Photographers Rights Gray Card Set

quilmore

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/08/24/introducing-the-photographers-rights-gray-card-set/

probably for american law, but may be useful anywhere else

1. You can make a photograph of anything and anyone on any public property, except where a specific law prohibits it.

i.e. streets, sidewalks, town squares, parks, government buildings open to the public, and public libraries.

2. You may shoot on private property if it is open to the public, but you are obligated to stop if the owner requests it.

i.e. malls, retail stores, restaurants, banks, and office building lobbies.

3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

4. Anyone can be photographed without consent when they are in a public place unless there is a reasonable expectation of privacy.

i.e. private homes, restrooms, dressing rooms, medical facilities, and phone booths.

5. Despite common misconceptions, the following subjects are almost always permissible:

* accidents, fire scenes, criminal activities
* children, celebrities, law enforcement officers
* bridges, infrastructure, transportation facilities
* residential, commercial, and industrial buildings

6. Security is rarely an acceptable reason for restricting photography. Photographing from a public place cannot infringe on trade secrets, nor is it terrorist activity.

7. Private parties cannot detain you against your will unless a serious crime was committed in their presence. Those that do so may be subject to criminal and civil charges.

8. It is a crime for someone to threaten injury, detention, confiscation, or arrest because you are making photographs.

9. You are not obligated to provide your identity or reason for photographing unless questioned by a law enforcement officer and state law requires it.

10. Private parties have no right to confiscate your equipment without a court order. Even law enforcement officers must obtain one unless making an arrest. No one can force you to delete photos you have made.


These are general guidelines regarding the right to make photos and should not be interpreted as legal advice. If you need legal help, please contact a lawyer.

Fajitas!

Afaik, they all seem quite relevant to Irish law.

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

mikeanywhere

Fajitas! wrote: »

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

Just think how cool you would look though

smelltheglove

For anyone in England though it could be a good idea to have one in their bag considering the regular stories about police confrontations over there.

Kbeg3

Amateur Photographer did something similar but with a lens cloth

http://www.petapixel.com/2010/06/22/photographers-rights-printed-on-a-lens-cloth-by-amateur-photographer/

Fajitas!

Tbh, the people carrying these cards will get themselves in more bother than it's worth by pointing out that their card is law.

I've never had a problem in the UK, and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'... It's very rare a situation can't be solved by a few words, not resorting to pointing out the law, as being displayed on the leaflets hanging from ones neck...

jpb1974

and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'

Aye... I agree with this.

Rather than stamping your feet and waving around your little "photographer's rights" card it's often better to just keep it quiet or possibly just move on.

Trev M

I really dunno about the photographing kids thing .... I covered a public event recently and we were specifically instructed that under no circumstances where we to take a pic of a child without a release / consent form being signed first....

The way things are these days there is no way in hell Id take a pic of a random kid in public anyway. Its maybe a sad state of affairs but I just wouldnt want to deal with the potential hassle that could result.

Im with the "shuffle on with minimal hassle" brigade .

Barname

Fajitas! wrote: »

Tbh, the people carrying these cards will get themselves in more bother than it's worth by pointing out that their card is law.

I've never had a problem in the UK, and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'... It's very rare a situation can't be solved by a few words, not resorting to pointing out the law, as being displayed on the leaflets hanging from ones neck...

I agree, it appears to me that certain people have become 'photographers' so as they can go out and have an argument. Who with cop on and the ability to communicate and or explain themselves ends up having issues? No one I know.

CabanSail

Hands up who first read the title as

"Photographers Gay Rights Card Set"

o/

Fajitas!

You may be on your own there... :pac:

CabanSail

CabanSail wrote: »

Hands up who first read the title as

"Photographers Gay Rights Card Set"

o/

Yeah me too. My brain didn't understand it and I thought it was some kind of gay festival where photographers were being asked to come along or something.

When I clicked into the thread and seen the picture of the cards, I had to read it again.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

On the other hand, one would look like a right gobsh*te walking around with one of those hanging from their neck...

In your pocket? ...

I can't see me ever using those, but they might come in handy if you're ever faced with ignorance. Like the time security guards from a building across the street from where I was taking harmless shots confronted me. They pretty much started making up laws on spot.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Like the time security guards from a building across the street from where I was taking harmless shots confronted me. They pretty much started making up laws on spot.

What, this time? When the security guards didn't make up laws on the spot? And a 'photographers rights gray card' wouldn't have made a single difference about it?

Thecageyone

Yes, they made up some crap that the street was private property. I have since found out for certain it is not - that kinda means they made up some BS laws on spot to me, whether you like it or not, disagreeing for the sake of it is just silly ... the laws on those cards would have told the baboons that I had every right to photograph on that street - what do you not get about that?

Nice to know you remembered so quickly, I must have a profound effect on you.

Fajitas!

How? They're only cards?

Unless the cards stated;

'I hereby state that _____ street is public property,
and Mr. _____ can photography freely, without
prejudice on it,

Signed,
____________
The Lord Mayor of Navan'

With a wax stamp of authentity.

Otherwise, it's just something that's been printed off and shoved under someones nose. And people don't like 'things' being shoved under their nose unless they can be verified.

Nice to know you remembered so quickly, I must have a profound effect on you.

It's hard to forget an attitude like yours in the linked posts.

Thecageyone

I'm so glad I made an impression on someone so bitter ...

Having the cards wouldn't would be a better argument than makey-up privacy claims. They didn't have anything to point to saying I couldn't photograph there either ... But I still packed up and left. If my attitude was as bad as you'd love to believe [for some strange reason] I'd have disputed to the hilt and continued shooting.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

I'm so glad I made an impression on someone so bitter ...

Trev M

Thecageyone

Yeah, I agree with that ancient, over-used toon, fajitas - no point trying to be right on this one. Maybe if I'd been shooting with an ancient film cam they'd have thought I was an elite-tog and left me alone :P

Irish Digital rights laws -

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

If I was right about the street being non-private, I was right to begin with. Only thing I learned from the experience, maybe, is not to stoop to baboon level, keep the head and if you know you're in the right you've nothing to fear.

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Maybe if I'd been shooting with an ancient film cam they'd have thought I was an elite-tog and left me alone :P

Ouch. :rolleyes:

Irish Digital rights laws -

http://www.digitalrights.ie/2006/05/09/photographers-rights/

If I was right about the street being non-private, I was right to begin with. Only thing I learned from the experience, maybe, is not to stoop to baboon level, keep the head and if you know you're in the right you've nothing to fear.

*IF* is the thing. The cards (The cards, remember? Not my camera.) are assuming you're in the right in the first place. You still have to ensure, for your own benefit, whether you are in the right. And even then, they're sheets of paper. Anyone can print out a piece of paper and hang them from their neck, it doesn't make the official.

Thecageyone

Just stooping to your level of begrudgery there for a sec, sorry about that
Film cameras are cool, maybe it's just the users that are not? :P

Well, someone went to the bother of printing up these cards, I'd like to think they used actual laws or what's the point?

Fajitas!

Thecageyone wrote: »

Just stooping to your level of begrudgery there for a sec, sorry about that
Film cameras are cool, maybe it's just the users that are not? :P

a) When did this become about film cameras and their users?

b) You'll be better off keeping your petty comments to yourself, rather than trying to distract from the topic or start an argument.

Well, someone went to the bother of printing up these cards, I'd like to think they used actual laws or what's the point?

Because anybody can print anything on a card. That's the point a security guard will take.

Thecageyone

Fajitas! wrote: »

a) When did this become about film cameras and their users?

b) You'll be better off keeping your petty comments to yourself, rather than trying to distract from the topic or start an argument.



Because anybody can print anything on a card. That's the point a security guard will take.

When it became an attempt by you to show me up for no reason other than a need to get over yourself? I think people would have to be blind not to see you're trying to stir

Fajitas! wrote: »

It's hard to forget an attitude like yours in the linked posts.

Stirring ^ - You're displaying the attitude here now, getting all jumpy about a humorous pop at film cam users ... my God. My dad has a film camera ... Doubt he'd take offence.

It's called joking/jest - The 'petty comments' are so obviously in jest, not my fault you have zero sense of humour ... I even used smilies, Sigh.

Security guards from a building nothing to do with where I was shooting can say whatever they like, if they've nothing to back up their made up rules, then they've no more right than I do in that place. Pretty simple. If you were a bouncer on the door of a particular night club, you don't have the right to bar people from other pubs.

TinyExplosions

Hmmm, I'm not sure where I stand on these cards and their ilk -I think that the info on them is good, and that anyone taking pictures in public would be smart to know the rules, but I don't think carrying it around will do anyone any good. If you're confornted by a security guard/copper/angry mother, pulling out a piece of paper with "the law says I can do this" is not going to help matters. If someone wants to ruin your day, they'll do so regardless.

Also, the info on the ones posted by the OP are for the UK, and laws here are different (for example you are obliged to give your details to a member of the Gardai, whereas you don't have to give info to the UK police unless you being detained), so you should know the local laws!

Finally, while the well publicized abuses of power in the UK again photographer make great, blood boiling "let's go out an take down the system" type reading/viewing, I can't help but feel that in most of the cases (though not all), the photographer was going out of his way to make his point and tell the cops how to do their job -certainly that's his right, and he was morally correct, but he could have saved a lot of hassle by handling things a little better imo

Thecageyone

Ah, for sure. If a Cop asked me for my details, I'd give them. Stupid not to, as you've nothing to worry about if the law is in fact on your side. A security guard from a random nearby building though? No right to ask you what you're at, as if you're some kind of potential terrorist because you have a big camera.

Street photography is the dodgiest I think. Taking random pictures of other people's children could lead to problems nobody really wants to get involved in. Right or wrong. Those cards suggest it's ok, or at least perfectly legal, to take pictures of kids in public. I wouldn't like to be trying to emphasise that to an angry/upset parent.

It is gone a bit mad though. Only last year I would have taken pictures of my own kids in the playground, nowadays I put the camera away unless they are well away from any other kids ... It's sad that things have gone that way.

TinyExplosions

Thecageyone wrote: »

Ah, for sure. If a Cop asked me for my details, I'd give them. Stupid not to, as you've nothing to worry about if the law is in fact on your side.

That's actually one place we differ -I would have a huge problem giving my details to a Cop if I was doing nothing wrong, simply because you have no idea what that information is going to be used for, and how long it stays around. It may be a little timfoil helmet, but the last thing I want is it coming to a "Ah, we have you on record here of being stopped in the street, so you've a history of being a nuisance". I can understand, and fully support having to give up your details if you're being detained/cautioned/arrested, but I would have a big problem giving details to a cop just because he asked for them. (unfortunately here you can't refuse, but I certainly would in the UK)

CabanSail

Please keep things here on topic and cease the personal jibes.

Those that wish to continue could receive bans.

Thecageyone

TinyExplosions wrote: »

That's actually one place we differ -I would have a huge problem giving my details to a Cop if I was doing nothing wrong, simply because you have no idea what that information is going to be used for, and how long it stays around. It may be a little timfoil helmet, but the last thing I want is it coming to a "Ah, we have you on record here of being stopped in the street, so you've a history of being a nuisance". I can understand, and fully support having to give up your details if you're being detained/cautioned/arrested, but I would have a big problem giving details to a cop just because he asked for them. (unfortunately here you can't refuse, but I certainly would in the UK)

Well, you have a good point there, but you'd find it hard to argue with a Cop asking for your details, you just know they will say you have to - and will caution you for not doing so. catch 22.

TinyExplosions

Thecageyone wrote: »

Well, you have a good point there, but you'd find it hard to argue with a Cop asking for your details, you just know they will say you have to - and will caution you for not doing so. catch 22.

Over here, yes indeed (as they can demand your details). Elsewhere, a polite "I would rather not give you my details unless you are detaining me, I am a photographer taking pictures of <insert building name here> for work" tends to work, as the paperwork and hassle that the po po has to go through for detaining you over something incredibly minor is a great deterrent. Though like most things in life, it's all down to how you say it, not what you actually say!

Thecageyone

I've passed by scenarios where the Cops would have people pulled over and a bit of a ruckus emerging. I'd be tempted to take out the camera and take a picture, but I'd resist as I know there'd be conflict over it. Even when I know [at least, according to those cards] that I'd be within my rights to do so. Sometimes it's just not worth the hassle.

The one time I was approached, I hadn't even been aiming the camera anywhere near the guys who had issues. They had to cross a street and walk down the road a bit to approach me. It wasn't like I was acting like a pap and trying to wind them up. Didn't even see them until they were right beside me. There should be protection for photographers who aren't causing problems, minding their own ... And sure, there's better ways to deal with someone taking issue, but that was my first and only time and you have to learn by mistakes I guess.

dave66

I think the move on, if asked, approach is probably the most sensible. If it's a place you really want to shot and a security guard etc, tells you to stop, then I would think stopping immediately, even apologise and then ask the security guard "Maybe you can help me" - those words really can help somebody calm down as you are giving them respect and a sense of authority (which they may desire). Then simply ask, can you tell me who I would need to talk to about getting permission to photograph here.

As for the "Rights cards", I see a couple of problems straight off:

1. According to Petapixel they are only available to US customers, I would guess this implies US laws.

2. However are these Federal or State laws in the US? Various laws can vary from State to State.

3. Even if you are in the US and were relying on these, there is no reference anywhere to under which laws/statutes the various rights are covered by.

I do feel that in some cities in the US, people tend to me more "in your face" so these cards may well be popular. But whatever happened to catching more flies with honey than vinegar?

Personally speaking, I have gained access to sites in Ireland where the Land owner has not permitted people to visit in years, let's face it, if you are approached by somebody telling you to stop taking photos and you wave cards (even if they had Irish rights backed up with laws being cited) in their face, do you really think it will end with you being able to continue taking photos?

As for taking photos of kids in public places, it might be legal, but without parents consent (especially where the tog is male) I would think it's foolish.

JayEnnis

Trev M wrote: »

I really dunno about the photographing kids thing .... I covered a public event recently and we were specifically instructed that under no circumstances where we to take a pic of a child without a release / consent form being signed first....

The way things are these days there is no way in hell Id take a pic of a random kid in public anyway. Its maybe a sad state of affairs but I just wouldnt want to deal with the potential hassle that could result.

Im with the "shuffle on with minimal hassle" brigade .

And what are people in 100 years going to think when they see pictures of our streets with no children visible at all? This whole culture of thinking everybody is a pedophile has gotten out of hand.

Thecageyone

dave66 wrote: »

I think the move on, if asked, approach is probably the most sensible. If it's a place you really want to shot and a security guard etc, tells you to stop, then I would think stopping immediately, even apologise and then ask the security guard "Maybe you can help me" - those words really can help somebody calm down as you are giving them respect and a sense of authority (which they may desire). Then simply ask, can you tell me who I would need to talk to about getting permission to photograph here.

That's all very well if said security guards actually work on the patch you're shooting on. In my case, the one bad experience I had, they had nothing to do with where i was shooting. If someone from the M&S store I was actually shooting had complained, I'd have left quietly. These guys were from across and down the road. they were bored ... what do you do? A security guard is a mere member of the public outside his zone. They do tend to have power trip issues though.

A cop, different story. Actual authority. best do as they ask.

humberklog

I wonder if the card could be used as something to vent towards. As in; I was there, I had my card, they said no,but I had my card, they told me to stick it up my hole, but I had my card. I have a card! It says something on it, something along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm right and you're wrong..

In fact why not broaden the whole base of the the card to essentially say "I'm right and you're wrong". A card so important in its own detail it can only be trumped by a card the says "I don't give a f... if you're card has bells on it and you're in the right- put the camera down".

The card could then be used as verification of one's rightness in a situation even if it became futile. Even if the card is useless the daft as bugger 'tog could still use it as verification of their rightness in that situation to their mates in the pub later that day. (If they have any mates).

It could help some sticky 'togs move on from past situations. A placebo of sorts. A licence to be awkward.

DaireQuinlan

humberklog wrote: »

I wonder if the card could be used as something to vent towards. As in; I was there, I had my card, they said no,but I had my card, they told me to stick it up my hole, but I had my card. I have a card! It says something on it, something along the lines of "I'm right and you're wrong". I'm right and you're wrong..

In fact why not broaden the whole base of the the card to essentially say "I'm right and you're wrong". A card so important in its own detail it can only be trumped by a card the says "I don't give a f... if you're card has bells on it and you're in the right- put the camera down".

The card could then be used as verification of one's rightness in a situation even if it became futile. Even if the card is useless the daft as bugger 'tog could still use it as verification of their rightness in that situation to their mates in the pub later that day. (If they have any mates).

It could help some sticky 'togs move on from past situations. A placebo of sorts. A licence to be awkward.

I find your idea intriguing, and would like to purchase said card. I think it would be quite useful in all sorts of situations, including domestic disputes. Actually, best make that a solid score of cards, so that as each one is ripped from my hand and torn asunder by my increasingly maddened spouse I can simply pull another one out of the card wallet.

Then when I'm all out I can throw all the pieces into the air like confetti in a doubtless vain attempt to distract her and do a speedy legger.

humberklog

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Then when I'm all out I can throw all the pieces into the air like confetti in a doubtless vain attempt to distract her and do a speedy legger.

A physical subterfuge? As opposed to a mealy faced verbal wriggle out of situation where right and wrong is unimportant to the fools and these know it alls think Common Sense should prevail?

I'm loving this card DQ. Loving the card!

Damn you common sense...I've got a card! A CARD! Damn you read it- "I'm right and you're wrong".

DaireQuinlan

humberklog wrote: »

A physical subterfuge? As opposed to a mealy faced verbal wriggle out of situation where right and wrong is unimportant to the fools and these know it alls think Common Sense should prevail?

Actually, for quick confetti-isation and maximum distractibility the card ideally needs to be perforated into 1cm size squares, and on the obverse side either brightly coloured or better still mirrored. That'd give you the fraction of a second extra you'd need to take to your heels ...

CabanSail

The point you are missing is if the black text offsets the card from being White & Grey the White Balance. Maybe it would be better if the text was in Grey & White too. Sure it would be hard to read but we could still hold up the card and say that we are right.

Trev M

JayEnnis wrote: »

And what are people in 100 years going to think when they see pictures of our streets with no children visible at all? This whole culture of thinking everybody is a pedophile has gotten out of hand.

I agree it has gotten out of hand, and there is a huge culture of fear but it is the way it is and people are genuinely frightened and suspicious and I get that. Whether the fear is justified statistically or otherwise is debateable, but do you really want the hassle of a frantic parent making wild assertions or accusations?

Kintarō Hattori

Within Ireland I can't see the need for a card such as the one being talked about. Has there ever been a case such as we see in America or the UK where a photographer has been arrested simply for taking a photo that he was entitled to take? While we have similar cultures to the two countries I've mentioned we clearly have a quality that neither seem to possess at this moment in time- some cop on.

I like to think that for the most part your everyday Joe Soap is sensible and practical and that most people who have settled here from foreign shores have adopted our laid back attitude. Simply talking to someone who is enaged in conversation/debate with you will always get you further than waving a card in their face and repeatedly stating 'your rights'.

As a photographer you have a personal responsibilty to make sure that what you photograph you are entitled to photograph. As we have seen with the IFSC it is private property even though you can freely pass through it. I'm sure there are more places such as this and that there will be more in the future.

Having an agressive bullish attitude with someone isn't productive. It makes the other person become annoyed with you and gets you aggitated too. Getting the situation resolved becomes a little bit more difficult and takes that bit longer.

So while we have seen plenty of cases in the US and the UK where photographers have been arrested it hasn't really happened here. Culturally we're difficult and if you can keep your cool the situation can usually be resolved amicably.

Ricky91t

Fajitas! wrote: »

I've never had a problem in the UK, and the only people that usually are, are those who see themselves as 'photographers rights activists'... It's very rare a situation can't be solved by a few words, not resorting to pointing out the law, as being isplayed on the leaflets hanging from ones neck...

I'd second this I've probably been here every summer and most winters for about 3 years now, and although I don't take a huge amount of photos I've never even had a police officer/community support officer look at me twice when I'm taking photos.

A majority of the people who would get stopped and then blog about it or report it to the media are those as fajitas says " 'photographers rights activists' "

freddyhard

when the 'i'm right you're wrong' bit doesn't work you can always try this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCH2IRumNg

Thecageyone

Seems some on here would allow themselves be bullied by people with no rights to do so. Very strange.

I think 'togs should grow more balls. No wonder they get shoved along.

If the cards don't work, use yer head ... or fists

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

Seems some on here would allow themselves be bullied by people with no rights to do so. Very strange.

I think 'togs should grow more balls. No wonder they get shoved along.

If the cards don't work, use yer head ... or fists

Did you ever stop to think that problems can be resolved through a little dialogue? Isn't that what happened with your own situation in Navan. You got defensive as you saw them coming, they asked questions, things got heated but after a little conversation it all worked out in the end, people shook hands and all was good in the world.

I can't imagine that would have been the outcome had balls been bigger and fisticuffs the order of the day.

Thecageyone

Ach, I was kidding about the busting them up. I learned that when met with ignorance, ignorance might not be the best response for sure. But I guess I've always been taught to stand up for myself too. Those guys were taking the P, and I knew it by them. I think they thought I'd run along with tail between the legs. It was more the fact I had a 2yr old in a buggy with me annoyed me though tbh, they can't really have thought I was some pap or potential threat - though a child would be a good cover It was how they approached, in a very smarmy manner in front of my kid. Not on.

Me stood there by myself looking dodgy I'd have reacted a little different I imagine. But, end of the day, regardless of who thinks it should be handled what way, they were in the wrong and I needed to get those shots [was for a competition and I'd eyed up this particular building for some time - in passing]

I'd not bother with the cards, but if I thought they' work even a little, I'd use them as a last resort if it meant avoiding conflict. As that is well within my nature, you'd never think it though ... :P Rather than get fired up, I could pull out something that at least suggests I'm ok to shoot wherever.

In saying all that, I've only ever had that one problem. I've shot everywhere and anywhere in public and nobody ever had an issue.

John

Not sure of the value of these cards beyond a novelty gift for a photographer friend.

freddyhard wrote: »

when the 'i'm right you're wrong' bit doesn't work you can always try this?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dDCH2IRumNg

He's like Gambit from X-Men!

Thecageyone wrote: »

'togs

I haven't been reading this forum much for a while but since when has this word started cropping up? It's horrendous and whoever first coined it deserves their own special circle in hell.

Trev M

JayEnnis wrote: »

And what are people in 100 years going to think when they see pictures of our streets with no children visible at all? This whole culture of thinking everybody is a pedophile has gotten out of hand.

.

Just as a follow up , I was at the 40ft in Dun Laoghaire on Saturday when a semi hysterical mother came up to me ...her first words were ...

"You're photographing my kids, I want to know why and for what?" The place was packed as it happened and a lot of heads turned around ...

When I explained my policy of not taking any pictures of any kids and invited her to view my camera she apologised and looked pretty embarrassed.

A number of people came up to me after to say "nice one , and jaysus isnt yer one a lunatic" etc Now I appreciate were she was coming from and empathised with her, as a parent Id be wary also..... had I started flashing cards, and blabbing about my rights I suspect I would have been fishing my camera out of the soup as so many people were looking to see how I coped with the situation / accusation.

Its never nice when it happens but I think its all about handling yourself (errr not that way), not losing the plot and not being agressive etc.

After the "altercation" lads were doin back flips of the rocks for me to shoot heh heh.



Note ; Not a back flip ;-P

magicbastarder

there's a child in that photo. you monster.

Trev M

heh well , ya know what I mean....damn you witty boardsies nothing escapes you!! ;-)

jpb1974

Sigh... the extremes... I was up at our local GAA club's Under 8s Hurling Blitz yesterday (the son plays) and was being begged by people left, right and centre to take pics of their kids with their medals and the cup.