Legal questions about photographing in conservation area

[paulr]

The bit about a tripod was included in a draft policy that the Mayor's Office on TV and Movies proposed two years ago, but there was such an uproar from photographers that the city was forced to back down.

I remember that uproar, though that was an different (more general) law than the one I'm talking about. There were signs at Empire Fulton State Park about photo permits in the mid '90s.

I just tried to find out the details online, but could only find an email address for permit inquiries.

[Nathan Potter]

I consider that I do photography for fun and as a tourist just like any other digital snapshot tourist. I just use a different camera. I go anywhere I want except on posted property and rarely run into difficulty with naysayers. When I do get accosted or berated by someone I simply tell them to call the police. Sometimes they do call the police and they come and usually ask what I'm doing - DUH. The police are always friendly and often allay the fears of the complainent, but if they can't, I'll gladly pack up and leave.

Difficult situations can arise. Recently I was photographing a strip mall in Texas - an interesting old classic probably from the 50's. A woman rushed out from one of the stores telling me she was going to call the police - and she did. Boy she was irrational and I couldn't figure out why. Ahh, then I noticed, one of the tenants was the blah blah dance studio - I forget the name. I could sense the complaint; I was photographing little girls, or at least waiting to do so. Here we have an example of porno paranoia which seems to invade every dark corner of current media and leaves its stain on the general public. Well the police arrived, were very nice to me and her and explained to her what was going on and that was that.

Photographers aren't legal experts and IMHO we should not set ourselves up to be such. We're really only documentarians of the natural and human condition and we should focus on just that.

Nate Potter, Harrington ME.

[Jeff Conrad]

Except for those who also happen to be attorneys, photographers probably can't be legal experts and we should not delude ourselves that we are. But you need at least a rough idea of the law to know whether to hold 'em or fold 'em. Nate obviously knows enough about what one can and can't do to feel confident in telling people to go ahead and call the police. Absent this knowledge, such an invitation would strike me as a bit reckless.

In 30 years, I can probably count the number of times I've been hassled on one hand. In a couple of cases, the assertions I was given didn't ring true, but I wasn't absolutely sure of the law, and backed down. It turned out in both cases that I was right, but I preferred not to chance an arrest that couldn't be expunged, and incur legal costs that I'd rather spend on photography. In one case (the California State Railroad Museum), the law supported a ranger's assertion. Though that law (California Code of Regulations Sect 4613(b)) is blatantly unconstitutional, I didn't really have a spare $500 k to experience the thrill of being an active participant in decisional law.

It really annoys me that I even need to waste the time researching the law, but I've had it misrepresented to me so many times that I seldom take any admonition at face value any more. If someone's assertion doesn't make sense, it's usually, but not always, nonsense, so unless I'm absolutely certain that I'm right, I'll back down unless doing so would miss a once-in-a-lifetime shot (which hasn't yet happened).

But the only way to know that I am right is to have some knowledge of the law. And it has been my experience that when you can talk as though you know the law, those who do not usually back off.