Your photography rights in the USA just got clarified. A must read!

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/dc-police-chief-announces-shockingly-reasonable-cell-camera-policy/

This says it all. Not sure where trespassing laws cross over on this but this certainly suggests you have the right to take pictures anywhere including privately owned but public common spaces. Of course, right to privacy would prevail but this gives you some pretty good reason to take that photo.

Best to spread this news around so that it becomes common knowledge.

Use common sense as always and know your laws!

This article talks about police but I believe this also translates to anyone and not just police. This article is essentially a warning for police not to interfere with a person's right to photograph and record video.

I see this paragraph as unreasonable:

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."

It should read:

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may order the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording,* except in the circumstances where a a need for imposed enforcement of the previous order is warranted* "

The right to photograph should never prevail over the need for security officers to perform their duty when the integrity of human lives or property at stake.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)

Indeed, not clear how trespassing or non-authorized filming/recording fit in with this. Some buildings, malls etc require permits etc or have a no-photography policy. So, can mall security eg. call the police to have them stop someone from photographing in their private property (though it is publicly accessible)? I would think so.

prohidium said:

http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2012/07/dc-police-chief-announces-shockingly-reasonable-cell-camera-policy/

This says it all. Not sure where trespassing laws cross over on this but this certainly suggests you have the right to take pictures anywhere including privately owned but public common spaces. Of course, right to privacy would prevail but this gives you some pretty good reason to take that photo.

Best to spread this news around so that it becomes common knowledge.

Use common sense as always and know your laws!

Click to expand...

--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron

In those cases, the photographer is actually committing a crime and is therefore subject to whatever penalties might ensue. The fact that he/she is filming is irrelevant at that point.

PicOne said:

Indeed, not clear how trespassing or non-authorized filming/recording fit in with this. Some buildings, malls etc require permits etc or have a no-photography policy. So, can mall security eg. call the police to have them stop someone from photographing in their private property (though it is publicly accessible)? I would think so.

Click to expand...

Agree. Granted it could be used as an excuse to just label anything impeding safety and ability to perform duties and could be abused but I mean if a throng a photographers are blocking some rescue or whatnot it seems they have to be able to be pushed to the side a bit to allow what needs to be done to get done!

PhotoKhan said:

I see this paragraph as unreasonable:

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may ask the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording."

It should read:

That applies even in cases where the citizen is recording "from a position that impedes or interferes with the safety of members or their ability to perform their duties." In that situation, she says, the officer may order the person to move out of the way, but the officer "shall not order the person to stop photographing or recording,* except in the circumstances where a a need for imposed enforcement of the previous order is warranted* "

The right to photograph should never prevail over the need for security officers to perform their duty when the integrity of human lives or property at stake.

PK

--
“Loose praise may feed my ego but constructive criticism advances my skills”
************************************************************
-------------------------------------------------
http://www.pbase.com/photokhan
(PBase Supporter)
-------------------------------------------------

Click to expand...

yes I read that whole thing.. pretty comprehensive..... and downloaded it and printed it out ...to see if I was dreaming

what USUALLY happens is...
the officer tends to 'make up' the rule of the moment...
this says 'NO ....use THIS RULE'
I read a lot about police stopping recording or confiscating cards eqpt...etc
maybe knowing they shouldn't.... but doing it anyway...
we need this clarity....
even though there is some grey area still in there..
this is an improvement...

I wanted to take it to our Mayor in my town
and see if he would get our Police to issues a similar sheet..

it is quite good..
and I was stunned to see something like that..
finally a thinking official....

it ought to be on the NATIONAL news...YES

thanks for the post ... bringing it back to the light

A crime? Someone goes to a shopping mall, no signs around, and is not aware there's a 'no photography' rule that the mall ownership has (rule, not law), I'm pretty sure taking a photo in such an instance would be subject to a penalty. What isn't clear, is whether the mall is in their rights to call the police to have them stopped from taking photos.

Or, to make the point simpler: say there isn't even such a policy. Make believe its a single store. The owner of the store just decided that he just doesn't want YOU to take photos in his shop and calls the police to have you stopped... what is the scenario then?

ChrisBurch said:

In those cases, the photographer is actually committing a crime and is therefore subject to whatever penalties might ensue. The fact that he/she is filming is irrelevant at that point.

PicOne said:

Indeed, not clear how trespassing or non-authorized filming/recording fit in with this. Some buildings, malls etc require permits etc or have a no-photography policy. So, can mall security eg. call the police to have them stop someone from photographing in their private property (though it is publicly accessible)? I would think so.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

--
'Everything in photography boils down to what's sharp and what's fuzzy.'
-Gaylord Herron

In both cases they are private property and the owners can have you removed for violation of any published rule or just because they don't want you there. Stores and mall are private property, not public spaces. In such a case, the police can't really stop you from doing anything while you're there -- just remove you. If you refuse to leave then , you're trespassing and can be arrested. It doesn't matter what you're doing at that point, whether filming something or just dancing around in a clown suit like a nut job (little disturbed with myself for going to that example, but it's what came to mind).