Photographer's Rights?

nigel d · April 22, 2005

"Whether your actions are legal or not, making an ass of yourself just for the purpose of proving your point only makes these situations more difficult for the rest of us"

Actually, I suspect the opposite. You may recall the Dorothy Thompson quote:

"When liberty is taken away by force it can be restored by force. When it is relinquished voluntarily by default it can never be recovered."

bljkasfdljkasfdljskfa · April 22, 2005

All this comes down to the fact that the powers that be in US protect property and property owners' rights, not your rights, regardless whether the law is on your side or not.

minicucci · April 22, 2005

One quick additional note. NYC has passed a law requiring a permit to shoot public spaces

with a tripod. No tripod, no problem but you need a permit if you intend to use a tripod.

On the other hand, they give out the permit by email (you just download a PDF application

form and email it in), so the process is reasonably painless.

m. berman · April 22, 2005

Hi Patricia:

Can you provide the link to the NYC website for tripod permits.

Thanks.

Alex_Es · April 23, 2005

In fact the lawbreaker maybe the security guard. He may be guilty of harassment. Here's what you need to do. Carry a pad and pen. Tell the person to identify himself. Write down his name. Then ask him to repeat what he has said. Write it down. Read it back to him. Ask him if that is correct. Then ask him if he is aware you are in your legal rights in photographing in a public street. Write down his answer, read it to him and ask him if that is correct. Ask him if he is aware that he may be breaking the law by harassing you. Write down whatever he says read it back to him and ask him if that is correct. Then ask him to sign what you have written down.

Above all, get the creature's name. Then call the store and tell them at their employee left his place of work to harass you. Get the name of whoever you talk to. If you get rubbish, say you want to talk to that person's supervior.

When you see the ex-security guard sitting on the street with a tin cup give him a quarter, take a picture and say you'll give him a print.

Security people are notoriously lame brained. If the guy says he's sorry, let him go with a warning.

jeff_drew4 · April 23, 2005

:-) Technically, you stand in the street!

All the above comments were interesting. Even if the area were designated "private

property", usually there is a public "right-of-way" past the private part. Every state

and municipality may have different rules, but any of you reading this may want to

investigate exactly where you are standing and even get a GPS fix when confronted.

That'll really piss-off the SOB that's in your face. The tips relating to "get the

documentation" are great! Get names & numbers! Invite a few friends to assist you

next time! Stores hate badd press & angry small groups. Ignorant guards love to prey

on vertically challenged guys, I know! Personally, I tend to get feisty in defense, but I

make sure I'm standing in a good place before taking issue. Do "big guys" ever get

hassled? Are there any female security guards that unnecessarily hassle photogs?

Hmmm . . . ponderous!

minicucci · April 23, 2005

Here's the link:

http://www.nyc.gov/html/film/html/permits/still_photography.shtml

Only now it seems the permit is needed whether you use a tripod or not. Hmmm... That's

different than 2 months ago.

LOL at Peter's response. Maybe he's right.

agardner58 · April 23, 2005

Patricia,

That permit isn't something the general public (ie, a tourist, a street photog, nature photographer, etc.)would need to be worrying about.

The permit is for commercial photographers, film companies, etc. An amateur photographer still has the right to shoot without a permit on public property, and to use a tripod on public property (private property owners such as Rockefeller Center can and will prohibit tripods!) As long as you are not causing a nuisance (ie, blocking a busy street or sidewalk) I believe it is legal (a reserver the right to be wrong on this though...I'm not a lawyer!)

sprouty · April 23, 2005

"Do "big guys" ever get hassled?

Is 6'4", 240 lbs big? If so I've never been hassled by anyone and I shoot a lot of buildings and to a lesser extent street shot's with people. But I follow some "rules" that seem to make sense to me. First and foremost, I think about where I am and what's going on.

I also tend to avoid anyone who looks or thinks they've got nothing to lose (i.e. drunks, homeless), and I try not to get into a situation where someone may feel overly intimidated or threatened. For instance imagine you're a mother in a park and there is some guy snapping pictures of your young kids. How would you feel?

A simple conversation can open a lot of doors in these situations.

As for standing your ground when it comes to security guards? I'd wave and smile and then just ignore him/her. And if the police did show up, I'd tell them I was just taking pictures as I walked along the sidewalk. I'd give NO attitude and I can guarantee you I'd get none back. Contrary to what some people believe, cops don't want to escalate situations, they want them to go away with as little drama as possible.

I like what was posted above "aptitude, not attitude".

bjorke · April 23, 2005

"...I demanded to speak with someone who could tell me his/her name and could also quote the law or city ordinance..."

Well done Calico, that's exactly the correct question to ask. Those further threats about "teaching you a lesson" are an excellent recipe for policemen to create embarrassing press for the department and black marks on their own service records (much like the SFPD officers in the muni case of last fall).

KB, <a href="http://www.photopermit.org" target="_blank">photopermit.org</a>

cálico · April 23, 2005

The most troubling part is that we entrust these uniformed public servants to PROTECT our rights and safety, but some are nothing more than bullies with guns. They REALLY forget that they are there to SERVE us, not herd us around like cattle. They expect to be respected without giving respect in return. What really bothers me most, however, is the fact that I helped train about 7 kids and they are now walking around with the same uniforms.

The truth is that we can avoid a lot of problems by giving in at every turn when we are told to do something we KNOW is not correct, and little by little we will give up not only our rights but our freedoms and liberties... yes, by allowing them to herd us like mindless sheep or cattle; or, we can stand up and do whatever it takes to ensure that they KNOW we will defend our rights (including writing letters and reports, complaining to our elected officials, and also contacting the ACLU).

Too many of us have "trained" them to believe that we can all be herded and bullied around... I am not advocating a physical confrontation but too many of us will simply walk away sheepishly...!

Threads such as this one are good to educate and report abuses; but, the most important thing is to complain to our elected officials, write letters displaying outrage to Precinct Commanders, the Mayor, City Council, Ombudsman, etc., and also news media... and not take abuse from those hired and paid to protect us, our RIGHTS, and our safety. We are not criminals because we choose to exercise our rights and we should not let anyone (regardless of level of authority) take our rights away... wrong is wrong, period.

cálico · April 23, 2005

"The security guard told me that I wasn't allowed to do this -- when I politely pointed out that I was standing on the STREET and not in the store, he threatened to call the police. Where do I stand in this situation?"

Actually, you stand within your rights. So someone threatens to call the police... big deal, let them. Is there a Wanted poster anywhere around with your photo? If not, stand up for your rights. JUST BE NICE but be firm in your position. By letting someone tell you what to do, you have given that person power over you and power over your rights.

Really, how is your taking a few photos encrouching on that other person's rights or safety? Tell that to the police and ask that he please tell you what law or ordinance you're breaking and also get his name and badge number and call his commanding officer right away (no, not tomorrow or the next day). File a complain immediately. If more photographers would (a) stand up for their rights, and (b) file complaints, I'm sure we wouldn't be discussing this here.

You know, some time ago, my little buddy who lives in this building, was PUSHED by a police officer because he refused to leave the front of the building where we reside; the fact was that he was waiting for me to go out shooting film. I came out and asked HER what right she had to put her hands on a minor. And she started to give me some bs! I told her that this was not a police state, that my buddy was waiting for me and that he also lived in the same building and there is no law prohibiting him from waiting on the sidewalk, away from the pedestrian walkway. She threatened me with arrest for "disturbing the peace" and I simply said, "Really? Please wait another 2 minutes until the attorney I work with gets here; he just called me from about two blocks away... would you explain that to him?" She simply turned around and walked away. I called after her and she yelled, "What the hell do you want now?" and I said, "I want you to have a nice day!" I was NICE but firm. The attorney was not coming to my address.

Look, just because they wear a uniform does not give them the right to bully a civilian or threaten you or anyone, or to infringe upon your rights or anyone's rights (or liberties or freedoms).

I am not anti-police; I am against bullies. What might surprise some is that I have both friends and relatives in the police department. There are simply too many bullies within the police department who don't belong in uniform and really shouldn't have a gun. Anyone who doesn't know the difference is simply living in a fool's dream.

jeff_drew4 · April 25, 2005

In a related vein . . .

PLEASE give this a look and read the editorial at the link:

" . . . The NYPD arrested 1,806 people during the RNC. "Of the 1,670 cases that have run their full coarse," The New York Times reported April 12, "ninety-one percent ended with the charges dismissed or a verdict of not guilty after trial." . . . "

Okay, so "coarse" should be "course".

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ucru/20050419/cm_ucru/policeperjurers

johncrosley · May 1, 2005

As a former practicing attorney who lived in New York City and went to Columbia College of Columbia University which owns Rockefeller Center (and cordons it off every Fourth of July with guards from the campus) and who has seen those little brass plaques delineating property lines, I have a few offerings to this discussion.

First of all, those brass plaques are intended to delineate property lines only.

There is a concept in the law known as an easement. When the public walks over an area constantly, there is an implied easement for that purpose. The easement is for all pedestrians who walk across that area. The little brass plaques in the sidewalk reserve the right (supposedly) of the land owner to claim ownership of the sidewalk that is being walked on so the ownership rights are not extinguished by 'adverse user' (yes that's spelled correctly). One can lose partial ownerhip rights to a 'prescriptive easement' when people acquire that easement through 'adverse user' by walking or using a property portion for a certain user (such as a walkway) for a certain period (probably 20 years in NY, but five years in California).

Columbia University which owns the land under Rockefeller Center (its original campus when it was called King's College) sends its campus guards down to Rockefeller Center every July 4th to control who goes onto Rockefeller Center and 'exercise control' over ingress and egress visibly and demonstrably just so it will not lose its property control rights (I'm assuming it continues to do so). This despite the fact the master least to Rockefeller Center is owned by others for periods of 50 or 99 years).

The same for various buildings that front on Park or Madison, etc., avenues, etc. Those landowners own part of various sidewalks that are adjacent to the buildings, but even if they have those little brass plaques in the pavement, they may have already lost their boundaries to a prescriptive easement by failure to police control of the easement as Columbia does (or they may not have -- it's problematic to me, or I don't know if the brass plaques are enough)

What's probably sure is that the brass plaques or similar signs are not enough for them to exercise control over an odd photographer who joins the mass of pedestrians who walk on a walkway that is used by the public. If they let the public use it, it's going to be hard to say 'that photographer there can't use it'. Further, even trespassers have certain rights about using land.

There is a concept in law known as the CTLA (Constant Trespasser On a Limited Area) and such trespassers also have some rights and can acquire rights in regard to property use, a subject which is far too complicated to discuss here.

In the odd circumstance that one is confronted with the 'property line' argument based on embedded brassed plaques and imaginary lines connecting them, one reasonably might ask, when did you last erect a barrier and have guards patrolling the area and cordon it off as the Columbia University guards do and exercise control over that area as the Columbia does at Rockefeller Center? That should confound any security guard.

Discretion says: Take your shot and move on.

But if you get caught and must stand your ground -- for instance a security guard calls the police officer standing on the corner and you MUST defend your stance, this should provide additional ammunition.

I once worked for a magazine that had me shooting INSIDE stores all over the country on a monthly or so basis and I was continually stopped by security guards, almost always plainclothes house dicks looking for shoplifters. I would explain what I was doing, give my business card, get escorted to the manager, often see my magazine on his desk, and either get or not get permission to continue shooting.

On only one occasion did I have film taken from me. An outfit called Service Merchandise of Nashville was floating a stock issue and invited me down to take photos and do an interview.

But the owner got all funny after I took photos and interviewed him and went by his attorney's office.

Later, he and his associate --- both big burly men -- cornered me in a back room and demanded my film -- They were floating a multi-million dollar stock initial stock offering and they were forbidden from talking to the press and by talking to me and letting me shoot pictures they had violated that law. And I had the film to prove it.

They demanded my film which proved they had violated the law. I refused.

They assaulted me and took film from my camera.

They didn't get the film from my back pocket, just from my front pocket.

My publisher, being a weak man, didn't publish the photographs -- not wanting to anger them or upset someone in the industry and cause them a multi-million dollar loss (I would have published them in a half a New York second). It's the only time in my life film's ever been taken from me. I stand my ground.

My advice to anyone who thinks they're going to have film taken. Take out that flash card and secret it somewhere not obvious, and put in a new flash card that you can afford to lose (such as a 256 mb) (same with film) and take a few frames. If you think they want to review your output, take out your battery so they can't. If they do take your media, they get almost nothing. If they want to review it, they won't be able to.

Finally, if a security guard, cop, or other official or purported 'authority' hassles you, take his photo on film or flash card, then remove it and secret it in case it is taken in retaliation.

In the end, unless you end up being searched VERY THOROUGHLY' you'll end up with proof if they do seize your media.

From experience.

John (Crosley)

johncrosley · May 1, 2005