Photographing in Public Place

choi

本文通过一路BBS站telnet客户端发布

I am an libertarian. The short answer is as long as you are in the public space (eg, roadsides), you are all right.

* libertarian (n): "a person who upholds the principles of individual liberty especially of thought and action"
www.m-w.com

(1) If you are in a private place, you are subject to rules and regulations of the owner. A day in mid-1990s, I was at Harvard-Yenching Library. Two Taiwanese reporters arrived and requested to take a few photos inside the library. A librarian (white, middle-aged male) politely declined but invited them to look around. One of the reporters shot a photo with a camera anyhow. The linrarian, angry, shooed booted them out.

(2) Until a few years ago, Taipei 101 was the tallest building in teh world. The owner would not allow people to take a photo of the building--even from outside, in the streets--asserting copyright, which is untested in a court of law and, in my view, dubious.

(3) In US.

photography and the law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Photography_and_the_law
(section 3 United States, together with reference)

(a) After the Sept 11, 2001 terrorist attack, it might be problematic if one takes a picture of infrastructures (tunnel, bridge etc) or government buildings, for fear of casing in preparation of a terrorist attack. Security might inquire (who you are, what your purpose of photograph). Explain yourself and generally it will be all right.

case (transitive verb only): "to inspect or study especially with intent to rob"

(b) Some people are highly sensitive about their so called privacy. US Supreme Court ruled long ago that if anybody can see, there is no privacy or constitutional right to privacy. For example, police need not get a warrant to take a picture of a person in a public place, doing demonstration or anything else.

If a citizen, when photographed, stops you, you need to assert your rights--or face a fight unflinchingly and send the assailant to court.

(c) Peeping Tom or taking photos of a woman's panties with a mirror on shoes are criminal in Massachusetts.

What is tricky is take photographs of
(a)  a woman's chest when she bends forward, or
(b) private parts when the woman is properly clothed (as in a tennis court).

A few months ago, a coach was arrested in a Boston suburb for doing the latter on female athletes on the sidelines of a sports event, but I was sure the charges would be dropped.

(d) Matt Friedman, Some NJ Lawmakers Target People Who Photograph Children Without Parental Consent. The Star-Ledger (Newark, NJ), May 5, 2011.
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2011/05/nj_lawmakers_targeting_people.html

Compare:
(i) Adam Liptak, Legal Experts Express Concern About Erasure of Scalia Tapes. New York Times, Apr 9, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/09/us/legal-experts-express-concern-about-erasure-of-scalia-tapes.html?scp=1&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse
(ii) Adam Liptak, Scalia Apologizes for Seizure of Recordings. New York Times, Apr 13, 2009.
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/04/13/politics/13SCAL.html?scp=3&sq=scalia%20marshall%20tape&st=cse

In US, one has to stand up for his right. On the other hand, US Supreme Court has said if a civilian misunderstands or misinterpretes law, he takes the consequence. Supreme Court also has ruled that if police officers in question misinterprete law, they take the consequence (when the arrestee sues them for violating his constitutional rights).

(d) What about photographing or videoing police?  Especially when alleged police brutality was happening.

A lawyer sitting in a park in Boston (called Boston Common--the oldest public park in US, in fact) used his cellphone to record both sounds and still images of an arrest. Ploice asked him to stop, he refused and was arrested--because Massachusetts has a state law criminalizing voice recording unless all parties to a conversation consent.* Massachusetts Genral Laws ch. 272, § 99. (In contrast, federal law permits the recording of in-person conversations with the consent of only one of the parties. 18 USC 2511(2)(d).)

* The state highest court interpreted the state law to mean that secretly AUDIOtaping police was against that law
Commonwealth v. Hyde, 750 NE2d 963 (Mass. 2001)
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ma-supreme-judicial-court/1330122.html
, but that openly audiotaping police was not.

Glick v Cunniffe, F.3d _: _ (CA1, Aug 26, 2011)
http://www.ca1.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/getopn.pl?OPINION=10-1764P.01A
The first US Court of Appeals to decide on audio- or video recording of police in action was lauded in
Editorial: A Vital Liberty. New York Times, Sept 2, 2011
http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/02/opinion/a-vital-liberty.html

(e) Incidentally, it happened to me a handful of times in my time in US (more than a quarter century) that a private security guard would come out, when my feet were planted on the sidewalk of a public street in Boston and I either sat on or lean against the brink of a flower bed. I took down their names and complain to their supervisors (sometimes threatening to sue); things did not happen again.


--