Toggle

The High-Wire Act of Getting Photo Permits

By Scott on Monday, June 9th, 2008 at 3:09 am | updates.

permit1.jpg

I’ve had a number of posts, email, and even phone calls from friends, asking about when they would need a permit to shoot, and how to go about getting one.

This isn’t an easy question to answer, because every city and every location has its own set of rules (or lack thereof) and most times the biggest problem isn’t getting a permit; it’s finding out whether you need a permit or not in the first place.

Who needs a permit?

Again, there is no hard and fast rule about who needs a permit, but generally if you’re shooting in a city, from the sidewalk, with a handheld camera (even a professional DSLR), you don’t need a permit. However, the moment you decide to unfold a tripod, in most big cities, it instantly becomes “permit time,” because now this has just gone from a tourist with a nice camera, to a commercial photo shoot.

But here’s the catch:
Let’s say you’re not using a tripod at all; you’re just hand-holding a DSLR, and you’re on a public sidewalk talking photos as you walk around the city–that’s not a problem, right? Well, it depends on what you’re shooting. If you’re on the sidewalk, but shooting a commercial building you can almost bet a security guard from that company is going to come out and ask you to stop. I’ve even heard them demand that you erase the shots you’ve taken of “their building.”

Now, this opens that whole, “Does he have the right to stop me from shooting a building out in public view while I’m on a public sidewalk?” debate. Well, of course not (perhaps), but that won’t stop them from trying. In fact, try this sometime; stand outside a downtown building in Chicago, Detroit, LA or New York and start taking photos and take a look at your watch to see how long it takes for a security guard to come and tell you, “You can’t shoot there!” So lets say you pitch a fit, tell him he has no right to stop you, and demand that he call the cops (which probably won’t take much convincing by the way), and then the police arrive at the scene.

Will the policeman know what the local guidelines are for shooting private buildings? Are there even local guidelines for this at all? So, at the end of the day; it’s going to be up to this police officer who answers the call to decide whether you continue or not.

The Small City Blues

What got me thinking about this is a talk I had with a friend who has a studio in a medium sized midwest city. He wanted to do a portrait shoot outside his studio, just outside of downtown, so he searched the Web for any clues to whether this city required photo permits or not. He couldn’t find anything saying yes or no, but he told me, “Ya know, if I go and set up a light and tripod, how long will a bit before a cop shows up and tells me to “move along?” My guess? Not long.

If he were to call City Hall and ask the operator who answers the phone, “Do I need to apply for a permit to do a photo shoot?” would she even know where to send him? If he were in New York, Chicago, LA, or any city where commercial ads are often shot, they surely would. But what about in Valdosta, Georgia or East Liverpool, Ohio, or Naples, Florida? In smaller cities like that; you know who will ultimately decide whether you can shoot or not? The first policeman who sees you shooting. And what do you say when he inevitably asks, “Do you have permission to shoot here?”

The Big City Blues
Now, if you live in a somewhat larger city and want to avoid the whole security guard/police man intervention thing, the first thing to do is a Google search for your city + “Photo Permit.” For example, I wanted to do a shoot in downtown Tampa (with a tripod and a light on a stand) and I Googled “Tampa” + “Photo Shoot” + Permit and a few seconds later I had found a reference to the “Tampa Bay Film Commission” (I had no idea this even existed). Once on their site, I was able to dig around until I uncovered how to apply for a permit, who needs one, and once we applied, I was granted a permit with no problem. They were great.
Another thing I’ve found, is that at first glance it may seem like you need proof of $1,000,000 in liability insurance to be approved for a permit (and the permit needs to list the local municipality as the co-insured), but so far, after looking carefully, in each case that’s only applied to video shoots, and not still shoots (even though local photographers warned me that’s the case, so far I haven’t actually run into it). And now you’re seeing another side of the problem; there’s so little information, or misinformation, it’s hard to find anyone with a real grip on the rules, and if there is such a person; don’t worry–they won’t be available when the cops come up, you show them your permit, and the cop says, “How do I know this is legit?”

That’s another problem; I doubt the local Film office distributes a copy to every police officer in town, so they know what the permits look like.

Making Your Case for a Permit
If you do decide that a permit is the way to go (in other words, you’re going to use a tripod), one thing they will want to know is, “What will the photos be used for?” They may ask if they’re going to be used for commercial purposes, educational purposes, to be sold as postcards, etc.

For example, on my recent trip to New York, we contacted the observatory at the top of 30 Rockefeller Center to request a permit to shoot the New York Skyline at dusk from their observatory (which would require me setting up a tripod). They had a page on their site for photo permits, and who to contact, etc. and so we followed their instructions. Unfortunately, we were turned down because we were going to use the photos in one of my books, which they felt was a “Commercial Purpose” so our request was denied.

We also contacted the Guggenheim Museum in New York, and they had a request for photography permit section as well, and they were pretty clear and adamant about the fact that both the exterior and interior of the Guggenheim were copyrighted, and tightly controlled. Despite several calls to the department that handles photo requests, we were never able to reach anyone, and they never called us back, so we were out of luck.

Where to Start
If after a quick search for your city and “Film Commission” and then your city and “Photo Permit,” etc., my next stop would be to contact (by phone), the local Convention & Visitors Bureau. They are usually pretty clued in to rules and regs for their area, and they might be able to send you in the right direction.

Unfortunately, the worst possible scenario is that there is no formal permit, and the person at city hall tells you, “Oh, it’s OK—you don’t need a permit to shoot here,” because when the security guard, police officer arrives and you say, “Cindy at City Hall says I don’t need a permit,” what you might as well say, is, “OK, I’ll pack up my stuff.”

If you want to shoot at private location (like a business, or commercial building, etc.), I’d start with their Public Relations dept. (you can usually find their direct contact info on the company’s Web site). Again, be prepared to let them know why you need special access to their building, and also let them know how unobtrusive you’ll be during your shoot (unless you’re actually going to be obtrusive).

In most cases, the PR folks, and Film Commission people have been very friendly and eager to help. They just want to know who you are, and what you’re doing, and that you’re not going to disrupt their city (business) and you’re not going have people tripping over your gear and suing them.

The bottomline
You’re basically relying on the kindness of strangers, who really don’t have any real burning desire to help you with your photo shoot, other than they like you, so be really, really nice.

I wish I could offer more help, and secret insights, but because each city is different, and apparently there are no set rules, you just don’t know what you’re going to come across out there, so be prepared to be really, really polite when you’re out shooting, because at some point you’re probably going to have to convince someone to let you keep shooting.

Comments received from other Sites

Listed using this TrackBack URL

56 Visitor Comments

Subscribe to comments with RSS

  1. #1

    your exactly right scott. and every country has different rules too. what i can do here in australia is different to what i’m allowed to “at home” in switzerland, or in the usa.

    i usually contact the journalists union in the country i am shooting in for initial “first hand” experience and info. a good start to find a local union would be the international federation of journalists at http://www.ifj.org/en

    information is available out there, however some more relevant (and accurate) than others…

    http://www.photolawnews.com/index.html#photogrights

    Stephan on June 9th, 2008 at 3:47 am
  2. #2

    Hi Scott,

    Nice job on the very informative post. Shooting photographs on the public streets is always an interesting experience. I have been at it for over 30 years as a photographer for the Los Angeles Times. When you’re walking around with photo gear, you are usually the center of attention.
    Thanks for all the great work. RL

    Robert Lachman
    Los Angeles Times
    Staff Photographer
    http://www.photographyandthemac.com

    Robert Lachman on June 9th, 2008 at 3:59 am
  3. #3

    Has the world gone mad? I am living in Germany at the moment and nobody ever (!) asked me for a permit or not to take pictures of “their” buildings . Come on, Germany! You would think they are over regulated control freaks, right?

    Alexander John on June 9th, 2008 at 4:37 am
  4. #4

    Perhaps this is something the photo agencies and other large corporate/media representatives can bring to attention of those with power. Here in England we’ve had numerous cases of overzealous policing where they’ve (mis)used their stop and search power to force photographers to erase cards, a humiliating experience to boot I should imagine.

    New legislation and widespread police education on the matter have been called for. Perhaps this is the way forward.

    Andrew Poole on June 9th, 2008 at 6:50 am
  5. #5

    I was asked once to remove some photos that I had taken of a building. I had snapped two photos and next thing i knew security was tapping me on the shoulder letting me know that it was “illegal” to shoot with a “good camera”. I erased the photos and walked down a couple of blocks so the security couldnt see me and retook the photos :D

    matt on June 9th, 2008 at 7:39 am
  6. #6

    If asked to erase photos or even format the card, there are lots of unerase and unformat programs out there. If I remember correctly, you even blogged about it a month or two ago. Some of the CF cards come with an unerase tool, often free.

    I woulld suggest doing the erase or if really pushed, the format. Then DO NOT USE THAT CARD AGAIN until you get a chance to recover your photos. Swap it out as soon as you have a bit of privacy, then recover it at your leisure.

    Steve Kalman on June 9th, 2008 at 7:53 am
  7. #7

    Scott

    Jeff Revell’s photo walks does he ever encounter any problems shooting in U.S. cities?

    After my experience in Denver last May, I swore I’ll never shoot in U.S. cities again :-( never again in the land of the supposedly free… To much of a hassle and time for me just to take some descent photos of city streets and buildings. I’ll stick to home family shots, back country landscapes and wildlife. I have less chances being attacked by bears that security guards and the police officers.

    Thanks for the daily blogs

    Harold Blouin on June 9th, 2008 at 8:51 am
  8. #8

    Private interests often assert all kinds of “rights” which legally don’t exist. Also post-911 paranoia has unfortunately emboldened local lawmakers and police to regulate the most benign of public activities - like making photos. As citizens we have an obligation to challenge these affronts to our liberties.

    Thanks for your continued attention to this issue.

    groucho on June 9th, 2008 at 8:56 am
  9. #9

    Here is my plan of attack. I am going on a Amatral trip with my dad from North Dakota to New York and back. Catching baseball games all along the way.

    I have applied for a general personal photography photo permit (camera, tripod, 3 SB-800, etc..) in every city we have tickets to a baseball games. (10 cities)

    When we get back at the end of July, I will let everyone know what happened.

    Sheldon on June 9th, 2008 at 9:10 am
  10. #10

    There is a greedy/power hungry side to human nature that has nothing to do with the law or 9/11 parinoia. It says that if you hold something, or even can pretend to, your stature is enhanced. You don’t give anything away if you can sell it, and you don’t sell something if it gives an aura more valuable than the simple money it might be worth.

    Good luck dealing with that.

    GT

    Gary D. Thompson on June 9th, 2008 at 9:19 am
  11. #11

    Check out this related news from Britain:

    http://current.com/items/88856223_you_can_t_picture_this

    Oliver on June 9th, 2008 at 9:23 am
  12. #12

    Oh wow Robert Lachman chimes in - yea he’s been a shooter for the LAT for like - ever. I shot news in LA for local papers in an era when it was much easier to do.

    The posts here about photogs actually having to erase images from their cameras reminds me about the LIFE magazine photogs who tell about keeping a spare roll of film for those same kind of occasions. And then hiding the real roll in their socks.

    keith on June 9th, 2008 at 9:36 am
  13. #13

    Where would the use of a monopod fit into these situations? Would it perhaps be a possible option, at least some of the time?

    Thanks for everything that you, and everyone at your company do, I am learning so much, you provide a very valuable educational service!

    Francie Stoutamire on June 9th, 2008 at 9:58 am
  14. #14

    Bruce Schneier writes frequently about security. Here’s a link to a recent article he wrote about photography that appeared in the Guardian.

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

    Schneier frequently writes about security tradeoffs. Each security measure has its obvious costs and usually not-so-obvious or measurable benefits.

    I’ve been taking photographs recently at a local private university and they have a helpful policy online. Summary: you need permission for commercial projects or to film indoors. Their news service offers to take you through the process. My project is non-commercial and outdoors. I haven’t been bothered about using a tripod and as long as I avoid being a trip hazard (is “trip” the root of “tripod”? sometimes it seems so!) I doubt anyone will mind. We’ll see.

    Kurt Shoens on June 9th, 2008 at 10:01 am
  15. #15

    Scott,

    This is an interesting and complicated topic. The post reminded me of Photoshop World in Las Vegas last year. Many, including myself, (not sure if they were all Photoshop World attendees) were shooting images all over Vegas. I didn’t have a permit and I doubt that many others did either. Lots of folks did have tripods on the ground shooting New York, New York, the MGM Grand and Excalibur. I’d like to know your take on the combination of a permit and image usage rights of a given location. If I understand this correctly, a permit does not equal a release to use images commercially that include a given location. What’s your experience on this combination of permit and location release? Can an official government office provide both?

    Roger on June 9th, 2008 at 10:13 am
  16. #16

    Hello Scott,

    I am glad that I live in the Netherlands after reading this story. A lot of rules apply here but only a few are about photography. Your not allowed to take photo’s of Military building etc. A part from that I can’t remember of any story in newspapers or on tv. If you would do a photo shoot on a sidewalk and the police comes they probably end up in your shoot and have their picture taken. Hahaha. Thanks for the warning.

    Joost on June 9th, 2008 at 10:45 am
  17. #17

    Hi Scott

    First, thanks for your blog and your training site. They have really helped me. Second, you might check out this site on photo permits.
    www.photopermit.org

    thanks!

    David Langston on June 9th, 2008 at 10:46 am
  18. #18

    I live in Milwaukee, and if there’s one iconic structure that hold the attention of every lens in the city it’s the Milwaukee Art Museum’s entrance: The Calatrava.

    The architecture of this building is incredible, both inside and out. I can’t tell you how many wedding photographs or engagement pictures I have shot here. The security officials are very accomodating when you’re taking pictures on the outside of the building, but the moment you step indoors it’s a different story. If you use a digital SLR they will not let you photograph inside, unless you’re a student. Tripods are out of the question regardless, so to capture anything inside, I often carry a backpack and a photography magazine.

    Joshua Houk on June 9th, 2008 at 11:40 am
  19. #19

    Let’s all grab our tripods and go riot in the streets!

    Matt Timmons on June 9th, 2008 at 11:58 am
  20. #20

    Why not carry a pocketful of 1G cards? Palm a couple of cards, fire off a few snaps, replace the card, put the one with the photos on it in another pocket. Who knows…maybe you can cycle through 3 or 4 cards before the cop appears saying, “Delete the photos on that card.”

    “Sure, officer, no problem.”

    Mike on June 9th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
  21. #21

    @ Mike (and others who seem willing to delete their photos)

    Why should I feel the need to do that? I’d rather ask the officer what power he has to demand me to delete MY images. I’ll then make my way to the nearest police station and lodge a formal complaint.

    The vast majority of police officers do their job right. Those that don’t do their job right need to be identified so that they can either be given additional training, or if necessary, be sacked.

    As for people being bullied by security guards. Please - it’s time photographers educated themselves and grew some gonads. Knowing your rights and standing up for them is not being an asshole, it’s a civic duty.

    DJ on June 9th, 2008 at 12:41 pm
  22. #22

    On a recent trip to Florence, Italy I was up early taking pictures along the Arno River. While focusing on the architecture I snapped off a photograph unknowingly in the direction of a parked police van and constable. The wary office called over and directed me to come and see him. As I approached he said “You picture of me?”. Which I immediately took to mean “Do you want to take a picture of me?”. Well I could not have been more wrong. He inspected the images I shot from using the LCD and concluded that the image of the street where he and his van was parked was insignificant. He let me continue on my way. Thank you sigma 10-20mm.

    Michael Van der Tol on June 9th, 2008 at 12:42 pm
  23. #23

    Luckily i mostly shoot landscapes…free from any rights.
    I wonder will there in the future still tripods for use, while the cameras and lenses keep getting better and better…what is the next step. Outlawing lenses and cameras with image stabilization or fast lenses?
    Even small cameras are getting better…
    Here in the Netherlands where i live security guards have not more power than the citizens shooting nice and wonderfull pictures in the street. Remember…it is still public territory…freedom must prevail.

    Marco Bezoet de Bie on June 9th, 2008 at 1:27 pm
  24. #24

    I tried to get a permit for the Rockefeller Center also (one tripod, personal non-commercial use only). The lady I emailed back and forth with was quite explicit: NO and at the very least you need a $1M liability coverage. So I guess the people who work in the same office can’t even figure it out between them. Sad. I am planning to try to wrap my gorillapod around something and hope I don’t get tossed off the 30th floor!

    Adrian King on June 9th, 2008 at 4:00 pm
  25. #25

    Scott, will you ever make an appearance on the TWiP (This Week in Photography) podcast? I heard you on The Digital Photography Show, but I think you’d really fit in with the crew on TWiP. Unless there’s some reason you can’t go on there, I would love to hear you in a studio instead of doing a phone interview!

    PS… Love all your books! Keep it up!

    John on June 9th, 2008 at 5:19 pm
  26. #26

    Where would one get $1M of liability coverage anyway? I had wanted to do a photoshoot at Grant Park in Chicago but you need a mil of coverage and I’m just a student not anywhere near professional.

    Patrick on June 9th, 2008 at 5:22 pm
  27. #27

    “Copyrighted” does not mean that you cannot take a photograph. Copyright is a monopoly on the distribution. In other words: You cannot claim a copyright that prohibits anyone from taking a photo. You can only take action against actual infringement. No publication, no infringement. And you have to have a good reason to prohibit publication, too!

    Copyright is not total control - it mainly regards distributing *copies* of a work (the name is a bit of a giveaway..). It *does* give the owner certain rights (and violating those rights WILL make you liable), but the right to forbid everyone to take a picture is not one of those rights.

    (standard legal disclaimers apply :-) )

    Bob Sacamano on June 9th, 2008 at 5:23 pm
  28. #28

    Thank you Scott for taking the time explaining this important subject.

    - It seems like correction for the sake of correction where individuals are beeing harassed by other individuals who believie they have the right and authority to do so even if they are wrong.
    And liability insurance….etc…. something must be very wrong.
    Nothing wrong with permits but it must be alot easier to find out how to get them as well as better information in general.

    B Forsberg on June 9th, 2008 at 6:10 pm
  29. #29

    After reading your blog entries I googeld and found the permit information for Charleston SC and even wrote an email to the individual in charge of the department.

    In a round up he basically said that if you do not block the flow of traffic whether it is vehicular or pedestrian you do not need a permit.

    If you are going to mess with traffic and you are responsible and go get a permit before you shoot the permit is free. Other than that if you block traffic and get stopped by police to go get a permit you now have to pay the 100-200 per day fee for the permit.

    You do have to have the City of Charleston on the liability insurance for the permit however. Which would only really make sense if you was shooting in traffic.

    Adam on June 9th, 2008 at 6:39 pm
  30. #30

    Interesting stuff here. Not totally sure about the area I live in. I do live in a historic place and these people have strict use of what you can do to building (paint, landscape, etc). I can only imagine their rules for photography.

    Scott - I was also wondering if you ever thought about doing a book on Typography. I saw on KT.com you taught a class or maybe even doing one for KT.com with more information. From PS World video it looked very interesting and I for one am not good at typography. Thanks!

    Take care and keep up all the hard work!

    Jason Loucks on June 9th, 2008 at 7:51 pm
  31. #31

    Hey Scott I hope you’ll check out my post on tripods on canyonrimphotography.blogspot.com. The photo was taken by me at a peace demonstration in 1968 in Washington,DC. It just goes to show you how much times have changed. Not only could you use a tripod to photograph a national monument but you could also be naked while doing so. I miss the good old days.
    Banjo Bob

    Banjo Bob on June 9th, 2008 at 8:53 pm
  32. #32

    Copyright lawsuites against grandmas with no computer for downloading “copyrighted” music, requiring a “permit” for shooting with a tripod “copyrighted” buildings, spending hours to find out the right person to contact to get back a demand of 1,000,000$ insurance as a response: seems America went too far in being stupid and money-hungry. Sad thing is that Europe is trying hard to catch up.
    Human society really deserve to extinct.

    Manyika on June 10th, 2008 at 3:57 am
  33. #33

    Scott, the general tone of your post, those attempting to enforce the rules don’t have a clue what they are is at odds with your behavior. You said the phone operators at the Guggenheim said they have a copyright on the inside and outside and, I guess, the inference was forget about photographing it so you gave up?

    FYI, I assume all the art work inside is copyright by someone and, in any event, they can as you know control your access if they don’t want you photographing inside. But they don’t own a copyright in the building because, I believe, it was constructed in the late 50s or thereabouts.

    Only architectural works (including buildings) created on or after December 1, 1990, or any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date are eligible for copyright protection.

    And even if they did have a copyright in the building, there is an EXCEPTION UNDER THE COPYRIGHT ACT THAT PERMITS PHOTOGRAPHY OF A COPYRIGHTED BUILDING.

    The exception is contained in Section 120(a) of the Copyright Act (caps added by me):

    “§ 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works
    (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed DOES NOT INCLUDE the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.”

    So next time you are in town please shoot the Guggenheim until you fill up your memory card. If anyone steps outside and tries to stop you tell them to blow it out their rear.

    mike on June 10th, 2008 at 4:52 am
  34. #34

    The guy that wrote this

    “‘Copyrighted’ does not mean that you cannot take a photograph. Copyright is a monopoly on the distribution.”

    In the US copyright has several exclusive rights not just to distribute copies.

    Others include the exclusive right to reproduce the copyrighted work and the exclusive right to prepare derivative works based upon the copyrighted work.

    So forget about being able to photograph the copyrighted work unless you fall under some other exception.

    mike on June 10th, 2008 at 5:08 am
  35. #35

    My favorite “standard” for restricting photography or requiring a permit is based on the distinction between those using and not using a tripod. I’ve heard some authorities claim that there is a danger to others from the tripod.

    Is there any record of a citizen suffering a “tripod injury” that could be blamed on a photographer’s use of a tripod? I’ve never heard of one.

    Dan

    G Dan Mitchell on June 11th, 2008 at 12:37 am
  36. #36

    Hello from Spain.
    I’m amazed, I thought this only happens in NY and London due to the terrorist paranoia, here in Madrid, were I live, you can shot any thing you want except cops, you can use tripod and any thing you want, but don’t shot (photos) a cop. It’s all you have to keep in mind.
    We lived off the money from tourists many years :), will be the reason why its easy to shot here.
    Spain is a good place to take photos, nice landscapes, beautiful cities,a lot of light… good food…etc

    Sorry for my English.

    Carlos on June 11th, 2008 at 5:58 am
  37. #37

    in australia, it all depends on ownership. i can shoot your house, from the public street, no problem. the moment i step onto your lawn, i need a permit.

    in any public place, i can shoot whatever i want. this includes buildings, people, streets. distribution is a different story. if something is copyright protected, i can not sell or publish the image without permission. same applies to people if you don’t have a release agreement.

    for editorial however, you can shoot and publish whatever you want, as long as you shoot on public ground - or have a permit of the land owner.

    Stephan on June 11th, 2008 at 6:46 am
  38. #38

    My take on the security guard issue…

    When he says remove the photos from the camera. Delete the images.

    Then remove the card from the camera and replace with a new card.

    Carry on taking photos elsewhere.

    When you get home, undelete the images from the first card.

    Mr jobs worth is happy, since he stopped you taking photos. You are happy since you have (the now undeleted) images.

    Everyone is happy.

    Chris Rollason on June 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
  39. #39

    Toronto is no exclusion to the photo restriction paranoia. More and more signs saying “No photo-shooting allowed” show up. The other day I saw a sign on the kids playground: “Photography is not allowed unless permission from the building management is given. This includes digital and film cameras, PDAs and cell phones. If permission is granted you are allowed to take photos only of your dependents.”

    I am so frightened with those restrictions that look around for signs or security guards everywhere I go and ask. The guards are not too spoiled yet, they usually do not care if you shoot. The best one told me: “I have no authority to forbid or allow you shooting around. Let it be your responsibility!”

    Dibutil Ftalat on June 11th, 2008 at 10:35 am
  40. #40

    Much of this is very old news, having nothing to do with terrorism anxiety.

    For decades the big tourism/media cities (SF, LA, Chi, NYC etc) have had readily available written policies, complete with specified fees.

    They WANT you to have the info because they want to charge a fee for commercial use. You won’t mind the fee if you really are a pro because your real client will pay it.

    To find the written rules, ask somebody in Tourism or City Public Relations or some Media unit…may be an office attached to the Mayor’s office.

    jtk on June 11th, 2008 at 10:59 am
  41. #41

    Can every American photographer do themselves a favor and read the copyright laws? It’s not that much reading and you’ll quit spewing ridiculous information.

    There is no law against creating a copy of a copyrighted work explicitly. You can’t, however, redistribute it, display it in public, make derivative works, or use it commercially.

    Look at filesharing. The sharers are the ones that get busted. They’re redistributing copyrighted materials without license to do so. Likewise, photo labs can’t print copyrighted photos without permission because it’s considered redistribution.

    Take this website for example. Several components of it are copyrighted material, yet you have copied them to your computer and you are displaying them on your monitor. You’re not, however, responsible for copyright infringement. You didn’t redistribute them.

    Please, read the laws. At least read circular 92. All of it is available at copyright.gov.

    Corey on June 11th, 2008 at 12:54 pm
  42. Steven Marks on June 11th, 2008 at 2:03 pm
  43. #43

    I can remember going back 25 years, my son was about 1 year old and we went to visit some friends in North Wales. On one (?) rainy day we went to the local swimming pool. I asked if I could take some photographs of my boy, despite being slightly hesitant at first they agreed and I got some great shots. I fully agree with the need to protect children, but think 25 years on that everyone is treated as a Paedo, try getting a shoot at your local pool now!!!.
    On a lighter side, around the same time I went to Farnborough air show, virtually everyone there had gone for one reason.
    I stood in front of the MIG 29 and took out my camera. A voice behind me said “you can’t photograph that.” “why not”?, I asked.
    “It’s still classified” was the reply.
    ” How the hell can it be classified,” I retorted there will be nigh on half a million people through here in the next 2 days”.
    The security guy shrugged and walked off.

    Robahob on June 11th, 2008 at 2:42 pm
  44. #44

    Someone with time and money needs to get themselves arrested for taking a photo then challenge the arrest - and have it deemed unconstitutional. Then sue everyone. After that we will be left alone.

    theMezz on June 11th, 2008 at 3:46 pm
  45. #45

    When photographing in public there are two separate issues: 1. Do you have a right to photograph in the first place? In most cases the answer is yes, as long as you are in a public spot (sidewalk, for example). 2. Once you have taken the photo, the question is do you have a right to publish it? In general, you can publish these pictures for editorial purposes without a release (to illustrate a magazine article, for example) but not for commercial purposes, unless you have a release (especially for people, since buildings do not have privacy rights).
    For a positive story, I was photographing the 10th Circuit Court of Appeals building in Denver (nice columns) when I was approached by three federal agents. They were very polite and professional, and simply wanted to know who I was and what I was up to so they could write an incident report (required for every pubic contact). I was evern more polite and professional, and killed them with niceness. Scott is right: be as nice as you can be and always be prepared to walk away. I was lucky that time (and have scary, guns-pointed-at-me stories I would rather not relive).

    Efrain M. Padro on June 11th, 2008 at 5:58 pm
  46. #46

    Looks like Orwell’s 1984, although late coming, has well and truly arrived. While our attention was focused on reds under the beds, governments of the so called free world were slowly but surely eroding the civil liberties and human rights of its citizens.

    JackieD on June 11th, 2008 at 9:15 pm
  47. #47

    Long story short!

    It seems there is an abundance of paranoid and ill informed security people, self-serving building owners and police out there that treat people with cameras as ‘enemy agents’.

    I researched this issue some time ago to protect my back against the likes of the above people that could cause more trouble than I would really care for.

    It seems that generally, there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public property — If you can be there, you can take pictures there, unless you are trespassing on private property. It’s probably always best to get some kind of permission if you have a whole shoot happening on the sidewalk!

    The bottom line is you always want to be aware of potential conflict that can come at you in the city and how avoid it. Best be prepared and know you rights.

    There is one resource I found that happens to be a lawyer specializing in
    photography, copyrights and photographers rights. He has a PDF download entitled The Photographer’s Right flyer on his website that may help you out with your Rights and when stopped or confronted for photography.

    Check it out, it may save you guys some aggravation someday!

    http://krages.com/bpkphoto.htm

    John Maskell on June 11th, 2008 at 9:47 pm
  48. #48

    Actually not all police are against photography. I was recently in San Francisco and there were five cops walking down the street. I stopped and said “Hi” and asked if it would be alright if I took their picture. I told them I was on vacation and not only did they allow me to take their picture, one of them was kind enough to take a picture of me with the rest of them.

    I find with police it’s best to be polite and to ask. Some will say no but some are just fine with it.

    Abe Friedman on June 11th, 2008 at 10:04 pm
  49. #49

    This is an interesting read for sure. Also a little insane, but I witnessed it first hand while shooting in downtown New York and again in the subway.

    My friend also has encountered the issue in a professional setting, so what he did was invest in remote shooting. You have a van or vehicle close by with a laptop, all your photos get fired off to that locked vehicle and your card can be cleared at will.. or so it seems. :)

    The system is fairly expensive, more commonly used in sports photography, but its an option.

    Matthew Keefe on June 12th, 2008 at 12:25 am
  50. #50

    Good article, and the comments echo the all-too-familiar these days.

    “You’re basically relying on the kindness of strangers”. In London at least, these are a dying species. Charm used to get you everywhere, but thse days is mre likely to get a call to head office and an icy ‘no’.

    Everyone who experiences the issues mentioned when in public places should read up on their rights and firmly stand their ground when in the right - you never know; you may even make the security guard a wiser person if you are reasonable and eloquent.

    Those (in the UK at least) who delete images on request really should, as another poster suggests, ‘grow some gonads’. A (very, very unlikely) warrant is required for Police to order this, and the private security monkeys have no rights at all to suggest deletion or in any way lay hand to you or your gear. None.

    Mark W on June 12th, 2008 at 3:06 am
  51. #51

    You could always state “Under section 120 of the Federal Copyright act, I am permitted to take pictures. If you would like I can wait while you go look it up.”

    I’ve that when presented with someone who seems to know the specific section of a law, they back down. If they don’t ask to speak to their supervisor, usually they will back down then.

    John Fink on June 12th, 2008 at 10:50 am
  52. #52

    jtk stated “There is no law against creating a copy of a copyrighted work explicitly.”

    How much more explicit can it be then the first exclusive right granted in section 106(1) of the Copyright Act?

    Why do you find the third right (106(3) distribution) compelling but choose to ignore the COPY right?

    I’m aware of other sections that provide defenses (fair use) or exceptions (e.g., 1008) to copying. It’s irrelevant to answering your statement.

    mike on June 12th, 2008 at 5:30 pm
  53. #53

    You might find this useful:
    http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permits/

    Still Photography and Permits
    On US and California Public Land

    By Jeff Conrad for the Large Format Page

    R Stafford on June 13th, 2008 at 8:22 am
  54. #54

    Hi folks,

    Generally speaking, if you’re taking a picture from PUBLIC LAND (street, sidewalk, etc) then no one has any right to stop you. If some security guard attempts to detain you, that’s unlawful. If they take your camera, it’s theft. if they force you to delete a picture in lieu of detention, it’s destruction of property.

    Here’s the best rule to think about when shooting buildings: If it can be seen in a public space, you can take all the pictures you want. And barring identifiable people in the picture, you can sell that picture. To use the example in the story, you could walk up to the guggenheim, take a nice picture, go home, post-process, make it B&W — and then sell that picture on your website. All legal.

    I strongly suggest everyone take a look at this fantastic review of the legal rights of photographers. I always carry a copy of it in my bag.

    http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

    Thanks,
    -Dave

    Dave Solimini on June 22nd, 2008 at 7:52 pm
  55. #55

    Hehehe…Look at the trouble Google’s Street view is causing. Generally, I don’t press the issue. If I’m asked to move on I will comply. I will never hand over gear or images to anyone, well, unless it is my editor. I’m always nice to cops too. An important skill is to disarm people when they approach you about shooting. Ask them questions about the place, tell them your grandma used to work there, if she did. Even security guards and off-duty cops will generally be helpful. Take some notes and look interested, I generally learn something cool and new from these encounters. I’ve even kept shooting while having these conversations. I’ve shot panoramas that require a tripod and shot outside the State Capital. To use a tripod inside is more a safety issue and I would ask for permission before setting up inside a public building. Same goes for museums and other publicly funded indoor locations. Think of tripods as a pedestrian traffic hazards and work with those that can help you to get the shots you desire. Since I only do editorial work and work “for my personal collection” I don’t have many issues when I do have an encounter with someone about my shooting.

    David Weaver on June 24th, 2008 at 11:09 pm
  56. #56

    Thanks for the tip…I guess I’ll ask about nudity when I call :)

    Sarah on September 19th, 2008 at 9:59 am

Drop me a note

You can use the small form below to leave a comment on this page.