Attached Link: mikepanic.com v3.0

It is nuts...but can I can't say I'm surprised....what's next?

i nearly got arrested in the montreal subway system several years ago for just such reasons, terrorists, etc. Funny, I must've shot like 20 rolls in that very subway before hand...

I guess it's just the almighty dollar screaming for someone else to grab it. If this sort of thing continues, EVERYONE will want some sort of fee to have something photographed. Soon, I guess we'll have to sit at home and only photograph things that we own the rights to. Makes it even worse considering taxes paid for it.

Photography of SF G.G bridge is illegal? Guffaw! I DO know that foot traffic on the west side ( facing away from the city ) is illegal. However I didn't let that stop me. I imagine the thing to do is simply take the picture but not be obvious about it. THEN tell a police man that you want to take some photos and ask for go ahead. If he says yes you can take your time if ne says no then you still have something. For what it's worth photography at the state capital was greatly curtailed in the mid 1990's. Bsteph

if i pass go do i collect 200$?

Most likely could get better info from the internet anyway. Geezz what is next.

Oh my. That will stop terrorists in their tracks. I suppose they'll stick to speed limits too???? As if they can't use discreet cameras.... or even go to the local library and not only get not only pictures but probably copies of the original plans too. Or they could try a leaflet from the local tourist office......that should have some pretty good pics....... Actually, I don't see how they can legally stop this, after all you're not taking a photograph, you're merely catching light particles at a chosen moment in time....... (",)

jordy the philosopher. I must be high on Paxil.

My friend was asked by the local constabulary to stop taking pictures at Speakers corner in London. My god! its a designated place for free speech, how can they restrict taking pictures? a real shame there are some great pictures to be had there. :0)

Maybe the constable just wanted to protect somone elses privacy. I've been cautioned a few times at public events. Bsteph

bsteph - not sure how the laws werk in the UK, but in the us, we have that luvly freedom of the press which enables them to photograph and publish anything clearly seen and visable on a public street or place, or if taken on private propterty w/ rights given to said photographer - that is how the news can show video footage of football games w/ 100,000 screaming fans in the background. it would b an interesting lawsuit to say the least if you worked for a legit newspaper, say the post or ny times and were taking photos of the bridge for a documentation of say its 150th aniversary or something, and how it would b played out in court should the gov't choose to strip u of your rights to the photos - especially when you consider the us copyright office, and its explination of when something is copyrighted, and i quote, "Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form so that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device." take from http://www.loc.gov/copyright/

LOL - Mikey, bsteph lives in the same free country as your good self! ;) However, over here in the UK I've never been even approached by a person for taking pics in public, never mind a law enforcement agent...... we've got a wierd thing called 'British Culture' which means even if your are offended you do nothing about it, or even the opposite. eg. You step on someone's foot in a shop, THEY apologise.... wierd...... he he he (",)

Here in the UK, I have people apologise for getting in the way of me taking a photograph, plus people stay out the way if you using a tripod @ JordyArt, spill their pint and they kick your head in

Really Jordy? Must be me then. I once steped on this persons foot who was standing WAY too close then she starts screaming squezzes her toe and causes it to bleed. Interesting. I think her husband realized she was not gonna win the suit and convinced her to go somewhere else. Regarding my photo and the police. It's hard to tell. I was photographing a lady so perhaps he was being protective however it was at essentially a fetish block party so I don't know why he cared so strongly. MIKE PANIC: I don't think the public acces rule always applies. I mean just because I am in a public place does not mean I want someone to photograph me. It get's worse when potentially there is money involved. So I think for some situation I in theory should have a realease to photograph people even in a obvious public place. Bsteph

@Azy - Yeah, but that's yer pint, innit..... perfectly understandable! btw, I sent my missus to the shop 3 days ago to buy me a crate of beer and haven't seen her since. God, I'm dying for a drink........... (",)

Bsteph I have been told its because speakers corner is in one of the Queens parks and you aint allowed to snap on her land. LOL Your right about the Brits they do tend to stop and let you take your pictures, I brought a Billingham bag, its a great passport into events for some reason they think you are press or something. As for beer guess I could just manage another your round Jordy LOL :0)

Welcome to the "NEW WORLD ORDER" folks. It couldn't be any more obvious.