Friday, October 19, 2007

Photography: Rights, Privacy, 9/11

“Hey you! Who are you!? What are you doing!?”

Ignoring the guard, I continue to take photographs.

Guard runs over quickly waving his hands around energetically spouting, “Hey you! What are you doing with that camera!? I asked you your name?! You can't take photos here!”



Looking away from my camera's viewfinder I turn my head to him, “What was that?”

“You can't take photos here! It's illegal to take photos of anything dealing with transportaion or industrial since 9/11. I'm gonna have to ask you for your film!” he claims.


So, it's quite possible that some of you may have experienced something like this before. I have, numerous times. The funny issue here is that most of these rent-a-cops have no idea what the laws regarding photography really are. So here I am to explain them very quickly.

As mentioned on USATODAY, the laws are extremely clear cut within the U.S. The only real restrictions in the U.S. Are:
“• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto lens.”

For the most part that is the jist of the laws. Further more, if some security guard or even police officer asks for your camera, film or digital memory card, do not give it away. A police officer can only seize such items if you are being arrested for a criminal offense. Otherwise, any entity attempting to take your equipment much have a court issued warant. This is guaranteed to you through the writings of the U.S. Constitution itself.

Anyone trying to take your photographic equipment in such a circumstance without a warrant has a very high possibility that they are committing a crime. These actions constitute coercion or a chrime of theft. It is your right to inform them of the situtation as well.

To make things a little easier, here's a link to the Photographer's Rights" card for the U.S. Do yourself a favor and print it out and keep it with you if you ever plan on taking street photography. You might be surprised how it might be of use.

Here are a few other rights cards as well:

Canada
U.K.
Australia

For other information regarding a photographer's rights, check out this site.

The interesting thing about all of this, is that most of these issues would have never been issues to begin with before 9/11. Prior to the event, chances are guards would not harass you, and even if they did they most certainly would not have such an excuse to ask you to leave. More often than not the reason why guards approach you are because their employers' tell them that they do not want people taking photographs of their business.

Another interesting development is a recent movement to ban public photography in New York. According to the New York Times, the new legislation if passed would require a city permit and a $1 million for liability insurance purposes. Now, at first you are probably thinking, “Oh, well I'm sure it's only aimed at professional movie production shoots.

Well not so fast. According to the NY Times Article and the ACLU,
“These rules will apply to a huge range of casual photography and filming, including tourists taking snapshots and people making short videos for YouTube,” said Christopher Dunn, the group’s associate legal director.

Mr. Dunn suggested that the city deliberately kept the language vague, and that as a result police would have broad discretion in enforcing the rules. In a letter sent to the film office this week, Mr. Dunn said the proposed rules would potentially apply to tourists in places like Times Square, Rockefeller Center or ground zero, “where people routinely congregate for more than half an hour and photograph or film.”

City officials claim that the proposed legislation is directly aimed at such professional shoots, yet the language of the proposed bill is so vague that it leaves the individual police officer to interpret the rulings itself. Isn't this what we do not want? Without clear language it allows for the interpretation of law to differ vastly from officer to officer. The point of law is to give very clear and set definitions as to the legality of certain issues.

In any case, this is a very important issue. One which I'm sure the photographic world and the citizens of New York will be following closely.

No comments: