Photographers Rights

[laz]

Of interest to all:http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[Andy K]

Very useful Laz old bean! Anyone seen a British version anywhere?

[reellis67]

I've seen this on another site as well. I keep a copy in a few of my camera bags just in case. I have never had problems, but it is good to have on hand.

- Randy

[laz]

Very useful Laz old bean! Anyone seen a British version anywhere?

your wish is my command: http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php

[Andy K]

Cor blimey guvnor, that was quick! Thanks chap!

[Flotsam]

I'd like to reformat that in a bigger font with the most pertinent parts highlighted for easy reading.

[Aggie]

On the surface that print out looks good. Problems are that it doesn't state the actual law and such that some buercrats will want. If the exact statute was cited it would help emmensely with the idiots that want to stop you. Secon that book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11. We all know that there are some bizarre things DHS has insituted that would drastically effect the printout and what was stated on it. "Sigh" good on the surface, but in practice and the changes I would want an updated version with the exact laws (numbers and such) stated.

Thank You Laz for a great thought and attempt on this.

[laz]

"Sigh" good on the surface, but in practice and the changes I would want an updated version with the exact laws (numbers and such)

Problem is Aggie that the exact laws do and will vary from state to state and even city to city. As a general guide I think this is the best we can expect.

-Bob

[dans]

...book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11.

Actually, the PDF says it was updated "July 2004"

Dan

[tim atherton]

Secon that book that this is all taken from was published on Sept. 2001. This means it was written well before that. It is not a updated version of what has changed since 9/11. We all know that there are some bizarre things DHS has insituted that would drastically effect the printout and what was stated on it.

actually there were no real changes post 9/11 which effect photography. Although mainly referring to First Amendment Rights:

The National Press Photographers’ Association has decided it’s time to issue A Memo On Photographers’ Rights To Take Pictures In Public Places (PDF), introduced at last week’s Women in Photojournalism conference. NPPA president Alicia Wagner Calzada said in her remarks: “…often law enforcement officials and security agencies believe – wrongly so – that in the name of homeland defense there are new federal laws that somehow give them additional rights to restrict photography. This is just not the case.”

NPPA hired two Washington DC attorneys from the law firm Covington & Burling to investigate supposed legal grounds for restriction, but they found none:

In summary, we find that there is no federal law that justifies the broad prohibitions that are being imposed on photography in public areas. There is no new federal law, including the Patriot Act, that restricts photography of public buildings and installations on the basis of concerns over terrorism. Restrictions of photojournalism that proceed on this basis may constitute violations of journalists’ First Amendment right to gather news.

http://www.photopermit.org/?p=109




From the ever useful Photopermit site