[wwwmorrell]

I would think that watching how the worlds Paparazzi are allowed to legally operate, we have little to worry about with our general photography.
Wal'

[JCSullivan]

1. Maybe we can have Admin create a sticky with links to sites that show or discuss the Rights of the Photographer, listed by country or region and then we can refer people there.

[Bactman]

It woulf be good if people would fill in their location in their profile (with more than just 2 letters) so we didn't have to guess where they are from.

I would shoot and move on and be perfectly law abiding in doing so.

Arpe - sorry for not filling out all information for you (and others). I live in Naptown (Indianapolis), Indiana. I'll selectively fill out my profile as time goes on.

Alinla - the photo would be used only for personal reasons, like (as you said) hanging on a wall (if it looks decent - have a bit to go there) or posting online in a photo scavenger hunt with local friends. I'm no where near the stage of selling photos for monetary gain.

wwwmorrell - the paps are making money off their work, and their targets happen to be public figures that move. How that isn't borderline assault, I have no idea.

Another thought - what if the photo is taken and labeled "Barn in disrepair" or "Rotted barn" - something that conveys decay and lack of maintenance. The owner sees the picture and gets offended. Yeeesh - would make it easier to known on the door and ask, and get some release if needed.

Cheers to all.

[pentkon52]

Situation: While driving around the fields of Indiana, I see a quaint barn 50 yards from the edge of the road. The barn is fully in frame from the side of the road, and would make an excellent shot without walking onto private property. What is the etiquette for a situation like this? The pictures may be posted in an online forum (flickr, snapfish, etc.) and will not be used for any monetary gain.

I can:

a) find a safe spot to park, snap a few shots from the side of the road, leave, and keep on truckin'

b) knock on the door, and if no one answers, snap a few pictures

c) knock on the door, and if no one answers, drive away frustrated at what could be

d) knock on the door, and if given permission, fire away

There is a decent chance that no one would ever see me taking a picture of their barn; however, the last thing I really want to be is intrusive or be put into some legal predicament. I'd appreciate any thoughts or comments.

Most of my personal photography, is doing just this, driving around looking for old barns, farm houses and machinary.

I usually do A, shoot from the road and keep going. Sometimes if i feel i need to eneter the property for a certain angle i want, i will ask. I have never been refused yet. When they ask why i want the picture, i tell them it may be used for a submittion to the local fairs photo compition, if it turns out the way i hope.

That is the truth, BTW and they seem happy that i am looking at something of theirs to use.

Dave

[mysterick]

I was doing a follow-up photo feature story on the re-building in New Orleans. I wanted to get a good shot of the FEMA trailer site in the lower ninth ward. I pulled onto an abandoned gas station right off the highway and right next to the trailer site. As soon as I started shooting the local police pulled up and started to arrest me. I had been focusing on the rows of trailers. Duh, I didn't even notice the refinery across the street. Lesson learned: be aware, these days, of the environment in which you are shooting. Making photos of some sensitive infrastructure may be prohibited, but not posted. They bought my expalnation that I was working for an Ohio newspaper and did not detain me.

[JamesD]

I would also go for A. It seems to me that shooting from a public place at something that is in public view should be perfectly legal.

One might also wonder about doors... fences... gates... windows.... general architecture. Do you mean to suggest that I would need to contact each and every person (as some have suggested... out of a sense of courtesy) to determine whether or not I could take a photograph? I don't think so. And if that "were" the case, I would sell the camera and find a more peaceful, less stressful hobby. As it is, I've decided against street photography for these very reasons. I'm not about to restrict myself from photographing building exteriors from a public place. It seems to me we've become really paranoid about this whole issue.

[Keith]

If I saw a good looking barn on a property and could photograph it from the side of the road I would not ask for permission and just fire away. If there were people on the property that could see me I would then go and ask if it was ok to photograph - just to ease any paranoia that they may have. I personally would not have a problem placing that photo on the internet unless the barn happened to be owned by Hells Angels ..lol

cheers
Keith

[JamesD]

Yeah... Hell's Angels would certainly change my own behavior in an instant. Good point! lol

[alinla]

Seriously?! This is the issue you wish to get up on your soapbox about and beg the world to listen.

Bactman is from Indiana, USA. Not necessarily

Well he mentions Indiana in his post, so we can at least agree that the laws we need to refer to for this discussion would be those that apply in that state. I don't think there are too many barns in Sao Paulo, Brazil and since he's typing in English I think its safe to assume he's in IN.

Photo_Tramp is from Lancaster, Pennsylvania, USA. Not everyone knows what PA stands for. I didn't, and will proabably forget.

Google & Wikipedia are your friends. If you forget, Wikipedia will remind you.

foxglove is from the Atlantic Canadian coast. Here I was thinking "Atlantic" was a province

Remember Wikipedia oh and Google too.
Atlantic Canada - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Alinla is from Los Angeles, California, USA. How do you know it's not the Los Anglels in Mexico or Chile or Argentina or The Philippines or Puerto Rico or Venezuela or elsewhere?

Sean & I correspond by snail mail as well as email. In fact he has my exact address. So he definitely knows.

I am from West Chester, Pennsylvania, USA. Again with the PA

Did you already forget? We just mentioned it like 10 sentences ago. Here you go: Pennsylvania - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You are from somewhere in New Zealand well done, it's smaller than most of your states!

Wow, you were so specific. Or were you? You meant New Zealand, Buckinghamshire, England right? New Zealand, Buckinghamshire - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[little laker]

If you type in Okanagan British Columbia on Wikipedia you'll discover that it's a big place as well.
I haven't the faintest idea how many cities and towns there are here.
However since I'm always on the road snapping pictures I didn't want to narrow my location down to a single city.

I wouldn't be surprised if Arpe travels his great land all the time as well.

[JCSullivan]

I think we should get back on topic.

[MRRiley]

I was doing a follow-up photo feature story on the re-building in New Orleans. I wanted to get a good shot of the FEMA trailer site in the lower ninth ward. I pulled onto an abandoned gas station right off the highway and right next to the trailer site. As soon as I started shooting the local police pulled up and started to arrest me. I had been focusing on the rows of trailers. Duh, I didn't even notice the refinery across the street. Lesson learned: be aware, these days, of the environment in which you are shooting. Making photos of some sensitive infrastructure may be prohibited, but not posted. They bought my expalnation that I was working for an Ohio newspaper and did not detain me.

Newspaper photographer or not they would have had no right to arrest you for your actions. As much as some over zealous police officers, and even more so paranoid busy bodies, would like, it is not generally illegal to take photos of public or private infrastructure.

In Silver Spring, MD, security officers for an outside mall with a public street and sidewalks running down the middle of it, harrassed a photographer and told him he was not allowed to photograph on their "private property". Never mind that that "private property" was actually "public property" leased to the developer for $1 a year. No signs were posted, but the photographer was escorted to the mall office and told they could have him arrested for tresspassing if he kept taking photos. See Free Our Streets for the story. By late summer, the local city council had put the developer in his place after protests by local photographers educated them on the first amendment and public property.

In many parts of the Washington, DC area, many photographers have been harrassed for innocently or incidentally shooting various public or government owned or leased buildings and facilities. To my knowledge no photographers have actually been arrested but many have been run off or their names taken down and entered into the great big DHS database in the sky. As was probably true in your case, the police or security guards always cite vague rules or "policies" prohibiting photography of the site in question. See Secret Buildings you may not Photograph for some examples.

This past summer, a tourist in Indianapolis, IN was threatened with arrest while taking photos of downtown artwork. I brought this up in an earlier thread but you can read the original story here... I love the last line of the story... "If in doubt, [Indianapolis] police say, tourists should confine their photographs to marked tourists spots." These guys need to read the first amendment to the US Constitution... >>>Hey Bactman... Any updates or news on this police paranoia?<<<

The truth is, with the exception of certain posted military or national security properties, you can generally photograph anything you want if it is visible from public property. The police cannot lawfully demand that you erase any photos you might have taken of the structure or site thay are objecting to you photographing. In fact, I would suggest just the opposite, you may need those same photographs to prove to a judge that your photographs were harmless. You'll also need them as evidence in the civil suit you should bring against the police after the judge throws the case out of court. Private security officers have even less "authority". They cannot even approach you unless you are ON the property they are paid to protect. If you are outside of it, the most they can do is call the police.

Of course, what you do with the photograph after shooting it can change the equation drastically. Property owners do have certain rights where the depiction of their property is concerned.

As PDL already mentioned, you need to print and carry the card found at this site... Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page. The other links he cited are also very useful.

Now, a disclaimer... I am not a lawyer, nor do I play one on TV... The above ramblings are my personal opinions only and should not be construed to be either binding legal or even sane advice... They are simply and solely based upon my reading of numerous laws and policies.

[Bactman]

To MRRiley - I don't know about the outcome of this, but I have heard from friends of mine that have either been harrassed or had problems with the IMPD and photographing a government building.

Marked tourist stops??? This is starting to get entirely out of hand.

[PDL]

From another thread -
https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/general-pentax-photography/14764-model-re...necessary.html
A non-journalist photographer was "taken down to the station" by the Seattle Police for taking images of two officers "dealing" with a street person. The photographer was not charged but was detained for a short period. He sued - with help of the ACLU - he won - 8,000 USD.
Search Results | Seattle Times Newspaper
As in this thread - I quote from the article. - Note Caplan is the ACLU lawyer.
"Caplan said the public has a right to observe and document police activity that occurs in a public location."
If you are 'free' to shoot police activity from a public space, shooting a barn is not going to be an issue.

If people ask - tell them the truth - normal people just might strike up a nice conversation - if they don't - then let them sue - they will lose and you will get to buy that new Pentax - what's a mageeber.

The Elitist - fomerly known as PDL

[JCSullivan]

Thanks for your insight and links Mike. I've not read the articles yet and like you, I am not a lawyer or paralegal but, if the street running thru the mall was leased to the mall owners, doesn't it then become "private" until such time as the land reverts back to the City/County?

Off to read all the excellent links. Thanks