Your Thoughts?
Be sure and click on the link to read the complete editorial!!
The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography
I. Anyone in a public place can take pictures of anything they want. Public places include parks, sidewalks, malls, etc. Malls? Yeah. Even though it’s technically private property, being open to the public makes it public space. II. If you are on public property, you can take pictures of private property. If a building, for example, is visible from the sidewalk, it’s fair game. III. If you are on private property and are asked not to take pictures, you are obligated to honor that request. This includes posted signs. IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security. V. People can be photographed if they are in public (without their consent) unless they have secluded themselves and can expect a reasonable degree of privacy. Kids swimming in a fountain? Okay. Somebody entering their PIN at the ATM? Not okay. VI. The following can almost always be photographed from public places, despite popular opinion: VII. Although “security” is often given as the reason somebody doesn’t want you to take photos, it’s rarely valid. Taking a photo of a publicly visible subject does not constitute terrorism, nor does it infringe on a company’s trade secrets. VIII. If you are challenged, you do not have to explain why you are taking pictures, nor to you have to disclose your identity (except in some cases when questioned by a law enforcement officer.) IX. Private parties have very limited rights to detain you against your will, and can be subject to legal action if they harass you. X. If someone tries to confiscate your camera and/or film, you don’t have to give it to them. If they take it by force or threaten you, they can be liable for things like theft and coercion. Even law enforcement officers need a court order.
Send a message
Search for members
jolo (sophie.paris) says:
Injunctions are often filed against magazines in France before publication, forcing them to publish blank pages featuring a legal text instead of the contentious photograph. Liability is generally seen as being with the publication, not the photographer.
Trova says:
☠ Covert Camera ☠ pro says:
Nice post, and thanks!
--
Seen in dread_pirate_roberts home page (?)
Ger & Mat says:
Re photography:
My feeling would be that anything (objects of any sort) that is in the public domain (inclusive of museum, state galleries, palaces etc) are fair game! Though that is not the law...
I feel that the 'oops' photos of innocent people in a public space have to be private!
..... Thinking purely about the unfortunate person 'oops' happened to it seems reasonable to expect that privacy due to the fact that 'oops person' had no intention to have 'oops' happen to him/her (mostly her). Otherwise 'oops person' would have left the blouse at home. We don't know what state of mind 'oops person' is in when 'oops' happens and 'oops person' may have whatever complex issue regarding his/her (mostly her) body.
For that reason I dont like paparazi hunting down anyone for the shot of the day for next days newspaper or blog.
Ger
CAS says:
I think I will now go and harass that annoying guard.