[CWyatt]

Actually, you are misguided there. 1st off, it wasn't the carnival that told him to stop, it was the johnny cops of Chicago. 2nd off, they let him in the gate with the dSLR and tripod. 3rd, we aren't talking about going onto private property that isn't open to the public. For example if a coffee shop asked me not to take a pic, I would take it under consideration, but if the got nasty, I would make an effort to advertise for them. What I am getting here is that private property that is open to the public doesn't automatically make people surrender their rights. Personally, I wouldn't have just got the cops badge number, I would have got his portrait and sent it to the local papers etc, and I would have done it in a nice way and give him my business card which isn't a photographer. Given iPhones etc, the whole idea is idiotic but then again we are talking about the Chicago PD.

That is true - it was the police, not the carnival. But the public/private property issue must be different there, if you're on private property here (even if it is usually open to the public, like a business), and the owner says you can't photograph, you can't photograph. You can, however, go back onto public property and shoot from there.

[Parallax]

What I am getting here is that private property that is open to the public doesn't automatically make people surrender their rights.

In this context, yes, it does. If you are sitting in the food court of your local mall, drinking a cup of coffee and they ask you to leave, you have to leave. Private property is private property. As long as they aren't discriminating based on race, religion, color, national origin, or any other criteria prohibited by statute, you may only do what the property owner allows you to do.

[Blue]

In this context, yes, it does. If you are sitting in the food court of your local mall, drinking a cup of coffee and they ask you to leave, you have to leave. Private property is private property. As long as they aren't discriminating based on race, religion, color, national origin, or any other criteria prohibited by statute, you may only do what the property owner allows you to do.

You are misquided as well because by definition that would be a lawsuit and I would own your mall. Actually, think about what you just typed. Who owns the food court? Who sold the cup off coffee? Which food operator is asking me to leave for no reason other than some sort of bias? But that is o.k. our local malls are going broke so let them harass their customers all they won't. Are they kicking everyone with an iPhone out?

Edit: http://www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm

You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.


Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.

[Blue]

That is true - it was the police, not the carnival. But the public/private property issue must be different there, if you're on private property here (even if it is usually open to the public, like a business), and the owner says you can't photograph, you can't photograph. You can, however, go back onto public property and shoot from there.

It needs to be clearly stated if that is the case. He never even said if it was private property anyway and many times they are on county or state owned fair grounds. Arenas are a whole different matter and a verify ahead of time on the size limits of the gear allowed if gear is allowed. It also matter if it is something like an NFL game or not. NCAA college games I have never had a problem.

Edit: You and Parallax both forget they gave the OP access with camera gear including a tripod.

[CWyatt]

It needs to be clearly stated if that is the case. He never even said if it was private property anyway

Hence:

Were you on public or private property? Not sure about there, but that would make a major difference here.

.

Edit: You and Parallax both forget they gave the OP access with camera gear including a tripod.

It doesn't necessarily give you the right to use it.

But as you said before, the issue here is that it was the cops who had a problem, and it wasn't, by the sound of it, the carnival that had any issues. And at the moment it's unknown whether it was public or private property as well.

[Blue]

Hence:

.



It doesn't necessarily give you the right to use it.

But as you said before, the issue here is that it was the cops who had a problem, and it wasn't, by the sound of it, the carnival that had any issues. And at the moment it's unknown whether it was public or private property as well.

It was a public place though in public view and "news worthy." What I am getting at is this isn't as clear cut as you think and varies from state to state.

Edit: What do you suppose they thought a tripod and camera were for?

Edit: Edit: This is a major red flag in any U.S. city or state.

You have to go to the police station and get permission

By the way you didn't look at the USA Today article I linked so here is a quote from it.

You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
In fact, there are very few limits to what you're allowed to photograph. Separately, there are few limits to what you're allowed to publish. And the fact that they're separate issues — shooting and publishing — is important. We'll get to that in a moment.
You can take any photo that does not intrude upon or invade the privacy of a person, if that person has a reasonable expectation of privacy. Someone walking in a mall or on the street? Fair game. Someone standing in a corner, looking at his new Prozac prescription? No. Using a long lens to shoot someone in an apartment? No.


Note that the limits have nothing to do with where you are when you take the shots; it's all about the subject's expectation of privacy. You can be on private property (a mall or office-building lobby), or even be trespassing and still legally take pictures. Whether you can be someplace and whether you can take pictures are two completely separate issues.

[Parallax]

Edit: You and Parallax both forget they gave the OP access with camera gear including a tripod.

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. It wasn't the property owner that told him not to photograph, it was the cops. All I can say from here is that if you are under the impression that you can do whatever you want o n private property, even if the owner objects, just because it is "open to the public" I hope you keep the number of a bail bondsman handy.

[Blue]

I haven't forgotten anything of the sort. It wasn't the property owner that told him not to photograph, it was the cops. All I can say from here is that if you are under the impression that you can do whatever you want o n private property, even if the owner objects, just because it is "open to the public" I hope you have a competent attorney on retainer.

Obviously you didn't read the link above to the USAToday article that was well researched. No where did I say I was under the impression that I could do whatever I want on private property. We were discussing things that fall under the 4 basic tort areas this falls under which outside of trespass are civil in nature. However, someone sitting in a food court at the mall drinking a cup of coffee with their camera whether it is a iPhone or dSRL are well within their rights. (See previous link)

Edit: Granted you can be asked to leave the mall for any reason its just that photography isn't specific grounds. Refusal would be trespass. We can even "pack" in the mall here. But then if asked to leave it does become "armed trespass." The can't take film or memory cards or make you delete images taken while there.

[CWyatt]

Police Violated Photog's Rights: ACLU | NBC Washington

[séamuis]

Police Violated Photog's Rights: ACLU | NBC Washington

its things like this that make me fear ever raising children here. this country is turning into a police state, and we the people seem to simply be letting it happen, day by day.

[Bill_R]

In this context, yes, it does. If you are sitting in the food court of your local mall, drinking a cup of coffee and they ask you to leave, you have to leave. Private property is private property. As long as they aren't discriminating based on race, religion, color, national origin, or any other criteria prohibited by statute, you may only do what the property owner allows you to do.

That's correct but the difference is for Public Space and not Public Property. Public Property can be Public Space or not. Private property can't be public space.
It can change too. An example is public roads closed off for a street circuit road race. As soon as they put those barricades up and restrict access to ticket holders it is no longer Public Space. In Victoria in Australia the fact that metro train stations are under private control means they aren't considered Public Space and they can ban photography and do (although permits can be obtained). In NSW in Australia even though you need to buy a ticket to access the train station platforms they are considered as semi-Public Space and non-commercial photos can be taken without a permit. So, the definition can be a little fuzzy.

In this case, the photographer was well within his rights and it amounted to bored cops who could have been out actually doing something constructive instead of going on an ego trip.

[adr1an]

In NSW in Australia even though you need to buy a ticket to access the train station platforms they are considered as semi-Public Space and non-commercial photos can be taken without a permit. So, the definition can be a little fuzzy.

And don't even start on the definitions regarding "Public Thoroughfare", which can turn areas inside of boundary lines of 'private' buildings into 'rights of way' etc etc... (seen most often in the 'public' areas that exist inside the footprint of places like Grosvesnor Square and most buildings in North Sydney etc... )

[Class A]

This is bizarre.

Bizzare indeed.

Luckily, you weren't arrested.

This is just crazy.

[TaoMaas]

what, will he beat me up?

Yeah...he just might. And his partner will testify in court that you seemed to be under the influence of drugs and were resisting their questioning. Sadly, many officers have more of an allegiance to each other than to the public or upholding the law.

[séamuis]

Yeah...he just might. And his partner will testify in court that you seemed to be under the influence of drugs and were resisting their questioning. Sadly, many officers have more of an allegiance to each other than to the public or upholding the law.

but then I ill be tested, and they won't find anything because I hardly ever take anything. not even aspirin. so then wouldn't the police officers judgement then be questioned? resisting questioning is not the same thing as refusal to answer, for which I have no legal right to do, nor would I answer any line of questioning I deem inappropriate or otherwise unlawful. I would not resist arrest, so if he arrests me he does. this means that if he decides to beat me up he will have to answer to why he used so much force, again taking the police officers judgement into question, among other things. my whole point is that I wound be bullied or hassled or anything else when it come sot my rights, and I'm not afraid of any law officer. if he decides to beat me up for simply refusing to answer questions or standing up for my rights he and his partner will have to answer to that because I won't make any single moves that would give them any reason to use force against me. besides, its likely somebody will be recording the whole ordeal anyway!