braine says:

How can my local mall ban me from the premises for taking photos, if taking photos in the mall is legal?

Andrew says:

Because it’s private property. They can ban you for just about anything, including legal behavior — for being too tall, for talking loud, for wearing blue. (They might have a problem if they try to ban you for the usual protected stuff: race, religion, etc.)

Kelly says:

Regarding misappropriation. I understand you can’t use an image of someone in an advertisement in order to sell a product. What if the image itself is the product to be sold? Take for example action photography at youth sporting events. Many photographers will take pictures of kids during a sporting event held in a public place and then publish them on a website where they try and sell the pictures to their parents, grandparents, etc. Is this misappropriation?

Steve says:

What about taking a camera to a concert? Do these rules also apply to video?

Andrew says:

Kelly: As I understand it, the misappropriation angle comes when you use someone’s image to promote something. In other words, shooting pics and selling them is OK (the parents can always say no), but implying that someone endorses something is a no-no.

A sort-of example: Canon had (has?) some ads where they show a line of photogs on the sideline of a football game, most with Canon’s while telephoto lenses. The copy tells you that Canon lenses are the choice of professionals.

That’s a cool use of the image because you can’t see the individual photogs’ faces. So Canon is implying that sports photographers in general endorse its products.

They couldn’t pick one guy, say, with a Time magazine badge, and use a picture of him to imply that Time endorses Canon. (Or that individual photographer.)

That’s the best way I can describe the misappropriation rule. Anyone else wanna weigh in?

Andrew says:

Steve: The same rules apply in general to video, but there’s another aspect: Copyright. I can take a photo of The New York Times front page, but I can’t offer it on my Web site as an alternative to buying the paper or going to nytimes.com. That’s not fair use.

Ditto for images/video of a concert. Even if you taped the whole thing, you couldn’t share that entire video — you run afoul of copyright law. Snippets, yes; that’s fair use.

Hope that helps. (Again, if I’m wrong, someone tell me!)

Leland says:

Thanks for the PDF. That will really help.

Kelly says:

Andrew: Thanks for the reply. That’s how I’ve always understood it as well and I think that is the intent. But from everything I’ve read, the laws on misappropriation seem pretty vague - maybe intentionally.

Andrew says:

I think part of the issue is the “mis” in misappropriation.

As I understand it — the “mis” comes into play when I try to use *your* image for commercial purposes, as opposed to *the* image.

It’s a fine line, for sure. How important is it that the photo is of you, as opposed to just anyone? That’s why it usually applies to celebrities, whose images can be misappropriated to endorse a product. (A shot of Brad Pitt in public drinking a Diet Coke couldn’t be used in a Coke ad without his permission.)

But a shot of you drinking a Diet Coke sitting with your spouse drinking Diet Pepsi, just to show a kind of generic “he said, she said” moment that wasn’t commercial (other than being in my portfolio) — not a problem.

But if I sold that image to a company who used it in an ad (”Cola drinking causes problems. Drink 7-Up!”), you might have a case against them.

[whew] I hope that makes sense!

rhonda fast says:

What an excellent resource. You’re doing a great service to those of us who are curious as to what our rights are. Now if only the mall security guards would read this!
Thanks for a great explanation.

MD says:

What about places that post “no photos” warnings?
In some cases (museums, art galleries) you are making a photo of something copyright (a painting). In other cases the copyright is expired (unknown potter from mesopotamia, c. 1500BC, owns the copyright).
Is the purchased ticket an implicit contract - do you agree to not take pictures? What about inside a church? Sony claims to won “copyright” on the Sistine chapel, having financed a long and expensive restoration. I would have thought one “Michealangelo Buonarotti(?)” owned it, an it had expired.
I guess they can always tell you to leave.

NYC had until recently a ban on in-subway photography for a few years.
Then there’s the typical “PWI” offense - Photography While Islamic.

Steven says:

I was once in an airport waiting in line for the security check and I tried to take a picture of the line of people and the security checkpoint. I was immediately told I could not take pictures and as I needed to make the flight I didn’t argue. Was I legally allowed to take those photos?

terry says:

“PWI” ?
Aint no such thing.
You mean PWA - Photography While Arab.

You cant the religion and religion does not make a nation no matter what the muslims in bosnia try to explain 400 years of islamification.

why says:

there isnt much public property out there
i dont get why people assume they have a right…

Jesse Donat says:

If they put it where I can see it by remembering it I’m doing the same thing as a digital camera

Chris Tayor says:

I think a person should have the absolute right to take a picture of anything they absolutely please if its for personal use this includes people shows concerts and private stores and they should not be allowed to restrict this. they SHOULD be allowed to control it to some extent (no flash no tripods etc..) but not prevent it.

My pictures are my memories as far as I am concerned when I went to cancun I took nearly 3300 pictures. in 50 years when I have half my brain cell still firing I will have 3300 PERFECT memories of cancun. (one thing I like about cancun except for a permit needed to use tripods on national treasure sites (odd) there was NO restrictions on still and video shooting anywhere anytime.

Chris Taylor
http://www.nerys.com/

Wil says:

With regard to Steve’s question and Andrew’s response regarding concerts, the tricky think is that to get into the concert you probably bought a ticket, and associated with the ticket, if the concert venue and performer know what they’re doing, is a license agreement (contract) preempting your copyright rights. It’s right up there with a movie theater’s ability to prevent outside food from coming in — they have no legal _right_, per se, to bar outside food (say, a bottle of water), but you buy a ticket, that purchase constitutes a contract, and that contract prohibits bringing in outside food. you are, of course, always free not to buy the ticket, and not to attend.

Wil says:

Steve- Airports are not public places… they can restrict any behavior they like, barring differential treatment of civilly protected categories like race, gender, etc.

Additionally, I believe (but can’t quickly confirm) that there is specific federal legislation that bars photos being taken near or inside the so-called “restricted zone”, the area inside the security checkpoint.

The interesting question becomes this: If I stand on a public accessway (road) at the end of the runway and take photos of planes landing/taking off, can anyone legally stop me?

ilya says:

Well we have a airforce base outside of our city. And there are signs the stoping and taking photos is not allowed. But this is government. I dont think they can, unless they have a sign or something. Because how would you know?

Andrew says:

MD: If some place has a “No Photos” sign, you can still take pictures, but you’ll probably be asked to leave. You might also have a contract that allows the place to confiscate your photos — on the back of your ticket, for example. But that’s unlikely.

Copyright, as I mentioned before, is a different issue. So while you can take photos of, say, the Sistine Chapel, if Sony does in fact own the copyright (!) you’ll get in trouble if you publish them, especially if you do it commercially.

As for “photography while Arab,” it isn’t just being Arab. I remember a news story a year or so ago about a train aficionado who was stopped by police for taking pictures. People had called to complain about a “Middle Eastern man” shooting. The guy was white Irish Catholic. People see what they’re afraid of seeing.

As for military places, that’s a whole other ball game. They can tell you not to, and if you shoot they can confiscate your camera/film/digital media. And these days, who knows where you’ll end up! ;-)

But a commercial airport, as Wil asked about? If you can shoot it from public property, you’re cool — unless there’s some military operation going on that you don’t know about, I suppose.

Dan says:

The area beyond the security checkpoints at an airport is definitely not a public place, since most people (i.e. the vast unwashed ticketless masses) aren’t allowed in. It could be argued that the security line (beyond the nice person who asks to see photo ID and boarding pass) is also not a public place. However, if Steven were not in that line, and were just out in the general ticketing and baggage drop-off area (which is usually within sight of the line) I would consider him to be in a public place - after all, anyone and anything can come into that area.

Joe says:

You didn’t touch on Voyeurism. There are new laws in a few states that make it illegal to take voyeuristic photos even if you’re in a public place. For instance, you’re on the ground floor of a mall, above you there is a woman wearing a skirt standing next to the railing. If you take a photo up her skirt even though anyone standing below her could see up it, that would be an illegal photo.

Grant W Laird Jr says:

I’ve taken a lot of photos at variety places for fun and practice.

Few times, I was stopped by security or staff and told me not to take anymore pictures.

1. Inside Alamo historian place at San Antonio – I thought it was public but whatever. I did shoot once and they did not ask for my disk or anything at all. I did not see “No photography allowed” sign till later on.

2. Dallas public transportation station (rail and bus - outdoor) – after I took over 100+ pictures and policeman finally stopped me and asked for my drive license. He made the notes on his notepad and let me go.

3. At public subway in Washington DC, I took few pictures and staff stopped me doing it. I managed only few pictures at that time.

Sure, it was always confusing if it is OK to do it or not. Sometime, it won’t be hurt to try and see what happened. I simply want to practice my photography skills.

Grant W Laird Jr.
http://blog.grantlairdjr.com

joe says:

Don’t forget that using your camera at work can be considered unprofessional (at best) or a breach of contract (not so good) or a breach of a confidentiality agreement (even worse) or a violation of national security (really bad).

Dan Hedgpeth says:

Prison guards will confiscate your camera/film if they catch you photographing a State of California prison, while standing on Public Proprty. This is illegal, as confirmed by a State of California Superior Court, but the guards continue to do it, because you have no recourse and they know it. They will pull film out of a canister to expose it, then give it back. They will confiscate your memory card and delete all info before giving it back. All of this is illegal, they know it, but do it anyway.

jan says:

Pics are often forbidden in musea for one simple reason, the flash. This is supposed to have a degrading effect on older texties, paint, whatever and most people don’t have SLR’s with fast film/sensor and fast lens.
With modern art copyright could also be an issue.

As for air bases and airports I don’t know, this will probably vary from country to country. Heck, in the Netherlands there are even special parking lots for aircraft spotters, even with military airbases. On the other hand, a while ago some Dutch spotters were arrested in Greece from shooting aircraft (with a camera I mean).

As to shooting people (still with a camera), this will vary from country to country. But don’t be fooled with people saying stuff about pcs of people are not allowed. If newspapers can freely publish images of people, what can they do to you? Unless you are into obscene things.
IN Australia they are proposing a law to ban shooting on beaches and of little children…
Now how about that.

Mikael says:

Do you know if these rules and regulations are the same in other countries? I live in Sweden, and don’t really know the Swedish laws about the rights of photographers.

Andrew says:

Mikael: No, I don’t know. U.S. rules are sometimes less restrictive than other places and sometimes more restrictive. So these don’t apply outside our borders. Sorry!

Mikael says:

Andrew: Thank you anyway. :-)

Steve says:

Many people miss some important distinctions even though they have been made obvious in the previous article.

First, there are very few places in the USA where it is *illegal* to take a photograph. That is, places where taking a photograph can result in jail time or a fine. One such place is in a court of law without consent (you could go directly to jail for contempt). I am not sure about airport security - possibly this is a liberal interpretation of the Patriot Act, but I know of no test case yet. Volunteers?

Then we have private places where photography is restricted or controlled. Malls and concerts are good examples. Photography without permission can get you thrown out, but you have broken no law and they have no right to your film/files or equipment.

Finally, you have the inappropriate use. Typically, this involves an image of a person taken with no commercial intent but later used in a commercial way without permission. Laws in France (for example) are extremely strict these days, but in the US, normally one has to show either commercial gain (on the use) or damage to the subject. Otherwise, while it may be technically illegal for your ball team to use your picture in its annual calendar without consent, you are unlikely to recover even your legal costs. And note this is a *civil* legal action - not criminal.

Those who would like to control and restrict our photography often use the “criminal” threat to intimidate us, but as I mentioned, I know of very few places where it is legal to watch a scene but not photograph it in the USA. The post above relating to an air base is interesting - does anyone know if this is in the USA? It sound smore like some recent democracy like Greece or Spain (not quite into the spirit yet :-)

mk says:

Thanks for the pdf and all the info within! Curious though. I have taken many photos of places like old universities and gothic looking churches, I even had someone representing the university tell me I could not sell any photos. She never told me to leave. If I publish these on my website for portfolio purposes is that legal? Is it legal to sell prints to people?

Many thanks,

MK

No Photos Please says:

>Was I legally allowed to take those photos?

Yes, photos may be taken at security checkpoints — I asked a TSA screening manager — as long as you don’t get in the way of the screeners doing their job.

Indybikenut says:

Regarding the airport security station…

I worked as a news photographer a few years ago (before 9/11) and even then I was informed that taking photos at the security checkpoint which show the screening equipment were prohibited for security purposes. I didn’t press the issue but figured it was to prevent the ‘wrong people’ from finding the specific equipment in use at a location and pobbisly finding a way to thwart the system.

Jerry says:

So, has anyone here tried taking innocent snapshots of your friends in a casino? I did that one time in Reno and their security came down like I’d shaken a hornet’s nest and they did the whole thing … yanked the film out, etc., and acted like they were doing me a big favor by not smashing the camera. Only afterwards, when they pointed the signs out, did I see the tiny “no cameras” signs. Being they still have that maybe-mafia air about them, I didn’t fight back. Maybe I should have?

john h says:

as many Chicagoians learned two years ago it is illegal to take photos for commercial purposes of public art and may, in fact, be illegal for anyone to do so if the artist holds a copywrite for the artwork especially if they publish those photos (including to private, non-commerical, web sites)

at issue here was the public sculpture at the new Millenium Park, most notably ‘Cloudgate’ (aka ‘The Bean’). this prohibition is actively enforced by park security

ben says:

as a professional videographer i can say there are a few things that i have to take into account when shooting video. It is always better to err on the side of caution! I must always carry credentials (who i am, where i work, and be able to give a reasonable explination of what my work will be used for). After most authority figures get this information they are much less hesitant about what you are doing, especially if you are doing it for a legitimate reason(news, movie, documentary, etc) they may call your work to confirm. Also, I must always have wavers handy at all times. I have the right to use anyone’s image or likness if they give me permission, however, if they deny then i cannot. Most things i shoot i obtain permission, but crowd shots are completely protected. This can be a little tricky, but is almost always a good rule of thumb to keep out of litigation. This can be a verbal taped yes or no answer as well (the nice thing about carrying around a video camera) However, you can use a person’s body, and not their face without permission if you can’t or could not ask permission. (anyone remember watching the news and seeing shots of overweight people, and you never see their faces) One thing not mentioned previously about privacy is that by law children cannot be video taped at all unless their parents give permission, i don’t know about pictures, but some how i doubt that it is illegal. The only other way that children can be videoed is their face isn’t shown, see above, but most professionals always ask. This was legislation that i believe came in with the amber alert stuff and is very important, if you violate this serious fines and possible jail can result.

As a little known fact that most movies are shot in locations that always cost the producer lots of money. Most NYC and LA people know about neighborhood associations raking in hundreds of thousands of dollars for movie shoots to go on, otherwise the city or neighborhood can say that they won’t allow the movie to be shot there, and the film crew must leave. This is more shady than real law is concerned, but it has shut down quite a few movies.

ben says:

I fogot to mention i recently shot at a TSA location and they gave us acess to shoot what we wanted, with a few exceptions. This was only because we asked the permission of the local TSA administrator of the airport. Yet again, if you ask and give a legitimate reason people will be much more inclined to say yes.

Andrew says:

Ben’s comments reinforce the always-good advice: Asking permission and being professional are always good things. Not that you have to, but it can certainly make things easier.

On the subject of the law, however, I’m curious why you say “by law children cannot be video taped at all unless their parents give permission.” I’ve never heard that, and in fact I can’t find any legal material that says so.

I’d just like to be sure that there really is such a law, as opposed to heresay. When I looked into still photography, a lot of people were sure that such-and-such was illegal, but in fact it wasn’t.

Ericka says:

I did school portraits for a small Christian school and everything went well until the school principal’s pastor looked at my website and saw that I also do nude portraiture. The school principal called me demanding that I take their student’s pictures off my website (which I did immediately) and said she didn’t want me to ever tell anyone that I did work for their school and she would never recommend me to anyone because nude portraiture is a sin blah, blah, blah. My question is this…I took a really good portrait of one of the students and I’m just wondering if it is legal for me to use in my portfolio when I go to job interviews? Just curious as to what my rights are in a case like this. I’ve heard you only need a model release form if you’re selling the photo, if the photo shows the subject in an embarassing or incriminating situation, or if it is on a website.

joel kaye says:

In NYC the outside of an old apartment building has cartoon paintings of animals all over it and the entire building is painted blue.. I took a photgraph of the building from the street , do i have a right to sell that photograph? The building was built in 1909, I don’t know when it was painted.

Vinny says:

Photographing while Arab? I don’t think so. It’s more like “photographing at all.”

http://insignificantthoughts.com/?p=1762

POL says:

someone can forbiden to take photos in the street, for example ,to take photos of buildings ( For example: take photos of rich buildings or houses in rich district ) .

I have this experience.
sorry, my english language

Ian Payton says:

I just has a run in with my building with the supper who takes care of the common elements of our Condominimum. It was a farse that he told me that I could not take photos of a relative on the outside of the building as it was a common area and I needed permission from the comdominimum board of directors to take photographs on the property. Ok this might be pushing things, but then he proceeded to tell me that I was not allowed by law to take pictues of anyone or any thing privately owned without the person or owners permission. He further ranted that I could not take photos of people or vehicles on or off private property…. well you can see where he was going … down a slippery slope sounding like we were in the former USSR.
So I decided to investigate Canadian Laws regarding the “Taking of Photographs in public” but all my searches came up with copywrite advice for photographers. I Know some of the copywrite act, but I want to know about just taking the pictures and not publishing them. I know that people in the USA have the First Amendment and freedom of expression, but dont we here in Canada have simular freedoms to take photos. As a person who always has their camera out and ready …. What are my rights? (in Canada anyways)

Andrew says:

Ericka: There shouldn’t be any problem using any shot you’ve taken as part of a portfolio you use for job interviews. You’re absolutely right: The only time you might need a model release is if you’re planning to use it commercially — in an ad, for example. The part about “if it’s on a Web site” isn’t true, though. The means of publication doesn’t matter in this case; it’s just about commercial use.

Joel: Now you’re getting into copyright issues, and that’s not something I know enough about to offer advice. I *believe* that if it was painted more than 14 years ago you can use it, but I’m not sure.

POL: In the US, someone cannot be forbidden from taking photos on the street, or of buildings. This may not be true in other countries.

Which leads me to Ian: I have no clue what Canadian law is on this stuff. Out there in the free world, things are often a little looser than here in the US, but you never know.

I *do* know that when lay people say things like “That’s illegal!” they often have no idea what they’re talking about. :)

Andrew says:

I got a note from a person who takes pictures of local students at athletic events, then sells action shots to the kids and their parents.

The school is apparently unhappy about this, saying among other things that he’s invading the kids’ privacy, that he can’t sell their own images to them, and that it owns the images because they were shot on school property.

Here’s my response, in case anyone else is interested:

Okey doke — it took me a little bit to figure out what’s what. Remember that I’m not a lawyer and this cannot be taken as legal advice. I could be dead wrong; I’m making an educated guess.

You are on shaky legal ground selling pictures of individual kids back to them. It could be argued that you’re misappropriating their images for commercial use. If you simply had a news/info site where you posted the photos, no problem. But once you start charging money for pictures for which you didn’t have the kids’ permission, you cross the line. And no, it doesn’t matter that you’re selling it back to them. Everyone has the right to control the commercial use of his or her own image.

You might get yourself in better legal shape if, for example, you offered them free (or at-cost) basic prints, but also offered, say, enlargements or framed versions — you’d make your money from the paper, printing, and frame. I’m not sure that this would work, but it seems reasonable as long as they can have their own images free.

But… You are most certainly not invading the privacy of the students. Unless they’re at a private practice that’s not visible by anyone else (e.g., in a locked gym), they have no expectation of privacy. You can shoot all you want and use those images non-commercially or for news coverage. You can even post them on your site, or to Flickr, or whatever.

Oh, and the school does not own your images. You do; you took ‘em. The kids, though, do have certain rights regarding the use of their images, but the school has no rights in this matter. (Although it could ban you from events and charge you with trespassing. Still, as I mentioned in the article, the pictures are still yours.)

I hope that helps. I know you don’t want to see a lawyer (I can’t blame you!), but I’d avoid selling those images until you talk to someone who is more sure about these things than I am.

Michael Tyas says:

I love you, thankyou for publishing this and making it accessible to the world!

lyn says:

I have been freelancing for some time non-professionally. I love shooting kids, animals, events. I was asked to take photos of a child doing different sporting activites. I was never paid. I have the photos in my portfolio, and was approached about doing a calendar of my work. What are the ramifications of pursuing this without permission from the parents of the kids whose photos I shot?

Joseph says:

I live in the fingerlakes region of New York and I would like to post pictures of the area on my website. If I take photos from the road, of area landmarks, churches, post offices, schools, private businesses, etc., may I use them without getting permission? I am not going to sell the pics, just use them to promote the area.

Andrew says:

Joseph: You can absolutely take and use those photos without permission. The only exception might be a building that’s less than 14 years old — if the design is particularly interesting the owner could, in theory, claim a copyright infringement, but that’s pretty rare.

Photographers says:

photographer photography

Eric Jacksch says:

In some jurisdictions, including where I live (Ontario, Canada), trespass laws go significantly farther than dealing with someone being allowed on the propery or not, and allow the owner to specify what activities are or are not allowed on the property.

If the owner posts a sign indicating no photography, and one engages in photography on the property, it would consitute trespass and the person committing the prohibited act could be arrested by the owner, someone acting on behalf of the owner, or the police.

Just a heads-up!

Kim says:

I have a similar situation in regards to taking action photos of students at local school events. I was asked by one of the local high schools to take photos of their basketball players to use in a fund raiser publication, in return they “gave” me a half page ad featuring my photography business. I used photos of two of the players in the ad. Before it was published I obtained releases from the parents to use their childs’ image in my ad. Now for the good part…other parents want photos that I have taken of their athletes. They are willing to pay for them. These parents knew that I had been asked to take the photos in the first place. No one objected to their childs’ photo being taken for the fund raising project. Some of the parents have purchased a few photos. All is well so far…Now I have also volunteered my time and talents to take photos for another local middle school and high school (in the same school district as the first situation) to use in their yearbook - free. Again, some parents have seen some of the shots and have and want to purchase them. Enter the School District…They are saying that I can’t sell photographs. Now they haven’t actually said why, but we will be meeting to discuss this. First of all, several of the parents asked me to come to games and take photos of their athletes. Wouldn’t this be considered a personal contract between me and the parent involved. Another photography company in the area goes to only playoff events i.e. state titles and takes photographs of players, posts them on their website and sells them. No problem there. Perhaps they have a contract with the school district. Anyway, any thoughts…

Jessica says:

My question is…. If someone could please tell me, honestly… Is it against the law to take a nude photo of your own child… Ex. “In the bath with a younger sibling, cousin. etc. (all bein under the age of 4 yr old.)??? Also just to add… I’m referring to pictures like just for memories to have when they’re older!!! I am not IN ANY WAY… being perverted!!!

Matt says:

My girlfriend took a semi-nude photoshoot where her breasts were exposed. She signed no releases, and received no compensation. The pictures were used for a pay-subscription adult website. In fact she was on the homepage as a featured model. She has been begging the photographer to remove the pictures for a year, and now they are showing up on other adult sites. Does this constitute an invasion of privacy? Does she have a good case in court? It has hurt her reputation and caused her distress. Thank you.
Matt

Andrew says:

Jessica: I don’t believe it’s against the law to take the photos. You could run into trouble depending on what you do with them, though. Don’t display them or share them widely. But for the family album? Shouldn’t be a problem.

Andrew says:

Matt: Yeah, it sounds like she has a case. Not for invasion of privacy (she knew the pics were being taken) but possibly for misappropriation of her likeness. (Unless, that is, the photos were taken in the first place to be used on that site. If that was the case, she’ll have trouble arguing that her image was misappropriated.)

But assuming these were private photos that were never meant to be used commercially, and she had no agreement with the guy who runs the site, she might have a pretty good case.

You need to get printouts of those pages, copies of any e-mail sent to the photographer, and a lawyer. If you feel like Googling, start with the word “misappropriation” and “Second of Torts 652C” which is the relevant law.

Good luck.

Stan says:

There is a small boat expedition race that goes anywhere from 70 to 1200 miles. It is held in florida every year. The person who “owns the rights” to the race says no one (observer) can videotape it or film it or take pictures then sell the same for profit without his permission. He says if the person makes a DVD of it he can NOT sell it for profit. Is that true?

Roger Krueger says:

Andrew: You might technically be on shaky ground selling pics back to kids (although this really sounds like it would qualify as editorial usage) but it’s not like any lawyer would do anything but laugh at them. You could use the same reasoning to have wedding photographers sued for selling reception candids to the bride, but it never happens. But I really doubt it’s commercial use–just because money changes hands does not automatically make it commercial use.

Your idea about giving free/at-cost prints to sell framing is precisely backwards. Selling a picture as a picture is probably editorial use. Using a picture to sell some other item is absolutely, positively commercial use.

Re: the school owning the pictures–it’s not impossible–they could have ticket-back language to that effect, but it sure doesn’t strike me as likely.

Andew/Joseph: In the U.S. (and U.K.), there is a specific exception to architectural copyright law that declares all pictorial representations non-infringing.

Ry Ry says:

Can I take pictures of houses with ugly yard art and then make a book and sell it legally without the people who own the houses sueing me for holding them up to ridicule?

Ben says:

I am building a website for a client. They repair elevator motors and generators. They often take photos of machinery in the elevator rooms of private buildings. They repair this machinery and are welcome on the property. Can I legally use these photos on the company’s website?

Ed Halley says:

You may not have seen Bert Krages’ .PDF which covers much of the same ground. I think this is a valuable addition to every photographer’s camera bag. And a “secret santa” stocking stuffer for every police officer and security guard you know.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

elaine says:

can I take random shots of people in public and mass print them without their permission?

John says:

I have a personal web site that I made with pictures of a friend. Is it legal to do that? To use his pictures without his permission?

Murphy says:

I am interested in publishing family photos I received from many kinfolks. Anyone know the limitations?

Rich says:

What happens if I photograph an amateur athlete, and put the photos on my website for sale for the fans, coaches and parents - and an ‘ad’ agency buys the photo and publishes it as an ad for say ridell helmets. Who would be sued - me or the ad agency? Also, what power does a parent have if they are angry about their child being published on my website? I wouldn’t have their names listed, but I could see parents getting nervous. Any thoughts?

Dublin Flats says:

Your site is realy very interesting.

S says:

I am one of those parents with concerns for my child’s pics being put on websites or a photographer taking a picture at school without my consenst. I do respect photographers and realize that it must be professionally frustrating to encounter some of these situations. We recently received photos of our child taken by a certain company during school hours. We did not give permission to make prints or have them put on a website, but it was still done. I am upset by this and was curious what are the laws regarding my child’s pics.

Mark says:

I’m confused by this whole sporting event issue. I sell some of my pics from events but it’s almost just to let people have access to them. I know growing up, we didn’t have cool memories of events so I want to offer that to people at almost no cost. Very rarely do I break even for what it costs for me to attend an event. If there is a problem selling them (tell me if there isn’t), is there a problem with giving them away? What if I sold a rookie card and gave the pictures as a bonus???

Confused

Mark

Lisa says:

My picture was taken unknowingly while on our boat.The picture was on the cover of a local boating magazine. Is that allowed without my consent?

natalie says:

hi guys im doing a report on photography …HELP!!

Anne says:

I am a realtor and have a website to promote my real estate business. My friend took a great photo of my son’s soccer team on the field, and I’d like to use the photo on my real estate website. My friend, the photographer, has given me permission to use the photo. I’ve gotten permission from the parents of all the kids on our team who appear in the photo. Problem: there are also kids from the opposing team in the photo, but I have no idea how to contact them or their parents, since I can’t tell from the indistinct logo on their jerseys which team they even were! They were at a public event, and unless someone actually knows who they are already, they cannot be identified (since I can’t even track them down). Am I safe to publish this photo on my real estate website?

Sarah says:

Might I sugest in addition to this someone put together an ethical use of photography? While our sociaty is built on laws , ethics and manners are mortor that holds it together. We should not only think aboult what we can and cannot do but what we should and should not do.

Keith says:

I own the http://www.IowaPix.com photography website. Recently I was the subject of a 9/11 complaint for photographing a heron birds in a front of a small Alliant Energy generating station. It made the front page of the local newspaper because I asserted my rights to take photos on any public road at any time.

Andrew says:

Keith, I see you were also linked (sort of :) to meth labs — “There is copper wire that is stolen for making methamphetamine and we have even received bomb threats.”

(http://www.thehawkeye.com/daily/stories/ln15_0413.html)

[chuckle] I imagine a parrot squawking: “9/11! 9/11!” You need to organize a photo shoot of the plant, just to assert your rights, a la Thomas Hawk: http://thomashawk.com/2006/04/photographing-architecture-is-not.html

Lawrence says:

A friend took a couple of simple photos through his own window from inside his own house of a cute female neighbour in her yard next door (doing chores), and posted two pics on an online forum. Is this legal?

Tricia says:

I am wondering, a picture of my children was taken outside my house. They were apparently climbing on a pile of debris, which they were repremanded for, however, the lady next door has circulated these all over town. There was no adult present at the time the picture was taken. She did not have my consent. We talked to her about it and she says that she was merely trying to show that the landlord had not cleaned the debris as asked by the town. my statement was that she could have taken the picture without the kids on it and it looks as though she had asked them to pose. What do I do????? She did not have my permission do take these and the kids were on my property.

caroline says:

Can someone help me cos I have been photographed while on cam and this guy has put my pic and pics of other chatters both not nakid like me and some were nakid while on cam. He posted it on a website humiliating a lot of men and woman nakid and insulting the rest of us. How can I report this guy from the usa being half way around the world. Isnt it ilegal to take our pics and then post it on a website insulting everyone without even our knowledge? help me I need to report this man and stop all the pics from hurting the others.

Joseph says:

I work for a self-service kiosk company and was at Midway airport yesterday. I was taking photos of our units and the check-in desk area (not near or beyond security) when a Chicago Police office approached me telling me that I can’t be taking photos. Knowing how many officers are over zealous I was respectful and this is pretty much what I did…

1) I said I didn’t realize I was unable to take photos
2) I noted that I work for a company who provides airport equipment and showed my business card. I was taking photos of our kiosks and and the check-in desks… talk about alarming.
3) I asked the office to show me a sign where it states that photography is not permitted.

The officer overall was very rude and of course used 9/11 for her reasoning, but she did not once show me any documented proof of her claim that I was unable to take photos. If taking photos in airports is illegal then the airports should provide such documentation or have a sign posted so photographers know. I wasn’t going to argue with the office since I didn’t have any document to support taking photos saying how any public place is fair.

Overall this is getting pretty silly and the government is basically using the jedi mind trick / bullying photographers. There has to be documentation of a law for the people to read and I don’t see anything on photos being illegal. If there is please someone let me know where to find it.

Jim says:

US Copyright law (I have been told) specifically prohibits building design features from being copyrighted. Only the architects’ drawings can be copyrighted.

I love your summary — extremely clear. You did not, however, cover the contentious issue of trademarking buildings. The Empire State Building, the Hollywoodland sign, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame — three of many public buildings, clearly visible from the street, whose owners claim to be able to restrict photography because they have registered a trademark.

You might also want to add a note that the word “commercial” means “advertising”, not “someone paid you for it”. I’ve been accosted by NPS Rangers — twice! — who thought that journalists loose their rights when they accept a paycheck. (Both times were outside, on a public sidewalk.)

Leland says:

Jim Wrote: “You did not, however, cover the contentious issue of trademarking buildings. The Empire State Building, the Hollywoodland sign, the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame — three of many public buildings, clearly visible from the street, whose owners claim to be able to restrict photography because they have registered a trademark.”

My Question: Has anyone tried that one out on a judge?

Erin says:

how do i stop people from taking pr downloading my personal pictures from my wesitre

Leland says:

It’s not possible. Even if you write complexe scripts to disable the right click option, they can still do a screen grab. Your only other option is to not post what you don’t want stolen.

jpppp says:

Taking random pictures at work in Canada, is that allowed? without asking your co-workers permission first?

Roger Krueger says:

Leland: The Rock and Roll Hall of Fame tried it and lost. But this kind of case is frighteningly expensive to defend. The basic routine is they send you a cease and desist, you do exactly what they say because you can’t afford to defend yourself. Who’s right ot wrong has little to do with it, other than that they need a case at least vaguely plausible so as not to get instantly thrown out or awarded fees against.

But, to be clear, I’m talking about selling prints/posters, etc. Merely taking the picture is not remotely a violation of anything for the buildings. I’m not sure what you call the Hollywood sign–could you really call it an architectural work?

Joseph: Cops and private security making up laws about photography is commonplace. With real cops arguinng gets you nowhere–or worse. Climb their chain of command, someone will eventually admit that there is no such law.

Tricia: A long as this was an area where your children had no expectation of privacy, it’s legal. If it was in, say, a fenced backyard, however, someplace not visible from the street, then you do have an invasion case. The fact that they’re children doesn’t change the situation at all

Lawrence: Same as Tricia–was there a reasonable expectation of privacy? Generally speaking, front yard=O.K., back yard=not O.K.

S.: Kids have no more right to not have their picture taken than adults. And I’d love to hear of even a single case where a child was harmed solely because their picture was posted somewhere innocent. Strangers form a tiny percentage of child molestations. Stepdads, uncles, priests, teachers, neighbors–this is where you should be scared, not some stranger seeing pics on a school website.

Ry Ry: Just taking pics of houses is one thing, for book/editorial use you’re probably O.K.,–Todd Hido is an example of someone who shoots other people’s homes–but holding someone up to ridicule is pretty much always actionable.

NONE: says:

I have a guy photographing me outside my office building. There are no smoking signs outside the building, but the building management sent memo’s out to all the offices saying no smoking in front of the building. So this guy is photographing me and videotaping me behind my back to show management I am still smoking there (in front of the building)… BUT IN FRONT OF THE BUILDING I AM OUTSIDE where there is fresh air!
So he is trying to get me to stop smoking there or to get my office kicked out of the building or get me fired. Can he do this? Take photo’s or videos of me without my consent? Then send them to building management to get me in trouble? He does not even work for building management. He is some stupid rich snob. What should I do?

Leland says:

Hey None,

You’re in a public place with no reasonable expectation of privacy. That means you’re busted! Better start smoking in your car or the restroom. Don’t make a mistake and go after the photographer unless you’re on a first name basis with a bail bondsman.

Lolitta says:

I have taken pictures of an ex with permission.. She is now using those pictures on the internet . Do I have any legal rights to prevent her from displaying the glamour shots that I took of her. I am not a perfessional photographer but I am trying to start a porfolio for myself.. The pictures were taken in the state of Missouri.. She says they are pictures of her therefore they are hers to do with as she pleases is she right or do I have rights as the photographer Thanx for your help

Sandra says:

We photographed our sons dance recital as parents (not as professionals which we are) and posted them to our website
password protected. A parent called and demanded that they be removed because the recital was technically a private venue with paid admission, not a public one and that the photos could be viewed by the public. We were charged $3.00 each for a reprint, and the monies were going to the school which is non-profit.

Sandy says:

We are professional photographers that photographed our sons dance recital and posted the pixs to our website. We have a shopping cart and offered reprints at $3 which we planned to donate to the school which is non-profit. A parent called to complain and said the organization checked with their attorney said the because the photos were taken at a paid venue, and not a public one, we were not permitted to post them. Even after reading all of the other posts, I am still not clear, when and where we can shoot and post. We take pixs at the track meets, dances, etc., for fun, sometimes we post them so the parents can see them. Of course, then they want to buy them. This matter is of growing concern, because amatuers are doing this also and posting to.. sites charging $0.12 a print or free, and we wonder what the laws are in this instance. I
have also heard that you cannot photograph children under the age of thirteen without permission because of the child pornography laws, wonder if this is true. Our field is in limbo!
Thanks

youssef says:

good

Dee Dee says:

I have taken action shots at a public sporting event (no admission fee, no invitation) and I would like to use them on my photo business business card. Is this ok?

pam says:

How about this one. I am paid to photograph and produce a publication for sports teams, a “game Program” If I am being paid to produce these books, do I still own the rights to the images? Can I sell them seperately?

Art says:

Today I was stopped by a security guard with the North County Transit District in Solana Beach, California, and prevented from taking photos of a great new train station they have. The guard said they don’t allow it since 9/11. B.S. I’m filing a complaint and am interested in joining any law suits targeting photographers.

Drew says:

I film my buddies on the street and sometimes I like to get peoples reactions, I don’t publish it or anything. Maybe just put it on one hosting site and that’s it. What rights do these people have? Do they have the right to hit my camera?

Leland says:

No one has the right to touch you or your gear. If that happens call the police, file charges and ask the DA for restitution for any damage to your gear.

Klaus says:

I recently photographed a sailing race at the Lake Community where I live. This is a private cummunity, you have to pay dues as part of living in the community. I posted the images on my web site to sell. I asked the club house manager if I could post a flyer stating the images were available. He was not sure if I could sell the photographs because they were taken in a private community. Do I have the right to sell them for personal use?

Liann says:

A professional photographer who is also a parent, took pictures of the children of our school in their classrooms. She got verbal consent from the parents who had not signed media waivers from our school board (TDSB). The intention is to offer CDs of each class for a donation to a charitable school committee. How does she stand legally? Could she potentially be sued by parents who have not signed a specific consent form if images of their particular children are on the CD that other parents have purchased?
Please respond privately! Thanks!!

Raoul Butler says:

This is about silencing independent media, independent uncontrolled opinion will be crushed and out lawed.

Its about removing rights, about owning the visual world, you will find a new form available soon and for some money you will be allowed to take photos for the day in a set zone.

OldGreyWiskers says:

Where does this all play with the news outlets all asking for photos of events from the public. Floods, tornadoes, sorting events where something interesting happened.

What about the clear value of the 9/11 videos showing the crashes and the collapse of the building. These videos are invaluable for the design of new buildings and the understanding the cause of aircraft accidents. For 9/11 it is important there is no evidence that the bad guys took or used any photographs at all.

rr says:

who own’s the photo if someone takes a photo with your camera….or if someone takes a picture of you with your camera…without any prior agreement.

Andrew says:

That’s an easy one — whomever took the photo! (Think of it this way: If I wrote the Great American Novel using your pen and paper, who would own it? Me!)

As for someone taking your picture with your camera, they would own the rights to the photo, but you always own the commercial rights to your image. So it would depend on how the photo was being used.

If they tried to sell your image to an advertising company for use in, say, a new Pepsi ad, you could demand royalties. But if they just published it as part of a portfolio, you have nothing to say.

James says:

Can a show photographer of a horse show ban other photographers from taking photos, when the event is open to the public?

Don says:

We posted photos of some friends and former colleagues on our charity website. They were fully in agreement when we posted these photos, which have been there for a while and show them in a group photo with others. They have now left the charity and are upset and demand we take all photos showing them out of our website. From what I know they cannot demand this as the charity took it with their full consent at the time and they are not the only ones in the photo. Can anyone offer any advice on this one?