Attached Link: http://www.filemagazine.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

Jack, I'm so glad you posted this! I had no idea what my rights were. I have become increasinly careful about taking photos because of being approached by others. i was in a bookstore taking photos and told i could not do that because they had to protect "copyright" violations. Well, i didn't understand that. I mean, what about all the books i have at home that i could photograph? or i could buy a book (which i did) and then photograph it. i was questioned why i was taking pictures. i just told them the truth. i do photography as a hobby and was trying out my new cam. i did voluntarily show them what was on my card. But would i be obligated to show them? from reading that part (They Have No Right to Confiscate Your Film), i'm thinking i would NOT be obligated to hand over my card for them to view. i am i interpreting this right? and i'm glad to know that it IS permissible for me to take pictures in my neighborhood of private property. i wasn't sure about that one. Now a few hours from here where my folks live, you're literally riskin' your life if you start shooting pictures. There are a lot of folks down there who grow weed, and there have been people who are shot at with guns and arrows. but anyway, even here in the city, people around here are suspicious if you start taking pictures of their property. i always shoot from the sidewalk or whatever, but still, i've been reluctant to. I'm glad to know at least i'm within my rights if i wanna take a picture. i think i will do some more reading on this subject. thanks so much again for posting this. i really appreciate it! :)

I have saved the pdf and will read it later. Thanks! Tom.

Good one. Now I will look for a similar for Canada. Makes me think back to when I was questioned by the cops for taking pictures of clouds and sun near a school.

hey thanks!! *saved :]

Here's another tidbit I found a while ago. In the US, when on private property you must abide by the rules set down by the property owners. So, within a Mall, they can create a rule against anyone taking a photo and they can back that with the law (as in having you removed). However, there are exceptions to this rule. If a public official holds a meeting, speech, debate or whatever else in an official capacity, wherever he/she holds that event immediately becomes public property for the duration of the event. That means they can not stop you from entering (unless you're a security threat) nor can they stop you from taping or photographing the event. Makes sense when you think about it. Found this the same time I found out the fact that when you have a fire on your property, the moment the fire department is notified, control/ownership is transferred to the Chief. It's what gives them the right to order you out of your house and tear the roof off if they need to. Ownership doesn't revert back to you until the Chief okays it.

interesting information, Donald! thanks for telling! :)

Sure it will help the Americans :]

Tedz - you should know by now, there no helping the Americans ;-) (",)

Yep, the "me me me" Americans help themselves. Fortuantely, I am American but not one of those. : ) Tedz, your "mens room" photo said something about phogog rights. Yikes!!!

Yes Dear Tom....they were Written on the Urinal Wall :]

There's some weird stuff happening in the UK -- the paedophile scares of the last few years have, it seems, led to photographers getting hassled in London. It's been reported in Amateur Photographer. It wouldn't surprise me if there were differences between states in the US -- different state level laws on the boundary between private and public places. I understand the basic principles are similar here, but we maybe don't have some of the same exceptions for such things as that politician. And there can be a "public place" which is "private property".