what is the point of this thread ?
Last edited by jnanian; 02-26-2009 at 07:50 PM. Click to view previous post history.
In '05 we drove by the Pentagon in a tour buy, just before we got to the Pentagon the driver came on the speaker and said put all cameras and recording devices away because if anyone is seen taking a picture by police the bus will be pull over, searched and all cameras will be take off. Anyone who is identified as a picture taker will be taken off and arrested. He said it happened once before to him that year. You can take all the photo's you want of pieces at the Smithsonian.
For a while I felt like I was in a Communist Block Country.
Everytime I find a film or paper that I like, they discontinue it. - Paul Strand - Aperture monograph on Strand
The point is that we're living in a police state where the most minute aspects of our lives are interefered with by mindless goons. So be careful where you take pictures or you could find yourself on the wrong end of a nightstick.
Originally Posted by jnanian
I apologize for starting the thread in the wrong section. It should be moved to the Lounge or the Soapbox.
your a defending some guy, who knowingly broke the law
Originally Posted by c6h6o3
to make a video for his u tube resume.
we live in a police state ... all because the federal officer told him that he was welcome to make his video but he needed a permit? he wasn't handcuffed, beaten and hauled away as you suggest might happen to me if i am not "careful".
i have been photographing federal sites for almost 20 years -- with a permit, and never had a problem.
i usually tell law enforcement if i am going to be someplace sensitive so they can watch MY BACK.
there are a lot of jerks in this country who harass people who aren't like everyone else or milk-toast white,
i don't see what the problem is --- if you want to photograph certain things, you need a permit ..
you better not go to boston, and make photographs at the christian science mother church. they require permits too.
Last edited by jnanian; 02-27-2009 at 09:19 AM. Click to view previous post history.
"your a defending some guy, who knowingly broke the law "
John, exactly what law was being broken? I think that's the point of this whole thread and the video. Please cite the law with a reference, because our understanding is-- there is no law that prevents or restricts photographing federal buildings from public property.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
i will search for the law ..
it was in the books before 1995, and enforced
more after the Alfred P. Murrah Building bombing,
and still more after 9-11.
the federal reserve is not under the protection of the federal protective agency
they have their own rules and regulations regarding
photographing and video of their property.
Last edited by jnanian; 02-27-2009 at 01:30 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Reason: added later
Originally Posted by Barry S
The danger is in the mindset. To be harassed by some Deputy Dawg rent-a-cop while on public property about collecting photons of light shocks the very conscience of the law. Does the FED own the sun now?
There is no glimmer left of the spirit of liberty in Washington, DC. Not the merest glimmer.
Good work John. Ok, lets see what we've got and parse it out. First of all it applies to "persons entering in or on Federal property". It's clear it applies to people actually on Federal property, but the phrase "entering in" is a little vague. I think a reasonable interpretation would cover being on a walkway or driveway that leads to a Federal building, but is itself on Federal property. If you're walking by or standing outside of a Federal property and are not in the act of "entering in", I don't see the regulation as applicable.
Looking at (c), I see that "Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums for news purposes." may be photographed without "written permission of an authorized official of the occupying
I think security services and officers are misinterpreting subparts A and B to include any photography of Federal buildings when it seems clear you must be entering in or on Federal property. Since there is a whole class of Federal property public space (entrances, corridors, etc.) that don't require authorization, I can't see how the regulations would increase as you moved away and off of Federal property.
Finally, the regulation only covers "photographs for news, advertising or commercial purposes", not photography for personal or artistic use.
[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 41, Volume 3]
[Revised as of July 1, 2008]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
CHAPTER 102--FEDERAL MANAGEMENT REGULATION
PART 102-74_FACILITY MANAGEMENT--Table of Contents
Subpart C_Conduct on Federal Property
Sec. 102-74.420 What is the policy concerning photographs for news,
advertising or commercial purposes?
Except where security regulations, rules, orders, or directives
apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits it, persons entering in
or on Federal property may take photographs of--
(a) Space occupied by a tenant agency for non-commercial purposes
only with the permission of the occupying agency concerned;
(b) Space occupied by a tenant agency for commercial purposes only
with written permission of an authorized official of the occupying
agency concerned; and
(c) Building entrances, lobbies, foyers, corridors, or auditoriums
for news purposes.
Last edited by Barry S; 02-27-2009 at 02:29 PM. Click to view previous post history.
Gee whiz... what country do you folks live in? In the capitol city of my country just last week I took pictures on two different days of the capital building and the nations highest court. At the capitol I stood right next to the military/police guard. We smiled at each other and he stepped out of my way when I raised the camera.
the federal reserve is private property ..