Full Version: Terrorism Fears
As I believe this incident is a direct result of terrorism fear I am placing this topic here.
For those of you that don’t cyber know me, I am an emerging photographer here in NJ. One of my favorite bridges is the Bayonne Bridge. The Port Authority of NY and NJ (PA) are responsible for protecting this bridge. A few weeks ago I was at the bridge shooting. I have heard that I could be stopped for shooting the bridge but since I didn’t know of any law or administrative regulation prohibiting me from doing this (and I was not on the bridge) I decided to take my chances. Well on this day I was stopped by a security guy who called the PA police. He never told me I had to wait I just assumed I did. After about 20 minutes I called my sister and started going off about how they were holding me there, etc. The security guy said that he wasn’t holding me and as long as I stopped shooting I could leave. So I said great I am out of here. As I was walking to my car I noticed that the PA police had arrived. I start my car and one of the PA police cars starts following me. As soon as I turn the corner he speeds up and flashes his lights and siren. When I stopped 2 more cars, with lights and sirens going, came from the other direction. I am suspicious that they waited till I pulled away to stop me. There was ample time to approach me while I was walking to my car. Their position was that I must obtain permission to shoot the bridge regardless of whether I am on their property or not. They did not ask for my camera but did say that they were taking my info down and writing up a report to indicate that they spoke to me and instructed me of their procedure.
I have no problem notifying them when I will be there but I do not want to be prohibited from shooting the bridge, or any other installation that the PA has jurisdiction over, if the mood strikes me and their office is closed. I also do not want to break the law. So the next day I contacted the PA office and asked them to site the exact criminal and/or administrative regulation that prohibits me from shooting the bridge. They referred me to media relations. The media relations person said they would get back to me but would not commit to whether there was an actual code on the books. I have not heard back from them. I, therefore, believe that there is no code on the books. If there was don't you think they would have rattled off the code asap? I checked with my local police department and they said there is no criminal code prohibiting individuals from shooting landmarks and such. Though they could not verify if there were any codes for the PA jurisdiction.
Question for Debate:
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
While I understand the skittish reaction of the PA, they lost 37 people due to September 11th, I do not accept it as a reason to stop me, or others, from documenting the beauty this area has to offer. If there is no criminal and/or administrative code on the books I feel this action is in direct violation of my civil liberty. If we are to live in fear then we might as well forget all the freedom we demand for ourselves. We might as well throw up the white flag to the terrorists and say you won.
For those of you that don’t cyber know me, I am an emerging photographer here in NJ. One of my favorite bridges is the Bayonne Bridge. The Port Authority of NY and NJ (PA) are responsible for protecting this bridge. A few weeks ago I was at the bridge shooting. I have heard that I could be stopped for shooting the bridge but since I didn’t know of any law or administrative regulation prohibiting me from doing this (and I was not on the bridge) I decided to take my chances. Well on this day I was stopped by a security guy who called the PA police. He never told me I had to wait I just assumed I did. After about 20 minutes I called my sister and started going off about how they were holding me there, etc. The security guy said that he wasn’t holding me and as long as I stopped shooting I could leave. So I said great I am out of here. As I was walking to my car I noticed that the PA police had arrived. I start my car and one of the PA police cars starts following me. As soon as I turn the corner he speeds up and flashes his lights and siren. When I stopped 2 more cars, with lights and sirens going, came from the other direction. I am suspicious that they waited till I pulled away to stop me. There was ample time to approach me while I was walking to my car. Their position was that I must obtain permission to shoot the bridge regardless of whether I am on their property or not. They did not ask for my camera but did say that they were taking my info down and writing up a report to indicate that they spoke to me and instructed me of their procedure.
I have no problem notifying them when I will be there but I do not want to be prohibited from shooting the bridge, or any other installation that the PA has jurisdiction over, if the mood strikes me and their office is closed. I also do not want to break the law. So the next day I contacted the PA office and asked them to site the exact criminal and/or administrative regulation that prohibits me from shooting the bridge. They referred me to media relations. The media relations person said they would get back to me but would not commit to whether there was an actual code on the books. I have not heard back from them. I, therefore, believe that there is no code on the books. If there was don't you think they would have rattled off the code asap? I checked with my local police department and they said there is no criminal code prohibiting individuals from shooting landmarks and such. Though they could not verify if there were any codes for the PA jurisdiction.
Question for Debate:
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
While I understand the skittish reaction of the PA, they lost 37 people due to September 11th, I do not accept it as a reason to stop me, or others, from documenting the beauty this area has to offer. If there is no criminal and/or administrative code on the books I feel this action is in direct violation of my civil liberty. If we are to live in fear then we might as well forget all the freedom we demand for ourselves. We might as well throw up the white flag to the terrorists and say you won.
I have had to deal with this issue to as my wife is a professional photographer as well. Since I handle a lot of the business and legal side I discovered something similar in San Francisco shortly after we moved here. Apparently the same thing was in place for the Golden Gate Bridge for quite some time. The national guard was stationed at the bridge and they prevented you from photographing it.
After I found out I read up on the legal particulars.
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
As far as the law reads, any public building or landmark can be photographed without consequence. No copyright, permit or permission is needed. Even federal buildings can be photographed from the outside of the building (i.e. a public street), but you would need permission to photograph the interior.
Below is a summary of the copyright/permission law from this article.
The Golden Gate Bridge and bridges in NJ would be considered creations by the federal government, and many of them were also created before 1922 anyway and thus would be public domain.
This was clearly an alarmist reaction based on fears from 9/11 and another example of the government infringing upon our civil rights in under the banner of fighting terrorism.
After I found out I read up on the legal particulars.
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
As far as the law reads, any public building or landmark can be photographed without consequence. No copyright, permit or permission is needed. Even federal buildings can be photographed from the outside of the building (i.e. a public street), but you would need permission to photograph the interior.
Below is a summary of the copyright/permission law from this article.
QUOTE
Only buildings created after December 1, 1990 are protected by copyright. Fortunately for photographers, the copyright in an architectural work does not include the right to prevent others from making and distributing photos of the constructed building, if the building is located in a public place or is visible from a public place. So you don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a public building. You don't need permission to photograph a public building from inside the building (although you may need permission to photograph separately-owned decorative objects in the building, such as a statue). You don't need permission to stand on a public street and photograph a private building such as a church or a house.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
This "photographer's exception" to the copyright-owner's rights applies only to buildings, a category which includes houses, office buildings, churches, gazebos, and garden pavilions. The exception does not apply to monuments (protectable as "sculptural works") or other copyrighted works, such as statues and paintings.
QUOTE
You don't need permission to photograph a work that is not protected by copyright (in "the public domain"). Works fall into the public domain for several reasons, one of which is expiration of the copyright term. In 1997, works created before January 1, 1922 are in the public domain. Also, works created by federal government officers and employees as part of their official duties are not protected by copyright. (This rule does not apply to works created by state or local government officers and employees).
The Golden Gate Bridge and bridges in NJ would be considered creations by the federal government, and many of them were also created before 1922 anyway and thus would be public domain.
This was clearly an alarmist reaction based on fears from 9/11 and another example of the government infringing upon our civil rights in under the banner of fighting terrorism.
QUOTE(DreamPipEr @ Jun 7 2004, 05:54 PM)
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
I don't think they have that right but they do have a reason to be concerned. An Ohio truck driver who was found to have connections to Al-Queda (info provided by the 9/11 mastermind, who is in US custody) was taking pics of the Brooklyn Bridge and had a plan to blow it up. Thankfully he was arrested before he could carry out this act.
Cube Jockey:
QUOTE
This was clearly an alarmist reaction based on fears from 9/11 and another example of the government infringing upon our civil rights in under the banner of fighting terrorism.
Where is the infringement of our civil rights? And of course they will have an alarmist attitude. There is a group of thugs out to kill us or destroy anything that is valuable to our economy or infastructure
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Jun 7 2004, 05:36 PM)
Cube Jockey:
Where is the infringement of our civil rights? And of course they will have an alarmist attitude. There is a group of thugs out to kill us or destroy anything that is valuable to our economy or infastructure
QUOTE
This was clearly an alarmist reaction based on fears from 9/11 and another example of the government infringing upon our civil rights in under the banner of fighting terrorism.
Where is the infringement of our civil rights? And of course they will have an alarmist attitude. There is a group of thugs out to kill us or destroy anything that is valuable to our economy or infastructure
Where in the constitution or federal law does it state the government has the right to say what a photographer can and cannot take pictures of? The Golden Gate Bridge is possibly one of the most photographed landmarks in the United States, where does the government have the right to tell us we an no longer photograph it?
I cannot think of anything in the constitution and I have proved that copyright law is clear on this point. The burden of proof would be on you at this point, Go America.
If the government continues to infringe on our civil rights in the name of security and expediency then we might as well shred the constitution, call up Al Jazeera and tell them that Al Queda has won and we give up.
People have fought hard for over 200 years for the freedom we enjoy today, if some elements of our government had their way, we'd turn the clock back about a hundred years.
QUOTE(GoAmerica @ Jun 7 2004, 08:36 PM)
There is a group of thugs out to kill us or destroy anything that is valuable to our economy or infastructure
So we lose our liberties to save our liberties, huh?
This bogus argument brought us Patriot Act I and might even bring us Patriot Act, The Sequel! (it's bigger, it's badder, it's coming to get you!).
You definitely have a right to take pictures of buildings and landmarks. And, yes, those hired/conscripted to protect those places might become overly alarmed. But you weren't arrested and you probably could have refused to provide your ID to them, if you had wanted to get more ornery. But the "real" police would have eventually showed up and then you'd have to show ID.
QUOTE(amf)
You definitely have a right to take pictures of buildings and landmarks. And, yes, those hired/conscripted to protect those places might become overly alarmed. But you weren't arrested and you probably could have refused to provide your ID to them, if you had wanted to get more ornery. But the "real" police would have eventually showed up and then you'd have to show ID.
The Port Authority Police are real police. I just realized, though, why they probably waited for me to drive away (when they had plenty of time to stop me before I got to my car), I bet it was so they could ask me for my license.
QUOTE(Go America)
I don't think they have that right but they do have a reason to be concerned. An Ohio truck driver who was found to have connections to Al-Queda (info provided by the 9/11 mastermind, who is in US custody) was taking pics of the Brooklyn Bridge and had a plan to blow it up. Thankfully he was arrested before he could carry out this act.
You know I shot the Brooklyn Bridge last summer, along with hundreds of tourists. No one stopped anyone. The thing is the only time, I can see, that they have a right to tell me I must seek permission to do something is if there is a law that states so.
QUOTE(Go America)
Where is the infringement of our civil rights? And of course they will have an alarmist attitude. There is a group of thugs out to kill us or destroy anything that is valuable to our economy or infastructure
I have no problem being asked what I am doing, if they find me suspicious then pull me in for questioning. Don't tell me I can leave then follow me (along with 2 other cars to cut me off). Don't criminalize someone for something that is well within their rights. By taking freedom away, by its very nature, is infringement of our civil rights. If it is deemed that photographing landmarks and bridges may be detrimental to others then pass a law that states they we must seek permission. Don't tell me that I MUST have permission when that is not the case.
Photographer's rights should be protected not taken away because we are scared.
If my assumption is correct, that the PA (or any other law enforcement agency) does not have a criminal and/or administrative regulation on the books, does the PA have a right to enforce restricting individuals from taking pictures of the bridge or any of its facilities, provided they are shot from public property?
We are undergoing the exact same sort of thing, but only on a much more concentrated scale due to the G-8 Summit.
Here is a recent and applicable article from our local paper, the Savannah Morning News: Eye spy: 'Shutterbugs' might get extra attention from police
It details a similar case:
So there you have it. The police are detaining people on suspicion that the legal activity they are performing may be part of an illegal activity they may or may not be performing.
Buying gas for the lawnmower? Terrorist. Enjoy sketching in the park? Terrorist. Do you collect knives? Terrorist. Where will it end?
The funny thing is that I am probably one of the people who were "already gone before we got there." We have this beautiful bridge here-- this bridge. If you're down on River St. with a camera, you simply cannot resist snapping a shot of the Talmadge. I've got a bunch of them, and I am not a terrorist. There is no reason I should ever be treated as one.
Mike
We are undergoing the exact same sort of thing, but only on a much more concentrated scale due to the G-8 Summit.
Here is a recent and applicable article from our local paper, the Savannah Morning News: Eye spy: 'Shutterbugs' might get extra attention from police
It details a similar case:
QUOTE
"Every week or so, we were having people photograph the trains coming through, or the gates of the port. Most of the time they were already gone before we got there."
Lyons said police finally did detain a suspect, who claimed to be a train buff. The man was interviewed and police determined he had detailed information about train routes and radio frequencies.
But since he had committed no crime, the man was released, Lyons said.
Lyons said police finally did detain a suspect, who claimed to be a train buff. The man was interviewed and police determined he had detailed information about train routes and radio frequencies.
But since he had committed no crime, the man was released, Lyons said.
So there you have it. The police are detaining people on suspicion that the legal activity they are performing may be part of an illegal activity they may or may not be performing.
Buying gas for the lawnmower? Terrorist. Enjoy sketching in the park? Terrorist. Do you collect knives? Terrorist. Where will it end?
The funny thing is that I am probably one of the people who were "already gone before we got there." We have this beautiful bridge here-- this bridge. If you're down on River St. with a camera, you simply cannot resist snapping a shot of the Talmadge. I've got a bunch of them, and I am not a terrorist. There is no reason I should ever be treated as one.
Mike
This is a simplified version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.