No Photography Allowed! « Nikon Rumors Forum

Nikon Rumors Forum » Other Nikon stuff / news / commentary

No Photography Allowed!

(88 posts) (44 voices)

Tags:

« Previous 1 234 Next »

bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

iris chrome said:
Thanks for the website bjrichus. I'm glad the riots there are over as they seemed to have started out of nowhere (I don't want to sound ignorant but that's what it looked like by media in the states). Glad your daughter is ok after the riots.

From what I've been reading so far, things seem to have gotten a little better as far as police randomly stopping picture takers (no news is good news, right?). Although can't say the same about security guards.

As Sevencrossing says, there is a lot online via search engines too. The BJP is probably the most accessible of the sites over there that I know of, there may be others so worth checking out.

My daughter and her fiancee were nowhere near the actual riots themselves. London is such a compact place, with everyone and everything squeezed into small spaces, you can go the same distance as a few US city blocks and be in somewhere so different, that you'd easily get lost. I think that 5 miles in London is like 50 miles in New York!

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Thanks seven, that's actually very reassuring. I actually did a search online about the topic prior to my posting here but I just couldn't find anything recent on it. Here is one interesting thing I did find though:

From PhotographersRights.co.uk:
Where can't I take photographs?
You need permission to take pictures in Trafalgar Square and Parliament Square if they are for commercial purposes (the permission is expensive). There are also some military sites where photography is banned, but these are well signed.

This reminds me of a story I read a little while ago about a US pro photographer (I forgot his name) who was granted entry into the UK on the condition that he does not take any photographs with his camera since his visit was for tourist purposes and not to work. His solution? He gave the camera to his daughter (I believe she was 6 yrs old) and he ended up using the photos on his blog.

Granted, I (most likely) won't face the same treatment since I won't be shooting commercially but there is always this "stigma" regarding DSLR's. Whenever you have one in your hands, people automatically assume that you're a pro photographer and that you're shooting these pics to make money.

One time people confused me for a paparazzi staking out on the streets of Miami Beach. A group of us had set up our cameras and tripods across the street from the restaurants on Ocean Drive as a part of a photography class. Next thing we knew, people were stopping and asking about who's eating there. Others stopped next to us and took their cameras out in anticipation of the moment when the celebrity would come out and some even set up their tripods next to us. But it was funny watching their faces when they learned that nobody was there XD

This is actually mostly the reason why I'm bringing along the P7k which I bought specifically for this trip. It's much more conspicuous than a D7k and a zoom lens and I think it would do a good enough job. I'd much rather take photos peacefully with a P&S than run the risk of being categorized as a pro photographer. Although I still plan to use my D7k at certain places like Stonehenge and London Eye.

bjrichus said:
London is such a compact place, with everyone and everything squeezed into small spaces, you can go the same distance as a few US city blocks and be in somewhere so different, that you'd easily get lost. I think that 5 miles in London is like 50 miles in New York!

This is why I love London... that and Hyde Park... and Doctor Who :D

Posted 1 year ago #
Funduro

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 121
offline

NikoDoby said:
I was once at an outdoor photo shoot of a vehicle and a guy walks up to me asking me why I was taking pictures of him in a very angry confrontational tone. I look around at my assistants wonder if the guy was joking and all I got back from them was "don't look at us, you deal with the crazy guy" kinda faces. I explained to the "gentleman" that I was photographing the car and I had no interest in taking his picture.

He was adamant that I was taking his picture because he saw me repeatedly point the camera at him, and he wanted to know why! I could tell all he wanted to do was cause a "big scene" so I simple took him over to a laptop and showed him all the pictures and angles that I was shooting the car at. I finally found a sequence of about 3 shots that had him in the distant background walking across the frame.

"THERE! THERE! You see!" he says excitedly "proving me wrong". I nod my head and say OK let me delete them. I hit delete and we shook hands and off he went, but before he left I fired off a few shots from the camera with him clearly in front of the car. He stops and turns and I continue shooting "the car" before he finished moving out of the way, but I guess he was just convinced that I "wasn't taking his picture" which at that point I clearly was. My assistants all thought it was quite funny and it's now a "running joke" every time THEY show up in the background of an image and ask in a defiant tone, "are you taking my picture?!"

As for the "deleted" pictures I simply got them out of my computer's "trash can" afterwards.

- LOL that was a welcome laugh amongst all the overreaction going on against most photography in public spaces.

I too was stopped taking some pictures with my iPhone in Charlotte, North Carolina this past summer by a policeman.(forgot my compact enthusiast ZX-1 home) I was photographing the rain/sun canopy of a light rail station. I was surprised and wanted to ask why but complied and then left the station. of course I then photographed the light rail trains as they pasted by me later on anyhow.

Posted 1 year ago #
IndyGeoff

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 107
offline

At my library I was told I could photograph but i cold not photograph any people. This was last year.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

It it important you are aware of the Law in the country you are shooting in eg the Law in Scotland is different to the Law in England. In the UK there are two Laws to be aware of. Photographing on Private property, with out permission, is trespass, it is a civil offence and a Security Gard has limited power in respect of trespass, he cannot confiscate your camera or MAKE you delete your photographs , he can, of course, ASK you to deleted them and it up to you, whether you want to comply, Beware, security people are big guys and often have a lot of big mates. Under the Prevention of Terrorism the police have very wide ranging powers but are are unlikely to use them with out good reason. Security Guards may quote the prevention of terrorism act when asking you to stop taking photographs, but they have no( or limited) powers under the act, other than to call the police

If you are going to use photographs taken on Private property for Commercial use, you need to be fully aware of the law relating to Trespass and what actions MIGHT be taken against you

You should be aware, Shopping Malls and many places that are open to the Pubic, are often private property . Just because somewhere is open to the public, does not meant it is Public Property

Posted 1 year ago #
Mike Gunter

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 946
offline

Hi all,

Law change, and I haven't keep up with them since I retired from teaching Media Law (as it pertains to photojournalism), but 7crossing's post has a lot of teeth in it.

In the US and most Western countries, taking pictures and using them are two different things (or used to be).

Working as a reporter, I was a guy who had my cameras taken away more than once, and working as a guy who escorted the _60 Minutes_ crew, I tried to make sure they saw what my bosses wanted them to see the story in the best light; I've seen on both sides of the fence first hand.

Whoever tells you to give up your equipment or get off the street or stop taking photos may have it all wrong, but then you have to weigh consequences and proportions. If a truck is driving at you at a high speed the wrong way, he's wrong, too, and that's a consequence of dire proportion.

My best,

Mike

Posted 1 year ago #
Abhinav

preferred member
Joined: Aug '10
Posts: 202
offline

I live in India ,Delhi .At times I'm too have been stopped here by Security guard or Police telling me not to take picture [at certain public places].Like many I too prefer not to argue and leave.

Photography over here is prohibited at certain places like Metro Stations ,Few Public Parks ,Bridges ,Dams etc
All thanks to terrorism ..grrrr

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

Mike Gunter said:
If a truck is driving at you at a high speed the wrong way, he's wrong, too, and that's a consequence of dire proportion.

LOL... great analogy. I too have had my fair share of run-ins with police and security although none of it was in the US but I agree with you. You will never lose anything by being nice and polite to a police officer. On the other hand, you've got everything to risk by being uncooperative even if the law is on your side because at that particular moment you're in the hands of that officer.

Posted 1 year ago #
SkintBrit

preferred member
Joined: Jul '10
Posts: 1,149
offline

If you're still checking the forum whilt on holiday IC, and are passing Heathrow (West London) during your holiday, please feel free to PM me and we'll meet up if you like.

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

To my amazement I was stopped by a security Gard today

What was I photographing?

The christmas decorations in the local Shopping Mall !!!

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

sevencrossing said:
To my amazement I was stopped by a security Gard today

What was I photographing?

The christmas decorations in the local Shopping Mall !!!

OUTSTANDING!

Terrorist Christmas Decorations...

I was once told that this kind of thing comes from corporate paranoia, in that everything they do (malls are usually private 'corporate' property) is considered a trade secret.

These "security guards" in malls are there to protect "trade secrets" --- yes, even the Christmas decorations are a trade secret! "We do it better than them down the road..." kind of thing...

As you are in the UK, did you check out the information from the Home Secretary and the police/security guards thing on the BJP web site? Such fun, don't you think?

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

I think the problem was a very bored security Gard in a virtually empty shopping Mall
I just left and did my christmas shopping in another shopping area were I know photography is is not a problem

Found this on BJP site

http://www.bjp-online.com/british-journal-of-photography/news/2130486/-tight-schedule-forced-ban-dslrs-london-transport-museum

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

sevencrossing said:
Found this on BJP site

Aldwych Underground station!!! Did you know it was originally called "Strand Station"?

I recall the wrought iron spiral staircase in several stations that old, as well going up and down the lifts there in the run up to the branch line closure in the mid 1990's. My parents remembered using that station before World War two ... such history!

Now the cretins at London Transport won't allow use of DSLR cameras on tours as they slow the tours down? Use a Coolpix and mess with the dials and menu settings for ages, slowing down the entire thing so when they tell you to speed up, say "If only I had my DSLR... It would be much quicker."

;-)

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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...

Posted 1 year ago #
sevencrossing

preferred member
Joined: Sep '10
Posts: 1,265
offline

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

Posted 1 year ago #
NSXType-R

preferred member
Joined: Mar '09
Posts: 2,803
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
KB6KGX

junior member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 8
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
KB6KGX

junior member
Joined: Jan '12
Posts: 8
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
El_Pickerel

preferred member
Joined: Jul '11
Posts: 581
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
bjrichus

preferred member
Joined: Nov '10
Posts: 921
offline

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....

Posted 1 year ago #
TaoTeJared

preferred member
Joined: Apr '10
Posts: 2,422
offline

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.

Posted 1 year ago #
iris chrome

preferred member
Joined: Feb '11
Posts: 394
offline

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.

Posted 11 months ago #
msmoto

big gun cougar
Joined: Mar '10
Posts: 2,736
offline

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.

Posted 11 months ago #