...something like this

Image(s) Property of:
Sam Ybarra
(c)2007 (951)555-1212

I will also label any CD's with this...
It's a very easy thing to do and will allow whoever to contact you concerning this photo and shows that you know about copyright laws...
Unless a 'researcher' is suddenly smitten with temporary blindness and amnesia...

Of course the law differs from country to country and (from what little I understand) US state to state. And even when there is international law, it is enforced, shall we say, differentially...

Cheers,

R. (LL.B., F.R.S.A.)
 
Last edited:
Sam,
Search engines are wonderful, but I got this for results when I looked:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 21,500,000 for Copyright Laws. " so I think I will try Bill's suggestions first. Thanks, Bill!
Rob
 
rbiemer said:
Sam,
Search engines are wonderful, but I got this for results when I looked:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 21,500,000 for Copyright Laws. " so I think I will try Bill's suggestions first. Thanks, Bill!
Rob

My pleasure. It is an excellent book, written by an attorney who is also a photographer. Very clear examples given, and I learned a lot, refer to it quite often.

Simple examples - some of the 'did you know' variety. One springs to mind - you can take photographs of a factory from a public place - even if the security guards and/or police say you cannot. However, stick your lens through a chain-link fence surrounding the place, and you're technically trespassing and can be arrested. Your whole body need not go onto their property - just the end of your lens is enough. So if you want to stand on your rights, be sure you know just exactly how far you can go.

Also, examples of copyright, how to assign rights (for a fee or given away) and things like model releases and when you need them, what they must say, that kind of thing.

Hate to sound like a shill for the guy, but I've never read a better book on the subject(s). Cheap too, considering what you get.

I never thought about it, but he even goes into why you should write up a contract or license agreement even if you choose to give your photos away to a company for free. Assigning rights means you still have rights. Giving away the works means you don't. So even if there is no money changing hands, get it in writing what you're 'giving away' when you tell someone they can use your photos.
 
memphis said:
let's also mention that walking around with the little pamphlet that floats around to inform rent a cops and such of "your rights as a photographer" --- most of the time, this will only agitate and carrying a camera gives you no special rights...

Well, as I am sure you can expect, I have to take issue with your statements.

It is true that one's attitude can have a great deal to do with the outcome of any dealings one might have with authority figures. People who have asserted their authority, real or imagined, do not often like to back down and admit they were wrong or that they did not have the power they believed they did. Rubbing their noses in it often has a detrimental effect, especially in the immediate term. Long term, generally your actual legal rights will prevail, I believe.

But no one wants to be arrested and be a test case everytime one's 'rights' get trampled upon by an overzealous private security guard or uninformed police officer.

So I agree that waving a photographer's equivalent of a 'Bust Card' around in a cop's face is generally not that smart.

However, knowing one's rights is very smart. Being informed about the law is an obligation of every citizen. And failure to resist, even by demurral, an obviously-illegal attempt to thwart a photographer's rights, in my opinion, simply encourages more of the same.

True that a photographer has no special rights. Just the rights every citizen has.

I personally feel that failure to defend one's rights - again, the rights of every citizen, not special rights due photographers, is to encourage future encroachment. It is a tacit admission that yes, the security guard or police officer has the right to tell me to delete my photographs, or turn over my camera, or subject my photographs to his or her approval. I am required to do no such thing - and I won't.

Unlike many, I am OK with being arrested if it comes to that. The last photographer I know of who was arrested by a police officer for taking photographs of a scene he was forbidden to photograph got a written apology and an $8,000 cash settlement, plus his legal expenses covered. Sure, arrest me - I can use the cash.

Kind of like when Jackson made the statement regarding indian relocation: He made his decision, now let him enforce it...

I can not force a police officer to obey the law - and if he chooses to confiscate my camera or arrest me, so be it. But I do not have to comply with his demands to delete my photographs or stop photographing if it is otherwise legal for me to do so, and I won't. If he arrests me, then my case is made. It won't be a case of he-said, she-said. It will be a matter of police record, and will look great for me in court.

there's always a pragmatic side to your supposed rights. Carrying a camera does not make you special.

My rights are not supposed. They either are or they are not. Rights that are not exercised are often trampled upon. People begin to believe that they really don't have the right to do this or do that, just because no one stands up for those rights anymore.

Most people have jobs and families and they just want to take their photos and go home - and if someone tells them to delete their photos they will - if they tell them to leave they will - and I understand that. I'm not most people. If it costs me, then so mote it be.

EDIT:

This young lady was present at a street exhibition known as a "Zombie Walk" where I was taking photos. She was in public, as was I. She told me that I needed a model release to take her photo. I don't. There was a police officer not ten feet away. He took no action. People have funny ideas about their right to privacy when they are in public.


 
Last edited:
rbiemer said:
Sam,
Search engines are wonderful, but I got this for results when I looked:
"Results 1 - 10 of about 21,500,000 for Copyright Laws. " so I think I will try Bill's suggestions first. Thanks, Bill!
Rob

Okay...I didn't say you had to read them all but at least you now have the information you were looking for...:bang:
 
Well stated...^^^

Well stated...^^^

bmattock,

Thanks for your reply...you saved me from a lot of typing...
Like you stated...I'm NOT looking for any special treatment just what's already been given to me and everyone else by law...
 
Hmm, Sam, my reply above comes off a bit abrupt/ungrateful as I re-read it. Sorry about that.
I did ask "book or web" and should've responded better.
Rob
nikon_sam said:
Okay...I didn't say you had to read them all but at least you now have the information you were looking for...:bang:
 
memphis said:
Difference between rights and priviliges:


http://www.nysun.com/article/71574

This guy does not have the right to a press pass, he gets the privilige of one, someone decided he had lost his privliges - not his rights

I don't think you'll find anyone who disagrees with you. A press credential is clearly a privilege and not a right.

However, you were going on about photographers who think they have more rights than everybody else - and you are right about that too - they don't. Photographers have the SAME rights as everyone else, though - including the right to take photographs of people who are in public.

And it is precisely this right which is being infringed upon increasingly. By security guards who don't know what they're talking about, and by police officers who are likewise ignorant of the law. It is often accepted by members of the public who would otherwise like to take a photo because the command to stop comes from a person in a position of authority.

But having a badge does not give one permission to create law or rules.

I agree with you that waving a copy of the Photographer's Rights printout under the nose of an angry cop is not likely to have a happy ending - but that likewise does not mean one has to back down or stop photographing when commanded to do so. If a person is certain of their rights - and wishes to pursue the matter - they can choose to proceed and risk arrest. If they are correct about their right to photograph, they should find themselves eventually coming out OK.

And as I said - when people roll over and play dead just because some idiot cop says so - people begin to lose their rights. The idiot cop assumes he was right, so the does the photographer - and all our rights go down the crapper, one by one.

In such ways a free people are turned into a subservient one.

You seem to have some problem with the idea of challenging authority. I'm sorry for that. If it bothers you, then don't do it.

It does not bother me.
 
memphis said:
Bill, I'm somewhere in the middle -- when shooting in public, I'll gladly tell anybody to sod off if needed, I'm just playing devil's advocate and helping to show some of the scenarios that people mistakenly interpret as their rights rather than priviliges

I beg your pardon, I misunderstood what your point was.

You are absolutely right that many people think they have a right when it is only a privilege - for example, driving a car on public roads.

I will say this about the fellow suing the NYPD however - if he is being treated differently than all other journalists/press photographers of his type, and the NYPD cannot give a legitimate reason why they are doing this, it could be an actionable suit. Not that they are required by law to give anyone a press pass - but that if they are going to give them out at all, the rules for doing so must be clear and concise and fairly objectively applied.

There is a fine line - and this guy's lawyer is probably pressing it - that 'the press' has a special role in US society. They are neither elected nor do they have legislative, executive, or judicial powers, but they stand as watchers, reporting to the people in ways that serve the interests of our society and of freedom. At least, that's the theory.

It is this basic premise that has allowed newspapers to say things which others might not be permitted to say without being sued, for example, and not be sued themselves.

No, when it comes down to it, a reporter or a photographer has no 'special' rights at all. But as a member of the group that makes up 'the press', there is a special allowance made, the courts recognize it in loose sort of way.

I realize it's all very amorphous, but it's always kind of been that way.
 
memphis said:
Bill -- for the record, I'm somewhere either slightly to the right of Mussollini or a libertarian --- depends on the issues --- but I am taking the stance of

I used to consider myself a "Libertarian" and now consider myself a "libertarian" as I differ from the LP on some significant issues.

1) carrying a camera does not make you media

That is a whole 'nother kettle of fish. It falls under the same category as "carrying a bible does not make you clergy."

If 'media' means anything in our society other than 'citizen', then it is something of a special category. If we say that carrying a camera does not make one 'media', then we have to ask what does make one media? And that's where it gets sticky.

Do you have to have a degree in journalism/photography?
Do you have to work for a newspaper? If so, how big?
Do you have to draw your living from your writing/phtography? In not, what percentage of it?

And so on. The courts have wrestled with the same problems when trying to decide who 'the clergy' is. We give churches tax-exempt status (not automatically, they have to apply for it, and some do not meet the IRS definitions as a bona fide church). But we stop short of saying who is and who is not clergy. Basically, the rule is - you're clergy if you say you are.

And if that were not the rule - who DOES say you are clergy?

Seems it would be kind of problematic if you had the government saying who is an who is not a member of the clergy - smacks of saying what is and is not a 'legitimate' religion.

As a card-carrying member of the Church of the SubGenius (and also practicing Catholic), I might have a problem with that.

2) I would not give much credit to a blogger as falling under freedom of the press

The courts, however, often have. The world is slowly becoming more accepting of the idea - and the role - of the 'citizen journalist' and where they fit into our societies and what value they provide.

At the moment, the whole concept of bloggers-as-media is in a state of flux.

3) Freedom of the press just means that you're not working for Pravda and the Man isn't going to shut you down for your opinions --- First amendment does not give you the right to stalk, to tresspass, or generally to make a nuisance of yourself, or to endager others

Agreed. It also means you can print what you like in the form of opinion, and nobody can do jack about it.

4) Paparazzi's like to hide behind the 1st amendment -- mistakenly so.

It may be a mistake, but not according to the courts so far. No judicial authority in the US has ruled that the paparazzi are different from any other form of press photographer as yet, that I am aware of.

That does not give them the right to break laws to get their photographs - but 'real' press photographers don't have that right either.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

I'm pretty familiar with the Bill of Rights, and I take pride in knowing what it means (my interpretation, anyway). I am probably one of the few people who has to bite their tongue when someone states that the Bill of Rights 'gives us our rights' when in fact it does no such thing - our rights pre-existed the USA, and the Bill of Rights is in fact a list of prohibitions on the US federal government - it says what they cannot do, not what I can do.

One could state that prohibiting me from taking photographs in public is a violation of my right to free speech - as publishing photographically has long been ruled a means of 'speaking'. One could argue that if I publish my photographs in editorial form online, I am as much a member of the media as any reporter on the NTY - what makes them special? Are we saying that you have to have a billion dollars in assets and a big ugly building or you're not really a reporter?

Just a few thoughts from a liberty-hound.
 
rbiemer said:
In another thread, Memphis remarked:
My own "expertise" in this can be summed up as effectively zero.
So, is there a current and reliable source for this info? Book or web; either works for me.
Different rules based on location? And so we'd need to get info relating to our own countries?
Where to start?
Rob

No such thing, since laws vary from state to state and from city to city.
 
Sure, the first amendment refers to free speech, but photography really isn't speech, so I'd say we're covered under the 9th and 10th amendments.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In some ways, I think most people miss just how powerful these last two of the original amendments are. Especially the Tenth Amedment.
 
FallisPhoto said:
No such thing, since laws vary from state to state and from city to city.

No local, state, or other laws in the USA can contravene one's constitutional rights. If they do so, they are generally found on examination by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. If someone challenges the law and SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, of course.
 
Al Patterson said:
Sure, the first amendment refers to free speech, but photography really isn't speech, so I'd say we're covered under the 9th and 10th amendments.

The US Supreme Court says otherwise. "Speech" can be defined in many other ways than verbally.

"The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people."

"The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."

In some ways, I think most people miss just how powerful these last two of the original amendments are. Especially the Tenth Amedment.

I think most people fail to understand what those two you quoted even mean.

The first means that we have *all* possible rights, except for those expressly denied. I've heard people say "Oh, you think you have the right to do X? Show me where it says that in the Constitution!" It does not have to. Unless otherwise forbidden by law - one has the right to do X - or Y - or Z. That which is not prohibited is permitted.

The second simply says that the States are sovereign, and that the People are the fount from whom all legitimate power ultimately flows.

Too many are the people who wait fearfully to be protected by a government that they believe has power over them - when in fact, the opposite is true. Politicians and meter readers are not called 'public servants' to be polite - it is literally what they are - they are literally servants of the public.

My 2 centavos.
 
bmattock said:
I think most people fail to understand what those two you quoted even mean.

You got that right! I personally don't think my TAKING a photograph is "speech". I don't think it's "speech' until a photograph is published or in a gallery somewhere, which is why I prefer to think the two amendments I quoted protect the act of the TAKING of the picture. But when confronted by the "overzealous public servant", I usually refer to the First Amendment, as I don't expect people to know what I'm talking about when I refer to the 9th or 10th, as you said.

Splitting hairs I admit, but I'm just stating an opinion from a non-lawyer point of view. A minor point really, we're more in agreement than not at least where this discussion is concerned.
 
bmattock said:
No local, state, or other laws in the USA can contravene one's constitutional rights. If they do so, they are generally found on examination by the US Supreme Court to be unconstitutional. If someone challenges the law and SCOTUS agrees to hear the case, of course.

Some places it is legal to photograph nude models in public and some places it isn't. In Virginia, it takes a minimum payment of $10 to have a legally enforcable contract -- a model release is a contract. Last time I was in Washington DC I got stopped half a dozen times and was told no photography. Had to feed my cameras and film cannisters through several x-ray machines there. Laws that have a direct bearing on photography do vary from place to place.

Do a google search for "photographer arrested" sometime.
 
FallisPhoto said:
Some places it is legal to photograph nude models in public and some places it isn't. In Virginia, it takes a minimum payment of $10 to have a legally enforcable contract -- a model release is a contract.

What is legal is not synonymous with one's constitutional rights. For example, I have the right to free speech. That does not mean that my words cannot be censored - for example, here. The prohibition on the suppression of free speech applies to the federal government, and by extension, the state governments. It does not apply to the owner of private property, such as RFF's owners.

Last time I was in Washington DC I got stopped half a dozen times and was told no photography. Had to feed my cameras and film cannisters through several x-ray machines there. Laws that have a direct bearing on photography do vary from place to place.

I doubt you had to feed your cameras or film through x-ray machines on a public sidewalk. One's constitutional right to take a photograph does not extend to insides government facilities or private property. I am forbidden to take a camera on the premises where I work. It's their property, they can do as they please. However, they cannot stop me from taking a photo of their property from a public place.

There have certainly been many attempts made to stop photographers from taking photos of certain government buildings from public places, and it remains unanswered in the courts whether this is legal or not.

Many photographers have been hassled, detained, and some arrested for taking photographs in 'forbidden' but public places, such as of bridges, in subways, and so on. So far - to the best of my knowledge - none of these has stood up in court. Each time, the photographer has been released without charge, their equipment returned. In some cases, they claim to have been roughed up by the police, their equipment damaged, images erased, and so on. I am not suggesting that one simply asserts one's rights and then does what one pleases - it's a rough old world out there. But at the moment, the law remains on the side of the photographer.

Do a google search for "photographer arrested" sometime.

You must think I am amazingly uninformed. I actually have a Google News search set to 'photographer arrested' that sends me email whenever it finds an occurrence.

IF you bothered to read the book I cited earlier, you'd have a really good idea of what is legal and what is not as regards photography.
 
Back
Top Bottom