Groundspeak Portal

A recent waymarker, while taking pics of the outside of a US Post Office, was approached by an employee of the post office, demanded the pictures be deleted from the camera and took the waymarkers name, address, etc....This is the first time I have heard of this happening. Does anyone know the rules and regulations in regard to this subject?

It is legal for people to take photos of anything as long as they are located on public property.  This is a common problem and you can often read stories about on photography sites.  In fact there are a few Flickr groups devoted to posting photos of places where people had the right to photograph but were told they didn't. 

I'm wondering if there is a short paragraph that lays out a photographer's rights that people could copy and carry with them to show to overzealous security guards.  If anyone knows of something like this let me know and I'll post it on my waymarking website in the "wayinfo" section.

 

Warning!!!  Opinion coming.

Based on another thread about this very topic... it is perfectly legal to take photos of any location from any PUBLIC place like a sidewalk.  Taking photos while standing on PRIVATE property may be trespassing.

Do a search for "The Photographer's Right" as a PDF.  It is an American document, but I use it when needed.

Just consider the Papparatzi (sp) aspect... they take photos, as do regular respectable media persons of items such as these.

If there was a break in, or hostage taking or bake sale at the post office... don't you think the local TV station might show the location on the nightly news?  Guess what is likely in the background!!!  The Post Office???

 

Chances are the person is another in the misguided "Homeland Security" over kill faction.  I would ignore them completely, but you are free to do as you wish.

 

BQ

ptcrazy:

A recent waymarker, while taking pics of the outside of a US Post Office, was approached by an employee of the post office, demanded the pictures be deleted from the camera and took the waymarkers name, address, etc....This is the first time I have heard of this happening. Does anyone know the rules and regulations in regard to this subject?

The post office employee was out of line.

 If the pictures were taken on public property and there is no city ordinance restricting the right to photograph that the employee can refer to you can take as many photos as you like. I would encourage the waymarker to complain to the postmaster after they educate themselves about photographers rights. There is no excuse for this kind of treatment. Even if they were on private property there is some legal questions about limiting photographs. You have the right to photograph about anything at any time it seems but may be arrested for trespass if you refuse to leave when asked.

This came up previously in the Waymarking?Muggles? thread. My post there gives an excellent resource for photographers to have with them while waymarking.

It appears that I have explained the situation slightly wrong, according to the waymarker, the postal worker DID allow him to keep the pics in his camera after all. However, he did feel like he had broken the law or something by the way he was approached and questioned. He contacted me in regards to making the photo requirement an option in cases like this. I told him I would research it and make a decision as to whether the photo should be optional. I feel bad that he had this confrontation. However, I myself,
always try to be as descreet as possible when taking photos, as it seems to make people nervous when taking photos in their "space" or general direction.

the blue quasar:

If there was a break in, or hostage taking or bake sale at the post office... don't you think the local TV station might show the location on the nightly news?  Guess what is likely in the background!!!  The Post Office???

LOL

I've just added a section on photographers' rights in the Wayinfo section of Wayward Waymarking.  It has links to the U.S. pdf on photographers rights, and also a link to a similar pdf which focuses on rights in the U.K.  Hope that helps.  Just scroll down the info page until you see the header "Photographers Rights".

What's this Postal worker doing about the satellites?  You know, Google Earth/maps.google.com or Microsoft Live Local?

I hope he's not disgruntled.

I ran into this very same issue when I wanted to waymark a border crossing. I went inside first and told them what I was up to. The Officer-In-Charge pointed to a Public Buildings Service (PBS) regulation posted on the bulletin board and told me I could not take pictures of the building.

The Regulation does say that you can't take pictures in a federal building unless you have permission from the tenant agencies, such as Customs & Border Protection or the Postal Service.

Federal employees who are zealous in exercising their "authority" but not quite so zealous in understanding the extent of same have a tendency to misinterpret this as meaning you can't take pictures of the building at all.

I spoke directly with the GSA Buildings Manager for the area, and he confirmed that the regulation applies only to what you do on the property. It does not apply to taking pictures of the building from off the property, such as from the street.

(I realize this is an older thread, but I wanted to get my info out there.)

Matt

I was going through the drive through at Burger King recently, and they had a 'no photos' sign posted in their window. I never noticed anything like that before.

That would be a case of being on private property, so they're entitled to post whatever rules they want.

But I really have to wonder how many people pull up to a drive-thru and try to take a picture, such that BK would be prompted to do that, not to mention why they would not want it done in the first place.

Corporate espionage prevention?

FiVermont:

That would be a case of being on private property, so they're entitled to post whatever rules they want.

But I really have to wonder how many people pull up to a drive-thru and try to take a picture, such that BK would be prompted to do that, not to mention why they would not want it done in the first place.

Corporate espionage prevention?

They post it for the same reason that many land owners put up "No Trespassing" signs. In the event that something should ever happen, they are somewhat covered because the sign was already in existence. It's easier to say "No (this)" than it is to detail items.

In a word... liability.

We have a land owner here of a canal system that posts those NT signs but are they are quite happy to have people walk their dogs there, or hike. I've spoken to their head of security and they are thrilled to have people there and completely understand why people hike/walk there. But they do have to cover themselves too.

BQ

I got temporarely arested last year for "suspicious behaviour around a govenment building" when I took a picture of our local court house. A policeman escorted me to the security officer of the court house, who dismissed the matter with the wise words "this is a free country."

Just imagine what the young officer would have done had I told him I didn't only take a picture but also recorded the GPS coordinates :-)

You will always run into people who take themselves too seriously. Just let them be right and come back again the next day.