I have been watching quite many "First Amendment Audit" videos lately (and I might make a more elaborate blog post about them some time), and I have noticed that many people have rather distinctive misconceptions about the legality of public photography. Since these videos are all made in the United States, these misconceptions seem to be most prevalent there, but they may well be quite common in many other countries as well.
Here are the three most common misconceptions I have noticed:
1) "It's illegal to photograph/film somebody in a public place without their permission."
Many people in these videos outright state things like "you don't have my permission to film me, what you are doing is illegal". This seems to be a very widely held belief. Yet, they are completely mistaken. There is no expectation of privacy in public, and it's completely legal to film anything you can see from a public space, including people. You don't need to ask for permission. (That might be the polite thing to do, but it's not a legal requirement.)
Sometimes in these videos these people will actually go so far as to call the police. If the police does arrive, the officer will invariably set the record straight, and there are no consequences for the photographer (although the level of scrutiny varies from officer to officer.)
Btw, the law in Finland is very similar: It's perfectly legal to photograph/film in public, including people. You don't need anybody's permission. (If persistent and prolonged filming of a particular person could be seen as stalking or harassment, especially if the photographer follows the person in question for an unreasonable amount of time, then there might be a case there, but for the harassment, not the filming in particular.)
2) "It's illegal to photograph/film private property, even if it happens from a public place."
This misconception seems especially common among private security guards. (Although, in some cases, it might not be so much a misconception as much as an overly protective hostile attitude against the place being filmed.) The typical exchange goes like:
Guard: "You can't film (this property)."
Photographer: "I'm in a public place. This is a public sidewalk."
Guard: "But you are filming a private property. That's not allowed."
The "auditor" then goes on to point out that it doesn't matter if it's private property, it's legal to photograph anything you can see from a public place. Most typically the guard will then call the police, and the amount of engagement that the police has with the photographer will vary quite a lot depending on the place and the officer in question. In the vast majority of cases there will be no repercussions. (In the very few cases that the photographer gets actually arrested, it invariably ends up in all charges being dropped, and in the best case scenario with the police officer being officially reprimanded. Photography in a public place is not a crime and people can't be arrested because of it.)
Here in Finland, in general, you can also photograph anything you can see from a public place, with the exception of the insides of private residences (more specifically, it's not allowed to make photographs/films that clearly show the inside details and/or the people inside private residences. This includes typically filming through windows, in a manner that clearly shows the inside of the apartment. Accidentally filming the inside of a private residence from afar is not illegal, especially if no great details can be seen.)
In Finland, photography is also allowed within the premises of private property if there is access to the public. This includes things like shops and grocery stores, for instance. (In these cases the owner of the property, or anybody working for or representing the owner, can demand that person to exit the property, and that person has to comply. He cannot be demanded to delete the photographs he has already taken, though. Photography itself isn't illegal, only the trespassing. And trespassing these public accessible areas can only happen if the person refuses to leave after having been asked to.) I imagine this to be common among most countries.
3) "It's illegal to film Federal buildings."
This also seems very common among security guards, particularly those working at any sort of Federal building. Quite often Federal employees seem to be particularly aggressive about this (albeit not physically aggressive, at least usually). Yet the courts in the United States have ruled that public photography of Federal buildings is exactly as legal as anything else.
Moreover, in general, photography inside a Federal (or other government-owned) building is likewise allowed in publicly accessible areas (ie. those areas inside the building open to the public, not marked as restricted), unless explicitly forbidden by clear signs.
Here are the three most common misconceptions I have noticed:
1) "It's illegal to photograph/film somebody in a public place without their permission."
Many people in these videos outright state things like "you don't have my permission to film me, what you are doing is illegal". This seems to be a very widely held belief. Yet, they are completely mistaken. There is no expectation of privacy in public, and it's completely legal to film anything you can see from a public space, including people. You don't need to ask for permission. (That might be the polite thing to do, but it's not a legal requirement.)
Sometimes in these videos these people will actually go so far as to call the police. If the police does arrive, the officer will invariably set the record straight, and there are no consequences for the photographer (although the level of scrutiny varies from officer to officer.)
Btw, the law in Finland is very similar: It's perfectly legal to photograph/film in public, including people. You don't need anybody's permission. (If persistent and prolonged filming of a particular person could be seen as stalking or harassment, especially if the photographer follows the person in question for an unreasonable amount of time, then there might be a case there, but for the harassment, not the filming in particular.)
2) "It's illegal to photograph/film private property, even if it happens from a public place."
This misconception seems especially common among private security guards. (Although, in some cases, it might not be so much a misconception as much as an overly protective hostile attitude against the place being filmed.) The typical exchange goes like:
Guard: "You can't film (this property)."
Photographer: "I'm in a public place. This is a public sidewalk."
Guard: "But you are filming a private property. That's not allowed."
The "auditor" then goes on to point out that it doesn't matter if it's private property, it's legal to photograph anything you can see from a public place. Most typically the guard will then call the police, and the amount of engagement that the police has with the photographer will vary quite a lot depending on the place and the officer in question. In the vast majority of cases there will be no repercussions. (In the very few cases that the photographer gets actually arrested, it invariably ends up in all charges being dropped, and in the best case scenario with the police officer being officially reprimanded. Photography in a public place is not a crime and people can't be arrested because of it.)
Here in Finland, in general, you can also photograph anything you can see from a public place, with the exception of the insides of private residences (more specifically, it's not allowed to make photographs/films that clearly show the inside details and/or the people inside private residences. This includes typically filming through windows, in a manner that clearly shows the inside of the apartment. Accidentally filming the inside of a private residence from afar is not illegal, especially if no great details can be seen.)
In Finland, photography is also allowed within the premises of private property if there is access to the public. This includes things like shops and grocery stores, for instance. (In these cases the owner of the property, or anybody working for or representing the owner, can demand that person to exit the property, and that person has to comply. He cannot be demanded to delete the photographs he has already taken, though. Photography itself isn't illegal, only the trespassing. And trespassing these public accessible areas can only happen if the person refuses to leave after having been asked to.) I imagine this to be common among most countries.
3) "It's illegal to film Federal buildings."
This also seems very common among security guards, particularly those working at any sort of Federal building. Quite often Federal employees seem to be particularly aggressive about this (albeit not physically aggressive, at least usually). Yet the courts in the United States have ruled that public photography of Federal buildings is exactly as legal as anything else.
Moreover, in general, photography inside a Federal (or other government-owned) building is likewise allowed in publicly accessible areas (ie. those areas inside the building open to the public, not marked as restricted), unless explicitly forbidden by clear signs.
Comments
Post a Comment