Photographer vs. Security – an unnecessary divide

The relationship between photographers and security officers or law enforcement officers (LEOs) has been tense for a while. We’ve also written about it on this site before, but even though some time has passed, some anti-terrorism laws and powers have been either modified or revoked, the harassment continues, admittedly from both sides at times.

In the interest of security, LEOs and security officers will sometimes try to prevent photographers access to certain sites, certain situations or circumstances. Some types of installations, buildings and persons have been classified as being of such an importance to infrastructure and “national security” that the amount of images depicting them should be minimized, in order to avoid “hostile elements” from using existing images or taking new ones to use in the planning of attacks and such.

This is hardly a viable way to go about terrorism prevention, something that has been argued and proven time and again. This is also why much of the initial hysteria with making laws and regulations to curb photography has been backed up and loosened, though these restrictions and control devices are still employed in many places, mainly by private security, but also by LEOs, often resulting in violations of personal liberties (civil rights) and unnecessary confrontations. On the heels of several successful litigations brought by both individuals and organizations such as the ACLU (American Civil Liberties Union), one would think that this problem was diminishing, but that seems to be not the case.

In the end, it comes down to a misunderstood perception of what security measures are useful and sensible, and a lack of knowledge and education, stemming from the unwillingness or the inability of private security supervisors to moderate in-grown policies and procedures, and to spend the funds necessary to further educate their employees and/or subordinates. The education of LEOs is also a costly affair, and the limitations this puts on individual departments might in some cases account for the lack of cooperation and understanding that exists between photographers and LEOs.

Basic Rights

Both LEOs, security personell and photographers have basic rights. LEOs, of course, have a broader scope of rights than mot others, since they are charged with upholding law and order, securing the public and both public and private property, and at the same time making sure that the individual doesn’t suffer unduly in the course of securing the greater good. When it comes to private security personell, the laws differ from state to state and country to country, but the basic premis is in most cases the same; the “owner’s rights” have been delegated to the security officer, so that he or she has the same rights in the workplace that the private citizen does in the privacy of the home.

Let’s illustrate the point in order to clarify; you have the right to decide who is admitted into your home, and you set the rules, right? Right. If you don’t want to allow smoking in your home or on your property, that is your right. If you don’t want anyone to take pictures in your kitchen, that prohibition is your right to set down. Enforcing these rules is also your right on your property. If you want to “eject” someone (i.e. kick’em out) from your house or property, you are entitled to use the force necessary to do so, though you need to take some escalation consideration in doing so. That means basically that you can use equal force to that of the offending element. He/she kicks you, pin’em down. He/she pulls a knife, pull a gun. You get the point.

This means that on private property, a security officer does indeed have broader rights than you – he or she has the same rights as if they owned the place, and you were a guest. You do not have those same rights on someone else’s property. To simplify (perhaps beyond what is strictly practical), a LEO has “owner’s rights” everywhere, and a license to enforce that right with deadly force when necessary. These are important points, and shouldn’t be scoffed at, but there’s an equally important side to this; the individual person’s rights in public space.

While you have no reasonable expectation of privacy on public lands and properties (i.e. if you’re on the street, anyone can take your picture, and you can’t do squat about it, like it or not), you in turn have the right to photograph people, places, property (yes, even private property if you’re standing/sitting/crouching etc. in a public place when you’re doing it) and do anything else that is legal and doesn’t offend the rights of other people around you. This is what is most important in this discussion, in many people’s opinion – the individual’s rights in the face of authority. That is only partly true. While rights are important, restrictions are equally important, and the importance of respecting both should be clear to both sides in the struggle to “be right”.

Common Problems

One common issue that comes up more often than one would think is the issue of privacy in public. The law in most countries and states is unanimous – you have no reasonable expectation of priacy in public, unless you’re in a medical facility, a changing room or a public restroom, etc. On the street, anyone can take your picture and use it for private purposes or non-commercial use as much as they want, as long as they’re not hindering in you what you’re currently up to. I.e. someone can’t hold you back or not let you pass in order to get your picture. That’d be illegal. You get the picture, so to speak. Likewise, someone can’t keep you from taking their picture as long as you’re in a public place and they’re not in a place that warrants privacy. See above.

Private property is also a disputed issue, for some reason or other. Businesses is often wary about pictures taken of their property, and a US sentaor even tried to force a law to ban taking pictures of farms and farm equipment on private land (from public land) claiming that it was agricultural secrets, equalling it to corporate secrets. That didn’t go so well.

In any case, let’s keep this simple.

Anything, anyone and any place that can be seen from a public place (e.g. a street or sidewalk) is available for you to photograph. This means anything in plain view from a public place, not through windows, doors etc. Plain view, from a public place.

Frequent Complications

Complications usually occur when one side or the other of a conflict escalates the situation. In many cases, a lack of understanding and leeway on both sides contributes to difficulties, and makes for a hostile encounter. Misunderstanding of the other party’s rights and obligations, or blatant disregard for those things makes for a difficult environment for even the most patient of personalities.

Let’s illustrate again. A security officer employed by Wackenhut (or G4S) approaches you as you take pictures of a Bank of America building, standing on a public sidewalk, a hand held (as opposed to tripods etc) Nikon D7000 to your eye. He tells you calmly that your are not allowed to take pictures of the building, and would like it if you could stop. What would be a good response here? The security officer clearly doesn’t know the law very well, and has either misunderstood his own powers or hasn’t been informed of their limitations in a proper way.

Keeping one of these with you at all times might help. It’s a folder outlining your rights as a photographer. Calmly explaining that you are on public property and asking the officer to either contact a supervisor or the police without obstructing you would be the best course of action in a scenario where the officer is calm and polite. You may well continue taking pictures while the officer contacts someone higher up in the food chain, but remember that it might be seen as a little flippant (not that that necessarily is a bad thing). If you have the time and should you want to pick up that glove, wait until a supervisor arrives or the officer leaves, or the police make an appearance. If you have no inclination to wait, simply finish your “shoot” and leave. If someone tries to detain you, that’s a whole different bag of tricks right there.

A different situation occurs if you are questioned by police officers or other LEOs. These represent the state, your country and government, and must not be treated in a way that would seem threatening or disruptive. Be calm and polite at every turn, and the problem or situation will in most cases resolve itself. While police officers usually have a better grasp of the law and recent updates to such, you might have to calmly explain what you are doing, since these officers have the right to detain you if they perceive that you are engaged in or planning criminal activity. They need a reason for this, but that’s not always too hard to find, should you be uncooperative. In some countries you are obligated to give them your personal details such as name and address, in others you are not. Check this out for yourself.

If a LEO should approach you and unrightfully demand that you cease taking pictures in a public place where you are not disturbing anyone, especially the LEOs themselves, you shouldn’t be afraid to stand up for yourself, in a polite manner. Present the LEO with this, for example, a DHS information bulletin to the FPS about the legality of taking pictures of federal buildings (such as this). It only holds water in the US, so if you’re anywhere else, research local laws. Sweden, for example, has extensive legislation to protect photographers and the press.

A look at this post from DPS (Digital Photography School) is a good place to start.

The most effective solution there is when it comes to problematic encounters with police or security seems to be to avoid prolonged contact with the “footsoldiers”, move up to supervisors or sergeants as soon as possible, and present printed proof of your rights. Not only does this approach shield you from further trouble, but will also ensure that the officer(s) you encounter are educated and will hardly repeat the mistake, and thus you’ve helped a lot of other photographers from experiencing the same unpleasentries at a later date. Feel free to take the matter further in order to raise awareness, be it through the media, to chiefs of departments or corporate level managers.

Exceptions

There are always exceptions, and these situations may be best case scenarios. There are frequent mentions of aggression in the accounts of these encounters, and that is something one should be wary of. If you do encounter aggressive security personell, simply leave and call the police immediately. It shouldn’t be tolerated. However, you should be aware that if you respond to aggression with aggression, you could find yourself in a situation where you bear the burden of evidence in order to avoid problems with the law.

Some areas and buildings are off limits, no matter what you say or do. Military installations, some key sites of industry or nuclear power plants might be off limits, even from a public place, but that is very rare, and in most cases you won’t be able to get close enough to get a good shot anyway. There’s also going to be signs en masse, and probably guys with dogs and guns, and that kind of thing.

Make sure that you read up on the laws in your area, and have written proof with you at all times, to present to the proper authorities. Avoid confrontation, avoid being aggressive, and avoid being threatening. Be calm and polite, but firm and demonstrate freely that you know your rights. Be prepared to meet opposition that also have extensive knowledge of both your rights and their own, and be prepared to back down if you have to, and be prepared to leave in order for you to contact other authorities if needed.