Photographic Permits, Permission, and You Can't Publish That!

Photographic Permits, Permission, and You Can't Publish That!
by Robert Monaghan

Related Links:
Copyright Law and Photography.. (Philip Stripling)
Legal Assistance ONLINE - copyrights, trademarks, etc.
PACA list of places you can't photo w/o release in USA..
Photographers Guide to Privacy [7/2001]
Photographer's Rights (ACLU Photographer's Rights Card) [2/2003]
Rock and Roll hall of Fame
Rock and Roll hall of fame case [Photogr. won on appeal]
Travel Photography and athe Law [11/2002]

Want to take some photos of the Palace of Versailles outside Paris for your portfolio? That'll be $5,000 US for a permit to do so! Ouch!!
Plan on taking amateur photos of the Taj Mahal using a tripod? You did get the required permit from the Archeological Society of India beforehand, didn't you? ;-)
The following posts relate to the somewhat surprising degree to which you and I can be charged for taking photographs in seemingly public places in even civilized countries (e.g., London's Parks).
In the USA, you can generally take photos of and from public places, provided they do not invade somebody's privacy (e.g., long lens at a bedroom window) where there was or is a reasonable expectation of privacy.
You can't always sell, use or publish such photos. A famous example is the Rock and Roll Hall of Fame, which has trademarked its unique facade. You will also find some cities have trademarked their skylines, some companies have trademarked their distinctive building exteriors, and so on. Some museums and other distinctive buildings have also copyrighted or trademarked aspects of their identity. So you can't compete with them in publishing such images on coffe mugs, bags, or other objects nor in books.
As for art-work and sculpture, you may encounter problems with permission for use there too. The likeness and image may be copyrighted and owned by the sculptor or artist, or assigned to the owner(s) or other holders.
So while you may take such photos in public for your own use and enjoyment, you may not be able to use them in publication (including online).
But if your purpose is editorial commentary, the above restrictions may be waived in light of the broader public interests of such free speech issues. But if you are a photojournalist, you presumably already know this!
However, if you are using photography to poke fun at someone, or comment negatively on some physical or personal attribute - watch out! You may waive any protections you may think you have under your free speech exemptions.
Similarly, a pro-Nazi site aimed at promoting racial hatred might be protected in the USA, but subject to prosecution in Germany.
I won't pretend to have the answers as to what is and what is not permissible to photograph or which photographs may be published. You can start by making discreet inquiries of the museum, building, city, or other site offices. You can hire an attorney to research into the issues, or to provide answers as to your rights and limitations in use of your photographs for publication and so on (and to defend those rights).
The Legal Assistance Online site has useful information about these issues, as well as summaries of relevant cases and useful links.
Some professional groups such as the ASMP have publications with brief guides to copyright and trademark law issues, and related legal photographic issues. There are a few books which cover these issues too, but most are rapidly outdated or only cover the USA and not foreign sources.
The issue at foreign sites is even more diverse, which is one reason the following thread and posts may be both interesting and useful!
My real purpose here is to highlight the surprising and rarely discussed limitations on our ability to take and use our photographs - as amateurs or professionals - without being harassed or paying exorbitant fees and fighting unnecessary bureaucracy.

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 13:17:55 -0800 From: "M. Denis Hill" denis@thehillgroup.com Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au I've been chased from the Trocadero in Paris for shooting with a RoundShot on a tripod sans permit. The next day, when I went to the palace at Versailles, I investigated the price of a permit: $5000 per day! It seems, in France, that an amateur can't use a tripod, and a professional must pay through the nose. I learned that an amateur cannot get a permit, even if willing to pay the price. C'est ca, mes amis! -- M. Denis Hill | Area 360 Communications | Coupeville, Whidbey Island, Washington, USA 360-202-6373 | mailto:denis@area360.com | http://www.area360.com Documentation, photography, marketing communications

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:35:38 -0500 From: gbraun@mitre.org (Gary A. Braun) Subject: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au I'm planning a trip to India and discovered that I also need to have a permit from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to use a tripod at such sites as the Taj Mahal and other historic locations. I don't know what the permit would cost, but in any case I don't have the time on my schedule to visit the ASI office in New Delhi. I'm hoping that I can purchase a permit at the Taj directly (or pay a little "baksheesh" if anyone hassles me.) Has anyone had any experiences with this in India? Gary At 1:17 PM -0800 1/25/99, M. Denis Hill wrote: >I've been chased from the Trocadero in Paris for shooting with a RoundShot >on a tripod sans permit. The next day, when I went to the palace at >Versailles, I investigated the price of a permit: $5000 per day! > >It seems, in France, that an amateur can't use a tripod, and a >professional must pay through the nose. I learned that an amateur cannot >get a permit, even if willing to pay the price. > >C'est ca, mes amis! >-- >M. Denis Hill | Area 360 Communications | Coupeville, Whidbey Island, >Washington, USA >360-202-6373 | mailto:denis@area360.com | http://www.area360.com >Documentation, photography, marketing communications

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 17:17:26 -0800 From: M Tyler mtyler@wfubmc.edu Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l Listserv Perhaps they just take you picture (of you holding your camera) to verify that this was the activity you were partaking in (would they also need to pay the fee??). Or, do you actually have to have film in the camera? Sheet film cameras often do not have film in them (except for the moment of exposure)!! What happens if you decide that you do not wish to acutally take pictures on that day? Do they have rules for video cameras from tourists? Humm, how about digital cameras - no film there! Do you pay a seperate fee if you take one pictue in each of 10 parks in a day? Could be an expensive day. What if none of the images (later) have no commercial value - then perhaps, on that day, you were just a tourist? ;*) MTyler Charles Tait wrote: > > Having worked all over the place I think this is VERY cheeky indeed. > Sort of like parking wardens for photographers. Do the Thought Police > in the parks carry guns? This kind of idea just would not work in > creaky old UK. > > Charles -- /--------------------------------------------------- | Marshall E. Tyler, CRA, FOPS | MailTo:MTyler@wfubmc.edu http://www.wfubmc.edu/eye | Ophthalmic Photography: Saine & Tyler | http://www.wfubmc.edu/eye/book | Wake Forest University Eye Center | Winston-Salem, NC 27157-1033 USA \---------------------------------------------------

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 16:10:37 -0800 From: kathjeff@pacbell.net Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Having worked for the National Park service for the last 25 years, I pulled the latest memo on Still Photography dated May 1, 1998. It states: The National Park Service encourages all still photography, including activities requiring tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. It does not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere, or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit. Permits are required when the photographer involves product or service advertisement, and the use of models, sets, or props, or when such photography could result in damage to the resources or significant disruption of normal visitor uses. Keep in mind, this policy is for U.S. Dept of Interior, National Park Service. I have not experienced any such problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. The original policy originated by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, back in 1990, and is still in effect! This entire policy was outlined in Panorama magazine sometime ago. There are special regs concerning tripods on the marbel floors of the Lincoln Memorial, and other monuments in and around Washington D.C. Hope this helps if you visit the National Parks. Jeff Weisenburger Mitchell P. Warner wrote: > All, please forgive the forwarding of a msg, but I thought you might like > to know.... > > >Approved-By: "P.J. Heller" > >Newsgroups: bit.listproc.stockphoto > >Date: Sun, 24 Jan 1999 23:49:24 -0800 > >Reply-To: "P.J. Heller" > >Sender: The STOCKPHOTO Stock Photography Network > > >From: "P.J. Heller" > >Subject: Santa Barbara Soap > >To: STOCKPHOTO@PEACH.EASE.LSOFT.COM > > > >Just thought I'd see what my fellow list members think about the latest > >news from Santa Barbara, especially in light of the discussion here about > >permit fees in national parks. > > > >Santa Barbara officials have dusted off a 10-year-old measure that requires > >photographers to get a permit in order to shoot in any city park -- or at > >any city landmark. > > > >There are three different scenarios: > > > >Editorial Photo/Film Shoots -- No fees or permits required if you're > >shooting for news, features or editorial usage. > > > >Free-lance editorial shoot -- No fee or permit required IF you agree to > >share ALL your work and publication rights with the city (parks and rec > >dept.) If you don't agree, it will cost you $258 each time you shoot in the > >park. This policy is aimed at photographers who are shooting for calendars, > >books or postcards. > > > >Commercial shoot -- Submit an application, provide proof of insurance and > >pay the $258 fee and you can get a permit. > > > >SB officials claim that other cities, including LA, San Francisco, and San > >Diego all charge for shooting in the parks. > > > >Just curious about what others have run into and how they've handled it. > > > >PJHeller > > > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > To Search through Archives of Past STOCKPHOTO Discussions > >Visit The STOCKPHOTO Network Web Site => http://www.stockphoto.net > >------------------------------------------------------------------ > > > In-Depth Photography: GUAM > On the Land, In the Air, Underwater, Everywhere! > HomePage: > PostCards:

Date: Mon, 25 Jan 1999 15:38:58 -0800 From: Jesse Goff jesse@goffphoto.com Subject: Re: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au I have had trouble with this all over the place. Unfortunately sometimes the best practice is to dress like a tourist, put equipment into backpack, use very small fast tripod and move very fast. Only because many times getting a permit in a forgeign country can be a BIG pain in the ass. In mexico last year I was working for UNESCO doing panos of UNESCO world heritage sites with appropiate paperwork and full-blown photographic working visa and they still wouldn't let me in. (The frickin' jerks) So I went back and pretended to be a tourist with a duffel bag and got the shot. A man's gotta do what a man's gotta do... // >I'm planning a trip to India and discovered that I also need to have a >permit from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to use a tripod at such >sites as the Taj Mahal and other historic locations. I don't know what the >permit would cost, but in any case I don't have the time on my schedule to >visit the ASI office in New Delhi. I'm hoping that I can purchase a permit >at the Taj directly (or pay a little "baksheesh" if anyone hassles me.) >Has anyone had any experiences with this in India? > >Gary > > >At 1:17 PM -0800 1/25/99, M. Denis Hill wrote: >>I've been chased from the Trocadero in Paris for shooting with a RoundShot >>on a tripod sans permit. The next day, when I went to the palace at >>Versailles, I investigated the price of a permit: $5000 per day! >> >>It seems, in France, that an amateur can't use a tripod, and a >>professional must pay through the nose. I learned that an amateur cannot >>get a permit, even if willing to pay the price. >> >>C'est ca, mes amis! >>-- >>M. Denis Hill | Area 360 Communications | Coupeville, Whidbey Island, >>Washington, USA >>360-202-6373 | mailto:denis@area360.com | http://www.area360.com >>Documentation, photography, marketing communications | J e s s e G o f f P h o t o g r a p h y | 1 0 9 M i n n a S t r e e t # 4 2 8 | S a n F r a n c i s c o, C A 9 4 1 0 5 | w w w . g o f f p h o t o . c o m | s t u d i o : 4 1 5 7 7 7 3 7 0 0

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:12:19 +0000 From: Charles Tait charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Hi David H Quackenbush wrote: > Hi, > This is another example of a local ordinance that flys in the face of > the common law. As long as the governing bodies allow free access to a > given venue, then whatever the public does inside this venue cannot be > restricted (excepting criminal actions). I bet that somewhere in the Constitution of the Santa Barbara Parks Authority (or whatever it is called) there is a specific mention about what is allowed or not and that this charge will be found to be if not illegal, unconstitutional. > > The privilege of taking photographs or of making pencil drawings or just > writing your impressions on a piece paper cannot be taxed or restricted. > Unless of course you live in China or Cuba. I suspect that it is all free in Cuba, though perhaps not for US citizens? Friends who have been there say that the Cubans are all very polite and friendly even though things are tough there. Charles Tait > > > Regards, David Quackenbush > > ___________________________________________________________________ > You don't need to buy Internet access to use free Internet e-mail. > Get completely free e-mail from Juno at http://www.juno.com/getjuno.html > or call Juno at (800) 654-JUNO [654-5866]

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:57:40 +0000 From: Charles Tait charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Permits for tripods To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Hi there Ron Klein wrote: > Now let me get this straight, > > I hear a lot of people complaining about photographic restrictions but > nobody seems to be doing much about it. The situation is only going to get > worse for photographers or anyone interested in personal freedom. But who > is at fault? > > Obviously WE ONLY HAVE GOOD INTENTIONS when we are doing our thing. But > it becomes a thin line to the government bureaucrats that must manage a > resource so 350 million idiots can enjoy it. How many times have you been > to a favorite public place and seen it totally trashed by some Bozo? > Quite agree > > I'm not condoning regulations that are hastily made or the overzealous park > ranger. But it seems that there are not too many options for the officials > approaching you demanding fees or explanations. You are either going to be > greeted by someone who believes they are just doing the "right thing", or by > a flaming nature nazi on a power trip. > > Believe me, I've had a few rounds with the enemy, and here is some advice: > > 1. Smile a lot and act stupid !!! This will buy you time. Never get mad. > You might even convince them that you are not professional just by the way > you are dressed or handle your gear. > If you are too scruffy they may take you for some kind of undesirable. No flashy cases, new cameras, etc > > 2. Learn the art of camouflage. Keep your gear under wraps. Haul it around > in paper bags from Safeway. Use an ugly beater tripod. Make everything > look like you are having a picnic until you are ready for the kill. IF > you have kids, bring them along. > I carry my RZ in a very scruffy old green bag that looks like a fishing bag (it is). It never elicits any comment. Take the small automatic camera too and take family pix along the way. My wife often takes part in this to good effect. (watch the Japanese on holiday). Have the picnic too... > > 3. Don't volunteer any information as to what you are doing. Who ever you > are working for is your concern NOT THEIRS. Remind them that it is none of > their business. > I always say that I am an amateur on holiday. My 12 year old car helps too. People seem to think that professional photographers are rich. Another approach is to be that of the interested amateur historian, archaeologist, botanist, bird watcher, etc. It often works well. > > 4. When challenged about taking photographs, Ask where the sign is that > prohibits you from working. It seems to me, if it is a law then it needs to > be posted like keep off the grass, NO PARKING, or PERMIT REQUIRED. If it > is truely official it will have the statute quoted as well. Some signs are > fake, posted by groundskeepers and not legal. > I doubt that these signs really ever mean much on public property. Private is perhaps different, but not in areas open to the public, paying or not. > > 5. Always get the name of the person bothering you. Hand them your business > card and ask for their I.D. right off the bat. If you want to harass them, > begin taking notes on a yellow legal pad. Start by asking a lot of > questions and writing down the comments. It helps to have an assistant for > a witness. Don't be in a hurry, you can really enjoy this. Be sure to > photograph them and tell them it is for evidence. > I once had a customer who refused to pay a bill depot all sorts of warnings. Eventually he had a job as a security person at the P&O ferry terminal here. He was very rude and abusive to another photographer who he took for me. A small complained by the latter lost the former his job which was quite sweet. Many of these employees are scared stiff of their bosses, and thus take things out on their customers. This is not nice and leaves a bad impression. Stay calm and collected and certainly polite. At the last resort ask for the name of their superior, and get in touch with them. Normally I have found all of these people to be courteous, but they do have rules and jobsworth can apply. > > 6. Don't forget to point out anyone else taking pictures near by and ask > them what they are going to do about it. It might help to use a decoy > photographer to take attention off of yourself. If you are working as a > team, chances are that one of you will get the shot before being chased > away. > H'm. They will see what is going on and this will make it much worse for other photographers. It is important not to put photographers into disrepute like this. > > 7. Threaten to sue. If you got money, you'll probably win. There are > certain basic rights being violated and with a good lawyer....... > "They" will have more money (lots more), better lawyers and vast patience. You will also get onto a little black list maybe. > > Now if you really want to get what you want, volunteer to help in the park. > Clean off grafitti, rake leaves, do what ever It takes. By doing something > good for them, they are going to return the favor. Maybe all they want are > some of your pictures. That's a cheap way to get what you want. Remember, > this way it is official, and they might even hire you for more work someday. > Staff who have been difficult can be turned around completely by kindness like this. > > I guess it all depends on what you want and what kind of hurry you are in > to get it. But a little goodness goes a long way. Our parks really do need > our help and you can't beat them all the time. This all goes back to > building your reputation as a "professional" photographer. > > Now go out and make great pan pictures. Just try to ignore the bastards. > > What else can I say. Right now we have very long winter nights here in > Alaska and there is not much more to do than complain. > > having fun with ya, > > Ron Klein Ah well the days are getting longer, and soon it will be "summer". Charles

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:07:04 +0000 From: Charles Tait charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Hi there The same applies in UK, but the permission does not cost anything, at least I have never paid. Realistically a small fee would be OK, as all these monuments do need to be maintained. Having done a lot of work on ancient monuments I can well understand why the authorities need to control "professionals". Film and TV crews are normally particularly intrusive and arrogant (not all are I hasten to add). The advantage of official permission is invariably helpful and enthusiastic staff at sites, help regarding access and perhaps access to closed areas. This all works as long as the photographers stick to the often arcane rules (which are often bent). What is most important is to realize that when we take photos of these places we must not impinge too much on the pleasure of others who are visiting the site, and also that the protection of the site is far more important that any photo that may or may not be achieved that day. "Gary A. Braun" wrote: > I'm planning a trip to India and discovered that I also need to have a > permit from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to use a tripod at such > sites as the Taj Mahal and other historic locations. I don't know what the > permit would cost, but in any case I don't have the time on my schedule to > visit the ASI office in New Delhi. I'm hoping that I can purchase a permit > at the Taj directly (or pay a little "baksheesh" if anyone hassles me.) > Has anyone had any experiences with this in India? > Why not speak with the Embassy? And anyway do you really need to use a big tripod? My little Gitzo attracts almost no attention as it looks spindly I suppose but supports quite large cameras OK. > > Gary > > At 1:17 PM -0800 1/25/99, M. Denis Hill wrote: > >I've been chased from the Trocadero in Paris for shooting with a RoundShot > >on a tripod sans permit. The next day, when I went to the palace at > >Versailles, I investigated the price of a permit: $5000 per day! > > I have never had a problem in Paris. Maybe playing the I'm Scottish card is a useful one. > > >It seems, in France, that an amateur can't use a tripod, and a > >professional must pay through the nose. I learned that an amateur cannot > >get a permit, even if willing to pay the price. > > > >C'est ca, mes amis! > >-- > >M. Denis Hill | Area 360 Communications | Coupeville, Whidbey Island, > >Washington, USA > >360-202-6373 | mailto:denis@area360.com | http://www.area360.com > >Documentation, photography, marketing communications Usually these petty officials can be placated by gentle soothing that I am a tourist spending money in your country and the photos are simply for our own personal memories. On the other hand you could get one of these Mamiya 7 cameras which look like they come out of the ark, but are excellent (and light). C'est la vie... Charles Tait

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 10:43:28 +0000 From: Charles Tait charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk Subject: Re: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Hi there We have a good word for them in UK. He is called PC-plod. Usually this sort of thing works as their minds plod so slowly that they think if at all very slowly too. Beware the intelligent cop - he has a radar gun and breathalyser with him, and they are both aimed at you. In other words the bright ones are really no threat at all because they just want to get you anyway. Being nice usually works... Charles Simon Nathan wrote: > dear bob- whatever year the brooklyn bridge was birthdaying its 75th i > borrowed coast guard boat and crew for time coverage from the water. > east river is where i plunked down. this way i could relocate at will. > rent-a-cop came and said commander had ordered all press out of the > area. coast guard man replied "we're not press we are coast guard." > nearby tv crew, asked to leave, said "ok, then we're not press, we are > documentarians." cop-temp scratched his head going back to see the > commander." simon nathan > > Robert J. Lang or Hope Conley Lang wrote: > >> I had my #8 Cirkut on some New York City property near the Brooklyn >> Bridge, >> and was given a bit of a hard time over a permit by some city >> semi-policeman. Fortuneately he kept mentioning that it was near >> lunchtime >> and how hungry he was. So I took the hint and paid for lunch. End >> of >> problem. In New York the palm always faces the sky and it's cheaper >> to >> cross it with green than to get a permit. Besides I'd rather give >> the >> bucks to the city worker than to the thieving politicians. >> >> Bob >

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 12:41:08 +0100 From: VarrF3Norbert varron@bbrt.hu Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Soap To: "'panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au'" Sorry to disagree. You do need a permit to photograph in London parks like the Botanical Garden and as far as I know in some public parks also. Big Brother was thought of first in Britain after all... Norbert > ---------- > From: Charles Tait[SMTP:charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 9:51 PM > To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au > Subject: Re: Santa Barbara Soap > > Having worked all over the place I think this is VERY cheeky indeed. > Sort of like parking wardens for photographers. Do the Thought Police > in the parks carry guns? This kind of idea just would not work in > creaky old UK. > > Charles >

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 13:02:40 +0100 From: VarrF3Norbert varron@bbrt.hu Subject: RE: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: "'panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au'" Two years ago you could purchase a photo permit at the entrance of Taj Mahal. I don't remember the exact prite . The first two hours of the morning they will let you for sg. like 15 dollars. Well worth it, most people will stay away and not stick in your picture. Take the fast train from Delhi - do NOT go by car or taxi - it takes 6-8 hours of constant fear for your life. The Taj is closed on Mondays. Use gray card - the Taj is very white indeed. Good luck. Norbert > ---------- > From: gbraun@mitre.org[SMTP:gbraun@mitre.org] > Sent: Monday, January 25, 1999 10:35 PM > To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au > Subject: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) > > I'm planning a trip to India and discovered that I also need to have a > permit from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to use a tripod at > such > sites as the Taj Mahal and other historic locations. I don't know > what the > permit would cost, but in any case I don't have the time on my > schedule to > visit the ASI office in New Delhi. I'm hoping that I can purchase a > permit > at the Taj directly (or pay a little "baksheesh" if anyone hassles > me.) > Has anyone had any experiences with this in India? > > Gary > > > At 1:17 PM -0800 1/25/99, M. Denis Hill wrote: > >I've been chased from the Trocadero in Paris for shooting with a > RoundShot > >on a tripod sans permit. The next day, when I went to the palace at > >Versailles, I investigated the price of a permit: $5000 per day! > > > >It seems, in France, that an amateur can't use a tripod, and a > >professional must pay through the nose. I learned that an amateur > cannot > >get a permit, even if willing to pay the price. > > > >C'est ca, mes amis! > >-- > >M. Denis Hill | Area 360 Communications | Coupeville, Whidbey Island, > >Washington, USA > >360-202-6373 | mailto:denis@area360.com | http://www.area360.com > >Documentation, photography, marketing communications >

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 08:32:57 -0600 From: Robert Erickson bob@panoramic.net Subject: Re: Permits for tripods (Was: Santa Barbara Soap) To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au "I'm planning a trip to India and discovered that I also need to have a permit from the Archeological Survey of India (ASI) to use a tripod at such sites as the Taj Mahal and other historic locations." I am a photo theif and proud of it. The tripod trick that I use is to set up everything off to the side away from the eyes of the guards. Then walk to the spot, plant the tripod, level, shoot, and then move along. Before beening seen I have my shot. If I want to shoot again I walk back to the spot and repete. I tell my photo students to carry a bean bag to holding their camera steady for doing travel photos. I have a bunch of clamps that use to attach my camera to found items like chairs, poles, railings, fences, etc. Also, look for natural accuring "tripods" like flat horizontal places to set the camera on, walls to hold the camera against, and simply holding your breath and being as still as you can. I even have a clamp system that allows me to shoot stadium shots with a cirkut camera without a tripod. Bob

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 18:09:52 +0000 From: Jim Dunn jimmyd@dial.pipex.com Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Soap To: charles.tait@zetnet.co.uk, panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au > > Having worked all over the place I think this is VERY cheeky indeed. > Sort of like parking wardens for photographers. Do the Thought Police > in the parks carry guns? This kind of idea just would not work in > creaky old UK. > > Charles > Unfortunately it does happen in the UK...at least in the city parks in Scotland anyway. There was a small article a couple of weeks ago in the British Journal of Photography, about Aberdeen parks charging a not inconsiderable sum to wedding photographers for using the parks as a background. In Glasgow parks I have been asked on a number of occasions by gardeners if I have permission to take photographs. On the subject of permission, a company has formed in the UK called Dead Famous to fight for the rights of families of, you guest it, famous dead people. Apparently in the UK you don't need permission to use images of dead people for advertising purposes, as you do in the USA? ............................................................ Jimmy Dunn Scottish Stock Photography E-mail: jimmyd@dial.pipex.com ............................................................

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 20:39 +0000 (GMT) From: petermarshall@cix.co.uk (Peter Marshall) Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au > Sorry to disagree. > You do need a permit to photograph in London parks like the Botanical > Garden and as far as I know in some public parks also. > > Big Brother was thought of first in Britain after all... > > Norbert You don't normally need a permit for photography in any parks in London; the situation is much like the statement for the US National Parks that Jeff quoted. If you want to do commercial work involving models etc then you will need a permit. I have regularly taken students in to our Botanical Gardens at Kew. The only restriction I've found is on the use of tripods in busy areas in the glasshouses - and these are allowed at times when there are few visitors. There are problems for photographers in those properties owned by the National Trust in the UK. Also, though largely theoretically, on railway property. Peter Marshall On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations & The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/

Date: Tue, 26 Jan 1999 16:55:17 -0500 From: "Robert J. Lang or Hope Conley Lang" bobhope@worldnet.att.net Subject: Re: Permits for tripods To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au At 08:51 PM 1/25/99 -0900, Ron Klein wrote: >Now if you really want to get what you want, volunteer to help in the park. >Clean off grafitti, rake leaves, do what ever It takes. By doing something >good for them, they are going to return the favor. Maybe all they want are >some of your pictures. That's a cheap way to get what you want. Remember, >this way it is official, and they might even hire you for more work someday. > >having fun with ya, > >Ron Klein > This is a really good idea. I was a volunteer photo instructor in the New York State Parks on Long Island for quite a few years, and as part of the program I not only got to take all the photos I wanted, including a lot of Cirkuts, but I got to go to a lot of areas that were off limits to most people, including those who paid their good money for permits! Bob Lang

Date: Thu, 28 Jan 1999 01:38:55 +1100 From: Tony scope@netcore.com.au Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au I was in the UK six years ago and from memory, photography wasn't allowed in many National Trust buildings. Most of these had attached shops/kiosks with postcards and picture books of the building for sale so perhaps that had something to do with it! Tony Andrews >There are problems for photographers in those properties owned by the >National Trust in the UK. Also, though largely theoretically, on railway >property. > >Peter Marshall > >On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere: >http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s >Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations & >The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/ >

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 21:39 +0000 (GMT) From: petermarshall@cix.co.uk (Peter Marshall) Subject: RE: Santa Barbara Soap To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au > Unfortunately it does happen in the UK...at least in the city parks in > Scotland anyway. > There was a small article a couple of weeks ago in the British Journal > of > Photography, about Aberdeen parks charging a not inconsiderable sum to > wedding photographers for using the parks as a background. In Glasgow > parks > I have been asked on a number of occasions by gardeners if I have > permission > to take photographs. I've never had this sort of problem with just photographing parks - although if I was setting up groups or other types of commercial photography I would not be surprised to be asked for a facility fee. Nor would I feel it unreasonable, as I pay tax for parks for the general use of the public and not as free studio space. Just another cost to pass on to the client in any case! I do get hassled fairly regularly by private security men when photographing buildings etc, but at the moment in the UK you are generally within your rights if you are on the public highway. However it isn't always clear whether or not this is the case. Occasionally it has worked when I've told them to phone their supervisor to check or invited them to call the police, but usually by the time they get to me I have taken the picture I want in any case. Peter Marshall On Fixing Shadows and elsewhere: http://www.people.virginia.edu/~ds8s Family Pictures, German Indications, London demonstrations & The Buildings of London etc: http://www.spelthorne.ac.uk/pm/

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 22:34:42 +0000 From: Bob Atherton gdm12@dial.pipex.com Subject: Re: Permits for tripods To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Jim Dunn wrote: > > I would just like to add to Ron Klein's excellent advice that in these > > potentially awkward situations, do as much theory on the shot as > > possible. As > > most of these views are exterior, requiring no supplementary > > lighting, sort out > > where to site the camera, which lens to use ( for this I quickly > > produce a Nikon > > with a zoom lens ) take a meter reading ( again surreptitiously ) > > and wait for > > your moment to produce all the gear and go for it. > > > > As most of my work is on 4" x 5" I would normally shoot a Polaroid first, > > forget that , just get a few sheets 'in the bank' and then think about the > > Polaroid. If I do get hassled I am always very pleasant, very > > ignorant, and > > claim to be a mature student! Bob Atherton > > > > It has always been a worry to me that I have to fabricate a storey in > situations like this...as I "have" done. I have worked in photography for 17 > years and I have never been comfortable with fabricating stories to get a > picture, news or stock. > > I am not speaking from the high ground only making an observation. > > Best wishes > > ............................................................ > Jimmy Dunn > Scottish Stock Photography > E-mail: jimmyd@dial.pipex.com > ............................................................ Dear Jimmy, I know exactly where you are coming from, I also don't feel too good about having to tell the odd white lie. In the perfect world I would get the correct permits, liaise with the relevant personnel etc. I do find it difficult with deadline pressures from clients, directors and worst of all, rapidly changing weather (it's OK for these west coast Americans, but us Brits have a tough time of it!) to have the time to sort out the necessary authority. It's just that most of these type of views are not the main shots for me. I remember doing an ad campaign for British Gas a couple of years ago. All the key shots were in the bag with total co-operation from everyone concerned, and then the art director thought it would be good idea to include a night time view of the London skyline, just a little 'throw away' thing.......... well I think I had more grief over that one than any other shot in my career! Best wishes, Bob

Date: Wed, 27 Jan 1999 15:11:37 -0800 From: Steve Shapiro sgshiya@redshift.com Subject: Good, Bad and Ugly stories Re: Permits for tripods To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au Subject: Re: Permits for tripods Jim Dunn wrote: > > I would just like to add to Ron Klein's excellent advice that in these > > potentially awkward situations, do as much theory on the shot as > > possible. As > > most of these views are exterior, requiring no supplementary > > lighting, sort out > > where to site the camera, which lens to use ( for this I quickly > > produce a Nikon > > with a zoom lens ) take a meter reading ( again surreptitiously ) > > and wait for > > your moment to produce all the gear and go for it. > > > > As most of my work is on 4" x 5" I would normally shoot a Polaroid first, > > forget that , just get a few sheets 'in the bank' and then think about the > > Polaroid. If I do get hassled I am always very pleasant, very > > ignorant, and > > claim to be a mature student! Bob Atherton > > > > It has always been a worry to me that I have to fabricate a storey in > situations like this...as I "have" done. I have worked in photography for 17 > years and I have never been comfortable with fabricating stories to get a > picture, news or stock. > > I am not speaking from the high ground only making an observation. > > Best wishes > > ............................................................ > Jimmy Dunn > Scottish Stock Photography > E-mail: jimmyd@dial.pipex.com > ............................................................ Dear Jimmy, I know exactly where you are coming from, I also don't feel too good about having to tell the odd white lie. In the perfect world I would get the correct permits, liaise with the relevant personnel etc. I do find it difficult with deadline pressures from clients, directors and worst of all, rapidly changing weather (it's OK for these west coast Americans, but us Brits have a tough time of it!) to have the time to sort out the necessary authority. It's just that most of these type of views are not the main shots for me. I remember doing an ad campaign for British Gas a couple of years ago. All the key shots were in the bag with total co-operation from everyone concerned, and then the art director thought it would be good idea to include a night time view of the London skyline, just a little 'throw away' thing.......... well I think I had more grief over that one than any other shot in my career! Best wishes, Bob I live in a 'Private State Park,' which was a device the morse code inventor Samuel F.B. Morse came up with to 'preserve' the forrestrial integrity of the land, here. He has since rolled over in his grave several times. But, the company -- as we serripticisoulsy reffer to them -- trade marked the Lone Cypress Tree and tried to restrict all photography. There's a 'franchise fee' coupled to any shooting on the grounds. Of course, there are events when the 'pros' descend upon the 'park' as we refer to our noble grounds; and images are found everywhere with no goegraphic identification. I was dealing with a local [magazine] publisher on very cozey and friendly terms; and once stated that as a resident, homeowner I could offer pictures from within Pebble Beach without that silly franchise fee; and they truned grim, "We're the ones selling that franchise right." Not only do we not talk, in this community of some three thousand people, but Barbara and Bob March look over my head whenever I'm facing them, in the Post Office or on the street. It's kind of funny; and I am -- ultimtely -- sympathetic to them because this makes MY photos more exclusive, too. Meanwhile, there's a new State Park growing out of the Military Base deconstruction going on, here. I asked what I cold do to make photographs out there while the 'clean up' was in progress. The executive director of one of the three bureaucratic offices said, "Just hop the fence. Don't get hurt." After I reconcilled him to understand I was a serious professional; and I didn't mind paperwork. I wrote a letter making my request plain and clear. I got a letter, copied to the Fort Police, Security and Government Head Office; and a FAX copy and a welcome from the State Park Service people. I now take some of the local 'pros' out there to shoot and we have fun. Guys like th original Ansel Adams Yosemite Workshop teachers. All because I simply wrote the letter, and nobody else took the time. Steve Shapiro, Carmel, CA sgshiya@redshift.com 'the dude abides'

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Federal Guard said I could not take a picture! Date: 1 Feb 1999 06:54:11 GMT My studio is two blocks from a newly completed U.S. Federal Courthouse. It is an imposing 1984'ish structure and I decided it was best represented at night because of it's dramatic lighting. Tonight I took a stroll and took light readings in order to try and balance Zones from the Deco/Modern aluminum/glass lighting to the upper edge of the building that was in shadow and at risk of blending right into the night sky. At the brightest areas, 15 sec at f22 was the reading. I thought of going 7 and 10 sec at f45 with n-1 and n-2 to grab some shadow detail when a guard approached me. He said I wasn't allowed to photograph the building, . . . and I was standing on the sidewalk along a public street! I will be calling the American Institute of Architects, the courthouse building manager, and the architectural firm tomorrow. I used to live in Philadelphia and any time of day or night I could photograph buildings considered the crown jewels of the National Park Service and our American heritage. My anticipated response will be denial, denial, denial because no-one will know what to do in this situation. The architect can commission me to photograph the building, or the building manager can get my ID and log my activities, but who knows what they'll do. In New York, you can photograph buildings but some distinctive elements to the skyline are copyrighted. But this is not exactly the case. The saga will continue Monday. TIA for your input. I know this is a raging topic now legally. LAD

From: josh@WOLFENET.COM (Joshua_Putnam)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fed Guard Said I couldn't take a picture, . . . 24 hours later
Date: 5 Feb 1999 16:12:42 GMT
glosdl@email.uc.edu (David L. Glos) writes:

>BTW, does anyone know what happened to the photographer that was being sued by >the rock and roll hall of fame (shame?). Seems he tried to sell a poster of >the building taken at sunset and the RRHF had other ideas. It was a fine >looking shot too.

If you do a web search for the case ('Cleveland rock hall fame photographer trademark lawsuit' ought to be enough keywords), the opinion is on-line.
To summarize, if I remember correctly, the courts found that a building owner can get trademark protection for a particular view of their building if they make active use of that particular view of the building as a recognized logo. Such a trademark would provide remedies against commercial use of a confusingly-similar view of the building in products that might reasonably be confused with those of the building owner. So, for example, if you went to the Guggenheim and duplicated the view of the building that they use in their gift shop items, then put that image on coffee mugs and posters, you could be infringing.
But, in the Hall of Fame case, if I remember correctly, the courts decided that there was no evidence the photographer's image of the building duplicated a particular view of the building that had been used as a trademark, or that consumers were likely to confuse his print with official products of the Hall of Fame, so it didn't meet the criteria.
Note that this is a trademark issue, not a copyright issue.
--

Josh@WolfeNet.com is Joshua Putnam / P.O. Box 13220 / Burton, WA 98013
"My other bike is a car."
http://www.wolfenet.com/~josh/

From: trooper@vcn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Federal Guard said I could not take a picture!
Date: Thu, 25 Feb 1999 20:57:45 GMT
On Wed, 24 Feb 1999 09:02:45 -0600, "Steve Roark" Steve_Roark@tamu-commerce.edu wrote:

>>This is totally and completely mistaken. By way of example, >>you cannot make voyeuristic photographs from public property >>onto private property. >> >>Be wary of legal advise from people who don't know what >>they're talking about. > > >While I never tried this, I'm certain anything you can shoot from a public >area is legal to photograph. I used to be a news photographer and shot >several buildings and objects from roads and sidewalks. The only time I >ever ran into to trouble was when I was shooting a military helicopter that >crash landed in a field. The pilot informed me I couldn't shoot a military >crash without the Army's permission. I didn't buy it, but local law >enforcement officers backed him up. Since I was the only one there without >a gun, I played it their way. Ironically, the pilot gave me "permission" to >shoot and gave me an in-depth interview. > >My advice is to research the local and national laws yourself, then be ready >to adapt when Bubba pulls out a .44...the constitution makes a lousy >bandage. > >Steve

Steve,
Just an add-on to what you said. Unless the military sets up what is called a cordon around the crash then yes you must have permission. However, If you are out of the cordon, and can still see the crash clearly with either a tele or normal lens, have at it! The ONLY time the military can forbid photographs is if they set up what is called a NDA which is a National Defense Area. These are primarily done with crashes or accidents involving nuclear material or very top secret material. The military then has absolute authority over the area.
Regards,
Doug

From: mccary@erols.com (Joe McCary)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-forma
t Subject: Re: Fed Guard Said I couldn't take a picture, . . . 24 hours later
Date: Thu, 04 Feb 1999 05:40:59 GMT
On Wed, 03 Feb 1999 23:50:30 -0500, lemon@lime.org (lemonade) wrote:

|> Its called a property release. | |OK, but the thing is, you can take pictures of the Empire State, Golden |Gate bridge, Mount Rushmore, city skylines, cars, etc, without. And of |course if there is a logo, that's another story. There is great freedom in |the US to photograph anything in public view.

The right to make a photograph is very different from the right to sell that photo. I am in Washington DC and surprising we have some sculptures that are for viewing only. One is the "Awakening" on Hanes Point. It is a giant person that appears to be coming out of the ground. This statue is still copyrighted and as such you may photograph it to your hearts content BUT you may not sell one image! The same goes for the newer statue at the Vietnam Memorial (Bronze of 3 soldiers). The National Cathedral in NW Washington has a beautiful sculpture above the main door (on the outside) and it too is copyrighted. So unless you know that your item is in the public domain you had better check and secure permission first!
Joe McCary

Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Fed Guard Said I couldn't take a picture, . . . 24 hours later
From: Phil Stripling philip@what.civex.com
Date: 03 Feb 1999 22:44:51
mccary@erols.com (Joe McCary) writes:

> The right to make a photograph is very different from the right to > sell that photo. I am in Washington DC and surprising we have some > sculptures that are for viewing only. One is the "Awakening" on Hanes > Point. It is a giant person that appears to be coming out of the > ground. This statue is still copyrighted and as such you may > photograph it to your hearts content BUT you may not sell one image! >SNIPped other examples.

How 'bout this: At Pebble Beach, there is a tree on a promontory that sticks out into the ocean. Pebble Beach claims rights to the _view_. You can photograph it, but not sell the image. :->
--
Phil Stripling | Sorry for the munged replyto
The Civilized Explorer | line, but you know what.
http://www.cieux.com/ | needs to be removed

From: "MB" mauriceb@tafe.sa.edu.au
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Photography not allowed at mall
Date: Fri, 5 Mar 1999 10:38:48
While shopping malls aren't public places, there is still an element of "publiness" about them by the fact that the proprietors invite the public onto their premises. So, it's not really quite as simple as mall operators saying that you are on private property and therefore have no "public rights".
However, there are some other issues involved here, for instance the copyright in artistic work (e.g. window displays, not to speak of designer goods themselves). You might, for instance, be on a public road and still get into trouble photographing a display window which is there for all to see... Weird, but cases like that have been argued out.
I can see NO right whatsoever by anyone to confiscate your property. That's just plain and simple theft, even if done by security guards. Security guards, contrary to what they sometimes seem to think, are not above the law, and a crime (theft) committed on private property is still a crime. They don't even have the right to treat you as a trespasser, since the public is invited onto their premises, and you are a member of the public.
Security guards often get away with "blue murder" because the public tend to have respect for uniforms, assuming that with the uniform come certain rights.
And apropo the sign that says that a store may refuse service to anybody... well, with current anti-discrimination legislation, I don't know in how many jurisdictions this would still hold up if tested in court.
But, having said all that, you will probably find that somewhere in the mall there may well be a "set of rules" which apply to users of the mall. This will probably cover anything and everything, ranging from not spitting on the floor to swearing to obstructing traffic to loitering etc and may well include something about photography. Check it out.
Bottom line, don't get too intimidated by what security guards say to you, but avoid hassles by checking out in advance whether what you want to do is permitted.
Good luck,
MB
J Greely wrote in message ...

>nick4458966@webtv.net (Nicholas Salkowski) writes: >>He then said, "If 'we' ever see you with the videocamera out again, >>it's ours." > >I hope you had the camera on and managed to record at least the >audio portion of that. > >Personally, I'd write a very polite letter to the mall management >identifying the person who made this statement to you and requesting a >formal clarification of their policy. There's a good chance that this >situation was nothing more than an encounter with an officious twit >who wanted to bully someone a little. > >-j

Date: Fri, 19 Mar 1999
From: "L. J. Powell" ljpowel@banet.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: photography laws
Cloud2266 wrote:

> i enjoy photographing cemeteries. what are the laws regarding use of these > photographs, if i were to display them publically or put them in a book. where > can i find this info? > > thank you > karen

George Krause has done a lot with cemetaries, mainly in Europe. Good subjects.
In the US, cemetaries are usually private property. Whenever you photograph on private property there are issues with getting permission. May not be a concern, but its safer to ask.
--
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Louie J. Powell, APSA
Glenville, NY USA
http://www.geocities.com/Paris/Maison/7881/

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: "Jeanette D. Walton" jdwalton@home.com
[1] Re: Film confiscation:
Date: Tue May 11 19:35:06 CDT 1999
It is illegal to take pictures of bridges in India and Pakistan.
It is illegal to take pictures of and in airports in India.
It is illegal to take pictures in the immigration lounge of Newark and Kennedy Airports.
It is illegal to take pictures of the Green Budha in Bangkok.
It is illegal to take pictures in the Sistine Chapel.

No kidding.

rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
From: Paul Friedman pfriedman@worldnet.att.net
[1] Re: Film confiscation:
Date: Wed May 12 08:04:23 CDT 1999
Jeanette D. Walton wrote:

> It is illegal to take pictures in the Sistine Chapel.

I think this is wrong. I've taken pictures there many times. It is a no-no to use a FLASH there. My last visit there (Oct 98) the signs still showed No Flash, not no pictures.

From: Laszlo Nemeth laszlo@dcs.gla.ac.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Improving Sharpness - PT Article
Date: 23 Apr 1999
Jeanette D. Walton wrote:

> One of the great things about France is that they don't bother you if you > have a tripod and LF or MF equipment. Italy, however, is very > picky about

You must have been in a different France :)!!! I was ordered out of St. Chapelle, even though I asked if I could take photographs and I told them that I have a big camera plus tripod. At the Sacre Coeur (sp?) I didn't even get to the building: wanted to take a photograph from outside, two policemen walked up to me and said something about photography being restricted in public places and waited until I packed my gear and walked me out of the garden.
I had more luck in England (Durham, York, Beverly). Sometimes I had to pay a few pounds (2-10), but then they truly left me to do whatever I wanted.
Laszlo Nemeth
Glasgow, Scotland
laszlo@dcs.gla.ac.uk

rec.photo.equipment.35mm
From: bjameson@mail.med.upenn.edu (William Jameson)
[1] Re: Travel Photography (Italy)
Followup-To: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Sat Aug 14 23:20:16 CDT 1999
Joe Hawblitzel (jhawblitzel@kc.rr.com) wrote:

: Also, you are not allowed to take any pictures inside the Sistine Chapel. : Why? As incredible as it sounds, in return for cleaning the frescoes, the : Japanese have all photo rights to the Chapel for seven years. Guards : enforce this rule, although I snapped a couple of shots secretly from the : waist which came out fine. ...

As I type this, Ninjas are creeping through the night seeking vengance...
Bill Jameson

From: Mark Z markz@imagine-sw.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm;,rec.photo.misc
Subject: Are tripods banned?
Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
Yesterday I went shooting in the area of World Trade Center in New York. In the matter of half an hour the security guards were giving me hard time for using tripod, and even having it unfolded without camera on it.
The best explanation I was able to get from them was "It's professional photography and you need a permission to do that!" Well, I was pleased that my after hours shooting is called professional photography :-), but I did no know that the criteria is the tripod :-0
My questions are:
1) May they do It given it is private property?
2) What is the real reason?
3) What is the way around the obstacles?

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000
From: Robert Appleby and Susan Darlow laintal@tin.it
Subject: [Leica] Police harassment / Gelatin Silver
Try photographing anything in India where the police think they might have a reason to shout at you or harass you in any way. Bridges, post offices, railway stations, even a cinema hoarding once! All stuiff that is fully visible from the street. And you needn't even be photographing the thing itself, just photographing in the neighbourhood. A favourite trick is to let you shoot a roll or so and then come up and demand the film off you. Usually a bit of smiling, waggling the hands and saying you're just a tourist geek will solve the problem, but the hostility to photography is extraordinary. I think a lot of cops are just bored and enjoy giving people a hard time, that's definitely in their job description, right? In contrast to the average Indian citizen who is usually delighted to be photographed - which makes India just about the nicest place to take pictures I know.
....
Robert Appleby and Sue Darlow
Italy

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000
From: Tina Manley images@InfoAve.Net
Subject: Re: [Leica] When is a release required
At 09:31 AM 2/1/00 -0500, you wrote:

>My understanding is that in a public place you need no release. That said, >I always >ask if people mind my shooting. Some folks just don't want to have their >photo made. >If I try, or think I will to sell the image then I always play it safe a >get the >release. >Cheers Wilber. >BTW Releases apply to peoples property as well, homes stand out as the biggie.

The public place rule is no longer true. A photograph of a Black man walking across a public street carrying a briefcase was used to illustrate an article in the Sunday NY Times on the rising Black middle-class. He objected to the implication that he was middle-class, sued and won. Even with editorial use, if the photograph implies something, you will need a release. Previously this applied to categories like drug addict, homeless, criminal, etc., but in these litigious times you can't be too careful!
Leically,
Tina
Tina Manley, ASMP
http://www.tinamanley.com

From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000
From: John Collier jbcollier@home.com
Subject: Re: [Leica] When is a release required
If your picture will be displayed, which could be interpreted to mean that you showed it to your dog (or photofinisher), you may need a release. Especially if it in any way defames the subject. Making them look ridiculous (open to ridicule), visually implying negative character traits (real or imagined) or portraying the subject in a way that humiliates (secret nude photos) may make you open to prosecution. If you intend on selling prints (or even giving them away) that can be viewed as a commercial use. So what should amateurs do? Shoot, discard the obvious, and be willing to destroy and apologise if something comes up. Immediate action on a reasonable complaint is viewed favourably by the courts. NEVER submit unreleased photos to a photo competition or for any commercial use. If you win and the image is published, you will be open to big trouble and toast your reputation forever. We just had a case in Canada where a photographer took a picture of a teenage girl (clearly recognisable) sitting on a step. He sold the image to a magazine to illustrate an article on teenage vagrancy. The girl naturally protested the inference that she was a vagrant and fought it all the way to the Supreme Court of Canada. The photographer/magazine argued that the picture was taken in a public place to illustrate a news story, so the photographer had the right to photograph freely and therefore did not need a release. Of course the girl won.
John Collier

>From: Ruralmopics@aol.com > Date: Tue, 1 Feb 2000 09:17:52 EST > Subject: Re: [Leica] When is a release required > > > In a message dated 1/31/00 8:23:14 PM, abridge@idea-processing.com writes: > >> When is a release required? > > My understanding (admittedly limited) is you ONLY need a release if you are > going to use the photo for commercial uses. For news, educational or personal > use you never need a release. I've occasionally had hospital/nursing home or > other institutional administrators insist on getting releases from subjects > but that is to protect THEM, the personal responisble for the subject's care, > not me.

[Ed. note: so much for releases???]
From Leica Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 01 Feb 2000
From: Mark Rabiner mrabiner@concentric.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] When is a release required

>(Snip) > but that is to protect THEM, the personal responisble for the subject's care, > not me. > > Bob (release? I don't need no stinking release) McEowen

I read a thing which said that in court cases when they added them all up having a release didn't effect the outcomes statistically. When they dethroned that Miss America a decade or so ago (who went on to make that Arnold movie) I got asked about the release issue by the TV news guys. (which was the issue as one of those sleazy photographer types had captured her inflagerate delecto and so on) I told them what I had read about the releases having no outcome on how the court cases came out. Made for a below average sound bite.
Mark Rabiner

From: ralf.r@bigfoot.com (Ralf R. Radermacher)
Date: Mon, 31 Jan 2000
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Copyright Ownership Issues - long -
Greg Faris faris@worldnet.net wrote:

> Be especially careful in this respect if your photo sojourns should lead you > out of the American wilderness into the European seats of civilization - as > many countries are now debating (if they have not already passed) new, very > restrictive laws governing the taking and use of photos of architectural > attractions once considered public property.

You aren't possibly mixing things up, a little? There have been heated discussions about photographing people, especially VIP's, after the case of one Lady D. which led to all kinds of suggestions and law-making initiatives about the right to privacy of people, not objects or buildings. And even these have mostly starved, halfway through the legislative processes...
The only places in Europe where I've ever come across restrictions comparable to those described here for the U.S. have been in the UK.
I've taken lots of photographs in Germany, France and Belgium, many of them with tripods and rather hefty equipment without anyone ever batting an eyelid.
No, wait... I've had a crew of particularly stupid security guards at a Belgian steel mill watch my every movement for half an hour while I was taking wonderful night shots of their plant, last autumn. One of them made a point of walking off around a corner to have a 'confidential' conversation with his HQ over his radio while every word was blasting from the radio of the other one who had stayed to keep an eye on me. We eventually agreed that, as long as I remained on publicly accessible ground, they were only making fools of themselves. ;)
Other than this, nothing ever.
Here in Germany, restrictions only exist on photographing people and the few military installations where picture-taking is expressly prohibited. Special rules may apply on private premises or in museums. Everything else is fair game as long as taking the photograph doesn't involve trespassing on to private property, breaking any other laws, or causing danger to road, air, or railway traffic etc.
There has been a quite notable case, recently, of a company which uses vans equipped with automatic cameras driven up and down our streets in a project to create a pictorial database of all houses in Germany. Attempts of individual house-owners to have them barred by the courts from taking pics of their houses have failed. Public highway, no chance...
On a sidenote, there was a thread in a railway enthousiasts newsgroup, recently, about those not wanting to contribute to the cost of special trains hired by a group of people for the purpose of taking photographs, chosing instead to chase the train by car and jumping out for quick snapshot. In such instances, a big sign reading "shabby mizers" or a large unsightly object (bag, jacket) attached to the front of the loco is sometimes used to spoil the pictures of the uninvited guests... :))
Cheers,
Ralf
--
Ralf R. Radermacher - DL9KCG - K�ln/Cologne, Germany
Ralf's Cologne Tram Page and Gallery:
http://www.netcologne.de/~nc-radermra

Date: 31 Jan 2000
From: faris@worldnet.net (Greg Faris)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format,rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: Copyright Ownership Issues - long -
Clearly, one cannot argue wih those who advise you to check before moving in with all your gear - but check with all the skepticism the situation merits.
On the one hand, if you go to the trouble to ask, you may find that quite a few things are prohibited in writing, but perfectly tolerated in practice.
Unhappily, on the other hand, you cannot blindly trust the advice of some great uncle who went to XXX and shot away with impunity. The trend today is toward greater respect for owners' rights and wider copyright protection for anything not handed down directly from God.
Be especially careful in this respect if your photo sojourns should lead you out of the American wilderness into the European seats of civilization - as many countries are now debating (if they have not already passed) new, very restrictive laws governing the taking and use of photos of architectural attractions once considered public property.
Everything seems to indicate that more restrictions are in the wind, and packing off to Paris with the 8x10 and tripod could bring more misery than fulfillment in the near future.
G Faris

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000
From: Richard Schneider richard.schneider@arch2.nara.gov
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: April Meeting - Update II (long but informative)
Dear Colleagues,
I am certain that taking (panoramic) photographs of the Cherry Blossoms (and springtime in DC in general) is one of the reasons why you are considering attending the April Meeting.
Be forewarned that the use of a tripod (an absolute necessity for some panoramic photography) is allowed only with a permit on virtually all federal lands in the DC area. If the Park Police see you using a tripod let's say, at the Tidal Basin near the Jefferson Memorial, they will ask to see your permit. If you do not produce one, you will be asked to remove the tripod from the premises or store it away.
I have embarked on getting permits for about 20 or so attendees to be used in several DC locations. The trouble is, some federal agencies have separate rules for commercial photography and individual use photography. If you know for certain that the photographs you take will be for a commercial purpose, then I'd suggest you apply for a permit separately. I've sought to get permits to cover the duration of the meeting (April 6-8). If you are planning to arrive before or plan to stay later than those dates and wish to photograph, then once again, apply for a permit separately. In the "Gray Area" category: What if you take a picture "for yourself", but at a later date decide that you'd like to use it for a commercial purpose??
My answer: I wouldn't worry about it.
The following locations require a permit in order to use a tripod on the premises. I have included as much pertinent information as I could find regarding contact:
National Park Service
- has jurisdiction over the Mall, Tidal Basin, Grant Memorial, C&O; Canal Park in Maryland and Virginia - Contact: Robbin Owen or Richard Merryman
Phone: 202-619-7225 FAX: 202-401-2430
Please note: My application is under consideration for 20 people. The permit, if issued, would only cover Thurs. April 6 and Fri. April 7. NPS would not issue a permit to me for the weekend but remember, if you hand-hold your cameras, you are "in business" here and everywhere.
National Arboretum
- a relatively unknown property which should be beautiful in the Spring - it is in North East Washington on New York Avenue -
Contact: Nancy Luria or Lisa Baldes
Phone: 202-245-4523 FAX: 202-245-4575
US Capitol - House Side
Contact: Teresa Johnson, House Sergeant of Arms Office
Room: H-124
Phone: 202-225-2456
Please note: I already have the permit for 20 people. All tripods need to be utilized on grass and not on concrete or marble.
US Capitol - Senate Side
Contact: US Capitol Police
Room: ST-3
Phone: 202-225-3121
Please note: Yes, you do need separate permits for the House and Senate sides of the US Capitol!! These permits are only issued the day you plan on using it.
On April 6, the Meeting will commence at the Library of Congress Prints and Photographs Division Office - Room LM-337 (3rd floor). The time will likely be between 9:30 and 10:00 am. This office is in the Madison building of the L of C. Large, modern in appearance. Located at Independence Avenue and First St. NE. After our tour of the Library, we will have an opportunity to photograph on the US Capitol grounds. If we have any desire to take a group photo, this might present a good opportunity.
I still have several possibilities for afternoon activities, including a tour of the Smithsonian's photo facility. On the way down from Capitol Hill to the Smithsonian, you may want to stop in and see two photographic exhibitions - one at the National Gallery and the other at the National Archives.
I will let you know more in "Update III", which will be sent in a week or less.
Thanks,
Richard

From Panoramic Photography List:
Date: Tue, 07 Mar 2000
From: Mike Sinclair sinclair@microsoft.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: National Parks & Tripods
I can't speak for all National Park locations but when I did a number of pans (Roundshot) on and near the US Capitol bldg (outside), I had to get written permission from the Grounds Seargant (see below) to use a tripod - took the better part of a day and a very well known Senator's office help. I also had permission to shoot in the Senate Chambers - was supposed to have been the first time a camera was allowed there since CSPAN installed their cameras in 1987. It really took an act of Congress. Even with that written permission, the word evidently didn't get to the Senate Chamber guards and we were "detained" (arrested) for a short while. For pans inside the Capitol bldg, I did the stand-in-place-and-pan-and-click method with a lot of Photoshop work afterwards (and a lot of dirty looks from the guards). So, unless things have changed, using a tripod on Capitol grounds shouldn't be counted on without written permission.
-Mike-

Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@mpwarner.com
To: panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
Subject: Re: National Parks & Tripods
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@kuentos.guam.net
This information may be out of date:
Following are several comments regarding permits:
The first deals with National Park Service Permits:
This is from a Jan, 1999 note on the Panormaic Stock news group
panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
The original is by: Jeff Weisenburger
Having worked for the National Park service for the last 25 years, I pulled the latest memo on Still Photography dated May 1, 1998. It states:
The National Park Service encourages all still photography, including activities requiring tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. It does not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere, or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit.
Permits are required when the photographer involves product or service advertisement, and the use of models, sets, or props, or when such photography could result in damage to the resources or significant disruption of normal visitor uses.
Keep in mind, this policy is for U.S. Dept of Interior, National Park Service. I have not experienced any such problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. The original policy originated by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, back in 1990, and is still in effect! Thie entire policy was outlined in Panorama magazine sometime ago. There are special regs concerning tripods on the marbel floors of the Lincoln Memorial, and other monuments in and around Washington D.C. Hope this helps if you visit the National Parks.
Jeff Weisenburger
AND:
From: "James MacDonald"
The entire text of NPS-53 policy is available on the web, and also for download as a .exe file, at:
http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/NPS-53contents.html.

Appendix 20 - Filming and Photography is at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/FilmingA20.doc. (Requires a version of MS Word or WordPad.)
AND:
Dear Friends,
In the Winter 1999 issue of the White House News Photographers Association Newsletter, there appears on page 6 several items related to regulations concerning photography in areas controlled by the NPS. This information came from Sgt. David J. Mulholland of the U.S. Park Police Media Relations. I am going to type this in for everyone not so much because of the Washington, DC-specific rules but because the overall policy is stated here for the whole NPS system. I would think it would be useful to write to the NPS in Washington and get a copy of these regulations, not just for the tripod restrictions but because the general policy as stated is clear. Except for commercial advertising photography, photographers should not be restricted in any way that is not detrimental to the environment.
1. This first part is from:
NPS-53 (Revised) Appendix 20
Special Park Uses Filming and Photography Exhibit 1
Still Photography - Handout Page A20-27
STILL PHOTOGRAPHY
It is the policy of the National Park Service to allow and encourage photography within the National Park System, consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of resources.
The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go and to do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. Coverage of breaking news never requires a permit but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources, public health and safety, and to prevent derogation of park values.
A permit is required if the Superintendent determines there is a likelihood of a photography project's harming the park's natural, cultural, or recreational resources, or creating unacceptable health or safety risks, or disrupting visitor use and enjoyment. A permit is also required pursuant to 36 CFR 5.5(b) for persons taking photographs of vehicles, other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising.
If a photography permit is required, the NPS will impose only those conditions necessary to accomplish the needed resource protection of visitor objectives. Liability insurance requirements and other limitations should not be made unduly burdensome. For advertising photography, it is appropriate to impose a permit condition that prohibits implied or stated Service endorsement of the advertised product or service.
Release Number 2 September 1997
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The second part is from:
CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-97 Edition)
5.5 Commercial Photography
(b) Still Photography. The taking of photographs of any vehicle, or other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising without a written permit from the Superintendent is prohibited.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. The third part is from:
S 7.96 36 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-97 Edition)
Maps of Tripod Restrictions
Included in this section are three maps showing the areas around the White House, Lincoln Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial where tripods may not be used.
White House - prohibited areas include the South Lawn fence and the areas to the east and west of the South Lawn. But the Ellipse has no such restrictions.
Lincoln Memorial - prohibited area appears to be within the Memorial itself and surrounding colonnade, but not the steps.
Vietnam Veterans Memorial - covers the area of the Wall and all land between Constitution Ave. to the middle of the Federal Reserve Building, then south to the Reflection Pool, then west to the street around the Lincoln Memorial, around to the short diagonal street that runs between Lincoln Memorial to Constitution Ave.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hope this does some of you some good.
Fred Ward
AND:
Southern Cal, Santa Barbara:
Santa Barbara officials have dusted off a 10-year-old measure that requires photographers to get a permit in order to shoot in any city park -- or at any city landmark.
There are three different scenarios:
Editorial Photo/Film Shoots -- No fees or permits required if you're shooting for news, features or editorial usage.
Free-lance editorial shoot -- No fee or permit required IF you agree to share ALL your work and publication rights with the city (parks and rec dept.) If you don't agree, it will cost you $258 each time you shoot in the park. This policy is aimed at photographers who are shooting for calendars, books or postcards.
Commercial shoot -- Submit an application, provide proof of insurance and pay the $258 fee and you can get a permit.
SB officials claim that other cities, including LA, San Francisco, and San Diego all charge for shooting in the parks.
Just curious about what others have run into and how they've handled it.
PJHeller

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Wed, 08 Mar 2000
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@mpwarner.com
Subject: Re: National Parks & Tripods
From: "Mitchell P. Warner" indepth@kuentos.guam.net
This information may be out of date:
Following are several comments regarding permits:
The first deals with National Park Service Permits:
This is from a Jan, 1999 note on the Panormaic Stock news group
panorama-l@sci.monash.edu.au
The original is by: Jeff Weisenburger
Having worked for the National Park service for the last 25 years, I pulled the latest memo on Still Photography dated May 1, 1998. It states:
The National Park Service encourages all still photography, including activities requiring tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. It does not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere, or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit.
Permits are required when the photographer involves product or service advertisement, and the use of models, sets, or props, or when such photography could result in damage to the resources or significant disruption of normal visitor uses.
Keep in mind, this policy is for U.S. Dept of Interior, National Park Service. I have not experienced any such problems in the San Francisco Bay Area. The original policy originated by Secretary of the Interior Manuel Lujan, back in 1990, and is still in effect! Thie entire policy was outlined in Panorama magazine sometime ago. There are special regs concerning tripods on the marbel floors of the Lincoln Memorial, and other monuments in and around Washington D.C. Hope this helps if you visit the National Parks.
Jeff Weisenburger
AND:
From: "James MacDonald" jlmac@worldnet.att.net
The entire text of NPS-53 policy is available on the web, and also for download as a .exe file, at:
http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/NPS-53contents.html.
Appendix 20 - Filming and Photography is at http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/FilmingA20.doc. (Requires a version of MS Word or WordPad.)
AND:
Dear Friends,
In the Winter 1999 issue of the White House News Photographers Association Newsletter, there appears on page 6 several items related to regulations concerning photography in areas controlled by the NPS. This information came from Sgt. David J. Mulholland of the U.S. Park Police Media Relations. I am going to type this in for everyone not so much because of the Washington, DC-specific rules but because the overall policy is stated here for the whole NPS system. I would think it would be useful to write to the NPS in Washington and get a copy of these regulations, not just for the tripod restrictions but because the general policy as stated is clear. Except for commercial advertising photography, photographers should not be restricted in any way that is not detrimental to the environment.
1. This first part is from:
NPS-53 (Revised) Appendix 20
Special Park Uses Filming and Photography Exhibit 1
Still Photography - Handout Page A20-27
STILL PHOTOGRAPHY
It is the policy of the National Park Service to allow and encourage photography within the National Park System, consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of resources.
The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go and to do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. Coverage of breaking news never requires a permit but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources, public health and safety, and to prevent derogation of park values.
A permit is required if the Superintendent determines there is a likelihood of a photography project's harming the park's natural, cultural, or recreational resources, or creating unacceptable health or safety risks, or disrupting visitor use and enjoyment. A permit is also required pursuant to 36 CFR 5.5(b) for persons taking photographs of vehicles, other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising.
If a photography permit is required, the NPS will impose only those conditions necessary to accomplish the needed resource protection of visitor objectives. Liability insurance requirements and other limitations should not be made unduly burdensome. For advertising photography, it is appropriate to impose a permit condition that prohibits implied or stated Service endorsement of the advertised product or service.
Release Number 2 September 1997
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
2. The second part is from:
CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-97 Edition)
5.5 Commercial Photography
(b) Still Photography. The taking of photographs of any vehicle, or other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising without a written permit from the Superintendent is prohibited.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
3. The third part is from:
S 7.96 36 CFR Ch. 1 (7-1-97 Edition)
Maps of Tripod Restrictions
Included in this section are three maps showing the areas around the White House, Lincoln Memorial, and Vietnam Veterans Memorial where tripods may not be used.
White House - prohibited areas include the South Lawn fence and the areas to the east and west of the South Lawn. But the Ellipse has no such restrictions.
Lincoln Memorial - prohibited area appears to be within the Memorial itself and surrounding colonnade, but not the steps.
Vietnam Veterans Memorial - covers the area of the Wall and all land between Constitution Ave. to the middle of the Federal Reserve Building, then south to the Reflection Pool, then west to the street around the Lincoln Memorial, around to the short diagonal street that runs between Lincoln Memorial to Constitution Ave.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Hope this does some of you some good.
Fred Ward
AND:
Southern Cal, Santa Barbara:
Santa Barbara officials have dusted off a 10-year-old measure that requires photographers to get a permit in order to shoot in any city park -- or at any city landmark.
There are three different scenarios:
Editorial Photo/Film Shoots -- No fees or permits required if you're shooting for news, features or editorial usage.
Free-lance editorial shoot -- No fee or permit required IF you agree to share ALL your work and publication rights with the city (parks and rec dept.) If you don't agree, it will cost you $258 each time you shoot in the park. This policy is aimed at photographers who are shooting for calendars, books or postcards.
Commercial shoot -- Submit an application, provide proof of insurance and pay the $258 fee and you can get a permit.
SB officials claim that other cities, including LA, San Francisco, and San Diego all charge for shooting in the parks.
Just curious about what others have run into and how they've handled it.
PJHeller

From panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 9 Mar 2000
From: David Hibbeln dhibbeln@tccpa.net
Subject: RE: list of permits required etc. Re: National Parks & Tripods
Folks,
You can add to your list all of the parks in the city of Chicago. Especially the lake front ones.
The theory in the cops mind is big camera plus tripod plus group of people equals commercial therefore permit.
I found that big camera plus tripod with only photographer with no other person means private.
A lesson from bitter experience and court costs.
Regards,
David R. Hibbeln
...

Date: Fri, 10 Mar 2000
From: MIKE PERRY
To: Robert Monaghan rmonagha@post.cis.smu.edu
Subject: Re: SB Photo permits
Santa Barbara Soap:
First of all Let me explain who I am. I am the person, that was first stopped in Santa Barbara and told that a photo permit was required for all commercial photography in the city parks and on city beaches.
SOMEONE HAD TO BE FIRST. This was something I had been doing for years without knowing permits were even required. Since then myself and several local photographers have been responsible for a year long permit controversy that came to an end this February. That was when the Santa Barbara city council voted to adopt a new policy. We did NOT support the new policy. Nor did we oppose it. We knew it was going to pass regardless of what we did or said. They just wanted the issue to go away.
The new policy, as it now stands requires
1) a business licenses
2) co-insure the city for 250K liability insurance
3) Then you get your very own FREE photo permit. Embossed with a laminated photo of yourself.
Just a brief background. This particular issue started as a "rights grab" by the City of Santa Barbara Recreation Department. The permit issue was in fact a sidebar that brought things to a head. I was in given a free permit after meeting the requirements, the fee ($250/day) was waived, and I was able to shoot. After which, being a nice guy, I allowed the city a FREE one time use. A limited print run, back cover that would have invoice for around $500. They responded with a threatening letter and a contract to sign telling me that they required unlimited free use. That's when I went ballistic! My second phone call was to the ASMP general counsel. What they hadn't anticipated was that I wasn't going to roll over and allow them to get away with this or that we would actually go public with it.
Permits are in fact an accepted part of doing business. But, when should the permit be required? One of our arguments was that a permit should only be required WHEN you need or want exclusive use of an area or when your party is so large or have so much equipment, that you create a spectacle of yourself. We argued the fact that, shooting stock or just a scenic photo on speculation is not commercial, amateurs due it everyday. You do not have a paying client. Unfortunately they saw that differently, and even negative impact on tourism etc. was brought up on numerous occasions. The city did not take that into consideration. They chose to listen to wedding and portrait photographers. They refused to admit to this, but, we know, wedding and portrait photographers were the ones they really wanted to target. A brand new high profile very expensive park was being over run with wedding photographers. The unfortunate part is they chose to combine all photographers into one group rather than establish categories.
Like it or not "the city's" do in fact have a legal obligation to regulate commercial use of public properties. "catch 22 ". But, It applies to everyone not just photographers, so keep that in mind. Because, if you ever want to teach fly fishing in a public park or sell hot dogs. You will be required to have a permit. At least in Santa Barbara and I'm fairly sure that is true in other areas as well.
Had there been reasonable guidelines we would have supported their policy. Since there are no guidelines for enforcement we felt this was to ambiguous and leaves to much to interpretation. The fact that the permit is now free was their, the city's big concession. It is better than $250/day. Because now, with your free permit group with who knows how many people to photograph and not have to pay anything. That's great news "IF" you're and outdoor portrait or wedding specialist. But on the other hand if you're a single photographer, professional/amateur or just a tourist, without a permit and you happen to look professional, watch out, because the tripod police are still alive and well here.
It's to bad we didn't find out about this site while things were going hot and heavy. We would have gladly passed some of this information along to the city council. It might have made a huge difference in the outcome. So please keep that in mind for the next time, because there will be a next time.. And when it does embarrass the hell out of them and keep the pressure on and don't make the same mistakes we made. Don't ever let up on the pressure.
Thanks
Mike Perry
Member Board of Directors ASMP LA
http://www.losangeles.org/asmpla
ASMP National. http://www.asmp.org
Editorial Photographers.
http://www.editorialphoto.com

Date: 1 Jan 1999
From: swiral@aol.com (SWIRAL)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Subject: Re: Encountering lincreasing 'anti-photographing' sentiment

How wrong you are see my post regarding the Flat Irion Building in NYC. They lost a court case over copyright.
Well, not really, as the owner of a property also owns the rights on its image. That's why most stock agencies (in the US) ask now their contributing photographers to ask also for releases when shooting buildings. Where you shoot from is most of the time not relevant. In real life it's rarely a problem, or enforced, until a picture is used in an ad or some kind of profitable operation, and lawyers get involved. Applies also to all sort of situations where private property is involved. Why can't we take pictures in public museums of private pieces on exhibition? It's not only a question of copyright.

Date: Wed, 04 Aug 1999
From: DougIam dougiam@ix.netcom.com
Newsgroups: "rec.photo.equipment.35mm;",rec.photo.misc
Subject: Re: Are tripods banned?
Mark Z wrote:

> Yesterday I went shooting in the area of World Trade Center in New York. > In the matter of half an hour the security guards were giving me hard > time for using tripod, and even having it unfolded without camera on it. > > The best explanation I was able to get from them was "It's professional > photography and you need a permission to do that!" Well, I was pleased > that my after hours shooting is called professional photography :-), > but I did no know that the criteria is the tripod :-0 > My questions are: > 1) May they do It given it is private property? > 2) What is the real reason? > 3) What is the way around the obstacles? > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Share what you know. Learn what you don't.

It's NYC, baby! And most security guards and cops will disallow tripods for the fact that it impedes pedestrian traffic. To them, a tripod equates with professional photography and for the most part is not allowed (unless you get a film permit and hire a NYC cop to stand guard, Ha!). The easiest option to shoot on the street in New York is to get a photography permit (free) from the Mayors Office of Film @ 254 W. 54th. It may do you no good, but you will have something to wave in front of their faces should they approach you....
--

From Panoramic Mailing List:
Date: Sat, 24 Jun 2000
From: Alan Zinn azinn@netbox.com
Subject: Re: panoramic in Germany
you wrote:

>Can anyone tell me about any problems making a 360 Panoramic >in the train station in Koeln, Germany?

Edward,
You could have a tough time if you don't get permission first. Thursday at the Detroit airport a sheriff politely explained to me that for security reason's people can't make pictures around the airport. I told her I would include us both in the picture but she wasn't amused. I got one shot and vamoosed. A couple years ago in Chicago I spent an hour shooting around ORD and was invited up to the new tower by an air traffic controller. Got some nice shots up there.
AZ
Lookaround Panoramic Camera and Gallery:
http://www.geocities.com/SoHo/Gallery/8874/
Bob Talbot's Vagabond Camera web page
http://www.st-abbs.fsnet.co.uk/vagabond/

Date: Fri, 1 Sep 2000
From: Mike Tremblay mike@rainmakr.demon.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: photography at National Trust sites
FYI: This is the policy on photography at National Trust sites in England.

Thank you for your e-mail enquiring about photography at National Trust properties.
We allow exterior photography, undertaken for private purposes, without seeking prior permission. However, given the description of your camera equipment, including the use of a tripod, I would suggest that you contact the property in advance to avoid being mistaken for a professional photographer.
Photography within Trust properties is more problematic, as it raises issues such as security and disturbance to others visitors. On the security side, we have proof that photography has been used in advance by thieves for planning, or to check that they have correctly identified objects. The number of burglaries and attempted burglaries at Trust properties has risen steeply in recent years, part of a national increase in art thefts. Camera flashes can also be distracting and annoying for visitors, particularly in small rooms, and they can occasionally trigger sensitive alarm systems. After careful consideration it was therefore decided that photography in Trust properties should only be allowed by prior arrangement, outside visiting hours.
Appointments can be made directly with the Property Manager/Administrator for a mutually convenient date. There will be a reasonable charge for this facility, applicable to members and non members alike.
If you wished to use any of your photographs of National Trust properties in an amateur competition, again no permission is required. However, if you wished to enter photographs into professional competitions or publish your work, you would need to seek permission in advance. In those circumstance we would ask you to contact the Marketing and Communications Manager at the appropriate regional office. Contact details are available in the members' handbook or through our e-mail enquiry service.
I hope that this has clarified the situation. If you are in any doubts I would always suggest that you contact the property in advance. I hope that you enjoy photographing the many and varied beautiful properties of the National Trust.
--
Mike Tremblay PhD
office: +44 (0) 1233-500866
mobile: +44 (0) 777-368-6588
This email is a confidential communication with the named recipient(s).

Date: Sat, 2 Sep 2000
From: "Becky" becky@magor.prestel.co.uk
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format
Subject: Re: photography at National Trust sites

> FYI: This is the policy on photography at National Trust sites in > England. > > FYI: This is the policy on photography at National Trust sites in > England.

Unfortunately the National Trust is the most difficult of all the organisations when it comes to photographing their sites. Depending on what your plans are for the photos and how out of the way one of their sites is for you, you may just get lucky when you arrive and find a nice person working there.
I've found that they are less picky with some sites then others. As Roger mentioned before me I also had no trouble at Lacock, it seems to mainly be the stately homes where you will find opposition. For what its worth English Heritage is sponsoring the Images of England program where volunteer photographers are photographing all listed buildings in order to make a web based archive and they still haven't gotten permission from the National Trust to photograph their sites.
Good Luck
Becky
http://www.medievalbritain.co.uk

Date: Thu, 21 Sep 2000
From: "Luke" lobi1_800@yahoo.com.au
Newsgroups: aus.photo,aus.legal
Subject: Re: Law relating to photography in public...
There is a good article written on the www.artslaw.com.au site.
Here is a link.
http://www.artslaw.com.au/reference/cavincid984

From Leica Topica Mailing List:
Date: Thu, 14 Dec 2000
From: "Bob Owen" argus@btinternet.com
Subject: Street photography Europe
Photographing the "decisive moment" could become impossible in France, thanks to the severe application of French privacy laws.This follows a round of legal victories by private individuals over photographers accused of violating "the right over one's own image", a right theoretically infringed by anyone who photographs a crowd, a group or a person without first obtaining formal consent.
Last year, the parents of a boy photographed at the head of an anti-National Front demonstration demanded 200,000 francs from the news magazine L'Ev�n�ment du Jeudi. In another, a male nurse standing behind President Chirac as he toured a hospital demanded damages from all publications using the picture, simply because he did not wish to be seen besides M Chirac.
Certainly the pickings for anyone lucky enough to find his face in the paper can be rich, even if permission was asked and granted. Recently three young North Africans were awarded 30,000 francs each after a photograph showing them holding up their identity cards at a 1989 press conference was republished six years later. The magistrate ruled that the re-publication was "an intolerable invasion" of the men's privacy, a verdict that was upheld on appeal.
Would be C-Bs in France beware, and , (not wishing this to be seen as pro or anti European) could spread to the UK and rest of Europe given the tide of new legislation coming from Brussels.
Regards,
Bob.

From: "paleryder" paleryder@cableone.net
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Date: Thu, 15 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: No Tripods Allowed!!!
Having paid for admission, I got the drill about no tripods at historical sites in Italy. It wasn't posted. It wasn't on the tickets or brochures.
As an example, at Paestum (Greek Temple site south of Salerno) my wife and I were enjoying the day and shooting some pictures. A fellow runs up to me 30 minutes into the visit and tells me to put away the tripod or leave. Remember, the "No Tripods" deal isn't posted or publicized. It IS posted not to climb on the ruins, and some Italian children are doing precisely that, under the sign, in full view of the official and the kids parents. Only thing they are interested in is my tripod.
I put away my tripod and shot handheld. On leaving I noticed the shops that weren't open when I arrived selling post cards and tour books with lots of photos. I guess the concern has more to do with economics than with anything else.

From: ksrowin@aol.com (Ksrowin)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 22 Feb 2001
Subject: Re: Permits Required in National/State Parks?
I've never had problems in State or National Parks, but in lots of other areas I've been asked to get a tripod permit. This was free at the US Capitol and Grand Central Station, but cost $500 at the Winter Garden of the World Financial Center in NYC. No tripods at all in Rockefeller Center.

[Ed. note: an author wanting to illustrate a column with a photograph of the site on Bureau of Land Management land noted he was asked to provide a $1,000,000 insurance policy against damaging the rock tower he wanted to photograph, plus $100 fee for photo permit, plus $125 processing fee, plus $50 monitoring fee at a local U.S. Bureau of Land Management Office.
Evidently, another example of bureaucrats at their local office without enough to do. See Bureau of Land Management website which clarifies that only a few "rare and exceptional circumstances" require permits to photography on BLM and U.S. Forest Service land, viz:
http://www.ut.blm.gov:80/saltlake_fo/What%20We%20Do/Lands%20&%20Realty/filming_on_public_land.htm
I also suggest contacting their press relations office in Washington DC in case you want to fight fire with fire, bureaucracy with bureaucracy ;-)
So if you get into a permit demanded by local bureaucrats, check to see if they are on shaky ground or mis-applying requirements. Second, look for a more sympathetic ear in the same bureaucracy, which for photographers would like be a public relations function or press office. Even if a permit is required, the press office may be willing to waive fees for many uses (e.g., educational or public access, as would be the case here).
Finally, you can challenge such fees, and ask the agency to waive them. This approach may not always work, but it can alert higher officials that their policies or application of rules are flawed and need revision. In the USA, you can also write to your local Congressperson or Senator and ask their office to see if you can be granted an exemption. If your state has a Congressperson on the relevant agency review committee, they might be able to get the agency to change the rules by adding or expanding an existing exemption for photographers.

From: claudedb@aol.com (ClaudeDB)
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.large-format
Date: 16 Feb 2001
Subject: Permits Required in National/State Parks?
An article - Access by Sawalich and Dykinga - in the March Outdoor Photography has me wondering if anyone has ever been hassled by park rangers over permit requirements to shoot professionally in either national or state parks. Apparently in national parks, permits have been required, but recent changes have limited permit requirements only to professional photographers using the park for "location" or background (such as a model or product shot). The article worries that may be subject to individual park superintendent's interpretation.
All my photography is for personal use (that may change in the future as I approach early retirement), but the one thing I never envisioned when I carefully planned my transition to LF was the amount of attention I create upon myself. Pulling out a field-camera is like turning on a 20-foot flashing neon sign over my head. With 35-mm and MF, I was too inconspicuous and was never bother. So far with LF, I'm only bother occasionally by gawkers, except for one sour experience. At the Capistrano Mission in California, I was so relentlessly hounded by the staff (regardless of what I told them) that I finally left in disgust.
I always thought that national and state parks were safe havens, whose imagery should be in the "public domain". I haven't used my field-camera that much yet, so now I'm wondering if it's just a matter of time before the "flashing neon sign" attracts questioning rangers. So, has this ever been a problem for anyone?
Claude

From Contax Mailing List;
Date: Tue, 22 May 2001
From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com
Subject: Re: [CONTAX] My cover pic!
I wanted to do a shoot some time ago at the Don Cezar hotel in St. Petersburg Beach, Florida. It's a lovely old hotel built in the art deco style and painted shades of pink and gold. Al Capone used to stay there.
Anyway, it was no problem at all. They wanted various forms filled out, including one which stipulated that me and my assistants would be in "proper attire" at all times. Etc., etc., etc. Then when it came time to sign on the dotted line they said one of those "oh, by the way" type things that the location fee was $ 3,000 a day.
Sadly, that was not to be, so the shoot never took place. Glad your casino people were more reasonable.
Bob

Date: Fri, 08 Jun 2001
From: RedCrown red_crown@hotmail.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.art
Subject: Trouble getting permission to shoot in public places.
I'm not sure which newsgroup this belongs in, so I'll try here.
In the past few months I've encountered mild to hostile resistance from caretakers when shooting photos in public "attractions." One was a public (government owned) Botanical center. One was an old restored mansion, filled with Olde English artifacts, and operated by a private not-for-profit organization. One was a historical farm, also operated by a not-for-profit organization. In all places, tourists are constantly shooting away with their APS cameras and camcorders, with no interference. But when a guy sets up a tripod with a serious camera and looks professional (which I am not), things start to happen.
In the Botanical Center I was told that I could not use a tripod because I might block the pathways. I was having trouble getting down the pathways myself due to the caravan of double-wide baby carriages which have a bigger footprint than a tripod, so I pushed back a little on the clerk that had been sent to tell me to pack up. That got me another clerk who said "commercial photography" was not allowed. I declared my amateur status and told the clerk to go get the manager, while I kept shooting. The manager never showed.
In the Olde English mansion I asked permission to shoot a specific scene (after the guided tour) and was allowed to proceed, but only after a curious and somewhat obscure interrogation about my intended use of the photos, and a severe admonishment against using flash. I again declared amateur status. I got a great shot, and returned to their office a few days later and donated a copy of the print. When I said I might enter it in a local contest red flags went up. The "curator" called the next day and said I would have to sign a form, which I haven't seen yet but which I suspect will prohibit me from making any financial gain from the photo.
At the historical farm I've been challenged twice, and when I swear that I'm not a commercial photographer things are OK.
So I'm looking for feedback from other photographers. Anybody have similar experiences? Anybody know what laws (copyright?) might apply in such situations? Laws aside, why are the managers of such places concerned about commercial photography? Anybody know why curators of old artifacts are afraid of flash?
It seems to me that a public/government owned property should be open to public access, including photography. Anybody know of any cases where this has been tested (in court). Our local Governor's Mansion is also an old tourist attraction with guided tours. I recently stopped there and asked the agent on duty if I could walk onto the grounds to shoot the outside of the building someday. The answer was a reluctant yes, but by appointment only. I then asked if I could use and old carriage house behind the mansion as a background for portraits, and the answer quickly turned to no. I'm confused, and am wondering if these rules and policies have been made my control freak managers and have no basis in law.

From Hasselblad Mailing List;
Date: Mon, 09 Jul 2001
From: "Shane W. Davis" swdavis@umich.edu
Subject: OT: Approaching "street people"
What if the child is in a public place, doing something newsworthy (e.g. throwing a beer bottle at the President)?
People with questions about rights of photographers and subjects in public and other places may find the remarks and links on this page useful. The author is either a lawyer or playing one on the Internet.
http://lawyers.about.com/careers/lawyers/library/weekly/aa032601a.htm

> Copyright is not the issue. A model release is. If the individual in the > photo is a minor child, it must be signed by the parent or legal guardian.

From Leica Mailing List;
Date: Thu, 21 Jun 2001
From: John Hicks jbh@magicnet.net
Subject: Re: [Leica] photography in stores, malls, etc.
you wrote:

> the malls have become the defacto public gathering space.

A US court has held that although a mall may be private property it's a pseudo-public place because the mall operators consistent invite the public onto the property free of charge, stage promotions etc.
It's been 20 years or so since this case; I have no idea what case it was or of any further court decisions. The case I'm thinking of involved a TV news crew forbidden to enter a mall to cover an incident that occured within the mall.
John Hicks
jbh@magicnet.net

From Rollei Mailing List;
Date: Wed, 25 Jul 2001
From: Philippe Tempel ptempel@home.com
Subject: Re: [Rollei] RE: Murals and copyright -- any lawyers out there?
The only time I was told not to shoot a building outdoors was in front of the NYC Courthouse building (60 Centre Street, I think). The guard near the small white house saw me on the steps of the building setting up the light tripod. He claimed that photos weren't allowed. I asked why and he said something like "because I said so!" and started getting hot under the collar. I shook my head and complied thinking that I don't need a shot that bad as to argue with a guard. I don't think that he was correct since I was outside the building and in public. I'm sure that a multitude of shots have been done with this building in the frame in the past. As a matter of fact I have one:
http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=245462
Shh. Don't tell the guard about this one. Ok? :-)
Now, I have been told in the past to not shoot or to lose the tripod *inside* buildings both here and in Europe (Spain and Italy). This I can see and it's up to each buildings management to allow or deny flash, tripod or all photography. Some examples that are restricted are the World Financial Center (WFC) in New York City, the Pantheon in Rome and the Medici Church in Florence. Usually it was lose the tripod so I said "ok" and gave it to them to hold. Then I make great creative use of walls, railings, statues and the floor. :-) These restriction I can understand since they want to either charge money or prevent "professional photography" from competing with their commissioning of postcards and books.
...

Date: 31 Jul 2001
From: Phil Stripling phil_stripling@cieux.zzn.com
Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm
Subject: Re: Legalities of street photography
Oscar webmaster@vwacc.com writes:

> Is it legal to take candid photos of people in the streets? > I talked to a guy yesterday that does it. He said that he's never had a > problem, except for once a lady yelled at him for taking a photo of > someone else in the metro.

I have an essay on the topic at
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/photoPublic.html
that is still undergoing revision. The problem is that the issues involved are governed by local law, and with your question, you don't say what "local" is in your situation. As one confusing example, a woman consented to being photographed nude in a bathtub in San Francisco. The photo was published years later in New York City. The woman lived in Philadelphia at the time, and sued in federal court there. Was her privacy "violated"? If so, where? Where the photo was taken? Where it was published? Where she lived when she sued? What about her consent? (She won, by the way.)
Take a look at the essay and be prepared for a confusing mishmash of local law. (It uses US law only, by the way. There's no way to tell if you're in the US.)

> My concern is getting the subject upset.

That's different from "Is it legal."
As for the subject getting upset, that's personal. Taking people's pictures without their permission is done all the time, but you still have to deal with them getting upset, either at the time or when they see their photo used without their permission.
Good luck.
--
Philip Stripling
Legal Assistance on the Web
http://www.PhilipStripling.com/

Date: Sun, 12 Aug 2001
From: mark blackman <mark.blackman1@btinternet.com>
To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us
Subject: Re: [Rollei] Re: WOT - Speed limits in the US

There's a new privacy law - you can be arrested for taking a picture in the
street! There was an article in a recent edition of UK mag: Amateur
Photographer.

To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com From: j.walton@amlp.com Date: Wed, 14 Nov 2001 Subject: [medium-format] Unwelcome MF - where you can't go I put some of my photos (Rollei) of Dazu China on the web -- unable to use my tripod, everything had to be shot discretely as one of the guards wanted to take my "professional" camera away. It was a very overcast day. I will put up the pictures of Vezelay, Chartres, Angkor Wat in a couple days. Here are some other places where MF is not welcome: Bangkok, the Palaces Rome, St. John Lateran Paris, Sainte Chapelle Bangkok is an absolute prohibition. There is a sign with a circle, Hassy and line through it! In Rome, if you don't set up quickly and move along, they will kick you out -- same thing atthe Ste Chappelle in Paris. In the french churches which are still in operation (St. Chappelle is a monument) you can shoot to your heart's content.
To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com> From: "Andy Gulliver" andy.gulliver@codescape.com> Date: Thu, 15 Nov 2001 Subject: RE: [medium-format] Unwelcome MF (was Digest Number 218) Yes, they probably think "MF = pro" and as a pro you'll be making money out of photos of their building/whatever. In parts of the UK (specifically the National Trust properties), *any* photography inside the buildings is banned except with prior written permission and outside normal opening hours :-( My brother and I have sometimes been mistaken for pros when out with M645 gear, but never when using 35mm. One interesting side-effect is that people are more likely to avoid getting in the way when you're using MF! Regards Andy Gulliver > -----Original Message----- > From: Frank Weir [mailto:frankweir@yahoo.com] > Sent: 14 November 2001 20:13 > To: medium-format@yahoogroups.com > Subject: Re: [medium-format] Digest Number 218 > > > > Subject: Unwelcome MF - where you can't go > > Excuse my ignorance, but why in the world would there > be a difference in attitude between touristy 35mm and > MF?? Commercial concerns of some sort that the MF > owner is somehow "ripping off" the site?? > Baffling...thanks for the advice...very interesting.. > > frank weir >
Date: Wed, 19 Sep 2001 From: Jerry Lehrer jerryleh@pacbell.net> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripods in France To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Art Yes, they appear to be that way about tripods in museums, churches public parks, monuments und so weiter. You can use one in your hotel room, but not in the lobby. Someone once objected to my use of a Leica table-top tripod in a restaurant! Jerry ARTHURWG@aol.com wrote: > Anyone have any experience using, or trying to use, a tripod in France? I > hear it's very difficult at best, if not impossible, as someone is bound to > chase you away. I speaking mostly about outside situations, public places and > gardens. I'm planning a trip there this year if I can work up the nerve to > get on an airplane.
From: "mark blackman" mark.blackman1@btinternet.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripods in France Date: Thu, 20 Sep 2001 The problem now isn't so much the use of a tripod, it's France's latest privacy laws which effectively outlaw any public photography. ----- Original Message ----- From: ARTHURWG@aol.com> To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us> Sent: Wednesday, September 19, 2001 8:56 PM Subject: Re: [Rollei] Tripods in France > Anyone have any experience using, or trying to use, a tripod in France? I > hear it's very difficult at best, if not impossible, as someone is bound to > chase you away. I speaking mostly about outside situations, public places and > gardens. I'm planning a trip there this year if I can work up the nerve to > get on an airplane.

From: eos10fan@hotmail.com (dan) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Photography BANNED in Scotland? Date: 12 Feb 2002 The following was in an email newsletter I receive from http://www.bjphoto.co.uk "Scotland off limits? Grave concerns are being expressed over a new clause added to the proposed Land Reform Bill in Scotland. The new clause could lead to an effective ban on professional photography in many of Scotland's areas of outstanding natural beauty. The bill, proposed to the Scottish Parliament at Holyrood, seeks to create a legally defined land access code for the first time in Scotland. The wording of the new clause indicates that access to land would be denied to those 'conducting a business or other activity which is carried on commercially or for profit or any part of such a business or activity.' (Read more in this week's printed issue of BJP)" May the Light be with you.c ----- dan

From: "Al Denelsbeck" denelsbeck@charterless.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Date: Tue, 7 May 2002 .. mikesphoto@aol.com (Mikesphoto) wrote: > >>You need releases from the owners if you are going to publish the photos. ... >Are you sure of that? Think about newspapers, for instance. If they >photograph a building to illustrate a story, they don't need the >owner's permission. > >For that matter, they don't need permission to publish photographs of >people, either, if the people are performing a public act. They don't >need permission of demonstrators or pickets, for instance. And I don't >believe they'd need permission to publish photographs of an event such >as a parade, where the person in question is essentially performing a >public display for the purpose of being seen. > >What am I missing here? The specific definition of 'newsworthy event or location' as opposed to the general right to privacy, freedom from unwanted commercial use or association, and so on. Releases are a very tricky thing. It is entirely possible, and permissible, to trademark an object (like a building) and control usage of any images. The Transamerica Pyramid is one. So is a certain Joshua tree that serves as a landmark (be damned if I can remember exactly where, but somewhere in California). A beer company found out that hard way that being able to photograph someone's barn from the road, did NOT give them the right to use it in a beer ad. And no trademark was involved. If you're publishing your own book (not providing a news service), and profiting from it, get a release. - Al.

From: Susan Jones susan@nospam.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 holvbphoto@cs.com (Vince) wrote: >"Juir" juir@hot.ee writes: >> >>But how can one find the owner in a big city. I have always sort of wondered >>who owns the remarkable buildings in big cities. Think of Times Square in >>NYC or Picadilly Circus in London etc. I remember some years ago there was >>lots of rumors who owns Harrod's in London and nobody knew. So what sort of >>reasonable investigation should the poor photographer perform? >> > >Thats the whole point of my other posting(s) > >In any case trust me no ones going to come forward to bitch about these >Buildings or any others being in magazine ads or anywhere ease. According to the web site mentioned earlier, the law states that all buildings erected after 1990 are the copyrighted property of the owner. Buildings erected before that are public domain unless specifically trademarked by the owner, and that would be on file with the federal trademark office, which is now searchable online. Doesn't help my parade problem, though. :-(

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Enough already. Here is the actual relevant provision from The Copyright Act, Title 17 of the United States Code: Sec. 120. - Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. - The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. (b) Alterations to and Destruction of Buildings. - Notwithstanding the provisions of section 106(2), the owners of a building embodying an architectural work may, without the consent of the author or copyright owner of the architectural work, make or authorize the making of alterations to such building, and destroy or authorize the destruction of such building. As you will note, there is absolutely nothing to prevent you from standing in a public place and photographing any architectural work. Copyright protection in architecture is designed to keep other architects from building identical or similar buildings. Francis A. Miniter

From: "Tom Mitchell" tommitchell@att.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 I honestly did not ask this question to set myself up to answer it, but AFTER I posted it I found an excellent page on the web with several discussions of this exact matter and some sample releases. http://photography.about.com/cs/businessforms/ The answer appears to be get one if at all possible because anyone can sue. Some of you have mentioned news reporting as examples of not required releases. Apparantly there is legal precedent for this usage, but not for commercial use. The discussions always use advertising examples to illustrate commercial use, but I have a sense that publishing a photo in a book might also qualify as commerical use. I don't know about gallery prints, but I suppose if they are for sale, they might also qualify as commercial use. The whole thing kind of puts a chill on my project. I could easily spend more time getting releases than I spend photographing buildings!

From: John Hairell guardian6@erols.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: federal bldgs Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Date: Tue, 14 May 2002 david@meiland.com (David Meiland) wrote: [stuff snipped] > >I've been told directly by an attorney who works in the arts that the >government (federal, state, local) has no intellectual property >interest that affects things like buildings, i.e. you can take and >sell a photograph of a building or other government property with >impunity. Now, that doesn't stop the architect of that building from >suing you, I suppose, but the feds can't. I was curious about this >because the Federal Building here in town is a fantastic piece of >work, and I've photographed it many times. You can't "take and sell a photograph of a building or other government property with impunity" if that property includes defense installations. This is not a copyright issue - it's an espionage issue. See US Code Title 18 chapter 37, (Espionage and Censorship) Section 795. John Hairell (guardian6@erols.com)

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US From: "Tom Thackrey" (blank) Date: Mon, 13 May 2002 "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net wrote: > But trademarks are graphical images that are associated with goods in the > stream > of commerce. They are not buildings. A graphical image of a building can > be a > trademark, but not the building. And the provisions of Section 121 of the > Copyright Act protect photography of architectural sites. PDN has reported that trademark owners are using thier trademarks to harass commercial users of images of their trademarked buildings, tress, etc. They may loose in court, but the reality is that many if not most photographers could not afford a lawsuit from the likes of the Pebble Beach Company. Thus making the threats effective. "Owners of several famous buildings, including New York's Chrysler Building and the Guggenheim Museum guard against commercial uses of photos of their properties with threats of claims under trademark law. And when owners of the Pebble Beach Country Club see a picture of their famous Lone Cypress Tree-yes, a tree!--in a commercial context, they also threaten to sue under trademark law." from www.pdnonline.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html

Date: Thu, 09 May 2002 From: "Francis A. Miniter" miniter@attglobal.net Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Once again, a building cannot be trademarked. A graphical image of the building can be a trademark. The TransAmerica logo is just that - a logo. It is not a photograph of the building. The case is different when you put a toy on a website, especially if the trademarked name or logo is showing. In that case, you are obliged to give credit. Remember (see my earlier post on trademark law), only goods in the stream of commerce can be trademarked. The trademark must be affixed to the goods. (A service mark can now be had for services as well, such as brokerage houses, insurance services, etc.). Francis A. Miniter ...

Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US From: "Tom Thackrey" (blank) Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 ..(quotes above) You may be right that trademark law may not allow trademarking a building as such, however in practice trademarks have been used to sue over commercial use of photos of buildings. The following is a quote (under fair use) from PDN Online: "Owners of several famous buildings, including New York's Chrysler Building and the Guggenheim Museum guard against commercial uses of photos of their properties with threats of claims under trademark law. And when owners of the Pebble Beach Country Club see a picture of their famous Lone Cypress Tree-yes, a tree!--in a commercial context, they also threaten to sue under trademark law." the full text is at www.pdnonline.com/businessresources/modelrelease.html

From: RDKirk rdkirk@mindspring.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.technique.misc Subject: Re: Legalities of Photographing Buildings in the US Date: Fri, 10 May 2002 tommitchell@att.net says... > I honestly did not ask this question to set myself up to answer it, but > AFTER I posted it I found an excellent page on the web with several > discussions of this exact matter and some sample releases. > > http://photography.about.com/cs/businessforms/ > > The answer appears to be get one if at all possible because anyone can sue. > > Some of you have mentioned news reporting as examples of not required > releases. Apparantly there is legal precedent for this usage, but not for > commercial use. The discussions always use advertising examples to > illustrate commercial use, but I have a sense that publishing a photo in a > book might also qualify as commerical use. I don't know about gallery > prints, but I suppose if they are for sale, they might also qualify as > commercial use. > The whole thing kind of puts a chill on my project. I could easily spend > more time getting releases than I spend photographing buildings! ... Well, on that same link, I found this: "Buildings Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house. This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings. " Looks to me that you'd be in the clear. Anybody can always sue, regardless. Whether they'd take the trouble and whether they'd win depends on how you've used and portrayed their property. If you've portrayed their property in a bad light, you're in trouble, not from copyright but from libel. -- RDKirk

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sat, 01 Jun 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure Craig Roberts at crgrbrts@netzero.net wrote: > Does anyone have any experience with an older Mamiya 645? If so, howja like > it? Which model? There are several. I wrote the Mamiya Medium Format Systems manual ten years ago and am revising it now for a new edition. I know these cameras reasonably well. > This may be no news to old DC hands, but it was unexpected by this Boston > transplant. Yep, old news in DC. Been that way for a long time. Also you need a tripod permit in New York City, although you can often get away with it there since most police don't know this. The justification in NYC, people might trip over the tripod legs. This is a legitimate concern in places like Times Square. You also need a permit to use a tripod mounted "professional camera" in US National Parks and in many state parks. I've seen view camera users busted in parks!! The concern, of course, is unlicensed commercial use and they figure anybody with a medium format or large format system is a pro. I always play it safe and ask, although I learned not to for National Parks. The paperwork is daunting. You need proof of liability insurance, among other things. I try to work in state parks, where there is usually less formality and less paperwork. Public lands and public places are only public if you don't want to make good photographs of them!!! Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure curtiscr@pe.net at curtiscr@pe.net wrote: > I've never heard of this! I don't know how many times I've used > tripods at Yosemite and Joshua Tree, not to mention other parks > around the west, sometimes with a view camera (but not recently). > I've stopped to chat with other guys who were using view cameras > on tripods. We were potential jail birds? What is "unlicensed > commercial use?" Why should they care? After all, the parks > belong to "the people." The tripod thing at Times Square I > understand. I even understand the capitol thing - sort of (although > it sounds like a misplaced terrorism concern to me). But national > parks? > Curtis Croulet > Temecula, California Yes, national parks. There was a big flurry of stories about this a couple of years ago when a photographer was arrested for photographing with a 4 X 5 in a national park and all his gear was confiscated. He hadn't bought a permit and said he didn't even know he was in a national park. Eventually he got his gear back, but not without a big hassle and lawyers fees. The National Park Service derives good income from photo and film permits. When you see a car commercial on TV filmed in Monument Valley or any other park you can be sure a fair amount of money went into NPS coffers. Park rangers are taught to look for professional gear and setups and to stop and ask to see the permits. You and others have just been lucky for not encountering this. One one shoot I had to produce my permit four times in one day as different rangers happened to pass where I was working. Also, be aware that doing any sort of nude photography in national parks is in violation of current regulations. Galen Rowell devoted his column to this a while back. I mostly work in state parks these days, as I said, because there is frankly just less BS to put up with in most of them. Then there's BLM land which is under a different set of regulations. I've thought of putting together a web site and listing on it photographer friendly and photographer unfriendly places. Just haven't had the time, but it would be nice if someone did this. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure Bob Shell wrote: >This is a legitimate concern in places like Times Square. You also need a >permit to use a tripod mounted "professional camera" in US National Parks >and in many state parks. I've seen view camera users busted in >parks!! The concern, of course, is unlicensed commercial use and they >figure anybody with a medium format or large format system is a pro. This is not completely accurate. There are four on-line references anyone using camera gear which might be construed as "professional" needs to have copies of in their possession in the event an over-zealous park ranger is encountered. The filming policy is set forth in Section 14 of [NPS] Director's Order #53: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder53.html The Reference Manual for DO #53 is here (zipped MS Word 6.0 file): http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/RM53.zip See also "Appendix 20 of NPS-53, the NPS Guideline on Special Park Uses" which governs "Procedures and Guidance for the permitting of Filming and Photography in Units of the National Park Service." http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/Filming.html See also the *clarification* on Appendix 20 of NPS-53 DO here: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/a20x1.html Permits are required for photography involving the use of props, sets or models; or requiring entry into "closed" areas where the general public is not allowed; or requiring access to the park before or after normal hours (some parks are not open 24/7). A permit is **NOT** required for: * A visitor using a camera and/or a recording device for his/her own personal use and within normal visitation areas and hours; or * A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, or set, and staying within normal visitation areas and hours; or * Press coverage of breaking news. This never requires a permit, but is subject to the imposition of restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources and public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources or values. If an over-zealous ranger is encountered, ask to see the Park Director. For the bulk of the "horror stories" I've heard about, there are usually some additional, important facts regarding the incident left out (e.g. entering closed areas not open to the Public). If the regulations regarding the use of props, sets and models were not in place, some of the most scenic park areas would be overrun by commercial photography projects using untold quantities of lighting equipment and props with armies of models and assistants. -- John

From rollei mailing list; Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure John A. Lind at jlind@spitfire.net wrote: > * A commercial photographer not using a prop, model, > or set, and staying within normal visitation areas > and hours; or This is simply wrong. What is your authority for this statement? Commercial photography in National Parks requires a permit. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure ...(quotes post above) Bob, Is Section 14.1, 2nd subsection, 2nd "bullet," of National Park Service Director's Order #53 sufficient authority? It was quoted verbatim from that document: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder53.html -- John

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure Curtis Croulet wrote: >Monument Valley -- the best parts, anyway -- are on the Navajo >Reservation. I've long known that they wanted permits. It's their >land, and they can do pretty much as they wish. This is separate >from the National Parks issue. So, what does it take to get one of >these permits? I've never sold a picture. I have no professional >credentials. >-- >Curtis Croulet >Temecula, California Read my posting and *all* the links I provided about photography in the [U.S.] National Parks. Having lived in Arizona for some number of years, entering into reservation lands is, in some respects, akin to entering another country. They can require their own licenses and permits, in addition to State and Federal license/permit requirements. I paid my share of fees for Navaho and Apache fishing licenses, in addition to having an Arizona fishing license, to fish on their lakes. They also have their own police, and their own courts. -- John

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 18:07:26 -0400 From: Bob Shell Reply to: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us To: rollei@mejac.palo-alto.ca.us Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure on 6/2/02 3:17 PM, curtiscr@pe.net at curtiscr@pe.net wrote: > Monument Valley -- the best parts, anyway -- are on the Navajo > Reservation. I've long known that they wanted permits. It's their > land, and they can do pretty much as they wish. This is separate > from the National Parks issue. So, what does it take to get one of > these permits? I've never sold a picture. I have no professional > credentials. If you want to do a commercial shoot on National Park Service land you must request the paperwork, fill it out and submit it, and pay a fee. For a single photographer without assistants and such it is not so much of a hassle, but if you want to take a model and/or assistant, you have to have workman's comp insurance on them. As for working on land belonging to Native Americans, I think it depends on the tribe. I've done a lot of shooting on Paiute land in Nevada (Moapa band to be precise) and they are very relaxed about it. I was driving through the Moapa reservation one evening at dusk and the sunset was just incredible, so I pulled over and set up my tripod to get some shots. I hadn't thought I would be shooting on the reservation at the time so I hadn't even thought about a permit. As I was standing there waiting for the light to be just right this tribal policeman in his four wheeler pulled up behind me and parked. I thought he was going to hassle me about something, but when he walked up he just said, "One hell of a pretty sunset, eh?" and went on to say not to let him bother me while I was getting the shots. Turned out he was just lonely and wanted someone to shoot the bull with, so we stood there talking while I took pictures and when it got too dark we shook hands and went our separate ways. Not all experiences with law enforcement and photography are negative. Bob

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure John A. Lind at jlind@spitfire.net wrote: > If you're going to contact NPS offices, more details are found in > "Reference Manual 53" (RM 53) which the NPS might cite. It contains > guidance for park superintendents about implementing DO #53. Photography > is covered in Appendix 13. Arm yourself with some additional knowledge > beforehand: > http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/RM53.zip > This is a Zip archive of MS Word 6.0 files. Appendix 13 consists of ten > files: Appendix 13 plus Exhibits 1 through 9 for that appendix. Sort the > files by name with the archive open in WinZip (or equivalent Zip utility) > and look for all the files that begin with "A-13." OK, here's the official version of this story: > D.O. 53, Park Special Uses, is a continuation of the policy stated in the > April 1990 letter from the Department of the Interior; which simply > reflected 36 CFR 5.5(b): > > Sec. 5.5 Commercial photography. > . . . > (b) Still photography. The taking of photographs of any vehicle, or > other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial > advertising without a written permit from the Superintendent is > prohibited. > > In May of 2000, HR 154 was signed by President Clinton, and became Public Law > 106-206, later codified as 16 USC 4601-6d; though the bill's main > purpose was to allow charging fees for commercial filming (i.e., motion > pictures). It also strengthened protections for still photographers: > > (c) STILL PHOTOGRAPHY- (1) Except as provided in paragraph (2), the > Secretary shall not require a permit nor assess a fee for still > photography on lands administered by the Secretary if such photography > takes place where members of the public are generally allowed. The > Secretary may require a permit, fee, or both, if such photography takes > place at other locations where members of the public are generally not > allowed, or where additional administrative costs are likely. > > (2) The Secretary shall require and shall establish a reasonable fee for > still photography that uses models or props which are not a part of the > site's natural or cultural resources or administrative facilities. > > This provision applies to all Federal land, including Forest Service, BLM, > FWS and National Parks; moreover, as part of the U.S. Code, it > must be adhered to by any government agency.. > > Regardless of the law, many government personnel are simply not aware of it > and may tell photographers that permits are required when, in fact, they are > not. Now this gives me serious pause, since I must have been dealing with personnel who did not know about the law, and it makes me wonder about those DC tripod permits, which would seem to be in violation of this law. I'm glad this came up here since it gave me an opportunity to find out information I was not aware of, and can now arm myself with copies of the appropriate law when photographing on federal land. Bob Shell

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 3 Jun 2002 From: Earthmother veggie@monmouth.com Subject: [Rollei] Photography in National Parks. The Large Format Website has a fairly extensive discussion on this topic. http://www.ai.sri.com/~luong/photography/lf/travel/national-parks.html Ed Balko

[Ed. note: Progress? Now they've copyrighted the lights on the Eiffel Tower ;-)] From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com Newsgroups: alt.photography,alt.journalism.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Model Shoots Date: Fri, 07 Jun 2002 "Jouni Ilola" jouni.ilola@satabaana.net a �crit... > This is true. And my intention wasn't to suppose > the copyright is directed against tourists but rather > people able to get the picture and the selling it. > They are protecting the tower admin's income from the > picture sales. The problem is that people photograph the tower, not the lights. The lights were copyright in order to force people to pay to photograph the tower--which is in the public domain--because the tower cannot be photographed at night without also capturing the lights. Essentially the management company seeks to usurp a national monument for its own financial gain. Nobody would photograph the lights if there were no tower, or if it were not the Eiffel Tower; but people would still continue to photograph the tower even if it it were lit differently, or not at all (they did so for a hundred years, before the current lighting system was installed).

From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl Newsgroups: alt.photography,alt.journalism.photo,rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Eiffel Tower Copyright WASRe: Model Shoots Date: Fri, 7 Jun 2002 "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl wrote... > > "Jouni Ilola" jouni.ilola@satabaana.net wrote... > SNIP > > According to the same article (Professional Photographer May 2002) it is > > forbidden to commercially photoograph the columns outside the New York > > Stock Exchange. > > Without permission, that's probably correct because the works of art are > permanently displayed, and are not allowed to be the main subject of the > reproduction. They can be used as a backdrop, or for personal use or study. On the other hand, the USA Copyright Act says: 120. Scope of exclusive rights in architectural works (a) PICTORIAL REPRESENTATIONS PERMITTED. --The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place. So it seems that the Berne Convention (or some National versions of it) is more strict than the US version. You may want to write and ask a question to the magazine about the NYSE example. Only reason I can think of would be if the building was created by at least one person residing under the Berne Convention for the Protection of Literary and Artistic Works. Bart

From rollei mailing list: Date: Sun, 02 Jun 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure Bob Shell wrote: >I see it, but I don't believe it. I will look into this tomorrow when the >NPS offices are open. Even when working singly with no staff or models I >have always been told I needed a permit. > >Bob Bob, If you're going to contact NPS offices, more details are found in "Reference Manual 53" (RM 53) which the NPS might cite. It contains guidance for park superintendents about implementing DO #53. Photography is covered in Appendix 13. Arm yourself with some additional knowledge beforehand: http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/RM53.zip This is a Zip archive of MS Word 6.0 files. Appendix 13 consists of ten files: Appendix 13 plus Exhibits 1 through 9 for that appendix. Sort the files by name with the archive open in WinZip (or equivalent Zip utility) and look for all the files that begin with "A-13." Simply "working singly with no staff or models" shouldn't require a permit provided it also does not involve using props, including products for advertising. (I know you do "glamour" work, but don't know what other commercial work you also do.) There are loopholes which are judgemental and open to interpretation by the Park Superintendent (e.g. "not significantly interfering with normal park visitation"). Exhibit 1 to Appendix 13 in RM 53 is a "handout" that resulted from complaints by non-professionals using advanced equipment and techniques being hassled by zealot park rangers. It is quoted in its entirety below. This subject has come up on other mail lists, with many who have been challenged by park rangers recommending keeping a copy of it in the camera bag, and then politely asking for an audience with the Park Superintendent if that doesn't work. -- John ---=== Exhibit 1 to Appendix 13, RM 53 ===--- "STILL PHOTOGRAPHY It is the policy of the National Park Service (NPS) to allow and encourage photography within the National Park System, consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of resources. The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses. Coverage of breaking news never requires a permit but is subject to restrictions and conditions necessary to protect park resources, public health and safety, and to prevent impairment or derogation of park resources, values or purposes. A permit is required if the superintendent determines there is a potential of a photography project's harming or having an impact on the park's natural, cultural or recreational resources, or creating unacceptable health or safety risks, or disrupting visitor use and enjoyment. A permit is also required pursuant to 36 CFR 5.5(b) for persons taking photographs of vehicles, other articles of commerce or involves the use of a model, set or prop for the purpose of commercial advertising. If a photography permit is required, the NPS will impose only those conditions necessary to accomplish the needed resource protection or visitor enjoyment objectives. Liability insurance requirements and other limitations should not be made unduly burdensome. For advertising photography, it is appropriate to impose a permit condition that prohibits implied or stated Service endorsement of the advertised product or service."

From rollei mailing list: Date: Mon, 03 Jun 2002 From: "John A. Lind" jlind@spitfire.net Subject: Re: [Rollei] (OT) Mamiya 645 anyone? and a Capitol Hill Rollei adventure you wrote: > > >So, what does it take to get one of > > >these permits? > >Sorry, I wasn't clear here. I was asking about how to get permits >for National Parks. >-- >Curtis Croulet >Temecula, California Curtis, The first question is whether or not you need one . . . You don't need one just because you're using medium/large format, a tripod, flash, or interchangeable lenses. Don't make unnecessary work and expense for yourself. I quote the first two paragraphs of Exhibit 1 to Appendix 13 in NPS RM 53: ------------------- "It is the policy of the National Park Service (NPS) to allow and encourage photography within the National Park System, consistent with the protection and public enjoyment of resources. The NPS will not require a permit for photographers, commercial or non-commercial, to go anywhere or to do anything that members of the public are generally allowed to go or do without a permit. This is true whether or not the photographer uses tripods, strobe lights, or interchangeable lenses." -------------------- The procedures for obtaining a photography Special Use Permit *if* it's required are contained in the National Park Service Director's Order #53 (Section 14, Filming and Photography): http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/DOrder53.html and its companion Reference Manual #53 (Appendix 13 with Exhibits 1 through 9 to Appendix 13): http://www.nps.gov/refdesk/DOrders/RM53.zip Reference Manual #53 includes the forms that must be filed. In addition, each individual Park Superintendent can supplement DO #53 and RM #53 with specific policies and procedures not covered in these documents, provided they are consistent with them, and you will have to inquire with a particular park to find out what supplements, if any, there are for that park. DO #53 implements the "written permission" requirements in 36 CFR 5.5: --------------- [Code of Federal Regulations] [Title 36, Parks, Forests, and Public Property] [Chapter I, National Park Service, Department of the Interior] [Part 5, Commercial and Private Operations] "Sec. 5.5 Commercial photography. (a) Motion pictures, television. Before any motion picture may be filmed or any television production or sound track may be made, which involves the use of professional casts, settings, or crews, by any person other than bona fide newsreel or news television personnel, written permission must first be obtained from the Superintendent, in accordance with the provisions of the special regulations contained in part 5, subtitle A, title 43 of the Code of Federal Regulations. (b) Still photography. The taking of photographs of any vehicle, or other articles of commerce or models for the purpose of commercial advertising without a written permit from the Superintendent is prohibited." --------------- If you were looking for a *simple* answer, it's not. Welcome to modern bureaucracy. -- John

From: roberson@ibd.nrc.ca (Walter Roberson) Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format,rec.photo.digital Subject: Re: The Great Magapixel Scam Date: 29 Sep 2002 dj dalej2@mac.com wrote: :Film is has a proven track record. Digital is great, but 75 :years from now will someone be able to bring the file which contains my :picture on a computer or will anyone still be able to veiw my printed :picture. I would suggest that if you are concerned about future access to your digital pictures, that you should be interested in the topic of Digital Rights Management and that you take a look at some of the commentary on Microsoft's current "Palladium Initiative". Palladium takes computer security down to the CPU level. This is not inherently a bad thing, but the mechanisms involved fall within the scope of the US Digital Millenium Copyright Act -- thus making bypassing any of the mechanisms a [U.S.] felony under most circumstances. To make a long story short, what this implies is that if you store a picture under Palladium, then you will lose the ability to legally view that picture later when your software license expires. Oh, and even before the license expired, you would only have been able to view the picture through licensed software. [There are serious claims that Palladium is a strategy deliberately intended to destroy the Open Source Software movement.] --

From: "Karlos" furnace51@hotmail.com Newsgroups: aus.photo Subject: fuji website BS and a major whine. Date: Mon, 30 Sep 2002 from the wonderful people at FUJI: http://www.fujicolor.com.au/en/Content/Home.asp "Create your own FREE Photo Album Website at www.fujicolor.com.au/"yourname " yay! Doesn't this sound grand? Doesn't fuji sound like a fun, caring and sharing member of the photographic community? from their terms and conditions: "To enable your images or photographs to be uploaded and made available on the Service you grant to us and to any store which uses the Service and which you have requested upload your images or photographs to the Service, a non-exclusive transferable worldwide royalty-free copyright licence to reproduce, adapt or alter your images or photographs. You acknowledge that we have no control over the use of your images or photographs and shall not be held liable for any use, publication or copying of your images and photographs. You waive all rights of action or other claims you may have against us in respect of any such use, publication or copying." My cynicism is reinforced yet again. OK, maybe it's just me and everyone else is happy with big companies making $ from people without paying a cent.. maybe it's just me who gets pissed off seeing people fleeced when entering photocomps in which EVERY image submitted becomes the property of Canon or Fuji whether they win or not, but it REALLY pisses me off to see people surrendering their copyright without a clue as to what they are doing.. many newcomers to the profession seem pleased to see their image in print somewhere and it's hard for them to believe that some of those images can and are being used to make millions for a major company without them seeing so much as a brass razoo for their efforts {snort} BE WARNED (or ignore me and discount my insane rantings ;-) ... I'll go away now.. karl

From: "Karlos" furnace51@hotmail.com Newsgroups: aus.photo Subject: Re: fuji website BS and a major whine. Date: Tue, 1 Oct 2002 "Kwyjibo" > Did you even read the original post ?? what, the one I wrote? yerrs, I think I did ;-) > This has nothing to do with printing/processing. no it didn't BUT those ARE their terms and conditions for uploading images that they print for you at a frontier lab, in fact they are the terms and conditions for having anything printed in a frontier lad.. it was worse than I thought :-( check it out at http://www.fujicolor.com.au/en/Content/Home.asp , terms and conditions at the bottom >They are saying that if > you upload your images to a digital album, which is then viewable via > their web site, they cannot stop people downloading or keeping the > images stored there. no,. they are saying "you grant to us AND TO ANY STORE which uses the Service ... a non-exclusive TRANSFERABLE worldwide ROYALTY-FREE copyright licence to reproduce, adapt or alter your images or photographs" > Sounds pretty much like common sense to me. sounds a lot like the greedy taking advantage of the uninformed (potentially). You are aware that software has been developed (but not perfected yet) which can sort through images to find a white bunny or a big brown dog? When it IS perfected Fuji will have a nice little earner selling their stock library (which may include your images) it's possible. this bit would have been all they needed to protect themselves, but they make it quite clear that they want more: "You acknowledge that we have no control over the use of your images or photographs and shall not be held liable for any use, publication or copying of your images and photographs. You waive all rights of action or other claims you may have against us in respect of any such use, publication or copying." karl

[Ed. note: this is one of the benefits you get and pay for when going to a well-run workshop...] Date: Tue, 29 Oct 2002 From: Bob Shell bob@bobshell.com Subject: Valley of Fire Regulations Hi All, If you haven't photographed at the Valley of Fire State Park and don't plan to, you don't need to read this. I1ve been asked by the rangers at Valley of Fire State Park to clarify some things. It seems that photographers have been photographing models in the park and when questioned by rangers have used my name and said I had told them they could photograph models in the park. It should be obvious to anyone that I do not have the authority to give such permission. I pay the park for use of a specific area during my workshops. Before the workshop begins and after it ends I do not have permission to photograph anywhere in the park myself. To photograph a model in the Valley of Fire State Park you need to obtain a proper photo permit. You must also carry liability insurance naming the State of Nevada, Dept. of Parks and Recreation, as a secondary insured and must provide the park with proof of this in proper form. Adding this to your business or homeowners policy is about $ 100 a year. You must also carry Workman1s Compensation insurance on the model(s), which costs about $ 700 per year. Even if you do not consider models as employees, the State of Nevada does. I do all of the paperwork, pay the fees, and jump through all of the hoops for you when I set up my workshops, and I greatly resent anyone circumventing the regulations, or attempting to use my good name to do so. One good thing is that the "Class A" Photo Permit has been eliminated. Now one photographer with one vehicle can photograph in the park, even for commercial purposes, without needing a photo permit. But if a second person is in the car, then you need a permit. Let's all cooperate with the park rangers at Valley of Fire. They're nice people just doing their jobs, and the money from photo permits goes to help keep the park such a nice place to do photography. Best wishes, Bob Shell

From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Your legal right to photograph? Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote > "Salts2001" salts2001@aol.com a �crit... > > > Someone posted a site a while back that did > > indicate a copyright on buildings built after > > a certain year in USA. > > The law now explicitly recognizes copyright on architectural works. It did > not in the past. > > However, U.S. law allows unrestricted photography of buildings, even when > their designs are copyrighted, in order to prevent the kind of abuse that > occurs in places like France. Which makes me wonder a bit about the interpretation of Article L122-5 of the French "Code de la propri�t� intellectuelle". Unless my knowledge of the French language mistakes me, it states that: When the work has been made public, an author cannot forbid: 2� Copies or reproductions, strictly reserved for private use by the person who makes the copy, and not intended for collective use. In fact, akin to the "fair use" provisions that apply to most non-commercial copies for personal use. As soon as you hurt an author's commercial or other interests, you are in violation. Non-commercial use is permitted. Bart

From: "Bart van der Wolf" bvdwolf@nospam.nl Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Your legal right to photograph? Date: Mon, 4 Nov 2002 "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com wrote > What part of the Patriot Act contains this provision? The closest thing I could find is "SEC. 1016. Critical infrastructures protection". http://www.eff.org/Privacy/Surveillance/Terrorism_militias/20011025_hr3162_usa_patriot_bill.html But since this applies to National security issues, and I suppose people are still considered innocent unless proven guilty, it seems up to the official that tries to prevent picture taking to prove that you're a terrorist. If I were a US citizen, I'd probably sue him/her for insult or worse. And in a country where pets sue their owners, it probably would work. Bart

From: "Mxsmanic" mxsmanic@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.35mm Subject: Re: Your legal right to photograph? Date: Wed, 6 Nov 2002 "Pieter Litchfield" plitch@NOSPAMattglobal.net a �crit > So I can't take a picture of the Eiffel Tower > without a release? The Eiffel Tower itself has fallen into the public domain. However, the company that operates the tower claims a copyright on the _lights_ that illuminate the tower at night, and thus wants everyone to pay to photograph the tower in the evening. It's probably one of the most spectacular examples of abuse of copyright law currently available.

From Leica mailing list: Date: Wed, 19 Feb 2003 From: "Oliver Bryk" oliverbryk@attbi.com Subject: [Leica] OT - student arrested for photographing public transit facility This item from the RISKS newsgroup might be of interest: "Date: Thu, 13 Feb 2003 From: "Rebecca Mercuri" notable@mindspring.com Subject: Risks of Doing Homework At the faculty meeting at Bryn Mawr College on 12 Feb 2003, we were informed that a student at Haverford (our affiliated College) was arrested over the weekend when he was trying to do his homework assignment in Philadelphia. As part of the Cities project, he was taking photographs of SEPTA (our regional transit authority) facilities when he was arrested, detained for a few hours, and eventually released. Haverford administration is working to try to ensure that this event not be a part of the student's permanent police record. Apparently taking photographs at transit facilities is cause for arrest during "Code Orange" alert, the authorities explained. Faculty were advised to be careful about assigning "field trip" projects during such alerts." Oliver Bryk

From: "Woody" woodhall@ix.net.au Newsgroups: aus.photo Subject: Re: Fee for photography in all national parks Date: Fri, 10 Oct 2003 > I wonder if they have regulations like this in NSW. > Anyone ? > > =bob= Yep, they do have similar regulations in NSW. The links below explain the situation. http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/npws.nsf/Content/Applying+for+permission http://www.nationalparks.nsw.gov.au/PDFs/PhotoFees.pdf The conditions specifically mention the following. It seems to me most keen amateurs needn't lose any sleep. "....The occasional sale of an image by a photographer does not make the activity 'commercial photography' provided that the image was derived from an activity which was undertaken as a hobby or personal interest." cheers Steve

From: Mxsmanic mxsmanic@hotmail.com Newsgroups: rec.photo.equipment.medium-format Subject: Re: What was wrong with film? Date: Fri, 27 Feb 2004 Gregory W Blank writes: > Even with the current climate of homeland security we here in the US > are fairly free to photograph as we please. I take it that you aren't a railfan or an admirer of bridges, dams, aircraft, children, women, or airports.
End of Page
Page Created 3/17/99