Photographers Rights

[laz]

Of interest to all:http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

 

[Andy K]

Very useful Laz old bean! Anyone seen a British version anywhere?

 

[reellis67]

I've seen this on another site as well. I keep a copy in a few of my camera bags just in case. I have never had problems, but it is good to have on hand.

- Randy

 

[laz]

Very useful Laz old bean! Anyone seen a British version anywhere?

your wish is my command: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

 

[Andy K]

Cor blimey guvnor, that was quick! Thanks chap!

 

[Flotsam]

I'd like to reformat that in a bigger font with the most pertinent parts highlighted for easy reading.

 

[Aggie]

On the surface that print out looks good. Problems are that it doesn't state the actual law and such that some buercrats will want. If the exact statute was cited it would help emmensely with the idiots that want to stop you. Secon that book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11. We all know that there are some bizarre things DHS has insituted that would drastically effect the printout and what was stated on it. "Sigh" good on the surface, but in practice and the changes I would want an updated version with the exact laws (numbers and such) stated.

Thank You Laz for a great thought and attempt on this.

 

[laz]

"Sigh" good on the surface, but in practice and the changes I would want an updated version with the exact laws (numbers and such)

Problem is Aggie that the exact laws do and will vary from state to state and even city to city. As a general guide I think this is the best we can expect.

-Bob

 

[dans]

...book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11.

Actually, the PDF says it was updated "July 2004"

Dan

 

[tim atherton]

Secon that book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11. We all know that there are some bizarre things DHS has insituted that would drastically effect the printout and what was stated on it.

actually there were no real changes post 9/11 which effect photography. Although mainly referring to First Amendment Rights:

The National Press Photographers’ Association has decided it’s time to issue A Memo On Photographers’ Rights To Take Pictures In Public Places (PDF), introduced at last week’s Women in Photojournalism conference. NPPA president Alicia Wagner Calzada said in her remarks: “…often law enforcement officials and security agencies believe – wrongly so – that in the name of homeland defense there are new federal laws that somehow give them additional rights to restrict photography. This is just not the case.”

NPPA hired two Washington DC attorneys from the law firm Covington & Burling to investigate supposed legal grounds for restriction, but they found none:

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law, including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

http://www.photopermit.org/?p=109




From the ever useful Photopermit site

 

[David]

IF you have a comparable document for the Brits, do you have one for Aussies? Thanks!

 

[MurrayMinchin]

A sad state of affairs...

I've never had, nor heard of a problem up here.

Murray

 

[FrankB]

Many thanks for the links, Laz.

I've just read through the UK version and, whilst it contains a lot of useful information, I think it would be better titled, "Restrictions on Photographers in the UK". Very well worth reading, but probably not suitable for showing to over-zealous security staff or irate members of the public.

It's probably also worth pointing out that this year (since the article was written) there has been a general upsurge in paranoia related to photography for the purposes of pedophilia. Amateur Photographer has run several stories on this.

A UK Photographers' equivalent of the ACLU Bust Card (also dealing with landowners, security guards and paranoid parents) would be most welcome, if anyone with sufficient legal acumen could put one together.

This seems close, although it doesn't cover quite everything.

 

[Baxter Bradford]

Here is something else on UK rights explaining what you can and cannot do, but not actually stating the law.

Preface and caveats at first two links
Dead Link Removed
http://hmmm.co.za/ukrights.php

And here is the action with it formatted to print on a small card for the camera bag
http://hmmm.co.za/UKPhotographersRightscard_v6.pdf

 

[FrankB]

Baxter - Two minds but with a single thought!

 

[agGNOME]

For the Aussie's

IF you have a comparable document for the Brits, do you have one for Aussies? Thanks!

http://www.4020.net/unposed/photorights.shtml

 

[bob01721]

I'd like to reformat that in a bigger font with the most pertinent parts highlighted for easy reading.

You can "Save As Text" to a ".txt" file. From there, you can change fonts, font size, etc., or you can import it into MS Word and also highlight whichever sections you'd like.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

"Deluded" best describes anyone who believes that pulling out a document setting out their rights and showing it to a police authority who wants them to stop what they are doing will do any good. If you don't comply with what they say you get arrested. Later the charges are dropped. Even before 9/11 and the DHS this was the case. To try to avoid arrest once I told the cop that I had AP credentials in my pocket. He said, "I don't give a shit what you have, motherf***r." I spent the better part of the night in jail and when my film was returned it had all been pulled out of its cassettes.

 

[haris]

Well, joys of life in free, democratic societies... This only proves how those societies are more free than for example comunists countries...

 

[DeanC]

"Deluded" best describes anyone who believes that pulling out a document setting out their rights and showing it to a police authority who wants them to stop what they are doing will do any good. If you don't comply with what they say you get arrested. Later the charges are dropped. Even before 9/11 and the DHS this was the case. To try to avoid arrest once I told the cop that I had AP credentials in my pocket. He said, "I don't give a shit what you have, motherf***r." I spent the better part of the night in jail and when my film was returned it had all been pulled out of its cassettes.

I'm assuming this was here in the US. Did you file suit for voilation of your 1st Amendment right of free speach (or if you did have AP creds, freedom of the press) or your 4th Amendment right to be safe from unreasonable search and seizure? If not, why? You're right that you can't stop the cop if he wants to arrest you, but you can stop them from doing it to the next guy.

 

[Nacio Jan Brown]

Haris - I have no doubt that things are much more repressive elsewhere. DeanC - I attempted to file a suit for false arrest but the court declined to entertain it. I could be wrong and please don't be offended, but reading between the lines of your reply I sense that you believe that the way things should be (Constitution, etc.) are not too far from the way things are--that theory is pretty close to practice. I wish you were right but that's not been my experience. If it were someone other than public figure Cindy Sheehan who was dragged out of the SOTU address we'd never have heard about it and there would never have been an apology.

 

[Michel Hardy-Vallée]

Is anyone aware of a similar guide for Canadians? I'm generally discrete when I take pics in public, but I'd hate to get stuck in a bad situation without some awareness of my legal rights.