Thursday, March 12, 2009

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page

I'm still a little hacked off about last night and how I went to two meetings and was asked to put away my video camera. This has happened before. A twitter friend pointed me to this.

Bert P. Krages Attorney at Law Photographer's Rights Page A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography
Thanks! I'm printing it out now.

The Photographer’s Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.

Download The Photographer’s Right in PDF format

A Stand for Photographer’s Rights

The right to take photographs in the United States is being challenged more than ever. People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples have included photographing industrial plants, bridges, buildings, trains, and bus stations. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.

Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well-being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has an established history of contributing to improvements in civil rights, curbing abusive child labor practices, and providing important information to crime investigators. Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. Furthermore, the increase in people carrying small digital and cell phone cameras has resulted in the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of criminals.

As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.


Anonymous said...

Do you have any relatives who insist on taking photos when you don't want to worry about your bad hair day being memorialized forever? It's kind of like that. Or maybe someone is not a public figure and just wants to brainstorm with others without worrying about choosing every word carefully.

It's important to draw a distinction people who are acting in an official capacity and so are "on stage," and those who are not.

Mark Rauterkus said...

Care for the life of our children and their education are not to be treated like a 'bad hair day.'

What too many want to memorialize forever is the 'smokey city legacy' of Pittsburgh.

Not me.

The I.B. Site Selection Committee was sworn to secrecy.

You don't fight that fight and WIN with more secrecy.