Question On First Amendment And Photography

[Toolboxnj]

I am looking for someone to point me in the right direction in looking for cases dealing with photography and first amendment issues. I'm not looking for someone to give me the answer... I am more than happy to research myself.

I was at a public event today at my college (Rutgers University) called "Tent State University" which is a 4-day long protest against war (in general) and for more state funding for public education. Generally, it's a week where anarchists, socialists and the like congregate in the large quad and live in tents for a week in order to raise "social awareness".

Since I am interested in the covering the event for my blog I took about 100 pictures on Monday of people, signs, the tents and whatnot in order to give others an illustration of what happened on campus. There are no problem and no one caused a fuss. I asked everyone who I wanted to take a picture of (at least in front) for permission.

Today, an anarchist (of all people) said that I wasn't allowed to take pictures of people even though I wasn't doing so. It says in their literature that it is against the law to take pictures of people without their consent. I found this odd, since this was a public forum where people were outside (I never took pictures inside the tents) and appeared not to be hiding from anyone. I could understand if they were in their house and had an expection of privacy, but this was outdoors. Simply taking a picture of someone, in my judgement, isn't quite a violation of privacy when it's in a public forum. I cannot imagine that sports and news photographers get their consent for every picture they take and eventually publish.

So, does anyone know where to start in Constitutional Law to investigate these cases? Also, what would the Objectivist viewpoint be? Does taking a picture of someone in a public forum constitute force?

I would think not, unless there is an expectation of privacy like if you were going to a public restroom or in a dressing room.

[Bryan]

Don't consider me an expert on this issue, but I believe anything presented in public view is fair game to photograph or video tape. The only time concent is required from a person is if you are going to use their image for profit.

[DavidOdden]

Don't quote me as an expert on this, but I believe that you should get consent from anyone you photograph (or quote, or record). An exception would be a "public figure", in some states. I don't believe this has anything at all to do with the First Amendment (except: if the police confiscate your photos, that is a 1st issue). You seems to have done what's needed to cover your butt by getting permission; the fascist dipweed who invented some fake law about taking pictures in public is completely insane and just making things up. That cannot possibly happen in the US, except perhaps in New Jersey.

Basically, the way to find the answer is to enroll in law school which, after 3 years, will give you a starter, and then you can specialise in the question. Or take the shortcut, and hire yourself a lawyer. I unprofessionally and without representation with respect to any knowledge pertaining to this fact or matter aver that what you expect ain't always the law. The general rubric you want to look under is "privacy law", especially "intrusion". Private use of invasive photographs is probably treated differently from any dissemination of such pix. I would not be surprised to learn from a lawyer that you are okay as long as you do not disseminate an un-permitted photo, and as long as the photo does not represent the subject unfavorably (not by your standards, but by the judge's or jury's standards). Also, bear in mind that suit is always possible, regardless of merits.

You need to be careful since there are laws that pertain to photographing buildings, and whether or not you are just concentrating on people, you might accidentally take pictures of a building that will land you in prison. Consult your local attorney. I have also heard of problems with photographing library patrons; there do seem to be library rules prohibiting photographing of patrons (think McCarthy era and you'll understand why). Since libraries are generally public places, that suggests that in fact there can be regulations against photographing people in a public place (e.g. a state university campus). The same is true of subways, parts of airports, and so forth and so on. The reasons are generally "security-related", but be careful that there can't be any imaginable security issue when you take photographs. It would probably have to be specifically stated, e.g. "No photographs shall be taken on the Rutgers Campus", and isn't a general rule. Consult your local attorney.

And consult these guys.

[Toolboxnj]

Thanks for the quick response. First, the photos wouldn't be sold for profit. Second, to my knowledge there are no laws concerning the photographing of buildings at Rutgers.

I studyed some 1st amendment cases concerning libel, slander and other freedom of press issues in a Mass Media Law class. There was something called a "limited-purpose public figure" in WFAA-TV v. McLemore in which someone can elevate their status from a private to public figure if they partake in a controversy voluntarily and have a prominent role in it. I don't know if it would apply to photographs like it would to libel.

the fascist dipweed who invented some fake law about taking pictures in public is completely insane and just making things up

Well, yea. I wouldn't put it past the group. The conservatives were not allowed to have their own set-up on public university property even though they wanted to address the rising costs of education (mostly by exposing the fraud and rampant corruption in New Jersey, which is entirely correct). I questioned the organizer why they would excude the mild mannered conservatives while allowing the anarchists with their black doo-rag masks and intimidating attitudes... he had no answer. They aren't concerned with starting dialogue, but rather preaching the wonders of socialism, the "public good" and acting like smelly hippies for 4 days.

(I actually walked through the tent area and it smelled like urine, old/spoiled food and trash)

[scottkursk]

Public libraries and religious institutions carry special protection as David mentioned. It is a combination of the McCarthy era and the civil rights movement. Generally most public events and places are fair game. Also photographing buildings, especially federal buildings can get you arrested. But it helps is you happen to be from Egypt. In that case it pays to not take pictures of bupkus. But then if you've seen this movie and you'll see why innocuous photographs can be anything but. So then it's the old security vs. rights argument.

My friend is a photographer on occasion for OutSmart which is a local gay/lesbian magazine. Needless to say, he is very careful about getting releases from just about everyone he photographs. He carries a stack in his camera bag. He took shots at a recent gay pride parade and you can't get more public than a parade. So he did "freely" shoot pics but did try to get releases from as many as possible.

As far as their legal council said, since it was a parade and the pictures in question specifically don't reference to a person being gay but being at a gay pride parade, then it would be acceptable to not use a release. If they have a caption that a person is gay or says anything specific then he has to have the release. The sticky issue for any picture is whether it will be displayed publicly, used for profit, or for academic purposes. Ugh.

Now taking pictures of inside a tent then you do have invasion of privacy issues. Otherwise it's really no different than those security cameras that probably dotted the campus. Still, they are legally able to corral professional photographers and the press into specific areas so there are bounds of where and when. Laws vary from state to state and even city to city. It really helps if you can get a press credentials from any rag you can find as long as they are real. That and as mentioned before a lawyer. Still, the best thing in the world to have is permission of the person you're taking pictures of.

My friend also makes sure he has his press credentials always on display. He sometimes uses them like garlic to a vampire to ward off everyone from the cops to angry meter maids in downtown Houston putting a ticket on his car or some really ticked off rednecks at a clan rally in La Porte. He kids but he brags that he can yell "don't shoot, I'm with the press" in 10 languages. I think he saw Salvador one to many times.

[Toolboxnj]

For those who are interested, I found a great resource dealing with photography and privacy. This is the link: http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/

Published there:

-> Generally, what can be seen from public view can be photographed without legal repercussions. Photographs taken in private places require consent.

-> Even if people are photographed in public, beware of the context in which the picture is placed (such as an innocuous photo of recognizable teen-agers in a story about the rise of teen violence). Use caution when utilizing file footage or photographs to illustrate negative stories. Special effects can be used to render the subjects unidentifiable.