[Ira]

A month or two ago, I was stopped and surrounded by two cops--in individual cop cars no less--for shooting in the street 25 yards from my house.

They were nice enough, but stupid.

The problem with fighting the county in courts over these things is either way it costs you. If you win they pay your legal fees with taxpayer money. If you lose you pay their legal fees. Either way you pay. And they can reach way deeper into your pocket than you can.

Ira now you've got me itchin' to cause trouble with my cameras.

[MRRiley]

"They" say that they don't have control over what's going to appear in a contest of something somewhere so they stop all, and anything published needs to be cleared with them.

What a crock... of course they can't control what might appear in some contest or other... That has nothing to do with the fact that they cannot restrict photography on and of public property.

A similar case happened a couple of years back over in Silver Spring, MD. There was a management company operating a mall in downtown Silver Spring and there was a public street between parts of the mall property. The city granted them management control over the street to enable them to run things outside in the area. At some point they began hassling photographers and after a good bit of media attention the city council told the management company in no uncertain terms that managing the area did not entitle them to prevent the public from taking photos... even of the precious window displays.

Did this ridiculous statement come from top management?

Mike

[MRRiley]

The problem with fighting the county in courts over these things is either way it costs you. If you win they pay your legal fees with taxpayer money. If you lose you pay their legal fees. Either way you pay. And they can reach way deeper into your pocket than you can.

Ira now you've got me itchin' to cause trouble with my cameras.

This shouldn't be a case that even gets to the courts. Proper media attention should simply be brought to bear if the county stupidly backs the Lorton Arts organization.

[mel]

I have been seriously looking forward to your responses Mike as I know how you feel about this sort of issue. We (a person there who shall remain name- and position-less for now), are trying to compile information to give them (the LAF) that will clarify whether or not this qualifies as public space and if they can or can not restrict photography. I haven't had time to start the research process really but everything needs to backed up with documentation (case rulings and precedents would be nice).

[MRRiley]

From a Wikipedia article about the Silver Spring situation...

In 2007, the downtown Silver Spring area gained attention when an amateur photographer was prohibited from taking photographs in what appeared to be a public street. The land, leased to a developer for $1, was technically private property. The citizens argued that the Downtown Silver Spring development, partially built with public money, was still public property. After a protest on July 4, 2007, the developer relented and allowed photography on their property under limited conditions. The developer also claimed that they could revoke these rights at any time. They further stated that other activities permitted in public spaces, such as organizing protests or distributing campaign literature, were still prohibited. In response, Montgomery County Attorney Leon Rodriguez said that the street in question, Ellsworth Drive, "constitutes a public forum" and that the First Amendment's protection of free speech applies there. In an eight-page letter, Rodriguez wrote, "Although the courts have not definitively resolved the issue of whether the taking, as opposed to the display, of photographs is a protected expressive act, we think it is likely that a court would consider the taking of the photograph to be part of the continuum of action that leads to the display of the photograph and thus also protected by the First Amendment." The incident was part of a trend in the United States regarding the blurring of public and private spaces in developments built with both public and private funds.

I disagree that a lease on public property makes it "private property" but the county government did come down on the side of photograhers in the end.

Even if the property were indeed private, there is precident limiting the owner's ability to restrict constitutionally protected rights. An article about this can be found on freedomforum.org. An interesting excerpt...

In Marsh v. Alabama, 326 U.S. 501 (1946), the Supreme Court held ..... "the more an owner, for his advantage, opens up his property for use by the public in general, the more do his rights become circumscribed by the statutory and constitutional rights of those who use it." In striking a balance, the Court concluded that the free-speech rights of the individual were paramount over the property rights asserted by the company.

Another site worth checking out is Photo Attorney

Mike

p.s. also the venerable and invaluable http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Blue]

The problem with fighting the county in courts over these things is either way it costs you. If you win they pay your legal fees with taxpayer money. If you lose you pay their legal fees. Either way you pay. And they can reach way deeper into your pocket than you can.

Ira now you've got me itchin' to cause trouble with my cameras.

Lets have some laws that allow to put the subversive officials in jail and fine them for court costs.

[mel]

In the photoattorney website there were guidelines and rights for photographing in national parks. Research on the county website reveals that all development of the land on which the arts center resides is under the aegis of the county's Parks and Rec. department. This leads me to draw the conclusion that it is classified as parkland. Using the precedent of the national parklands, it would indicate that the same would hold for country parklands as well. Still looking to see if there's any information regarding photography on the county website but somehow I doubt I'll find anything.

[monochrome]

Kind of like the dude who was restrained by security for taking photos of Amtrak property... when he was doing so to enter an Amtrak contest that required him to do exactly the same.

I think you will find that very little property is actually public. Someone owns it or the rights to it... and they will enforce this right if they take a fancy to doing so. Even many streets are not public at all. Public squares, public parks, public monuments... all owned by someone who is not the public. It doesn't matter if the public is allowed there... the public is allowed in privately-owned malls after all. And I am not the only person to have been escorted out of a mall for doing nothing of any harm at all. You just have to look a little different.

Sorry, but did you really think that you owned any share in the world? Sheesh... how naive.

I hope I own the rights to images of my home.

Just for grins I'm currently attempting to have Google remove the StreetView image of my house from their servers. The image as clearly taken from a private street, clearly marked a private street, that I and my three neighbors maintain (and so must do up to City Police and Fire standards).

Haven't decided how far I will go (cost of attorneys, Deed/Plat searches, etc) but it sure is fun to dream about!

[Wheatfield]

I hope I own the rights to images of my home.

Just for grins I'm currently attempting to have Google remove the StreetView image of my house from their servers. The image as clearly taken from a private street, clearly marked a private street, that I and my three neighbors maintain (and so must do up to City Police and Fire standards).

Haven't decided how far I will go (cost of attorneys, Deed/Plat searches, etc) but it sure is fun to dream about!

Have Google charged with trespassing.

[Blue]

I hope I own the rights to images of my home.

Just for grins I'm currently attempting to have Google remove the StreetView image of my house from their servers. The image as clearly taken from a private street, clearly marked a private street, that I and my three neighbors maintain (and so must do up to City Police and Fire standards).

Haven't decided how far I will go (cost of attorneys, Deed/Plat searches, etc) but it sure is fun to dream about!

That can't see my house without coming down my very long drive way which also has a 90 degree turn. However, the satellite/aerial view is a different story. Every state handles private streets differently. In Florida, non county maintained streets have a blue street sign rather than the typically green ones. There are also 'historical' old type white ones in a few places. The blue signs makes it somewhat of a "gray" zone because it is public area on private property. That's why my drive is only a private drive (without a blue sign). It would be cool to name it woodpecker lane or something, but then I'd have to deal with the dipsticks that come down it as well as open up the "public area" can of

Have Google charged with trespassing.

They would pin that on the free-lance photog that took the image.

[RioRico]

Slightly off-topic: We just spent a few days in Santa Fe, New Mexico. Three days ago we drove through Los Alamos to see the immense Valles Caldera. En route, at a stop light, I stuck my K20D+DA18-250 out the car window and snapped a sign saying LOS ALAMOS NATIONAL LABORATORY and a safety banner, against thick foliage. Nothing else was visible, just words and leaves.

A few seconds later a red light flashed behind us. I pulled over; a security guy (I'm not sure of the jurisdiction) asked if that was a digital camera, and nicely told me to delete the picture. I showed him the innocuous shot; he insisted. I asked why. He said that terrorists could torture us to obtain images. I was too tired to argue, and we had better things to do than deal with security officials. Pffffft.

Anybody seriously desiring to surveill the spread-out facility from the ground could easily mount hidden cameras on one or more vehicles. For that matter, I could have stuck the memory card into my laptop and undeleted the incriminating image. I did not mention these possibilities to the security guy. Meanwhile, I was on a public highway, and no signs restricting photography were evident. I *suppose* that a National Laboratory might be considered a military facility under current anti-terror laws, which is another reason I played dumb and deleted the picture. Were I driving across Mexico, I'd surely not aim a lens at any military facility. But it scares me to see this police-state BS here in the USA.

[rparmar]

He said that terrorists could torture us to obtain images. I was too tired to argue, and we had better things to do than deal with security officials. Pffffft.

Perhaps terrorists could torture him for information too. Better delete his brain pan before it's too late!

I sympathise with this situation. If I had time and energy I'd kindly ask him to call a police officer. They can be rather good at setting security upstarts straight on the law. While the shot is your property, he has no right to ask you to delete it. In fact, if you had committed a crime, the photo would be evidence of that crime -- destroying it would in itself be an offence!

[MRRiley]

Los Alamos is indeed a restricted nuclear facility under both the Dept of Energy and, I believe, the DOD. However the security guard that accosted you was either smoking some of the local weed or was off of his meds. It's highly unlikely that the director of Los Alamos Labs has designated surrounding public streets as "photo restricted zones." And frankly, a photo of a sign with no buildings in view is of no value whatsoever to any terrorists, unless, I guess, they want to blow up the sign.

From Bert Krages' Photo Attorney and his The Photographer's Right flyer...

There are some exceptions to the general rule. A significant one is that commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such.

Note the frequent use of the word "can" in that quote... Photography of and on most installations is rarely restricted except for specific sensitive areas and these are normally clearly marked.


Everyone should print and carry several copies of his The Photographer's Right flyer on which Mr. Krages describes what to do when you are approached by someone when you are taking photos in public (the situation changes somewhat if you are trespassing on private or restricted government property)...

1. What is the person’s name?
2. Who is their employer?
3. Are you free to leave? If not, how do they intend to stop you if you decide to leave? What legal basis do they assert for the detention?
4. Likewise, if they demand your film, what legal basis do they assert for the confiscation?

I personally would put it like this...

1. Who are you and who do you work for? (Get his card or write it down)
2. What authority/law/regulation am I violating? (chapter and verse... "security" is not an answer)
3. Am I free to leave?
--- Yes - Can I continue taking photographs?
--------- Yes - go on your way and shoot...
--------- No - back to step 2...
--- No - Why not? Under what legal authority are you detaining me?

If you are on publicly accessable public property (aka not a restricted military installation for example) or are on private property with the owner's permission, technically, you are under no legal obligation to show anyone your images, but many people think this will help defuse the situation. While that may be true it also fuels the delusions in the security person's mind that he is acting properly and it perpetuates his behavior.

Next, if they tell you to delete any images you are again under no legal obligation to do so and indeed, should you later be arrested and charged with some crime, they could add charges for "destroying evidence." DO NOT DELETE THE IMAGES! However, understanding the state of mind you are likely to be in, especially if the security person is armed, if you do chose to comply, immediately thereafter pull the memory card so the images can be recovered.

Also, whatever you do, do not willingly allow them to handle your camera, film or memory cards. Legally the only point at which anyone can legally seize your gear is if you have been placed under arrest by an actual police or other law enforcement officer. At that point, unless you've run into an unethical officer, your gear and the images contained are fairly safe under rules safeguarding the "chain of evidence."

So what about the "private property" question? Generally, a private security guard has no authority outside of the property which he has been hired to guard and they generally do not have the "power of arrest" even on the property, though they may, in some cases, "gently detain" you until the police arrive. So if a private security guard seizes your gear without your consent he is vulnerable to charges of theft. If he destroys images or breaks something he is vulnerable to charges of "destruction of property." He is somewhat liable to these charges even if you are on private property where he has authority, but if he does so outside of said property he has little if any defense. Be aware that security guards are sometimes "deputized" by local law enforcement agencies in which case the guard does have some police powers. However it is incumbent upon him to properly identify himself as such.

Mike

Disclaimer... I am not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV. The above comments simply reflect MY understanding of the applicable laws and are based upon my experiences including several years as a security forces augmentee in the US Air Force. These opinions and a dollar MAY buy you a cup of coffee. The proper course of action to resolve any legal question is to consult an attorney licensed to practice law in your jurisdiction.

[pacerr]

. . . how 'bout if one was to claim to have a (gasp!) photographic memory? Now that ought'a be a show stopper!

Or set up an easle and start to paint or sketch instead? ( Stand back, there. This oil paint has CADMIUM in it an' I'm not afraid to use it! )

H2