Andrew Kantor has an article in USA Today about when and where you can take pictures. It’s got some good advice, but he makes one mistake that’s important:
You can take photos any place that’s open to the public, whether or not it’s private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don’t need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot.
I’m not a lawyer, but I’ve read several books and articles about photographer’s rights, and I’d add two important caveats to that statement:
- Private property can have conditions of entry. These are conditions that the owner requires people to accept in order to receive permission to enter. It’s usually as simple as a sign at the door: No Smoking, No Food or Beverages, Shoes and Shirt Required. Some places explicitly add No Photography. This is very common at places that can profit from imagery themselves, such as theaters, ballparks, and museums, but any place can add such a restriction. If you enter a place with a “No Photography” sign, you do so on the condition that you don’t take pictures. Taking pictures anyway might be a form of trespass.
- Mall police, building security, and any other people representing the owner’s interests can revoke your permission to enter or change the conditions. If the mall cops don’t want you taking pictures and tell you to leave, it’s trespassing if you stay.
But he’s absolutely right that these people can’t take your camera.
Of course, with the “War on Terror” going on, some people freak out about photography.
(Hat tip: Radley Balko)
Update: I emailed Andrew Kantor before writing this post. He responds to my assertion that you shouldn’t take pictures if the conditions of entry prohibit it:
True, you shouldn’t. But legally you can. It’s all part of the general rule, “If you can see it, you can shoot it” (with the various exceptions notes in the column/PDF).
Certainly the mall or building representative can kick you out, and many people will want to avoid that and thus will heed your advice and not take the shots. But from a legal standpoint, even with conditions of entry, the only recourse the property owner has is kicking you out.
A news photographer probably wants to balance getting a good photo with maintaining good relations with the building; he wouldn’t want to be banned from the mall, for example. But should and can are different animals here.
That’s not my understanding of the law, but it would be nice for me if it’s true. I’ll keep looking into this.
Thanks for bring up this topic. You give some good information. I had to do some research about what and who you can photograph in any given place when I wrote “Digital Art Photography for Dummies.” You have to be especially careful when you photograph people. If you can identify their faces and are going to use the images in a public forum, you have to get a signed release.
Don’t listen to grammar-impaired Matt. Take as many pictures of stranger’s faces as you want, then post them so everyone in the world can see them on any public site. If you aren’t making money, it’s 100% legal; nothing will happen to you.
Posting photos of people’s faces on a site you charge people money to access is a different story.You need a consent form if you plan to profit from an exhibition of recognizable people.