Question About Photgraphing Gov't Buildings In US

photomc · Apr 25, 2005

Rlibersky said:
Why invite trouble, when there is nothing to be gained?

Indeed, agree with this approach..but that's just me. In the situation that I had, by the time the postal employee was finished 'discussing' with me the moment (read light) was gone..so I felt the best thing to do was pack up and walk away...until another day. Tried to be polite with the person, but they were quite agitated, don't think he appreciated the fact I disagreed with him.

Will approach the idea again later, and contact the manager of the PO to see if there should be any restrictions. In the meantime will continue to search for the facts, so that I can be better prepared the next time this happens.

Would like to point out that the local law enforcement has never been a problem, and in previous shoots around the city have had them pass by .. looked to see what I was doing and went on their way..some cars some on bikes, never even stopped. Always make a point to nod or at least smile..they are doing their job, plus it not a bad thing to have them come by, hopefully makes me less of a target for less friendly people.

photomc · Apr 25, 2005

In case anyone is interested here is a link with a picture of the building was trying to shoot...looks to be made pre 9-11

http://www.fortwortharchitecture.com/uspost.htm

Roger Krueger · Apr 25, 2005

For me it's always been a very distinct line--cops good, rent-a-thugs very bad.

I shoot at night, so I certainly get my share of attention. but have never had a real cop spend more than 10 minutes asking reasonable questions (although sometimes including leading questions trying to get me to admit to commercial intent, which would require a permit).

But I've had rent-a-thugs tell me I needed to stop right now or I was going to jail. (I didn't stop, I didn't go to jail, he didn't even call the cops), I've had them trot out all sorts of copyright, trademark and terrorist malarkey, I've been threatened that they were "going to call the cops if you don't leave right now" several times, and never ONCE did they call when I told them I wasn't stopping. (Note that I was never on their property.)

All this despite the fact that I generally AM doing something illegal! San Diego, like many cities, has gone to great lengths to criminalize homelessness. As part of this, it's an infraction to set any personal property on a public sidewalk for purposes other than the immediate loading/unloading of a vehicle. This would appear to mean I could and should be cited for having my tripod on a sidewalk. But it's never happened, even when it was the real cops stopping by to check me out.

MattCarey · Apr 25, 2005

Roger Krueger said:
For me it's always been a very distinct line--cops good, rent-a-thugs very bad.

Generally, I agree.

I worked security for the 1984 Olympics in LA. We had to interface with the police. Let's just say that LAPD didn't make that easy. Let's also say that we are damned lucky that someone didn't try to do anything then, as the LAPD didn't take things seriously.

That said, I remember this from my training. At that time, and in California, security were not allowed to actually do anything but observe and report. Obviously, if there were immediate danger, the security guards can do something. However, they can do what anyone can do. The uniform doesn't give them any additional rights.

Actually, we were warned that if we grab/touch anyone, we could be charged with battery.

So, as far as I can tell, a security guard can talk to you, observe you, call the police and stand in front of your camera.

Now, this is for private security. Someone working for the post office or a government building may have different rules!

Matt

c6h6o3 · Apr 25, 2005

photomc said:
Good point Dave..he was a postal employee. Asking just because in this post 9-11 era nothing is for certain anymore. Admit it irritated me to know end, but I know some buildings are off-limits, but this did not seem quite right..more like something that someone thinks is fact, but isn't.

If you were not on government property, he can't tell you to do anything. Even if you were on USPS (which is only quasi-governmental, BTW) property I would question his jurisdiction unless he's part of the Federal Protective Service, which provides security for Federal Buildings.

I work at a US Government facility. If we observe a breach of security we call the FPS. I'm a contractor, but not even the Fed employees can take any action on their own. Unless I'm challenged by a uniformed officer with a badge, I'm very uncooperative.

I would've continued photographing and told the man to kindly bugger off.

JHannon · Apr 25, 2005

c6h6o3 said:
If you were not on government property, he can't tell you to do anything. Even if you were on USPS (which is only quasi-governmental, BTW) property I would question his jurisdiction unless he's part of the Federal Protective Service, which provides security for Federal Buildings.

I work at a US Government facility. If we observe a breach of security we call the FPS. I'm a contractor, but not even the Fed employees can take any action on their own. Unless I'm challenged by a uniformed officer with a badge, I'm very uncooperative.

I would've continued photographing and told the man to kindly bugger off.

It could have been a postal inspector. They are plain clothed and are federal law enforcement agents with the authorty to arrest. I would think he would have shown a badge or federal ID.

Postal employees are instructed to inform either the postal police or the inspectors if there is suspicious activity on or in federal property. They should not act on their own.

It is too bad, it looks like a very nice building to photograph.

bjorke · Apr 25, 2005

There is no such law, and cop/inspector/security guard whatever, he was full of BS. He may have believed it -- training in such issues has been notoriously poor at all levels of government (including, I sometimes think, Capitol Hill). Next time refer such twits to this recent tidbit.

When someone hassles you, ask their badge #, their agency, and specific citation of the law they claim you are violating.

tim atherton · Apr 25, 2005

ALso, Kevin has been too modest (unless I missed the post...) to point out the information and resources on his own site:

www.PhotoPermit.ORG

http://www.photopermit.org/forum/

and also the photogorpahers rights sheet at

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

tim atherton · Apr 26, 2005

photomc said:
Will approach the idea again later, and contact the manager of the PO to see if there should be any restrictions. In the meantime will continue to search for the facts, so that I can be better prepared the next time this happens.
.

Check out some of these threads

http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=6

Most such limitations only apply to Defence Department locations or Atomic Energy Commission sites or such - very few "ordinary" Federal buildings are otherwise restricted.

wfwhitaker · Apr 26, 2005

photomc said:
...he was a postal employee...

Did he have a gun? They can be quite bothersome when they have guns.

photomc said:
Reply for the USPS is already in, boy that was quick...

Must've FedEx'd it....

photomc · Apr 26, 2005

Thanks Kevin & Tim...That is exactly what I needed. Better to be informed than have to 2nd guess what is and isn't legal. That was one reason for walking away..I thought the employee was wrong, but the gov't does some pretty dumb stuff these days all in the name of security....reminds me of the camps set up is WWII for Japanese-Americans, that did not make sense either.

Lee Shively · Apr 26, 2005

People are more wary of "suspicious" activities today than they used to be. People also have different perceptions of what activities are "suspicious". A group of tourists taking pictures around a well known landmark is unlikely to draw attention but one person photographing a relatively anonymous structure at an odd hour of the day is more likely to seem suspicious to a lot of people. Some people probably don't know the difference between a large format camera on a tripod and a rocket launcher.

I can remember being detained by FBI agents at the local Federal Building parking lot once because of suspicious activity. This was around 1980 or so. I was doing a photo stake out for some local bigwig being tried on federal charges. I was suspicious. I was standing in a parking lot in the rain wearing a hat and raincoat with two cameras around my neck and a bag over my shoulder with a walkie-talkie attached. I looked suspicious even to myself.

arigram · Apr 26, 2005

So, let me get this straight:
As long as you are polite, smile a lot and look like a harmless european tourist you are ok, but if you carry a big camera, wear "suspicious" clothing, are grumpy and look middle eastern or muslim you are in trouble?

Shmoo · Apr 26, 2005

I find that smiling innocently and saying "I didn't know that!" while continuing to focus. Then "Do you know the phone number of the security office/police in charge?" while setting your exposure and adding "I certainly don't want to get in trouble." while putting film holder in and saying "Thank you for that information." after hitting the shutter release usually works.

I had a similar situation near a bridge in the port. Got stopped by port authority police, building maintenance/security manager (who shoots his cameras regularly around the area), and a security guard. I find that being calm and forthright (heck, I'll let them have my ID) calms them down as well. I don't mind being stopped, because it means they're doing their job. Is it a hassle? You bet. I'd be more worried if they didn't talk to me...

Jim Chinn · Apr 26, 2005

arigram said:
So, let me get this straight:
As long as you are polite, smile a lot and look like a harmless european tourist you are ok, but if you carry a big camera, wear "suspicious" clothing, are grumpy and look middle eastern or muslim you are in trouble?

you do not need to look like anything. Remember we have had our own share of domestic terrorism. (Oklahoma City, Unibomber etc). Coupled with 9-11 anything can be considered suspicious. Couple with that a growing concern in the US over loss of privacy makes things difficult. Couple of years ago I interogated (well talked to) someone photographing homes in are area. He was just a real estate agent making a record of homes in the area to show the neighborhood to clients regarding a nearby listing.

With private property concerns I have always found it to be best policy to talk to a property owner before even getting the gear out.

c6h6o3 · Apr 26, 2005

arigram said:
So, let me get this straight:
As long as you are polite, smile a lot and look like a harmless european tourist you are ok, but if you carry a big camera, wear "suspicious" clothing, are grumpy and look middle eastern or muslim you are in trouble?

You have it perfectly...now spread 'em!

MattCarey · Apr 26, 2005

One of my old professors liked to tell the story of a visit to (then) communist Poland. His wife was translating as they went through the exit interview. The border guard asked what they were taking pictures of, and he answered (in English) "the usual, Bridges, military installations, etc." The border guard quickly replied, also in English, "Bridges and Military installations?".

The professor thought to himslef, "Tell me that I just learned to understand Polish!"

After much harrassment, they were allowed to go. Of course, the film in his camera was removed.

A bit off topic, but I thought I would add this.

Matt

chuck94022 · Apr 26, 2005

As Jim Chinn pointed out, understanding the US and it's current context is key. There has been endless conversation within this country after 9-11 requesting that ordinary citizens "be vigilent" and to report suspicious activity. While it may be reasonable to question the wisdom of this, consider that the terrorists who attacked us on 9-11 did so from among us. In the parlance of the intelligence community, they hid in plain sight.

We are a very independent people by culture. Generally, it is not our government imposing restrictions (there are some new impositions, but let's not carry this discussion in that direction please), it is ordinary citizens trying to "do their part" for homeland security. It is certainly the case that many will go beyond what they have a right to do, and will infringe on the rights of others.

If you are visiting from a foreign country, I think it is prudent to be sensitive to the cumulative impacts of the 1993 WTC bombing, the Oklahoma City bombing, 9-11, and the nearly-successful Millineum Attack (a foiled attempt to attack LAX). Add to that current news that bin Laden is directing Zarqawi to attack the US directly, and constant reports regarding the porosity of our southern border, and you might understand why ordinary people are more wary than they used to be.

Our government, rather than taking the unacceptable step of locking down public places (for the most part), has asked its citizenry to "be vigilant". Unfortunately, sometimes these citizens decide to "be vigilantes".

I'm not defending behavior that infringes on your rights or my rights. I do believe it is prudent not to be grumpy, confrontational or defensive in those circumstances. I think it is quite reasonable to smile, offer the person a copy of that nice document linked to above regarding your rights as a photographer, and be otherwise civil. (And after the fact, if you are so inclined, sue the bastard! ).

Our current culture (one of a new vigilance), customs, and laws may be more restricted than those of your home country. That doesn't make the US bad, just different. Be sensitive to that, and be prudent.

I think it is just as prudent for US citizens going abroad to be just as sensitive to the local laws, customs and culture. Many (not all, or even most, but some) are more restrictive than that to which we are accustomed. Some are less restrictive. In those cases, I say enjoy, within reason!

Andy K · Apr 26, 2005

As you say, it may be a cultural thing, but, from an outside point of view the US has gone 'way over the top' in it's 'vigilance'. Personally I think it's because you are not used to being attacked on your home soil.
We suffered over thirty years of terror attacks in Britain. We survived it, and combatted it, without even half the restrictions now being enforced on you guys across the pond.

Lee Shively · Apr 26, 2005

Andy, I don't know where you get the figures but there really are not very many restrictions on what we do in this country. I certainly have never felt limited in what I do or where I go.

The only new restriction I've faced was having a security guard hold my fingernail clippers when I entered a Federal building.

Bureaucracy is everywhere. Always has been.

removed account4 · Apr 26, 2005

arigram said:
So, let me get this straight:
As long as you are polite, smile a lot and look like a harmless european tourist you are ok, but if you carry a big camera, wear "suspicious" clothing, are grumpy and look middle eastern or muslim you are in trouble?

doesn't matter what size camera ... i was regularly bothered by the police when on assignment for a weekly paper (dslr). the even sadder thing was that besides security+police "doing their job" the paper i worked for refused to give me any sort of 'official id ' that said who i was and who i was working for

... maybe they were giving me the business because i wasn't shooting film :confused:

TPPhotog · Apr 26, 2005

jnanian said:
doesn't matter what size camera ... i was regularly bothered by the police when on assignment for a weekly paper (dslr). the even sadder thing was that besides security+police "doing their job" the paper i worked for refused to give me any sort of 'official id ' that said who i was and who i was working for

... maybe they were giving me the business because i wasn't shooting film :confused:

Do you have the equivalent of the National Union of Journalists over there? In the UK you can get membership by proving your getting paid publications in the press or a provisional membership whilst you get the work under your belt.

removed account4 · Apr 26, 2005

TPPhotog said:
Do you have the equivalent of the National Union of Journalists over there? In the UK you can get membership by proving your getting paid publications in the press or a provisional membership whilst you get the work under your belt.

i think the asmp ( american society of media professionals ) would be a similar sort of thing. it is an orgainzation, not a union ... and it costs $$ to join with references by folks that are already members &C ... probably not the same sort of thing now that i read what you wrote.

|| || || || || ||

what i usually do these days is if i am going to be photographing "in-public" and i am guessing it will be a sketchy-situation ( problems from the fuzz or wacko-s) i usually call the cops to let them know who i am &C so if a nutcase sees " some terrorist looking guy with a camera" the police will at least have a clue when they are called. kind of pathetic it has come to this, i know, but it has seemed to work so far.

oh - i don't work for the paper anymore - friends like that who needs enemies ...

TPPhotog · Apr 26, 2005

jnanian said:
oh - i don't work for the paper anymore - friends like that who needs enemies ...

Yep been there, eat the pie and took the carving knife out of my back

haris · Apr 27, 2005

Happened in Sarajevo: I once was standing on the bridge with camera in my hands. I didn't take photographs at that time. Two police officers approached to me and very polite said that they were called form security of USAID, which was in one near building. They also said that I can photograph if I want, but they must take informations about me. There was no sign that photography is prohibited, and there was also no sign that USAID is in that building...

Second example: Only sign that photography is prohibited in Sarajevo is in front of USA embassy. No other buildings, embassies, etc, have that sign (as far as I know), only USA embassy... Well, you can't blame someone for being coward...

Question About Photgraphing Gov't Buildings In US

haris

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency