You can't take pictures of Federal Buildings

[removed account4]

what is the point of this thread ?

 

[Curt]

In '05 we drove by the Pentagon in a tour buy, just before we got to the Pentagon the driver came on the speaker and said put all cameras and recording devices away because if anyone is seen taking a picture by police the bus will be pull over, searched and all cameras will be take off. Anyone who is identified as a picture taker will be taken off and arrested. He said it happened once before to him that year. You can take all the photo's you want of pieces at the Smithsonian.

For a while I felt like I was in a Communist Block Country.

 

[c6h6o3]

what is the point of this thread ?

The point is that we're living in a police state where the most minute aspects of our lives are interefered with by mindless goons. So be careful where you take pictures or you could find yourself on the wrong end of a nightstick.

I apologize for starting the thread in the wrong section. It should be moved to the Lounge or the Soapbox.

 

[removed account4]

The point is that we're living in a police state where the most minute aspects of our lives are interefered with by mindless goons. So be careful where you take pictures or you could find yourself on the wrong end of a nightstick.

I apologize for starting the thread in the wrong section. It should be moved to the Lounge or the Soapbox.

your a defending some guy, who knowingly broke the law
to make a video for his u tube resume.
we live in a police state ... all because the federal officer told him that he was welcome to make his video but he needed a permit? he wasn't handcuffed, beaten and hauled away as you suggest might happen to me if i am not "careful".
i have been photographing federal sites for almost 20 years -- with a permit, and never had a problem.
i usually tell law enforcement if i am going to be someplace sensitive so they can watch MY BACK.
there are a lot of jerks in this country who harass people who aren't like everyone else or milk-toast white,

i don't see what the problem is --- if you want to photograph certain things, you need a permit ..

you better not go to boston, and make photographs at the christian science mother church. they require permits too.

 

[Barry S]

"your a defending some guy, who knowingly broke the law "

John, exactly what law was being broken? I think that's the point of this whole thread and the video. Please cite the law with a reference, because our understanding is-- there is no law that prevents or restricts photographing federal buildings from public property.

 

[removed account4]

barry

i will search for the law ..

it was in the books before 1995, and enforced
more after the Alfred P. Murrah Building bombing,
and still more after 9-11.



title41CFR 102-74.420A
title41CFR 102-74.420B
title41CFR 102-74.420C


the federal reserve is not under the protection of the federal protective agency
they have their own rules and regulations regarding
photographing and video of their property.

====

 

[c6h6o3]

there is no law that prevents or restricts photographing federal buildings from public property.

Exactly.

The danger is in the mindset. To be harassed by some Deputy Dawg rent-a-cop while on public property about collecting photons of light shocks the very conscience of the law. Does the FED own the sun now?

There is no glimmer left of the spirit of liberty in Washington, DC. Not the merest glimmer.

 

[Barry S]

Good work John. Ok, lets see what we've got and parse it out. First of all it applies to "persons entering in or on Federal property". It's clear it applies to people actually on Federal property, but the phrase "entering in" is a little vague. I think a reasonable interpretation would cover being on a walkway or driveway that leads to a Federal building, but is itself on Federal property. If you're walking by or standing outside of a Federal property and are not in the act of "entering in", I don't see the regulation as applicable.

Looking at (c), I see that "Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes." may be photographed without "written permission of an authorized official of the occupying
agency concerned".

I think security services and officers are misinterpreting subparts A and B to include any photography of Federal buildings when it seems clear you must be entering in or on Federal property. Since there is a whole class of Federal property public space (entrances, corridors, etc.) that don't require authorization, I can't see how the regulations would increase as you moved away and off of Federal property.

Finally, the regulation only covers "photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes", not photography for personal or artistic use.

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 41, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 41CFR102-74.420]

[Page 212]

TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT

CHAPTER 102--FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION

PART 102-74_FACILITY MANAGEMENT--Table of Contents

Subpart C_Conduct on Federal Property

Sec. 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news,

advertising or commercial purposes?

Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives
apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in
or on Federal property may take photographs of--
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes
only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only
with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying
agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums
for news purposes.

 

[BrianShaw]

Gee whiz... what country do you folks live in? In the capitol city of my country just last week I took pictures on two different days of the capital building and the nations highest court. At the capitol I stood right next to the military/police guard. We smiled at each other and he stepped out of my way when I raised the camera.

 

[removed account4]

the federal reserve is private property ..

 

[BrianShaw]

what is the point of this thread ?

Carlos Miller seems to be trying to make a name for himself by stirring up trouble:

http://carlosmiller.com/2009/02/13/...ficer-is-clueless-about-photographers-rights/

 

[KenR]

Federal Buildings

While the Federal Reserve may be a special case as a quasi-public-private entity, I have had been stopped from photographing the Boston Federal Court House. This relatively new building is considered a modern gem, and was featured in various magazines and newspapers when it opened. Some time later, I was in Boston and told that I could not include the building in any photos, even from a considerable distance. One guard watched me for the entire time I was taking pictures in the area, apparently to make certain that I didn't photograph the forbidden building. Of course when I got back to my hotel room, I was able to Google the building and find the satelite photos of it as well as the architectural photos that appeared at the time of the building's opening.

That is what I find galling and ridiculous (as well as scary) - that the regs (if they exist) are not uniformly applied. What is the difference between a view in a magazine and one that I take? What is the point of prohibiting a casual photo, when I can download a detailed satellite picture that seems accurate down to three feet? Not to mention that anyone with a cellphone can "talk" and photograph while walking by. It seems like a page from a old Mission Impossible TV show about an unnamed eastern European nation.

 

[Kino]

I find it particularly appalling that photographers on APUG characterize those who practice and insist on their 1st Amendment Constitutional Rights as "trouble makers " and "law breakers".

Just how do you defeat those who rob you of your rights IF you don't call attention to the practice OR challenge the authorities?

YOUR methods are a sure-fire way to lose EVERY right through timid conformity and avoidance of conflict.

Yes, lets keep re-enforcing the misconception that digital point-and-shoot is somehow "lawful" and anything larger than a deck of cards or that smacks of "professional" is born of a terrorist; I'll eventually see you in Jail too.

Unbelievable.

 

[Moopheus]

It seems like a page from a old Mission Impossible TV show about an unnamed eastern European nation.

Vulgaria.

 

[removed account4]

7 pages of this because he didn't get a permit ??

 

[Barry S]

John-- Regardless of whether the Federal Reserve is considered to be on Federal or private property--the question is why you would need any sort of permit to photograph while on public property. Everything I've seen supports the fact that no permit or permission is required. Come to Washington and we'll go out shooting, but it's filled with Federal buildings. The idea of trying to get 40 permits just to take a walk with our cameras is silly.

 

[FotoAvril]

I wouldn't argue with someone with a badge. They may know a law...or think they know of a law...or be bluffing and calling it a rule. But, if you try to argue with them they'll find something to book you for even if it's something simple like impeding foot traffic. In any case, you'd likely be in for a big hassle.

 

[BrianShaw]

7 pages of this because he didn't get a permit ??

Unbelievable!

 

[fatmoon]

John-- Regardless of whether the Federal Reserve is considered to be on Federal or private property--the question is why you would need any sort of permit to photograph while on public property. Everything I've seen supports the fact that no permit or permission is required. Come to Washington and we'll go out shooting, but it's filled with Federal buildings. The idea of trying to get 40 permits just to take a walk with our cameras is silly.

Agreed. Especially in this case. The fact is.. the "Federal Reserve" is about as federal as Federal Express.

 

[JBrunner]

I wouldn't argue with someone with a badge. They may know a law...or think they know of a law...or be bluffing and calling it a rule. But, if you try to argue with them they'll find something to book you for even if it's something simple like impeding foot traffic. In any case, you'd likely be in for a big hassle.

I would, and have, and would again. Badges are worth about 10 cents these days. I'd also look forward to the lawsuit. The last guy in NY got upwards of $30,000 for being hassled by the transit cops. If the guy is on a public sidewalk he has every right to be there. God people are pussies these days.(not you in particular FotoAvril)

 

[Allen in Montreal]

Bingo!
The rules of restrictions are designed to apply to sites of security risk. Military bases, air strips, prison etc etc.
Now the rules are being applied at will and no one is standing up, and so slowly, the grip tightens.

The Canadian Prime Minister's advance team often uses the RCMP and "security rules" to restrict photographers from shooting in positions they feel are not flattering to the PM.

That is censorship!
As close as we have come here in the Great White North to Stalin's way of dealing with the media.

The Homeland Security Act is Dead Link Removed and the Patriot Act is here. Neither bill contains *any* reference to photography. There are no laws I've ever seen or heard of aside from some *very* narrow restrictions that may apply to selected military or Department of Energy installations, and people with a reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g.,behind the curtain of their home).

 

[bobwysiwyg]

Bingo!

The Canadian Prime Minister's advance team often uses the RCMP and "security rules" to restrict photographers from shooting in positions they feel are not flattering to the PM.

Can't speak to the PM's popularity, but could those same photo op positions be construed as good sniper vantage points?

 

[Kino]

Unbelievable!

Yes, unbelievable that anyone would stand for instant law-making by people who are supposed (by oath and law) to enforce the LAW, NOT MANUFACTURE VARIANTS of it, for whatever reason.

Its been quoted many, many times since 9/11, but it bears repetition ad nauseam, because some people JUST DON'T GET IT;

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " Ben Franklin

 

[BrianShaw]

"The man who trades freedom for security does not deserve nor will he ever receive either. " Ben Franklin

Ummm... we fundamentally don't disagree, but when does running into one or two a-holes who misinterpret the law, or don't know the law as well as you think they should, or mistakenly enforce the law incorrectly become "trading freedom for security"? I don't htink that's what Old Wise Ben had in mind.

It is easy to find those a-holes, by the way, especially if one baits them. Personally speaking, I've only been questioned once in 30 years of photography... and it was a "righteous bust" since I willfully and knowingly trespassed onto private property. (I smiled, explained myself, and they smiled and said "have a nice day; please don't do it again". It all worked out without incident, or any post-incident 'venting' on a photography/civil-rights forum.)

Have a nice day, sir or madame.

 

[paul ron]

Here in NYC there are weird signs popping up in certain public places like the road way just before the TriBoro bridge. It says you can't take picture of the bridge. WHY? I was told it's concidered private property belonging to the Bridge n Tunnel Authority. ummmmm..

Right after 9/11 I was downtown near the site of teh towers. I was snapping off a few frames of the area n I was told by an soldier with a rifle that I wasn't allowd to take any pictures. When I asked why, I got a rifle in my face n told to keep moving.

A few months later I went back to the site with my camera n as I took some shots down an alley where trucks were hauling out dirt with cranes in the background, I was told by a cop not to take any pictures by order of the Mayor (Rudy). Of course I'm a wise guy n asked why... I was told it's concidered a crime scene and urged to move on or get arrested. I moved on as I keept shooting n another cop stoped me n told me to get accross the street if I wanted to take pictures. But of course you can't see anything from there unless you climb a light pole which I did. Again the cop came accross the street n gave me my last warning to move on or I'm taking a ride. I was tempted to take the ride but I had another appointment with my lawyer.

When I saw my lawyer n asked if they can do that, he told me with the Patriot Act they can do anything they want including beating the crap out of you n get away with it. The problem with the new Patriot act was it was a new set of balls for law inforcement n were tryin em out.

Now back to my bridge signs. Are they legal? What is the law? I'm still confused about photography in NYC. I shoot anyway n if I get stopped I do some stealth shots form the hip but hauling an RB67 is hardly stealth.