Right to photograph buildings

[nimo956]

I'm new to LF and have just gotten all of my gear together. Now, I want to practice. Being in Boston, I was thinking of going to the Harvard campus to take some photos. Are there any legal complications in doing this? Could someone ask me to leave? During the day, anyone can just walk onto the Harvard campus. These photos would be for my own personal use and not for sale.

[Heroique]

When you contacted Harvard, what did they say? ;^)

[nimo956]

Do I really need to contact someone? It just seems funny to me since thousands of people take tours of the campus every day and take pictures with their cameras. I guess LF cameras just look too serious. Who would I need to contact?

[Heroique]

I’d start w/ the school’s public relations office, who can either share formal “guidelines,” if there are any, or direct you to the best school-based source for more information. You might also glance at the school’s web site for clear information.

I’m not familiar with Harvard, but generally, go ahead and expect a security person to approach you, whether you’ve contacted the institution beforehand or not. After all, LF gear does seem to arouse security people to action. Even in public through-ways.

In my experience, sharing any efforts you’ve made beforehand seems to go a long way w/ security staff. For example, even if you simply say you’ve contacted the PR or security office, or better, can share an official’s name and contact information, that often proves very settling to security guards – and they tend to leave me alone. (If you lecture them about your “rights,” you might as well start packing up right then and there, whether you have rights or not.)

[Jac@stafford.net]

Harvard has strident rules limiting and even cases of prohibiting photography on campus.

You MUST get permission first.

Call or visit their Press Office.

[BrianShaw]

Filming and Photographing on Campus

The media relations offices request that people interested in taking or contracting photographs or filming the campus for commercial or news purposes seek permission from them first. To request the mandatory permit, please contact HPAC Media Relations at 617-495-1585.

[nimo956]

Thanks for posting that Brian. I found that on their website and will ask what their policy is for LF photography.

[Leigh]

Do I really need to contact someone?
It's private property.

You have no right to be on the property for any purpose without their permission.

Leigh

[paulr]

I would just go do it. The policy says you need permission for commercial purposes. If you ask, you're at the mercy of the mood / bureaucratic inclinations of whatever staff person receives your email.
If you get asked to leave by security, then try going through official channels. But I'll bet no one even blinks at you.

[BrianShaw]

Thanks for posting that Brian. I found that on their website and will ask what their policy is for LF photography.

I would find it difficult to understand why they might have any objections.

[Pawlowski6132]

It's private property.

You have no right to be on the property for any purpose without their permission.

Leigh


Please. You're free to take pix as you please. Leigh, I can go take pix of your house if I want. As long as I'm not on your property.

[Pawlowski6132]

I would just go do it. The policy says you need permission for commercial purposes. If you ask, you're at the mercy of the mood / bureaucratic inclinations of whatever staff person receives your email.
If you get asked to leave by security, then try going through official channels. But I'll bet no one even blinks at you.

Absolutely.

[C. D. Keth]

Just go do it. You may be asked to leave, even if they believe that you're not a commercial photographer. That's their prerogative, since it's private property, and it's not the end of the world.

[Vaughn]

I would find it difficult to understand why they might have any objections.

That old fiend, liability, for one.

Commercial shoots -- possible interruption of traffic flow, damage to landscaping (commercial photographers don't have a great rep when it comes to repecting such things...anything for the shot!), and more liability issues. Imagine someone shooting a commercial bringing in a generator on a trailer to power all the lights, etc! Power cords and other wires running every where, hassleing the students trying to get from class to class.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Harvard has a primary rule that photography not disrupt what they consider normal order.

Taking a photo from a public view which uses such things as photo-flood lights is something
they consider 'disruptive' and Harvard has more money than God.

I would honor their paranoia by never photographing their property.
They are true pricks.

.

[Jim Andrada]

I'd like a dollar for every photo I took on the Harvard campus with an old Linhof Technika years ago. It's a strange place in a lot of ways - as long as you don't get in the way and cause a ruckus I've never found them to much care what you do on campus. Look like a proud parent or something. Bring a teen-age kid with you for cover. And to carry your camera.

Full disclosure - that's where I went to school. It was Harvard or MIT and the guy I interviewed with at MIT WAS a prick. Probably telling him he was a prick at the time played some small part in my not going there..

[Leigh]

As long as I'm not on your property.
Please. The entire campus is private property.

Getting a decent angle on any building on the campus from a public street is highly unlikely.

Leigh

[C. D. Keth]

Getting a decent angle on any building on the campus from a public street is highly unlikely.

Leigh

Which is why he should just do it and see what happens. You're not trespassing unless you've hopped a fence, passed "posted" signs, or been asked to leave.

[Oren Grad]

Yeesh... What the OP and Jim A said: on any nice day, there are tourists - and locals - snapping away in the Yard and all around the campus. Much of the "campus" beyond the Yard is closely intertwined with and not cleanly separable from the rest of Cambridge anyway.

To state the obvious, just exercise common courtesy and don't be a nuisance. If there's any chance your setup would get in the way of anybody, you should certainly seek advice and permission. And, of course, if and when you have commercial intent the rules are clear.

PS: if you want to exercise view camera movements and try your hand at architectural photography, you could make an entire introductory course out of the structures and spaces on the MIT campus.

[Leszek Vogt]

Just try to avoid those pesky security cameras :D.

Les

[Oren Grad]

And another PS: both Harvard and MIT have offices that encourage and assist visitors:

http://www.harvard.edu/visitors

http://web.mit.edu/institute-events/visitor/index.html

Those might be friendly points of contact for any questions about casual photography on campus.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I would just go do it. The policy says you need permission for commercial purposes.

There are other reasons for prohibiting photography there. One is student confidentiality. A student can demand anonymity, as well as it can be achieved with ordinary means. I worked in Higher Ed for about thirty years and anonymity became an issue about twelve years ago. Very few students ask for it.

[paulr]

There are other reasons for prohibiting photography there. One is student confidentiality. A student can demand anonymity, as well as it can be achieved with ordinary means. I worked in Higher Ed for about thirty years and anonymity became an issue about twelve years ago. Very few students ask for it.

I'd like to see evidence of a student with fewer than 500 publically accessible photos on facebook.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I'd like to see evidence of a student with fewer than 500 publically accessible photos on facebook.

I was, among other things, one who masked the private information for those few students who demanded it. Very few opted, and none used social media. We are talking about daughters and sons of billionaires, victims of stalking (a felony here), government spooks, and other good reasons.

[Richard M. Coda]

In general, if you are "on their property" you need permission. If you are on the street but not on their property, depending on what city you are in, you may need permission (permit) from the local municipality. I got kicked off a hospital parking lot just this weekend. And they always wait until you have the whole camera set and composed, just before you put the film holder in. Happened to me at a bank in downtown Phoenix last year, too. And at Disney Music Hall in LA. So, you just move to a public spot and use a longer lens if possible. On same day as bank incident last year I also went across the street onto a public sidewalk that was adjacent to the light rail (I mean it was the curb, then 18-24 inches and the first rail). Tripod was fully on the sidewalk, but I had to go in front of the camera (onto the street but not on the tracks) to set the shutter and aperture for just a moment. I made sure there was no train coming. Wouldn't you know... the train that was coming, but still a few blocks away (they don't move very fast) radioed ahead that someone was on the tracks. I set my shutter and was just about to make the exposure and a transit cop pulls up. Asked me if I was on the tracks. I said no. They said are you sure. I said yes. They asked, well did you see anyone. I said no. He drove off. I made my exposure...

Oh, and BTW, ALL of my sessions are EARLY Sunday morning... I specifically go so there are no people to deal with.

[paulr]

Jac, it sounds like you're going out of your way to to follow rules that you may be taking more seriously than the enforcers.

I don't believe anyone photographing with a big camera on a campus, for personal reasons, is likely to cause anyone harm. This takes the decision out of the ethical realm and into the pragmatic one. And as someone who has done a fair amount of my work while flat out tresspassing, I can't imagine a solution other than going and taking the pictures. Worse comes to worse a security guard will ask you not to. Or will direct you to the office where you need to ask for permission. But I'll bet that if you don't get in people's way or act like a crazy person, few people will even notice.

[Richard M. Coda]

You should have just said that Obama said it was OK and that you were shooting for display in the Oval Office ;^)

[Heroique]

Wearing an orange vest (best w/ reflective stripes) signals “permission.”

A yellow hard hat, of course, will strengthen the signal.

Photography by stealth.

-----
In a pinch, drop by the school bookstore for a “Harvard” sweatshirt & day pack.

If you attended Yale, leave your sweatshirt at home.

[Kirk Gittings]

If its not clearly posted, I assume its all right and go for it. In a few cases that assumption has been incorrect but nothing more odious than being asked to leave or go to x and get a permit has ever happened (except at Sandia National Laboratories :) ).

[Shootar401]

It's private property.

You have no right to be on the property for any purpose without their permission.

Leigh

Private property or not, just go and shoot. I mean its a freaking college campus, not a nuclear waste site.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Jac, it sounds like you're going out of your way to to follow rules that you may be taking more seriously than the enforcers.

I am now retired, but the 'enforcers' were high-placed state administrators. The rules were taken very seriously. I could be fired in a heart-beat if I violated the law or was too lax.


I don't believe anyone photographing with a big camera on a campus, for personal reasons, is likely to cause anyone harm. This takes the decision out of the ethical realm and into the pragmatic one.

So your ethical and moral position is that if you can get away with it, all is good. In moral theory that is considered an adolescent level.
.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Wearing an orange vest (best w/ reflective stripes) signals “permission.”

Not at Harvard.

But I also wear a safety vest and cap on certain shoots for a couple reasons - first, I work in rural areas and don't want to be shot, and second it rather announces serious work and no fear of being conspicuous. My colleague does the same. One day while shooting from a tripod, a woman ran from a house within the picture and shouted, "Say, do you want me to move my car?". He smiled and said, "Yes, please". All is good.

[Heroique]

Not at Harvard.

[Sigh]

Presumably due to an adolescent “moral theory.”

[Jim Andrada]

I always particularly liked the gates in the Yard and around the Houses - and you can see them from public streets. There are a couple of spots where Harvard does close a few gates once every seven years or so to prevent them from becoming public rights of way, And all the gates around the Yard are closed to non-invited guests on commencement day which I think is also enough to prevent the interior walkways from becoming public rights of way.

The steeple of Memorial Church is pretty tall but if you go to the top of the stairs on Widener Library you can get it in without a serious WA lens.

I also 2nd the suggestion to go roam around MIT as well. No hard feelings lo these 50 years later.

[paulr]

How about an orange vest and hardhat and an ascot?

[Brian K]

Photographing on private property without consent can be considered trespassing. But no big deal if they just ask you to leave. However as you are trespassing and photographing their property they just might ask you for your film, especially if someone complains that you photographed them, or thinks that you did. Refusing to turn over the film could provoke a call to the police and possible arrest. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but when you are on their property, doing something without their consent, you are in a vulnerable position.

[C. D. Keth]

Photographing on private property without consent can be considered trespassing. But no big deal if they just ask you to leave. However as you are trespassing and photographing their property they just might ask you for your film, especially if someone complains that you photographed them, or thinks that you did. Refusing to turn over the film could provoke a call to the police and possible arrest. I am not saying that this is likely to happen, but when you are on their property, doing something without their consent, you are in a vulnerable position.

They can ask you for your film but you have no duty to give it to them. They need a warrant for that. If private property isn't fenced or marked, just do it. If they ask you to leave, don't argue.

[Pawlowski6132]

Unbelievable. Do you guys really think you're going to get arrested and go to jail for taking a picture??? Geez. Grow a pair and go shoot.

[paulr]

No one has the right to demand your film. It's called theft. Police can seize your film, but only if actually making an arrest.

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

Chris Jordan is my hero for his handling of this. When security guards demanded his film, he'd sheepishly reach into his pocket and hand them a 35mm roll. The guards never noticed that it couldn't have come from his 8x10 camera.
In case anyone went as far as developing his film, the rolls contained 36 exposures of his hairy ass.

Sadly, the OP won't likely get this opportunity. Harvard is not like the industrial sites where Chris was trespassing.

[Brian K]

Unbelievable. Do you guys really think you're going to get arrested and go to jail for taking a picture??? Geez. Grow a pair and go shoot.

I know people arrested just for that, and on public property. It's not a matter of "growing a pair" it's a matter of not being dumb.

C.D., I think that their security are authorized to hold you and wait for the police. And given that it's also very easy for security to lie if they want about your actions, i.e. there were calls that you were harassing people, I think it's advisable to ask in advance for permission. And quite frankly it's easier to shoot when you're not paranoid and looking over your shoulder every time a security or police car comes by.

I have rarely been turned down when asking for permission, and have on many occasions been asked by security or law enforcement as to what I am doing there. Having a permit or being able to drop the name of the person who gave you consent makes them not only leave you alone, but offer assistance if needed.

[Brian K]

No one has the right to demand your film. It's called theft. Police can seize your film, but only if actually making an arrest.

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

Chris Jordan is my hero for his handling of this. When security guards demanded his film, he'd sheepishly reach into his pocket and hand them a 35mm roll. The guards never noticed that it couldn't have come from his 8x10 camera.
In case anyone went as far as developing his film, the rolls contained 36 exposures of his hairy ass.

Sadly, the OP won't likely get this opportunity. Harvard is not like the industrial sites where Chris was trespassing.

I know the laws, and having the cops haul you away during your shoot, only to release you three hours later as was the case of a friend of mine is rather counter productive. Plus wasting the time of law enforcement or security when they might better serve the public by being on guard against crime or hazards is not sensible either. Owning a camera does not give you more rights than anyone else or gives you the right to violate the rights of others by trespassing. There are countless photos out there, do we really need to lower ourselves to the levels of selfish and inconsiderate jerks for the sake of a photo?

[paulr]

The OP is about the Harvard campus. It's as open to the public as any park. Regardless of the letter of the law, he'll be well within the spirit if he's just taking personal pictures.

If the world has had enough of your photos, by all means, don't trespass to make more.

[Jody_S]

No one has the right to demand your film. It's called theft. Police can seize your film, but only if actually making an arrest.

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

Chris Jordan is my hero for his handling of this. When security guards demanded his film, he'd sheepishly reach into his pocket and hand them a 35mm roll. The guards never noticed that it couldn't have come from his 8x10 camera.
In case anyone went as far as developing his film, the rolls contained 36 exposures of his hairy ass.

Sadly, the OP won't likely get this opportunity. Harvard is not like the industrial sites where Chris was trespassing.


Thanks! I'm updating my 'field kit' as we speak, with a couple rolls of unknown vintage 35mm film and an orange vest. I'm not going to waste my time taking pictures of my ass, hairy or otherwise, because I seriously doubt any of these rent-a-cops would know where to get a roll developed.

[paulr]

You could always hand it to them with a prepaid mailer ... ;)

[Brian K]

In spite of the fact that people pay me for my photographs, so therefore I am also financially motivated, I don't feel that I should become a jerk and trespass on someone's property or violate any one's rights. If one's skills are so limited that they must do that in order to make a photo then maybe they are pursuing the wrong interest. Let's be real here. We are not talking photojournalists reporting some story for the greater good. We are talking hobbyists taking photographs for their own satisfaction. Surely they can do that while maintaining some degree of civility and integrity.

And what's interesting in this thread is also the disrespect for the security personnel and law enforcement. In this situation they are the ones in the right and it is their time unnecessarily being wasted and their purpose, of protecting the students and the school being subverted. How would any of you feel if some guy you didn't know walked on to your property and started taking photos of your kids? So seriously show a little respect for others and ask consent if you're going to photograph on private property.

And from another photographer's perspective, when the police or security, or a property owner feels disrespected by a photographer, it just makes life harder for the next photographer.

[paulr]

We all agree, there is no need to be a jerk.

[Shootar401]

Unbelievable. Do you guys really think you're going to get arrested and go to jail for taking a picture??? Geez. Grow a pair and go shoot.

Best post EVER!!!

[Jody_S]

And what's interesting in this thread is also the disrespect for the security personnel and law enforcement. In this situation they are the ones in the right (...)

And from another photographer's perspective, when the police or security, or a property owner feels disrespected by a photographer, it just makes life harder for the next photographer.

Photographers didn't start the 'war on photography'. I have yet to meet a serious amateur photographer who has acted like an ass with cops or security guards just for the sake of being obnoxious. I have, however, been harassed many times by rent-a-cops who were completely ignorant of the most basic points of law regarding public spaces. I have also been stopped by professional law enforcement people while trespassing (caught in the act!), which ended with the cops suggesting several other local spots where I might want to engage in more trespassing. Go figure.

[john borrelli]

I live in Mass but do not do photography in Boston much with a view camera.

Waiting for security to arrive is antithetical to the whole LF process, I begin to think about their inevitable arrival and it interferes too much with the artistic and technical process for me so that I just don't do my best work there. The problem with Harvard in particular is that you would have to photograph it from a plane to avoid being on their property as they own that part of Cambridge. Ever since 9/11, security depts. have been ultra-alert in this regard. Informing security that you are not doing photography for professional purposes is appropriate, I have often said I just purchased a lens, etc and I am testing it, contacting Harvard beforehand would be good, but you may hear something you don't want to, and getting a name to give to a Harvard security person would be helpful too. Unfortunately, photographing privately owned homes, estates, etc in Mass even for a hobby is difficult as well.

Unfortunately, if you are driving, you will have a problem with some type of security or meter maids putting a ticket on your car. FWIW, though parking can be tricky, I have never had a problem photographing the Boston Skyline from Memorial Drive. I have done a lot of small format photography in Rockport, Mass as well, for the same reason.

[Brian K]

If you ask someone's permission to shoot on their property and they say no, well be a grown up, learn to live with disappointment and find some other place to shoot. It's a big world.

[MrJim]

The OP is about the Harvard campus. It's as open to the public as any park. Regardless of the letter of the law, he'll be well within the spirit if he's just taking personal pictures.

If the world has had enough of your photos, by all means, don't trespass to make more.

No offense, but there is a difference between the defintion of "open" public space, "closed" public space, and "private" spaces in the US. Personally, I believe we as photographers have a tendency to over estimate rights protected by the first amendment, which they may not be at all protected. For personal use is NOT protected by the first amendment. We seem to forget there are a bunch of other rights in the BoR, eg the 14th that offers protections of the rights of "person, property and effects," hat negatively impact what we do as a hobby. The lack of enforcement, or ingorance of a law, is not a logical counter point to what is law.

That said I break the speed limit alot, however I realize I can only be mad at myself when the law is enforced.

Intersting article here... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/photography-the-first-amendment

[BrianShaw]

No one has the right to demand your film. It's called theft.

I'm in "one of those moods" right now. Please forgive me. It would be "robbery". I spent too long on a jury one week discerning between the two crimes. :)

[Brian K]

I'm in "one of those moods" right now. Please forgive me. It would be "robbery". I spent too long on a jury one week discerning between the two crimes. :)

Your rights are somewhat compromised when you are in the act of doing something illegal, like trespassing. In addition if you are photographing someone else's property, on their land without their consent, then the images on that film might be considered illegally obtained or in violation of their rights, or the intellectual property of the property's owner. The point is, do you really want to argue this sort of thing in court, be it a criminal or civil suit, for images that have no commercial value. Because the simple fact is that those images can NEVER be used for commercial purposes without the consent of the property's owner. And this is why professionals, or at least one's who operate in a professional manner, do not waste their time photographing locations without proper consent, simply because there is no commercial value in images obtained that way.

[BrianShaw]

The point is, do you really want to argue this sort of thing in court, be it a criminal or civil suit, for images that have no commercial value.

Of course not.

I was just distinguising between theft... someone taking something that isn't theirs, say, from an unoccupied car versys robbery... someone saying, say, "give me your wallet and while your at it I'll take that film." I wasn't even going to get int o the notion of "conversion". :)

But, honestly, this thread is about a non-commercial amatuer taking pictures on a college campus. It really shouldn't be too big of a deal. Either do it and apologize/leave when the Haaavaaad security says "scram" or ask permission first and have a authorization letter to show the Haaavaaad security when/if they show up to ask questions. I know what I would do but everyone needs to make their own decisions.

[Jac@stafford.net]

[...] I have rarely been turned down when asking for permission, and have on many occasions been asked by security or law enforcement as to what I am doing there. Having a permit or being able to drop the name of the person who gave you consent makes them not only leave you alone, but offer assistance if needed.

A friend of mine is a documentary photographer of small, rural towns. Before he begins to work he visits the police department to introduce himself, give them his card and shows some of his published books. He has not had a problem in over thirty years.

[Brian K]

A friend of mine is a documentary photographer of small, rural towns. Before he begins to work he visits the police department to introduce himself, give them his card and shows some of his published books. He has not had a problem in over thirty years.

That's the way to do it. Not only will he not get hassled by the cops, they may end up helping him in some ways. It's just simple respect and courtesy and that can open a lot of doors. I've done some photos at power plants and other industrial sites and I found it far easier to simply drive up to their security gate and tell them what I'm up to, even though I will be shooting on public land. It means they don't have to send someone out when they get a call from a citizen worried that someone is photographing the place, that citizen is told everything is fine and they don't worry or hassle me, it's just a far easier way to work.

[Peter De Smidt]

So your ethical and moral position is that if you can get away with it, all is good. In moral theory that is considered an adolescent level.
.

Paul didn't say that "if you can get a way with it, all is good." What he said implies if there isn't harm involved, then the situation doesn't concern morality. While not uncontroversial, it is a reasonable position.

[Brian K]

Paul didn't say that "if you can get a way with it, all is good." What he said implies if there isn't harm involved, then the situation doesn't concern morality. While not uncontroversial, it is a reasonable position.

That all depends on whose definition of harm you're using. For a property owner having some form of activity occur on their property without their consent, could mean that their harm is that they are subject to an unnecessary risk, such as someone tripping over a tripod leg and suing the property owner because it's their land and they have the deepest pockets. This is why often when one is shooting on private property, that the photographer is required to provide a certificate of insurance liability protecting the property owner and also making them a beneficiary of that protection.

[Jac@stafford.net]

Paul didn't say that "if you can get a way with it, all is good." What he said implies if there isn't harm involved, then the situation doesn't concern morality. While not uncontroversial, it is a reasonable position.

I understand that, however sometimes we do not know whether harm might be involved, such as the case I mentioned of taking pictures of people on-campus. I gave the example of photographing students who wish to be anonymous. Another was a case where we had a large group of young adults from the Middle East on-campus for pilot training. There were American plain-clothes military police with them at all times. No photography was permitted. (It was before 9/11. Scarey in a way.)

I admit that I cannot imagine how prohibiting photographing a building's exterior might be rationalized. There was one case where photography was scrutinized but not prohibited when the construction of the basement of a university building was under way because the hidden access tunnels were revealed.

[BrianShaw]

The perception of "harm" and "risk" seem to have become quite contorted since 2001 or so.

[Kirk Gittings]

The perception of "harm" and "risk" seem to have become quite contorted since 2001 or so.

Most of what I do every day is photograph buildings. I can't say that I am doing anything differently than what I was doing 12 years ago or 20 or even 30 years ago in terms of practice, but the scrutiny and occasional illegal harassment has certainly ramped up since 9/11, especially when using a VC which few lay people anymore recognize as a camera. This however has mainly only been at federal properties including National Parks. By and large when photographing private property, or city, county, state properties from standard public access areas nobody says boo-as it should be.

[Brian Ellis]

I would just go do it. The policy says you need permission for commercial purposes. If you ask, you're at the mercy of the mood / bureaucratic inclinations of whatever staff person receives your email.
If you get asked to leave by security, then try going through official channels. But I'll bet no one even blinks at you.

This. Leave if you're told to, otherwise just go there and make the photographs since you're not making them for commercial or news purposes. But if you do ask I wouldn't say anything about LF photography, I doubt that any media-relations type person even knows what LF means and even if they do, why would they care about the size of the film?

[paulr]

Harvard's former chief legal conunsel is actually a close family friend. Based on some stories she's told, I bet she'd howl laughing if she read this thread.

[Merg Ross]

I'm new to LF and have just gotten all of my gear together. Now, I want to practice. Being in Boston, I was thinking of going to the Harvard campus to take some photos. Are there any legal complications in doing this? Could someone ask me to leave? During the day, anyone can just walk onto the Harvard campus. These photos would be for my own personal use and not for sale.

My inclination would be to take my camera on campus with the intention of making photographs. I have never made a habit of asking for permission in any of the places that I have photographed in the past fifty years.

However, I have been asked to leave on a few occasions, and have done so. There has never been a time or place where my interest in photographing has been worth confrontation.

Perhaps, when you have returned from your "practice" at Harvard, you will report back to the forum with your experience. That will be the real answer.

[Too Many Cameras]

I've been scouting Boston on Google Earth for a few (like six) months planning a trip there this fall to photograph buildings and such in autumn. Here is my plan:

In a public park, I figure I'll be pretty safe with an LF camera unless I'm taking photos of other peoples' kids. Christopher Columbus park borders Quincy Center, Custom House, and the water. As well, it looks like there are some fountains or sculptures or something. So there's a large variety of subject matter and my thinking is I could get away with about 40% of the shots I'd really like to take in that area from the park. Union Street Park is across from City Hall, and could be an option. North Point and Nashua Street Parks are two others I saw that appear to have potential (from the satellite photos.)

Now, here's another complication: Some cities require photography permits ANYWHERE in the city's boundaries if you use a tripod. In New York, I'm told it's a $250 fine for using an licensed camera on a tripod, more in Central Park. In SF, where I life, the permit fee is north of $100, per day, I think.

Also, some building owners require licenses to capture and use photos of their buildings. I've not heard of a building owner pursuing an amateur for it, but if you sold one of the photos to an ad agency, say, then it may come up.

Ultimately, your best defense is a warm smile, cooperation, and the line "I'm studying (or learning) photography." It implies you're a student, which might make people a bit lenient, yet you're not saying you're a student (so if you aren't you aren't lying.) When I use my LF camera, I just assure people who ask that I'm photographing that tree/building/statue or whatever and I'll gladly wait till they're out of the shot.

[BrianShaw]

Harvard's former chief legal conunsel is actually a close family friend. Based on some stories she's told, I bet she'd howl laughing if she read this thread.

Laugh about what? Please share your insights.

[Peter Lewin]

Now, here's another complication: Some cities require photography permits ANYWHERE in the city's boundaries if you use a tripod. In New York, I'm told it's a $250 fine for using an licensed camera on a tripod, more in Central Park. In SF, where I life, the permit fee is north of $100, per day, I think.
.
This shows that the Internet is sometimes your best friend. I was curious about Central Park because some years ago a group of us from this Forum had a get together in the Park, and we all shot a bunch of view cameras that day, without permits and without any problems. I just checked the current regulations, and the "casual photographer" does not need a permit, and tripods when used to support a "hand held" camera (still or movie) do not count as "equipment" for which a permit would be required. In the context of the regulations, I believe a view camera is still categorized as a hand-held camera.

[paulr]

Laugh about what? Please share your insights.

She attended Harvard as an undergrad and was an organizer of the student protests (which became borderline riots) during the Viet Nam war. I think someone who's thrown herself into outright civil disobedience in the face of riot cops would laugh at these worries about a photo permit on her old battlefields.

A related punchline: On her first day as legal counsel, she asked if there was any way to clean the filthy windows in her office. She was told no, they couldn't be cleaned. They were bulletproof glass that had been installed in the 60s in response to the riots.

[Bob Salomon]

This shows that the Internet is sometimes your best friend. I was curious about Central Park because some years ago a group of us from this Forum had a get together in the Park, and we all shot a bunch of view cameras that day, without permits and without any problems. I just checked the current regulations, and the "casual photographer" does not need a permit, and tripods when used to support a "hand held" camera (still or movie) do not count as "equipment" for which a permit would be required. In the context of the regulations, I believe a view camera is still categorized as a hand-held camera.
Both a 45 and 57 Technika are designed to be used hand held. So are 45 Graphics and Wista RF cameras. In fact, Linhof did sell an 18x24cm Technika before WW II. Not sure any one smaller then Haystack Calhoun could actually hand hold it without vibration. But technically it was a hand holdable camera. It did not have a rangefinder but did come with a folding frame finder and peep sight. It weighed 22.5 pounds without a lens, lens board or film holder.

[Peter Lewin]

Bob, you are obviously correct about the cameras you listed. My point was that I doubt that the average policeman or park employee will know the difference between a Linhoff Technika and a typical field camera, or even a monorail Sinar P2 for that matter. They would probably notice the difference between a small movie camera and a professional movie camera, which is more of the distinction the regulations are trying to make. (Not that I have any experience with ULF, but perhaps an 8x10 or 11x14 would attract more interest, but now I am guessing.)

[paulr]

I don't get the impression those tripod rules are heavily enforced in NYC. I've heard of people getting in trouble when they block sidewalks (I wish everyone would get in trouble for this, not just people with tripods ...). And back when Brooklyn Bridge Park was a state park, they tried to boot out anyone with a tripod who didn't have a permit. It's been annexed by the city since then ... not sure if this policy remains.

[Jac@stafford.net]

She attended Harvard as an undergrad and was an organizer of the student protests (which became borderline riots) during the Viet Nam war. I think someone who's thrown herself into outright civil disobedience in the face of riot cops would laugh at these worries about a photo permit on her old battlefields. [...]

That was then. A lot changes in the passing of time, and one's obligation to the employer.

I was there, too (http://www.digoliardi.net/SDS.jpg). Many private universities and colleges learned it was better to let the demonstrations proceed and act only if a physical riot or property damage occurred. (Kent State (http://www.pophistorydig.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/07/1970-life-cover2-17may-90.jpg) was not a private university.)

[Nathan Potter]

I'm new to LF and have just gotten all of my gear together. Now, I want to practice. Being in Boston, I was thinking of going to the Harvard campus to take some photos. Are there any legal complications in doing this? Could someone ask me to leave? During the day, anyone can just walk onto the Harvard campus. These photos would be for my own personal use and not for sale.

I've always generally done what Merg does. I go anywhere, usually looking like a klutz so that if I'm accosted about taking pictures I seem surprised. If asked to leave I pack up and go while apologizing and suggesting that my photography seemed to be harmless. Almost never have any conflicts.

In the last several years there has been more interactions with police especially but then I've been poking around urban areas a bit more.

I've done some occasional LF work on the Harvard campus in the vicinity of the Aggasiz museum and the Yard and never been accosted by anyone except Harvard students - in fact there was such a gathering of students one time in the 1990s that I suppose we appeared as a field trip studying LF in the Yard.

The Neanderthals seem to roam further afield than university campuses.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[QT Luong]

I've photographed on many university campuses (including Harvard), granted not with LF, but still with a tripod, which is what attracts the attention of guards. I've never requested permission nor been hassled by anybody. Interestingly, I've licensed quite a number of the resulting images to Stanford University. Unless it is going to be obviously problematic my adage is "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission".

[Heroique]

Best of both worlds: Research the photo location, ask about any rules, know what to expect if you’re approached, then forget about getting formal permission, just do it w/ full knowledge of the rules you might be breaking and a readiness to be contrite, to leave, and to accept the consequences.

Sound good?

Well, it does to me, but I remain curious about a lot of people in this thread: If a stranger walked up to your camera, and – while totally ignoring you, and asking no permission – reached out and applied a movement or two, removed the film holder for a curious inspection, turned the lens’ aperture dial just for fun, then pressed the shutter release a few times to see what would happen, but never meaning to do you or your camera any harm (which you wouldn’t know unless you could read his mind), would you suddenly feel like the Harvard PR administrator or campus guard who sees an LF photographer on school grounds without a required permit?

[bdkphoto]

My approach is pretty straightforward. If I'm on assignment I will always get permission. I look forward to speaking with the gatekeepers like the Public Affairs officers or the property owners because it's good business. I find opportunities to land new clients that way, and establish relationships that pay off over the long haul. Being able to represent yourself properly is a skill that is as important as being a good photographer, and has gotten me access to places that are not available to the public.

Most of the issues with access on private property have nothing to do with security, but everything to do with liability. If you can provide the proper insurance certificates you can get almost anywhere.

[Jac@stafford.net]

I've photographed on many university campuses (including Harvard), granted not with LF, but still with a tripod, which is what attracts the attention of guards. I've never requested permission nor been hassled by anybody. Interestingly, I've licensed quite a number of the resulting images to Stanford University. Unless it is going to be obviously problematic my adage is "easier to ask for forgiveness than permission".

It appears that you have earned the way. If I were a Stanford publications or PR director, I would be happy to find that a courteous and talented photographer was working on speculation for me.

[Nathan Potter]

Well, it does to me, but I remain curious about a lot of people in this thread: If a stranger walked up to your camera, and – while totally ignoring you, and asking no permission – reached out and applied a movement or two, removed the film holder for a curious inspection, turned the lens’ aperture dial just for fun, then pressed the shutter release a few times to see what would happen, but never meaning to do you or your camera any harm (which you wouldn’t know unless you could read his mind), would you suddenly feel like the Harvard PR administrator or campus guard who sees an LF photographer on school grounds without a required permit?

Probably, but I'd use my cell phone to call the police and we would hopefully hash out the problem amongst ourselves.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[bdkphoto]

It appears that you have earned the way. If I were a Stanford publications or PR director, I would be happy to find that a courteous and talented photographer was working on speculation for me.

Licensing an image from stock is not the same as working on spec.

[Shootar401]

One of the reasons why I never invested in a CF tripod is because I don't want to break it while beating a rent a cop to death over his harassing of me. Aluminium is much better :D Seriously, you give some junior high dropout a badge and a uniform and all of a sudden they have a ego like no other. Almost as bad as the TSA.

[paulr]

B... but I remain curious about a lot of people in this thread: If a stranger walked up to your camera, and – while totally ignoring you, and asking no permission – reached out and applied a movement or two, removed the film holder for a curious inspection...

I hope you're joking. Have you been there? It's run as semi-public space. Wide open, and anyone can go there. It's a private school, but this is only nominally true. In 2012 Harvard received over $600 million in federal money. This is actually a substantial decline from previous years. Needless to say, the school is already to some degree on your payroll.

Anyway, everyone is free to ask for all the permission they'd like. I happen to think there's enough bureaucracy thrust upon me, so I tend to avoid seeking out additional samples. And in these matters, I find it pragmatically helpful to follow QT's principle of favoring forgiveness over permission. But to each his or her own.

[Kirk Gittings]

To me the question is pretty simple. If it is posted no photography or no photography without a permit, fine, otherwise I go ahead and make images till someone stops me. Anyone who owns a building visibly accessible from public or physically easily accessible in a normal manner (say without jumping a fence) who actually cares about this issue and doesn't post restrictions........

[MrJim]

http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15793672746972608587&hl=en&as_sdt=2&as_vis=1&oi=scholarr

Section C might be of interest. From a technical point of view...

[Heroique]

I find it pragmatically helpful to follow QT's principle of favoring forgiveness over permission. But to each his or her own.

Yes, and as I mentioned, being prepared to ask for forgiveness (in lieu of seeking permission) is a strategy I like, but “scoff-laws” (count me among them) can do better than that. See my post #4 for examples of “what goes a long way” w/ security people. My main experience is these people leave me alone w/ a little stroking, and I get my shot – I don’t lose it by asking forgiveness and leaving at the first sign of trouble. I take that step when it appears they “mean business,” or show the first signs persistence. Call it a matter of reading people and circumstances to get what you want, or at least as much as possible.

BTW, my “stranger who touches your camera” example was not aimed at Harvard, but means to “turn the tables” when it comes to security in a suggestive way. Don’t take it as a joke, but don’t take it too seriously, either. ;^)

[Peter De Smidt]

I have had people come up and look under the darkcloth on a setup camera without asking permission. They were a family of Japanese tourists who where visiting a waterfall in Munising. Sure, I was a little surprised, but it didn't bother me at all.

[nimo956]

Just to give people an update I did email Harvard and MIT Media Relations. I've heard back from MIT, but not Harvard. Basically, as long as the images are for personal use and not for sale or publication, then you are free to shoot away at whatever you'd like. I'd imagine the same goes for Harvard as well, so I'll just go there and start taking pictures and hope for the best. I think it will help that I still look like a student :/

[Photojeep]

In a related incident: I am the media technologies department chair of a community college in Nevada and recently received a call from a campus administrator because of an incident of a student walking into a common area and setting up a tripod, directly in front of her desk, and photographed a skylight in the roof of the building. When the administrator tried asking her who she was and what class she was in the student acted very rude and basically ignored her and left. When the administrator called me she, while being very nice, wanted me to know that photography on campus was not allowed unless we told her office prior to the event. When I said telling her was impossible because we sent our 1000+ students out daily to take pictures she was aghast. She told me no less than 10 times photos weren't allowed before she finally said that it wasn't officially illegal but she didn't want it to happen. Now I was aghast. Neither of us raised our voice but as soon as she admitted there was no actual prohibition to photographs on campus she realized she had no leg to stand on and quickly ended the call, all the while trying to re-establish a non-existant prohibition.

In this particular case the student was in the wrong, in my mind, for setting up her tripod directly in front of the administrator's desk. But only because of her rude and boorish behavior, not because she "violated" a rule that existed only in the mind of this administrator.

I treated it as an opportunity to remind students of their responsibility to simply behave in a professional and respectful manner.

Best,
PJ

[Jim Andrada]

@Nimo

That's the spirit! I think we ALL look like students, only some of us are more "mature" students than others.

[nimo956]

I heard back from Harvard and was surprised to be declined! They said you need a permit for any professional shoot (which I'm not doing), and no tripods or lighting are allowed. I should have just followed the principle of "favoring forgiveness over permission." Still, I could just go there and hope they don't catch me ;)

[QT Luong]

You see, the problem with asking is that once they say no, you cannot pretend anymore that you didn't know it was not authorized.

[paulr]

Yup. Now you have to go in disguise.

If you give a mid-level administrator the opportunity to exercise authority, they'll probably jump at the chance.

[Heroique]

You’ve done the right thing – you now know the “rules.”

Now it’s time to act.

Let us know what you decide.


You see, the problem with asking is that once they say no, you cannot pretend anymore that you didn't know it was not authorized.

We need a thread on this.

Conscientiousness isn’t a concern when you don’t ask, but becomes one if you do.

;^)

[Kirk Gittings]

You see, the problem with asking is that once they say no, you cannot pretend anymore that you didn't know it was not authorized.

;)

[john borrelli]

Wow looking at the names that have contributed to this thread and me being a novice LFer i feel silly trying to contribute but here goes. I had a feeling nimo956 that you would have received that denial from Harvard. I believe only Harvard staff photographers are typically allowed to photograph Harvard property. That is why I suggested alternative locations earlier in this thread though I understand why the more stout among us suggested doing photography there anyway.

Also,and this may surprise you but the denial you received puts you in good company. I have heard the rumor that a few scenes in the movie "Good Will Hunting" were photographed at Harvard and the crew actually went in without authorization, photographed quickly and left before being caught. I'm guessing Damon and Affleck wouldn't have that problem today.

[Nathan Potter]

John, a lot of folks on the forum here will never qualify to be called the "paparazzi". Timidity is not conducive photography in restricted places and of restricted people and things.

I confess that when I photographed at Harvard I was a part time student and I innocently went about it with both 4X5 and 8X10 as discreetly as possible. I was motivated by the knowledge that one of my ancestors one John Powers graduated from Harvard Divinity School there about 1720.

Nate Potter, Austin TX.

[BrianShaw]

One of my ancestrors was class of 1717. Maybe we should get together and have our ancestors escort us on campus whilst we photograph! He no longer resides in Boston but is nearby... and seems to have plenty of spare time available. :D

[Jim Andrada]

Problem is that neither of these folks is in a position to contribute to Harvard.

Live Alumni on the other hand...

Think about it - what will they do to you if they DO catch you except ask you to stop? The last set of stocks were removed from Cambridge common a century or two ago, so they won't lock you up for sure. Probably won't call the real police either

One idea - do you really need a tripod? How about renting a bike and clamping a ball head or something to the handlebars? You can push the bike around everywhere and set the kickstand and shoot away.

Do you speak some language other than English - maybe Russian or Bulgarian or Japanese or something? A friendly smile and an incomprehensible comment might work. I know it got my wife (Japanese) out of a couple of expensive speeding tickets a few years back.

Are you old and decrepit enough to look like you need the support of a walker? They make great camera platforms, as do wheelchairs. One of those three-legged crutches might work in a pinch.

Get creative! Act like 007 on a secret assignment.

[Vlad Soare]

Actually, you should not act like 007. If he were real he would be the absolute worst spy the world ever had. He's so conspicuous that I'd be very surprised if he survived for more than five minutes among real secret agents. :D

[Jim Andrada]

Hi Vlad

Good point! But he did have flair!

Maybe one could use a monopod instead of a tripod and lean the camera against a tree (lots of trees in Harvard Yard) Or maybe mount it on an IV pole and push it around with a tube running from an IV bag under the camera - filled with D-76 or something.

[paulr]

Get creative! Act like 007 on a secret assignment.

Quietly take your picture while everyone's running from the giant explosion you set off? And then seduce the University president's wife?

[Jody_S]

Just take the photos, and plead ignorance if you're stopped. Try not to block major walkways, or try not to shoot when students are rushing between classes. I don't know if shooting early AM would help, as there wouldn't be any students to bother, but then you would have the undivided attention of the campus police force. Sunset might be safer, especially when the kids are busy partying and security is otherwise occupied.

[Aahx]

I wonder how the Harvard Photography students handle those restrictions? Or if they have any?

[Jim Andrada]

Students would not be in the same category as the public at large that is unrelated to the university so I think no issues.

Next time I'm in Cambridge I'll take my Super Graphic and tripod over and take a few photos just for fun.

[Leszek Vogt]

Weird that they have this goofy rule for "outsiders" with a large camera, while the cell-phone clicks continue. Hmmm, maybe it's time to befriend a photo student from the campus, eh ?

Les

[munz6869]

The only time I've ever been hassled by a security guard, was whilst on the opposite side of the street, shooting a building within a private shopping complex in Melbourne. A security guard from the complex wandered across the road to me (and my conspicuous red-bellowed Graphic View) to ask me to stop making photos. I answered politely that I believed I was in a public area and had every right to be there, and he sort of invaded my personal space - I didn't respond to his aggression, but remained firm but positive (it's great being older and more sensible!), and eventually he walked off and said 'I'll allow you to make one photo' - ridiculous. Later I sent a cheery email to the Melbourne Film Office (Local government filming permits agency) asking for clarification of my rights, and they sent me a very nice email back saying they'd been in contact with the shopping centre, who apologised profusely to me!! I never did see that security guard again...

As for Universities, well I work in one (formerly in the property services division), and they required a permit for all commercial and otherwise obstructive filming and photographic activity (which makes sense really - they're just trying to manage daily operations), but for any other activity they could not care less. Most Universities in Australia are (unlike the US) public-owned, but campuses are still fairly tightly managed for the safety & security of students & staff.

Last weekend I freely wandered around QUT in Queensland with my Wista & tripod, making snaps of the old Government House and other interesting buildings on campus, and to my dismay(!!) nobody paid me ANY attention at all :-)

Marc!