[Wheatfield]

Be afraid, people.
Be very, very afraid:

Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide


This is where the world is going, one state, and one country at a time.

[MoiVous]

Thanks for raising this - its a very interesting and relevant discussion.

As photographers, we have rights too, but it varies between countries.

There are some good sources of information that apply to Australia (covering both people and places):

• 4020 Φ NSW Photographer's Rights
• Legal Information : Street Photographers Rights
• Barry Daniel - Hills Camera Club - PHOTOGRAPHERS’ RIGHTS

Both of these suggest that the definition of a public place needs to be well defined, but that taking a photograph from a public place is not illegal unless there is a specific law. Photographing on private land requires the permission of the owner - but once off the land, there are cases that ceases as some cases & incidents can attest (Victoria Park Racing & Recreation Grounds Co Ltd v Taylor [1937] HCA 45; (1937) 58 CLR 479 (26 August 1937) & Southgate photo ban 'over the top' - National - theage.com.au)

For example, Sydney Harbour and Darling Harbour have a specific law covering them, as are Military installations - but in general there are few.

Wheatfield's link to the police incident is interesting - it seems that in Australia they don't mind (see the 4020.net link)

Might I suggest that a sticky be made of this thread or similar with links to specific countries? It would help those of us travelling around the world as much as the locals.

Cheers

[Blue]

Be afraid, people.
Be very, very afraid:

Gizmodo, the Gadget Guide


This is where the world is going, one state, and one country at a time.

I would like the goof-balls to demonstrate how a phone line/cell tower was tapped via a photographic image. Were these guys born this stupid or are they teaching these clowns this crap in police academy?

Edit: There is a reason I like the fact that the high Sheriff is an elected official. Police Chiefs are appointees, often by a non-elected board. The are next to impossible to get rid of.

[fractal]

Southgate photo ban 'over the top' - National - theage.com.au)

I never heard about this one. I wonder if the restriction is still in place.

That article is from some time ago, but I guess the thing that frustrates me is the statements:

"We've had a couple of incidents of tourists taking photos of obscure things"

"It was just the facades of buildings, things that would be of no interest to put in a photo album"

Who the hell has the right to say that something is not of any interest. I wouldn't trust a security guard to define 'obscure'.

[wildman]

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.

This is not just a quibble over semantics.

In general cities do not "own" streets or alleys. If you look at a plat map which shows actual legal ownership of land you will see that private ownership is continuous with no mention of streets or alleys. What the city does have is "public right of way". That is the right to reserve a certain amount of private property for the purpose routing essential public services like water, sewer, cables, power lines and transportation.

In my case, for instance, my house lot line, by legal description, runs right down the middle of the street and on the other side of this line is my neighbors lot across the street. No mention of public ownership.

What does all this mean to the photographer? When standing in a public right of way you, generally, have the same rights as if you were standing on actual public property like a public park.

I'm speaking of the general legal practice here in the States.

[MoiVous]

Another link regarding photographers rights - more applicable to our US cousins......
Legal Handbook for Photographers ... - Google Books

Cheers

[Spazmatazz]

I don't know if this site has been posted already, but it covers the situation in the UK:

I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist

They have a little print out and keep 'Bust Card' that lists your rights in the event that you're challenged by the filth.

[Lowell Goudge]

So I am out on a walk doing usual thing photographing building angles. I admit I did climb 2 steps off the boulevard to get a better shot of a building. I then proceeded to step off the steps and shot from the public boulevard sidewalk. When I was on the public boulevard/sidewalk a man (not security) came up to me and said "Excuse me...do you have a permit to photograph this building? I repled nicely "No I don't...should I?" to which he said yes as this was private property. I apologized and said I did not know, that I this as simply a hobby and I thought there was no issue as I was on the public boulevard. If he confronted me on the steps I could see the problem as I was trespassing on the property. however,....there were no signs posted saying I couldn't photograph the building I was photographing it from the outside and when he confronted me I was on the public sidewalk shooting up not in.

I am curious to know who was right in this situation. Once he confonted me I stopped shooting and did not want any hassle so I left and I have no problem with it.
However, but I am curious to know if in fact I could challenge him (I wouldn't...better to just smile, apologize and leave quietly I think rather than start something unless he was being a jerk about it...which he wasn't) on my rights as a photographer to shoot a building from the public sidewalk.
Do I indeed have to have a permit to photograph a building from the sidewalk..could he challenge me if I was on the other side of the street?
If there are no signs posted can I shoot the building from public property?
Anybody have any answers by all means share...
I looked here but didn't find anything specific:
Ambientlight.ca - Laws

Oddly enough on the other hand,earlier in the afternoon prior to this incident, I went to my fave hotel and stopped at the front desk to ask if I could take shots of their interior stairs... they were more than happy to oblige, let me shoot and much as I wanted so I stayed and had a glass of wine.

While I have not read all of the posts relating to this thread, I will comment as follows

Canadian law, as has been reported in many photo magaxines relating to this subject, and on many posts etc, stipulates that there is no restriction on photography for personal use providing that the photographs are taken from a public place.

Therefore, your shots from the boulivard (assuming that it was public property not private and we can't tell that from your comments) are OK.

Your shots from the steps are definitely a NO-NO because the law is also specific that the property owners/residents (in the case of a rental property or storefront) have the right to dictate activity on their property.

However, you state the person was not a security gaurd? Perhaps you should have asked for some form of identification, as to his relationship to the property. But that is about the extent of it.

As for asking permission first, that is always a good idea, especially if you are inside a private establishment.

I can recall being down around ground zero in ne of the buildings taking shots where it was clearly posted "No Commercial Photography" and as a tourist with a P&S was asked to stop taking photos inside. Clearly security made no distinction to the posted policy, they interpreted everything as commercial. I wrote the building owners afterwards and complained, but of course, got no response.

[Peter Zack]

I'm going to link a very good post from another forum that outlines much of what a photographer should know. Also I'd do some research in your specific province for any bylaws that may apply.

Photography Laws in Canada - The Photo Forum - Photography Discussion Forum

I would suggest street shooters print that post and the info contained in the links that is relevant. Highlight the important parts and carry that in your camera bag.

But the most relevant part os that the Canadian Charter of Rights states:
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

So as long as you are on public property, you can shoot just about anything that is not somehow related to Canadian Forces, national security or intelligence services.
Of course if you are on private property, you can be asked to leave and they have the right to ask or have you removed. But not if you are on public property shooting from that location.

[aliquis]

This is the controversial image..the last one in my camera prior to being stopped.

here is the shot I took 2 steps off the sidewalk and onto their "Property" to shoot:

Omg, I can really see how they can feel threatened by those pictures!!

Over here in Sweden you're even allowed to shoot people without asking them. Don't know if you are still allowed to keep on doing it if they ask you to stop but I suppose so. However you aren't allowed to publish photos of people online for instance without asking for their permission. But for your own personal use you're free to do whatever.

I think the same goes for filming but I'm not sure. Don't know about listening. Can't see how someone can stop you from doing it though ..


Anyway, if you can see it with your naked eye what difference does it make if you store it in your camera? It's there to be seen anyway ..

[aliquis]

Yeah, I can see how a terrorist or someone looking to commit industrial espionage, could use that shot. The American in me says tell him to blow it out of his behind unless he shows a (Real Police) badge and specifically tells you what you've done wrong. That is, in as polite a way as you care to. There are Too many people out there minding everybody Else's business when they should be concentrating on their own.

Idon't know how it would work around here with a police. You do havce to listen to them and do as they say but I don't know if they got any authority to regulate such things.. Don't know where that put things.

[aliquis]

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.

Yeah, same around here. I remember it from the early days of digital camera and people shooting girls ..

But yeah, **** them ;D


Anyway I would feel kinda awkward shooting someone who don't know what I do it. But on the other hand I would had wanted the natural shoot. So it would be a hard decision.

I liked the days as a kid out in the forest and some day I shot a bunch of kids around a fire with their daycare/whatever in the distance and heard someone saying "he shots picture", OMG, TEH PEDOPHILE!

People are so ****ing scared of everything, retards.

[MoiVous]

But the most relevant part os that the Canadian Charter of Rights states:
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication;

Peter - you are very fortunate - as are the citizens of the US etc. In Australia we have no charter of rights - and the constitution is a bit light on WRT rights as well.

Guess that's the price we pay for most states being established as a penal colony for the British Empire of old.

And our government has over the years (despite its innocuous appearance) been occasionally in technical breach of the The United Nations Universal Declaration for Human Rights despite being a signatory. Then again, I suspect most countries are.....

But back to the original post - could a sticky or a thread be set up with all these useful links? As we can see, every country has slightly different laws & regulations, so it would be good to have them easily accessible.

Cheers

[Arpe]

Oddly enough now that I think about it there is something to be said about those Critical Mass people...maybe we should have a Photography Mass once a month coast to coast country to county where photographers and like minded people gather in one place in every city/town and pick public places to shoot openly en mass.
Not a bad idea to bring media awareness to the cause of what our rights are and how we are having them taken away.
Any thoughts on the idea?

I don't know if this site has been posted already, but it covers the situation in the UK:
I'm a Photographer not a Terrorist

They have a little print out and keep 'Bust Card' that lists your rights in the event that you're challenged by the filth.

I was going to point them out too, those guys/gals are great. They have a Facebook page too. Mass photographing - awesome idea.

This is not just a quibble over semantics.

In general cities do not "own" streets or alleys. If you look at a plat map which shows actual legal ownership of land you will see that private ownership is continuous with no mention of streets or alleys. What the city does have is "public right of way". That is the right to reserve a certain amount of private property for the purpose routing essential public services like water, sewer, cables, power lines and transportation.

In my case, for instance, my house lot line, by legal description, runs right down the middle of the street and on the other side of this line is my neighbors lot across the street. No mention of public ownership.

That's amazing! Exact opposite of UK, Australia and NZ. Here the City Councils DO own the streets and roads, private property boundaries end somewhere behind the footpath.

[Wheatfield]

That's amazing! Exact opposite of UK, Australia and NZ. Here the City Councils DO own the streets and roads, private property boundaries end somewhere behind the footpath.

That's how it is in Canada as well.
Technically, the Queen owns anything that isn't in private hands.