Video or photos in public?

[Ed W]

I have a question about taking video or still images in public.  I know that it's illegal to engage in voyeurism like trying to photograph in a restroom or changing room, but my question is where this information may be found in the Oklahoma statutes.  Title 13, section 176 deals with wiretapping - recording an telephone call requires the consent of just one party, for instance, and that's somewhat different from taking photos or video tape in public.

I ask this because of the proliferation of tiny video cameras, some of them in use by bicyclists as a means to document actions on the street.  And in one instance that I know of, a cyclist with a camera attached to his bike or his helmet was threatened with arrest under federal wiretapping laws when he had the camera running during a traffic stop by police.  They confiscated his equipment and I do not know if it was ever returned.

Finally, there's some interesting reading on Photography Is Not A Crime, a blog about photographers being harassed or even arrested while taking photographs in public. 

http://carlosmiller.com/

[Hoss]

I have a question about taking video or still images in public.  I know that it's illegal to engage in voyeurism like trying to photograph in a restroom or changing room, but my question is where this information may be found in the Oklahoma statutes.  Title 13, section 176 deals with wiretapping - recording an telephone call requires the consent of just one party, for instance, and that's somewhat different from taking photos or video tape in public.

I ask this because of the proliferation of tiny video cameras, some of them in use by bicyclists as a means to document actions on the street.  And in one instance that I know of, a cyclist with a camera attached to his bike or his helmet was threatened with arrest under federal wiretapping laws when he had the camera running during a traffic stop by police.  They confiscated his equipment and I do not know if it was ever returned.

Finally, there's some interesting reading on Photography Is Not A Crime, a blog about photographers being harassed or even arrested while taking photographs in public. 

http://carlosmiller.com/

There's a document I keep in my camera bag...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

If an LEO tries to keep you from photographing something in the public domain, very calmly retrieve this document from your bag and present it to the officer.  I've had to do this twice when taking photos of airplanes at the airport.  They try to harass you initially, but show them this.  It usually clams them up and they wind up leaving.  I've never had one tell me to go away when I did...

But, as always, YMMV.

[custosnox]

There's a document I keep in my camera bag...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

If an LEO tries to keep you from photographing something in the public domain, very calmly retrieve this document from your bag and present it to the officer.  I've had to do this twice when taking photos of airplanes at the airport.  They try to harass you initially, but show them this.  It usually clams them up and they wind up leaving.  I've never had one tell me to go away when I did...

But, as always, YMMV.

Simply put, if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy (not taking pictures through someones windows, ect), than it falls under public domain, which means that you can click away.

[patric]

in one instance that I know of, a cyclist with a camera attached to his bike or his helmet was threatened with arrest under federal wiretapping laws when he had the camera running during a traffic stop by police.  They confiscated his equipment and I do not know if it was ever returned.

Finally, there's some interesting reading on Photography Is Not A Crime, a blog about photographers being harassed or even arrested while taking photographs in public. 

http://carlosmiller.com/

That site has the story about the Oklahoma City teacher that was manhandled and arrested when he took pictures of an arrest following a high-speed chase:
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/07/07/oklahoma-state-troopers-force-photographer-to-delete-images/#more-578

They also have the opposing views, as well.
USA Today published a statement from the International Union of Police Associations claiming that officers are justified in violating citizens' First Amendment rights because they have been stripped of that privilege themselves:

"Much is said about First Amendment rights regarding the videotaping of police officers. While officers often have legitimate complaints about misuse of video tapes, we are still sensitive to the right granted under the First Amendment. That's because we don't always enjoy that right.
If we make a statement contrary to what a commander thinks, we may face subtle but onerous retaliation in our workplace. It may be a demotion, a negative evaluation, days off without pay or a transfer to less than desirable duty."

My favorite is, of course, the Tennessee trooper that insisted a man delete photos he had taken on his iPhone because the iPhone was pointing a laser at the officer and he feared for his safety.

[Hoss]

Simply put, if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy (not taking pictures through someones windows, ect), than it falls under public domain, which means that you can click away.

BUT....

....you cannot use said media to make a profit from it if it includes a likeness of something/someone on that media without the parties consent to do so.  Whether that likeness be in person or another image or product.  Why do you think you see so many videos with people's faces blurred on syndicated shows like Cops or other LEO reality shows?

[Hoss]

That site has the story about the Oklahoma City teacher that was manhandled and arrested when he took pictures of an arrest following a high-speed chase:
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/07/07/oklahoma-state-troopers-force-photographer-to-delete-images/#more-578

They also have the opposing views, as well.
USA Today published a statement from the International Union of Police Associations claiming that officers are justified in violating citizens' First Amendment rights because they have been stripped of that privilege themselves:

"Much is said about First Amendment rights regarding the videotaping of police officers. While officers often have legitimate complaints about misuse of video tapes, we are still sensitive to the right granted under the First Amendment. That's because we don't always enjoy that right.
If we make a statement contrary to what a commander thinks, we may face subtle but onerous retaliation in our workplace. It may be a demotion, a negative evaluation, days off without pay or a transfer to less than desirable duty."

My favorite is, of course, the Tennessee trooper that insisted a man delete photos he had taken on his iPhone because the iPhone was pointing a laser at the officer and he feared for his safety.

I call BS...

ALL workers are subject to those same punishments in the workplace if they do the same things (in essence, go against what the boss says), up to and including termination.

There should never be a case where taking photo in the public domain should EVER be construed as a crime, unless it's for National Security Purposes, and even then, it should be PLAINLY POSTED.

[Ed W]

I call BS...

ALL workers are subject to those same punishments in the workplace if they do the same things (in essence, go against what the boss says), up to and including termination.

There should never be a case where taking photo in the public domain should EVER be construed as a crime, unless it's for National Security Purposes, and even then, it should be PLAINLY POSTED.

I read a piece some time ago about a photographer in DC getting stopped for no apparent reason.  It seems he'd photographed the unmarked building housing DARPA and the security people would not allow it.

And you're right about using an image for a commercial purpose.  To do that, signed model releases are necessary.  But on a public street no one has an expectation of privacy, so if you're shooting for personal use or editorial use, any image should be permissible.  Now, I wouldn't take a photo of a child without the parent's consent because that's just creepy, but it's an entirely different thing when a police officer insists we cannot take photos of him doing his job.  That's overstepping the bounds of his authority.

[patric]

BUT....

....you cannot use said media to make a profit from it if it includes a likeness of something/someone on that media without the parties consent to do so.  Whether that likeness be in person or another image or product.  Why do you think you see so many videos with people's faces blurred on syndicated shows like Cops or other LEO reality shows?

If you are shooting for, say, a reality show or a modeling assignment, you need to have everyone on-camera sign a release form, or blur their face (if identifiable). 
If your shooting news or vacation snapshots, there's no such legal requirement, but if your work may be publicly displayed you may be asked to obscure someone's identity for various reasons.  That's on a case-by-case basis, varies with community standards, and entirely your option.

Police may ask for copies of photos they need for an investigation, but they cant legally confiscate or destroy un-copied originals on the spot.  The few exceptions would be at military bases and nuclear reactors.

[custosnox]

If you are shooting for, say, a reality show or a modeling assignment, you need to have everyone on-camera sign a release form, or blur their face (if identifiable). 
If your shooting news or vacation snapshots, there's no such legal requirement, but if your work may be publicly displayed you may be asked to obscure someone's identity for various reasons.  That's on a case-by-case basis, varies with community standards, and entirely your option.

Police may ask for copies of photos they need for an investigation, but they cant legally confiscate or destroy un-copied originals on the spot.  The few exceptions would be at military bases and nuclear reactors.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you deny law inforement even copies of your photos/vidoes unless legally compelled by court order?

[patric]

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you deny law inforement even copies of your photos/vidoes unless legally compelled by court order?

That's my understanding, and I know businesses have done that to protect themselves from liability.
It's your call, and in special cases it's not unusual for photographers or news agencies to make copies available without a court order in the interests of good relations.  In either case, it's not legal for someone to confiscate or destroy a photographers originals in the field, such as with the OHP case in Oklahoma City where the police handed an illegally seized camera around trying to figure out how to delete possibly incriminating photos.

[DolfanBob]

There's a document I keep in my camera bag...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

If an LEO tries to keep you from photographing something in the public domain, very calmly retrieve this document from your bag and present it to the officer.  I've had to do this twice when taking photos of airplanes at the airport.  They try to harass you initially, but show them this.  It usually clams them up and they wind up leaving.  I've never had one tell me to go away when I did...

But, as always, YMMV.

You have had someone actually read that document ? Its the length of the Declaration of Independence..lol
Plus if you dont present me with a pair of 2X glasses. Forget about it.

[Hoss]

You have had someone actually read that document ? Its the length of the Declaration of Independence..lol
Plus if you dont present me with a pair of 2X glasses. Forget about it.

Yes, I have...I figured this person scanned it and let me go.  There's enough info on that sheet to dissuade any LEO from trying to say 'you can't take pictures here'.

[custosnox]

Yes, I have...I figured this person scanned it and let me go.  There's enough info on that sheet to dissuade any LEO from trying to say 'you can't take pictures here'.

Of course handing them your attorney's card works as well

[Hoss]

Of course handing them your attorney's card works as well

Yes, that would do it also...

[heironymouspasparagus]

Hoss,

And then I would submit if it is related to national security, it shouldn't be out in public in the first place.


What America needs is more free speech!!
  - By someone, but can't remember who.