Street Photography and the Patriot Act

Hello, everyone.

 

While shooting images for a personal project recently, it came to my attention

in the form of supervision by law enforcement officers that the

so-called "Patriot Act" may hinder my ability to get the images I need.

Specifically, I was shooting a row of aircraft hangars from a spot just a few

feet from the road; typically 8 feet from the curb is regarded "public" area,

and I have always regarded photography from within this zone, regardless of

subject matter, as "safe". After talking with a few colleagues on the issue, I

have found that in many cases law enforcement officers themselves are ill-

informed about the specific rights photographers have, particularly when a

government (or otherwise sensitive) facility falls within the visibility of a

camera. Unfortunately, I have found very little information detailing what can

and can't be photographed, and would really like to have something in print

form clearly outlining these boundaries, carried in my camera bag as a sort

of "Get Out of Jail Free" card. Does anyone have experience with this sort of

thing? Any advice, web links, et cetera, would be appreciated.

 

- Darin Heinz, Melbourne, Florida USA

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Just so long as those hangers are not area 51...........

 

Wonder what this guy thinks about the "Act"

 

http://www.urbanphotos.com/?cr=1&rfm=y

Just for fun, read the Patriot Act. It will put you up on a significant portion of the public, including cops and photographers. And maybe still some members of Congress.

 

BTW, you'll probably find that in Bert Krages information, you won't find any mention of an 8 ft. from the curb criteria for determining property lines. Over time, I've come to the conclusion that the concept that photographers are more knowledgeable than law enforcement officers when it comes to the law is a conceit not necessarily well founded in fact.

<I>I have found that in many cases law enforcement officers themselves are ill- informed

about the specific rights photographers have, particularly when a government (or

otherwise sensitive) facility falls within the visibility of a camera. Unfortunately, I have

found very little information detailing what can and can't be photographed, </I><P>

 

Curious about that. If you have found little information, how do you know that the police

are ill-informed.<P>

 

You may be surprised to learn that the patriot act does not deal with restrictions relating

to photography.<P>

 

<I>Does anyone have experience with this sort of thing? Any advice, web links, et cetera,

would be appreciated.</I><P>

 

Yes, I have a lot of experience - have never been hassled. If you're going to do street

photography, just do it, like many here have. Employing common sense is key.

I think Craig was saying that the police are *better* informed than photographers in many cases...

You better watch out what you photograph in Taiwan ... I was prohibited by a women at a public nightmarket on the street, of taking pictures of raw dead meat on scewer ... :)

Security and police have cited the patriot act more than once when acting to restrict where I

photographed. But then again, once, when stopped for a moving violation with no camera

but only the steering wheel in my hands, the first thing coming out of the officer's mouth was

"Are you out on parole?" And in another instance recently, "Are you on probation?" I guess

human beings employed in the police force are unerring in identifying suspicious characters

and beyond reproach regarding appropriate questions to law abiding tax paying citizens.

"Are you out on parole?"

 

Probably not a good time to come back with, "Officer, have you been eating donuts? Your

eyes are very glazed."

It should be plainly obvious to anyone who's paying attention that "The Rule of Law", as it has been traditionally understood in western democracies, and particularly the US, has been terminally compromised.

 

This has been happening over a period of years, but more specific to the most recent administration's 'creative interpretation' of laws written by the legislative branch, by the use of "signing statements", which are used to 'interpret' how laws enacted are actually to be understood and enforced.

 

It should also be mentioned that the long-standing legal principle of 'State's Rights' implies that each state can enact local laws that may vary from state to state; even at the county and municipal level laws and regulations can vary that would affect potential photographic activity.

 

Which implies that one shouldn't merely assume that there are any universal rights to unrestricted photographic activities in public.

 

On a philosophical level, it should be remembered that image makers and users have always enjoyed a level of power in society, since at least the Reformation. And that power has either been respected and exploited, or feared.

 

David Hockney, in his book "Secret Knowledge", points out that it is perhaps no mere coincidence that the 20th century saw the rise of global image-making (cinema, TV, etc.) parallel that of the world's worst global slaughters. Image-making is a powerful thing; those in power respect it, and understand it, most of all. Which is a lesson that us 'dabblers' should remember.

Ha ha Brad. ;)

From what I've read, the only new photography restrictions from the Patriot Act concern

airport security stations. This does not stop some poorly informed cops and security

guards from telling people that photographing something from the public spaces violates

the Patriot Act or is banned by Homeland Security. I was stopped by a Northeastern

University campus policeman from photographing Boston's Orange Line subway trains

from a public footbridge crossing the tracks. He said I had to stop because of "Homeland

Security." I protested that there was no law against what I was doing, documentary

photography, but he insisted I stop. He threatened to arrest me for loitering, also a

mistake on his part, since <i>Commonwealth v. Carpenter</i> gives people in

Massachusetts the right to loiter in public rights of way.

 

I was not going to force the issue with an idiot with a gun, so I complied with his demand

and left. I wrote a letter complaining to Northeastern U.'s Campus Security complaining

about the officer, but never heard back from them. I imagine they thought I was a crank

and threw the letter in the trash.

Well, I suspect there are probably enough misinformed officers *and* photographers to form a good-sized group. <p>

 

We can start the group right here. :-) <p>

 

In addition to the Krages flyer, there's also a <a href=http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm>book</a>. <p>

 

But in fairness, Darin, there is probably no "Get Out of Jail Free Card" as such. So much depends upon how you and the involved officer(s) "size up" a given situation and decide to handle it ... and one another. <p>

 

I believe that there are now more concerns (and more stops/questions/requests to cease -- both legitimate and illegitimate) than there used to be. But at this point, within the US at least, an awful lot of photography is still taking place in public places. <p>

 

You haven't described details of your project, but if you know that it involves potentially sensitive and hence well-patrolled locations, your obvious choices would include the following (and they're not mutually exclusive): <p>

 

1. Take photos, but be prepared to stop when asked and respond to questions about what you're doing. <p>

 

2. Seek permission in advance. <p>

 

3. Seek legal counsel in advance, from a lawyer who is both (i)licensed to practice in the jurisdiction; and (ii)familiar with the subject matter. (In some areas, there are non-profit arts organizations that make arrangements for low cost consultations of this nature.) If your project is journalistic in nature, you may have other options.<p>

 

Good luck. Hope you post some photos when the project is completed.

Get a family member in law enforcement, and hope the ignorant offending officer respects his profession (aka, brotherhood) enough to respect the shield/pba card you pull out as you explain your position. Like a speeding ticket, sometimes this works, sometimes it won't.

 

there is no legal basis to prevent you from shooting public areas unless they are restricted access. you can photograph the whitehouse, capitol and the supreme court and any other public building.

 

even NYC subways can be shot, just refrain from pulling out a tripod unless you are intent on getting the riot act from some peed off transit officer working the tunnels. i believe there is a restriction with using tripods in the tunnels. there is no legal restriction for photographing (although since you have to pay to ride, legally they could invoke it as part of your contract to ride).