For those who haven’t been following Matt Drudge’s orgasm of paranoia over Google’s new “Street View” feature, you can get caught up on all the fun with this BoingBoing post: Google Maps is spying on my cat!
I don’t see what reasonable expectation of privacy folks would have on the streets, or honestly, in their own homes when the windows/curtains are wide open for anyone to look into.
I’m sure they’ll get sued, because that’s the first obvious action some folks take these days. I don’t know that they’ve got much of a leg to stand on, though.
Taking photographs from a public street and publishing them online is not illegal or an invasion of privacy–from federal buildings to people. To my knowledge there is not even a use restriction though I’d imagine Google would be able to argue an informational / news / art use (as opposed to a advertising / commercial use) which makes a law suite even more difficult. Be that as it may, the only difference between this and Brendan taking pictures of ND’s campus and publishing them online is scale so I’d say the feature is fairly safe.
If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass). I’m sure Google has researched this, but I imagine it will ultimately be settled one way or another in a Court.
Angrier, you’re completely wrong. Quoth the New York Times: “Edward A. Jurkevics, a principal at Chesapeake Analytics, a consulting firm specializing in mapping and imagery, said that courts have consistently ruled that people in public spaces can be photographed. ‘In terms of privacy, I doubt if there is much of a problem,’ Mr. Jurkevics said.” Normally, I don’t rely on the New York Times for legal advice, and I admit I haven’t read the cases in question, but this is self-evidently the correct holding and I would be STUNNED if the courts reached any other conclusion. If I’m walking down a public street and someone takes a picture of me, I don’t have to sign a release for them to use the picture. That’s ridiculous. I’m on a f***ing public street. Now, if they want to use my face in an advertisement or a movie or something, that’s different. But for personal or information use? No way. That’s why the news media gets “a pass” — but they’re actually not the exception to the rule, it’s commercial uses like advertising that are an exception to the general rule that of course you can take pictures of public places, and (by necessity) of the people in them. Perhaps someone can make the argument that Google is using these pictures for an analogous commercial purpose. But I doubt it will succeed, and in any event, that’s very different from what you said, which is the broadly applicable generalization that “you have to have photo releases from folks” or that it’s illegal to “post[] photos of people without their permission.”
This happens to be a pet peeve of mine, because periodically people will tell me, usually half in jest (but not entirely), that they need to sign a release before I can take or use a photo of them. Which is absurd. When you go on vacation, do you have to get photo releases from all the people who are in the background of your family photos? Does that situation change if you post those photos to a personal website? What if you have Google Ads on said website? Give me a break. There is no general right of privacy in public places.
P.S. If I were working in the publishing or broadcasting industry, I would probably get photo releases from everyone, just as a precautionary measure, to prevent frivolous lawsuits and such, and just generally to cover my ass. But just because it’s industry practice, and just because some bosses might tell their employees it’s legally mandated (in order to make sure they actually get the releases), doesn’t mean it’s actually legally mandated.
P.P.S. Please note, although I’m not legally obligated to do so, I will almost always honor anyone’s request to not publish a photo of them. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance where I haven’t honored such a request. (It would have to be some really newsworthy photo or something.) And I also proactively look out for photos that seem like they might be embarrasing or objectionable or privacy-invading, and ask people’s permission before publishing those ones in the first place. So just because I regard the “sign a release” business as hogwash, doesn’t mean I’m a dick about publishing photos of people. It just means I don’t appreciate being bullied by people who think they know their rights, but don’t.
I guess there’s always some risk you run in taking random, non-targeted photos that you’re going to pick up someone doing something that is supposedly personal.
I guess you could run into a “false light” kind of defamation claim, if, for instance, you were Google taking these photos and caught John Doe walking past a strip club or some hookers or something like that. If John Doe wasn’t frequenting those places, I guess he could potentially get you on one of those claims.
Otherwise, I agree with Bloy, and well the others including me, about the whole situation.
How am I completely wrong? I said Google will get sued and this will be settled one way or another in court. People can sue over anything. I never said Google would lose.
You seemed to be pretty clearly implying something more than just “somebody’s going to sue, who knows how it’ll come out.” In particular, I was referring to your statement, “If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass).” The clear implication seemed to be that one can’t legally take (or use) photos of people without releases, and that the news media is an exception to that rule — when, in reality, the news media situation is the rule, not the exception; only in certain exceptional circumstances (Jay’s “false light” scenario, taking photos of unwitting people for advertising purposes, etc.) does any sort of legal prohibition apply. If I misunderstood your position, and in fact you were only talking about industry practice rather than suggesting that a general legal right of privacy protects people from having photos taken of them in public areas, then I apologize for misunderstanding you… though if that’s the case, I confess I don’t exactly understand the point of the quoted sentence from your post.
I believe Google will be sued. I think how it comes out will be based on what the court views Google as and if it is making money off of the function. I have no idea if Google will win or lose. But I am fairly confident somebody will sue.
That’s fine, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about your understanding of the law, based on your statement that “If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass).” If you meant something other than (my words now) “that a general legal right of privacy protects people from having photos taken of them in public areas,” you haven’t yet clarified that.
What I am trying to say is that no court has determined what Google would qualify as. Is it a for-profit entity that is not reporting the news while posting photos of people without their consent (or, more importantly, their knowledge)? Does Google fall under the same standards as publishing or broadcasting? Is it making money off of these photos by driving traffic to advertisers?
I’m no lawyer, but it seems like we would be breaking into some new legal ground here if there were a suit.
You may be right that we’re breaking new ground, but you’ve still got the basics of the law wrong. The question is NOT whether Google is “reporting the news.” As I said before, the news media is not the exception to the rule, it is merely one of many categories that fall under the general rule that there is no general legal right of privacy that protects against having your picture taken on a public street.
Dcl was on the right track when he made an analogy to me taking pictures of Notre Dame’s campus and posting them on my blog. Am I “reporting the news” when I do that? Not usually. Yeah, sure, if there’s a gas-main break or commencement is happening, then arguably I’m “reporting the news.” But when I just take pretty pictures of campus — some of which have people visible in them — and post them on the Web, in no sense am I “reporting the news,” and yet it’s perfectly obvious that I don’t need anyone’s permission to take or post those photos. They’re photos of a public place; by default, absent an exception, they are fair game. Same goes for people taking family pictures on vacation and posting them to the Internet, even though there are strangers in the background. No release form needed; no viable lawsuit possible. You are approaching this issue from the wrong analytical perspective, suggesting that Google must show it fits into an exception to the general rule of privacy, when in reality it would be the plaintiffs who would need to demonstrate that they fall into an exception to the general rule (i.e., these pictures were taken from a public street, so there’s no privacy issue).
As you say, Google’s situation is unique, and may in some sense qualify as “new ground” legally. But if this is ruled illegal, then logically, a lot of other things that shouldn’t be illegal, would have to be, too. (Like me posting pictures of Notre Dame’s campus on my website, and having ads on said website, for example.) So, I’ll go a step further and say that, unless some entirely new facts come to light, Google SHOULD NOT lose any lawsuit over this, and if they do, the decision will be legally and logically incorrect, and will lead to some very bad unintended consequences.
There is no general right of privacy that protects people against photos taken of them in areas that are visible from a public street, and the courts ought not create one.
There are exceptions to this, although I’m unaware of it being brought up in court. Namely, there are signs posted outside the Pentagon and certain other federal facilities that say no photography, even from the road. I’m not sure of any relevant instances where that’s been challenged, though.
I feel exceedingly hostile to those types of signs whenever I see them. It’s sort of like a cop telling someone, who is standing where the public is allowed to stand (i.e., not inside the police tape), not to take pictures of a crime scene. I’m sorry, but if you want the public not to be able to see something, extend the police tape further… and if you want some military thing in public view not to be photographed, hide it from public view. I believe I have an absolute right to stand in a public street and take a picture of whatever the hell I want. I might not have an absolute right to use that photo in certain ways (for commercial purposes, selling the photo to an enemy state, etc.), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to respect some government bureaucrat telling me I can’t take it in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a prior restraint on free speech, and can only be justified by extreme exigent circumstances, like a fear that my camera’s circuitry is going to set off a bomb or something.
P.S. Same thing with the Amtrak train line that goes past Vandenberg Air Force Base. Supposedly the conductor often tells passengers not to take pictures (though they didn’t specifically make that request when I was on the train), and the guidebook mentions you’re “not supposed to.” F*** that. I’m on the train, I can take a picture out the window if I damn well please. If they don’t want the public to have a view of their military secrets, they shouldn’t let the public have a view of their military secrets. Re-route the train, or force Amtrak to cover the windows during that stretch, or something. If I can see it, and I have the right to be where I am when I see it, I should be able to take a picture of it. Then we can debate restrictions on the use of the picture, but the attempted prior restraints piss me off.
Upon further consideration, I should clarify my position a bit. When I say “If I can see it, and I have the right to be where I am when I see it, I should be able to take a picture of it,” I of course acknowledge that there are situations where my “right to be where I am” can be made contingent on an agreement not to take pictures. For example, if I walk into the Louvre, or a theater on Broadway, and there are signs saying “no photography,” of course I have no problem with that. In essence, I’ve entered into a contract with the property owner: they let me on their property if I agree not to take pictures. The restriction has a sensible purpose, and it’s private property, so it’s fine. I would have a bit more of a problem if Notre Dame put up signs all around campus barring photography anywhere on campus, and I would most likely disregard it if I could get away with doing so, but I’d have to acknowledge they have a legal right to do so, barring some legal authority to the contrary that I’m unaware of. Same goes for shopping malls barring photography throughout the mall, etc. I think it’s overbroad and oppressive and ridiculous, but they have the right to do it.
Obviously things change when it’s the government imposing restrictions on people’s movements based on an agreement not to take pictures. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t some circumstances where they can do so. For instance, certainly the government can condition a person’s access to a military base, or the inside of the Pentagon, or a government-run art museum, on an agreement not to take pictures, and I have no problem with that. There’s no automatic right of public access to those places, and there’s a rational reason for preventing photography. If it’s a post office or some other government building where there’s no obvious rationale, I’d grumble but probably still respect the rule. Courtrooms are a special case, since there is a right of public access, but there’s a sufficiently strong government interest there that I’m okay with banning photos within.
On the other hand, if New York City put up signs on every entrance to Central Park saying, “No Photography In The Park,” I would totally disregard the signs, because that would be totally ridiculous. If a cop asked me to stop taking pictures, I would most likely walk away and then start taking them again once the cop was out of sight. Same thing if the feds put up “no photography” signs on the entrance to Yellowstone National Park. As far as I’m concerned, they don’t have the right to condition public access to public parks on a prior restraint of free speech. And the same goes for public streets, obviously.
Now, I acknowledge that there are limited circumstances under which the government can actually close public streets for security purposes. For instance, didn’t they close Pennsylvania Avenue after 9/11? So, one could argue, if they can close Pennsylvania Avenue, can’t they also take the less restrictive step of allowing access to the street, but barring photography from it (or of certain objects visible from it)? That makes a certain degree of logical sense, but here’s why I have a problem with it: the government isn’t going to arbitrarily close streets without a good reason, because the public outcry would be immense. But most people won’t care if they bar photography without a good reason, and it’s entirely believable that the government would do that, for the same reason that government officials routinely classify things that shouldn’t be classified, obstruct or deny legitimate FOA requests, etc. Government officials nearly always prefer NOT to be subject to scrutiny.
There’s no downside, from the government’s perspective, to saying “don’t take pictures of our building” — even though there’s very little, if any, upside. That’s the other thing that bugs me about these sort of restrictions: they’re both massively overbroad and cripplingly underbroad. On the one hand, the vast majority of people who would want to take pictures of, say, the Pentagon, pose no threat whatsoever, and do not fit within any conceivable purpose of the photography ban; they’re just tourists, bloggers, whatever. On the other hand, with regard to stopping the small minority who actually do pose a threat, putting a “no photography” sign on a federal building is about as effective as the “no guns” signs were on the Virginia Tech campus. If a terrorist wants to take a photo of a federal building to “case” it, they aren’t going to be dissuaded by a “no photography” sign, and they’re not going to take the picture in such a way as to get caught. Same goes for a foreign spy. So the law accomplishes nothing (or virtually nothing) with such a restriction, and in the process, it places a prior restraint on the free-speech rights of countless innocent Americans.
Oh yeah, and it sets a terrible precedent that it’s OK to ban people from taking pictures in public places — a precedent that trickles down to mid-level and low-level officials, like cops, for example, who then feel justified in ordering citizens not to take pictures of publicly visible crime scenes. This happened to me recently, when there was a bomb scare at Notre Dame: a South Bend police officer saw me taking pictures (from well beyond the crime tape) and ordered me to stop. I was pretty much done taking pictures from that angle anyway, and was about to move to another vantage point, so I did that, and continued taking pictures once that particular officer was out of sight. Later, I returned to the same spot, and was prepared to continue taking pictures and, if he accosted me again, get his name and call the South Bend Police Department and ask them to clarify their policy on members of the public, standing on public sidewalks, taking pictures of public streets. But by that time, the local media had arrived, and the officer was no longer making any attempt to enforce his petty whims. It’s easier to bully a student with a digital camera than a TV reporter with a satellite truck. It’s no more justified, just easier.
To my understanding of present law and precedents (and I’m not a lawyer just a photographer) If you can see something from a public street you can take a picture of it disregarding Rent-a-cop, police, or signs that say to the contrary–with only two exceptions, PARTS of military installations deemed important to national security and certain parts of nuclear facilities (in both cases these parts are not visible from public property). However, this does not extend to the used of tripods. Which require a permit in parts of DC and all of Manhattan among other places. Not that I would particularly want to test such things needless confrontation being silly in my opinion, and me lacking any real need to take pictures of, say, the bolts on a bridge–though broken down lampposts on bridges are kind of cool. more info here http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
The specific instance that brought this in mind was when I was running past the Pentagon for the Marine Corps Marathon. There are red and white signs that say “no photography” on the perimeter fence surrounding the grounds.
Unenforcable — and indeed, a picture may have been taken by many a runner that day — and even silly, since you can see the building from miles away. But a rule nonetheless, which federally sanctioned law enforcement officers will gladly use against people.
Their reasoning is almost surely “national security” which is just absurd, considering that the building’s existence, location, and basic design is public knowledge; it’s not exactly the bunker under the Greenbriar, or more relevantly, Site R. Interestingly, just a week ago it became illegal to “to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the . . . Raven Rock Mountain Complex without first obtaining the necessary permission.” (Raven Rock = Site R = mini-NORAD of the East)
June 1st, 2007 at 10:27:27 am
I think this is cool. But I also think Google is going to get sued over posting photos of people without their permission.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:13:03 am
I wonder if the feds will freak out when Google gets around to doing DC.
June 1st, 2007 at 11:32:03 am
I
June 1st, 2007 at 12:07:25 pm
OMG it won’t work for me. And I wanted to play at work instead of work today!
June 1st, 2007 at 12:18:42 pm
I don’t see what reasonable expectation of privacy folks would have on the streets, or honestly, in their own homes when the windows/curtains are wide open for anyone to look into.
I’m sure they’ll get sued, because that’s the first obvious action some folks take these days. I don’t know that they’ve got much of a leg to stand on, though.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:20:07 pm
Taking photographs from a public street and publishing them online is not illegal or an invasion of privacy–from federal buildings to people. To my knowledge there is not even a use restriction though I’d imagine Google would be able to argue an informational / news / art use (as opposed to a advertising / commercial use) which makes a law suite even more difficult. Be that as it may, the only difference between this and Brendan taking pictures of ND’s campus and publishing them online is scale so I’d say the feature is fairly safe.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:32:13 pm
If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass). I’m sure Google has researched this, but I imagine it will ultimately be settled one way or another in a Court.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:56:55 pm
Angrier, you’re completely wrong. Quoth the New York Times: “Edward A. Jurkevics, a principal at Chesapeake Analytics, a consulting firm specializing in mapping and imagery, said that courts have consistently ruled that people in public spaces can be photographed. ‘In terms of privacy, I doubt if there is much of a problem,’ Mr. Jurkevics said.” Normally, I don’t rely on the New York Times for legal advice, and I admit I haven’t read the cases in question, but this is self-evidently the correct holding and I would be STUNNED if the courts reached any other conclusion. If I’m walking down a public street and someone takes a picture of me, I don’t have to sign a release for them to use the picture. That’s ridiculous. I’m on a f***ing public street. Now, if they want to use my face in an advertisement or a movie or something, that’s different. But for personal or information use? No way. That’s why the news media gets “a pass” — but they’re actually not the exception to the rule, it’s commercial uses like advertising that are an exception to the general rule that of course you can take pictures of public places, and (by necessity) of the people in them. Perhaps someone can make the argument that Google is using these pictures for an analogous commercial purpose. But I doubt it will succeed, and in any event, that’s very different from what you said, which is the broadly applicable generalization that “you have to have photo releases from folks” or that it’s illegal to “post[] photos of people without their permission.”
This happens to be a pet peeve of mine, because periodically people will tell me, usually half in jest (but not entirely), that they need to sign a release before I can take or use a photo of them. Which is absurd. When you go on vacation, do you have to get photo releases from all the people who are in the background of your family photos? Does that situation change if you post those photos to a personal website? What if you have Google Ads on said website? Give me a break. There is no general right of privacy in public places.
June 1st, 2007 at 1:59:31 pm
P.S. If I were working in the publishing or broadcasting industry, I would probably get photo releases from everyone, just as a precautionary measure, to prevent frivolous lawsuits and such, and just generally to cover my ass. But just because it’s industry practice, and just because some bosses might tell their employees it’s legally mandated (in order to make sure they actually get the releases), doesn’t mean it’s actually legally mandated.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:04:08 pm
P.P.S. Please note, although I’m not legally obligated to do so, I will almost always honor anyone’s request to not publish a photo of them. In fact, I can’t think of a single instance where I haven’t honored such a request. (It would have to be some really newsworthy photo or something.) And I also proactively look out for photos that seem like they might be embarrasing or objectionable or privacy-invading, and ask people’s permission before publishing those ones in the first place. So just because I regard the “sign a release” business as hogwash, doesn’t mean I’m a dick about publishing photos of people. It just means I don’t appreciate being bullied by people who think they know their rights, but don’t.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:30:07 pm
I guess there’s always some risk you run in taking random, non-targeted photos that you’re going to pick up someone doing something that is supposedly personal.
I guess you could run into a “false light” kind of defamation claim, if, for instance, you were Google taking these photos and caught John Doe walking past a strip club or some hookers or something like that. If John Doe wasn’t frequenting those places, I guess he could potentially get you on one of those claims.
Otherwise, I agree with Bloy, and well the others including me, about the whole situation.
June 1st, 2007 at 2:50:32 pm
Brendan-
How am I completely wrong? I said Google will get sued and this will be settled one way or another in court. People can sue over anything. I never said Google would lose.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:13:02 pm
You seemed to be pretty clearly implying something more than just “somebody’s going to sue, who knows how it’ll come out.” In particular, I was referring to your statement, “If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass).” The clear implication seemed to be that one can’t legally take (or use) photos of people without releases, and that the news media is an exception to that rule — when, in reality, the news media situation is the rule, not the exception; only in certain exceptional circumstances (Jay’s “false light” scenario, taking photos of unwitting people for advertising purposes, etc.) does any sort of legal prohibition apply. If I misunderstood your position, and in fact you were only talking about industry practice rather than suggesting that a general legal right of privacy protects people from having photos taken of them in public areas, then I apologize for misunderstanding you… though if that’s the case, I confess I don’t exactly understand the point of the quoted sentence from your post.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:24:19 pm
I believe Google will be sued. I think how it comes out will be based on what the court views Google as and if it is making money off of the function. I have no idea if Google will win or lose. But I am fairly confident somebody will sue.
June 1st, 2007 at 3:46:08 pm
That’s fine, but that’s not what I was talking about. I was talking about your understanding of the law, based on your statement that “If you have ever worked in publishing or broadcasting, you know that you have to have photo releases from folks (the news media usually gets a pass).” If you meant something other than (my words now) “that a general legal right of privacy protects people from having photos taken of them in public areas,” you haven’t yet clarified that.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:09:19 pm
What I am trying to say is that no court has determined what Google would qualify as. Is it a for-profit entity that is not reporting the news while posting photos of people without their consent (or, more importantly, their knowledge)? Does Google fall under the same standards as publishing or broadcasting? Is it making money off of these photos by driving traffic to advertisers?
I’m no lawyer, but it seems like we would be breaking into some new legal ground here if there were a suit.
June 1st, 2007 at 4:17:48 pm
You may be right that we’re breaking new ground, but you’ve still got the basics of the law wrong. The question is NOT whether Google is “reporting the news.” As I said before, the news media is not the exception to the rule, it is merely one of many categories that fall under the general rule that there is no general legal right of privacy that protects against having your picture taken on a public street.
Dcl was on the right track when he made an analogy to me taking pictures of Notre Dame’s campus and posting them on my blog. Am I “reporting the news” when I do that? Not usually. Yeah, sure, if there’s a gas-main break or commencement is happening, then arguably I’m “reporting the news.” But when I just take pretty pictures of campus — some of which have people visible in them — and post them on the Web, in no sense am I “reporting the news,” and yet it’s perfectly obvious that I don’t need anyone’s permission to take or post those photos. They’re photos of a public place; by default, absent an exception, they are fair game. Same goes for people taking family pictures on vacation and posting them to the Internet, even though there are strangers in the background. No release form needed; no viable lawsuit possible. You are approaching this issue from the wrong analytical perspective, suggesting that Google must show it fits into an exception to the general rule of privacy, when in reality it would be the plaintiffs who would need to demonstrate that they fall into an exception to the general rule (i.e., these pictures were taken from a public street, so there’s no privacy issue).
As you say, Google’s situation is unique, and may in some sense qualify as “new ground” legally. But if this is ruled illegal, then logically, a lot of other things that shouldn’t be illegal, would have to be, too. (Like me posting pictures of Notre Dame’s campus on my website, and having ads on said website, for example.) So, I’ll go a step further and say that, unless some entirely new facts come to light, Google SHOULD NOT lose any lawsuit over this, and if they do, the decision will be legally and logically incorrect, and will lead to some very bad unintended consequences.
There is no general right of privacy that protects people against photos taken of them in areas that are visible from a public street, and the courts ought not create one.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:23:53 pm
There are exceptions to this, although I’m unaware of it being brought up in court. Namely, there are signs posted outside the Pentagon and certain other federal facilities that say no photography, even from the road. I’m not sure of any relevant instances where that’s been challenged, though.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:29:03 pm
I feel exceedingly hostile to those types of signs whenever I see them. It’s sort of like a cop telling someone, who is standing where the public is allowed to stand (i.e., not inside the police tape), not to take pictures of a crime scene. I’m sorry, but if you want the public not to be able to see something, extend the police tape further… and if you want some military thing in public view not to be photographed, hide it from public view. I believe I have an absolute right to stand in a public street and take a picture of whatever the hell I want. I might not have an absolute right to use that photo in certain ways (for commercial purposes, selling the photo to an enemy state, etc.), but I’ll be damned if I’m going to respect some government bureaucrat telling me I can’t take it in the first place. As far as I’m concerned, that’s a prior restraint on free speech, and can only be justified by extreme exigent circumstances, like a fear that my camera’s circuitry is going to set off a bomb or something.
June 1st, 2007 at 5:31:46 pm
P.S. Same thing with the Amtrak train line that goes past Vandenberg Air Force Base. Supposedly the conductor often tells passengers not to take pictures (though they didn’t specifically make that request when I was on the train), and the guidebook mentions you’re “not supposed to.” F*** that. I’m on the train, I can take a picture out the window if I damn well please. If they don’t want the public to have a view of their military secrets, they shouldn’t let the public have a view of their military secrets. Re-route the train, or force Amtrak to cover the windows during that stretch, or something. If I can see it, and I have the right to be where I am when I see it, I should be able to take a picture of it. Then we can debate restrictions on the use of the picture, but the attempted prior restraints piss me off.
June 1st, 2007 at 6:41:15 pm
As a private citizen, I most definitely agree with you. At work, I’m supposed to hold the company line, though. :-P
Besides, you can see the Pentagon/Langley/Area 51/etc. with Google Maps in surprisingly good detail — so I don’t see the issue.
June 1st, 2007 at 7:25:27 pm
Heh.
Upon further consideration, I should clarify my position a bit. When I say “If I can see it, and I have the right to be where I am when I see it, I should be able to take a picture of it,” I of course acknowledge that there are situations where my “right to be where I am” can be made contingent on an agreement not to take pictures. For example, if I walk into the Louvre, or a theater on Broadway, and there are signs saying “no photography,” of course I have no problem with that. In essence, I’ve entered into a contract with the property owner: they let me on their property if I agree not to take pictures. The restriction has a sensible purpose, and it’s private property, so it’s fine. I would have a bit more of a problem if Notre Dame put up signs all around campus barring photography anywhere on campus, and I would most likely disregard it if I could get away with doing so, but I’d have to acknowledge they have a legal right to do so, barring some legal authority to the contrary that I’m unaware of. Same goes for shopping malls barring photography throughout the mall, etc. I think it’s overbroad and oppressive and ridiculous, but they have the right to do it.
Obviously things change when it’s the government imposing restrictions on people’s movements based on an agreement not to take pictures. But that doesn’t mean they aren’t some circumstances where they can do so. For instance, certainly the government can condition a person’s access to a military base, or the inside of the Pentagon, or a government-run art museum, on an agreement not to take pictures, and I have no problem with that. There’s no automatic right of public access to those places, and there’s a rational reason for preventing photography. If it’s a post office or some other government building where there’s no obvious rationale, I’d grumble but probably still respect the rule. Courtrooms are a special case, since there is a right of public access, but there’s a sufficiently strong government interest there that I’m okay with banning photos within.
On the other hand, if New York City put up signs on every entrance to Central Park saying, “No Photography In The Park,” I would totally disregard the signs, because that would be totally ridiculous. If a cop asked me to stop taking pictures, I would most likely walk away and then start taking them again once the cop was out of sight. Same thing if the feds put up “no photography” signs on the entrance to Yellowstone National Park. As far as I’m concerned, they don’t have the right to condition public access to public parks on a prior restraint of free speech. And the same goes for public streets, obviously.
Now, I acknowledge that there are limited circumstances under which the government can actually close public streets for security purposes. For instance, didn’t they close Pennsylvania Avenue after 9/11? So, one could argue, if they can close Pennsylvania Avenue, can’t they also take the less restrictive step of allowing access to the street, but barring photography from it (or of certain objects visible from it)? That makes a certain degree of logical sense, but here’s why I have a problem with it: the government isn’t going to arbitrarily close streets without a good reason, because the public outcry would be immense. But most people won’t care if they bar photography without a good reason, and it’s entirely believable that the government would do that, for the same reason that government officials routinely classify things that shouldn’t be classified, obstruct or deny legitimate FOA requests, etc. Government officials nearly always prefer NOT to be subject to scrutiny.
There’s no downside, from the government’s perspective, to saying “don’t take pictures of our building” — even though there’s very little, if any, upside. That’s the other thing that bugs me about these sort of restrictions: they’re both massively overbroad and cripplingly underbroad. On the one hand, the vast majority of people who would want to take pictures of, say, the Pentagon, pose no threat whatsoever, and do not fit within any conceivable purpose of the photography ban; they’re just tourists, bloggers, whatever. On the other hand, with regard to stopping the small minority who actually do pose a threat, putting a “no photography” sign on a federal building is about as effective as the “no guns” signs were on the Virginia Tech campus. If a terrorist wants to take a photo of a federal building to “case” it, they aren’t going to be dissuaded by a “no photography” sign, and they’re not going to take the picture in such a way as to get caught. Same goes for a foreign spy. So the law accomplishes nothing (or virtually nothing) with such a restriction, and in the process, it places a prior restraint on the free-speech rights of countless innocent Americans.
Oh yeah, and it sets a terrible precedent that it’s OK to ban people from taking pictures in public places — a precedent that trickles down to mid-level and low-level officials, like cops, for example, who then feel justified in ordering citizens not to take pictures of publicly visible crime scenes. This happened to me recently, when there was a bomb scare at Notre Dame: a South Bend police officer saw me taking pictures (from well beyond the crime tape) and ordered me to stop. I was pretty much done taking pictures from that angle anyway, and was about to move to another vantage point, so I did that, and continued taking pictures once that particular officer was out of sight. Later, I returned to the same spot, and was prepared to continue taking pictures and, if he accosted me again, get his name and call the South Bend Police Department and ask them to clarify their policy on members of the public, standing on public sidewalks, taking pictures of public streets. But by that time, the local media had arrived, and the officer was no longer making any attempt to enforce his petty whims. It’s easier to bully a student with a digital camera than a TV reporter with a satellite truck. It’s no more justified, just easier.
Did I mention this is a pet peeve of mine? :)
June 1st, 2007 at 8:16:42 pm
To my understanding of present law and precedents (and I’m not a lawyer just a photographer) If you can see something from a public street you can take a picture of it disregarding Rent-a-cop, police, or signs that say to the contrary–with only two exceptions, PARTS of military installations deemed important to national security and certain parts of nuclear facilities (in both cases these parts are not visible from public property). However, this does not extend to the used of tripods. Which require a permit in parts of DC and all of Manhattan among other places. Not that I would particularly want to test such things needless confrontation being silly in my opinion, and me lacking any real need to take pictures of, say, the bolts on a bridge–though broken down lampposts on bridges are kind of cool. more info here http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
June 1st, 2007 at 8:17:43 pm
should have said “usually not visible from public property”
June 2nd, 2007 at 1:05:40 am
The specific instance that brought this in mind was when I was running past the Pentagon for the Marine Corps Marathon. There are red and white signs that say “no photography” on the perimeter fence surrounding the grounds.
Unenforcable — and indeed, a picture may have been taken by many a runner that day — and even silly, since you can see the building from miles away. But a rule nonetheless, which federally sanctioned law enforcement officers will gladly use against people.
Their reasoning is almost surely “national security” which is just absurd, considering that the building’s existence, location, and basic design is public knowledge; it’s not exactly the bunker under the Greenbriar, or more relevantly, Site R. Interestingly, just a week ago it became illegal to “to make any photograph, sketch, picture, drawing, map or graphical representation of the . . . Raven Rock Mountain Complex without first obtaining the necessary permission.” (Raven Rock = Site R = mini-NORAD of the East)
(The Federation of American Scientists has already broken this rule, it would seem.)