Right to photograph buildings

[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/...irst-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.