digg

Join DiggAbout

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

Photo Law - Your Right to Take Pictures in Public

legalandrew.com — You have a camera. But do you know your rights when it comes to public photography? You’ll learn them here.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • ThinkBox, on 10/15/2007, -0/+9Good stuff to know, I wish he talked more about distributing those photos, for profit or just generally web hosting.
  • photopreneur, on 10/23/2007, -0/+91Just keep in mind that you CANNOT sell the pictures for advertising or commercial purposes of people or even of buildings without a model release or a property release. Without these releases you can, of course, post the pictures on FLickr, save them, share. And you CAN sell them to magazines for "editorial" use. You cannot sell them to ad agencies, corporations, etc. A long subject.
    • aflusche, on 10/14/2007, -2/+10Thanks for making these key points. Nice summary!
    • peestandingup, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3Can you sell them for artistic value? Like at an art show??
      • sohosid, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4Not if they are of people, no. At least, not if they are identifiable.

        Also, the only editorial use allowed is non-damatory. You cannot sell a picture of a random person you have taken to then be used to illustrate a story about child abuse, for example. Again, if the person in the picture is recognisable.
      • earther, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Actually, i do believe you can sell artistic photos of people. The key is not to defame or degrade the person in the photo you are trying to sell.
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1That's why in a lot of degrading chick mags, the "Dos & Dont's" the eyes are always barred out... not that I read them.
    • xenixninja, on 10/14/2007, -2/+1And in EU you are not allowed to post photos online if you haven't gotten the consent from the person(s) in the photo.
      • rebotfc, on 10/14/2007, -0/+3This is patently false, just look at all the compromising celeb photos that get published. Model release is requried only for commercial endorsement not editorial.
        • breadfred, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Well that depends on something called 'public interest'... if its in the public interest, the laws are different.
    • skydolphin, on 10/14/2007, -1/+0http://www.largeformatphotography.info/photo-permi ...
      has a nice list of links to California and Federal Agencies where you apply for permits.
  • 2oonhed, on 10/19/2007, -2/+29an increasingly important issue if you walk around with a camera all the time, like I do.
  • Useight, on 10/15/2007, -15/+6My camera phone takes crappy pictures, anyway.
    • djdole, on 10/15/2007, -0/+12Awesome! Very informative comment. I was wondering just that! O_O
  • davekoob, on 10/19/2007, -13/+66You have a blog. But do you know when not to use WordPress? When your blog is on Digg would be a good time.
    • DewKnight, on 10/16/2007, -2/+26Wordpress isn't the problem. It's not using wp-cache or not being on a fast enough server.
    • smackhero, on 10/15/2007, -1/+15the problem is that davekoob doesn't know how to read error messages and is only capable of parroting digg memes. no matter what blogging app you use, if the mysql server can't handle the workload, the blog won't be accessible. at least wordpress gives you the ability to cache pages to reduce database queries. wordpress just happens to be the most popular blogging package, and you rarely see the logo unless an error page is displayed. you'll never see this problem on wordpress blogs hosted on wordpress.com or by decent web hosts.
    • Wingman007, on 10/15/2007, -2/+6The laws seem to be temporarily unavailable.... I better start taking pictures so I can finish before they come back!
  • g2g079, on 10/15/2007, -27/+53Stop submitting wordpress article to digg. Digg should ban Wordpress.
    • darny, on 10/15/2007, -27/+2DIGG SHOULD BAN WORDPRESS
    • davekoob, on 10/15/2007, -3/+4Or Digg should have smackhero run EVERYBODY'S Wordpress blogs. He seems to know how to make them work.
    • FredSanford, on 10/16/2007, -0/+15Reasons why you are a moron:

      1. If the site is down, how do you know it's running WordPress?
      2. If you actually clicked the link and read the error message you would see that it isn't a WordPress error.
      3. WordPress blogs get dugg all the time without any problem. No. 1 and 2 above demonstrate that you don't know what you're talking about.
  • wakebrdr, on 10/15/2007, -20/+2what kind of an idiot takes legal advice from some dope sitting around writing a blog? it's like writing an essay and basing it on wikipiedia; there's a good chance that it's right but when it comes down to it the source isnt reputable beyond a reasonable doubt.
    • Sibertater, on 10/14/2007, -0/+9Yes, because people who have blogs aren't educated. Be reasonable...if you don't believe something someone says in a blog, check it out for yourself. Geez.
    • EXreaction, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2Let me guess, you believe everything Fox News says though, right?
    • nycjap, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Most of what he wrote is common knowledge to the more than casual photographer, and the sources he cites are again, well-known and reputable ones. Your rights as a photographer are constantly being infringed upon, so even though it's redundant, it's a good thing to reiterate some of these points on a regular basis.
  • Jalh, on 10/14/2007, -7/+1omg the world is getting worse every day !!!
  • dupswapdrop, on 10/19/2007, -6/+9If your going to take photos for profit you need to find out the laws in your state. For example some states will not let you sell photos you take from the side of the road or any public area with out a permit. Also with the new police state you better be careful where you take your camera, don't taze me bro.
  • DesignerScott, on 10/15/2007, -15/+4 |
    V
    DOWN
  • claybird, on 10/15/2007, -7/+2go to the main page: http://www.legalandrew.com/

    and scroll down just a little and the article is there
    • claybird, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1well the main site was working.... oh well.. just trying to help
  • aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -1/+33Crap! I'm working to get the site back up right now. In the meantime, you can see a version from Google's cache:

    http://64.233.169.104/search?q=cache:2MclvKO4OF8J: ...
  • chicoer2001, on 10/15/2007, -13/+1What a simplistic view of the First Amendment. This blog post brings up nothing new and has no basis.
    • haydesigner, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4What a simplistic comment of a blog post This comment brings up nothing new and has no basis for wasting my time in reading it.
  • JayInOhio, on 10/15/2007, -7/+2Wouldn't it be his ***** virtual hosting account and not the fact that he's running wordpress?
    • EXreaction, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2Virtual servers should be able to handle digg without a problem.

      Shared hosting is a different matter altogether (not saying that no shared host could handle it, I am sure my host could (webfaction) but the far majority of shared hosts overload the servers to start with).
  • neiltc13, on 10/14/2007, -8/+3Buried as inaccurate as nowhere in the article nor the submission does this actually mention what country or area this refers to.
    • xjeffx, on 10/14/2007, -8/+2Well duh, only one country has access to the internet so by process of elimination we should just assume it's the USA.
    • xjeffx, on 10/14/2007, -2/+5Well duh, only one country has access to the internet so by process of elimination we should just assume it's the USA.
    • aflusche, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2Thanks for point this out. I'll nail the country down in future articles.
  • DroogInPhoenix, on 10/19/2007, -9/+5I was at the Diamondbacks game the other night, went to the sports bar next to it after... I was just told not to take pics of the girls outside in skimpy clothes who serve the beers.... Its amazing how many girls wanted pics, then went to the Hard Rock near it, and was told no pics.. sadly I had 2 smoking hot girls who wanted me to take pics topless, but I didnt want to get thrown out. I really like photography and try to get photo passes for concerts, some bands are cool about it, some wont even respond, I guess unless your with a publication.. But what I do like is people think your important, they move out of the way, or want pics done, or girls will come up and talk to you who otherwise wouldnt. Its not only a fun hobby, its a great social tool...... I did have 1 drunk guy who wanted me to erase the pics because he didnt want them coming out when he runs for president. I stood my ground.
    • xjeffx, on 10/15/2007, -0/+4You're on their property so you can't exactly take photos of whatever you like. If you were on the sidewalk you could shoot into their establishment as long as you weren't going over any walls, fences, etc to get the shot. You can shoot whatever you can see from the street basically.
    • nycjap, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Actually, that's only semi-correct.

      Even on private property, they cannot stop you from taking photographs. They *can* ask you to leave, and if you refuse, have you arrested for trespassing, but they cannot prevent you from taking photographs, even if it is their property.
  • subterfuge, on 10/15/2007, -0/+11i read a story about a guy who was arrested for being a terrorist because he took pictures of trains as they went by
    • robdiggity, on 10/14/2007, -4/+6Wow. That is a great story.
    • turquoisefish, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1The PCSOs (Like Policemen with less power) will stop people taking photos in London train stations on grounds of security (though of course that is private property)
  • HanSolo69, on 10/14/2007, -2/+2So, legally speaking...the website is down.
  • nobeastsofierce, on 10/15/2007, -0/+3does this apply to video too?
  • analogkid01, on 10/15/2007, -12/+2Buried due to the author being a scumbag who's trying to get Planned Parenthood clinics closed down.
    • aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -8/+4How does that make me a scumbag? Planned Parenthood kills 5,095 babies EVERY WEEK. Who is going to stand up for the babies, if we don't?
      • MaxPayne3476, on 10/15/2007, -2/+4abortion isn't killing babies... sorry. its a featus, a non-fully produced groups of cells.
  • InvaderK, on 10/15/2007, -2/+10It's still a little creepy when I see the same man everytime I'm at the mall taking pictures of little girls on the playground...
    • lulutv, on 10/15/2007, -3/+11That's an awkwardly ambiguous statement. You see the same man every time you're "... at the mall taking pictures of little girls" ?
      • nezroy, on 10/15/2007, -1/+6Yes, that's why it's funny. Thank you for taking the time to explain it to everybody...
  • Ramble, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1This applies to the UK too, only sensitive places can also apply to power stations, bridges, railway lines, etc.
    Anything an enemy might find strategically useful.

    Also harassment is covered too, so don't shove the camera in someone's face.
  • NeoPlatonist, on 10/15/2007, -0/+15I had a nasty experience in Charlotte, NC when I was trying to take pictures of the downtown architecture (which is mostly banks). I was told to stop taking pictures by 4 separate rent-a-cops saying I could take pictures of my friends in the buildings but not the buildings by themselves. They told me I would get in trouble with the cops if they saw me with a camera. I wrote an email to the mayors office saying that there were no laws on the books about photography in the city but he responded with the typical national security ***** speech.

    Funny thing was that maybe a year or so after 9-11 I was on vacation in D.C. and took tons of pictures including some tripod shots inside the Metro. Any security would have had ample opportunity to tell me to leave but they never did. This is one screwed up country....
  • inkswamp, on 10/15/2007, -1/+4Interesting read, but I have no idea who this guy is or what his credentials are and therefore I have no way of knowing if what he's saying is accurate. And because he didn't post any links to authoritative sources to back up his statements, I'm not going to take this too seriously. One thing I do know that this blog doesn't touch on is that the specifics of photography laws differ considerably from state to state and that's more than enough reason for any active photographer to go out and check the local laws for yourself instead of relying on a blog.

    Seriously, considering some of the crap that gets to Digg's front page, I have no reason to assume this is any more credible than anything else out there.
    • inkswamp, on 10/14/2007, -0/+4In all fairness, I have no amend that. He does provide sources. I was looking at the Google cache version of the article that lacks the site formatting and it was hard to tell where the article ended, but he does have some sources. Not sure how credible those are. I'll check it out but my comment about state laws varying still stands and the article doesn't mention that.
    • Nerys, on 10/14/2007, -0/+2State law can not violate the constitution Free Speech and Free Press insure you are allowed to take pictures of pretty much anything.
  • earther, on 10/15/2007, -2/+2Here is proof that you can take photos of people without their permission:
    http://earthsworld.com
    Every single one is candid.
    • nycjap, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Nobody has written that you cannot take pictures of people (in the US) without their permission. They've stated (correctly) that you can't take their picture, then publish it for commercial purposes without their permission. Big difference.
      Of course, just because you *can*, doesn't necessarily mean that you *should*, in every instance. After all, you *can* walk down the street and call each and every person you pass an a**hole, but that doesn't mean that you should. In most cases, it's probably better if you ask first, and if they decline, respect their personal space.
  • donsherio, on 10/19/2007, -0/+7Can anyone link to a site that involves laws and rights for other countries other than the US? (like Canada). I always see these "Photographer's Rights" articles... but they all state US Laws and regulations and those don't apply to me. I'd like to see a Canadian edition :P
  • Zidius, on 10/14/2007, -3/+0Oh yea that 'temporarily unavailable' is an awesome story < /sarcasm>
  • sporg, on 10/15/2007, -1/+1Yes I know that I can photograph any where I damn well please.
  • insomniac8400, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1Nothing wrong with photographing in public. The problem comes when that jackass taking photos tries to claim ownership of a public image, or even someone else's image.
  • M0b1u5, on 10/15/2007, -0/+6In New Zealand it's easy: you can take a photo of anything you like, except inside a military base. That might annoy our soldier.
  • skidme, on 10/19/2007, -2/+2http://earthsworld.com/2006/060605/source/crw_6296 ...
    ....ew
    • konstantinos88, on 10/15/2007, -1/+2... the ***** did you post that for? wanna burn our eyes out? thanks a lot.
  • Detla2.0, on 10/14/2007, -1/+2you cannot however read the article without a mirror. It is not your right.
  • Aliminator, on 10/14/2007, -0/+1My sister's friends were doing a project and were taking pictures around the city. One building they took photos at that was under construction happened to be an FBI building. They were questioned, as was their teacher.
  • johnfritz, on 10/17/2007, -2/+1Did anyone happen to scroll down a bit and read about Andrew's favorite crusade, er, I mean charity?

    Complete with obligatory cute infant picture. *yawn*

    I'd sure like to hear what the good folks at Planned Parenthood have to say about their ol' friend Andy.
    • aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1I'd love to hear what Planned Parenthood has to say about me! Send them over. My blog comments are open for everyone!

      Babies are cute!
  • shogged, on 10/16/2007, -1/+2just remember Canadians, this doesn't apply to us. The privacy laws in Canada are much more strict than that of our neighbors to the south
  • saitama, on 10/15/2007, -0/+2The author should make it clear that these rules apply to *the US only*. Other countries are different - in some places, such as Yemen, Belarus and Ghana, there are stiff penalties for taking photographs of government buildings (even if they're just in the background).
  • silveravnt, on 10/23/2007, -1/+1Not legal, but as a parent it freaks me out anytime I see someone with a camera near a playground. So much so that I wont take pictures of my kids with other kids in the background. Legal or not I would get pretty offensive, and probably physical, if I saw some creepy guy taking pics of my sons.
  • Escamotage, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Is this Paparazzi 101?
    • aflusche, on 10/15/2007, -0/+1Why would you say something like that? There are millions of legitimate reasons to take pictures in public!
  • Observant1, on 10/16/2007, -0/+1the one thing most disturbing was the part about "you cannot photograph government property". excuse ME, but "government property" was all funded by the people and is public property and public places, I can relate to not wanting military facilities photographed without permissions and approvals. companies and corporations cant stop a person from photographing architectural ART, its ridiculous, they should have built their darn building underground or filling in a small valley way out in the hills or something. mayor bloomberg of NYC trying to make any kind of photography and filming illegal is just as loony-tunes as what giuliani was doing to: poor people, street vendors, and small business owners.. pure fascism. if I see a cop beating on someone and dont film it happening it doesnt mean it didnt happen, and if the cop tells me to stop filming or tries to take my camera, he is now just a fascist trying to take my rights, not a law abiding constitution following peace officer. the badge, baton, uniform and gun are meaningless for actions and behaviors like that. THEY in power are the ones who made the technology available cheap to everyone, from china.. and they want to just suddenly make it illegal for us to have and use it.. is a ridiculous sham and unamerican.
  • UpBeforeSunrise, on 10/17/2007, -0/+1They didn't mention the bloomberg law in NYC.I saw the video on you tube where it was their last day to film legally in NY.
  • photonelectron, on 11/28/2007, -0/+0Well, what is your in a public place like a sidewalk and you take pictures of females or males butts " not under skirt " Just butts and collect them and sell a membership to access those images? Like public butts .com
  • ZeroDayPhoto, on 02/16/2008, -0/+0Interesting read.
  •  

    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.