digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at photojojo.com

The Ten Legal Commandments of Photography

photojojo.com — You're sure you haven't done anything wrong, but you don’t know whose side the law is on. Fret no more

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • Time4SumWupAzz, on 03/18/2008, -2/+74Very good article. . . Worth the read so you'll know your rights.
    • 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.
      • otayyo, on 03/18/2008, -1/+7yes, as far as know it is illegal to take pictures of children in Canada without parental consent.
      • viruz, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1In quebec you may take pictures of individuals in public places, you just can't publish them without their permission.
        However, this excludes pictures of people at public events
    • lex0nyc, on 03/18/2008, -6/+12I need citations for this *****. A list is great, but I need legal precedent to back it up. Thanks for trying, but not very useful.
      • gmprunner, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4At the bottom of the article they link to a few good sources.
        • lex0nyc, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5... but not line items for the list.
    • ekSD, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2The list is great, yeah, but pro tip: sensitive places, as listed in the article as Nuclear or military, will take your camera and your liberties in a heartbeat. Even standing in front of a gate with the camera around your shoulder is a terrible, terrible idea (assuming you shoot with something, say, the size of a D300).
    • Llanowar, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2They should make a site for this like they have for age of consent. Just so you know which laws apply in which country.
      I assume this is about laws in the US. While many laws would apply to many other countries as well, it is not always by default true.
    • ArchiTech, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2It would be nice to have official legal documents printed in my camera bag. I was taking pictures of an existing streetscape for a residential project I was working on. I was simply taking pictures of neighboring buildings from a public sidewalk. I even waited for pedestrians to pass by before I took my photo's.

      Eventually a woman came up to me and told me I was harassing people by taking their pictures. I explained to the lady that this was for work, but she continued to yell at me.

      In the end I realized she was the one harassing me. It wasn't until that point that I realized Photography can be a very risky career.
  • elektriknoizz, on 03/18/2008, -2/+183Too bad no one will believe any of this if you're confronted.
    • 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.
    • rezist, on 03/18/2008, -0/+13doesn't matter just keep shooting, and if someone swings... get that camera away from your eye!
    • 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.
    • 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
    • roosterjm2k2, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I've never had a problem with any of this. I've seen people have problems with this stuff, but there is a common thread they all share.

      The ones that had the problems....were all assholes and the second they were confronted they went off on the person. They are the kind of idiots that have the "I know my rights, I DARE you to challenge me" mentality. They immediately escalate the situation and never give it a chance to be handled correctly. Being aggressive and rude is a surefire way to lose an argument, and frankly, even though you're in the right, lose the case in court on the grounds that you were being aggressive and confrontational.
    • RedPhalanx, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2Rule 11. Don't film anything related to Scientology. They have a division of lawyers, they never give their full name, and they arn't above bribing the police, or anyone.
      • rspeed, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4To me that sounds like a great reason to take pictures of them.
    • brundlefly76, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Ironically I was harassed by an MTA Train Conductor yesterday and I blogged it last night:
      http://www.stationstops.com/2008/03/18/mta-ignored ...

      The thing is, although MTA actively informs their employess that there is indeed, NO rule or law regarding public photography on the nyc trains or subways, they still reserve the right to query photographers (not prohibit them), if they think they are being 'suspicious'.

      The problem is, there is no guideline as to waht is suspicious, so this conductor just decided that 'taking pictures of train tracks instead of trains' was SUSPICIOUS. I didnt care because I knew there was nothing he could do about it, and it was clear on his face he was dissapointed I wasnt eating any of his *****.
  • TJ11240, on 03/18/2008, -1/+112There's no way in hell I'd ever give anyone my camera without a warrant.
    • Ajajadude, on 03/18/2008, -1/+13What if they had a gun to your head?
      • likwidfuzion, on 03/18/2008, -1/+19They better have a warrant.
      • sbluetruck, on 03/18/2008, -1/+59but you could shoot back...
        • Ajajadude, on 03/19/2008, -0/+2...kinda hard to do when a gun is at your head. Unless, of course, you live in the movies.
    • VAXcat, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4 A gang of activists one confronted me and demanded my camera and film because I had committed the crime against the leftist state of mind of taking pictures of People's Park in Berkely California. I had worked years at a ***** job to pay for that camera and lens (a Canon F-1 - at the time, a highly regarded pro grade camera), and there was no way they were getting it without a struggle. After I told the spokesman that if he didn't back off I was gonna crush his skull with the penta prism of the viewfinder as I smashed the camera into his head, they suddenly lost interest and I was allowed to pass unimpeded. People who try to take cameras had better be prepared to deal with how attached some folks are to something that expensive...
      • brundlefly76, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Thats ironic you got your camera confiscated by leftists - and for 'commiting a crime against the leftist state of mind' no less lol - I think theyre probably more facist than leftist.
        • haydesigner, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I think VAXcat's story is much more fiction than fact.
          • VAXcat, on 03/20/2008, -0/+0 Errr...well, as the saying goes, I have pics - and a witness, my wife who was terrified during the encounter.
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • Peko, on 03/18/2008, -2/+18InternationalIZED. Meaning: info on how different countries interpret different laws.
    • diggB, on 03/18/2008, -3/+8Did you mean a standard list of rules that applied to each and every country? Not likely. However, if there were guidelines that are country or region specific, that would certainly be of value. e.g.. If I take a photo in country X at a religious Y place, I'll be held indefinitely in a dark and moldy prison until I die a horrible, horrible death of dysentery, that would be useful to know in advance.
    • abid786, on 03/18/2008, -0/+9CANADIAN edition: http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml
      • earther, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Interesting, i was informed that it is illegal for me to take candid photos of people in public throughout Quebec.
        Like the photos i take here:
        http://earthsworld.com
        • Buckeye17, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1most of those photos I looked at seemed to be lacking in color and contrast... everything looked gray... maybe this is your style or something, i dunno
    • CarzorStelatis, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3How about you RTFA and get the links at the end for other countries?
  • 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.
    • 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.
      • 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.
      • Klarth, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Ugh, DSLR-at-concerts rule is IDIOTIC. Even when I was fifteen and I brought a film SLR to a small-scale show in Camden I had to leave it at the door. Ridiculous.
        • coheedcollapse, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1Yeah it's stupid. If they catch me selling photographs they can yell at me all they want then, but dear god. Let a guy take photos just for fun once and a while. I think next time I'll just disassemble the whole thing and hide various parts of it on each person who is coming in with me.
      • Thundercat1971, on 03/18/2008, -2/+5Had the exact same issue with my REGULAR digital camera. Apparently to the cro-magnun bouncer, the long unremovable barrel lens of my sony dsc-707 made it a "professional" camera.
    • rezist, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5True... I can sympathize, but you made it out of there with your gear so keep getting out there... there's more of us than there is of them!
      • scbysnx, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4actually I doubt there are more photographers with slr's then there are security guards and law enforcement who want to stop them
    • 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.
    • 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.
      • Electric_Sheep, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Weird. I was in NY 2 weeks ago and took out my DSLR and took photos inside and outside of the cube and around the store. Nobody batted an eye.
    • 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 ...

      • 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."
      • 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.
      • dynamited, on 05/08/2008, -0/+1He's got a walkie talkie.... makes him feel important. instead of keeping security.. they waste time harassing bona fede people.
  • SeventhSon, on 03/18/2008, -36/+2Boring. Are there Ten Illegal Commandments of Photography?
    • inigomntoya, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2I don't think so - I have pretty much seen EVERYTHING in the Digg photo section...
    • Philbert, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Just do the oposite of what's listed here, do not pass Go, go directly to jail.
      • CarzorStelatis, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1So NOT taking photographs in a public place will get me sent to jail? How come all these criminals who just _walk_ in public places are getting off scott free then? :P
    • Myonosken, on 03/18/2008, -0/+21 ~9) Don't photograph naked kids
      10) Don't hit people with your camera
  • 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.
    • 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.
    • sarixe, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6even regardless of whether it's you vs. authority, or just a normal social situation.
  • pussieLicker, on 03/18/2008, -23/+64Eleven: Photograph hot girls naked and post them on digg for us all to enjoy

    big boobs please
  • mentallyinhell, on 03/18/2008, -9/+2oh... photography, thought it said something else.
    • sarixe, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1The Ten Commandments of Barely Legal Photography
  • willynilly, 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.
    • LuckyASN, on 03/18/2008, -1/+17It's more of a common courtesy.
    • frmatc, on 03/18/2008, -1/+32I like to take photos of funny personalized license plates and then blur them to protect the owner.
    • jeffaustin, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5If you mean free as in beer, you're right. But if you mean free as in Willie, you're dead wrong. 30 bucks and 30 seconds is all it takes.
      • gbro, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Details please.
        • tanside, on 03/18/2008, -4/+1It's all about the cacophony of things, then you'll know the where and the when, but that's not the win. To impute judgment is to impute faith.
    • hfactor, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5You call the police and say: Well, there's this car blocking my entranceway... I don't wanna be a dick about it if it's just one of my neighbours, could you maybe check that out? Because if it's a neighbour, I'll just walk over and ask him to remove the car without needing an officer or anything.

      Worked for me two times
    • Mroutrageous, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Check this out
      http://www.publicdata.com/
  • 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...
    • cinder, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Yup, I keep a copy in my camera bag. Fortunately, I've never had to use it.
    • 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.
  • 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
    • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -9/+3Understandable, but did you really think asking to check the photos was that big of a deal? Worst case scenario, for them, they say no and you make a note to check those stores. Worst case scenario for you, you were wrong, a store gets broken into and you're held responsible. Besides, it's generally pretty easy to spot the ones that are up to no good.
    • bryceman111, on 03/18/2008, -2/+11That is dumb. What if someone was shooting on film?
      • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -4/+5You could maybe ask them to process the film at the mall (unless they o their own processing) but yeah, it is pretty dumb. Unfortunately a lot of dumb people have done a lot of dumb things to cause these dumb rules to come about.
      • MoneyPenney, on 03/18/2008, -8/+7What's this film stuff you speak of? I have heard it mentioned before but have no idea what it is....
  • 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.
    • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -1/+12Buried for giving a friendly warning?
      • rhoffer21, on 03/18/2008, -1/+8Its ***** that our country has come to this, we have to call ahead to take pictures? ***** that
        • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -4/+4No one said you had to; like I said, just a friendly warning. If you want to be absolutely sure you avoid any trouble, get permission, you may even get help finding good locations. Personally, getting permission sounds a lot better than getting arrested by some guy who doesn't read Photojojo and has orders to be suspicious of people posing security risks.
          Yeah it sucks but you forget we're at war, there are people who would like to see us all dead at the moment, the security folks will obviously be spooked whether you think there is a reason for it or not.
          • mooseontheloose, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Yeah, I bet America is just flooded Al Qaeda members armed with DSLRs just dying to take some useless pictures of your oh-so-important auxiliary Coast Guard base
        • thelostemperor, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4The "we're at war" argument is always trotted out to rationalize ***** behavior by public officials. Since there will never be an end to terrorism, there will never be an end to this war, therefore our rights are gone forever apparently.
          • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -3/+2Or, you know, sensible behavior on the part of those who are tasked with protecting the nation.
            You don't have a right to do anything you want whenever and wherever you want because the rest of us have rights too.
          • CarzorStelatis, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1@noahhoward:
            War is a declared open conflict between two nation states. Kidnapping a few Muslims and torturing them in Guantanamo isn't war, it's just common criminality.
          • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2@CarzorStelatis:
            So what exactly was the revolutionary war? If you want to argue definitions go ahead but we are in conflict with a specific group who are in conflict with us. That counts as a war in my book.
      • DesertTripper, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3"Absolutely sure?" What about coheedcollapse's report above? Told twice it was okay to photograph without exceptions, then denied access because of some arbitrary rule about the camera (that was probably made up on the spot).

        Probably the only way to be really sure is to get something in writing. Then again, even that's not a guarantee. You can always get overruled by some dweeby former hall monitor who now happens to have a rent-a-badge (or, worse yet, a real one.)

        This country has really gone down the drain. Freedom is limited to how law enforcement and other authority figures interpret it. Sad.
        • noahhoward, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2"Then again, even that's not a guarantee."
          True but if the ***** does carry on, you have his ass in court.
    • limoo, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1Technically, you can perform a civilian arrest. The problem arises if you (or your colleagues) botch the arrest somehow: overreaction to a legal activity, excessive use of force, etc. Hence you're encouraged to call in the pros to handle the arrest.
    • jjmckay, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Yeah well that's the thing about freedom and liberties, if we follow the rules while they take them away those freedoms are far more likely to be taken away. Of course there's no need to create drama either.
  • 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.
  • anchorman, on 03/18/2008, -3/+9Take your camera to the local nude beach and have fun people. Bring a large mean dog with you too... so you don't get bothered while engaging in your art.
    • itspuddingtime, on 03/18/2008, -7/+1prevert
    • ScottMcQueen, on 03/18/2008, -4/+0But... the Precious Fluids!
    • hmcook87, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3are nude beaches fair game? would have thought they'd be private property.
    • profcornbread, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Nude beaches would fall under the 'expected privacy' category, so I wouldn't recommend doing that
  • aimhelix, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Great article - a lot of these are actually in the minds of many semi-pro photographers I know that like to do street photography. Thankfully, I haven't been harassed by security guards, although I have in the past but I've always known my rights. I've found that respectfully and kindly talking to them and taking the time to educate them about your photography rights works well when confronted while taking pictures.
  • fiveyearswinter, on 03/18/2008, -3/+7"Put the story on the web yourself if need be." Yeah, that'll teach them not to mess with you.
    • sharp357, on 03/18/2008, -1/+4Actually thats exactly what happened to the policeman who hassled the skateboard kid a while back. Kids friend posted and the local paper showed it to the powers that be. Made an awful mess for the jerk.
  • 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.
    • EatMeat, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5short shorts are key.
    • mahdaeng, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2[[Innocent face with flirtatious talk]]

      Pics or didn't happen.
    • Ulteriormotive, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1IV. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.
  • jamesLankford, on 03/18/2008, -0/+18I wonder how google street view fits into this
    • BossKey, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Google Street View fits perfectly into this. Google Street View vans never leave the street, which is public property, so if you have read the article, you know that anything is fair game from public property.

      Google Street Vans have also been asked not to photograph inside military installations. This exception is also covered in the article. So it fits in just fine
    • limoo, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Exactly. People who claim invasion of privacy with Google Street View are mistaken. However, Google's PR has to avoid the negative backlash hence the compromise.
  • 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.
  • 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.
  • RSS14, on 03/18/2008, -1/+5Does this list apply to Canada as well?
    • smt12, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4Mostly, although in Canada I'm pretty sure you need someones permission to show their face even if they're on public property. I think there was some discussion regarding this and Google Streets in Canada a while back. Don't have a source right now... maybe someone else can find me one?
    • Ulteriormotive, on 03/18/2008, -0/+0As posted in the article and answered by someone on Digg
      http://ambientlight.ca/laws.shtml
    • LumpyRevolution, on 04/21/2008, -0/+1Read the article. Don't just digg it. Bottom of the page. READ :)
  • Owwmykneecap, on 03/18/2008, -4/+11She said she was 16...
  • DesertTripper, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6Why are more and more stores implementing prohibition of photography? Is it terrorist paranoia or are they just tryng to protect "trade secrets" and make it harder for the competition to copy their store layout or pricing? Fry's, for one, has a prominently posted "no photography" sign.

    Not that I really have a reason to photograph in a store; I'm just curious.
    • limoo, on 03/18/2008, -1/+3Two reasons: avoid unwanted press (e.g. photo of the Bestbuy store which harassed you when you didn't show your receipt at the door), and for the protection of their customers (customers would like some "privacy" while shopping.)
    • ryusen, on 03/19/2008, -0/+1I was trying to take a picture of a garment at a clothes store (because i wanted to blog about it). The owner/manager tried to convince me that it was a copyright violation to take the picture. He then said, "trust me, i've been in this industry for 30 years." Rather than asking him what it was like being in copyright law for 30 years and not understanding copyright, i just left. My GF said she was seriously afraid i was going to go off on him, because people misrepresenting copyrights is a big hot topic for me.
  • ludar, on 03/18/2008, -11/+3how about not being a douche about your picture taking?
    • Pixelante, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2"Not being a douche" != "Knowing your rights". If you think anybody who thinks he's some kind of an authority figure should have absolute power over you, consider moving to Burma.
      Respecting the law is one thing, but the law isn't something made up at any moment in a private security guard's head or street cop. Have your lawyer's number at hand and, if they threaten you, call him and let them know what you're doing. The toughest wannabe robocop will back down swiftly if he knows he'll be on the wrong side of a lawsuit.
    • bowens44, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2How about not being an idiot? This is about our liberty. I know that's not important to the 19 percenters but the rest of us care.
  • RevToTheRedline, on 03/18/2008, -2/+4Also a link at the bottom of that page to a PDF printable document, good for storing in your camera bag just incase. I just did it now.
  • kaisa, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3Do these laws apply to video cameras as well? Whats the difference with video cameras? I suppose you add another legal issue when you start thinking about sound/voice recording as well as video... Anyone got a link for more information?
    • lindasue, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3I don't know about the laws for videotaping, but I do know that my son and some of his friends were videotaping themselves skateboarding outside an empty office building, and were stopped and charged with something that had to do with the Patriot Act. Yes, the cop was as *****. Yes, the judge dismissed the charges.
  • robohoe, on 03/18/2008, -6/+1Yeah, well, what about Area 51?
    • Philbert, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3V. Sensitive government buildings (military bases, nuclear facilities) can prohibit photography if it is deemed a threat to national security.
  • alaceiffel, on 03/18/2008, -7/+2good article cuz it introduced me to www.chucknorrisfacts.com!!!!!!
  • mattieshoes, on 03/18/2008, -1/+2As far as I understand it, there is some distinction between public property and places like stores and malls which are private property but public spaces. The page kind of mentions it in I, but I believe if they ask you to stop taking photos on private property, you need to. They can just make you leave, or charge you with trespassing. They can't make you erase your photos or confiscate your stuff though. Or detain you! Kidnapping and false imprisonment, yeah!

    The other area that I think could be more clearly addressed is an expectation of privacy. Sure, you can take pictures of buildings, but you can't take pictures of the girl changing clothes in her home through her window. She has a reasonable expectation of privacy being in her own home. Sometimes people can have a reasonable expectation of privacy in a public place, such as dressing rooms. The prescription counter would be a grey area, but I wouldn't push it.

    And there's another distinction which isn't mentioned... The laws for taking pictures are different from the laws for publishing pictures or selling pictures.
    • tiburon, on 03/20/2008, -0/+1Actually you can legally take a picture of someone through an open window as long as you are on public property. A person has no expectation of privacy if they can be seen from public view.

      This includes the air (can you say paparazzi in helicopters).
  • slurry47, on 03/18/2008, -7/+6Having worked at a photo lab (remember film?) and a magazine (remember print?) I was hoping for edification for the masses -- photo do's and don'ts. Do take multiple pictures of each subject -- vary the settings on your camera -- one exposure might be good. Bend your arm for self-portraits trying to keep it out of frame -- you can get a good shot. Don't pose your subject in front of something majestic -- it belittles them both. Don't get prints of your pot plants made -- lame employees will report you and the police will follow you home. Take naked photos of your wife while she's young -- you'll never regret it. Don't post them. Flash pictures of black people are hard to get right -- take them in the sun, outdoors. Your daughter is cute (to you) but don't submit them for publication it'll only embarrass you both. Shall I keep going? . . .
    • CarzorStelatis, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3It says 'legal commandments'. 'Legal' means related to the law. Remember dictionaries?
  • MaruLono, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Bravo! Nearly everything i learned in my Communications Law class in regards to photojournalism and the likes.
  • 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.
    • 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.
  • brad016, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2number 9 aplies to that scientology video yesterday, when the scientologists harassed that camera dude.
    • Verz, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1You know, that video is really old.. as most non-political things that appear on Digg.
  • ndiderrich, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3God, cops and people in general can be just "dicks" thanks to what the paparazzi has given regular photographers... a bad name.
  • tweetsa, on 03/18/2008, -13/+0uh this is not true at all. I am a security guard and if I see someone taking pictures in my mall or skateboarding, I confiscate the camera or skateboard. The most expensive camera I have confiscated was a disposable worth about 20 bucks, not sure how the much the skateboards are worth.

    If they don't give the cameras or skateboards up, we threaten them with arrest, haven't had to actually arrest anyone because they're generally smart enough to cough the items up.
    • Philbert, on 03/18/2008, -3/+1That's in your mall, private property.
      • rootofsilence, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4It may very well be the mall he's a security guard at, but he has no legal rights to steal things from people using threats and intimidation. He's a ***** muppet!
    • Nickdotnet, on 03/18/2008, -0/+6hahahahahaaha

      This just in....Rent-A-Cop confiscates $20 disposal camera and threatens owner with arrest. Damn! We're all shakin in our boots. Please sir, don't flash me with your maglite! Please "officer"....don't call for backup.....cocky-ass wannabe cop.
    • bowens44, on 03/18/2008, -0/+8 A rent-a-cop with an attitude hassling children , there's a surprise
    • lindasue, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Skateboards can be worth up to $150, and you have no legal authority to take them.
    • hmphargh, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5Good luck when someone wises up and comes back with a real cop to arrest your ass for stealing their belongings.
  • Philbert, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1I was actually questioned by some cops once while shooting. I was across the street from a church shooting it was a large format view camera. What didn't occur to me was that i was standing outside of a bank. They simply asked what I was doing and said sometimes banks get weird about that kind of thing. I really don't see the issue though since I was facing away from the bank. People get weird about view cameras though since they usually don't know what it is. I can't count the number of times I was asked if I was a land surveyor.
    • slantyeyed, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3you were taking pictures of possible points of view to stake out the bank. once you've established that prime location, you can take pictures of the bank, possible entrances, exits, see how maintenance people go in and out. if someone asks if you're a land surveyor or real estate agent, you say YES. anything else, you're a robber or a potential kid toucher.
  • javacola, on 03/18/2008, -9/+2hello i'm from Vietnam
    • source1984, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3um, hello.
    • shortyjacobs, on 03/18/2008, -0/+4GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOD MORRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRNING VIETNAAAAAAAAAAMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM
      !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  • fadgedagreat, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Photographing internationally -- Once, when I lived in Russia, I was photographing streetcars from a public street coming out of the carbarn in St. Petersburg. This was after the Soviet breakup, and a lot of folk in officialdom and semi-officialdom didn't know if the old rules applied. One of these old rules was "no pictures of railway property". This had unofficially changed when I was there.

    At any rate, I'm taking the last of my shots, and I see through the viewfinder this Russian security guard coming towards me with his hand hovering over his 9mm, waving at me, and shouting in Russian "...no photographs..." and "...secret...". My command of Russian is not all that great, but I used it on my trips as much as possible. However, on this occasion, and in my best southern drawl said to him in English, "Oh, I'm terribly sorry. I didn't know I wasn't supposed to take pictures here.", and I put away my camera. The guard rolled his eyes to heaven, shook his head and said in Russian, "Oh God...an American."

    Got my pictures though!
  • Gummo98, on 03/18/2008, -3/+3Don't let the upskirt photogs read this
    • shortyjacobs, on 03/18/2008, -0/+5I believe this would fall into the "reasonable expectation of privacy" part of the discussion....as in "people have a reasonable expectation that you won't shove a DSLR up their skirt"
  • CarzorStelatis, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Brilliant - the guide itself is very clear, and it also has links to similar guides for other countries which is a plus for us non-Americans.
  • Azakaa, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1Now I only wish someone would do a UK one :)
  • angryfilipino07, on 03/18/2008, -2/+1was this sent by anon?
  • mediaman54, on 03/18/2008, -0/+1A grossly incomplete article. The other half is: what can you do with these photographs? If the pics appear publicly within a "news" context, then almost anything goes, otherwise there are all kinds of privacy and copyright restrictions...
  • webs05, on 03/18/2008, -1/+1Buried because it's all obvious stuff. Not only that the author is stating all of this as if he's read every single state and city law/code/ordinance. If you really want to be safe see what your town/state says about this, but I wouldn't hold those "Ten Commandants" up as the holy gospel.
  • kmb1794, on 03/18/2008, -0/+3ah. 11. Don't take a pic of me.
  • WhatsUpWithJack, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2This is excellent. Carrying a copy of this wherever I go now, since people always ask me what I'm doing or look at me weird when I photograph, and I've wondered "hmm.. is this legal?"
  • digitalpencil, on 03/18/2008, -0/+2Good article and glad to see there's versions for people outside the US, unfortunately a rarity on digg.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.