It looks like all the fuss that has been raised over this issue has not been for nothing after all :)

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/crime/dc-officers-are-directed-to-leave-citizen-photographers-alone/2012/07/23/gJQAYKcI5W_story.html?hpid=z3

I thought I should clarify something which maybe isn't obvious to those that aren't familiar with the politics of the region; the video isn't of a police or security officer shouting at the guy filming - the people giving him hassle are participants in the march. The marching season in Northern Ireland causes huge tension and there is a feeling amongst the Catholic community that the marches are just designed to intimidate them (in this case they are going round in circles outside a Catholic church so you have to wonder). The guys in the hats are actually out of a marching band so the videographer was really arguing with another ordinary guy (albeit one in a uniform) not someone with any position of official authority.

The above video does not play in some areas...but, below is the same video, I believe. It suggests the videographer responded with a confrontation of authority rather than an inquiry as to why the video might not be allowed. However, this type of authority figure is not uncommon, and I myself encountered this with border patrol when I turned around to take a photo of my son coming back in to the USA when we had been in Canada a few years ago on motorcycles. Almost exactly the "fly off the handle" type of law enforcement response as on the video. Shameful at best. CAUTION, VIOLENT LANGUAGE NOT SUITABLE FOR CHILDREN

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=My5cf2zlkpo

Seems it is not a good idea to film Bands in Northern Ireland

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-northern-ireland-18831140

I must agree with Msmoto,it's all in how you respond to the situation. I was confronted by some security officers when trying to take night shoots of an oil refinery. I was polite showed them my ID (military id helped too) told them what I was doing and I was working from public property. They were polite and treated me respectfully. Now I know other photographers who are grade A A** ***es and would have asserted their "rights" in a manner that reflects poorly on all of us. I've never had problems and typically just chatting with the police works wonders. There are some sites out there with legal information but usually if you are on public property, you free to take any picture you want. Publishing rights are a little more complicated, but if the pictures are for a news outlet then again anything is fair game. Model releases are a must if you plan to sale photos of people. It seems everyone got a little overly sensitive after 9/11 but I think its getting better, well at least in my world.

@SilenceBrokenTT

Folks can Google "west coasters.net" if they want to see the photos as a question regarding a trojan on the link has been raised.

Kinda funny this topic gets back brought up now...

I frequent many coaster/amusement park sites, one of which is Westcoaster.net. Recently they put up an update from Lakeside Amusement Park in Colorado. This park has a ZERO photography rule in place since the owner doesn't give a damn about the park and is letting it just rot out. One of the members didn't know about this until after he started shooting, but did get some good pix of the place in. Ridiculous how this is allowed. She should just sell the park since there's some amazing architecture/lighting there, as well as some sweet rides.

<LINK REMOVED>

http://www.newson6.com/story/19014578/police-wear-lapel-cameras-for-their-own-protection

Here's the flip side! :)

I was in a building in China a few years ago. In one of the rooms there was a sign that no photography was allowed. I didn't take a picture in the room, just a picture of the sign and got a lot of dirty looks from the Chinese people.
I was on the Great Wall near Beijing and walked into one of the "towers" to change film in my Rolleiflex. I happened to look into a cubbyhole and there was an open wallet with a bunch of Chinese bills sticking out. I guess that they were seeing if they could lure anyone into taking it. Needless to say, I got out of there fast.
The people I knew seemed like good people, but brainwashed and spied on by the government people.
Sorry, I didn't mean to get political. I just got carried away.

Geoff_K said:
When you are on the street the police have ALL the power.

I am reminded of an old Joke

"What do you call a gorilla with a machine gun ?"

One very important point many photographers get wrong

because somewhere is open to the public it does mean it is "Public Property"

In England, this applies to nearly all shopping Malls , some roads, most beaches , and a lot of open spaces

One has to decide IF it is worth, being handcuffed, taken to jail, strip searched, tossed in a cell with REAL criminals only to be kicked free in a couple of hours. Sure you can try to sue, but that is likely to cost you money.

Unless you want to experience the inside of a lockup, probably best to be cooperative. When you are on the street the police have ALL the power.

I'm not going to get tazed over a photo. (unless it is of Aliens landing ;->)

I certainly agree..... There is a subset of LEOs who are there for reasons inconsistent with the external appearance. I have personally seen them in action, behaving in an entirely inappropriate manner to a situation. And, if we can talk with them, in virtually every case they will give themselves away by the irrational response to our positive approach. In this case, I retreat. No questions asked.

Also, there are many situations to which I have been privy do to the nature of my previous profession, which are areas best left alone. Folks engaged in unlawful activities will not hesitate to resort to extremely aggressive behaviors in order to protect their endeavors. And, unfortunately, this may involve LEOs on rare occasions.

So "No Photography Allowed" maybe needs to be something we decide from time to time if a situation is less than safe.

msmoto said:
A lot of times, a short discussion with suspicious individuals, i.e., law enforcement officers, can relieve their paranoia and get them sort of "on our side" or at least neutral.
So often, police misconduct is due to the fear involved and if we can decrease this, the misconduct diminishes.

You're absolutely right about that msmoto and I do believe majority of incidents could be completely avoided, however I believe there are two folds to this issue. First, photography by itself is not and should not be considered a suspicious act and therefore should not be treated as such in the first place. Second, not all cops are created equal and some cops will assume you guilty until proven otherwise... just look at the pepper spray cop of UC Davis for instance.

Well, the app is not yet for the iPhone, but maybe it soon will be.

My experience with LEOs is to talk to them first, explain what I am doing, ask if they need ID, become proactive in attempting to let them identify me as an ally and not an adversary. Also, unless I have press credentials on me, am actually working on assignment, I am extremely careful to not get caught up in the action myself. On the other hand, when actually working, I am in the middle of things, but avoiding being ann obstacle.
A lot of times, a short discussion with suspicious individuals, i.e., law enforcement officers, can relieve their paranoia and get them sort of "on our side" or at least neutral.
So often, police misconduct is due to the fear involved and if we can decrease this, the misconduct diminishes.

ACLU has released an interesting app to help control police misconduct towards photographers. The app, called "Police Tape," is setup to secretly video/audio record a police interaction. The app will even send a copy of the file ACLU's servers.

http://www.petapixel.com/2012/07/09/the-aclus-new-police-tape-app-lets-you-discreetly-record-police-interactions/

My opinion: while police hostility towards photographers may not be as wide spread and prevalent as we think it is, I do believe it eists and does happen. And if this app can help curb and tame some of that needless aggression then it really should become a prerequisite app in every photographer's phone.

NSXType-R said:
If you shoot a photo for a newspaper or magazine, do you have free reign over your photo?

Probably not right? Or at least it'll be covered in the contract you should be signing with them.

I'm asking because I had an opportunity to shoot with my school paper and I backed out because there was no contract to sign.

I'm not that desperate to get published anyway, so I don't really care, but it's a question I'd like to discuss.

At a job I was at, (day job is an Operations/logistics Analyst) I did some photography for web and print advertising and fliers for them as well as some magazine articles. I actually got some great photos during that time and I wanted to be able to submit some to contests. When I left the job I created a simple release (from an online photo law site) that gave me rights for "educational, personal, contest" but no commercial use of the photos. I then made a contact sheet of all the photos and orig file names. They amended it adding "distinguishable" faces not to be used but company logos were ok, and they had the right to use any image, at any time, with no royalties ever to be paid.
I left on good terms and they were happy to agree to it. At a minimum it allows me to show the photos off, without fear of recourse as long as I'm not making money from them.

If a school etc, doesn't offer anything, make one yourself and see if they are willing. As long as you include you will not make money from the images and they are for your "own use", they should be fine with it and may just ask for credit or site them correctly - usually. When it comes to doing photos for an organization, it is implied they have the rights and you don't. The best you can hope for is to be able to post them on blogs, or use as examples for your "own use". That said, I wouldn't pass up on anything if the opportunity arises.

KB6KGX said:
Yes, that would be a great idea. With the facial recognition software that is available, the world's police can keep tabs on everyone that is "of interest" and be able to ignore those who are not.

I bet that crowd of people with the name badges of Mister Nikon, Miss Olympus, that chap called Canon and lets not forget the evil step child Sony, will get in a lot of places....

I got yelled at the other day while taking photos of birds on a bridge. I guess maybe it was not considered public property since that part of the road is Delaware River Joint Toll Bridge Commission jurisdiction. I think they just came out to bother me because they were bored / curious and were okay with me having already taken plenty of photos on the bridge for maybe 15 minutes.

Meanwhile, detailed information and photos of the bridge are available on the DRJTBC website and other government websites. I just really could not be troubled enough to argue when I was trying to enjoy a nice couple hours off work.

Back in 1982, while on vacation in Israel (Tel Aviv, specifically on this particular day), I was taking pictures of a communications tower with dozens of various types of antennas on it. After I'd been doing this for a few minutes, and was in the process of walking away, as I was finished taking pictures, I was stopped by a couple of IDF soldiers (the IDF does NOT mess around when it comes to security) who asked me what I was talking pictures of. I was honest, sort of... I told them I was an amateur radio operator (true) and just wanted to see what the antennas looked like "close up" (true), but was only looking at them, not taking pictures (OK, not entirely truthful, there). They said no pictures, I said of course, no problem, and walked away. Of course, I knew what that tower was. I knew whose tower it was. The tower was part of a complex of buildings that comprise Israel's equivalent of our Pentagon, the main headquarters for their Army, Navy and Air Force. About as high-security as it gets. But... I got my pictures.

bmxdad said:
It would be a lot smarter to give the police a camera, then take a picture of people that they find of interest

Pete

Yes, that would be a great idea. With the facial recognition software that is available, the world's police can keep tabs on everyone that is "of interest" and be able to ignore those who are not.

Bjrichus and sevencrossing- thanks for your input guys!

I may not shoot for them, but I realize they often reuse old photos and although they do credit to the photographers in the paper, sometimes they forget.
There isn't even a credit page that lists all the photographers.

No, the photographers to my knowledge are not paid. We work on our own time.

This is the way it works- there's a group on Facebook where the photographers mingle, we probably have about 10 that shoot. Whenever a job comes up they let us know and we sign up in the group.

I usually shoot for myself anyway, it's odd to be assigned something.

Thanks for the insight on the laws again.

NSX Type-R said:
.

I'm asking because I had an opportunity to shoot with my school paper and I backed out because there was no contract to sign.

I'm not that desperate to get published anyway, so I don't really care, but it's a question I'd like to discuss.

Usual disclaimer, I am not a lawyer

Do you work for the school?
If so, they may well MIGHT own the copyright

if you don't the copyright is PROBABLY yours. They can only publish the photograph with your permission and publication is restricted to whatever terms you stipulate

NSXType-R said:
If you shoot a photo for a newspaper or magazine, do you have free reign over your photo?

Probably not right? Or at least it'll be covered in the contract you should be signing with them.

Not really the same situation as yours, as I'm an employee of a university (staff position with monthly salary, health insurance, pension, etc). As an employee whatever I do while "on the clock" is the universities to use as they wish. The credit was that of the fabled "Staff Photographer", but that is changing this year and we are actually going to get real name credits. WOOOOO-HOOOOO! It'll add credibility to tear-off sheets and my wife will finally believe me when I say "Oh look, that's MY shot" :)

Not that it'll help your current situation, but it is certainly a learning experience in that you now have a taste of the kind of red tape those of us working as photographers (even for part of the time), have to put up with. I agree that you SHOULD get some kind of written agreement from them making it clear who owns and who can do what with the images you produce while "at work". Sometimes it just isn't possible and you have to balance the benefit of having the gig and not using the endless procession of boring portraits of groups of three people in an office situation for your own art work, compared to putting together an exhibition of triptych panels of them in some high class gallery somewhere. We can all dream of selling them for millions of dollars each and being acclaimed as a personality artist and doing the talk shows etc, etc. It is not an exact science how you decide what you feel about the balancing act involved between ownership and exposure. They don't teach you that in school...

EDIT: This is not really on topic, so if you want we can start another one and leave THIS thread for its original subject...

I'm posting this here because it's really hard to find a thread discussing the laws of photography.

If you shoot a photo for a newspaper or magazine, do you have free reign over your photo?

Probably not right? Or at least it'll be covered in the contract you should be signing with them.

I'm asking because I had an opportunity to shoot with my school paper and I backed out because there was no contract to sign.

I'm not that desperate to get published anyway, so I don't really care, but it's a question I'd like to discuss.

Here's one for you -
One of my friends got me into a project called "Flat Stanley." It's a program usually offered by public libraries for young (6-10yrs old) under-privilege children. What they do is color in a "Flat Stan" (coloring book sytle) and send it to a pen-pal somewhere else in the country. That pen-pal then takes the child's Flat Stan out to notable sites in their community and takes a picture of Flat Stan as if he was vacationing. The Pen Pal then sends the pictures back so the child can see different areas of the country that they would otherwise not be able too. Neat program. You could Photoshop them in, but that is not the intended manner and as I am sort of new in the area, and my friend has been here for 20 years, I thought it would be a great chance to at least say I have been to "the sites."

I almost got arrested.

Went to a large art gallery in town that has an permanent outdoor exhibit that is directed at children. Perfect right? So with a D300 with grip and a couple of lenses in tow, we walk on the grounds, snap two photos and the entire staff followed by two squad cars are heading right at us. Long story short, all ended fine, they thought it was a great program and the only reason all of this happened to us, was the way my camera looked - pro looking thing.
------------

Found out talking to them, (the art center is a public privately funded org, that does sell posters of the art hanging and an income stream) that pros (photo & video) in the area (wedding, senior, family, corporate, etc.) come onto their site, take areas over, plug into their power, set lighting up on the sculpture work, and take photos. One had recently dumped bubble bath mix into their fountains for a bride to walk into the fountain with bubbles that took 7 days to flush out and killed a neighboring Koi pond off at a cost of $7,000. NONE with any prior permission or even asked permission when they showed up. At times they would even walk straight into the gallery as if they owned the place take over areas and stairwells and tell other visitors to leave the areas.

45 times within 6 months they caught people including multiple fine art photographers who were selling prints of their images of the artwork that directly competed with the art gallery's sales. I was absolutely floored that any photographer would think that would be appropriate to make money off of their site or to just show up and not check with them. The stories of the things this year alone just blew me away.

Again, this is not a Government/city/state owned site. It as gates and you pay admission "donations" ($1 or purchase a poster calender, etc.) to go through the gallery. Kicker is, you can rent the site for $50 an hour for photo sessions which they will shut the place down for you (max 2-3 hours depending on time, etc.) as well.

Now I have had my own run-ins with idiot guards, police, etc. on really dumb stuff like shopping malls decor, street shooting etc. but this was one of the first times I have actually heard what some places have to deal with, and thought the lost 30 mins was justified.

As I said everything turned out fine and I learned something - so it was a good day.