Security stole my TriX

[Uncle Goose]

Surely the images would be evidence in this situation. In the UK, destruction of evidence is a serious crime in itself. I expect it is the same in Belgium.


Steve.

It depends on the crime, In cases of heavy crimes (such as paedophilia) the images will of course be kept as evidence but you will never see them again so they are in a way destroyed for you. In smaller offences a judge can order it to destroy it to avoid that the crime paid off (like if you do urban exploration).

 

[lxdude]

Well, if you haven't noticed... what's new since the 1960s:

Man walked on the moon
The Vietnam War ended
Nixon resigned

That's new?

 

[Steve Smith]

I think we have now established the fact in this thread that one can, in America, disregard a "keep off the grass" sign, and maybe not be shot.

But make sure you're not late taking your library books back.


Steve.

 

[bob100684]

I would be very surprized if there was a law which forced you to delete pics or film strips. Quite to the contrary, if you really broke a law by being there, I'd think you'd be required to keep the pics as evidence.

If I were in your situation, I'd take some additional cheap digital P&S camera with you. Make sure the P&S flashes vigoroulsly every time you take a pic. Also make sure, you use that P&S when guards approach you. If they give you a hard time about photographing, happily and visibly delete all the crap shots from your P&S and walk away before they find out you have a real camera with you. They can't claim you tried to be clandestine (with flash and all), they'll be proud that they just prevented a huge act of terrorism (dumb as they are), and you still get cool pics.

Normally I wouldn't give advice how to break rules, but this photography hate craziness which I keep reading about, drives me nuts.

I completely agree with this post....in fact i think that photos while trespassing are one of the few occasions where I can say digital in some ways is BETTER. Get caught with digital? format the memory card then and there....go home, pop in computer and as long as you haven't taken any more shots the image recovery software that comes with most of them grabs the pictures with next to no effort.

 

[snipmint]

My conclusions:

- The security is not a robot that will follow the rules all the time. He can break your camera, hit you or demand that you erase your pictures even if it's illegal. Misinterpretation of the law is not unusual.
- You can have a print of the law if you, but if you are trespassing, I don't think that you can argue too much, unless the pictures are really important.
- If you get caught, be as much polite as you can be, so you can convince that your pictures are not an issue or at least don't make the security guard furious enough to the point he will try to get your pictures by force.

 

[Photo Engineer]

If the factory gates are open, but not checked by guards, then it is not necessarily trespassing.

Kodak Park as an example, has closed guarded gates. You cannot get in without a pass or a special permit. A driving pass is very hard to get.

PE

 

[lxdude]

If the factory gates are open, but not checked by guards, then it is not necessarily trespassing.

Kodak Park as an example, has closed guarded gates. You cannot get in without a pass or a special permit. A driving pass is very hard to get.

PE

Generally, to be prosecutable, the property has to be posted with no trespassing signs.

 

[Photo Engineer]

Yes, exactly correct, fenced or not. I had to enter some posted property. I was on the cell phone with the owner the whole time in case I was stopped. In that case, I had the best permit in the world, the owner.

PE

 

[benjiboy]

But make sure you're not late taking your library books back.


Steve.

Yea - I like it, "Come out with your hands up, It's the public library your books are weeks overdue, put the cuffs on him officer, and read him his rights"

 

[Andrew K]

In Australia if you are on public land then you can photograph whatever you like - provided you are photographing from a "normal public location (for example from groung level - not from the top of a ladder/roof of a car etc, or through a gate that you normally cannot see through as it is loked etc) security cannot prevent you photographic whatever you see...

There was a protest in Melbourne last year as the secuity guards representing the owners of Crown Casino/building along Southbank which is next to the Yarra river in central Melbourne were demanding photographers stop photographing the buildings from the public footpaths outside the buildings...which according to the police was legal as you were photographing something in plain view from a public footpath

What I would question is whether the car park you were in was on public land? You said workers were coming and going, so I suspect you may have been in public car park on land owned by the oil company...

If you confirm you are on public land then ask security to call the police as you've done nothing wrong - but as you are in Queensland I'd check the laws there first (as we all know Queensland can be a bit different from the rest of Australia...)

 

[cmo]

Maybe this is useful for US photographers or people photographing in the USA:

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

(I am not affiliated with that atty)

 

[andrewkirkby]

I was taking some pictures of the Harbour Bridge last year and was told by security that i needed a permit to take photos of the bridge. I asked him which department was responsible for administering the permits... He said it was probably the RTA (Roads and Traffic Authority). I said fair enough and left the area.

I contacted the RTA and they told me NO permit was required to take photos of the bridge - provided i did not break into fenced areas.

I then contacted the SHFA (Sydney Harbour Foreshore Authority) and they said that while i did not need a permit to take pictures of the Harbour Bridge or pretty much anything else on the harbour, i would need a permit or if i wanted to use the Bridge and/or surrounding areas for commercial purposes - such as filming a TV show or Movie. The person at the SHFA wished me well in my pursuits.

Now, as for an Oil Refinery - that is definitely a different kettle of fish. Obviously any private property will be different to a public place. If you are trespassing then you are definitely in the wrong. Airports, Train stations, government buildings you are also probably going to have problems with. I have contacted Cityrail/Railcorp and they said that it is possible to take photos in normal public access areas with the express permission of the station master. Their concerns are predominately for tripods and the resulting occupational health and safety problems - not the actual photos.

My suggestion would be to phone the place where you want to take photos in/of, confirm it's OK and get it in writing on company letterhead. It would be advisible to have thought up a solid reason for taking the photos before contacting the company.
Better still would be to offer the company copies of your work for their usage - sell your idea to them. Big companies love that stuff and will generally go a bit further for you.
You never know, you might get a paid job out of it and access to some cool locations which nobody else has. It NEVER HURTS TO ASK! You can't get an answer to a question you have not asked.

I will have to consult the law books as to the ability of security or police to destroy your property - intellectual/physical. It's a good thing having a family of lawyers (sometimes)... I guess it will depend on whether the area is deemed as secure or restricted BY LAW.

More to follow.

AK

 

[wotalegend]

........Train stations......... you are also probably going to have problems with. I have contacted Cityrail/Railcorp and they said that it is possible to take photos in normal public access areas with the express permission of the station master. Their concerns are predominately for tripods and the resulting occupational health and safety problems - not the actual photos. ......

AK

I found out recently, might have even been here, that in Melbourne an amateur or rail enthusiast can get a free 12 month permit from Metro to take photos in any publicly accessible area of Metro stations or property except the underground stations, and they can't give permission for Southern Cross because it is not under Metro control.

Their policy and guidelines are available here:
http://www.metrotrains.com.au/media...es-c936ad98-7e1a-404a-83ca-31af1ca808d6-0.pdf

and the application form is here:
http://www.metrotrains.com.au/Media...on-3532cd90-36ef-49c5-bd06-cb58335c7e68-0.pdf

I sent off my application by mail and received the permit by email within a couple of days.

 

[Krzys]

andrewkirkby, thanks for the info. Security must be very bored if they resort to harassing those no-good bridge photographers.

 

[Jeff Kubach]

I have found the security are usually on their high horse!

Jeff

 

[andrewkirkby]

No problem at all.

It was an interesting experience. I don't think i would have been spoken at all to if i had a compact camera instead of the Hasselblad

 

[lxdude]

I have found the security are usually on their high horse!

Jeff

Really. Around here they ride in vehicles. Now the mounted police...