What's my legal status?

<p>Hi all,</p>

<p>I was at a concert in Pennsylvania for the 4th of July and apparently caused some controversy with my camera (50D + 100-400mm)</p>

<p>The concert took place in a public park and was free to the public. The performing group was a professional orchestra. While taking some photos of the musicians before the concert began, I was approached by a police officer. He asked if I were a member of the local news media (which I'm not). According the him, the management of the orchestra had asked me to cease-and-desist taking photos. I explained that many of the musicians were my friends. He went back to consult with the management and said it was ok as long as I didn't use a flash. (which I hadn't and had no plans to use anyway) After that conversation, I grabbed a program which I found out stated "audio recording and photography strictly prohibited".</p>

<p>Although I hope to never be in a similar predicament, I thought it would be prudent I'd check on the legalities of the situation. It was my understanding that in a public performance/venue like that I would be legally permitted to take candid photos. I'm not planning on making money with the images I'm just planning on sharing the images with my friends in the group.</p>

<p>My question is: can they legally forbid photography in a setting such as this? What legal rights do I have as a citizen and photographer in this situation? I definitely don't want to violate the law and I want to have a better understanding of it should a similar problem arise in the future.</p>

<p>Thanks!<br>

n1</p>

<p>Yes they can legally restrict you from taking photographs and they did so by putting it in writing & probably announced it at the venue at some point... even if the cop told you, you could shoot it would not be purdent to do so. I would highly recommend that you not post them in any publich forum. If you make any money off of photography you are considered a proffessional and this is who the are primaryly tareting... I take a point&shoot to these type of venues just for that very reason... sponsors and paid photographers from the press frown on pro photographers high end equipment doing their job for them...</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Being a free concert in a public park really puts a huge bind on THEM. Because it's a public park, no they cannot stop you from taking pictures. Because it's a free concert, they gave up the right to throw you out. If it were a fenced-off area and admission were charged - THEN they could ask you to stop and even throw you out.</p>

<p>I can stand on a public sidewalk and take pictures of hotel guests entering & leaving all day long. The hotel can ask me to move. They can even call the cops, but the sidewalk is public property, not hotel property. They have no legal right to make me move. Can I walk in and do the same? Nope. Can I stand at their front door and do the same? Nope. </p>

<p>Parks and sidewalks are public areas, and you cannot be run off from them. Now, the people you are taking pictures of may feel differently - but they have put themselves in that area and they cannot force you to quit. (Not that I'm advocating getting yourself attacked or anything - civility has a role, after all. Just saying, they have no legal standing to make you quit. Even if the cop takes their side, he's in the wrong.)</p>

<p>Thanks for the comments Francie. I didn't want to cause any problems so I did stop photographing after the conversation with the police officer. However, there was no announcement made and I hadn't seen the prohibition before I started taking photos.</p>

<p>I still wonder about the prohibition in light of these resources:<br>

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm<br>

http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/photo-law-your-right-to-take-pictures-in-public/<br>

http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm</p>

<p>The situation seems to meet the three criteria: 1) public place, 2) no reasonable expectation of privacy, 3) not a question of national security.</p>

<p>If I'm missing a critical point here, PLEASE let me know. From my perspective, it seems like I was fully within my rights.</p>

<p>Thanks,<br>

n1</p>

 

<p>Just saw your response Maria. Thanks for the comments! That was pretty much my thinking. But I'm no a lawyer... Hence my questions. And for the record, I was very civil and cooperative.</p>

<p>Seems to me I can claim something similar like "taking photos of my house from the street is strictly forbidden" but just because I wish it to be so doesn't mean that my wishes circumvent the law.</p>

<p>n1</p>

<p>N1,</p>

<p>Two words..."public park"...Nope! They can not restrict you at all.</p>

<p>I would have thought that, Maria and Dave, but I know what they do at my local public parks: sell permit to concert promotors during the summer. They for charge parking (on public streets, no less) but not admission. The brochures, advertisments, and programs all have photo restrictions somewhere in the fine print. I've never seen cops enforcing it, but their intention is clearly stated.</p>

<p>Similar is done with film permits for movie, TV, and commercials. Try driving past the barricaded PUBLIC street and see how they respond. No, that is not a dare to do something foolish; is is a hypothetical.</p>

<p>Perhaps you could collaborate with the ACLU and explore the notion of the government leasing public property for private use... but that might be fruitless since it is done all of the time, at all levels of government.</p>

<p>Now, there is a difference between COMMERCIAL use and PRIVATE use for your photos. <br>

There are some municipalities that want you to get a permit to do any shooting on the street. It could be as silly as just signing your name & no fee to $15. BUT this (and movies, commercials, etc) is for commercial, FOR PROFIT, work.<br>

Again, you're taking personal use photos on the public street. Too bad for them.</p>

<p>Passing barricades where a commercial company has paid the city for the use of the street - that cannot be compared to a free concert in a public park with no barricades set up.</p>

<p>"Too bad for them. Passing barricades where a commercial company has paid the city for the use of the street - that cannot be compared to a free concert in a public park with no barricades set up."</p>

<p>Why not? If I pay taxes, why should I be prohibited from driving on a public street just because some profit-making film company paid the city to use that street. I own it as a citizen and a taxpayer. Right?</p>

<p>What if there are no barricades, but just private security people. How are they authorized to keep a citizen from using public property? They are just regular people too... no police powers, etc.</p>

<p>Do you really think the barricade makes a difference? I don't.</p>

<p>Do you really think that the fact that the concert was free, not requiring paid admission makes a difference? I don't.</p>

<p>I agree, these prohibitions are often silly because 99% of the picture takers are probably using for personal rather than commercial purposes... but I don't think that barricaded or free are the issues. I think it has more to do with the high liklihood that it was a private production company running the concert under city/town sponsorship and their desire to protect their intellectual property.</p>

<p>N1, why not call your local councilman/selectman, or whatever you folks call your elected representative, and ask. They will tell you exactly why the photography prohibition was in place.</p>

<p>... but all that being said: I doubt that they will ever know that N1 shared his or her personal photos with her friends... unless they read it here!</p>

<p>The park is administrated by the town/city/township/county government. So their policies are the only relevant ones. If the orchestra printed the brochures, then they have no right whatsoever to restrict photography in this setting. The orchestra management may know this, which is why they did not enforce the policy. If the local government printed the brochures, they too may not have the right to restrict photography (but they can restrict how you do it: no flash, no tripod/light stands). After all, what law did you actually break? Who did you physically endanger? Finally, the brochure was not part of an admission. That is – you attended the concert with no contract between you and the orchestra or the public park. What obligates you to not take pictures? Nothing. What enables you to take them? You have a right to freedom of expression under the First Amendment. You and the subjects were on public property, and you did not disrupt the performance (flash) or endanger the performers or audience (tripod, light stands). The policeman did his job. Too often we read about law enforcement officers unnecessarily restrict photographers' freedom of speech/expression. Kudos to him.<br>

Taking photos and using them are two different things.<br>

I would be comfortable using them for non-commercial purposes. I would treat them as I would treat any photo I have copyright to, but do not have signed model releases. I would exhibit the photos for artistic/documentary purposes. I would sell them as art or documentary photos. You have a right to artistic expression and in this setting the orchestra has no expectation of privacy. I would not use them in an advertisement. That use would imply the orchestra endorses the product/service in the ad. For that one needs model releases.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>Do you really think that the fact that the concert was free, not requiring paid admission makes a difference? I don't.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It makes ALL the LEGAL difference in the world. By charging admission it is now a PRIVATE event and they can control who comes in, who gets thrown out, and who's business they will refuse. The barricade around a concert in my city street shows which area they already paid a permit to be allowed to control for a certain period of time, as well as controlling said paid admissions.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>If I pay taxes, why should I be prohibited from driving on a public street just because some profit-making film company paid the city to use that street. I own it as a citizen and a taxpayer. Right?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>If this were even a valid argument, try arguing that because you own these streets as a taxpayer, you are allowed to drive whatever speed you wish in whatever manner you wish.<br>

ALSO - you CAN stand on "your" side of a production company's barricades and shoot over them all day long. THAT they cannot stop. They have, however, paid the city to "rent" that portion of the street behind their barricades, making it private property for the length of their permit. THAT is where they LEGALLY get to control you.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>call your local councilman/selectman, or whatever you folks call your elected representative, and ask. They will tell you exactly why the photography prohibition was in place.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This won't help at all. It's NOT the city that puts that prohibition in place. It's the Orchestra which places that prohibition and they have no legal standing in the park, which they DO have inside the concert hall.</p>

<p>PS - Newport News is the only township we know of where ALL photography downtown is prohibited.<br>

Why?<br>

Because it's got a clear view of the shipyards. National Security.</p>

<p>Do barricades (or not) make a difference? Are you really that naive? A property owner, including a government agency can legally restrict access to it's property and control the activity taking place on that property.</p>

<p>They set a perimeter and restricted photography within that perimeter. Completely legal to do so. As a practical matter it's hard to control and there is nothing that they can control about shooting from outside that boundary in except to actually block the line of sight, but public agencies and private businesses control photography on their property all the time.</p>

<p>There are times when the agency has made it more obvious where the line of control is set, like fencing and barricades and charging for admission.</p>

<p>Lest you think that you can wander about shooting pictures wherever you'd like because it's public property and you have a camera, let me suggest a few places where you probably shouldn't. Don't stop in lane 4 of the southbound I-5 in Santa Ana at rush hour. Don't get out of your car and walk idly over to the landscaping across the other lanes and the commuter/diamond lanes to shoot pictures of the poppies growing out of the crack in the edging.</p>

<p>Don't stand up in the visitor galleries of the House or Senate side of the Capitol and take flash pictures. </p>

<p>Don't wander out into the middle of Colorado Bl. as the Tournament of Roses Parade gets to where you are and you feel restricted by the blue line. Especially don't sit down to take ground level pictures. The first motor officers may miss you but the ones deeper in the formation may not see you in time. Whether that's better than dashing in front of the mounted police unit is debatable. The people in the White Suits, private persons all, will try to explain it to you but I'd expect that they may not beat the real cops to you by all that much so it may be a moot point.</p>

<p>OK Maria, I'm out of words. You are the lawyer, not me. All I know is that my town has concerts that sound just like the ones N1 attended... and it doesn't work quite the way you say it does. They restrict photography because the city contracts with private companies and (appears) to allow them to control recording - both audi and visual.</p>

<p>You are correct about standing on the "other" side of production barricades. They don't seem to mind that at all.</p>

<p>Maybe you can advise me on this unrealated topic: the streets in my area are marked 25MPH. That is the legal speed limit yet the city is installing speed bumps that make me slow down to 15MPH. Does that violate my civil rights? Shouldn't I be allowed to drive the legal speed limit?</p>

<p>"Taking photos and using them are two different things."</p>

<p>I certainly agree with that... and often use that as my justification for not caring "what is legal" regarding photographic subjects that are not otherwise marked as restricted.</p>

<p>Craig. I'm seriously trying to understand your post, but keep getting stuck on one phrase: "Are you really that naive?"</p>

<p>I think I got your message, Craig. Are you saying that a physical barricade is only one method of establishing a line of control... but there are also other, less obvious, situations where a line of control and photo restrictions may exist?</p>

<p>Law enforcement can also set a line of control Brian.<br>

But whether or not these was commercial photography makes a huge difference too. Acadia National Park has a large rig-a-marole required for photography, permits, etc. with a park escort required. Except that it does not apply to individual, non-commercial photography.<br>

This all works out to being a grey area, regardless of the arguments for/against by folks that 'know'. Brian, with that big, white lens, all anyone could think of was the gaggle of press photographers, and assumed this was some kind of commercial shoot. How you carry yourself, and interact with law enforcement can make all the difference. It sounds to me as if you did fine.<br>

Can you use the photos? Certainly. Will your friends in the orchestra be delighted? Absolutely. Lacking releases, you'd probably have a difficult time marketing the photos though. Unless you offer them up to the orchestra.</p>

<p>"Law enforcement can also set a line of control Brian."</p>

<p>Yes, I agree... and in some situations someone less "official" than law enforcement can too.</p>

<p>I don't have a big white lens but when I take a Hasselblad it is sometimes difficult to convince people I'm just taking snappies of my kiddies. And when I take a 4x5... they are generally so confused they don't quite know what to say.</p>

<p>(my edit time ran out. here is the entire message I wanted to send)</p>

<p>"Law enforcement can also set a line of control Brian."</p>

<p>Yes, I agree... and in some situations someone less "official" than law enforcement can too.</p>

<p>That was the point I started out making: the city-sponsored free concerts-in-the-(public)park in my area have no barricades but have the same recording restrictions as the OP described, by virtue of an agreement/license/permit between the city and the musical talent or their management. To the best of my understanding the city allows the talent or their agent to set certain limitations, even though they are performing in the open, "for free", and in a city park without any barricades separating the venue from the rest of the city.</p>

<p>Our city parks also have a number of other types of private concessions that operate under permit. They all restrict certain things just like they could if they operated on private lands. Generally it is photography and audio recording. Once I was even asked to fill out a release at one of those private concessions operating in a public park stating (under the penalty of law) that I would not use any of the pics I was taking for commercial purposes. At first I was a bit put-off, then flattered. I still hang those pics in my office and cringe every time someone asks to buy a copy.<br>

<br />P.S. I don't have a big white lens but when I take a Hasselblad it is sometimes difficult to convince people I'm just taking snappies of my kiddies. And when I take a 4x5... they are generally so confused they don't quite know what to say.</p>

<p>P.S2: I agree. The OP did fine and the friends will likely enjoy the resulting photos. The chance of this situation "going bad" are probably very slim. I hope both the OP and the friends aren't sweating over this!</p>

<p>There is no such a thing as "public park" but you can call them this way as we usually do. All parks belong to some city and are maintained cleaned, etc. and paid for that by someone, including you as a city resident and taxpayer. They are City Parks.</p>

<p>If an event management came to agreemenmt with the city, purchased permits to use the park and facility, and paid insurances, police protection, and obtained permission to prohibit photography, as it was printed in their program printed as per:</p>

<p>"I grabbed a program which I found out stated "audio recording and photography strictly prohibited". </p>

<p>- then they can certainly stop you from taking pictures there...</p>

You will get a lot of answers here, some right and some wrong. This isn't a legal forum, just a wedding forum. If you are really bugged about this call an attorney from your area and see what the rules really are. He probably won't even charge you for a 2 minute phone call.

<p>Frank Skomial wrote: "There is no such a thing as "public park" but you can call them this way as we usually do. All parks belong to some city and are maintained cleaned, etc. and paid for that by someone, including you as a city resident and taxpayer. They are City Parks."</p>

<p>Hey Frank, if they're owned by the city they're owned by the public! DOH!</p>

<p>I would like to ask a question that will possibly bring a different angle to it. Even if it was not restricted by the city or the orchestra doesn't the fact that you can identify people within the photograph require you to get releases signed by the individuals?</p>