What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
200 Comments
- elektriknoizz, on 03/18/2008, -2/+184Too bad no one will believe any of this if you're confronted.
- diggB, on 03/18/2008, -2/+140I love New York. I really do. But from my own personal experience, it's one of the most unfriendly places to take photos. Two years ago, I brought my gear (a small tripod and a DSLR) to take photos of Brooklyn Bridge near sunset and I was chased off by a park officer. Apparently I had to apply for a photographer's permit. WTF? Next, I tried to take a photo of the Apple store on (you know, the glass cube) and was confronted by security guards. WTF??? Just because I have a camera that looks like a ***** camera, I'm considered a professional. I'm NOT. I just love photography and love to take photos with decent gear.
- TJ11240, on 03/18/2008, -1/+113There's no way in hell I'd ever give anyone my camera without a warrant.
- borez, on 03/18/2008, -1/+84I took a picture a couple of months ago of a police car in London parked two wheels on the pavement on a red route ( no stopping at any time ) whilst the police officers stopped off for a McDonald's. The female police woman saw me and tried to snatch the camera from me, we got into this huge verbal fight over the fact I could be arrested for not giving up my camera. I stood my ground by telling them I worked for the British tabloid press ( I don't ) and managed to keep the camera.
Just goes to show eh...know your rights or they'll take the piss. - Falldog, on 03/18/2008, -0/+77"Be respectful and polite. Use good judgement and don’t escalate the situation."
People really need to do this more often, regardless of whether it's for taking pictures, or not. - Time4SumWupAzz, on 03/18/2008, -2/+74Very good article. . . Worth the read so you'll know your rights.
- sbluetruck, on 03/18/2008, -1/+59but you could shoot back...
- disappointed, on 03/18/2008, -2/+50Good article. Need internationalized version. I don't think the laws on photography have been harmonized much around the world.
- Cabose, on 03/18/2008, -0/+48I used to work security for a local mall. We were told to talk to anyone seen taking photographs and ask to see the photos they were taking to make sure it wasnt a "security risk" like the "weak points" of a jewelry store. I never stopped anyone. I knew what their rights were and I wasn't going to do ***** to impede on that
- pussieLicker, on 03/18/2008, -23/+64Eleven: Photograph hot girls naked and post them on digg for us all to enjoy
big boobs please - coheedcollapse, on 03/18/2008, -1/+33Yeah, unrelated to this particular "security" question and more related to "looks like a ***** camera", I once called twice to verify that I was allowed to bring a camera to a concert, but was refused admittance because my camera was a DSLR. This was after I was told TWICE that I would be allowed to take photos at the concert with no exceptions. So stupid.
- frmatc, on 03/18/2008, -1/+32I like to take photos of funny personalized license plates and then blur them to protect the owner.
- DeathJux, on 03/18/2008, -2/+26Exactly. In a previous Digg thread, I wrote about my experience trying to photograph near Picadilly Circus in London, and being confronted by a police officer. I was about 99% sure I was in the right (public property, non-professional and all that) but I left without a fight to keep the peace.
There's no reason to ruin people's days (including your own) to prove stupid points... however, that doesn't mean you should be complacent when the situation REQUIRES action in opposition. - inactive, on 03/18/2008, -3/+26Yes, and there's NO NEED TO BLUR LICENSE PLATES. These are visible on the public streets. And you can't freely access vehicle-registration records anyway, despite all the apparent paranoia to the contrary. Seriously: Try it.
- BlueStreak69, on 03/18/2008, -1/+23Also known as the Paparazzi's Code
- nrbelex, on 03/18/2008, -2/+23This ( http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf ) is sorta considered *the* definitive guide on the matter and this blog posting seems to be the Cliffsnotes version...
- noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -4/+23As someone obliquely involved in law enforcement matters let me just say the US is VERY touchy about infrastructure, military and government installations and utility buildings, etcetera, at the moment. Coast Guard Auxiliarists have been told to contact the Marine Police or the Coast Guard if we see someone out on the water shooting photos of these places in our AOR. We're not allowed to arrest you because we're all civvies, but we're not supposed to contact you either.
My advice, and this goes along with the being respectful part. If you plan on photographing some sort of structure like this try to get in touch with someone in charge and get written permission. The name of the game is cover your ass. - kuwan, on 03/18/2008, -1/+19I was at the Apple Cube on opening night to take some pictures (great place for night shots) and the "Head of Security" there made the idiotic claim that it was illegal to take pictures in New York City with a tripod. He and his goons followed me around the grounds while I took a few shots hand-held. If I so much as tried to even let my tripod touch the ground they threatened to confiscate my pod & camera. So I ended up just going across the street and shot from there, tripod and all.
Here's a picture of the guy that claims that tripods are illegal in New York (lower right with the walkie-talkie):
http://www.cutterpillow.com/gallery2/main.php?g2_i ... - likwidfuzion, on 03/18/2008, -1/+19They better have a warrant.
- audiomodder, on 03/18/2008, -0/+18a minor problem, number 1 is incorrect in some states. places like malls are considered "private public" property. this means, in some states, that while it is open to the public and you can take photos without consent, you can be asked to leave and not use the pictures with legal recourse if you don't comply. also, if it's no longer open to the public, even if it's public property, you may not be allowed close enough to photograph. Example: a car wreck happens and the police block off the road for several miles around. they are not obligated in any way to let you through just to take photos.
- MoneyPenney, on 03/18/2008, -0/+18Post the pic/link?
- AROZ, on 03/18/2008, -1/+18I suspect the authorities would often side with the person causing you problems too, thinking you won't take it to court. It often depends on the cop.
- apc3161, on 03/18/2008, -0/+17Somewhat related. This is a video on how to handle different encounters with police.
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-384519096 ...
It shows how sometimes they intimidate you or trick you into waving your rights. And once you wave those rights, whether intentionally or not, they can no longer protect you.
It also lets you know how properly stand up to abusive officers. - Peko, on 03/18/2008, -2/+18InternationalIZED. Meaning: info on how different countries interpret different laws.
- peestandingup, on 03/18/2008, -1/+17"Breaker Breaker one-nine. This is "Giant Douche Bag" reporting in saying I don't know ***** about laws & probably should be worrying about other things rather than some guy taking harmless pictures with a tripod...Over."
- LuckyASN, on 03/18/2008, -1/+17It's more of a common courtesy.
- aimhelix, on 03/18/2008, -0/+14Thankfully, the law they tried to pass where you would need a permit to a.) shoot with a tripod for 10+ mins, b.) shoot bridges have been lifted and was never passed. Over the course, last summer, photography was very hard in NYC. If you go shooting now, you'll rarely be bothered so long as you keep you feet planted inside public space. Don't be surprised if cops check you out though if you take pictures of bridges or tunnels. They are still very touchy about that.
- Gabberwok, on 03/18/2008, -8/+22International version? Considering some countries shoot people who try to take pictures of the wrong thing, I don't think a standard set of rules applies across the world.
- Mroutrageous, on 03/18/2008, -1/+14What this article fails to tell you is that you could still get sued. One fact in law: "Any one can sue anyone for anything." But the burden of proof is on them to show harm.
Example: I once worked at a paper that printed a photo of a man on the street. Instead of talking to the man and figuring out who he was the photographer captioned it as "A homeless person on the street." The man was not homeless. I believe he sued for defamation of character and libel and won.
Remember a picture speaks for itself. Once you say or alter anything it could become libel. - rezist, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13doesn't matter just keep shooting, and if someone swings... get that camera away from your eye!
- captainmage1966, on 03/18/2008, -0/+12they are not required to believe you . it is up to you take a stand and tell them in a calm voice to back off
- Ajajadude, on 03/18/2008, -1/+13What if they had a gun to your head?
- lukas88, on 03/18/2008, -0/+12These are the laws for taking photos in the USA. You should probably consult the laws for the UK, because I'm pretty sure "they would let me do this in america" is not an accepted defense.
- Seidoger, on 03/18/2008, -1/+12That doesn't mean its international thought. Quebec, Canada, for example has some different regulations, mainly on photographing people in public areas.
- noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -1/+12Buried for giving a friendly warning?
- blorguehad, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10Honestly, a lot of people, in my experience, step off if you come back at them with seemingly legitimate documents, or quotes from law books, as they don't get paid enough to care or are just too lazy to be witty and try to outsmart you.
- Larlei, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10Now when I take pics of the cancerous Power Plant down the street, I'd have the Commandments to back me up........and Innocent face with flirtatious talk for any male security just in case.
- earther, on 03/18/2008, -0/+10Wow, those are really, really bad photographs.
- bryceman111, on 03/18/2008, -2/+11That is dumb. What if someone was shooting on film?
- abid786, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9CANADIAN edition: http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml
- mrjit, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9Guards at concerts are typically told "If you can remove the lens, its a professional camera" - So yeah, now my $600 XTI is some super professional camera. It's idiotic.
- JCPahl, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9Wait, so cops can't take your camera without a court order? Dugg just for that info; of course it makes sense, what with the whole 4th Amendment thing and all, but you hear about them doing it anyway often enough.
- roosterjm2k2, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8See, that's where I walk the line...and being passive-confrontational.
I will be very nice to them, but also explain that they are not law officers, and they are on public property, and if they touch me or my camera, I will press charges. I'll tell them that if they make any more threats of bodily harm, I will file charges for assault. I will also let them know that if need be I will defend myself and my property, and any damages to me or my property as a result will be on them.
See, when you're snappy and hatefull (not saying you were, by any means, just an example) people just ignore you. When you're calm when they are trying to get you riled up, they pretty much know that YOU know that you are in the right. Most people back down pretty quickly when confronted with reality. - peestandingup, on 03/18/2008, -1/+9They are BITCHES at that Apple "Cube" Store. If you even get close to the glass, security guards sweep down like ninjas & tell you to ***** off. Yeah, I'd say they shouldn't take their Apple Store "protect the glass at all costs from fingerprints" security job so serious.
- bowens44, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8 A rent-a-cop with an attitude hassling children , there's a surprise
- BossKey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7The blog posting doesn't "seem" to be the Cliff Notes version of your link, it actually recommends, links to, and clearly calls itself a summarized version of, exactly the same place you have now redundantly linked to.
- rhoffer21, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8Its ***** that our country has come to this, we have to call ahead to take pictures? ***** that
- inactive, on 03/18/2008, -4/+11She said she was 16...
- ElGanyan, on 03/18/2008, -0/+7Yeah but these 10 legal commandments are about taking the photo, not being a total ***** and making up captions for the local rag.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 203 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is