[boriscleto]

p.s. I'm not sure about the US, but the law on video/photographing police officers in the course of their duties is a bit of a grey area here in the UK.

Know Your Rights: Photographers

https://www.facebook.com/photographyisnotacrime

7 Rules for Recording Police

U.S. Justice Department Issues Letters Supporting Citizens Recording Police Officers | CNS Maryland

[Woolcott]

Know Your Rights: Photographers

https://www.facebook.com/photographyisnotacrime

7 Rules for Recording Police

U.S. Justice Department Issues Letters Supporting Citizens Recording Police Officers | CNS Maryland

They could've done with a copy of the 7 rules article!

[DeadJohn]

Yes, is a gray area... but then again, video surveillance and someone that shoves a camera in your face are 2 different things...

I believe that when someone ask you to not take a picture/video of their person, the person with the camera should lose any rights of taking picture of that person and just back off... public or not.

I strongly disagree. Your idea makes "rights" too conditional. It also shuts down news reporting.

[waterfall]

Cop harasses photographer, steals his cellphone battery and tries to get YouTube to pull the video | The Raw Story

In my job, I routinely get aggressive "Don't photograph me!" comments. Sometimes it is unavoidable and I always put a black box over the faces of people who appear in my professional forensic photos. Also, I never ever shoot photos of Federal government buildings! Had a couple unpleasant encounters from doing that.

---------- Post added 02-24-14 at 03:39 PM ----------

I guess we need to establish "photographers' rights?" Like, any shot taken from a public street is okay. Any shot taken from private property is trespassing. I don't know. Just seems like folks are way more sensitive these days.

[boriscleto]

Also, I never ever shoot photos of Federal government buildings! Had a couple unpleasant encounters from doing that.

If you are in a public place where you are lawfully present, and it is in plain site, it can be photographed. Period.

[waterfall]

If you are in a public place where you are lawfully present, and it is in plain site, it can be photographed. Period.

I like the simplicity of boriscleto's definition. Might not help, however. Folks have been calling the police to complain about realtors photographing the exterior of their houses here in Minnesota. I am not a realtor, but feel for their pain in the confrontational environment. So I shoot landscapes with no identifying marks!

[lesmore49]

I think is also the nature of a person...

For example, personally I do not like or enjoy to be photographed or to be part of a video (I know... the irony right!?).
If I see someone is about to take a picture of me (or video) I always ask nicely to not... in that case I expect the person to respect my wishes and back off.

And because I don't like it, consciously I just cannot take a picture of someone without first asking for permission.
I would never be a good street photographer...

Now, I do NOT approve the cop's reaction, however, I think / strongly believe that in this case, the photographer should of backed off and turned his camera down when the cop requested so - whatever the reason was.

There is such thing as the photographer's rights but is also such a thing as decency, respect to other's wishes and common courtesy.
I think there should be a law that says if a person does not wishes to be photographed or video recorded, the photographer/videographer should back off.

X 2.

Also I wonder what the other side of the story is ....there are always two sides to any story and then the third side which maybe more accurate.

---

Last edited by lesmore49; 02-24-2014 at 02:50 PM.

[Lowell Goudge]

Go check out the MTA rules

mta.info | Rules of Conduct

[Joel B]

A question to ask: What is the difference between photographer and photo journalist? Personally I think a photo journalist being targeted for documenting an official act is not acceptable and I think that when journalist schools suggest that news should monitored, your schools have become corrupted and need to be cleaned out!
If you let your rights go, you will never get them back!

[waterfall]

Well press credentials are the only difference, I guess.

[rawr]

I don't like the idea of the police being aggressive when photographers are at work or just being creative. I mean it's a camera, not a knife or handgun.

Photographers risk painting themselves into a corner if they get too agreeable about various restrictions being imposed on them. There seems no shortage of people who want to set arbitrary limits on what photographers can do and where they can shoot. Pretty soon you'll probably need a govt issued license and submit to a police check if you want to buy a camera.

[Joel B]

Well press credentials are the only difference, I guess.

Oops I got so into the soapbox I should have given my thoughts on that.
I think if you are out just taking photos, professional or amateur, you should be mindful of privacy rights. If you are documenting an event for a journalistic reason like some getting arrested or a public disturbance, again professional or amateur, you are a photojournalist. Some of the best scandals have been broke by amateurs!! Think Rodney King!! I'm sure if that person was spotted, they would have been worked over too, and the video would have disappeared!

[DeadJohn]

Go check out the MTA rules

mta.info | Rules of Conduct

MTA rules say photography is allowed. Photography on the subway is definitely allowed.

Note that MTA rules also say that you have to obey posted signs on MTA property. MTA-controlled bridges and tunnels (but not the subway) have signs that forbid photography. If you take a photo while on the bridge the offense is not obeying a sign, not photography itself. If you are off of MTA property you are permitted to point your camera towards MTA property. This led to my only confrontation with a cop. Explanation follows.

I was in a city park near the Triborough Bridge taking photos. An MTA Bridges & Tunnels cop (not NYPD) threatened me, claiming that it's illegal to take a photo of any bridge in New York. I asked him to clarify. Was every wide photo of the NYC skyline illegal because multiple bridges are visible? He then changed to "well, you can't take photo of MY bridge". I explained that I was not on MTA property and photography was permitted, but he pulled more and more attitude. I then pretended to delete the photos but instead turned on video recording. He drove off, content that he intimidated me into deleting photos.

Afterwards, I filed a complaint with internal affairs and got a satisfactory response. They confirmed I correctly understood the rules and said they would follow-up with the officers supervisor and review training programs.

---------- Post added 02-24-14 at 11:29 PM ----------

...I think if you are out just taking photos, professional or amateur, you should be mindful of privacy rights...

If you're in a public place, there are not really any privacy rights to be mindful of. When I'm in public I have the right to ask someone not to take my photo but they are under no obligation to comply. As a person I avoid taking voyeuristic photos. That's a personal choice by me, not a legal imposition. Voyeurism might be art or documentary to someone else, and the law shouldn't regulate it.

I find that street vendors often don't want their photo taken but I ignore their requests - if you're selling something on the streets of NYC you're fair game IMO. I exercise caution before extending that attitude towards drug dealers

[Joel B]

I exercise caution before extending that attitude towards drug dealers

Good point!

[Lowell Goudge]

I am not sure of laws in other jurisdictions, but there are specific points in different privacy acts that address the content of a photograph. Clearly general photography is permitted anywhere in public, but there needs to be care taken if the subject is clearly identified and you intend to publish, with respect to use of images.

In the USA, the first amendment addresses this for the press, I.e. News is always publishable, but where does that put armature photographers capturing something that is newsworthy?

One thing I noted, in looking at the video, was how long the photographer was there filming the scene. Clearly he was waiting for something. Given how static the scene is, there was no expression to be captured. So I have to ask why was he there for so long?