Photographers' Rights

[dw fletcher]

Yesterday I was walking around outside my building, basically trying out my new

camera. My building is weird in that it's upscale but is in kind of a bad

neighborhood, so they have 24 hour security roaming around all the time. No

complaints about that until now.

 

I was on the sidewalk and I shot a photo of my 7th floor apartment. Suddenly

three of these guys descended upon me and told me I couldn't do that. Well, I

know better. I was standing on a public Right of Way, and I can shoot whatever

the hell I want. So I politely informed them of that and also let them know I

happened to be a resident and actually lived in the apartment I was taking a

photo of.

 

Well, it never really got heated or anything but there was an argument that

progressed and I found out that the "policy" of the building is that you have to

pay $1,000 dollars a day to use the location. Ok. I understand that. At this

point we were talking about the property itself, and the common areas. It's a

historic building, and pro photographers as well as movie crews really have paid

to use it.

 

But that brings up some questions. I pay rent here. And I pay rent not only

for my loft but also for the common areas, amenities, etc. I'm not a pro. I do

not use these images commercially. Do I not have the right to take photos on

the property for my own personal enjoyment? They were also saying that I

couldn't photograph from the roof. I've done it a million times and nobody's

said anything about it to me, but I guess maybe at some point they'll start

harassing me about that. Well, that would be a problem. The roof here offers

spectacular views of downtown Dallas, a pretty nice skyline. The roof here is

very open to the residents. There's a pool up there, a walking track, picnic

tables and gas BBQ grills. So I can do pretty much anything up there except

take a photo? Please.

 

So I'm pretty much aware of my rights when it comes to photography in public,

but if someone could shed some light the "common areas" thing I'd sure

appreciate it.

[dan_mcclain]

Have you discused this conflict with a member of the management or an owner of the building? Private security guards typically don't care what explaination they hear, and stick to the rules that they have been taught, regardless of the relevance of those rules to the situation. I believe that the management would be in a much better situation to explain to the security staff the difference between commercial and non-commercial photography.

[joshroot]

I have no idea what the answer is, but I have a feeling that the fact that you rent vs own your apartment may play a part.

[Matt Laur]

It's really not that complicated. If they have those policies in place, and did when you signed the agreement that allows you to live there... or agreed to a clause that said you'd go along with current and evolving policies... then, that's that. Is it reasonable? Depends on how you look at it. These guidelines/rules sound like they're in place to prevent people from making commercial use of the place without the residents and the property management getting a piece of the action, or being relieved from any legal liability for what happens.

 

What if you were to fall from the roof while taking a photograph from an unusual perch? What if a resident were to sue the management for that resident's perception that you were invading their privacy? Doesn't matter whether that's a resonable fear or whether you were doing anything wrong. What matters is that they'd have to pay a lawyer more in one month to deal with it than they make off of your rental margin in 10 years. So, they're reducing the variables. And of course, they're ruling out clearly commercial work being done by people looking for a freebie location to reduce their bottom line while doing business.

[dw fletcher]

Dan,

 

Since it's the weekend I haven't been able to discuss it with management. I did write an e-mail to the property manager, with whom I'm on very good terms, and he'll probably answer on Monday. But I didn't address the "common areas" thing because I don't want to get into it with him until I know what my rights are. That letter just informed him of the sidewalk thing.

 

Josh,

 

When I rent, I rent not only my apartment but the common areas of the building. There are no rules in the residents' handbook regarding photography and nothing is said about it in the lease contract. I figure I'm free to do what I want. Hopefully someone who knows something about it will chime in and we can all learn something.

 

I don't see how they can go about controlling what I photograph from the roof, for example. That seems absurd.

[dw fletcher]

You know what? Screw it. If I have to be sneaky I'll be sneaky. And if they catch me, let them throw me out. If they're willing to go that far I don't care to live here, anyway.

 

The roof has walls of varying height all the way around it. The minimum is probably four feet high, and there are signs posted everywhere not to climb or sit on them. And you'd be a dumbass to do that anyway. One gust of wind and you fall eleven floors to your death. They're short enough that I don't need to perch the wall to shoot, and high enough that I'm not going to fall off of there and end up with a Darwin Award.

 

Clearly, the mistake I made as a resident was to shoot up and AT the building from the sidewalk. While that may be perfectly legal, it drew their attention. These people are notorious for intimidating homeless people off the sidewalk in front of the building and making them walk down the other side of the street. That's the kind of people I'm dealing with.

 

Funny thing is, the rest of the staff (concierge, management, maintenance) are all extremely cool about everything. So I don't think I'll ever have any real problems with this.

[joshroot]

<i>"When I rent, I rent not only my apartment but the common areas of the building."</i>

<p>

Yes, but rights as an owner can be far different than your rights as a renter. I am fairly sure that renters rights are limited by what is in their rental agreement. Does your rental agreement say anything about using the common areas for photography or not? I have no idea. I was just bringing up a point that may be relevant to the conversation.

[dw fletcher]

Like I said at 2:59p, no, the lease agreement nor the resident handbook says anything about photography whatsoever.

[joshroot]

I missed that in your post.

 

However, others in a similar situations will have different rental agreements. so it is still a point worth mentioning.

[bobatkins]

Just because something isn't excluded doesn't mean it's included.

 

I suppose they'd take a dim view of you slaughtering animals in the hallway, though that activity probably isn't mentioned specifically in the rental agrement!

 

It would seem reasonable that you can take personal photographs anywhere that you are allowed to be, provided they don't infringe on the privacy of others. However if you don't own the property I'm not sure what the situation is. The rent you pay maybe for certain uses. For example I don't suppose you could turn your apartment into a liquor store. Similarly you may be allowed to use the roof only for certain purposes. That's the difference between renting and owning.

 

Personally, I'd just shoot the pictures when security wasn't around.

[dw fletcher]

Yep, that's what I'm going to do.

 

Slaughtering animals? Funny anecdote. There's a guy who rides one of those mini-motorcycles up and down my hall, though. Gas powered with fumes and everything. They've never said anything to him, I guess.

 

This is a mixed use building and actually encourages businesses to run out of the lofts. There are photography studios, law offices, recording studios, massage/yoga/dance studios, and a video store that doesn't have a store front but delivers. The Dallas Mavericks even use a loft for some kind of office, and right next door to me is the Hispanic Police Officer's Union. My office is here, too. Getting a liquor license or food permit would probably be impossible, though, for understandable reasons.

 

And, ironically, they encourage artists to live here. It's all over their literature when you move in, and it's one of the reasons I moved in. They tout that several local photographers and painters of note live here. And Erika Baidu or however you spell her name. And some other famous musician.

 

And I understand that if the hallways were narrow or something it would be a nuisance to set up a tripod. But they're wide. And uninteresting except on the bottom floors where they're even wider. Freight trains used to run through the basement of this building, literally. I've shot all there is to shoot down there so that's not an issue. The roof and stairwells (hardly used) are the only places that remain interesting to me now, and I can avoid security for that.

[JDMvW]

Now, now, Bob. Let's not be prejudiced against Santeria. ;)

[frank uhlig]

So you were on the public sidewalk of the street in front of your building and were shooting your balcony on the 7th floor. That caused the harassment, right?

 

What if you had an issue with the balcony that you were documenting from the sidewalk ...? For legal purposes, ... documentation ...

 

It is funny that you did know your rights as you say and did not call the police on this harassment. If I were to take the same pic from public property, I would call the police and the "guards" would be arrested/booked/ ... I hope.

 

How can you think that you or anyone could have sold your citizen's rights for rent there?

[gary_watson]

Josh's dismissive remarks about renters strikes me as odd and inappropriate, D.W. My experiences living in a small historic apt. building favored by film crews, free-lance model shooters, and stealth commercial photographers was unpleasant. Management's aim in hiring 24 hr guards was to protect residents' "enjoyment of the premises" as guaranteed them by law and their leases.Smart-ass, aggressive location scouts and opportunistic shooters roamed around the courtyards, halls, and lobby until guards appeared and hustled them out.Property managers' were more concerned about the tenants' privacy than turning a fast buck on location fees. I suspect D.W. might have suffered from mistaken identity. His only error was to miss an opportunity to explain innocently his actions as a resident simply taking a picture of his apt.

[les]

Soon you will need the permit to breathe, and you will have to pay for it. Both the permit and the air, of course.

 

A copyright is one thing - but trying to claim ownership of the reflected light it something different altogether. Of course - the legal eagles will descend on me telling me that I need to understand the law etc.

 

There is law, there is justice, there is common sense - and they not necessarily mix together. In fact - most frequently they don't.

 

Soon there will be only two categories of people: the slaves - and the people who will be collecting money off the first category, under every imaginable excuse.

 

End of rant.

[joshroot]

<I>"Josh's dismissive remarks about renters strikes me as odd and inappropriate"</i>

<p>

Uhhhh....what?

<p>

I fail to see anything "dismissive" about my comments. Renters have different (and typically fewer) rights than owners (at least in the US). Don't believe me? Go visit your local tenant's rights group and talk to them about the subject.

[dirtlawyer]

Under the common law, a renter steps into the shoes of the owner. That means that you have all the rights your landlord has. In fact, unless your lease specifically provides for a right of inspection by the landlord, he can't enter your loft without his permission.

 

You also have an absolute right to stand on a public sidewalk and shoot photos for your own use. I don't know whether you also have a right to shoot photos for commercial use.

 

Your remedy could be to sue to have a court order the building management not to interfere with your rights. But that would be expensive, and probably not worth it.

[craig_gillette]

Uh, can't arrest the guards. They were boorish and incorrect but did nothing illegal. They had their say and scurried away. You can't arrest them (or anyone else) for asking questions any more than they could have the OP arrested for taking pictures. The OP is going to have to discuss his shooting inside the building with the owner's appropriate representatives. Why that should be a surprise for anyone or any building is a bit concerning.

 

Even "owners" can have limitations when they are owners along with others. Example, we live in a "PUD" (like a condo) and even though I am a "part owner" of the pool and play area, I can't take my dog swimming.

 

I sometimes have this feeling that some people expect a camera to be some kind of magic talisman that lets them do whatever they want. T'aint so McGee.

[dw fletcher]

Magic talisman? All I want to do is make a few photographs of some interesting walls and scenes of the city from the roof. In the residents' handbook there are rules about where you can take your pets (cannot take them in the main elevators, roof, gym, etc). There are rules about how many people you can have in your apartment before you hire private security. There are rules about a lot of things and all of them are reasonable, but there's nothing about photography, period.

 

I live here. I pay a lot of rent in order to live here. I'm not taking photos of the residents or anything like that. There's no invasion of privacy, no threat of anything from what I've done around here. I've lived here for six months and some weeks and this is the first time anyone has said anything to me about what I do.

 

If I were to take an acoustic guitar down to the basement, nobody would say anything. If I laid out a picnic blanket and had freakin' lunch down there nobody would say anything. Those are enjoyable things. Taking a photo of a 95 year old fire door is enjoyable for me; why can't I do that?

 

Gary, I made no error. Security came up to on the sidewalk and introduced themselves. It was a new guy. I introduced myself as a resident, told him my loft number, and since the windows were open I even pointed to my place and said "that's where I live". Two other security guys were behind him and they knew me, which is why I'm disappointed by this. I proceeded to tell all of them I could do whatever I liked from a public Right of Way, then I walked off. I should've taken their photo before I did.

[bwcombs]

D.W., I am approached by security, police, etc., a lot on shoots, and have found the best

solution is to be courteous and professional in your actions and conversations. I have never

had anyone tell me to leave or cease shooting after I have explained what I was doing, why I

was doing it and for whom. And in many cases, those same inquisitors have become more

than willing to assist in the shoot (crowd control, props, etc.)

 

Common courtesy, and common sense will go a long way for both parties.

[john_h.1]

I think Josh is misplacing the renter v. owner issue because the actual issue is about access for using the building for purposes other than living there. It is extremely unlikely, and I would bet good money on it, that there is any distinction between a owner's right to photograph in the building as opposed to a renter's.

 

As to the security personnel, it seems like they fit right into the common and incorrect belief that they can forbid people who are on public property from photographing the provate property they work for.

[lex_jenkins]

Here's my logic for public photography:

 

1. Do I have the right to stand where I'm standing?

 

2. Do I have the right to look at what I'm looking at?

 

If the answers to 1 and 2 are "yes" then I have the right to take photographs for personal, non-commercial use.

 

I welcome arguments from security guards, police officers and nosey-nellies. I see it as an opportunity to expand the scope of their perspectives regarding such issues as civil liberties and artistic merit. Or to just talk about photography, which is what the conversation usually leads to. Keeping samples of my photos in my camera bag helps.

[dw fletcher]

I like your formula, Lex. I used to hang around here a lot...if memory serves you're from FW, right?

 

BW -- I was courteous to them. They were argumentative but also courteous. This wasn't a screaming match or anything remotely resembling one.

[michaelchristensen]

Private property is private .. town house rules apply. My guess is that someone saw you pointing a camera at a window and questioned your intentions, thinking someone's privacy might be in jeopardy, certainly they did not know you were shooting your own apartment window .. hence, you called needless attention to yourself.

 

Of course, you violated no existing policy ... and what you do within the confines of your home is your business so long as it is not illegal. However, say you decided to photograph the cute girls at your town house pool .. in an area obviously open to tenants and their guests ..but still not the general public .. well then perhaps management may have the over-riding interest in preventing that activity for the comfort and safety of thier guests .. sounds reasonable. In common areas of a non-public establishment perhaps it is better to ask management or their representatives if you may take pictures from the roof ... perhaps technically, you don't have to do so .. per your agreement .. but it goes a long way to having others feel comfortable that you are engaged in a legitimate purpose with no harm intended and no intent to violate someone's privacy.

 

Nobody likes to be singled out by Security .. and sometimes such interaction leads to other undesirable consequences .. I doubt that in this instance as you described .. had you been up the street and shooting the apartment complex from the sidewalk ..nobody would have felt threatened .. and even though, you did nothing wrong photographing your own window .. certainly others did not share your composition or intent .. how could they?

 

Most of us have had similar experiences .. non-malicious intent which was misinterpreted .. how we handle the interaction determines usually the outcome ..

[les]

"1. Do I have the right to stand where I'm standing?

 

2. Do I have the right to look at what I'm looking at? "

 

I think these are very serious questions - although I am afraid that most people just does not have the capacity to understand this...which is a very sorry and threatening state of affairs.

 

If the views can be copyrighted - where does that live you as a human being ?

 

Taking a picture of a "copyrighted" building or a car (and selling it) is not the same as copying the design of a building or a car - for commercially competitive purpose. Selling a fake Rolex is an infringement of Rolex rights to the design, selling an image of Rolex is not - IMO. I know, I am not a lawyer and quite possibly I am wrong as far as law if concerned: if so - then we all bear the collective guilt of letting the affairs to proceed to the point of absolute absurd.

 

But I think everyone will wake up when they start charging you for the air you breathe - except it may be too late then. After all - what is (very popular recently) the idea of "carbon tax" ?

 

I just can't believe that people can get brainwashed to a degree which makes them think it is normal. It is not.

 

Now - I am awaiting severe backlash from outraged legal eagles.