Photography at the airport

[drgoose]

Your 'right' to privacy

Because in a public place you do not have an expectation of privacy. The courtesy thing is another matter but as far as rights go you don't have a right to privacy in a public place.

I think the issue is: Why should your 'right' to photograph in public supersede my personal right to privacy and not be photographed 'close-up' without my permission? Celebrities may be deemed to have given up such right (and are forever pursued by paparazzi), but I don't believe plain old, regular people have given up their right to privacy.

If nothing else, courtesy would suggest asking a person first if you can photograph them 'close-up',

 

[removed account4]

Racial profiling exists, but cops (or fake cops) will hassle anyone with a camera. At least they hassle me and I'm very white.

when are state+local cops and airport security considered fake cops ?

for example, being pulled over on the side of the road for driving the speed limit
at 10am being kept on the side of the road, detained for 20minutes
flash light search of my car through the windows being told i was "drunk" and being REFUSED when asked to take a breath-a-lizer ...
i could keep going, but this has nothing to do
with personalprivacy rights being violated at an airport ..
its not a public space but a quazi government agency where i live, they don't allow photography near the supreme court either ...

 

[Prof_Pixel]

You might have a right to shoot general group shots in 'public' places but you don't have a right to take close--up photos of people without their consent (especially if they are bigger than you).


I'm not a lawyer, but I suspect it might be possible to charge you with harassment.

 

[drgoose]

Rights

I don't think my rights depend on the seize of the other party. So if I am bigger than them then it is OK?

You might have a right to shoot general group shots in 'public' places but you don't have a right to take close--up photos of people without their consent (especially if they are bigger than you).

 

[Prof_Pixel]

I don't think my rights depend on the seize of the other party. So if I am bigger than them then it is OK?

My point being if you take a picture of someone who doesn't want to be photographed - and that person is bigger than you - you might be sorry.

 

[Hatchetman]

with personalprivacy rights being violated at an airport ..
its not a public space but a quazi government agency where i live, they don't allow photography near the supreme court either ...

Your original post said if someone were white they wouldn't be be bothered at the airport! I said, NO, you will be bothered at the airport no matter what! I'm glad you now agree with me.

 

[removed account4]

Your original post said if someone were white they wouldn't be be bothered at the airport! I said, NO, you will be bothered at the airport no matter what! I'm glad you now agree with me.

i agree with you somewhat ..
but people with skin tone are hassled more often than white folks at an airport, and more often than not
the white folks are "outraged" that they are being hassled and give security people a hard time for doing their job.
LOL im glad EVERYONE gets hassled even if they don't get hassled as much ...

so yes, i agree with you ...

 

[BrianShaw]

I must be invisible (or lucky) because I photograph at Capitol and Supreme Court (exterior) and other sites on the Mall with no hassle at all. At Capitol the armed security is quite visible but they seemed to make an effort to "disappear" behind the columns when I was shooting. I know they were aware of me because they acknowledged my presence with what one might say was a friendly non-verbal greeting. At Supreme Court I never saw security even though I'm quite sure they were there.

In NoVA things can be different. Even standing near some nondescript buildings will result in a "scram" request from a scary-looking heavily-armed security guard with no identifying uniform. They've never been impolite but the message is clear, just keep moving along.

One of these days I'll have to use a camera at an airport and see if my life is charmed or if I've just been dang lucky so far.

 

[omaha]

This gives me an idea...

We have a major Air Force base near by. It might be interesting to find a vantage point (on private property, of course) near by, and set up there with a monster zoom lens on a tripod-mounted camera, just to see if there is any response, what form it takes, and how they act. Have someone on hand to video the whole operation. Sort of a performance art kind of thing.

I'll see if I can get internet access at Leavenworth to let you know how it turned out.

 

[yulia_s_rey]

Naturally, it all depends on what type of photography you do, but in my experience when taking photographs for non-commercial use, it's best to always ask a security person if photography is allowed before pressing down on the shutter in a public/private-owned-open to public space. Now, bear in mind if you intend on selling or making a profit from your work, you, at least here in the US, must get the required permits and obtain release forms of your subject(s) in order to avoid any issues during the time of your shoot and afterwards.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I was 2 hours early for my flight ad bored to death so I took out my Mamiya 645 and took a couple of snap shots. One was of a pilot sitting at a gate with his eyes closed. Nothing out of the world but looked cool. An airline employee asked me if I knew the pilot and I said no, he asked why I took the picture and I said I was an amateur photographer. He woke up to pilot and told on me. I approached the pilot and explained that I was an amateur photographer and that the picture was for my personal use. He wanted to see the picture and I explained it was on film. He asked me to promise not to posted it in the internet and even though I did not need to I agreed.

I walked away and fairly soon ran into a police officer from Denver International and I asked him if there were any regulations against taking snapshots in the airport. He explained that there were none but that if the person in the picture felt their privacy violated then the photographer could be cited. It did not make much sense to me but I decided not to argue with him. I went on my merry way and on my way back to my gate I saw the pilot talking to the officer. I approached them both and I told the pilot that even though I did not need to I would gladly give him the roll of film ( It was cheap arista and his was only the second frame). He was grateful that I did this and the cop eventually left. After the cop left I talked for a bit with the pilot and he actually agreed that there was no expectation of privacy in an airport, that the picture was not taken in a security area and that nothing would have come out of this whole mess if I had taken the picture with an Iphone.

So my question as it applies to US airports:
-are they considered a public place.
-Other than the obvious security areas, TSA screening, bathrooms, etc. Do people have any expectation of privacy while sitting at the gate?
-Does being an airline employee change the answer to any of the two above?
-Does being an airline pilot change anything?
-Is there a web site or does any one have a collection of the statues and supreme court decisions that protect photographers while taking pictures in public places?

Thanks
Joaquin

First, my personal policy is that if anyone objects to being photographed, I will delete/destroy/surrender the exposure.

Second, I don't photograph sensitive locations or situations just for personal use.

It makes people uncomfortable, and I have plenty of other things to photograph.

Many airports have sections where photography is explicitly prohibited.

Even if it isn't we should avoid taking photographs that would make passengers and crew uncomfortable, or get you into trouble with security.

If you work on an assignment to document airports then obviously, it's best to obtain the express permission to work there and set the work parameters.

 

[Eric Rose]

Gee I take photographs in airports all the time. All over the world. I have never been talked to, by anyone. I have several self imposed rules however. I never take photographs of kids that aren't mine, and I do not take photographs of people that would show them in a negative light (unless of course they are WalMartians).

It would seem some participants in this thread would like to see the likes of Winogrand etc. packed up and thrown in jail.

 

[Peter Simpson]

Security theatre, plain and simple. If a Bad Guy wants to photograph a target, the small point & shoot cameras are so small that you probably wouldn't even notice them doing it. Harassment of people who make no secret of what they're doing is just that. An attempt to keep evryone "in line" and to demonstrate that stepping out of line in any way will meet with unpleasant consequences...as will knowing your rights and attempting to assert them.

Yeah, I'm sad that the "live and let live" America that I grew up in is now the "post 9/11" America, where the excuse for over-enthusiastic policing is "9/11 changed that". What they don't understand, but there may still be hope, is that the best (and perhaps only) way to fight terrorism is to refuse to be terrorised, and continue doing things as you always have, and treating everyone with the respect you would like to be treated with.

 

[Hatchetman]

Security theatre, plain and simple. If a Bad Guy wants to photograph a target, the small point & shoot cameras are so small that you probably wouldn't even notice them doing it. Harassment of people who make no secret of what they're doing is just that. An attempt to keep evryone "in line" and to demonstrate that stepping out of line in any way will meet with unpleasant consequences...as will knowing your rights and attempting to assert them.

Yeah, I'm sad that the "live and let live" America that I grew up in is now the "post 9/11" America, where the excuse for over-enthusiastic policing is "9/11 changed that". What they don't understand, but there may still be hope, is that the best (and perhaps only) way to fight terrorism is to refuse to be terrorised, and continue doing things as you always have, and treating everyone with the respect you would like to be treated with.

I agree with this 100%. Well said.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

I forgot to mention one more personal rule.

If I am taking photographs in a public space which is guarded or attended, I start by presenting myself and explaining why I will be taking photographs. I've never been told no, but if I was, I would respect it.

I live in a country, Sweden, with very few legal restrictions on photography, but to me it is more about common sense than law.

If you look at the work of the great masters, very few images required them to break any laws or decorum.

 

[BrianShaw]

I'm at one of those public viewing areas at a major metroplolitan airport. When I arrived the area was locked so I stood near the "no loitering" sign for about 20 minutes before cops appeared. They asked 2 questions: are you waiting for someone? And where is your car (its in a local shop at the moment). Their response was to apologize for not opening the gate on time an to wissh me a happy day. No hassle at all. Interestingly, inside the viewing area are the same "no loitering" signs.

 

[pentaxuser]

First, my personal policy is that if anyone objects to being photographed, I will delete/destroy/surrender the exposure.

What appears to work is surrendering an unexposed roll of film to the policeman or security guard who will be unable to differentiate this from a digital disk according to Stone or momus. I wonder what said policeman would then do with the empty roll of film? Destroy it by opening it and assume that it constitutes its end or attempt to develop "back at the station", discover it is empty and realise he and the "victim" have been duped?

Either way if the picture doesn't remain in the user's hands but gets into any kind of public domain then it sounds as if the user should be wary of ever passing through that same airport again. A duped cop may be an even nastier cop

Let us know how you get on, momus and Stone if you try this, assuming that you remain in a fit state to report back to us on APUG based on how dangerous an altercation with the U.S. police appears to be.

In the "home of the brave" you have to be brave, it appears.

To borrow from the "Magnificent Seven" is it similar to Calvera's story where he concludes that to rob a bank in Texas you have to be a Texan"

pentaxuser

 

[Jaf-Photo]

^^^

I do not lie or cheat.

 

[BrianShaw]

I also do not participate in unlawful conversion of my property.

 

[pentaxuser]

^^^

I do not lie or cheat.

You were not being accused of either by me. It was simply your quote of ethical behaviour that prompted me to mention that others were offering to dupe the authority figure or were endorsing this action with the strong possibility of serious repercussions.

It might have been that the actions which I thought were unlikely to work for the reasons stated were simply a comical exaggeration to make the point that this form of defiance was a reasonable course of action in the face of what I took to be, a belief that such police/security action was unjustified.

Just a matter of interest what is the law governing photos in an airport in an area where there are no signs prohibiting it?

If the photographer has the law on his side then unless the U.S. is an authoritarian country in which the law doesn't apply to the law enforcers I'd have thought that the only long term action to change things is a form of civil legal action against those i.e. the police/security breaking it.

pentaxuser

 

[yulia_s_rey]

I forgot to mention one more personal rule.

If I am taking photographs in a public space which is guarded or attended, I start by presenting myself and explaining why I will be taking photographs. I've never been told no, but if I was, I would respect it.

I live in a country, Sweden, with very few legal restrictions on photography, but to me it is more about common sense than law.

If you look at the work of the great masters, very few images required them to break any laws or decorum.

^totally agree. Sometimes I have been told it was not allowed and, 99.9% of the time after talking with said personal I'm given the info of whom to contact in order to take photographs in that place. Btw, other than what some may say, the legalities on both sides of the pond are very similar.

 

[Jaf-Photo]

^totally agree. Sometimes I have been told it was not allowed and, 99.9% of the time after talking with said personal I'm given the info of whom to contact in order to take photographs in that place. Btw, other than what some may say, the legalities on both sides of the pond are very similar.

Great

As to the laws of photography, there are actually quite a lot of variants, both in principle and detail. It's perhaps not so much a America-Europe thing, as different countries may be liberal or restrictive.

In Sweden, Parliament almost passed a bill (unintentionally) that would have outlawed street photography. But the politicians realised it in time and amended it to prohibit only sneak photography in the private domain, which is very reasonable.

 

[pentaxuser]

First, my personal policy is that if anyone objects to being photographed, I will delete/destroy/surrender the exposure.

Just to return to this for a moment. If you have a film camera then the only thing you can do to comply with your delete/destroy /surrender is to take the whole film out, expose to light and destroy the whole roll

Are you saying you'd do this even if the other 15/35 frames were not of the person who objected to the photo after you had taken the exposure? Your quote above implies that this was an after-the-event occurrence. If you had checked with the person in advance and he/she had objected then none of the above options of delete/destroy/ surrender would have arisen.

If the picture is taken with a digital camera it is simple to show the person, who is objecting, the picture and delete in his presence. No such method is open to a film photographer.

He/she can either destroy the whole film or at best persuade the objector that he will faithfully return the negative to the objector, promising to have made no prints of the offending negative.

Things get very complicated. If there is one person only in a scene then it may be possible to check with that person that he doesn't object but if there are several behind him who will be recognised then do you go to all of them. What do you do about the person walking past as you shoot?If you take a picture of your child on a children's roundabout in a park but there are other children on it do you wait until they all leave or seek out all the parents there to ensure that each is OK with a picture being taken? What do you do at fairgrounds, fetes, street parades etc or any other public gathering?

In the case of the sleeping pilot the fact that he was sleeping in a public place, I'd assume, means that he believed this action was OK to be seen and if so he must accept that it was OK for a picture to be taken.

While a degree of commonsense and courtesy is appropriate we could very quickly and easily end up in a situation where "street/people in public places" or "pictures of public places that included people" photography would be outlawed.

Only "officially sanctioned" people photography would be possible. In U.K. airports and I feel fairly certain in U.S. airports also there is officially sanctioned photography taking place all the time. It is called airport close circuit photography. Perhaps the pilot who was sleeping should have complained to the airport authorities. If being a sleeping pilot gets him into trouble then it is likely to be the fault of the airport cameras.

We used to tell jokes about lack of freedom in the Soviet bloc countries and the myriad of "crimes" that the state could find you guilty of. One such story is about the guide who dutifully chaperoned the Western tourists but who has at the end of the tour to tell them he is to be shot as he had failed the state.

He appears to be strangely cheerful about his impending execution.The tourists are appalled at the news and as he wants them to continue to enjoy themselves he says: "Don't be concerned, it isn't for anything serious"

Has photography in public places entered into this Orwellian 1984 category?

pentaxuser

 

[removed account4]

Has photography in public places entered into this Orwellian 1984 category?

pentaxuser

not it hasn't but there will always be people who are rude and obnoxious with a camera ...
a few months ago i remember someone who crashed a party and was photographing there
uninvited and obnoxiously and he was offended when the powers that be asked him to stop.
and another person was photographing people who asked him to stop, and gave him the finger
but he continued ...

i think there is an OK way to do this sort of thing, and a not so good way ...

i have done both ... late night eateries and a drunk guy threatened to break my camera
after he took it from me, i eventually got it back ... and when i was shooting the equiv. of surveillance
for a newspaper and a security guard got in my face ...
i was also hired to photograph at a high security military installation .. they took all the serial #s of everything i owned
ihad to get a high level fbi security clearance, they searched my car inside and out and under ... and every 16 seconds
after i was set up documenting what i had to document, someone came up to me and demanded to see my camera badge.
eventually a MP came up to me, we started talking and i gave him pointers on how to take better photographs .. and
he ran interference for me for 6 hours ( he's with me ) .. sometimes i even call the police and tell them who i am
and what i am doing so if someone calls them they know who i am, and so they can keep an eye out for me so i don't get into "trouble"
id rather not be involved with confrontational-people if i don't have to, and i would rather not be
bothered by the police ... and i don't mind if they are looking out for me ...

nothing to do with 1984, just common sense ..

 

[drgoose]

not it hasn't but there will always be people who are rude and obnoxious with a camera ...
a few months ago i remember someone who crashed a party and was photographing there
uninvited and obnoxiously and he was offended when the powers that be asked him to stop.
and another person was photographing people who asked him to stop, and gave him the finger
but he continued ...

Now this is apples and oranges.

1) Your photographer was apparently in private property where the owner of such property has the right to limit the activities that happen in said property. If the photographer was asked to leave and did not comply he can be charged with trespassing. Now if the party was held at a public place (i.e. park) then neither the host of the party nor the guests had a reasonable expectation of privacy and the photographer had the right to photograph them. If he was getting in their face the guests can call law enforcement and complain and the guy can probably be charged with disturbing the peace or something of that nature.

2)My pilot was in a public place and did not have any expectation of privacy, he was literally sleeping in the middle of a gait in plain view of everybody and he was not being harassed or disturbed since he actually slept through the hole picture taking process.