Photography rights

Posted byChris Nelson 3 Comments on Photography rights

Ever wonder if you are allowed to take photos of something? Wonder no more. Andrew Kantor has a guide up on his website, and a new article at USAToday. Good info, I recommend everyone take a look.

Let’s get the easy stuff out of the way. Aside from sensitive government buildings (e.g., military bases), if you’re on public property you can photograph anything you like, including private property. There are some limits � using a zoom lens to shoot someone who has a reasonable expectation of privacy isn’t covered � but no one can come charging out of a business and tell you not to take photos of the building, period… Further, they cannot demand your camera or your digital media or film. Well, they can demand it, but you are under no obligation to give it to them. In fact, only an officer of the law or court can take it from you, and then only with a court order. And if they try or threaten you? They can be charged with theft or coercion, and you may even have civil recourse. Cool.

See also: The Photographer’s Right by Bert Krages (AAL)

Via Digg.

Update: You can always take the sneaky route as well

If someone asks you to delete a photo from your camera, and you really want to keep it, don’t sweat it. Show them as you delete the photo, then take out the memory card and swap it for another. When you get home, use http://www3.telus.net/mikebike/RESTORATION.html to un-delete the photo. They’re happy because they think you deleted the photo, and you’re happy because you didn’t. Hooray! Via Eaglefire

3 replies on “Photography rights”

  1. Interesting. What’s a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? It seems like if that were ever to be put into force, paparazzi would die out.

  2. Youre right, most of the time they are in a tree with a 5 foot telephoto lense.

    From the guide on Andrew Kantor’s website:

    Risks
    Photographers run a limited number of risks from taking and publishing photos.
    • If they publish photos taken while trespassing, any trespassing judgments against them could be increased if the judge(s) feel it was inappropriate to take those photos.
    • They risk being charged with intrusion if they use technology — e.g., long lenses — to access places where the subjects have an expectation of privacy.
    • Although it is not against the law, they risk losing invasion of privacy lawsuits if their photographs reveal private facts about people that are offensive and not newsworthy (e.g., showing a person purchasing anti-HIV drugs) when the people had a reasonable expectation of privacy. Jennifer Aniston’s suit against the photographer who published topless shots of her falls into this category.
    • As with libel, they risk losing lawsuits if their photographs place people in a false light, e.g., mislabeling a photograph in a damaging way.
    • They risk losing invasion of privacy lawsuits if their photographs inappropriately use specific person’s images for commercial purposes, e.g., stating that the mayor endorses a product by publishing a photo of him using it.

Comments are closed.