What unusual laws regarding photography in public have you heard of?

<p>I just found out the other day that it's actually illegal to photograph bridges in New York City. Makes no sense imho, but it got me wondering what unexpected laws like you might run into while taking pictures in public.</p>

<p>Obviously, if you are on private property, whoever owns it can ask you to stop taking pictures, but what else is it illegal to photography in your neck of the woods? Are public buildings, monuments, public transit or other such places also off limits to photography in some parts of the world? And what other unexpected surprises have you run into while photographing in public?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>I just found out the other day that it's actually illegal to photograph bridges in New York City.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you cite the law on this?</p>

<p>Where did you here about this law? Signs prohibiting photographing bridges have been discussed many times here and elsewhere, but to my knowledge, no one has been able to cite a law that actually forbids such activity, as Jeff suggests.</p>

<p>That said, Vermont actually appears to have a law <a href="http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullchapter.cfm?Title=13&Chapter=075"> Vt. Stat. Title 13, §3481</a>. that can be so interpreted (though it's hardly ever enforced). I haven't checked decisional law to see if there's been a definitive interpretation with regard to photography.</p>

<p>I've read that police in the UK have become strangely suspicious of photographers using tripods and other vaguely professional-looking photographic equipment. Anti-terror laws are apparently being cited as justification for stop/search/question of these dangerous troublemakers.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>A man here in Indianapolis was once detained by police for photographing a public art sculpture that happened to be on a street corner just outside the City/County Bldg. On the news report, Sgt Matthew Mount of the IMPD advised people with cameras to restrict photography to "marked tourist spots". Keep in mind he failed to specify exactly what constitutes "marked".</p>

<p>There are three major "owners" of bridges in the NYC area and each has different rules.<br />The bridges owned by the NYC Department of Transportation (aka the free bridges), such as the Brooklyn Bridge, Manhattan Bridge Williamsburgh Bridge and 59th St bridge (only tourists call it the Queensboro) do not have any legal prohibitions on photography.<br /><br />The Bridges / Tunnels owned by the Metropolitan Transportation Authority, such as the Triborough (I refuse to call it the RFK) Bridge, Verazzano Bridge, Whitestone and Throgs Neck have posted signs. However there is no law that specifically prohibits photography. The law simply states:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>1020.8 Compliance with posted signs. Every motorist and pedestrian using any facility under the jurisdiction and control of the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority shall obey and comply with the provisions of any posted sign on any of its facilities.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>If you are caught taking pictures on those bridges you are cited for "failure to obey a posted sign"<br />Finally there are the bridges/tunnels controlled by the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ). Again there is no law however the PA is considered "private property" since it receives no public subsidies. As such they are given wide latitude in setting rules and they have a rule that states photography is banned on their facilities.<br />I am not a lawyer so anyone seeking definitive answers should consult with one but I hope these explanations help clarify the issue a bit.</p>

<p>To answer the part of your question regarding photography of public transit facilities:<br />Photography on the NY Subway is specifically permitted by law (in spite of what some cops may think):</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>21NYCRR 1050.9(3) Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provisions of this Part.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Likewise there are no prohibitions against photography on the Long Island Railroad, Metro North or New Jersey Transit. The only system that prohibits photography is PATH, which is owned by the Port Authority.</p>

<p>A photographer who was arrested for taking pictures on the NY Subway recently received a $31,000 settlement for the false arrest. I know several other photographers who have received settlements merely for being detained and questioned by police for extended periods, so it is LEGAL in spite of what cops say.</p>

<p>Once I was walking around the Rouge Steel complex in Dearborn, sticking to the sidewalks. About every 500 feet armed security would stop me and tell me that i wasn't allowed to photograph the complex, and I would patiently explain that as long as I was on the sidewalk it was legal.<br>

The National Gallery of Art, on the Mall in Washington DC, claims that they have the right to prevent people from using a tripod on any of heir property, including the public sidewalks, grassy areas, etc. When I ran into that one I wasn't in the mood to fight them.</p>

<p>NYC has laws about tripods from New Jersey going back to 1938 and Grovers Mill. It is a very serious matter.</p>

<p>Not quite a law, but about a year ago an LA councilman proposed an ordinance that keeps paparazzi at least 20 feet away from places like schools, hospitals, etc... I don't think 20 feet would be much of a problem for paps with 300mm-400mm lenses. The proposal did not actually become a city ordinance.</p>

<p>However, I believe the Santa Monica City Council is considering something similar, especially in response to complaints from a certain Nursery School (where many celebrities just happen to send their kids and pick them up every afternoon).</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Some of the "no photography" signs around some bridges is possibly a reminder or an attempt to keep some photographers from stopping cars (simulating a break-down has been reported as a technique in a variety of forums at times) or getting into vehicle traffic areas where there aren't any safe or adequate pedestrian areas.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Australian and not unusual but easy reading and comprehensive</p>

<p><a href="http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php">http://www.4020.net/words/photorights.php</a></p>