What's my legal status?

[sondador]

<p>As I see it, there are no absolute rights here -- there are merely different sets of sometimes competing interests that must be balanced by a hopefully enlightened decision-maker, based on established rules.<br>

One such set of interests, as many have noted, are our significant rights under the Bill of Rights, specifically to freedom of expression (etc.) under the First Amendment. In general, these rights - which apply to government action only -- can only be curtailed if the government has a compelling interest in doing so. The classic example, if not a very good one, is that you the First Amendment does not entitle you to yell "Fire!" in a crowded theater. Perhaps a better example set of examples are the restrictions on taking photographs of military installations or other vulnerable government facilities such as dams or nuclear power plants. In these cases, the government's countervailing interest is obvious.<br>

As also noted by several, these First Amendment rights are arguably at stake at a public concert, on public property (i.e., in a constitutionally-protected public forum). And you might be able successfully to question whether the government had any interest sufficiently compelling to limit or restrict such conduct. In my view, however, such a claim would not be upheld. This is because of another competing 'rule', which is that as long as its restrictions are not based on the content of the expression in question, the government has a legitimate right to regulate to the manner of expressive activity. In doing so, however, it is subject to the (lesser) burden of demonstrating that its restrictions are reasonably related to a legitimate government interest. <br>

In this case, the restrictions in question were not content based, i.e., they were not directed at muzzling any particular expressive content, such as prohibitions of photography intended to stifle political dissent. Rather, they were restrictions on the manner of exercise of the conduct, namely that it not be flash photography. Many commercial venues have just such a restriction, which they justify on a variety of bases, such as limiting disruption of the performance, or controlling the commercial display of their performances.<br>

It may seem to rub the wrong way when it is the government that is doing this, but the fact is that governments can in some instances (such as the presentation of public performances) act as if they were private parties, and exercise comparable rights (again subject to stringent limitations if based on the content of the expressive activity).<br>

I would agree that there are also limits on any commercial use of the images in question, although this sitution doesn't seem to me to present any unusual issues in this regard. Our First Amendment rights don't usually include the right to make unconsented-to commercial use of another's image, even if the photograph in question was taken in a public forum.<br>

In my opinion, when confronted with restrictions on the manner in which we express our First Amendment rights, each of us has to ask whether the government's interest in restricting us is fair, reasonable, legitimate. If not, it is up to us to question it, as vigorously as we can. And it goes almost without saying that if the limitation is based on the content of our expression, then that is usually wrong and an abuse of governmental power.</p>

[sondador]

<p>p.s. I misspoke in one regard: the limitations imposed by government agencies on the commercial use of photographs of public property do present significant issues. I merely meant to say I wasn't addressing these issues, not that they aren't important.</p>

[tonmestrom]

<p>I wonder if all of you aren't missing the point here?</p>

<p>legalisties aside, if so many of your friends play in that orchestra wouldn't it have been far easier to make sure beforehand that you had all the access you'd ever need, even after that cop approached you it would have been far easier to do it yourself. Communication has its advantages.</p>

<p>I'm even more baffled by the fact that you stopped after getting the go ahead. Why?</p>

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

Funny that one. Paranoia it seems does preclude using common sense.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>doesn't the fact that you can identify people within the photograph require you to get releases signed by the individuals?</em></p>

<p>The OP said, "I'm just planning on sharing the images with my friends in the group." Why do you think a release is required for such a situation?</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>Any performer, singer, dancer, actor, band, orchestra, doing so in a professional capacity, can decided if they allow photography or videoing of their performances. End of story.<br>

Here, its even stretched to amateur performances, like an eisteddfod, as well to protect copyright on musical arrangements, choreography, etc. People still don't get it, becuase its not the venue that matters, its the performance rights.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>the restrictions in question were not content based, i.e., they were not directed at muzzling any particular expressive content... ...they were restrictions on the manner of exercise of the conduct, namely that it not be flash photography. </em><br>

<em></em><br>

Its obvious that the poster's questions along with the reference to a program stating that "audio recording and photography strictly prohibited" concern 'content based' restictions. The flash issue was incidental and could have been left out of the story altogether as it is irrelevent to the question that the OP asked and everyone is discussing.</p>

<p>That being said, critical information that would help answer the question is missing. Some correctly recognize that certain uses of public land can wrest some of the otherwise public aspects of the land from the public. Others find existence of things such as entry fees and fences to automatically answer the question when they may be mere factors instead. The answer depends on the circumstances involved. Circumstances that are not fully described.</p>

[Dave Gardner]

<p>Again...two words "public land"! It doesn't belong to the city...it belongs to the taxpayer!</p>

<p>That's why you would need a license to use the park to conduct an event...you can even put up a fence. But the fence is use to prevent interference with like riding a motorcycle down the isle during the show...taking photos out side the fence is not interference. Actually...if they try to prevent you from doing that...they could be held liable for interfering with your state and federal rights.</p>

<p>There's a big deference between having a policy and enforcing it.</p>

<p>Remember...the cities policies...do not over rule state or federal laws. I'm from Luzerne county where some of the judges and local politicians are going to jail for misappropriation of tax payer funds....and trying to restrict the rights of the people.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>Dave. I think we understand your two words. That has been discussed throughout the thread. The OP does not appear to have been outside the concert area; the OP appears to have been within the (barricaded or not) boundriwes of the concert area. Perhaps you should back up two postings and re-read Asprey's and Henneberger's POVs. I think that performance rights might be among the "unknown" circumstances that are used to justify the prohibitions of recording at public performances. Whether the First Amendment (or whatever other federal/state laws you refer to) trumps these is an issue I know not much about... but since it is a very common prohibition at public performances I suspect that it has already been determined that at this time there is not a conflict. Most of the public performances at which I've seen the photo prohibition enforced had the enforcement only during the performance, but not before or after. It could be a case of slightly overzealous rules but I don't think a blanket First Amendment arguement adequately addresses teh issue.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Any performer, singer, dancer, actor, band, orchestra, doing so in a professional capacity, can decided if they allow photography or videoing of their performances. End of story.</p>

<p>This isn't even close to reality. If someone is out in an actual public place and setting, whether performing or just picking their nose, they can be legitimately be photographed absent some other law being broken. The discussion, tortured as it is already, is really about whether the performance here was in a fully public setting. Discussion of what one can do with the photos is a different issue.<br /><br /><em>its not the venue that matters, its the performance rights... ...its even stretched to amateur performances</em></p>

<p>If one has a right to restrict the taking of pictures, it is up to the holder holding to excercise them in a setting where such rights are enforcable. Do you really believe that if you write a song and go perform it out on the sidewalk, you have the right to prevent anyone from taking pictures? You seem to be confusing shooting pictures of people with the seperate issue of what can be done with the pictures.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>John, I think Steve was refering to Article 7 of the Rome convention, in which performers are granted the right to prevent fixation of their performance.</p>

<p><a name="P98_7530"></a>1. The protection provided for performers by this Convention shall include the possibility of preventing:</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>(a)</em> the broadcasting and the communication to the public, without their consent, of their performance, except where the performance used in the broadcasting or the public communication is itself already a broadcast performance or is made from a fixation; (etc)</p>

</blockquote>

[john_h.1]

<p><em>It doesn't belong to the city...it belongs to the taxpayer... ...judges and local politicians are going to jail for misappropriation of tax payer funds</em><br>

<em></em><br>

Taxes are irrelevent. The issue is not decided by whether anyone pays taxes, is excused from paying taxes or is a tax cheat. It doesn't have anything to do with the existence of taxes or tax funds at all. While public land belongs to 'the people', the government is reposnible for its maintenance. Sometimes, for example, an arena is public property but photography is legitimately restricted there during certain events based on contractual obligations. There was some discussion of this type of scenerio above. A government can also contract use of its property to others that that will impose some restrictions, while they are using or leasing the property, on visitors. It happens all the time.</p>

<p>We don't know, because we are not given enough information, if that was the case here. </p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Brian, How does Steve reconcile the voluntary and "possible" application (to the scenerio in Pennsylvania) to be the "end of story" especially when we aren't given facts about the arrangements behind the event?</p>

[aladennis]

<p>Any group can put on their brochure anything they want. Because it is printed does not make it appropriate or legal or binding. E.g. the brochure could say "To attend our concert you must first spit on a policeman" or "... donate your firstborn child to a satanic cult."<br>

"... photography is strictly forbidden" falls in the same category - narcissistic fantasy.<br>

I'm not a lawyer, just an opinionated old codger. I wish the other verbose posters would cite their expertise or sources for their opinions. One has to wonder how reliable these opinions are.</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>Al, All of our statements should be deemed as unreliable.</p>

[mcmanamey]

<p>My "expertise" & sources - <br>

No, I'm not a lawyer. I have sat through business law class for the heck of it. I buy text books for the heck of it - like that Photojournalism 101 book (and others) I mentioned. You'd better believe books for photojournalists go into this type of situation EXTENSIVELY. Then there's reading legal opinions and rulings on similar cases - doesn't make it too hard to extrapolate how it applies.</p>

<p>Then there's just needing to know, cause we tend to get hassled. A lot. <br>

I've been thrown off public property for trying to take a photo - disaster areas are another exception that gets fun. There's the personal escort into the prison warden's office my hubby got (Yes, you can stand across the street. My people were wrong, but don't put one foot on my property.) And it's amazing how touchy people get about terrorists in a small town when you're out taking pics at night or of refineries being dismantled.....<br>

So yeah, you better believe we keep up on EXACTLY what we can & cannot do, and what others are allowed to do to us.<br>

We keep it civil, we don't smart off to cops, but when I'm right and I know it - I'm NOT backing down.</p>

[n_1]

<p>Wow! Thanks for all the information and points of view. I realize this is just an event photography forum but I thought I'd ask those wiser and more experienced than myself.</p>

<p>John H- You raise good points about the circumstances to which I don't currently have an answer. To find out definitively, it seems that I'll need to either hire a lawyer or contact the management of the orchestra to determine the details of their contract with the city. (or both...) Without that information it seems it would be impossible to know one way or another with absolute certainty.</p>

<p>Ton- I generally DO inform my friends of my intent to photograph and get their help in clearing the way. This particular concert was a last minute decision.</p>

<p>Brian S- I appreciate your input. I'm not sweating over this situation, but it did raise more than a few questions. And as a former boyscout, I like to "be prepared".</p>

<p>Thomas W- As you've stated, its always easier/more productive to be polite with police and/or security. The officer in this situation was just doing what the management asked by approaching me. As I was leaving after our conversation, he intimated to me that he believed that the managament was being unreasonable and seemed apologetic.</p>

<p>n1</p>

[john_h.1]

<p>That's great Maria those events have different circumstances and factors than the one here which still does not have needed background information.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>'Brian, How does Steve reconcile the voluntary and "possible" application (to the scenerio in Pennsylvania) to be the "end of story" especially when we aren't given facts about the arrangements behind the event?"</p>

<p>Steve needs to speak for himself. I, too, thought that "end of story" was a bit abrupt... but that's also my response to the overused term " 'nuff said" in these types of internet discussions. I think, though, that the act which I referenced is what he was thinking about when he made his statement. Interestingly, like all good laws, that Act has escape clause for personal use, etc, etc.</p>

<p>Given that the facts are not all known (and will likely never be all known to us) and ocmbined with the complexity of law... I don't think this discussion will ever formulate the one, single, true "answer". I find it an interesting topic to explore though. Many of us have seen these situations and experienced these restrictions.</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"I'm not a lawyer, just an opinionated old codger."</p>

<p>Same with me... I might be younger but I'm still a codger!</p>

[BrianS1664879711]

<p>"As I was leaving after our conversation, he intimated to me that he believed that the managament was being unreasonable and seemed apologetic."</p>

<p>He had no reason to say something like that other than personal opinion... but he was probably right!</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>That's great Maria those events have different circumstances and factors than the one here which still does not have needed background information.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is the key point. There doesn't seem to be enough information, or identification, since there may be local ordinances, to give the kind of answers that most people have given. Pay attention to what John H and Craig have to say, and you will get closer to the correct information.</p>

[craig_gillette]

<p>I used "naive" because I think we all should know that some of the things suggested in the abstract are demonstrably not true in reality. For example, there are more than just the rights expressed in the Bill of Rights. These rights co-exist and they can seem to conflict or even actually conflict - and there are usually legal processes established that address the conflicts. Individuals have property, privacy and publicity rights, creative artists have performance and copyrights, etc.</p>

<p>We get these "I'm a (taxpayer/citizen). I know my rights. I can do A, B and C." statements and it's usually some broad generic statement that when it comes to the specifics of the circumstances, in fact and in law, no, one can't actually do A, B and C.</p>

<p>Government agencies, like private property owners, do have the right to control their property. So while one could stretch things to a remote factoid of accuracy, I suppose one could extract the idea that as "public" property, everybody owns it. "We" are part of everybody. So I own part of it. But, for the most part, "we" have passed ownership "rights" to the government. We can't do in the park what we can do at home. There's an established government. The "government," in accordance with the various US and state constitutions, etc., passes laws and also is accountable for their stewardship of the public property entrusted to them. It's not necessarily easy but it's quite possible to find the strings that connect all of the levels of legislation that do establish that yes, "they" can control what one does on public property. Are there limits? Yes, but those get to the individual circumstances. So just as owning stock in a railroad doesn't mean one can wander around the property or run the trains (unless, of course, one owns a whole lot of stock), being a taxpayer/citizen, etc., doesn't mean one can do whatever one wants on public property. </p>

<p>I don't think many would seriously argue that a park department couldn't provide for exclusive access to a gazebo or a rec. room and that a renting or reserving party couldn't expect to have exclusive access to that venue. If one was a wedding pro hired to shoot a wedding and reception in a public garden, I'd suggest there would be little question in his/her mind that the wedding party would have the right to exclude an outside photographer from coming in and obtrusively taking pictures and attempting to sell them to the guests in the midst of the event. So it shouldn't come as a surprise that a performance of some sort could restrict attendees within a reasonable area from taking pictures or a team/league could restrict outside commercial photography in the area they have control of for their athletic events.</p>

<p>One needs to have all of the various details of the specific activity to really know what one's status actually is. Perhaps to an excruciating level of detail that's not really amenable to forum resolution. But if one starts from an erroneous base, it's a lot less likely that one will come to a correct conclusion.</p>

<p> </p>

[bobatkins]

<p>I think it all boils down to this: It's ambiguous. You broke no "laws" and couldn't be arrested just for taking the pictures, but it's quite possible that there are local ordinances which would cover this situation and if so then you could be asked to stop taking pictures or leave, and if you refused then you might be arrested for something (though probably not the act of pushing the shutter release).</p>

<p>However you could probably step out of the park and shoot from the sidewalk and be perfectly within your rights (which, of course, doesn't prevent the police from questioning you or asking you to stop or otherwise coming up with something to charge you with!).</p>

<p>I think you handled the situation just fine. I'd do what you did. Shoot and if asked to stop, request permission. If it's granted, keep on shooting. If it's not granted, stop shooting. I suspect you'd likely have less trouble if you didn't use a honking big white 100-400 zoom lens next time!</p>

<p> </p>

[sondador]

<p>In my opinion, the government is very probably legally entitled to restrict your right, while you are in the audience, to take photos during and of the event. Once the circumstances become more remote geographically (you take photos from the top of a nearby building) or in time (you take photos of the venue site or the performers before or after the event), then, as many have noted, the situation becomes more ambiguous.</p>

[evan_parker2]

<p>You honestly would have a question more likely to be answered correctly if you just had people ask what you ate for lunch. The only way this question would be answered for sure is when a jury hands back a verdict in a civil suit.</p>