Is a city owned parking garage public or private property?

[gmanfsu1973]

So, I took my kids to a parking garage in downtown Tampa today. It's the garage known to have the best view of the Tampa skyline and me and my youngest sons wanted to try out getting some nighttime panoramic shots. Also, the garage is in a clear to fly area according to the B4UFly app, so my older two were going to fly their drone around and get some shots as well.

So me and my youngest were starting out with determining the "no parrallax" point for all of our lenses. This was going to be our first attempt at panoramic photography and we're trying to gain as much experience as possible prior to a summer trip to CO and UT.

So we're taking or measurements and my other 2 have just gotten the drone up in the air when the rent-a-cop comes along telling me that we're not allowed to take pictures there. I ask if the garage is public property or private since I thought it was owned by the City of Tampa. He confirmed no less than 3 times that we were on public property. When his supervisor was talking to me over his speakerphone, she also confirmed it was public property. He had provided me a piece of paper from Film Tampa Bay, which is a public-private partnership for film permits for TV, motion pictures, commercials and some still photography (which I'm sure means commercial photography, not personal).

The paper listed reasons you need a permit and reasons you don't.

The reasons you would need a permit were:
   1. Film production
   2. Private property
   3. Some still photography may require a permit (so that tells me that neither 1 or 2 applies, and seems pretty obvious that the may require is referring to professional/commercial)

The reasons you don't need a permit included:
   1. Crew of 3 or less
   2. Handheld cameras

But if you go to filmtampabay.com, you can see that, at least for parks and conservation areas, that crew of three is actually a crew of 5 and using a handheld camera OR a personal tripod are exemptions.

So, as I've been informed multiple times by the rent-a-cops that I'm on public property, I inform them I'm within my first amendment rights to take pictures. I am not impacting anyone else, I'm not violating anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy and I'm not disturbing the peace. I am paying for my time at the parking garage and using that time as I see fit. I even waited to go until Sunday, when I knew there were no events downtown, such as a Tampa Lightning game or major concert, since I knew I was at the garage closest to Amelie Arena.

So I inform them I will wait for the police to arrive. I figure I have one option to just leave, which gets me nothing. Or I can roll the dice that reasonable cops who actually understand the law will arrive and I can get the shots I came for, and if not, worst case is a ticket for loitering or something, but most likely just a warning of some sort.

While we're waiting for the police, 2 other rent-a-cops show up and one tries to tell me that filming on city property with anything other than a cell phone is illegal, lol.

So the cops arrive and I see it's 2 young guys, so I know immediately that I won't be able to take my photos. One of the cops proceeds to tell me I'm on private property, which I believe is categorically false. Then he asks for my ID and keeps me waiting for like 30 minutes while he writes out a Trespass Warning.

So can a publicly owned parking garage be considered private property? 

[samstevens]

27 minutes ago, gmanfsu1973 said:

So can a publicly owned parking garage be considered private property?

I suggest a movie or game night with your kids.

[httpwww.photo.netbarry]

its not uncommon at all. Public train stations will require a permit if they think it's a professional shoot. Usually based n the equipment./ Yes it's subjective. Certain public beaches in CA will require a permit to shoot wedding type of stuff on the beach.

[Tony Parsons]

I would have photographed and filmed (if possible) the entire interraction, then gone to a pro-bono lawyer and taken it from there. If you are ever in the UK, BTW, and you want to p**** off the po-lice, just ask how the search for Jack The Ripper is going. I have had many free cups of tea and sandwiches sitting quietly in cells waiting to be released (usually about three in the morning !). To quote Jim Morrison 'Their duty is to Protect and to Serve'. Nil illegitimi carborundum.

[mikemorrellNL]

No idea.

I live in the Netherlands (NL) so I looked up your info just out of curiosity (for stuff related to permissions). 

In NL it's no problem taking photos in so-called 'public spaces'. These generally mean 'open spaces' (street, local parks, etc.). Enclosed locations intended for 'public use' (train/bus stations, parking garages, Shopping Malls, Libraries, etc.) usually have regulations or guidelines for photography/film. Officially, photographers need a permit. In practice, lots of people take single photos there without a permit too. It's generally not problem unless  a) someone objects or security notices you  and/or b) gets the impression that it's a 'photoshoot'. For example involving multiple people, a set-up with a tripod, etc.

The Film Tampa Bay FAQ page, mentions:

"If you’re a photographer taking photos in Hillsborough County Parks or Conservation Areas, and your total crew, including subjects and photographer, is 5 people or less, a film permit is not required for your shoot. This is valid in Hillsborough County Parks and Hillsborough County Conservation Areas only. This does not apply to any athletic facilities, playgrounds or shelters. Handheld cameras OR cameras with personal tripods only. No professional equipment or props allowed. Photographers wanting to schedule a photoshoot featuring more than 5 people, props, or additional equipment must still apply for a permit."

I couldn't find any specific rules and regulations relating to photography for Tampa parking garages. 

It does seem strange that - if it's the Fort Brooke garage you refer to - the rooftop views are touted as a tourist attraction so visitors/photographers there must be a regular occurrence. I can only imagine that the drone - combined with 4 people - was an issue. The security staff might have assumed that you were doing a 'photoshoot' with 'additional equipment without a permit.

[PapaTango]

This is something that can pop up anywhere.  In the past, I have been confronted (while photographing from the public street) an ADM corn distillery, a bridge, an office building at night, a TVA office building interior., etcetera.  I was actually arrested in Stanford, Kentucky for photographing the courthouse clock tower after dark.  That was a memorable night.  Oh, and it's never a good idea to take photos of correctional facilities.  That garners lots of attention.

Several instances claimed public safety in light of taking anti-terrorism security steps.  NO PHOTOS.  Others had the issue of a security guard with a $30 badge that had no idea about photography--and little interest in learning or listening.

I have found the best way to deal with this is to move on.  We seem to live in a world where everything is a threat to something, and every photographer taking images of children is a pervert.  Strange times, and the public argument mostly fails in the face of authoritarian stupidity and public distrust.

Edited April 3, 2023 by PapaTango

[Ed_Ingold]

If you fly a drone, you don't need to start from the top floor of a parking garage. You can fly up to 400' above existing structures, subject to FAA regulations.

I have taken many stitched panoramas, hand-held, without benefit of a tripod or nodal slide. If there's nothing of interest closer than about 50', parallax can be neglected.

Edited April 3, 2023 by Ed_Ingold

[JDMvW]

1 hour ago, PapaTango said:

I have found the best way to deal with this is to move on

Given the continuing saga of people being killed in a "tail-light-out stop" (or some such), this is sound advice. Even sounder if you are not a mature, well-dressed white male.

Hav-a-Tampa

Edited April 3, 2023 by JDMvW

[Ken Katz]

I believe that property owned by a government entity would be treated as private property, and subject to their rules and regulations.  The fact that it is owned and operated by government entity does not make it public property.   Personally don't like any restrictions on photography, but I suppose you can petition the City to change the rules with respect to that location.  

[AlanKlein]

Just because it's public property does not mean they can't make reasonable rules.  You can't take photos in a courthouse for example. Even on a public street (in NYC), you can't setup a tripod and block foot traffic and cause possible safety issues. 

What's the part with the drone?  They allow that in Tampa?  Did they say that was even allowed from the roof of their building - permit or not?

You could fight the fine in court but I'd be prepared with written evidence supporting your claim of innocence.

Edited April 3, 2023 by AlanKlein

[Sanford]

Never ever argue with a security guard or anyone in uniform even if you believe you are 100% correct...not worth it.

[mikemorrellNL]

5 hours ago, Sanford said:

Never ever argue with a security guard or anyone in uniform even if you believe you are 100% correct...not worth it.

(Mostly) agree, though there's IHMO no harm, in politely clarifying what 'the rules are' and how you're breaking them. I suspect that (some/many) security guards and the like are 'trained' not to get into discussions or negotiations with members of the public about what (they believe) 'the rules' are and which 'rules' (they believe) are being broken.

Some kids in NL recently got a heavy fine because they were taking photos from the top of a parking garage. Because they had no parked car, they were considered 'trespassers'. Really sad! Especially because I've done exactly the same thing without ever being aware that I was 'trespassing'.  In these cases, I suspect that the 'personality' of the security guard also comes into play.  In my volunteer work, I've noticed that some volunteers in an 'official capacity' play things strictly 'by the book'. Others (including myself) tend to be more flexible and more willing to make occasional exceptions.  In the NL kids case, I can imagine that one security guard might  say 'hey kids, you're not really supposed to be here, please leave" whereas the 'on duty' security guard played things strictly by the book and decided that the kids were 'trespassers'.

Credit to the garage security guard in at least connecting the OP to his/her supervisor. Perhaps a better question to the supervisor might have been "hey, I'm <here> on a family visit. Do I need a permit to take photos with a camera and drone for our personal use?

The first sentence from any 'official' is IMHO a good indication of the 'room to manoeuvre'.  A sentence starting with "you're not allowed to ..."  indicates that his/her mind is pretty much already made up and any protests to the contrary are either doomed to fail or in the best case will be an uphill climb. On the other hand, if the first sentence is more along the lines of "hey, may I ask what you're doing here?", that at least indicates than an official is more receptive to additional information.

At least in NL, many 'officials' (police officers, security at railway stations, etc.) seem more inclined to first ask questions before jumping to conclusions. In the sense of first finding out "what's going on?".  In the OP's situation, they might ask "hey, at this location (with this number of people, this type of equipment, ....), you need a permit to take photos/video's. Do you have one?

There are of course exceptions, such as officials who issue parking fines 🙂

 

[AlanKlein]

If a public parking lot has had automobile break-ins, they're not going to be accommodating to people there who haven't parked their cars.  

[Rick Helmke]

I’ve found over the years shooting for newspapers and just for myself that the ‘law’ or rules are whatever a given officer says it is at that moment and it varies depending on which officer you are dealing with, what kind of day he or she is having and your attitude. There’s what the laws or rules are, what everyone involved thinks they are and what they want them to be. In short, it’s a crapshoot.

 

Rick H. 

[Sanford]

23 minutes ago, Rick Helmke said:

I’ve found over the years shooting for newspapers and just for myself that the ‘law’ or rules are whatever a given officer says it is at that moment and it varies depending on which officer you are dealing with, what kind of day he or she is having and your attitude. There’s what the laws or rules are, what everyone involved thinks they are and what they want them to be. In short, it’s a crapshoot.

 

Rick H. 

That's the case for the "Marshals" that police the AT&T Pro-Am along with the regular uniformed security. These are sought after largely honorary positions given to well connected people by their well connected friends. These are not always the kind of folks that pay close attention during their orientation and don't know all the rules they are enforcing, sometimes get it wrong.

[samstevens]

Let's also remember that law enforcement, flawed as it sometimes is, also deals with a variable public. That public may often assert rights it does not have, assume rules are not in place that are, and have attitudes that vary from cooperative to nasty to dangerous. Life is a two-way street and it's been my experience that I can often (not always) navigate a situation successfully when my attitude modulates to that situation.

This is not unlike photography. When taking photos of people, those people aren't in a vacuum. They are affected by my own actions and reactions. Same is true for any kind of photography. It's not just about the scene or thing out there. It's about the relationship between the thing and me, often as much what I bring to it as what it offers me.

[marceppy]

Cameras and photography can sure get us in trouble sometimes.  I’ve been there.  Your approach to using the garage was logical.  Government property supported by tax dollars is public property but may have rules on how it’s used.  If concerned, perhaps a request to the mayor’s office for a copy of the rules would help.  If they prohibit it w/o a permit, it’s probably for a safety reason.  If so, request a permit and go back because you should take that picture - the photo concept did sound good.  And We want to see that picture here on photo.net.
 

I’ve been there.

[gmanfsu1973]

https://www.instagram.com/p/CqmGSZTOHQHu6E1-d4zpLpE6AbCGjut1I-US000/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

that’s a link to some of the drone photos/videos my son took, just to show how empty the lot was. (Photos 3 & 7 show it well)

Took a lot of searching today, and as the NL poster noted above, all references to photography in the Tampa city ordinances are in section 16, which is the parks department. But I found this by searching “filming”:

27-282.17 deals with temporary film projects and discusses permits, insurance, police assistance for closing a street, etc. That’s what the first 9 sections cover. Then there’s section 10:

(10)

Exceptions. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a permit for:

a.

Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use.

b.

Employees of print or electronic news media when filming on-going news events.

c.

Students and faculty filmingexclusively for educational purposes.

media when filming on-going news events.

c.

Students and faculty filmingexclusively for educational purposes.

I also found some pages from Tampa trespassing lawyers who all stated that a property being “open to the public” means that one doesn’t even need to provide a reason for being there. 

Finally, the city definition of trespassing defines it as a person “not authorized, licensed or invited” to be on the property. Being open to the public would make me authorized, and paying for the parking would grant me temporary license to be on the property.

I’ve already emailed DeSantis. State passes no permit concealed carry, but I need a permit to teach my teens an appreciation for an art form by taking pictures from the roof of an empty parking garage? Doesn’t sound so free to me, Ron.

will be contacting the city attorney’s office and mayor’s office as well.

have significant doubts anything will be done, but I’ll be damned if I’m not going to make a case for what’s plainly and obviously right!

Edited April 4, 2023 by gmanfsu1973

[AlanKlein]

5 hours ago, gmanfsu1973 said:

https://www.instagram.com/p/CqmGSZTOHQHu6E1-d4zpLpE6AbCGjut1I-US000/?igshid=YmMyMTA2M2Y=
 

that’s a link to some of the drone photos/videos my son took, just to show how empty the lot was. (Photos 3 & 7 show it well)

Took a lot of searching today, and as the NL poster noted above, all references to photography in the Tampa city ordinances are in section 16, which is the parks department. But I found this by searching “filming”:

27-282.17 deals with temporary film projects and discusses permits, insurance, police assistance for closing a street, etc. That’s what the first 9 sections cover. Then there’s section 10:

(10)

Exceptions. Nothing in this section shall be interpreted to require a permit for:

a.

Individuals filming or video taping only for their own personal or family use.

b.

Employees of print or electronic news media when filming on-going news events.

c.

Students and faculty filmingexclusively for educational purposes.

media when filming on-going news events.

c.

Students and faculty filmingexclusively for educational purposes.

I also found some pages from Tampa trespassing lawyers who all stated that a property being “open to the public” means that one doesn’t even need to provide a reason for being there. 

Finally, the city definition of trespassing defines it as a person “not authorized, licensed or invited” to be on the property. Being open to the public would make me authorized, and paying for the parking would grant me temporary license to be on the property.

I’ve already emailed DeSantis. State passes no permit concealed carry, but I need a permit to teach my teens an appreciation for an art form by taking pictures from the roof of an empty parking garage? Doesn’t sound so free to me, Ron.

will be contacting the city attorney’s office and mayor’s office as well.

have significant doubts anything will be done, but I’ll be damned if I’m not going to make a case for what’s plainly and obviously right!

Drone photography is more regulated.  Are you sure you can fly them from a city building?  Apparently there are drone prohibitions in city and state parks in general.  So i don't see why buildings would be exempt. 

[gmanfsu1973]

3 hours ago, AlanKlein said:

Drone photography is more regulated.  Are you sure you can fly them from a city building?  Apparently there are drone prohibitions in city and state parks in general.  So i don't see why buildings would be exempt. 

We use the B4UFLY app, which shows approved vs restricted flying areas. And the drone has GPS and won’t fly if you’re in a restricted area.

[Edwin Barkdoll]

11 minutes ago, gmanfsu1973 said:

We use the B4UFLY app, which shows approved vs restricted flying areas. And the drone has GPS and won’t fly if you’re in a restricted area.

B4UFLY is not always accurate. I generally try to confirm with two apps before flying in areas that might be questionable.

[Ricochetrider]

Hmmm. Sounds like you handled it properly, so at least you didnt make any enemies or set yourself up for longer term ramifications. May be a good idea to have printed set of the city’s rules off their website to show these folks in the future- and perhaps a visit to the city official overseeing this program would help the cause as well, if you could get something in writing with a hand written signature from them, to accompany the rules page print out? 

AND, what the heck,  inquire into what it costs/takes to get a permit- it might turn out you need a certification or license to even be allowed one.

Meanwhile, as others have said, “we” (John Q Public, et al) are at the mercy of whatever cop or security shows up. Nowadays, from what I’ve seen, even the lowliest, least important security people carry a sidearm. Whatever else you do or say, as I’m sure you know already, it makes zero sense to antagonize “these people”. Honestly, we see how this turns out, almost daily: ie: not well. 
 

Best luck going forward 👍🏼

 

 

[glen_h]

Drones are not allowed in US National Parks. 

It seems that they reduce the natural experience for other users.

They are not allowed in many city parks for the same reason.

City parks near my require a permit for commercial photographers, even if the

photographs are for personal use. 

That is, photo sessions by commercial photographers.

 

I suspect it it looks like commercial photography, using tripods, lighting devices,

and such, many will restrict it. 

 

I was at a museum some years ago, that required a free permit for non-commercial

photography.  I got my permit, but it was covered by my coat.  I was asked about it,

and had to show it. 

 

Parking garages might be city owned, but contracted out.  That might allow the

contractor to set the rules.

[c_watson1]

Same old entitlement issues...Are the kids FAA licensed?

[paddler4]

Quote

Drones are not allowed in US National Parks. 

It seems that they reduce the natural experience for other users.

They are not allowed in many city parks for the same reason.

As someone who does drone photography, I am pleased that some parks ban them. Many people go to parks for peace and quiet, not to hear they high-pitched whine of drones. However, still photography in a parking garage is an entirely different matter, as it doesn't interfere with what other users do unless you take photos of people or their personal possessions.