Small win for photographers

[Dylan8i]

http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/08308...pid=latest.xml


I saw this in our paper this morning, just as i was thinking about wheter or not i could go take photos. its a small win for photographers in my county. good to see photographers winning back some rights though.

[Rocket_Scientist]

I can't remember if I posted this story already--perhaps there is a way to review all posts I have ever made?

Many months back I went to a "Flea Market", essentially an enormous walled-in parking lot where vendors set up shops to sell everything from automobiles to zebra-skin sofas. I think I had to pay to park, but I cannot remember whether or not there was an entrance fee.

I walked around taking pictures of various shop fronts and colorful displays of wares, and even took a few from inside some of the shops. When I took some photos--from the "street"--of a large rack of colorful, frilly dresses and other outfits, which were sitting outside one vendor's shop, the proprietor (if that's what he really is) rushed out and indignantly demanded that I give him my film(!).

As a courtesy, I did delete photos of his shop from my camera, because I really did not want to get into an argument. He said I was required to get his permission before taking any pictures, but I wondered if that was correct. I was shooting from a location, which, although it was private property, it was open to the public, and I did not go into his "shop", although, I imagine he only rented the space from the organization that grants public access to the market.

What think ye?

[brmill26]

If you are on private property, even if that property is open to the public (like a mall), you should always heed the person(s) occupying the property. You have no inherent right to shoot on private property. However, you certainly can shoot private property as long as it is normally viewable from a public location (ie, a building shot from the street). That is always legal unless it is a special building (government, airport, etc).

The question in my mind regarding the above case is whether a renting merchant would be able to stand in the authority for the property owner. I think he may not, but the obvious reality is that a commercial land owner is more likely to make his tenants happy than a single photographer.

[Dylan8i]

i have also been yelled at (even though i simply had my camera over my shoulder, and wasn't even shooting) at the pittsburgh arts fest by a vender ( which was on public land, but they ahd to pay for tent space. he was concerend about me photographing art that was copyright to others... even though it was in a public place.

i though i had the right to (not that i was- i was there for people pics etc) but didn't argue, but was upset he yelled at me even with my lense cap on, camera off and around my shoulder.



however i would venture that most pooling places are public areas (government buildings)? although i guess i know a few in churches. is this true around the country?

the article implies that it was illegal to shoot a picture facing the pooling place previously, even if on public land. i would not have guessed that to be true, and for many people this may hold true ( this article was for one county in PA)

[mjs1973]

RS - If you were shooting from the street, I don't think that guy had any legal claim to anything. If I were in that situation, I would not have deleted my photos. I would try not to escalate the situation either, but I would have let him know that I was well within my rights to take photos from a public place.

Dylan - your story is interesting too. I understand where the artist was coming from, but I still don't think he could have legal stopped you from taking any photos. He may have had some ground to stand on depending on how the photos were used though. You may not have been able to use them for commercial purposes because of the trademarked works in them, but you could take them for personal use. This sort of thing has been discussed here before in regards to public works of art, such as statues in a park and things like that. He sounds like and a$$hole for yelling at you even though you weren't even taking photos.

[brmill26]

Voting in America is by secret ballot. Most of us don't really think about it because there is so much public discussion of politics, but your vote is legally secret to you and you alone. No one has any right to know what it was unless you chose to disclose that information. So the rule about taking photos in the direction of the the physical voting is because they're concerned about someone being photographed while voting. As we all know, thanks to the astounding resolution of modern cameras, you don't have to be that close to be able to see a level of detail sufficient to tell how someone voted. That is the concern and reason for the rule.

[Dylan8i]

Voting in America is by secret ballot. Most of us don't really think about it because there is so much public discussion of politics, but your vote is legally secret to you and you alone. No one has any right to know what it was unless you chose to disclose that information. So the rule about taking photos in the direction of the the physical voting is because they're concerned about someone being photographed while voting. As we all know, thanks to the astounding resolution of modern cameras, you don't have to be that close to be able to see a level of detail sufficient to tell how someone voted. That is the concern and reason for the rule.

yep, the rule was in place for that. but i also see that in states such as alaska they are allowed to take video inside the building ( aka the palin voting video) and in my county we wern't even allowed to take photos of the outside of the building, because they were trying to protect voters rights (others would know they voted) which seems backwards.

i did notice as i walked in to our polling building there was a sign that said no photography inside the building.