Downtown Lens: Your Right to Photograph

Thanks for this informative post. I often have problems with this. Another place where you have the right to take photos, but will often get told not to by uniformed police, are public meetings covered by the brown act. This includes any City Council meeting, or any City Council committee meeting. In fact - you may take photos as long as you are not disrupting the meeting.

If you are stopped you have the ability to render all decisions made during the period you were stopped in null, and every official who continues to participate is guilty of a misdemeanor. I was recently stopped by police from photographing a Santa Monica City Council meeting. When I learned about the right to photograph and emailed the city attorney - they were apologetic and the specific police officer apologized on my next visit. Score!

About 10 years I was going downtown to get some property ownership records from the tax records. I found they wanted to charge you quite a lot per copy if you wanted copies.

Rather than handwrite the names I decided to take my hi8 camera there another time and video tape the records. That way I could review them by simply capturing the video to my computer (this was before digital still cameras and photography film would have been way too expensive.)

They stopped me. Said I couldn't do it. However I kept asking to see the higher ups and reminded them these were public records.

After a few days of calls I remember I was finally told by the some city legal spokesperson that yes I could video tape the public records. I asked for the persons name and number in case I had a problem when I went again. Sure enough when I got there the office personal said I couldn't. So I called the official who had called me and the official spoke to them and they apologized and let me do it.

Saved me a bunch of money and educated some official clerks.

It is interesting however how officials always presume that you cannot photograph things.

Basically if you are allowed to see it with your eyes then you should be able to record or photograph it. Photography is just a time expanded extension of your eyes.

I've been hassled at 7th + Fig taking photos of their Christmas decorations, and I continued taking photos of the property from the sidewalk while their security guard tried to get me to stop. The "9/11 changed everything" argument won't work on me.

The Heron Building security guard hassled me as well when I was grabbing photos to write about a new retail tenant. I was doing them a favor!

Yeah, it's nice to know it isn't just "me".

I have the most issue with photographing "normal people". Normal people are the best because downtown LA is the most insanely diverse group of "normal people" that exists so demographically close to each other. But try to photograph "normal people" and they feel scared - especially the immigrant population obviously. Then I feel bad for making them feel scared. I think documenting "real life" in photographs is one of the coolest things we can do.

Thank you so much for the "downtown lens", its given great pointers and helped me remember to carry my camera around. I take a lot of random downtown photos now and my friends outside downtown have enjoyed viewing them on my facebook page - a simple way to explain to those in doubt about Downtown - that it has immense unique beauty that captures the essence of Los Angeles.

I also have a collection of "as-built" photos of many of these adaptive reuse loft buildings before we gutted them. I wish I could say they are more artistic. They were way too focused on documenting existing crappy conditions instead of taking the time to be more artful. (plus most are are on film now and who has time to deal with film).

I also think it it fantastic that there are SO many people capturing Downtown via lens. It is, with the exception of the 1920's and mid 1970s, THE most interesting and vibrant time in Downtown. Let's capture it!

There have been over the last 8 years special attention given to people who photgraph public transit facilities, i.e. trains and subways. Rent-a-cops around these places REALLY flip out (okay, not all of them, but a small minority) when they see railfans taking pictures. But, this too, is legal to take photos of. The key being PUBLIC transit facilities. I've had guards try to tell me that I can't do it, it's illegal, and I had to school them. Fortunately, I did not get arrested, but they still did not believe what I was saying. Sadly, this is just ignorance. Be on guard and stand up for your rights!

Critical infrastructure is hypersensitive to photography and other intelligence gathering for good reasons -- every single terrorist attack has included onsite visual intelligence gathering of the intended target.

As someone who routinely explores Los Angeles for my images, what I keep in mind are two things:

1) Is the public (or their boss) watching and therefore security feels the need to be seen?

2) Am I in the wrong? That does happen -- being on private property (including non-public sidewalks) without permission or realization you have strayed too far or being in a public space after posted closing hours.

You have to learn to respect security's legitimate role in doing their job while knowing enough to know what the limits of those rights are. For example, even public property owned by municipalities has been licensed for commercial use. Essentially that means you may end up taking a photograph but not having the right to use it commercially. Artistically is, in most instances, a different matter altogether.

My advice is to inform the guards on private property what you intend to do in advance then if they object ask them where their property ends.

If the confrontation escalates once you've left their property, call the police and let them mediate the dispute. You'll make it better for the next person that encounters that guard.

I carry a copy of the photographer's rights. When I am asked not to photograph and I know the security is talking out of his ass I ask him if he wants to see a copy of the photographer's rights... Most of the time they say it won't be necessary. I find also that just sounding cooperative helps a lot. The typical 'come on man.. just a couple of shots and I'm gone' works . I laugh when they ask to see what I photograph. I never hand them anything.

Thanks, Dave. That's very informative, particularly the photographer's bill of rights. I also thought it was just me being paranoid and having bad experiences, but this is obviously a pretty widespread phenomenon. I've had problems outside the US Bank building, of course, and I always have arguments with security guards around Wells Fargo and the surrounding buildings on Bunker Hill. My solution is to go back later or the next day and get my shot. It's the randomness of it all that gets to me. There's no consistency: one minute, a group of tourists will walk by happily snapping away, and the next I get busted to taking one photo. From now on, I'll just ask where the private property in question ends. At least now I know what my rights are. Much appreciated. As for the whole terrorist argument, ever heard of Google Earth and Google Images? Photos of Downtown landmarks are readily available online, if you want them.

I was photographing a protest on a NYC sidewalk, and an NYPD officer put his hand in front of my camera to stop me from taking photos. I laughed and asked if he was kidding. He responded that he had the right to stop me. I attempted to take some shots of his pose with his hand up in front of my lens, but unfortunately the photos didn't come out. I then ignored him and continued to take photos of the event, and fortunately he did not harass me further. Sadly, however, he did not know that one has the right to take photos of events and police officers on the sidewalk and street.

Photographers in California do NOT have bright line right to "photograph what they see in public". In practice, objectors to photographers can cause huge legal troubles for photographers at very little risk, and they do so often. One must calculate how much of a fight one wants to endure for every exposure one captures.

No bright line California precedent cases exist to use to defend one's photography against claims of invasion of privacy. Note Bert Krages' book about photographers rights includes very few case law citations to back up his statements. In the past, the public did not generally believe they could object to photography. In fact, much of the public enjoyed being photographed. That has changed. With the advent of some many publicized cases of celebrities prosecuting commercial use of their likeness, everyone has become a celebrity and lawyer in their own mind and believe that they too have a right to protect their likeness even from non-trade use of the likeness!

In fact, the appellate Judges in the unpublished Smith v. Hance case, (COURT OF APPEAL, FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT, DIVISION ONE, D047471) stated that since cameras did not exist when the constitution was written, the constitution obviously did not grant a right to photograph. Smith was photographing Hance while standing on a public street.

California's Civil Code of Procedure 527.6 is a very low-risk way for a subject of photography to harass and restrain a photographer. This code allows a plaintiff to request a Civil Harassment Restraining Order. There is no statute of limitations for incidents claimed as harassing, no right of jury trial, and since it is a summary procedure, the judge can make up his mind in minutes if he so desires.

If the plaintiff connects with the Judge, the photographer can spend many tens of thousands on trial and appeal court decisions. Think a mother and child complaining that the photographer bothered them.

Below is a scenario under appeal in California:

===========================================

Photography is a weapon?

   A photojournalist for whom "pictures are words"

necessary for optimum communication, overtly created images of the plaintiffs to document, record, and communicate the events of property trespass dispute, code violations, neighbor to neighbor dispute, the plaintiff's intrusion at a gay civil rights rally, and other events of dispute between the parties which has continued for a period of 5 years.

   The plaintiffs complain that the photography in and

of itself were acts of civil harassment. The Judge's order of a civil harassment complaint against the photojournalist mandates him, the defendant, to act to deliver to the local Sheriff Department all copies of images which portray the prevailing plaintiffs of the action.

 In effect, the civil harassment order mandates that

the photojournalist abandon his First Amendment Rights and provide evidence that could be used to incriminate him.

   The plaintiffs demonstrated at trial that they,

while not being serious photojournalists, also used tactical photography in preparation of petitition of the government, however, plaintiff's photography was very often covertly obtained.

 The photojournalist is also enjoined from any future

photography of the plaintiffs whether or not they attempt to perpetrate additional property violations or misdemeanors.

The rationale for this mandate and injunction includes,

and we quote, "You [the photojournalist] use the camera as a weapon".

The judge did not mean that the photojournalist swung

the camera and tripod so as to physically assault the plaintiff. What the judge did mean by adopting this statement from the testimony of the plaintiff apparently is that the camera threatens to disempower an individual on the order that a gun pointed at the subject disables the rightful freewill of the subject. The camera represents the potential to capture its subject in the raw form of the subject with no opportunity for the subject to manipulate, censor, or control the resultant image captured. (Mrs. Plaintiff's court testimony was extreme - the camera was physically demonstrated as an extension of the penis.)

Brandishing a camera is the new crime in germination in

this case. Smith v Hance, the appeal decision of a similar California case found that since cameras did not exist when the Constitution was written, there is no constitutional right to use a camera. However, said decision was not published for precedent so the rules in Califonia remain unclear.

If the Judge's existing orders against the

photojournalist are allowed to stand, the freedom of homeowners, and at large citizens, to use video cameras as legitimate tools preparatory to petition of the government to document and communicate grievances of a continuing or recurring nature will be further chilled and subject to increasing likelihood of needless suppression and prior restraint by the State of California. We believe such chilling is detrimintal to good public policy as it limits the public ability to capture and publish the full truths of our condition.

Each media of communication is particlarly efficient

and apt at communicating particular classes of thoughts and ideas. The produce of cameras - pictures - are uniquely powerful and viscerally direct in ability to communicate certain thoughts, ideas, and emotions of the human condition. State imposed limitation and control of pictures, and the photographer whether amatuer or paid press members, necessarily limits not only the range of human expression but the range of human existance and self awareness - the maximum truth and understanding can not be communicated when the media is of a limited palette. In order to justify such a limitation, the State must show an overriding public need.

In this case, the State has not only failed to meet

this standard, it has not even attempted to consider the need of the public to petition the government with the most powerful tools available, and, the value thereof. The Judge certainly failed to make findings of fact and failed to explain his reasoning in balancing these seemingly competing interests. He simply assumed that each individual has a right to censor images which portray them to the government.

 For this reason we believe this case should be taken

to the appellante level so that the interest of the public to permit use of the best tools of communication for a particular topic versus the interests of the individual to manipulate and control their image can be properly weighed against each other and resolved.

Separate from the large public policy issue are simple errors of the trial court. Errors of logic, of misquoting the photojournalist, and most egregiously of simply fabricating facts to fit a simple model the court created to explain a choice few events of the over all 5 year period.