National Parks, Forests and BLM lands don’t require permits for landscape photography unless you impact resources, use props, etc.

But here’s a good question: the headquarters of a particular “religious” organization is in my area, and they seem to get a lot of attention from photographers whenever certain famous members show up there. Their security is also well known for tackling protesters and photographers, or asking for their ‘film’ as well – even when the photographer is not on their property.

Anyways, one day I noticed a videographer using a camera mounted on a long pole to get a shot from over their wall from the street (gee, I wonder why they are so worried about security out there?) – would this be concidered “invasion of privacy” since the wall was intended to provide such privacy? I do sometimes shoot with a tall pole to get interesting angles, but have not ever thought of the implication of it this way.

I have not given any permission or release for this. I understand the issue of the freedom to take any pictures in a public space, but it’s a little creepy to have someone I don’t know, post them on the Internet and sell them to anyone for money.

Apparently, I have uncovered a trend in my local court to SLAPP people who attempt to use cameras to document neighbor disputes with civil harassment restraining orders. Three such independent cases have become known to me, one of them is my own case.

The local judges appear to be creating a new tort – “Brandishing a Camera”. The plaintiffs are clearly enraged that cameras are pointed at them and Judges are using the force of the State to stop the use of cameras for legitimate purposes.

I seek help take these issues to California Court of Appeal.

I live in an isolated desert community about 40 miles North of Palm Springs. Many people know the area as the location of Joshua Tree National Park.

Below is not a summary of my particular case (there appears to be a trend here as we know of two other very similar cases), but a description of the public import of these cases.

Can your organization offer any help with these cases in some way? We have already received some help from the First Amendment Project in Oakland, CA. However, these issues are larger than FAP’s scope and resources.

Public Policy Import of the Cases

~

Photography is a weapon?

A photojournalist for whom “pictures are words” necessary for optimum communication, overtly created images of the plaintiffs to document, record, and communicate the events of property trespass dispute, code violations, neighbor to neighbor dispute, the plaintiff’s intrusion at a gay civil rights rally, and other events of dispute between the parties which has continued for a period of 5 years.

The plaintiffs complain that the photography in and of itself were acts of civil harassment. The Judge’s order of a civil harassment complaint against the photojournalist mandates him, the defendant, to act to deliver to the local Sheriff Department all copies of images which portray the prevailing plaintiffs of the action.

In effect, the civil harassment order mandates that the photojournalist provide evidence that could be used to incriminate him.

The plaintiffs demonstrated at trial that they, while not being serious photojournalists, also used tactical photography in preparation of petitition of the government, however, plaintiff’s photography was very often covertly obtained.

The photojournalist is also enjoined from any future photography of the plaintiffs whether or not they attempt to perpetrate additional property violations or misdemeanors.

The rationale for this mandate and injunction includes, and we quote, “You [the photojournalist] use the camera as a weapon”.

The judge did not mean that the photojournalist swung the camera and tripod so as to physically assault the plaintiff. What the judge did mean by adopting this statement from the testimony of the plaintiff is not clear beyond the notion that the camera, representing the potential to capture its subject in the raw form of the subject with no opportunity for the subject to manipulate, censor, or control the resultant image captured, threatens to disempower an individual on the order that a gun pointed at the subject disables the rightful freewill of the subject.

Brandishing a camera is the new crime in germination in this case. Similar California cases which have already been adjudicated in favor of supression of use of cameras as tools to resolve neighbor with neighbor disputes are on the books. However, none have been published so far to clearly establish the rules in Califonia.

If the Judge’s existing orders against the photojournalist are allowed to stand, the freedom of homeowners, and at large citizens, to use video cameras as legitimate tools preparatory to petition of the government to document and communicate grievances of a continuing or recurring nature will be further chilled and subject to increasing likelihood of needless suppression and prior restraint by the State of California. We believe such chilling is detrimintal to good public policy as it limits the public ability to capture and publish the full truths of our condition.

Each media of communication is particlarly efficient and apt at communicating particular classes of thoughts and ideas. The produce of cameras — pictures — are uniquely powerful and viscerally direct in ability to communicate certain thoughts, ideas, and emotions of the human condition. State imposed limitation and control of pictures, and the photographer whether amatuer or paid press members, necessarily limits not only the range of human expression but the range of human existance and self awareness – the maximum truth and understanding can not be communicated when the media is of a limited palette. In order to justify such a limitation, the State must show an overriding public need.

In this case, the State has not only failed to meet this standard, it has not even attempted to consider the need of the public to petition the government with the most powerful tools available, and, the value thereof. The Judge certainly failed to make findings of fact and failed to explain his reasoning in balancing these seemingly competing interests. He simply assumed that each individual has a right to censor images which portray them to the government.

For this reason we believe this case should be taken to the appellante level so that the interest of the public to permit use of the best tools of communication for a particular topic and the interests of the individual to manipulate and control their image can be properly weighed against each other and resolved.

Separate from the large public policy issue are simple errors of the trial court. Errors of logic, of misquoting the photojournalist, and most egregiously of simply fabricating facts to fit a simple model the court created to explain a choice few events of the over all 5 year period.

These two articles specifically, however, I am particularly uneasy about having re-published, so please do not: For Street Photography and the Law, I don’t even own the copyright (I was generously granted a single-use licence by the author of the piece), so it wouldn’t even be up to me to grant such use.

- Haje

let me know … thanks in anticipation >>> Gina

You can take picture of everything in public area, but if there is 1 to 4 persons on the picture, you can’t publish it without approbation.

5 or more is consider public.

There is some exception, so get some infos before publishing.

1. You can take a picture of anything you see especially when you are in public.

2. You CANNOT take pictures where there is an expectation of privacy such as in a rest room or locker room.

3. You cannot legally trespass, but if you are on a sidewalk and you were so inclined you can photograph people in their back yards or on their porch. I think the back yard is over the line though.

4. You can take pictures of people or children in any public context. BUT DON’T FOLLOW LITTLE KIDS OR YOUNG WOMEN AROUND AND SCARE THEM. Legally though, you can follow people to get that shot – remember the princess Diana chase. Perfectly legal.

5. You cannot profit from your work without signed releases. But to restate, feel free to snap away. It is only your commercial use that is limited.

6. You NEVER have to surrender your camera to or discuss the nature of your photography with anyone without a court order.

I hate government oppression too. I was oppressed last summer at a pool. I told the “Captain of the Guard” to call the police expecting them to tell the guy there was nothing they could do about it. Without rehashing the whole story, the police can stay there and observe you, lie to you and even make threats such as banning you from a public park (which they cannot do). Luckily, I happened to be on the phone with an attorney at the time.

In a case like this, take pictures of the police officers, their badges and their cars. Indeed, take pictures of all the people involved and go public with it. It is perfectly legal, they cannot prohibit it unless you are on a restricted government property or nuclear facility. You can also take as many pictures as you want while you are being escorted out of a public place(for example you are at a mall and being escorted out).

Assault (fear of harm), Battery (physical contact), Terroristic Threats (threats of violence, vandalism (damge to your property) are serious offenses. If someone like an angry spouse or parent threatens you with harm or attempts to seize your equipment calmly offer them the opportunity to stand down and walk away. Suggest that they call the police or their attorney. If they do not stand down, call 911 and press charges. A few public convictions and maybe the general public will get the idea.

For better or worse a person’s sole recourse is to seclude themselves should they wish to not be photographed.

So:

1. When you are in public, dress and behave appropriately or you may find your picture on myspace or something similar. I don’t know what your son was doing when his ex photographed him, but if they are all appropriate the pictures may convey a different sense than the words the ex is using. Whatever the pictures convey however, is true for that moment in time.

2. Dress your young children appropriately even at the pool. They may be photographed. You CERTAINLY DO NOT want them to appear older or sexually appealing.

3. Encourage your teens to dress and behave appropriately. They may be photographed. Do NOT buy them clothes that you do not want them seen in.

4. Do NOT threaten or harass a photographer. You may find yourself in front of the magistrate if you do. You most certainly will if you threaten me.

5. Be conservative. Do NOT make yourself into an irresistible subject.

As for the lingerie store worker: The contents of the store are NOT copyrighted works. That is not what would prohibit this person from entering the store with a camera. Indeed, unless it is posted otherwise, he can walk into the store with his camera. He CAN be ordered to leave and must comply since it is PRIVATE property. He can enter in the first place by virtue of being a store open to the public, permission to enter is implied. That is why your store my wish to post a prohibition notice against photography inside the store.

Now, if this is in a mall, mall security can escort him out. He can of course take as many photos of anyone or anything he wants while he is being escorted out of the store or mall.

If he is on the sidewalk outside the store unfortunately, you are out of luck. He does not need your coworker’s permission to photograph her.

Good photogrpaher’s are ALWAYS looking for a good photo opportunity. That could be a beautiful woman, a handsome man, a child playing (some facial expressions are golden), an animal, sunset or barn. Who knows.

I recommend getting your shot and moving on though. The longer you stay, the more you will be noticed.

I don’t know what this guy was doing at your store. If it was a one time thing hopefully he just found her an attractive subject, But admittedly, it sounds “creepy.”

There are times though when I may sit or stand somewhere for more than an hour or two just taking pictures of people maybe trying to catch their expressions on an amusement park ride or a water slide. Little kids ooing at zoo animals and the like are awesome shots.

Advice, if someone is trying to seclude themselves from you (the photographer) such as moving to an area out of your site though it may still be public, respect their privacy. If someone POLITELY asks you not to photograph them or their children you should respect that. NEVER FOLLOW A LITTLE KID AROUND. If they are rude, screw them. Do what you want.

Lastly, there is no expectation of privacy when you are in public. That is why I suggest being conservative. A “peacock” will almost always get its picture taken especially if it spreads its tail. If someone is taking your picture and you do not like it:

1. Politely ask them to stop
2. Leave if they won’t

I work at a large lingerie store, and one day at work, a man was standing outside taking photos of one of my co-workers. Everything in our store is copyrighted, so he can’t take photos inside the store, but we can’t do anything if he’s outside the doors.

But let me repeat the problem: he was taking photos of my co-worker without her permission. Every time she would move, he would move to follow her to get a better shot.

Legal? Probably? Ethical? NO! You might be within your legal rights to take someone’s photo, but morally you shouldn’t. Taking someone’s photo without their permission is annoying, and invasive, no matter what the law says. If you want to be a good photographer, respect peoples’ privacy.

THis is a PDF you can print out and keep in your kit bag, and that way when the Local constable decides that you taking pictures from the sidewalk of one of the nice buildings downtown falls into his interpretation of “terrorist activities” you can have some legal legs to stand on…Don’t be cocky, just try to reason with the officer…they really have no legal ground to bother you if you are not breaking the law and are on public property.
Just thought I’d help spread the word…

An ex-girlfriend has pictures of my son during their dating period. Now that he broke up with her, she is posting his pictures on MySpace in a malicious manner. I just thought I would point out the difference between the “taking” and the “use” of the picture. The use of my son’s pictures at this point is detrimental to his personal and professional image since this girl is not using his image to do anything but put a face to her detrimental comments.

Any thoughts on this related issue?

No matter what somebodies beliefs or opinions, they do not own the light that has reflected off of them. If somebody thinks photography takes their soul, they are simply wrong, and while they may believe that, they don’t have claim the the light that has left them.

If you didn’t want the light to reflect, they should cover themselves in black felt.

The way photographers lose their rights is by implying to others that they have some sort of right to not have their photograph taken. Eventually, people begin to believe it. There is no ‘right to privacy’ in public in the USA, as you stated. While it is up to the individual photographer to decide if he or she wants to take a photograph of a particular scene or individual, asking for permission is asking for trouble. Take the photo. Do it. Do not apologize, do not ask for permission. Permission is for sucks. Uphold freedom, take the photo.

Did the ATM machine that just took your photo as you walked by ask your permission first? What about the police surveillance cameras on light poles and traffic signals? How about the various cameras in every convenience store, bank, and many other businesses? Just because they are automated, those who put them there are somehow off the hook? No. If a person is in public and I want to take a photo of them, I do. I will not stop doing it. I’m doing the heavy lifting of ensuring continuing freedom of the press and freedom of expression by doing so.

The Amish know perfectly well that they don’t have the right to demand that no one take their photo. They will turn their heads or turn their backs at the last moment to spoil the shot – that’s their right to do so. But their desire is not the same as a right – if I indulge them, it is me indulging them, not their right to demand it of me.

Take the photos. Liberty beckons. Get busy.

Of course, I would never want to steel someone’s soul.