problems photographing city buildings, trains, etc

[Craig Wactor]

For the last 6 months or so, I have had many difficulties photographing downtown Phoenix. I have been approached by uniformed officers at least half of the times I have been out shooting. I have been made to stop photographing on three occaisions, and had my ID taken and called in to headquarters two times as well.

The city police have told me that photographing the transportation system is illegal, and me shooting it raises a "red flag". This includes trains as well as the "flight paths of airplanes" (which includes nearly the entire sky in Phoenix). Today I was told by a Maricopa Protection Services (or "Security Services" or something - he had a badge and a gun) officer that all government buildings are off limits. He also told me to pack it up because I was shooting from a privately owned parking structure, and needed permission from the owner (who was of course not available to give permission).

As soon as I set up my tripod, I know it is a matter of time before I will be approached and questioned. Even if I am shooting from public property, and photographing buildings which are fair game, I have been told that I am "loitering".

Without starting a political debate, does anyone know what is really off limits, and what is fair game? Any tips on getting a permit, or some kind of card that certifies that I am not a Terrorist?

I found this link, but it does not go into great detail : Photographer's Rights (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm). I also have an email in to the Phoenix Mayor's office requesting info. I will repost here anything I find.

[Andre Noble]

Craig, the tripod is where they get us. Bullshit on their part on the " It's illegal to... " What is the problem for us is that it is often against city ordinances to set up a tripod, even on public property, without a permit. City officials know they are limited to stopping handheld public photography. So it's the tripod for us large formaters that's our achilles heal.

One thing that can help a little is to don't put your camera bag down on the sidewalk when your using a tripod.

Speech: This country is only "free" for corporate barron's to cash in on us peasants. You must live with the attitudeto "Live Free or Die". Don't back down if you're in the right. Document each encounter through a paper trail and consider contacting the ACLU after you build up a number of incidences.

[brian steinberger]

I agree with Craig, even though I live in a very rural area. I'm scared half the time to go and set up near someone's property who I don't know. I've also been told to leave, had my ID copied, and have been questioned many times. What is it about a tripod that makes people so on edge? I'd love to be able to just approach people and ask for permission to take a photograph without them thinking I'm out to ruin something of theirs.

[Dean Cookson]

First off, IANAL, nor do I play one on TV...

Go get a copy of the City's municipal code. That's where you'll find whtat the deal with with tripods and public property. Outside of tripod laws, if you're on public property, photographing something that's visible from where you are and you're not obstructing a vehicle or pedestrian right of way, you are most probably acting legally. If a non-police officer tells you to move, politely tell him to bugger off. If a police officer tells you to stop, politely inform him that you believe you are acting legally. If he persists, well, then what to do next depends on whether you're willing to get arrested or not. If you've checked the tripod laws and you're acting legally but get arrested anyway, then you probably have a good lawsuit against the city.

[paulr]

this probably won't work with anyone who's truly paranoid or commited to making you miserable, but in general i've found that being friendly with security people and cops helps a lot ... so does having some materials that you can show as evidence of what you're up to. old show invitations with your pictures on them, or anything like that. something that shows you're just a harmless weirdo with a camea hobby.

someone told me that when people approach lee friedlander and demand to know what he's doing he says something like, "oh, i'm just an old guy who likes taking pictures for a hobby." which is technically true! and it diffuses most people's paranoia.

it would be helpful to know your actual rights, though. please do post whatever you find out.

[Dean Cookson]

The whole "ID copied" thing confuses me. Who's doing the copying? Why did you produce ID? You *do* have to tell a cop who asks what your name is. You do not have to carry, nor do you have to produce 'ID' when asked. If someone asks you for ID just say "no". Note, this is not the same as a cop asking you for your license at a traffic stop. Driving requires you to have proof of being licensed, that proof happens to function as photo ID in most places.

[Jeff Conrad]

I'm not familiar with Arizona state law or Phoenix ordinances, but with one
possible exception, everything you have mentioned sounds like total
bullshit.

A quick search of the Phoenix City Code finds nothing for 'tripod,' and
seems to indicate that a permit is needed for motion pictures or television
production, but not for still photography (Sec. 10-60, Permits and
Exemptions). I've never heard of a law anywhere that prohibits photography
of government buildings (except for certain designated military
installations). Ditto for "tripod ordinances." They are the stuff of
urban legend; I've yet to actually see one, though I obviously haven't
examined every state and local law in the United States. Unless something
has changed recently, Arizona doesn't have a "stop and identify" law, so
the police have no legal right to demand your ID even if they do have legal
basis for a "Terry stop" (Hiibel v. Sixth Judicial District of Nevada,
2004). How far to actually push this probably depends on what kind of nut
you're dealing with.

It does appear that you need to leave private property if requested to do
so by the owner or his agent (Phoenix City Code, Sec. 23-85.01. Criminal
trespass). This would not apply to a request from some other dildo,
however.

I've invested a total of about five minutes looking at the City Code, so
I've obviously not made a very thorough search. Even after a thorough
search, it's probably worth an hour with a local attorney if you really to
stand up to these jerks, especially sworn officers.

Having said that, I completely agree with paulr that a friendly approach
(at least initially) usually works a lot better than hostility.

[Pete Watkins]

Many thanks for the U.K. link. I've only been told once that I could not take a photograph (it was a d.i.y. warehouse and a couple of thick security guards) it didn't stop me, crappy picture anyway! There seem to be very few restrictions in the U.K. except for the fact that anybody who points a camera at a child or a group of children is automatically regarded as a pervert. Little kids get on my nerves anyway so to me this is not a problem. Kids and f9 lenses don't mix anyway. I think that we're lucky over here. I have not used a camera in London for some years but to restrict photography in a country that promotes its tourist industry to the extent that the U.K. does would be stupid. PETE.

[Craig Wactor]

I do try to be very friendly and explain what I am doing. I break out my employee ID from the college I work for, etc. Some officers are nice people and pretty easy going, and some are on a little power trip. Those are the ones that make it hard. I don't really mind giving them my ID, I just hate to set up and then be made to leave without getting to make an exposure.

Jeff, I beleive you are right. My research so far indicates that it must be the owner (or their agent) that asks me to leave a privately owned property (in this case, a parking garage), and not a cop who happens to come by. I did get the # of the garage owner, and plan to call tomorrow to arrange permission. Still, most parking lots are privately owned, and there is not much public property downtown besides the sidewalk and the street. I'm really hoping I can get something that clears my way around this stupid "blocking the sidewalk" bs.

I printed out the rights sheet, and will carry it with me now. I also sent emails to several govt agencies asking about the laws. When I get responses, I am going to print those and carry them as well. The main problem for me is not knowing what new Homeland Security types of laws have been passed, or not. A lot of the time, police have said "you can't photograph..." and not "it is illegal to photograph...". I wonder if that means anything. They were extremely serious when it came to the "transportation system", though.

[Andre Noble]

"Ditto for "tripod ordinances." They are the stuff of urban legend;"

About 3 months ago, when I was shooting with my toyo Field 4x5 of a synagogue under beautiful setting light, I was surrounded by 4 Beverl Hills police officers. I tried the friendly approach at first. That was only good enough to convince them that they didn't have to unholster their guns. They questioned me at length, ran my I.D. through a criminal background check, took numerous personal information down about me, including my place of employment, employment address and phone number there. (This all was despite that I had a portfolio on hand and showed it to them and that I was photographing from the side walk.) One officer tried to imply that I was some vagabond because I decided to place my camera bag down on the side walk.

Another officer asked if I was the same 'gentleman who was photographing the Museum of Tolerance" (Not). I played it as chilly as I could bear because I knew cities do have an anti-loitering ordinance, and the officer hinted that he interpreted my placing the three legs of my tripod downon the public sidewalk long enough to compose, meter and photograph was grounds for a loitering ticket. This, plus I had my camera back on the sidewalk too - altogether this would be enough to write me up a nice fat ticket for loitering.

So, I told them about some free photos I had done for a couple of their officers recently, and they were nice enough to let me continue with (just) one exposure - and they even waited around to see if I knew how to work the contraption too!

I was actually quite pissed about the whole thing. Since I am an Arab looking African/European American, they took the time to explain that they were not racial profiling me. Such nice guys. I wanted to get really pissed, but I have t think of flip side of coin that they have a job to do too.

A few miles down the street in the city of Los Angeles, have never been bothered by the LAPD for tripod on public sidewalk.

[Jeff Conrad]

A lot of the time, police have said “you can't photograph..." and not "it
is illegal to photograph...”. I wonder if that means anything.


If it's not illegal, you can ... Obviously, you need to exercise some
judgment with a cop (or even a psycho security guard). Even if you're
right and he's wrong, he's likely to win a street confrontation.


They were extremely serious when it came to the “transportation
system”, though.

Ask them to cite a law. Nicely, of course. A fair number of
similar incidents have been reported, and with the exception of proposed
laws in New Jersey, I've not seen anyone cite an actual law that forbids
photography of transit systems. Again, it's hardly as if I've researched
every law in every city and every state.

[Jeff Conrad]

They questioned me at length, ran my I.D. through a criminal background
check, took numerous personal information down about me, including my place
of employment, employment address and phone number there.


Although they can request this, they have no legal right to demand it.
California's “stop and identify” law was voided by the U.S.
Supreme Court in Kolender v. Lawson, 461 U.S. 352 (1983), and this was
specifically mentioned in
<cite> Hiibel</cite>. I doubt that they have any legal basis for a stop,
either (what crime do they suspect you are committing?), but it
probably is not worth pushing the issue&mdash;they'll end up detaining you
even longer, and if they get mad, they'll arrest you for &ldquo;resisting,
delaying, or obstructing&rdquo; a peace officer, even though they have no
legal basis for doing so.

Sometimes citing the law and acting as if you know what you are doing (all
while remaining friendly, which can be tough ...) does the job. Sometimes
it doesn't, though. Common sense must prevail; it's not worth pushing it
to the point of getting arrested. I'd probably note their badge numbers
and file a complaint in any event. Don't hold your breath expecting
anything to come of it, though ... A mention to the local newspaper might
have more effect.

It's distressing that we have to put up with this nonsense ...
unfortunately, unless you know the law cold (and sometimes even if you do),
you don't have much choice.

[Walt Calahan]

You know what I find so incredibly stupid when "authorities" get so whacked about tripods and photography. Any terrorist who wishes to photograph anything in this country can and will with a cell phone camera. No one would be the wiser.

Terrorists aren't going to make a public display of themselves photographing anything the way we do with LF gear.

On top of that, terrorist can Google the planet and download satellite images of US infrustructure.

Frankly, I'd wish Homeland Security would start doing background checks on every white male who rents a Rider truck instead of picking on people of "color."

The only Tripod Law I know of is in Washington DC. You need a tripod permit from the US Capitol Police for photographing on the US Capitol grounds and around the White House. You need a tripod permit from the US Parks Service for photographing around the Monuments on The Mall.

I like the idea of carrying copies of the actual law to hand out to the "authorities." That'd twist their panties. HA!

[Joseph O'Neil]

I'm no lawyer, and rights seem to vary a bit from place to place, but a couple of random thoughts;

- tripods draw attention, regardless if you have the right or not to be there, regardless of wha tyou are shooting, regardless of where or when you are shooting. Not just Police either - I've had a coupel of times homeless peopel threaten me with violence. NO, I was not shooting them at all, they ame up to me - one guy claimed I was shooting gamma rays at him through the back of the camera or some such stuff.
Anyhow, the point is, even on private property, tripods attract attention. No, it's not fair, and no, I don't how you are always supposed to get around it.
That I do, and ahve done, is when urban shooting anymore, I often leave my tripod at home. You see, I learned the hard way, shooting in malls is no-go, as they are provate property. Same for other areas you might think are public but are private. But go to that same mall, sit down on a bench, and setup your 4x5 field camera beside you, amazing how much you can shoot and never draw attention.

Yes, before the flame wars start, yees, we should NOT hav to work that way, but it works for me. It's amazing what you can substitute for tripod when you have too.

- research what you are shooting. I try to be aware of those companies that supply military contracts, because anything shot near or in the direction of such a factory or office is likely to draw attention.

- the reawson that photography of bridges, rail road stations, and any other "vulneralble" public site draws such attention can be blamed on the German Army, back in the 1930's. German agents, travelling with their families about Europe and elsewhere took "travel photos" of many installations in the background, with thier family in the foreground. Intelligence agencies, rightly or wrongly, have never forgotten that lesson since;

- indsutrial and commercial espionage is a real threat for many companies. Never mind that fact a corrupted employee withe single USB data key can do ten thousand more times damage than a single LF shooter out on the sidewalk, outside the building, the point is, some of these companies are paranoid about loosing industrial secrects, so you may be targeted. Again, I am NOT saying such action are correect or right, just hat it happens.

Kinda like the homeless guy threatening me because I was shooitng gamma rays all over hsi street -t hat don't make much sense either, but at what point do you stand up for your rights, and at what point do you pay attention to caution even int eh face of stupididity?

I dunno what the answer is. Does seem to me that many of the freedoms we take from granted are a hair's breath away from illusion, and I am not sure things will get any better come the near future.

silly mode = on

Maybe we should all form a new group - "Photographers For Freedom" - get business cards with a picture of osama bin laden's face covered by a big, red "X" on them. Have street posters like that too. Tell the cops, and anybody who wil listen that we are preserving the "face of democracy before the terrorist blow it all up with suitcase nukes." Play up the patriotism card. Either that, ro we all join Hell's Angels,a dn wear colors while shooting.

*sigh* Naw, I guess not either. :)

Look, I hear all where you are comming from, I've been there too. Dunno the answer. But IMO, it's not just the law, but John Q Public too. Dunno how many times i ahve setup somewhere - out of the way I thought, only to have some guy with a little digital camera stand directly in front of me, thinking 'Hey, that's a great shot, I want one too" or other such problems. It ain't easy at times, but it's worth it.
joe

[Terence McDonagh]

Tripod ordinances are very real. In NYC you can apply for a permit, free of charge, from the mayor's office. The pdf for the permit is at:
http://home.nyc.gov/html/film/pdf/stillpermit.pdf

The permit is free, and you can leave the location and time of shooting fairly open ended. I have gotten these off and on depending on how high-profile the area is I intend to photograph. I have only ever had to produce it twice and both times it was immediately accepted as holy writ by the officer.

The NYCTA (subway system) has a "no tripods" rule which they enforce vigorously. Some uninformed cops also try to act like the photography ban went into effect, which it did not.

Bridges run by NYC have signs posted saying, "No photography," but I have yet to be stopped when photographing on them from their walkways. There are certainly enough security cameras on the bridges for someone to know what I am doing, assuming the cameras are real and they actually pay someone to watch them.

The PATH train, a subway between NYC and NJ, has a photography ban which they srongly enforce, and for which permits are hard to get (an understatement).

The Mall in Washington D.C. is also off limits without a permit from the Capitol Police or the Parks Police. Last time I got one (about 6 years ago) the office was in the Capitol Building.

That said, in NYC I've only had a problem at the federal park below the Verrazano Bridge on Staten Island. And that was by Parks Police. NYC cops have been quite reasonable, actually. Some have actually taken an interest in the cameras. Others have suggested some great locations for unusual views of the city.

I wish the same could be said for police at bridges along the Hackensack, Passaic and Delaware Rivers where I have been harassed numerous times. When I have the time, and the officer actually thinks he's right, I'll let them drag me all the way to the police station. A few mentions of wrongful arrest/imprisonment to a senior officer normally straightens out the situation. That's happened three times so far.

A few years ago a "No tripods" sign appeared on the Golden Gate, but was apparently removed shortly thereafter (and after my vacation, of course). Of course, using a tripod ON a bouncing bridge isn't too helpful anyway, and given the density of pedestrians on the bridge, probably is inconsiderate to others anyway.

Some military facilites have signs at their perimeter fences saying "Photography of this facility is banned by CFR blah blah blah." I would assume these refer to an actual federal ordinance in the Code of Federal Regulations, but I never looked them up. Places I have seen these include early warning radar installations on Cape Cod, White Sands Missile Test Range, and the submarine base in Bangor, Wash.

Typically, as was stated above, if you are public property, and not impeding traffic or pedestrians, you are free to photograph at will. Always ask the officer, respectfully, what law you are breaking. If they can't cite anything, chances are they won't push much further. If an officer accuses you of "loitering" (a very broad term) and you do not move along, they will then threaten you with "disobeying a lawful order." A common tactic used against vagrants, etc and becoming more popular for use against photographers. If you have the time and inclination, the police will usually back down when they see how much paperwork you're going to cause them for a questionable (at best) case.

For "rent-a-cops" on public property, tell them to go take a leap. The one exception to this I've found is security services hired to "protect" federal courts in Boston and Newark. These folks have a little clout to back them up, but the rules above still apply.

[Walt Calahan]

Oh, here's my funny "stopped by the authorities" story.

I was doing a portfolio of pinhole photography in Washington DC. Usually I never used a tripod, so no one was the wiser.

But once I was making pictures of decorative figures on a small bridge on 16th St NW (far from anything important) with a tripod.

I was there for about 45 minutes when I saw two cop cars heading my way with lights on. To get ready, I picked up my Polaroid 4x5 test shots and my business card.

When the police office asked what I was doing, I handed him the test shots of the figures and my business card.

He liked what he saw and asked if I did weddings. HA!

[Ed Richards]

I was told that I could not photograph a 20 car ferry across the Mississippi because of the Homeland Security. Fortunately the ferry guys were laid back and did not seem to care that I had finished and boarded the ferry before they told me. I do some national security law, and this level of idiocy is pretty typical. They do not seem to be able to tell the important stuff from the trivial. Like worrying about bird flu when the regular flu kills 30,000 or so each year, but we still do not have a working immunization program. Uh oh, wonder if they have banned photographing birds?

[Ellis Vener]

Call or better yet write the local U.S. Marshall's service and ask for a list of what kind of facilities are off limits for photography. do the same with the Chief''s office for the Phoenix police or county Sherriff's office departments too.. It would not be a bad idea to contact the Office for Homeland Security in Washingtion, D.C as well and request the same list. See if you can get the list in writing with a supervisors name and phone number on it. if a cop says it is illegal ask him to call his supervisor. Be patient and polite, and not overly defensive.

Make copies you can hand off to the beat cops and security guards and laminate a couple of copies to carry with you.

[gfen]

"The Mall in Washington D.C. is also off limits without a permit from the Capitol Police or the Parks Police. Last time I got one (about 6 years ago) the office was in the Capitol Building. "

I went to DC three years ago (before I typed it, I thought it was last year), and I asked at the ranger station by the Lincoln Memorial about tripods.

The gentleman there told me that there was really no issue with it, as long as I didn't occupy walkways or make a nuisance of myself. Pleased, I returned to my hotel room and took a good nap.

The next morning, started bright and early to avoid the other tourists. First stop, the Wall... Where the honour guard gave me holy hell about having a tripod. Eventually, he relented, but it was onyl after repeatedly pointing out that other, "real," rangers told me it was AOK.

Usually, I just try to be friendly to people. I don't think I'd try qouting laws and regulations at them unless things REALY got out of hand.

[Walt Calahan]

gfen

you're very lucky

if your tripod is small, you don't take all day, you look like a tourist, and you ask a ranger ahead of time, they MAY say yes

since 911 things are much more strick, especially if you start setting up an 8x10 camera

if you LOOK commercial, yes setting up a 4x5 or 8x10 camera looks commercial, the ranger will ask for a commercial film permit.

the Department of Interior will charge you 25 buck for an exact time and location permit, applied for days in advance

the Wall is a different story

very touchy there 'cause of the emotions

[Jeff Conrad]

The NYC &ldquo;tripod ordinance&rdquo; is yet another urban legend ...
Tripods are not mentioned anywhere in the NYC Charter or the Administrative
Code (both finally are available on the New York State Legislature

site (http://public.leginfo.state.ny.us/), under the link &ldquo;Laws of New York&rdquo;; they're at the
bottom of the page. Note that &ldquo;tripod&rdquo; doesn't appear anywhere
on the permit application, either.

Unfortunately, there is a law regulating photography. NYC Charter
Sec 1301 gives authority to require permits for photography, and Sec.
22-205 of the NYC Administrative Code makes it a crime to take a photograph
without a permit. The law clearly was intended for commercial activities,
but the way it reads to me, it would appear to cover
any photography, including that by tourists with P&S cameras.
Obviously, enforcement is quite selective. The law likely is soon to get
tested, because it was the one under which filmmaker Rakesh Sharma recently
was detained. The NYCLU have taken up the case, claiming the permit
process is unconstitutional. The capricious enforcement might be the law's
undoing.

The Washington, DC Mall is under the jurisdiction of the NPS, so it's
covered by Public Law 106-206: you don't need a permit unless you're
working with models or props. Awareness of this wasn't too good the last
time I asked, but the folks who issue the permits said they do not require
them for noncommercial photography. This isn't quite the correct
interpretation, but it might be better to be &ldquo;noncommercial&rdquo;
than argue with the Park Police. Another option is to carry a copy of Pub.
L. 106-206, as NANPA recommend.

[tim atherton]

"The main problem for me is not knowing what new Homeland Security types of laws have been passed, or not."

There are none.

Most of the laws restricting photography are those already ion place - such as Park Service regulations (which are well documented) or those concerning certain military or nuclear facilities. All these have been in place for years. The Patriot Act etc includes no restrictions on photography - including photography of Federal Building etc.

Ypu can find quite a few reference herewww.photopermit.org

some links to various laws and regulations are in the forums,

http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewforum.php?f=6&sid=e91bd72b81ba5316a61c2cf06d5ca782 etc

but scroll through the news listings as well, such as:

http://www.photopermit.org/?cat=4&paged=3

[CXC]

Man, I hate this country. I can't even tell my no-photography-allowed stories, they make me so aggravated. No problems whatsoever in places like Burma and China, but try to set up a tripod in the US, and instantly you are a menace to society. It's hard for me to imagine a group of people that are LESS of a menace to society than the LF community.

One time when I was tossed out of a public, city parking structure here in San Francisco, for setting up my tripod, it was evident to me that the fear was not that I was trouble, but that I was a liability. This was strictly because of the extra time it meant I would spend on city property, unnecessarily, increasing the likelihood that I would accidentally jump in front of a moving car and get run over (at 3mph), and then sue the city. Or accidentally throw myself off the 7th floor to a grisly death. Like so many other things, it's all the lawyers' fault!

[Pete Watkins]

So if you regard your country as part of "The Free World" what exactly are you free to do? PETE.

[Ed Richards]

> And once again, get a photo of those who bother you

Try not to get shot while you do it. I am sure my Technika with the handgrip looks like a weapon of mass destruction to the average deputy.

[Ralph Barker]

Ed - especially when you "pull the trigger" and the motor drive on that Technika makes its characteristic machinegun-like clackata-clackata-clackata sound as it swaps holders in and out of that big photo-assault magazine. ;-)

[medform-norm]

After reading these posts I was left wondering if these safety/security issues that are making your work difficult or impossible will influence -on the long run- what is being photographed (on large format) in the US? Will the consequences of the 'war on terror' shape the face of LF work in the years to come? Will we see more studio work? More landscapes shot outside of parks with rangers? What are the subjects one can still shoot without being hassled or having to go to preliminary paperwork to get clearance? Will photogs prefer travelling abroad to places without such heavy restrictions? Or will photogs just have to invest more time in getting permission prior to their shooting - and accept it as part of their job?

FYI: I work in Holland, where (as of Jan 2005) we are required to identify us when asked by a police officer. You get fined something like 65 EUR for not carrying a legal ID or your passport. Whenever I plan to photograph potentially sensitive areas/objects/buildings I make a point of contacting the owners to get (written) permission and to establish some kind of 'less-than-formal' relationship. Once they know who you are and that you are a harmless idiot with outdated equipment and a boring hobby things tend to go frictionless. I often send them some low res scans of what we've shot afterwards with a word of thanks. Instead of finding this cumbersome, I see these inquiries as a possibillity to interest the 'owners' (mostly office people /institutions) in our work. In some case, I've even got access to areas that would have been off limit otherwise. Sometimes it is worth the effort of turning a potentially negative experience into a positive or even profitable one.
- And whenever I feel a sudden urge to take the camera plus tripod for a spontaneous outing, I have a list of subjects I can photograph without permission.

[Andrew O'Neill]

Glad I live in Canada. I've never been told to stop taking photos on the street with tripod set up and backpack on the sidewalk. Vancouver police have often pulled up to me and said that I should keep an eye on my bag otherwise it'll be gone! When I was in the UK a few years ago, no worries whatsoever. I'd be curious to hear if Canuck LFers in other Canadian cities have had any problems.

[paulr]

it's funny ... in NYC, which you'd think would be the epicenter of the war on terror, you'd practically have to be naked and singing opera while photographing before anyone even looked your way. there are so many people photographing here ... and filming, and doing public art and public performances and making commercials and movies and music videos and just plain making scenes, that one more goofball with a tripod hardly even registers.

[Roger Krueger]

I know in San Diego it's an infraction ($25 I think) to place ANY personal property on a sidewalk other than for purposes of loading/unloading a vehicle. Sorry, don't have the code handy, but I did look it up once. Really intended as part of the drive to criminalize homelessness, but whatever the original intentions it's broad enough to be useful, if not particularly painful, vs. tripods.

Luckily the San Diego police are sufficiently understaffed they mostly don't have the time to screw around with stuff like this. The worst I've ever gotten from them was a couple minutes of questions and a "have a nice night". But they have known enough to ask leading questions to try to trap me into admitting commercial intent, which would absolutely require a permit.

[Dominique Labrosse]

Andrew,

I've only had one such incident while using a tripod in Vancouver.

Quite a while ago (early nineties) while photographing a glass tower type bank (I think it was one of the gold coloured ones kitty corner to the Marine building near the foot of Burrard St in downtown Vancouver) I was told by a security guard to relocate across the street. I asked him why and he told me that the bank was private property and that management had a no photography rule out of security for bank operations. I produced my Canadian University Press ID card and argued that this building was in plain sight, in the public interest, and that I was not using any secret see through technology to spy on the goings-on of the bank. I even offered for him to look through the view finder (35mm) at what I was hoping to photograph. I had pointed my camera up at the angles of gold glass. But to no avail. He appreciated the fact that it was an "artsy" building and was polite, but firm in his stance. He would not let me photograph from their plaza area. He asked me that if I had taken any frames he would be required to confiscate my film. I left without taking one frame. It's OK because I used the film I would have shot that building with and made a better exposure of the Waterfront hotel instead :-).

[John Brownlow]

Here in Toronto I was recently photographing in the port district using a tripod when a securtiy guard on horseback (really! and it was a HUGE horese) cantered over to see what I was up to. This being Canada, she (!) was cute and very friendly and wished me well.

I've spent the last six months photographing bridges, factories, industrial installations etc etc etc in Toronto and never been hassled once except for the odd friendly conversation... even when I've been obviously on private property.

I should add that I've also shot quite extensively in Los Angeles and California, including this year, and only ever had a problem once, when the owner of a wedding dress boutique in Beverley Hills took exception to me photographing his window. However this was mostly *not* industrial installations or bridges.

I do carry a high-visibility jacket etc but rarely use it. However I tend to look vaguely workman-like (check shirt, cargo pants, muddy boots) and I think that makes a lot of difference to the way people see you. I'd definitely go the blaze jacket, hard hat route if I thought it was necessary.

[medform-norm]

Hey, what about mounting your LF on a wheelchair when the use of a tripod is forbidden? You may even sit in it yourself. :)

[Walt Calahan]

Norm

LOL

Yes the wheelchair is the perfect solution 'cause then we can claim the "American's with Disablities Act".

Well officer, I'm going to have to sue you and your police department 'cause your policy blocks my attempt at photographing this dam from my wheelchair.

Grin!

Where I live most people are up tight 'cause they think I'm a surveyor since I use a Ries wood tripod. They always relax when I say "no, I'm a photographer." People are more concerned another beautiful piece of farm land will become a subdivision.

[Frank Petronio]

Anywhere that you want to have a high quality of life -- and not trip over hookers, derelicts, addicts, and pickpockets -- you're going to have "selective" enforcement and purposefully vague regulations, legal or not. I'm not trying to make a political point with that. I'm only pointing out that it is often intentional drawn to give the guards, cops, and others the leeway to keep their area clear from undesirables.

I'm sure if a slovenly dressed photographer attempted to use an 8x10 to photograph on the busiest streets of Paris (Atget!?), Ottawa, or Amsterdam they'd be questioned as well.

I already know from experience that they'll try to boot your ass out of Carmel, Palm Springs, and other pretty haunts that Edward Weston frequented.

Perhaps a loose urban tog is a notch above a hooker or a wino. But maybe not? In which case maybe you need to dress for success and work on your presentation skills...

In any event, you probably have the right to photograph anything you can see from public space. And if you just take the picture, what are they going to do? Shoot you?

I just saw an art book where the photographer made art photos of military training, Army bases, bombing, etc. all sanctioned by the US Military but not at all "pro-Military" and in fact quite anti-war in tone and content. If the fricking US Army allows this, then I still think we have an open society, albeit with some dumb goon rent-a-cops on the fringes.

[Brian Ellis]

I knew there was a reason why I never had a desire to go to Phoenix. You need to move to Tampa. I photographed everything all over downtown for years without ever being questioned or stopped except one time when I was on private property (an office building court yard) and asked to move back to the sidewalk by a security guard (many years before the war on terror). Just a year or so ago I was photographing the exterior of an old YMCA building that was being converted into condos. Someone in a coat and tie came out and asked what I was doing. I thought he was going to tell me to stop. It turned out that he was the owner of the building and when I told him I was an amateur and just photographing because I liked the building he invited me inside and gave me free rein to photograph the interior from top to bottom as often as I wanted.

[Emre Yildirim]

The same is true for Portland. Last week I was walking all over downtown taking pictures. No one ever said anything to me, yet alone harassed me. I even went on a bridge and took this picture:

http://www.eyildirim.com/portlandlarge.jpg

I was set up there for at least 30 minutes trying to decide which angle I want to shoot from. My tripod was standing there the whole time, and my huge Lowpro packed with photo stuff was sitting on the sidewalk of the bridge. Lots of people walked by - some were even nice enough to stop ahead of me, and asked me if I was done taking the picture (of course, I told them that I'm taking a picture of the skyline, not the bridge, so they weren't really interfering with my composition). One even asked me if I was getting any good shots. I guess it depends on where you live and and your appearance...

[Craig Wactor]

Emre - beautiful photo. Similar to the photos I have been asked not to make!

Brian - otherwise, Phoenix is a great place to be. Most of AZ is very LF friendly. For the most part, you can do whatever you want downtown without getting hassled by cops (oddly that includes running red lights!)

norm- I'm trying desperately to not let these incidents influence what I shoot, but they are. I used to pull my vehicle up to nearly anything that looked photogenic and start shooting without worry. Now I am constantly turning to look over my shoulder as I photograph even the most innocent subjects. Sometimes, I don't even bother, or get frustrated and leave. It has made me think hard about using a DSLR instead of my big old Sinar, too.

Pete/CXC - I'm not sure I would label the US as the "land of the free" anymore. This country has changed a LOT in the last six years. I fear we are slowly becoming an Orwellian police state. Canada is looking like a great alternative!