Right to photograph buildings

[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.)