Photographers Faced with Confusing Regulations
Tuesday April 22, 2008
Photographers are used to being able to take photos pretty much wherever they go in public. Since the September 11th attacks the world has often been more hostile to photographers but it was still legal to take photos. Now there is a growing wave of entities requiring permits for photography. While needing a permit isn't a big deal, it turns out that trying to get a straight answer about needing one is.
The vast majority of private amateur photography needs no permits at any location. However, some venues are beginning to insist that semi-pro photographers fall under commercial photography even if it might be only one image sold to a local newspaper. Almost no public venues (baseball stadiums, aquariums, zoos, public lands, etc) have photography rules posted at entries. Many do not even have them posted on the back of tickets (a practice I personally abhor because you are not informed of the regulations until you have already purchased the ticket). Most venues bury their photography regulations under "media" or "newsroom" headings on their websites even though media and commercial photography are two vastly different things. While full-time professional photographers know this is the practice, it is a major pitfall for amateurs with hopes of selling images or semi-professional photographers who don't know where to look. To add to the confusion, some venues consider the possibility one of two pics sold no big deal and happily grant permission to photograph while other venues demand the same fees the would impose on a full-scale movie crew (thousands of dollars an hour to film).
Also, many venues do not even know what their own regulations require. A recent article in the Calgary Herald outlines what happened to Robert Berdan when taking photos in Kananaskis Country. A park officer watched him take bear photos and then decided to ask if Mr. Berdan ever sold photos and if he had a permit. Mr. Berdan was later given a free permit for the year but had to purchase $2 million dollars worth of liability insurance at a cost of $600. Mr. Berdan was no random photographer. He had been taking photos in Kananaskis Country a long time and even had photos for sale in the official store in Kananaskis. Still, no one had ever mentioned the policy to him before. The Department of Toursim for the area is trying to sort out the regulation to make it more clear that it affects only large commercial filming ventures (think Wild Kingdom or Jeff Corwin) and not local freelance photographers.
The DCist points out a case where an Amtrack station manager told a photographer that all photography is forbidden while an Amtrack media representative advised that photography certainly is allowed and the station manager was wrong. The problem in this case is that the station manager and their employees are the ones telling people to delete images. Photographers don't have the media folks available to back them up on site. If company employees don't know the regulations how are photographers expected to know them?
Even some cities have run afoul of the confusion. Mooresville, Alabama has a popular historic district where amateurs, semi-pros, and professional photographers regularly photograph the outside of public historic buildings. However, according to the First Amendment Center, a recent policy change that requires portrait photographers to purchase permits for $500 has some city employees confused. A policy that was supposed to prevent the lawns in front of historic buildings from being damaged by crowds of photographic subjects and protect tourists from being blocked from historic areas by portrait photographers and their subjects left some employees thinking it meant ANY photography required a $500 permit. One employee went so far as to serve photographer Don Broome with a violation of the policy before the issue was addressed. However, at least Mooresville makes the policy easy to find on their website now (again, if you know to go to the website to look) with the policy link prominently displayed on the home page.
These are only a few examples of the confusion in photography permits and regulations. As more and more family venues adopt these types of policies (and effectively hide them from visitors), more and more photographers are going to have run-ins with authorities on this issue. For now, there is nothing that forces these venues to post their policies in an accessible manner so it is photographer beware. Be smart and surf the web or call ahead to ensure the next venue you visit is photographer friendly.
The vast majority of private amateur photography needs no permits at any location. However, some venues are beginning to insist that semi-pro photographers fall under commercial photography even if it might be only one image sold to a local newspaper. Almost no public venues (baseball stadiums, aquariums, zoos, public lands, etc) have photography rules posted at entries. Many do not even have them posted on the back of tickets (a practice I personally abhor because you are not informed of the regulations until you have already purchased the ticket). Most venues bury their photography regulations under "media" or "newsroom" headings on their websites even though media and commercial photography are two vastly different things. While full-time professional photographers know this is the practice, it is a major pitfall for amateurs with hopes of selling images or semi-professional photographers who don't know where to look. To add to the confusion, some venues consider the possibility one of two pics sold no big deal and happily grant permission to photograph while other venues demand the same fees the would impose on a full-scale movie crew (thousands of dollars an hour to film).
Also, many venues do not even know what their own regulations require. A recent article in the Calgary Herald outlines what happened to Robert Berdan when taking photos in Kananaskis Country. A park officer watched him take bear photos and then decided to ask if Mr. Berdan ever sold photos and if he had a permit. Mr. Berdan was later given a free permit for the year but had to purchase $2 million dollars worth of liability insurance at a cost of $600. Mr. Berdan was no random photographer. He had been taking photos in Kananaskis Country a long time and even had photos for sale in the official store in Kananaskis. Still, no one had ever mentioned the policy to him before. The Department of Toursim for the area is trying to sort out the regulation to make it more clear that it affects only large commercial filming ventures (think Wild Kingdom or Jeff Corwin) and not local freelance photographers.
The DCist points out a case where an Amtrack station manager told a photographer that all photography is forbidden while an Amtrack media representative advised that photography certainly is allowed and the station manager was wrong. The problem in this case is that the station manager and their employees are the ones telling people to delete images. Photographers don't have the media folks available to back them up on site. If company employees don't know the regulations how are photographers expected to know them?
Even some cities have run afoul of the confusion. Mooresville, Alabama has a popular historic district where amateurs, semi-pros, and professional photographers regularly photograph the outside of public historic buildings. However, according to the First Amendment Center, a recent policy change that requires portrait photographers to purchase permits for $500 has some city employees confused. A policy that was supposed to prevent the lawns in front of historic buildings from being damaged by crowds of photographic subjects and protect tourists from being blocked from historic areas by portrait photographers and their subjects left some employees thinking it meant ANY photography required a $500 permit. One employee went so far as to serve photographer Don Broome with a violation of the policy before the issue was addressed. However, at least Mooresville makes the policy easy to find on their website now (again, if you know to go to the website to look) with the policy link prominently displayed on the home page.
These are only a few examples of the confusion in photography permits and regulations. As more and more family venues adopt these types of policies (and effectively hide them from visitors), more and more photographers are going to have run-ins with authorities on this issue. For now, there is nothing that forces these venues to post their policies in an accessible manner so it is photographer beware. Be smart and surf the web or call ahead to ensure the next venue you visit is photographer friendly.
Comments
I was once stopped by a security guard because I was taking a picture of “his building” from a public street. I complained in writing to his employer, the world headquarters of a very large insurance company and was told they would re-educate their security guards.
There is a good resource ” The Photographer’s Right” available here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
“The general rule in the United States
is that anyone may take photographs
of whatever they want when they are
in a public place or places where they
have permission to take photographs.
Absent a specific legal prohibition
such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs.”
I have had many problems with security as it relates to photography. I know 8 out of 10 times when I go out, I can expect that black round ball of a security camera to be scoping me out, and then expect 5 min later to have a badge toting 22 year old or a 65 year old to be telling me, “your not allowed to do that here”. I was very discreet, and planned out my direct rout to the location to shoot some night trailing lights of the freeway traffic. I positioned myself on a busy Saturday night at the top of an open parking structure overlooking the 405 freeway. I made my camera selections and had my camera on the tripod with cable release all ready. I walked to my position got off about 5 shots before this large strapping guy comes out in a yellow jacket and says to me, excuse me. I felt someone’s presence after the 5th shot, I gathered up my tripod and began walking right as he approached me. He said what are you doing. Of course I had my boilerplate answer ready for him, as I had learned to anticipate this as it is a scenario which plays itself out almost every time I try to go and photograph anything in Orange County. If it’s not security, it’s the cops. I said, I was photographing traffic trails for a art project. He said well you can’t be on the property to do that. As I looked around the only other place which I had not noticed was a small bridge over the 405. Usually however I’d been use to seeing fencing up on overpasses so it didn’t occur to me. He followed me to my car, I never stopped walking. I was very friendly to the guy. I asked him if this was his full time job or he was a student, (I was much older then he) so I approached it like I was an older friend talking to the guy. He said you can use the bridge to take photos. I said ok, thanks for the tip. He said do you have any ID or business card; apparently he wanted to see if I was legit. I showed him the photos on my camera, which where stellar of course. I said they came out nine-year? He said yes, so I showed him a card. I said would you like to keep my card in case you ever need a photographer? He laughed and said thanks, but no. Have a nice night.
Not all my encounters go this well.
I’ve been on public beaches here in Orange County, and photographing the ocean, people of course are in the foreground, I tried to photograph them as they where turned away, some girls started making an uproar about me photographing on the beach and told me I can’t photograph them. I said, I am not photographing them specifically, and even if I was we are on a public beach and anyone can photograph anyone else without breaking the law. Of course they had to get their pack of 6-8 friends involved including large muscle heads, I eventually left but not before standing my ground among the cackling voices of 22 year olds.
I get a lot of staring and gawking when I go out to do my location photography. I especially love it when I am composing a shot and I notice the reflection of people standing to my side or behind me from the LCD monitor in the back of my camera, It’s like someone moving when your in the middle of your downward golf swing. So, I pull away and let them pass.
I remember once getting questioned by the Newport police because I was composing a night shot, the reflections of the lights and large yachts’ in the harbor under a full moon. I had my camera on its tripod; my brother was a few yards back parked in his SUV. I got out and began to compose my shot, but not 5 min. later the cops came up on us, put on their lights and began the interrogation. What are you doing, why are you hear, do you live here, treating us as criminals. I must say however the cop most likely saw the out of town license plate frame of my brother’s SUV as he was visiting from central Ca. I wanted to show him the harbor and take a few shots, but we where the one’s who got the surprise. He let us go, and said, do you know where the nearest freeway is from here, we said yes…he said if I where you that is where I’d go. Nice guy…
And of course I have dozens of other such stories but I’ll wait for another day.
Happy shooting.
Some places like New York displace a sign “No pictures”. It means that if you take videos or if the pictures you are taking are moving, it’s OK. But if the pictures stop moving you can get arrested. I wrote about it few years ago and the sign was changed in many bridges in New York City to “No pictures, No Videos”. This is what I’m doing when I take my street art pictures. I pretend to take videos and people pose for me but if I take pictures they call 911 or give me that hate look. Digital video cameras take more information than any regular cameras. Why photographers are targeted and Digital video makers are accepted by normal people?
People are getting the wrong idea about photographers from spy movies and that’s why we are paying the price.
Isn’t it interesting that people engaged in an honest, harmless pursuit are harrassed by the police and other people, but real terrorists are allowed or even encouraged in this “free” country? Our nation has collectively lost its mind.
This is really confusing. I wonder how people feel they can inforce policies when they don’t tell you?
I was really surprised when Visiting the Columbus art mus. where they have a sign saying photography was allowed, just please, no flash!