A License to Shoot? Video and the law.
 

I posted here recently about the growing paranoia that I seem to be encountering as I videotape in public these days.

http://www.dvinfo.net/conf/showthread.php?t=109918

My question now is...

Is there such a thing as a “License to Shoot”?

I am aware that one can get permits for specific shoots for a specific project, but let’s say I am doing a free-form documentary about my little suburban town and I want the ability to shoot just about anywhere on a whim. Does anyone know if there a permit that I can get that would satisfy the police if they should question me?

The press doesn't need a license to go shoot day-to-day news stories. They might need 'press credentials' to cover certain events, but when it comes to just being outside and talking to people, general b-roll, etc... no license.

So what do you do if someone says you can't shoot something?

For instance, I live near a Boeing plant that makes helicopters for the army. You try to shoot anywhere near that place and the cops freak out. Unfortunately it's also in a very scenic area.

Go to this link and download the PDF file. There is a fold up version as well to carry with you.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

There is some good information in that document.

-gb-

That is a really awesome link!!! Exactly what I was looking for. Thanks for that!

This should be a sticky, everyone here should read it.

It is indeed an excellent reference. I keep a copy of it in my camera bag at all times.

I just printed off a copy and will be putting it my bag shortly. Thanks for that link!

The next best thing is the Constiution. If you are standing on Public Property shooting into the gates of Boieng or anywhere else that is visible from Public Space. It is your RIGHT! The Constitution is a much larger permmision slip to carry about however so use it as a backup!

Laws regarding what a photographer (and/or camera person) can and cannot shoot (especially in post 911) can be different from state to state. Research what the laws are in your particular state. Fold that up and put it in your bag.

As a news photographer I was photographing cyclists commuting on a state highway near Pearl Harbor when harbor security came to check on me.

They claimed national security concerns about me being there with a camera. I was on a public road that had high fences obscuring what little I might see of the base. I was a credentialed veteran news photographer that went through dozens of background checks to cover anything from US presidents to royalty and, from where I stood, I couldn't see a damn thing on base.

To make matters worse, not more than a half mile away were boatloads of tourists visiting the Arizona Memorial, the USS Bowfin and the USS Missouri and snapping away with all sorts of cameras in all possible directions.

These guys also had no idea that prior to WWII there was a real spy who kept track of movements on the naval base from the hills overlooking the spot where I was standing. Anyone interested in monitoring ship movements can still do the same from those same hills.

So while they're getting all bent out of shape fussing over someone who has a legitimate reason and every legal right to be where I was, they totally missed the fact that when it comes to spying on Pearl Harbor, it's a matter of been-there-done-that more than a half century ago. And those guys were smart enough not to do it from where I was standing, in a spot where you couldn't see a damn thing and obvious to the whole wide world!

This also happened when a bunch of news crews gathered near a stream where a possible murder weapon had been allegedly tossed. While the cops dredged the stream we stood there waiting with cameras. The base PAO came to stop us, citing base security issues. We pointed out the Arizona Memorial tour boats loaded with camera-toting tourists shooting every which way and let the PAO know that those unknowns are more of a threat than we were, especially since we had already done a lot of assignments with that same PAO and were established on a first-name basis!

The PAO relented when she finally realized how ludicrous it was.

Precisely what that document points out Brian is that there have been no changes in post 9/11 regarding photography, but a lot of folks think there have.

I think the best thing to do is become informed, and politely, but firmly inform those who wish to stop you what the real deal is. Every situation is different as is everyone's tolerance for conflict so let your own situation be the guide.

-gb-

Well Said Greg.
I do love this forum

So, does the info in that link also apply to video?

Thanks for that. It seems okay, but it doesn't cite any laws or anything of the like. It's just a law firm stating what his interpretation of the law is. It would be better to have something from the laws themselves.

I guess, though, it's hard to prove a negative (i.e. the lack of a law prohibiting filming, etc.)

But I guess it's a good thing to have handy to hand to someone who starts questioning you.

BTW, it refers to still photography. I assume video photography is covered by the same regulations?

Since they aren't the police, are you obligated to give them any information?

Well, they could just cry "national security" and make an arrest on the spot. Mess up someone's day and hold them in jail until it gets cleared up. Then set the innocent photographer loose hours later without so much as an apology.

If they continued to make a fuss -- and they were because the MP's came out, too -- I would have called 911 and had the real cops come out. At least I know people there. Eventually the base security decided I was harmless and backed off.

As Adam points out, American citizens have a set of rights that were spelled out centuries ago. The Declaration of Independence openly states that these rights are supposed to be obvious, or "self-evident". The rights described in the Bill of Rights and its amendments are afforded equally to everyone and should never be abridged for the sake of current conditions. And above all, that any government derives its authority from the will of the people.

The framers of the constitution and the rest of these cornerstone documents insisted upon these rights specifically to prevent tyrannical rule, whether by an individual or a bureaucracy.

Since then, American history has recorded instances where our country has fouled things up by toying with these rights. One good example is "executive order 9066" where Japanese Americans were rounded up into concentration camps at the start of WWII. Thousands of lives and legitimate businesses were ruined for the sake of national security. Civil rights were set aside and only decades later did anyone admit a terrible mistake was made.

Taking away constitutional rights under the veil of national security has never been a good idea. And it has never stood the test of time.

Now the government wants to have the freedom to examine everyone's email at will. To tap phones without warrants. And incarcerate people indefinitely while torturing them in foreign prison cells for the sake of national security. There are people out there who desperately want to restrict someone's rights to protect a country that is supposed to represent individual freedom. Does that make any sense?

Civil and constitutional rights don't disappear overnight. They're often chipped away in little bits. A restriction here. A limitation there. Grain by grain it gets eroded away until the sun rises one morning and a huge chasam lay where freedom once stood.

That erosion starts with the government telling photographers what they can and can't shoot in public. That means that all the law-abiding, well-meaning innocent ones like us can't point our cameras in certain directions. But does it really prevent terrorists from using micro cameras and recorders to get the pictures and videos they need to plan an attack? Of course not. But that same set of rules will keep legitimate people from making an honest living -- or even pursuing a harmless hobby.

Consider this: Today the TSA can go through your bags at will, confiscate your screwdrivers and spare batteries from your hand-carry, carelessly repack or even steal expensive equipment from your luggage. And when you end up on the other end with damaged or missing gear and tools, do you have any recourse? Of course not. It's all in the name of national security. And you're a suspect unless you can prove otherwise.

"As nightfall does not come at once, neither does oppression. In both instances, there's a twilight where everything remains seemingly unchanged, and it is in such twilight that we must be aware of change in the air, however slight, lest we become unwitting victims of the darkness."

Justice William O Douglas

AND the subject matter of our award winning 35mm short, now in pre-production for feature work. See http://www.aftertwilightfilm.com/ and http://nu-classicfilms.com/

I think everyone has had an adequate chance to express their opinion on this topic now. While this is an important issue, DVinfo policy forbids political discussion so this thread has been closed.

On a final note, obviously these are *very* important issues to all of us. However there's no faster way to break up an online community than to delve into politics. That's why this thread has been closed (left in place but definitely closed). Thanks all,