[Blue]

General article that from USAToday article: "New Digital Camera, Know How, Where To Use It" by Andrew Kantor

USATODAY.com - New digital camera? Know how, where you can use it


Some Places and situation that require Permits. Mostly California with some information regarding National Parks.

http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/

[adr1an]

It is a crime under the Defence Act to photograph, sketch, draw, note, model or otherwise reproduce any Defence Installation ; This includes 'approaching' with equipment to do such in your possession, and confiscation can occur without warrant.

The Act: DEFENCE ACT 1903 - SECT 82 Sketching etc. of fortifications prohibited

Further information is at:
Unauthorised Photography: Defence

[adr1an]

It is prohibited to undertake 'commercial' photography (including fee for service or equivalent) within the boundaries of the "Sydney Harbour Foreshore" as defined in The Act: SYDNEY HARBOUR FORESHORE AUTHORITY REGULATION 2006 - REG 4 Commercial and other activities

(1) A person must not do any of the following in a public area, except as authorised by the Authority:

(b) use any audio, loudspeaker or broadcasting equipment or camera (whether photographic, cinematic or video), for a commercial purpose,

(c) provide, or offer to provide, any services for fee, gain or reward,

A bit of further info:
Unauthorised Photography: Defence

[Blue]

Bob Atkins take on Photography and the Law

Photography, the Law and Photographers Rights - Bob Atkins Photography

[MRRiley]

Simon Glik won his appeal and eventually settled with the city of Boston for $170K

Man Who Was Arrested for Filming Police with Phone Settles for $170,000

I love the photo they used to illustrate the story...



Rather ironic to have a police officer filming/photographing the crowd with a cell phone doncha think?

Mike

[wombat2go]

I was reading American Airlines magazine last night.
They are introducing wifi on some flights.

Photography inside aircraft including still or video must not include other customers or crew.
Reading the text, the only shot i could think of was of one's own face or may be out the window.

Also Lithium batteries are not allowed in checked baggage, they must be carry on and up to (2) of 100 W.Hr

[grhazelton]

Also Lithium batteries are not allowed in checked baggage, they must be carry on and up to (2) of 100 W.Hr

So, how does this translate? I have two batteries in my K10d and another two in my backpack. But I'm sure the total capacity isn't 100 watts for an hour!

[Blue]

So, how does this translate? I have two batteries in my K10d and another two in my backpack. But I'm sure the total capacity isn't 100 watts for an hour!

That is a good question. When I travel with the K20d, I have 2 in the body/grip combo and 2 spares. This may make the rechargeable Ni Halide AA more attractive when traveling.

[grhazelton]

Oops!

I should have done a search before my last post. Here's a link Safe Travel which speaks to the question. However, I don't see any limit stated on the number of rechargeable li ion batteries....

It might be adviseable to carry a copy of the regs above, in case some TSA minion gets shirty. I remember varied reactions from TSA when I asked that my film NOT be X-rayed. Speaking of shirty minions, the worst I've ever encountered was some young dolts at the White House, long before 9/11. They mocked my request for hand inspection, saying that they knew far more about film than I did. Probably Canikonians!

[wombat2go]

Yes Gr,
Yesterday i packed my computers in tool case and checked it as luggage then broke out in a cold sweat when reading about the restrictions in the airline magazine on way into Dallas from Mexico.
So at Dallas I got the batteries out after customs and put them in the carry on bag.
The notebook computer batteries here are Lithium-ion rated about 70 Watt.Hr each

Four pack of AA batteries for a Pentax would be 1.2 volt by 2100maHr by 4 = about 10 Watt.Hr

The Olympus PS_BLS1 is Li-Ion and rated 7.8 W.Hr

It looks like the regulations are still in progress:
TSA: Safe Travel with Batteries and Devices

[Blue]

Yes Gr,
Yesterday i packed my computers in tool case and checked it as luggage then broke out in a cold sweat when reading about the restrictions in the airline magazine on way into Dallas from Mexico.
So at Dallas I got the batteries out after customs and put them in the carry on bag.
The notebook computer batteries here are Lithium-ion rated about 70 Watt.Hr each

Four pack of AA batteries for a Pentax would be 1.2 volt by 2100maHr by 4 = about 10 Watt.Hr

The Olympus PS_BLS1 is Li-Ion and rated 7.8 W.Hr

It looks like the regulations are still in progress:
TSA: Safe Travel with Batteries and Devices

The rechargeable AA should be Ni Halide.

[Clicker]

DC Police Department Issues Order Affirming Photographers’ Rights


To settle a right-to-photograph lawsuit filed by an aspiring photojournalist and the ACLU, the Washington DC Metropolitan Police Department has issued a general order stating that “a bystander has the right under the First Amendment to observe and record [DC police officers] in the public discharge of their duties.”

The order instructs police not to interfere with anyone photographing police activity as long as the photographer is standing in a public setting or private facility where they have the right to be, and as long as they are not interfering with police activity.

The order also reminds police that still and video photography “of places, buildings, structures and events are common and lawful activities.” And it spells out the limited terms and conditions under which police can seize recordings for evidence.

For photographers and civil rights activists fighting what they perceive as a rising tide of police intimidation and interference against photographers nationwide, the order represents progress. It follows closely a blueprint for police policy to protect the rights of photographers that the US Department of Justice issued earlier this year.

The DOJ blueprint was directed at the Baltimore Police Department, which is being sued for unlawfully seizing, searching and deleting the contents of a citizen’s cell phone after he used it to record police officers making an arrest. The Baltimore Police Department subsequently issued an order declaring that citizens had the right to photograph police activity. But the DOJ said the Baltimore order didn’t go far enough to protect photographers’ (and citizens’) rights because it wasn’t specific enough.

The order issued last week by the Washington DC police department follows the DOJ blueprint almost to the letter, spelling out citizens’ constitutional rights, providing explanations and examples of legal activity and limited exceptions.

The lawsuit lodged against DC police was similar to the case in Baltimore. Jerome Vorus, a student and aspiring photojournalist, began photographing a traffic stop in the Georgetown neighborhood of DC in June, 2010. Police officers told him he was not allowed to photograph, and detained him for half an hour. With help from the ACLU, Vorus sued police for violating his rights. Vorus and the ACLU dropped the claim last week after police agreed to issue the order protecting the right of citizens who photograph the police.

The case in Baltimore, meanwhile, is still pending.

source: PDN Pulse

[Helios 1984]

here is a link that provides reference to most laws pertaining to photography in canada



Ambientlight.ca - Laws



http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/beyond-basics/55105-photography-laws-canada.html#post535167

When they say that you need the permission of an individual, before publishing a picture of him/her, does it apply to non-profit pictures that we upload on Flickr or only to pictures published in newspapers and such?

My question is specifically concerning street photography.

[nomadkng]

When they say that you need the permission of an individual, before publishing a picture of him/her, does it apply to non-profit pictures that we upload on Flickr or only to pictures published in newspapers and such?

My question is specifically concerning street photography.

That's the question where it gets real sticky and your moral compass may have to be your guide. Paparazzi get away with their shenanigans under the claim that they are photojournalists and are thus using editorial license to invade your privacy. the trash mags that publish them, use the same argument, that some how you by your pool in your underwear at 2a is news worthy.

I despise the paparazzi so vehemently, I don't ever want to be compared to them in any way shape or form. Street photography of persons "could" tread into that gray area. Plus, let's say you take a particularly amazing photo that catches the eye of a publisher or other commercial agency. What then? You don't have a model release, so you can't legally license that image for commercial use.

I think the letter of the law applies only to the use of a persons likeness to promote your own agenda. For example, taking a picture of a person and then using the image in a marketing campaign or including it in a calendar etc.

I, personally, believe every one should have control of their own likeness and that ANY photo taken of me should be accompanied by a model release. I treat any other person I photograph the same way.

So why limit yourself to Flickr when all it takes is a quick explanation of who you are, what your are doing and quite often simply a promise to send a JPEG of the image(s) you capture to that person. You have now met the requirement of providing compensation to the model.

To me, it's just good business practice and courtesy.

[Helios 1984]

That's the question where it gets real sticky and your moral compass may have to be your guide. Paparazzi get away with their shenanigans under the claim that they are photojournalists and are thus using editorial license to invade your privacy. the trash mags that publish them, use the same argument, that some how you by your pool in your underwear at 2a is news worthy.



I despise the paparazzi so vehemently, I don't ever want to be compared to them in any way shape or form. Street photography of persons "could" tread into that gray area. Plus, let's say you take a particularly amazing photo that catches the eye of a publisher or other commercial agency. What then? You don't have a model release, so you can't legally license that image for commercial use.



I think the letter of the law applies only to the use of a persons likeness to promote your own agenda. For example, taking a picture of a person and then using the image in a marketing campaign or including it in a calendar etc.



I, personally, believe every one should have control of their own likeness and that ANY photo taken of me should be accompanied by a model release. I treat any other person I photograph the same way.



So why limit yourself to Flickr when all it takes is a quick explanation of who you are, what your are doing and quite often simply a promise to send a JPEG of the image(s) you capture to that person. You have now met the requirement of providing compensation to the model.



To me, it's just good business practice and courtesy.

That is good if I take a picture of a specific person, what about a crowd? BTW I'm still too shy to take my 28mm and point it at a stranger, I'd rather use my 50mm and stay away lolll