Your Rights as a Photographer in Public Places

[tonyjuliano]

Everyone should be aware of their rights when it comes to capturing images in public places.

Link...

 

[RollingBall]

Any link for rights in the UK?

 

[tonyjuliano]

Any link for rights in the UK?

Much more restrictive, unfortunately...

Here's a link.

 

[oftheherd]

Of note from the article is that they retain some rights of identification (long standing rule from the courts), and questioning to determine the use of the photos (no doubt more cases to come), and "lawful steps" to ascertain lawful purpose or terrorist connections (more cases to come). Also, that this applies only to federal court grounds.

 

[JMQ]

This is very helpful. Thank you Tonujuliano.

 

[samuelphoto]

I've seen this before; it is now 4+ years old. I wonder if the law has changed (for the worse)?

 

[tonyjuliano]

I've seen this before; it is now 4+ years old. I wonder if the law has changed (for the worse)?

Nope, not as far as I am a aware...

Good question, though. I just emailed the Author, lets see if i get a reply.

 

[samuelphoto]

I just got an e-mail back from the author. He stated that "The information is still current."

 

[brachal]

I am constantly amazed at how much paranoia a man with a camera seems to cause when everybody has a camera, more than adequate for nefarious purposes, in their phone. If the photographer were up to no good, he could do it easier and just as well with an iPhone.

 

[jsrockit]

I am constantly amazed at how much paranoia a man with a camera seems to cause when everybody has a camera, more than adequate for nefarious purposes, in their phone. If the photographer were up to no good, he could do it easier and just as well with an iPhone.

I agree. I always have a camera on me and some of mine don't have lens caps. I've had people accuse me of video taping them while the camera was simply dangling around my neck...I'm talking in the subway, in the grocery store, on the street, etc. When it happens, I ask them why they would think I would want footage of their boring ass. Most of my cameras don't even have movie modes...and when I take a photo, I'm generally not discreet about it.

 

[tonyjuliano]

I just got an e-mail back from the author. He stated that "The information is still current."

Same here, good news...

 

[Alowisney]

Thanks for posting this, it's very good information. I've printed out a copy for each of my camera bags.

I was told that I couldn't photograph in a grocery store last week. It's the first time I was ever told that I couldn't photograph somewhere. It's private property and they have the right to tell me I can't so i just said "OK, sorry, I didn't know." and put my camera away. I guarantee that I'd been using my iPhone instead of my Fed 2 not a word would've been said.

 

[charjohncarter]

Thanks Tony.

 

[JoeV]

While in principle these restrictions affect all photographers who attempt to capture images in public, in practice they probably affect very little those with cell phone-type cameras (especially if the person with the phone camera is practicing a bit of common-sense sneakiness), but rather those with bulky, overtly obvious camera gear will be the ones most affected.

So, rather than these laws being restrictions against all forms of photography, they're really restrictions against overt photography. In this context, the "practical" photographer will be the one to embrace the latest technology (like phone cameras), and will come home, his personal affects intact, with the shots, while those with traditional, (overtly) dedicated camera gear may be detained or lose their gear and/or images.

I remember people, in other threads, talking about the best camera being the one that you have with you, the implicit meaning being that it's better to come home with a lower quality image than no image at all. In this context, the best camera is the one that you can get away with using in a heightened security context.

~Joe