Photography laws for taking pictures of buildings and monuments

Hello,

I wanted to know if there are any websites mentioning recent laws in

the US about taking pictures of buildings and monuments - I like to

take night time shots of sky-scrapers and that happens to be a

big 'no-no' these days.

Thanks.

In spite of suggestions to the contrary, I believe that it is legal to photograph anything seen from public property. "If you can see it, you can shoot it!"

In theory maybe, in practice it may depend on what you look like and what building you are photographing - and what city you are in.

 

There are various local statutes about the use of tripods for example, and at night you'll be using a tripod. NYC has (or had) some local statutes about photographing bridges. Whether they'd stand up in court doesn't really matter much if a cop tells you to move on. To use a tripod in Washington D.C. you need a permit. I think there's some sort of blanket permit requirement for photography in L.A., though it's a law that's not normally enforced of course.

 

It wouldn't hurt to carry proof of ID and some samples of your photography, since if it's a well known building and there are cops or security guards around there's a fair chance they'll ask you what you're doing.

I'm not aware of any restrictions in the Los Angeles area. New York City has some heightened awareness but I don't know of any undue restrictions. There are some problems in some places with restricting movement with a tripod. I wouldn't make an obvious effort to photograph entrances, barriers, or security provisions, but I don't think you'd have any trouble otherwise.

I think some clarification is needed, the City of Los Angeles is prone to regulate and charge for anything that they think might be a business. The typical tourist in a tourist area isn't going to have trouble. Apparently some folks have been bothered in Chinatown but again, if you don't set up and block foot traffic, it's unlikely to be an issue. Private property (on their property) may have different rules.

Thanks for the responses,

Bob and Craig, I have run into trouble trying to photograph the Dallas downtown night skyline.

I will be traveling to NY in the near future and dont want to miss a chance to photograph the downtown skyline at night - and therefore the question...

"Is it legal" is a different question from "Am I likely to run into trouble".

 

Overzealous security guards and (more rarely) cops can and will harass you for doing perfectly legal stuff. It's up to you whether you want to stand up for a principle.

 

For example, I was arrested for photographing a refinery from a public street on a trumped-up charge (the cops basically said so openly) and was released after they were satisfied that I am not on any "wanted" list. But then I am white and blue-eyed. I imagine if I were a middle-eastern looking male with a beard, I'd have had considerably more problems.

Are you an Arab? Seriously, I think this is what is meant by "Depends on what

you look like"

 

Sad but true, this is a sad day in America. Not only has the terrorists caused

us fear, put a massive hole in our already descending economy but

introduced racism and predjuduce against Muslim and Arab Americans in

people who would not be so if 9/11 did not happen. Bin Laudin(sp) and Co. I

think has done more damage to our freedom than we give him credit for :(.

Unfortunatly, I think in the long run it will be Arab Americans and Immigrants

who will suffer the most, next to the people who died and their families.

No, I'm not an Arab - but then I'm neither 'white' or 'blue-eyed' thats the irony of the situation....Thanks for all your valuable comments and responses..

It's always a good idea to post this link in these threads/questions:

<p>

<a href="http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm" style="text-decoration: underline">http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm</a>

<b>The Photographer's Right - A Downloadable Flyer<br>

Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography</b>

There were some posts sometime back on photographing bridges in NYC. But I seem to recall that the issue was with places where "no photography" signs were posted, and dealt more with details/ anchorage of bridges, not so much general scenic shots of bridges.

 

I'm curious what kind of probs you had in Dallas- I live in the area, haven't had any problems, but don't frequent downtown at night, either. There's not too many places down there where I'd want to hang out with my camera, for that matter.

<i>There are various local statutes about the use of tripods for example, and

at night you'll be using a tripod. NYC has (or had) some local statutes

about photographing bridges.</i>

 

<p>

I’ve not researched whether such ordinances actually exist, but unless

someone can site an applicable law, I’d be mighty suspicious. Of course,

I’d agree with Bob that it may not be worth arguing with a cop unless you

wish to make a crusade of your right to photograph the bridge, and risk possible arrest in so doing.

 

<p>

<i>To use a tripod in Washington D.C. you need a permit.</i>

 

<p>

This isn’t necessarily true. The NPS insist that they issue photography

permits rather than tripod permits, and do not require permits for

noncommercial photography, whether or not you use a tripod (although

they concede that not every field ranger may understand this). There are

several locations where tripods are prohibited altogether.

 

<p>

Since the

passage of Public Law 106-206 in May 2000, however, it’s questionable whether there

is any legal basis for requiring permits when the photography doesn’t

involve models or props. The traditional rationale for requiring permits,

36 CFR 7.96, always was marginal—would a reasonable person really consider

use of a tripod a “special event,” which includes

 

<blockquote>

“sports events, pageants,

celebrations, historical reenactments, regattas, entertainments,

exhibitions, parades, fairs, festivals and similar events ... which are

engaged in by one or more persons, the conduct of which has the effect,

intent or propensity to draw a crowd or onlookers.”?

</blockquote>

 

<p>

Even if this rationale were valid, a public law trumps the Code of Federal

Regulations in the event of a conflict.

 

<p>

It would appear that many in the NPS (as well as other federal agencies)

still aren’t aware of Pub. L 106-206. One approach (which NANPA seem to

suggest) is to carry a copy of Pub. L. 106-206, but the easiest way out of

a challenge in the NPS National Capital Region probably is to insist that

the photography isn’t commercial, and have the ranger (or Park Police)

contact the permit office.

 

<p>

The U.S. Capitol grounds are under the jurisdiction of the U.S. Capitol

Police, who seem to maintain that a permit is required to use a tripod

anywhere on the Capitol grounds. The rationale here is even more marginal

than in the NPS areas, treating use of a tripod as a demonstration

activity, under Section 158 of the Capitol Grounds Regulations,

 

<blockquote>

“... parading, picketing, leafleting, holding vigils, sit-ins, or other

expressive conduct or speechmaking that conveys a message supporting or

opposing a point of view and has the intent, effect or propensity to

attract a crowd or onlookers, but does not include merely wearing Tee

shirts, buttons, or other similar articles of apparel that convey a

message.”

</blockquote>

 

<p>

This law has taken quite a beating in recent years with respect to limiting

bona-fide demonstration activity (Bynum v. Capitol Police Board, Lederman

v. U.S.), and the Capitol Police may still be under court order barring

enforcement in such situations. Based on the opinions for those decisions,

I’d be amazed if the “authority” for tripod permits would survive a request

for summary dismissal in a district court. I’m not sure any of this would

deter the Capitol Police from insisting on a permit, however, and again,

you’d need to decide if your right to use a tripod is worth a possible

arrest and trip to court.

 

<p>

<i>I think there's some sort of blanket permit requirement for photography in

L.A., though it's a law that's not normally enforced of course.</i>

 

<p>

The L.A. Administrative Code requires a permit for commercial photography,

though few people in city government are aware of the applicable section.

I describe it more completely at <a

href="http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/">http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/</a>.

 

As far as requiring a permit for the D.C. area, I have never heard about it. I was there this spring with my tripod and Hasselblad and my wife had a tripod with our Canon camera and Pro lens. We used the tripods everywhere (in front of the White House, Lincoln Memorial, all around the Mall, in front of the Capital building) and were not approched by anyone who requested proof of a permit.

I spent the summer traveling throughout the US, including San Francisco, Los Angeles, and New York City, as well as a few National Parks. My experiences should help to relieve many of your concerns.

 

While I didn't use a tripod anywhere (I prefer a beanbag for its lighter weight), I had no problems at any point with taking photos. Furthermore, at several sights which people on this website said would be "problem" areas, I actually found that the staff were helpful and suggested a few places to get a better view!

 

If you should ever encounter any trouble, the most important rule is to be polite and honest. If an officer asks you about what you're doing, address him or her as "Officer," or "Sir," or "Ma'am" and tell them you're taking pictures, that you're a tourist, etc. If they ask you any questions, you are NOT obligated under US law to answer their questions honestly, but it usually helps clear things up.

 

If you have more specific questions, feel free to ask.

Thanks a lot for all the wonderful responses. They are all very helpful.

Stephen, I have been questioned by a local authority while taking photographs of the Dallas Downtown Skyline from a place slightly west of the Reunion Arena.

Naveen, you have an egytptian name. well they are right, it depends on how you look like. and chances are if you are a girl, they will not bother you either.