[MarkJerling]

Hmmm.... OK.... but what about that log? Did you have permission to photograph that?!

Come to think of it Mike, that log could have been useful!

[Fenwoodian]

I was standing on a beach, photographing my own two kids playing in the surf. (No other children or adults in the photo) Up walked a very large woman and loudly and and in a rude tone said to me: "Do you have permission to photograph those kids?"

.

.
The incident I had today was with an extremely large woman too.


A trend, or a coincidence?

[MarkJerling]

.
The incident I had today was with an extremely large woman too.


A trend, or a coincidence?

The world is full of nutters.

[BROO]

Interesting... Thanks for that. It's very different to how I deal with situations, frankly - not just the one we're discussing, but almost any conflict.

There is a big difference between work related matters and dealing with people (strangers) in the general public. If you are approached in public by a rude and angry person, you have no obligation to calm them down or solve their problems.

Conflict resolution is another thing.

I currently work for a British based multinational where the kinds of behaviors you described would have them marched out the door with a uniformed escort.

This is how I would treat a conflict as described by the OP if the woman had a polite and civilized demeanor.

Firstly I would acknowledge her.
Then I would introduce myself as (first name ) an amateur photographer.
Hopefully she would reciprocate.
Then I would ask her if I can help? (in other words what is your problem?)
Then I would explain what I was trying to achieve (with my photography).
The next step is to then empower her by asking if she can think of any way that I can achieve my objectives whilst satisfying her concerns?
Sometimes this strategy works because it gives them the opportunity to solve their own problem which most polite and responsible people like to do.

[biz-engineer]

Photography would be FUN if not for ignorant people!

Welcome to the world of the human animal specie. There are plenty of areas other than photography where people are less then adequate.

[DeadJohn]

After 9/11 those signs prohibiting photography began popping up on bridges all around New York City.
I haven't seen one recently so perhaps legal questions have led to their removal.

Chris

I believe they were taken down around oct. 2010 because of a court ruling.
You Can Photograph That Federal Building: Civil Liberties Union and Homeland Security Reach Agreement - The New York Times

The rules vary depending on who runs the bridge.

New York City government manages 700+ small bridges, plus some big ones such as the Brooklyn, Manhattan, and 59th/Queensboro/Koch. There are no photography restrictions. In general, if there's no toll on the bridge it's managed by NYC.

The Metropolitan Transportation Authority (MTA) manages the tolled bridges and tunnels where both ends are in NYC: Verrazano, Throgs Neck, Whitestone, RFK, Midtown Tunnel, Battery Tunnel, etc. I think photos are still not permitted but I am not sure. There's no law that prohibits photos but there is a law that requires "compliance with posted signs". The MTA bridges and tunnels used to have "no camera use" signs decades ago although I don't know if the signs are still there. Regardless, the signs only apply when you are on MTA property; if you were on a NYC-managed road/park/sidewalk or private property you could take photos of MTA-managed property.

The Port Authority of New York and New Jersey (PANYNJ) manages the tolled bridges and tunnels between NYC and NJ: George Washington, Goethals, Outerbridge, Lincoln, Holland. I'm not sure of their rules.

Curiously, Google Streetview is missing images across the George Washington and Verrazano bridges. Bing Streetside, though, has images across the entire span.

P.S. A different division of MTA runs the subway. They have a memo that allows photography. Tripods need permits, a reasonable restriction considering how cramped subway platforms can get.

[Wheatfield]

.
Today I was taking a photo of a retail building, from a public street.


I was testing the bokeh of a couple new lenses. I only wanted photos of the building, and landscaping around the building. I carefully waited until everyone was out of the photo to take my shots.

Well, one angry, 30ish, woman drove her car over to me and shouted and swore up a storm about how she didn't want her photo taken. I expect she likely called the cops after she left (but I'll never know because I too left the area). By the way, she was alone in the car - no kids.


Really made my day. Have you ever had someone in your face about taking perfectly legal photos?


I believe that I'm legally permitted to shoot what ever is in eye-shot from a public location. While I did not take this angry woman's photo (or anyone else's), I believe that here in Wisconsin USA I would have the right to do so under these circumstances if I choose.

In the future, I'm thinking of carrying a copy of whatever law gives me permission to shoot on public property. That way, I can simply show it to such angry people (and ignorant cops too) should the need arise.

Might anyone have a link for the legal document I'm looking for?
.

Something similar happened to a buddy of mine. He took out his cell phone and started shooting video of the ranter.
That got her wound even tighter.

[PDL]

This post is way off topic, but here goes.Well, shooting in public is one thing. Due to some people thinking they can shoot - or they should shoot - whatever they can where ever they are. We all suffer in one way or another.

Does Everyone Really Need to Whip Their Phones Out During a Wedding?

[berserker01]

.
The incident I had today was with an extremely large woman too.


A trend, or a coincidence?

Some people like to take photos of people in public, just to post and make fun of them on Reddit, or places like People of Walmart. So, I feel bad if I think someone is taking my photo. Especially, fat people are sensitive to this because they are often the target.
Best you can do is assure them you are just someone who enjoys photography and not a creep.

[SpecialK]

Sony security objected as I was taking this shot from the sidewalk. I told him, in effect, he was a jerk.


From the Hughes Promenade across the street.


Ditto at Fashion Island (owned by The Irvine Company, in Irvine CA). Security guy in the truck screeched to a halt behind me.


Slightly later at another area of Fashion Island...


This is the tallest building, US Bank, in Los Angeles. On another visit on the 4th of July (a national holiday when banks and everything else is closed) the security dick put his hand above my camera and said it was a business and I could not take photos. I made him follow me around for awhile, and after he told a foreign (Russian?) lady and her daughter they could not take a photo in front of the nice fountain, I called him a photo Nazi. He asked me to leave.

Next door at the nice Gas Company, no one cared.

This is America. You don't need a law to give you permission to do anything. You have personal liberty. You can do whatever is not unlawful. So the "burden of proof" that what you're doing is prohibited falls on the person who's complaining.

As to buildings, in some places, architecture is treated as the "performance" of the expression of an idea or design "fixed in a permanent medium"; i.e., a copyrightable work. So it could be a violation of copyright to take pictures of some buildings without permission. And in some places, historical landmarks are considered copyrightable "artworks". There, of course, the question is whether there's still any copyright protection and what the rules are for "fair use".

Also, it's important to be aware that there is a legal distinction between being "in a public place" and being "in public". You can be on the front porch of your house, which, if you can be seen from the public right of way, means you're "in public". But that doesn't put you "in a public place". People who are "in public" may be photographed without permission just as much as is a person "in a public place". You generally may not, however, use their image or likeness as a component of a commercial solicitation or for profit by means of such solicitation without their permission.

Virginia has no such restrictions on photographing people in public, and I doubt if Wisconsin does, either. You might want to search the Wisconsin statutes and judicial opinions which are probably all available online. Or ask a lawyer to do it for you, it shouldn't cost much because it couldn't take more than an hour or so for someone who knows what he's looking for and how to find it.

[Wheatfield]

This is America. You don't need a law to give you permission to do anything. You have personal liberty. You can do whatever is not unlawful. So the "burden of proof" that what you're doing is prohibited falls on the person who's complaining.

As to buildings, in some places, architecture is treated as the "performance" of the expression of an idea or design "fixed in a permanent medium"; i.e., a copyrightable work. So it could be a violation of copyright to take pictures of some buildings without permission. And in some places, historical landmarks are considered copyrightable "artworks". There, of course, the question is whether there's still any copyright protection and what the rules are for "fair use".

Also, it's important to be aware that there is a legal distinction between being "in a public place" and being "in public". You can be on the front porch of your house, which, if you can be seen from the public right of way, means you're "in public". But that doesn't put you "in a public place". People who are "in public" may be photographed without permission just as much as is a person "in a public place". You generally may not, however, use their image or likeness as a component of a commercial solicitation or for profit by means of such solicitation without their permission.

Virginia has no such restrictions on photographing people in public, and I doubt if Wisconsin does, either. You might want to search the Wisconsin statutes and judicial opinions which are probably all available online. Or ask a lawyer to do it for you, it shouldn't cost much because it couldn't take more than an hour or so for someone who knows what he's looking for and how to find it.

Your supreme Court has already ruled that photography is a protected first amendment right.

[swanlefitte]

Laws and regulations are often enacted that are enforced until challenged. Abortion laws in many states have recently been put in place with the sole purpose to be challenged in hopes of eroding roe vs wade.
In essence something is illegal until proven not illegal.
This is the photography case.
Musumeci v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security (Challenging government regulation restricting photography on federal property) | New York Civil Liberties Union

[luftfluss]

I have security confront me. My 18-35mm at the Smoothie King Center from 100 yards was clearly for terrorist scounting.😂

I was cordial and explained my intentions and pointed out you can Google images better for scouting.
After much concern and radio talk I took my pictures surrounded by security. I thanked them for their diligence in following up instead of just being dicks. I suspect it was more to justify taking me down which didn't pan out. Instead I panned for my panorama. 😀

Photograpy, threat level 10!!!!!

Any thoughts of being there for Zion's first game? SKC should be lit!

[swanlefitte]

Any thoughts of being there for Zion's first game? SKC should be lit!

Zion mania is huge especially after the Anthony Davis fiasco. Yet i am not much of a basketball fan. I visited Zion Park instead!