Groundspeak Portal

I made a short expedition this afternoon to waymark a truss bridge (which is also on the National Register of Historic Places), and planned to waymark the adjacent US Port Of Entry. I stopped first at the POE just so someone would know what I was doing, that if they saw me walking back from the bridge, they would not think I was attempting entry into the US.

The Customs & Border Protection agent made a point of telling me not to take a picture of the building, pointing to a GSA (General Services Administration) regulation requiring permission of the occupying agency to take pictures of GSA-owned buildings.

Whoa. I need permission to take a picture of a building, one that is in plain sight from a public place (highway)? This is totally new to me.  It has always been my understanding that if a person, structure, whatever, is in public (i.e., visible from a public place), that's all there is to it, and there's nothing anyone can do to prevent you from taking a picture. I decided that discretion is the better part of valor, and put off taking a picture of the POE.

Of course, there's nothing saying that what the agent told me is correct at all. He may be misinterpreting the regulation (wouldn't be the first time, certainly not the last). I wish I had made a note of the citation.

I bring this up mainly to give others a heads up on the issue, since we have a border crossing category.

Anyone out there with more experience than I in this?

Matt

I know it's illegal to take photos at immigration at the airport, might be something the same.I dont even take my cell phone out until I clear customs, but that's just me.

There is a really nice overview of photographer's rights here.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Photography is not restricted from a public place unless it is a military, nuclear or other facility related national security (defense related to such as a defense contractor).  According to Wikipedia, the GSA covers some 8,300 buildings. They are not all military, nuclear or related to national secuity.  But really, if you did photograph something related to national security, the question would be: "Why was it in the public view in the first place?"

You did the right thing by asking permission beforehand, but in your situation, I would not hesitate to ask for a supervisor to clarify the restriction.  Tell them you just want to understand what the regulation is, so that you don't infringe upon it again.  Or ask for their suggestion on how to obtain your photographic quest.  The key is to be polite, explain what you are doing and ask questions. Of course they have every right to ask you questions as well. They have a job to do, and photography could be used to make their jobs more difficult.

I grabbed some of these common sense ideas from this article: http://www.vividlight.com/articles/3802.htm

Not a lawyer.  Just giving opinion.

The right of taking photos from a public place is protected under your First Ammendment (USA) and our Charter of Freedoms (CDN).

Taking photos of a Customs Office while standing on the grounds or other private property is trespassing, if enforced.  It might be something though since you guys have that Patriot Act.

Consider it this way, what would happen if the building caught on fire or there was a hostage incident?  Would it be on the local news at 6pm/11pm?  Does the press get an exception to the rule at the site?  Would the building be on the front cover of the newspaper in either scenario?

On a different note, what if President Bush gave an address outside the front entrance of the building?  What if kids were doing skateboarding tricks on the sidewalk and were using their cellphones to record their actions with the building as a backdrop?

You are entitled to the same rights as any member of the media.

Sounds like an over zealous rent a cop.  Start carrying a copy of "The Photographer's Right"

BQ

Like S5280ft says, be polite and like BQ says, start carrying a copy of "The Photographer's Right".

Then walk away from the clown who won't let you take a picture and then zoom in!

Hmm, maybe I should start carrying a copy of "The Photographer's Right" or perhaps read it.

We had no problem taking shots at the Canadian border back when we went to Toronto in March.

We're heading back in August so hopefully see you then BQ!

Email me privately for the full story on how we got a picture of a quonset hut a few months back...

s5280ft:

But really, if you did photograph something related to national security, the question would be: "Why was it in the public view in the first place?"

Without addressing the legal issues, there are plenty of places related to national security that are in the public view.  The National Security Agency HQ, a very secure facility, itself is just a couple miles from my house and right off a major highway.  While folks can drive within a few hundred feet of the building, there are no stopping signs and always a police car parked nearby.  Photographs are, I'm sure, discouraged, since they would make it easier for someone to plan an attack than relying on their memory.

OK, here it is.

This is the regulation that was pointed out to me by the CBP agent. If I had been in a slightly more belligerant mood, I would have read it more carefully and argued that

1. Subpart 101-20.300 in total is not applicable: I am not on federal property if I am standing on a state highway. That should be sufficient, but neither is Section 101-20.310 applicable:
2. No photograph is taken for news, advertising or commercial purposes
3. No photograph is taken in space occupied by a tenant agency.

I was able to locate this regulation on my own, but I have also contacted the local Public Buildings Service office for confirmation.

Matt

Found this here

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 41, Volume 2, Chapter 101]
[Revised as of July 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 41CFR101-20.300]

[Page 250]
 
           TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
 
          CHAPTER 101--FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
 
PART 101-20--MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--Table of Contents
 
              Subpart 101-20.3--Conduct on Federal Property
 
Sec. 101-20.300  Applicability.


    These rules and regulations apply to all property under the charge 
and control of the General Services Adminstration and to all persons 
entering in or on such property. Each occupant agency shall be 
responsible for the observance of these rules and regulations.

Found this here

[Code of Federal Regulations]
[Title 41, Volume 2, Chapter 101]
[Revised as of July 1, 2000]
From the U.S. Government Printing Office via GPO Access
[CITE: 41CFR101-20.310]

[Page 252]
 
           TITLE 41--PUBLIC CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT
 
          CHAPTER 101--FEDERAL PROPERTY MANAGEMENT REGULATIONS
 
PART 101-20--MANAGEMENT OF BUILDINGS AND GROUNDS--Table of Contents
 
              Subpart 101-20.3--Conduct on Federal Property
 
Sec. 101-20.310  Photographs for news, advertising, or commercial purposes.

    Photographs may be taken in space occupied by a tenant agency only 
with the consent of the occupying agency concerned. Except where 
security regulations apply or a Federal court order or rule prohibits 
it, photographs for news purposes may be taken in entrances, lobbies, 
foyers, corridors, or auditoriums when used for public meetings. Subject 
to the foregoing prohibitions, photographs for advertising and 
commercial purposes may be taken only with written permission of an 
authorized official of the agency occupying the space where the 
photographs are to be taken.

dudleygrunt:

s5280ft:

But really, if you did photograph something related to national security, the question would be: "Why was it in the public view in the first place?"

Without addressing the legal issues, there are plenty of places related to national security that are in the public view.  The National Security Agency HQ, a very secure facility, itself is just a couple miles from my house and right off a major highway.  While folks can drive within a few hundred feet of the building, there are no stopping signs and always a police car parked nearby.  Photographs are, I'm sure, discouraged, since they would make it easier for someone to plan an attack than relying on their memory.

This building?

http://images.google.com/images?um=1&hl=en&q=nsa+headquarters

I change my wording from "something related to" to "something that risks" national security.  If you did photograph something that risks national security, the question would be: "Why was it in the public view in the first place?"   If it was important to keep the building from prying photographers, they would build a wall, build up a berm or plant trees to block the view. The automakers do the same thing around their test tracks so you can't get photos of prototype cars on the track.  When a photo does get published, they analyze where it was taken and plant more trees, change the fence, or raise the berm. Oh, and there are plenty of "no parking" signs around them too.  No permanent police though.

It's not illegal to take the photo from a public place. It IS illegal to park/stop in a no-parking/stopping zone. So then you have to get a drive-by picture.

Without being political, I must confess to finding the current trend to assume that anyone taking a photo is doing so for malicious reasons.  Won't be long till talking on a cell phone will be against Homeland Security if done within eye sight of a 'location of interest'... heck you could be 'calling it in'

FWIW, I've been 'talked to' (by police, teachers, store owners etc - none with grounds to do anything), 'glared at' and pretty much found that the best way to get people to move is to point a camera in their direction.  It's also funny that people will ask "What are you doing?" and when you tell them, they seem to be desparate to NOT believe you.

BQ

Not to be political, but WELCOME TO 1984, BABY!

Or is it the 1950's red scare all over again, I'm not sure, but either way CYA!

team farkle 7:

Not to be political, but WELCOME TO 1984, BABY!

Or is it the 1950's red scare all over again, I'm not sure, but either way CYA!

It must be the latter, as WE are the ones with the cameras..... :)

0ccam:

team farkle 7:

Not to be political, but WELCOME TO 1984, BABY!

Or is it the 1950's red scare all over again, I'm not sure, but either way CYA!

It must be the latter, as WE are the ones with the cameras..... :)

Got that right! When the cell phone shots of Abu Ghraib came out, there was an article I'd read about the incident and technology. It mentions the fact that Orwell hadn't considered the fact that it could work in both directions. Then again he imagined it would all work flawlessly according to plan. Unlike in the movie Brazil. Double un-good, you might say...

Oh, yeah uh, Not to be political...

0ccam:

team farkle 7:

Not to be political, but WELCOME TO 1984, BABY!

Or is it the 1950's red scare all over again, I'm not sure, but either way CYA!

It must be the latter, as WE are the ones with the cameras..... :)

Got that right! When the cell phone shots of Abu Ghraib came out, there was an article I'd read about the incident and technology. It mentions the fact that Orwell hadn't considered the fact that it could work in both directions. Then again he imagined it would all work flawlessly according to plan. Unlike in the movie Brazil. Double un-good, you might say...

Oh, yeah uh, Not to be political...

The PDF link that s5280ft provided is the best explanation of your rights when photographing.

As a professional photographer, I'm going to tell you to pick your battles carefully.

I take a lot of photography for the local fire departments. Only one of them has officers that are too scared to make a decision, claiming "Homeland Security". I still get all my photos, once everybody's gone through chain of command and realise I've already been cleared, but there's an absolute lack of common sense when it comes to questioning my ability to photograph. I'm a friend of the department, so I go through the bother of getting permission for things I don't need permission for.

However, there's no time when waymarking that I desire to get into a disagreement with anyone over my rights. No promotional photo is worth the risk of getting my equipment damaged or my reputation tarnished. If we're talking emergency scenes... then I'll put up my proverbial dukes... but not for a waymark.

So I'd recommend keeping a copy of the PDF in your camera bag/pocket at all times, and reviewing the information with people who question you. Make sure to get his/her name and say yours up front. Also have a business card with your name and phone number on it. If you want to have your waymarking information on it, that would be cool, too. Also offer to show them your ID. And if they aren't sure, go over the exact photo you want to get, and recommend that they ask their supervisor. Shake hands, make eye contact, speak confidently, casually and friendly. If you still get a "no" and they're 100% wrong in refusing you, keep your smile, get the proper contact information, go home, and call on the next business day to get information on how to obtain permission to photograph.

For most people, Homeland Security is less about policy and more about comfort. If you make someone feel comfortable, you're likely to get what you need.

Good luck!

Elle

I just printed the pdf file, thanks s5280ft. After last weekend at the mall, I'll be keeping it with me.

team farkle 7:

I just printed the pdf file, thanks s5280ft. After last weekend at the mall, I'll be keeping it with me.

Sometimes though, it is easy to forget what is a public versus private place.  Generally anyplace with open public access is a public place, where the land is "owned" by the government or there is a legal public right of way.  Even though a shopping mall is "open", it is probably still privately owned, with it's own set of rules.  Therefore, as they say, "restrictions may apply".  But, don't let them take or destroy your film.