[mel]

Nice shots! I love architecture made into abstract geometrics.

[casil403]

Thanks gang...just glad to see you could get past all the controversy in the shot!

[wildman]

No, it is not illegal, but if anyone with any authority believes the person to be suspicious then they will probably regard the photography to be for a malicious purpose and call the appropriate authorities.

If it was some smuck of the general public I would have had a good mind to tell him to mind his own bloody business

But remember the burden of proof is on them to prove their suspicions not on you to prove your innocence and anyone with any real legal authority knows this.

If it was me I would cooperate with the police (not private security) and identify myself and state my purpose for taking the pictures and just continue to take pictures.

[mel]

Ya know, I think if you look closely at that first one you can see some corporate secrets etched into the glass panes . . .

[Wheatfield]

Just as a quick add-on to this, no one can force you to show them the pictures on your memory card, no one can force you to erase your memory card and no one can confiscate your camera/ memory card, etc without a court order.
The only exception to this would be an officer of the law who needs the contents of your card for evidence of a crime, but even then, I believe he needs a court order.
OTOH, failing to obey the directives of a police officer is not without some risk as well.
This post runs into giving and receiving legal advice over the internet, which is always a dangerous thing.
It really is a good idea for anyone who practices photography in public to confirm their rights by hiring some time with a lawyer.

[MRRiley]

Casil,

First thing you should have done was asked him who he was. Then you should have asked what authority he thought he had to control your actions on a public street/sidewalk. Then you should have kept shooting.

I know this sounds "confrontational" but people like this have got to be stopped. Even if he owned the building, all he could do is tell you to leave the property if you had still been on it when he confronted you. At that point you would have had to do so (assuming you believed he was really the owner of the building or a legal representative of the owner) or face arrest for trespass (which you generally cannot be charged with if you depart the premises when told to).

Now a disclaimer.... The above is just MY opinion and reflects my understanding of the various laws involved in this situation. I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV. For reliable legal advise, consult an attorney licensed in your locality who specializes in civil and property rights.

Mike

[pxpaulx]

If you want to see where we could be going if we let people get away with what you let the person who intimidated you get away with, visit Carlos Miller's website at:
Photography Is Not A Crime

Damn it Wheat, I was supposed to be working for the last hour. Interesting stuff for sure.

[TaoMaas]

I had a less clear-cut case than Casil's, but I'd love to know everyone's thoughts on it. There is an alley that separates the building where I work from a parking garage. The alley is used for loading/unloading of goods. There are also some garbage receptacles in there. There are signs posted in the alley that cite a city ordinance which states that no vehicle shall be parked in this alley except for the express purpose of loading or unloading. One day, while I was parked in the alley with our vehicle waiting on my producer, I decided to amuse myself by taking some still photos of a purple garbage truck that was surrounded by orange parking cones. A security guy from the office building came out and told me that I'd have to stop because the building doesn't allow photography. Technically, I wasn't in the building, nor was I shooting it. I've always kind of assumed that the alley was public property because of the city ordinances that are posted and because the meter maids WILL ticket you if you remain parked there long enough. Since it was no big deal to me, I said, "Fine" and put my camera away. But did I have a right to shoot in the alley or not? Or does it depend on whether the city or the building actually owns the alley?

[dragonfly]

Of course you can take pictures of the alley. One problem is if you decide to photograph your accuser and he gets mad and smashes your camera (or your face).

[Wheatfield]

I had a less clear-cut case than Casil's, but I'd love to know everyone's thoughts on it. There is an alley that separates the building where I work from a parking garage. The alley is used for loading/unloading of goods. There are also some garbage receptacles in there. There are signs posted in the alley that cite a city ordinance which states that no vehicle shall be parked in this alley except for the express purpose of loading or unloading. One day, while I was parked in the alley with our vehicle waiting on my producer, I decided to amuse myself by taking some still photos of a purple garbage truck that was surrounded by orange parking cones. A security guy from the office building came out and told me that I'd have to stop because the building doesn't allow photography. Technically, I wasn't in the building, nor was I shooting it. I've always kind of assumed that the alley was public property because of the city ordinances that are posted and because the meter maids WILL ticket you if you remain parked there long enough. Since it was no big deal to me, I said, "Fine" and put my camera away. But did I have a right to shoot in the alley or not? Or does it depend on whether the city or the building actually owns the alley?

It comes down to ownership. If the city owns the alley, then you have the right to shoot.
If the building either owns the alley or is leasing it from the city (making them the defacto owner) then they have the right to tell you to stop.
The building may not allow photography (the owners of said building would be more accurate), but the owners are only legally able to enforce their will if you are on their property.
Now, if they decide to intimidate you and you go along with it, then you have ceded your rights, but you can always tell them to go pound sand, and they pretty much have to. If they get in your way, you have the right to ask for police intervention to force them to allow you to go about your lawful business.

As photographers, we all need to start being proactive about enforcing our right to take pictures in public, or we will lose the right entirely.

[Blue]

Another issue is whether or not the building is open to the public. If the building is in fact open to the public with and open door to a lobby and receptionist etc., the trespassing argument is relatively weak to very weak depending on the nature of the business. Forcing ones way past a secure zone or restricted zone is another story. For example, it is a big difference if I take a camera into a supermarket and if I take it into the "employees only" area.

[Blue]

Casil,

First thing you should have done was asked him who he was. Then you should have asked what authority he thought he had to control your actions on a public street/sidewalk. Then you should have kept shooting.

. . .

This is exactly why I ask for a business card from them whether they are a uniformed police officer, plain cloths officer, or some stiff. I then put a a date and place on the back and put it in my deck. I want to be able to report any suspicious activities in an area.

[Jools]

As photographers, we all need to start being proactive about enforcing our right to take pictures in public, or we will lose the right entirely.

This is so very true.
I am stunned when I hear about these incidents, like this one with casil403.
I can understand it occurring in repressive countries. I've had a few incidents in Venezuela of recent, where the authorities wanted to take the entire gear away for taking architectural or street photography. Thankfully, a little smooth talk and some cash saved the day.
But this same attitude occurring in countries such as Canada, the UK or the US, it boggles the mind. Really something must be done.
Maybe this is an issue that crosses into politics and the new world we live in but rights of a photographer should not be curbed simply because of some fear (wherever it was born from).
People are just taking pictures of visuals that everyone can see. What's next ban eyesight altogether? I am sure there are some power hungry out there that would love it.

[JeffJS]

This goes to motive and intent.

The intent to commit an act of terrorism is illegal and this intent must be proven in a court of law.

The mere act of taking a photo, even by terrorist, is not illegal.

If a terrorist goes on a family vacation and takes a picture of his family in front of the White House the only question before the law is what is the purpose of the photo not who took it.

"industrial espionage" generally has no standing before the law. It's up to the commercial interests to protect their trade secrets and methods not the courts. If an employee leaks company secrets to the competition he may be fired but that's about as far as it can go.

I'm going to assume that the above is offered for information and not a lack of understanding, that my post (other than perhaps a compliment to Lisa on her photos), was entirely sarcastic.

[fractal]

Ahh, this was the video I was looking for.

You are right Wheat, we do need to start being more proactive about enforcing our right to take pictures in public.

[YT]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qxoJu3C0J54[/YT]