Law: Photographing military bases

[patrickhall]

I live in Charleston and we have several coast guard stations with historical significance. Does a guard of one of these bases have any legal right to tell me not to photograph their facility while I"m on public property? I ask because my mother was scolded for taking photos of their gates by a guard there however my apartment 2 blocks away peers down onto the small base in its entirety. I could take photos from my room without any restrictions right? Surely the same freedom would apply on public streets right outside the base?

I've read that the military can restrict some photography but I've also read that it is generally unconstitutional and wouldn't hold up in a court of law. Any thoughts on this specific aspect of the photographer's rights'?

 

[rsvpgrfx]

youi can make a court challenge, might win or lose

mostly this now comes under patriot act

 

[tyoung]

I live in Charleston and we have several coast guard stations with
historical significance.

Unless they were stacking coffins up at the gate, there are no legal prohibitions regarding these types of photographs, Patriot Act not withstanding. You might try writing the base commanders office asking them for clarification. You could then present a copy of their response to the guard should this issue ever come up again.

--
'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

 

[Jeff Behm]

Does a guard of one of these bases have any
legal right to tell me not to photograph their facility while I"m on
public property?

Yo. Reality check. What part of military security do you not get? Have you been in Outer Mongolia for the past 6+ years or does it come as a shock to you that the forces entrusted by our nation to provide security take the obligation seriously?

You could be on public property 2 miles away with a Celestron telescope attached to your camera, and if they could prove you were photographing a secure facility (by looking at your pictures) you could not only be told "no", but prosecuted depending upon circumstances. They might even call it spying in the simple vernacular. Then it'll be up to you to prove your innocence as far as staying out of jail. If acquitted you'd probably still lose access to the photos, since in the wrong hands, those photos potentially serve to enlighten someone less harmless than yourself.

Whether readers agree with current security concerns or not, the military has ALWAYS taken security seriously. Triply so, now.

I ask because my mother was scolded for taking
photos of their gates by a guard there however my apartment 2 blocks
away peers down onto the small base in its entirety. I could take
photos from my room without any restrictions right? Surely the same
freedom would apply on public streets right outside the base?

Scolded? Or simply asked not to do it any more? Even if scolded, the reality of security concerns is such that that's pretty light.

As for taking pix of a base out of your apartment window, that's kind of like you have the ability to shout "Fire" in a crowded theater, not the right. If you exercise the ability, you'll find out just how limited and expensive exercising it can be.

I've read that the military can restrict some photography but I've
also read that it is generally unconstitutional and wouldn't hold up
in a court of law. Any thoughts on this specific aspect of the
photographer's rights'?

Hey, I'm a photographer, not a lawyer, but I have enough common sense to know that a) photography of a military base in time of war is stupid as he11, and b) trying to raise a constitutional defense for this supposed "right" would be even dumber and very expensive over a lost cause.

Back to the reality check: It's our country's military base. We're at war. The MP's don't want photos taken of their gates or the base. Not a difficult concept if one uses some common sense.
--
jrbehm
http://www.behmphoto.com
http://www.studiob-productions.com

 

[tyoung]

Yo. Reality check. What part of military security do you not get?
Have you been in Outer Mongolia for the past 6+ years or does it come
as a shock to you that the forces entrusted by our nation to provide
security take the obligation seriously?

Perhaps if the OP were in Outer Mongolia, this pile of baloney might have some merit. But he's not. He's in the U.S., where (so far) the First Ammendment still has meaning, in spite of the personal concerns of a few M.P.'s. Certainly there is no shortage of ill informed authorities pushing their weight around these days, and there's no predicting just how they might react to what they might see as an affront to their ill founded reasoning, but war time or not, there are no blanket prohibitions against photographing publicly visible facilities. If you believe otherwise, please try and find one single case where these alleged prohibitions have survived a challenge.

http://www.nppa.org/news_and_events/news/2005/08/rights.pdf

http://www.rcfp.org/handbook/index.html

http://rcfp.org/homefrontconfidential/

Governments Tremble at Googles Birds Eye View
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/12/20/technology/20image.html?pagewanted=print

--
'Here, look at the monkey. Look at the silly monkey!'

Tom Young
http://www.pbase.com/tyoung/

 

[Verdict1st]

Yo. You're freaking kidding.

Everyone has the right to take pictures of everything, except where photography is banned in the rules, or of top secret stuff. Is the base Area-51? If not, then fire away! Taking our security seriously is different than scolding a mother taking pictures of the gates. If the military wants to hide something, it will. It sounds like a bored guard to me.
--
Merry Christmas!

 

[patrickhall]

I remember seeing a show on discovery or tlc where people were in fact photographing the activities of area 51 from a far off mountain range. They were using telescopes and the military had to be aware the 'spies' were there as were the television crews for the television program. The military did nothing probably because they knew they were so far away and on 'public' property.

This is hardly even a huge military base; it's a small 1 acre plot of land surrounded by harbor and the historic battery of Charleston. And it doesn't hold up that one should respect our time of war or to have common sense...the reality is there is such a thing as the law and our constitutional rights so someone needs to provide a court ruling or something to prove to me that this is a real offense.

 

[photoman157]

I am not going to debate all the people who responded and stated 1st Amendment right, and those who never have served who think it's "anyone's" right to click away, etc. What I will say is drive up to the entrance to any military installation in the U.S. and read the sign that is posted at the entrance. Your questions will be answered. By the way, those signs have been up since well before the current state of affairs. It falls under U.S.C. of Laws. Just remember, you would be the one challenging those laws, and having the inconvience of time and money, not the people quoting 1st Amendment!

If there is really something of interest that you or your mother want to photograph, contact the Public Affairs office That office handles all requests of that type and if needed they would get the installations commander's approval if needed. Good Luck

 

[patrickhall]

so if your house is across the street and you bring out the camera for kid's portraits, then you'd have to get permission from the commander? That sounds so rediculous.

 

[txww]

As long as you are on public property you can click away. If there was something there that they didn’t want photographed they would have a 20 foot wall around it or would have bought more property. You could walk up and stand 3 feet away from the front gate and take a photo. As long as you remain on public property there is nothing they can do.

 

[Iaindk]

Just an idea, but if the base has "buildings of historical significance", then why not contact the base commander & ask permission explaining why this interests you.

The worst answer you can get is NO, but the best result would be levels of access previously believed unobtainable.

Worth a try? It may cost you a set of prints and a thank you letter....

Iain

 

[Raymond Bradlau]

Then walk on over and let us know how it went. Oh another fun spot to try out you camera is a Florida state prison, they are oh so kind when they catch you shooting there facility (trust me they dont like it )

regards
Ray

regards
Ray

so if your house is across the street and you bring out the camera
for kid's portraits, then you'd have to get permission from the
commander? That sounds so rediculous.

--

http://www.pbase.com/ray645

 

[Charlie Self]

I am not going to debate all the people who responded and stated 1st
Amendment right, and those who never have served who think it's
"anyone's" right to click away, etc. What I will say is drive up to
the entrance to any military installation in the U.S. and read the
sign that is posted at the entrance. Your questions will be answered.
By the way, those signs have been up since well before the current
state of affairs. It falls under U.S.C. of Laws. Just remember, you
would be the one challenging those laws, and having the inconvience
of time and money, not the people quoting 1st Amendment!

If there is really something of interest that you or your mother want
to photograph, contact the Public Affairs office That office handles
all requests of that type and if needed they would get the
installations commander's approval if needed. Good Luck

The military has jurisdiction inside its gates, and with its own members outside its gates. Otherwise, no.

If photographing the gates of an historic base is going to let the terrorists win, then we've already lost.

As for the comment about those who haven't served, that's pretty snotty, and unnecessary. People who have served know as little about military law as people who haven't served.

If I wanted an on-base picture, I'd call Public Affairs to either get permission to come on base and shoot it myself, or to supply the photo. A shot of the gates? Pfui.
--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Charlie Self]

Just an idea, but if the base has "buildings of historical
significance", then why not contact the base commander & ask
permission explaining why this interests you.

The worst answer you can get is NO, but the best result would be
levels of access previously believed unobtainable.

Worth a try? It may cost you a set of prints and a thank you letter....

Jeez. He's writing about his mother shooting a photo of the blinking gates from the OUTSIDE of the base.

You need permission to photograph ON base, not OFF.

They must have fun trying to get everyone with a cell phone to quit using them as they pass by.

--
Charlie Self
http://www.charlieselfonline.com

 

[Dejan80501]

Simple truth is:

1) do you have the right to take photos and distribute child pornography? (you'll be arrested, and latter sent to Bubba's Big House down state)

2) walk/break into my house, uninvited, for the sake of shooting images of my kitchen? (ypu'll probably be shot as an intruder)

3) compromise national security of jeapordize human lives for the sake of a photo shot? (you'll be detained, questioned, and then be listed on that "little known" terror watch list which the NSA maintains)

These are all WRONG and very selfish acts.
--
Dejan Smaic

http://dejansmaic.smugmug.com

 

[v1z4rd]

In my country ( Eastern europe ) , every goverement property of 'vital significance' cant be photographed without some kind of permission.

I think that is a good law.

 

[slowhands214238]

Laminate and carry in your camera bag:
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Local Camera Club members were early AM (before 9am) shooting pics of a local attraction when an over eager "empowered" peace officer confronted them about shooting pics... (on public property, not blocking a sidewalk with tripods) and insisted they cease/desist or be arrested.

The establishment's owners were contacted, the mayor's office, and a well-written letter to the editor submitted to the paper. Mayor's office looked into the matter, offered an apology, the over eager peace officer had to find new work.

The above was NOT a military base.

I've never been hassled (post 9/11) shooting pics around airports, Fort Knox, bases, or of nuke power plants.

 

[patrickhall]

well the truth of the matter is my father is retired military and my mom took me on this base two days ago to stock up on booze since they have the best prices and no tax. Again this little depot is maybe an acre at most but it does have a small PX on it. We already have access inside but that's not the point I'm trying to make.

Charleston is a major historic town, if you didn't already know, and the actual building that houses the PX is one of the oldest buildings on this side of town. She was trying to photograph not the building it self but rather the historic grill work that makes up the base's front gate. All in all this sounds pretty stupid to me since any terrorist could park outside the enterance and study the entire base without ever taking out a camera. This is the coast guard we are talking about, the boats they have there can be seen from 360 degrees of public property/waterways as well as directly down into from my building and several others. I seriously doubt any tourist looking to take photos is going to really contact the base commander just to take a few snap shots of the gates or historic buildings.

And at what point do you draw the line? Say you are shooting the battery and get the base in the photo? Or say you are half a mile away on the other bridge shooting the city skyline and the base is directly in the photo are these problems? Or is it if you simply get caught and they decide to hound you. I want to know what the law is not what someone thinks is right because of their own view of national security.

The reality is Charleston is photographed more than any other city I've ever lived in and picture of the guard station have made it to print ,maybe not taken directly outside the gates but definitely included in aeral shots of the city, skyline shots, and battery shots. The military didn't pull these commercial prints such as calanders and post cards so it seems they either didn't care or it's perfectly legal from public property.

 

[Jeff Behm]

Simple truth is:

1) do you have the right to take photos and distribute child
pornography? (you'll be arrested, and latter sent to Bubba's Big
House down state)
2) walk/break into my house, uninvited, for the sake of shooting
images of my kitchen? (ypu'll probably be shot as an intruder)
3) compromise national security of jeapordize human lives for the
sake of a photo shot? (you'll be detained, questioned, and then be
listed on that "little known" terror watch list which the NSA
maintains)

Good answer. The key word here is "selfish", which is the point in a nutshell. We have become a selfish culture, and anything that seems to interfere with our "wants" is now equated with interfering with our "rights". This is so wrong it's pathetic. There is no "right" to photograph wherever we want to. But go ahead, do it and get arrested. If you win, it'll be on something other than the specious arguments offerred here. And it'll cost a bundle to find that out.

For those want a picture so badly, approach the public affairs folks as mentioned. For those who posit the silly "so if I was photogrpahing my kids in the yard and this was in the background" get real. That argument holds no water.

Whether some believe it or not, the military has always been concerned with photos of certain installations and are more so, now, and about more places than before. And whether some beleive we are at war, the military DOES believe it, and will act accordingly.
--
jrbehm
http://www.behmphoto.com
http://www.studiob-productions.com

 

[Playsinthedirt]

Last month I was "On An Air Force Base" taking photos of the air show they were putting on. Many of my photos were shot outside of Military buildings - inside of Military buildings and everywhere in between. Although there was Military Police and Air Force personel everywhere you looked, "None Of Them" ever questioned "Anyone" for taking photos, including inside and out of our latest fighter planes. The bottom line is this...Anything that the Military doesn't want you to see is well hidden from view, or at locations that are underground, and they will make sure that no one gets anywhere near them in the first place. I think that this gate guard or whatever he was - was acting out of ignorance of policy, or is a wannabe flexing his muscles a little.

Greg

It Ain't Bragging If You Can Do It