studio36uk wrote:

Not without a warrant or court order they can't. Quite simple really.

Studio36

but they DONT need a warrant to delete digital???  i dont think so...  next.

lela hazary wrote:
as for your "my dad can beat up your dad comment", i can go to my presidents house and take pictures.  can you go to the queens and do the same???

Yup!

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

Yup!

Studio36

im sure...

lela hazary wrote:
but they DONT need a warrant to delete digital???  i dont think so...  next.

They need a warrant... believe me. Deleting images from digital is an unlawful seizure. Interestingly, say, you had turned the camera off. Could they, without your consent, turn it on to even look and see what images are there? The answer is NO! They can not.

If they try to be cagey and ORDER you to delete digital / or remove and destroy film, short of doing it themselves - you do NOT have to comply. It is an unlawful order.

If they have probable cause... not merely a suspicion or a "gut feeling"... and with probable cause, even then, they have to be able to articulate some law that has been violated/borken, they can go and get a warrant and take a peek. No warrant no peeking.

Even in the UK where we don't have the 4th Amendment as a shield... as I am a journalist I have certain privileges with respect of my camera; notebooks; audio recorder; and so forth. These things are treated as "special procedure materials" and what that means, in British law, is that the police need a judge to tell them it's OK to look inside any of it.

Studio36

lela hazary wrote:
okay, so i'll say it again since obviously it was ignored before:

what in your superior opinion would be a BETTER way to handle security?

you want to take pictures, you want to take stuff on an airplane...  okay - i get it

what would you do INSTEAD?

i really find whining pointless unless you can rouse up the inititive to actually come up with a replacment resolution.

I have no problem w/ the cops coming to check me out when I'm shooting around an airport. The can run my info, ask any questions, look at my photos, look at my ID...and when i come back clean, they can then leave me alone.

That's how to do it logically. When they tell you to leave, threaten with arrest, scare you into deleting your photos...that's what needs to stop.

lela hazary wrote:
okay, so i'll say it again since obviously it was ignored before:

what in your superior opinion would be a BETTER way to handle security?

you want to take pictures, you want to take stuff on an airplane...  okay - i get it

what would you do INSTEAD?

i really find whining pointless unless you can rouse up the inititive to actually come up with a replacment resolution.

Here is an idea for you. What about securing the border between Mexico and the U.S.? Mexico has a reputation of having corrupt policians and law enforcement agencies.

Lets say a terrorist group wanted to cross into the U.S. via the border. They have the money to pay through way through Mexico, and get into our country.

Wouldn't you think that after 5 plus years, the border would be secured if there was a real concern about protecting us?

The National Guard that was sent to protect the border, half of them have been pulled out.

What could clinton and bush have down differently? Well clinton bombed iraq when finding out he was thought to have wmd's. When transfer of power was given to bush on the report the osama planned an attack in the u.s., that report was tossed aside.

Who attacked and killed people with the planes? osama was the mastermind? Has he been caught? Of course not.

Start reading more. Not just one side, but both sides. Also read about how hitler came to power, and how the once know fatherland became known as homeland security.

Read that grandfather bush was suppling the nazis's with weapons until our government shut him down.

Think more, before you are asked, "Where are your papers"?

yourphotographer wrote:

Here is an idea for you. What about securing the border between Mexico and the U.S.? Mexico has a reputation of having corrupt policians and law enforcement agencies.

Lets say a terrorist group wanted to cross into the U.S. via the border. They have the money to pay through way through Mexico, and get into our country.

Wouldn't you think that after 5 plus years, the border would be secured if there was a real concern about protecting us?

The National Guard that was sent to protect the border, half of them have been pulled out.

What could clinton and bush have down differently? Well clinton bombed iraq when finding out he was thought to have wmd's. When transfer of power was given to bush on the report the osama planned an attack in the u.s., that report was tossed aside.

Who attacked and killed people with the planes? osama was the mastermind? Has he been caught? Of course not.

Start reading more. Not just one side, but both sides. Also read about how hitler came to power, and how the once know fatherland became known as homeland security.

Read that grandfather bush was suppling the nazis's with weapons until our government shut him down.

Think more, before you are asked, "Where are your papers"?

Yep. And now there's legislation being considered to create a "national ID" card for everyone. So, asking "where are you papers?" may be a lot closer than we think. Now is not the time for complacency and acting like frightened little rabbits. We cannot look the other way as our rights are eroded away.

Perhaps we can start by knowing the law: When a cop asks you for your camera you have the right (and the duty) to say "no." Be polite, and non-belligerent, but say "no." We need to write our government officials when we feel our rights are being violated. We need to communicate to others when this happens so they can be aware of it. Hiding our heads in the sand will not help -- it will only prevent us from seeing what's coming up to kick us in the ass. Be aware and be free.

Pat Thielen wrote:
Perhaps we can start by knowing the law: When a cop asks you for your camera you have the right (and the duty) to say "no." Be polite, and non-belligerent, but say "no." We need to write our government officials when we feel our rights are being violated. We need to communicate to others when this happens so they can be aware of it. Hiding our heads in the sand will not help -- it will only prevent us from seeing what's coming up to kick us in the ass. Be aware and be free.

This is the exact way to do it.  I don't let anyone handle my camera, especially not someone who is inexperienced with it.  They need probable cause and/or a warrant (btw - photographing a bridge is NOT probable cause as their is no law stating it is illegal).  How many people here would let he police search your house or your car?  I know I wouldn't..  it doesn't matter if I don't have anything to hide.

studio36uk wrote:

They can't [legally] without a court order. They may ask you to do it, but even that is a questionable practice. They can ask and all you have to do is refuse.

You don't even have to show them what you have... or can they look on their own... unless they want to get a warrant signed by a real judge.

Just say no!!!

What the f**k do you think they would, or could, do if you were shooting film?

Studio36

just to remind you of what you said since you seem to be forgeting

Demeter Photography wrote:

Oh boy...   I was in NYC back in May and took dozens of pics of the Brooklyn  Bridge, United Nations, Statue Of Liberty, Empire State Building, etc...  It's called being a tourist!  I guess if your hearing is bad you could mistake tourist for the other word.  I was never hassled and even took pictures of NYPD vehicles, and officers.  I would be inclined to believe the story is hog-wash, but then again who knows.  Police follow the definition of the law (for the most part) and if myself and the dozens of others that day got away with photographing tourist spots then I am uncertain why the person above in question failed...

It is indeed illegal to take pictures on bridges. The signs are everywhere (at least in NYC). I absolutely don't agree with it but whatever, read the signs. I believe it's a true story.

Brian Mullins Photo wrote:

This is the exact way to do it.  I don't let anyone handle my camera, especially not someone who is inexperienced with it.  They need probable cause and/or a warrant (btw - photographing a bridge is NOT probable cause as their is no law stating it is illegal).  How many people here would let he police search your house or your car?  I know I wouldn't..  it doesn't matter if I don't have anything to hide.

do you let the police search your car before you cross the border? yes

do you let a cop open your cell phone when you go into a court house?  yes

do you let a security guard turn on your computer before boarding a plane?  yes

these are issues of security.  i can guarantee you they have zero interest in your photos...

Pat Thielen wrote:

Yep. And now there's legislation being considered to create a "national ID" card for everyone. So, asking "where are you papers?" may be a lot closer than we think. Now is not the time for complacency and acting like frightened little rabbits. We cannot look the other way as our rights are eroded away.

Perhaps we can start by knowing the law: When a cop asks you for your camera you have the right (and the duty) to say "no." Be polite, and non-belligerent, but say "no." We need to write our government officials when we feel our rights are being violated. We need to communicate to others when this happens so they can be aware of it. Hiding our heads in the sand will not help -- it will only prevent us from seeing what's coming up to kick us in the ass. Be aware and be free.

why are you so against a national id card rather than state issued?  how does that infringe on your civil liberties???  every other country has 'em...  its like your looking for things to be paranoid about.

Kadi wrote:
It is indeed illegal to take pictures on bridges.

I am aware of that in the case of NYC - and it is a NYC traffic related law rather than a federal DHS related law. Or does it apply to bridges generally and outside of NYC. In the broader discussion, however, is it NOT "illegal" to take pictures OF bridges, as some posters seem to state. And that is often the source of the police actions that are being objected to.

Studio36

lela hazary wrote:
every other country has 'em...

The UK doesn't. The gov't is trying to bring one in but it will take years and years. Even then it won't be mandatory to actually have to carry it. We don't even have to have our driver's license on our person when driving. I've managed just fine, and quite legally, to work, travel and anything else, for 15 years without actually carrying anything more than business cards and my press card.

Studio36

studio36uk wrote:

The UK doesn't. The gov't is trying to bring one in but it will take years and years. Even then it won't be mandatory to actually have to carry it. We don't even have to have our driver's license on our person when driving. I've managed just fine, and quite legally, to work, travel and anything else, for 15 years without actually carrying anything more than business cards and my press card.

Studio36

i hate to tell you about your "country" but that would be england.

Kadi wrote:
There seems to be a law about that. Read the comment by "tunnelman" below the article.


http://www.freedomtophotograph.com/inde … m=&ucat=2&

Yes, what I said above.

"NY Daily News photographer staff photographer Todd Maisel was stopped by Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority for attempting to take pictures from the bridge...."

Now this is f**king brilliant!!!

"...I got to the bridge, pulled my car off to the side of the road and ran up the public walkway on the bridge. I knew the plane was coming because a news helicopter was following it...."

So he couldn't take a picture FROM the bridge but the news helo following the barge could take pictures and presumably some of which would have images OF the bridge included?

But he does note further on:

..."The bridge has a sign that says "Photography Prohibited," even though there seems to be no law on the books to that effect."

Now, how stupid does it have to get?

Yes, I also read tunnleman's comment about: "...At a larger facility, like the Midtown Tunnel or Verranzano Narrows Bridge, there is a good chance you would have been arrested and your camera and film confiscated,..."

BTW... the Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority [now properly the MTA] is a NYC AGENCY that administers the management of the bridges ect... Factually, what they administer and manage is PUBLIC PROPERTY

Studio36

Christopher Hartman wrote:
Memorial weekend...

Great bridge shots, Christopher.

Brian Mullins Photo wrote:
Can someone with better law knowledge then I step in here?  I thought taking a picture on a bridge was unlawful, not illegal.  The difference being one is against a city ordinance, where the other is an actual crime.

There are ordinances against photographing the Golden Gate bridge, but once you have shot the picture ... like I did!




You are safe!

As you can tell, it was a windy day one late afternoon ....  some hot air from our Congress was causing quite a storm!  LOL  Damn those politicians with nothing better to do!  The Constitution was written in hope that the common people would be able to govern this great Nation.  Now we have a Congress and White House filled with "professional" politicians. 

When I was a little boy, I wanted to be President of the United States. Later in life, I learned you needed a law degree, so I started to study law. Then later still, I learned first hand that you had to be compromise yourself of morals and ethics as so to get elected at any cost.  The "cost" to become President is so high now that it is beyond common people.

If it is NOT a privately owned bridge, then I'll shoot it.  But if it is privately owned, like the Pebble Beach company "The Lone Cypress" which the PB company has trademarked, then I will not rick shooting it without a release.  What all this nonsense has to do with is power and money, not terrorism.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
There are ordinances against photographing the Golden Gate bridge

I've seen various references to people being stopped from photographing on/near the bridge. I don't suppose you have a reference to the ordinance?

lela hazary wrote:
but they DONT need a warrant to delete digital???  i dont think so...  next.

No warrant needed when they are thugs.  I was shooting the Cars in concert ... probably before you were born yet.   I had snuck my camera in and was on my way out, proud that I had gotten front row images on film, so I had my camera visible.  When a security guard ran up behind me and grabbed my camera.  He popped it up to find that I had removed the film and so he came back for me and the girl I was with.  I had handed the film to her so then they took her in a room where they pried her hands open to get the film.  They then opened the canisters to expose the film to light and ruin it.  Then he gave it back to me laughing as he said "I guess you're not going to get any pictures from this." 

No warrant.  It was a horrible experience but I learned that I had better get press passes from then on!

QuaeVide wrote:

I've seen various references to people being stopped from photographing on/near the bridge. I don't suppose you have a reference to the ordinance?

I was told that you need to buy a permit from the Parks Department.  However I took a chance at getting a $1,000 fine.  It was just me and the newlyweds ... we spent all of 10 minutes, maybe 15 minutes at the beach there.  We were near the Museum of Arts where we had just spent about 15 minutes there before going to the beach.  I was shooting with a Mamiya 645, handheld ... and off the cuff! 

Call the Parks Department and they should be able to refer you to the ordinance.  It was before 9/11 and at the time ... it had to do with collecting revenue for the city.

Terrence Blount wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if people were detained from taking pictures of bridges! After 9/11 and with the collapse on I-35 in Minnesota, authorites have been very cautious. I try not to shoot nuclear power stations, government buildings or bridges. Authorities do not play!

The I-35 bridge collapse had nothing to do with terrorism. And if I really wanted to take recon photos of a bridge I would take from from under it -- not on it. So, I would simply take a boat and float under the bridge snapping pictures the whole time... It's not very difficult. Obviously, these "laws" have nothing to do with security. And the excuse that's always used is: "Terrorist! Terrorist! Terrorist! 9/11! 9/11! Be afraid! Give us your freedom so we can better protect you! 9/11! 9/11! Be afraid...!" To use this excuse to empower the government to conduct unlawful search and seizure is inexcusable. We have to stop this tide of fear from destroying our country.

Terrence Blount wrote:
I wouldn't be surprised if people were detained from taking pictures of bridges! After 9/11 and with the collapse on I-35 in Minnesota, authorites have been very cautious. I try not to shoot nuclear power stations, government buildings or bridges. Authorities do not play!

It was a very good thing that plenty of people and survailance cameras recorded the bridge collapse! 

Authorities do collect money and have power.  They also love you when your images help them! 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I was told that you need to buy a permit from the Parks Department.  However I took a chance at getting a $1,000 fine.

The "Master Ordinance" for the GGB specifies fees for various types of commercial photography, but I don't see an outright ban on photography. I would also imagine that tripod use would be discouraged on the bridge's sidewalks.

http://goldengate.org/board/documents/M … ce2007.pdf

QuaeVide wrote:

The "Master Ordinance" for the GGB specifies fees for various types of commercial photography, but I don't see an outright ban on photography. I would also imagine that tripod use would be discouraged on the bridge's sidewalks.

http://goldengate.org/board/documents/M … ce2007.pdf

See Sec 2. photography or video for personal use is specifically excluded from the permit requirements.

Patrick Walberg wrote:

There are ordinances against photographing the Golden Gate bridge, but once you have shot the picture ... like I did!

You are safe!

As you can tell, it was a windy day one late afternoon ....  some hot air from our Congress was causing quite a storm!  LOL  Damn those politicians with nothing better to do!  The Constitution was written in hope that the common people would be able to govern this great Nation.  Now we have a Congress and White House filled with "professional" politicians. 

When I was a little boy, I wanted to be President of the United States. Later in life, I learned you needed a law degree, so I started to study law. Then later still, I learned first hand that you had to be compromise yourself of morals and ethics as so to get elected at any cost.  The "cost" to become President is so high now that it is beyond common people.

If it is NOT a privately owned bridge, then I'll shoot it.  But if it is privately owned, like the Pebble Beach company "The Lone Cypress" which the PB company has trademarked, then I will not rick shooting it without a release.  What all this nonsense has to do with is power and money, not terrorism.

Look at the bright side..  you get free hummers while in office. 

Thanks for clarifying that...  it is indeed what I thought but there is so much misinformation out there its hard to keep my head above the bull..  err, water.  I actually read a really good suggestion the other day from a site specializing in, well, let's say more covert types of photography (nothing pervy I can assure you).  WHen going to shoots that have a higher then normal chance of getting yourself caught, carry a small digital voice recorder in your pocket.  If you get confronted, turn it on.  If you are a member of the conversation, no warrant or permission is needed to record the conversation.  If you get bullied or harassed, you will have evidence to that fact.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I was told that you need to buy a permit from the Parks Department.

I asked the Golden Gate district authority whether or not photography on or of the bridge is permitted. This is the response:

Commercial use of images taken on bridge property rquires a permit and fees but personal use photography does not, unless the images reflect an endorsement.

Pretty much the same as the Master Ordinance.

So, photography of the Golden Gate Bridge certainly seems to be allowed.

Patrick Walberg wrote:
I was told that you need to buy a permit from the Parks Department.

QuaeVide wrote:
I asked the Golden Gate district authority whether or not photography on or of the bridge is permitted. This is the response:Pretty much the same as the Master Ordinance.

So, photography of the Golden Gate Bridge certainly seems to be allowed.

Commercial use of images taken on bridge property rquires a permit and fees but personal use photography does not, unless the images reflect an endorsement.

Now after reading that section, I remember where I got the $1,000 fine/fee!  A photographer I know told me that he had a couple bikini clad models who he was shooting with the Golden Gate in the background.  The Park ranger approached him and asked if he was " ... a professional photographer?" and he said "Yes!"  ... stupid mistake!  The Ranger then made him pay that day rate of $1,000 ... "or else!"

Anytime I've been approached by rangers, I tell them that I am shooting for "personal use." 

Patrick Walberg wrote:
Anytime I've been approached by rangers, I tell them that I am shooting for "personal use." 

Liar! Liar! Pants on fire!    LOL

But of course if you know about the fee they invite the answer you give them.

Studio36