What is the law regarding taking photos in a public place?
553652
Dont listen to them, you can take pictures of anything you want as long as it is not "private property" which means you can not go on the store owners steps and snap pics without his or her permission.But you can stand on the "public" sidewalk or street to take your pic, And you can damn well take the pics of a statue those are bought with tax dollars.
807215
If the subject has a reasonable expectation of privacy, such as in a private residence or workplace, then the recording will most likely be inadmissible.\n\nIf the recording was made in a public place, or at a party, and there was no expectation of privacy, then the recording might be admissible, depending on the circumstances.
68301
Its not a nationwide law, its specifc to the state and even to the municipality.  In New Orleans, they are very liberal with regard to walking around on the street with an open container.  In NYC, you can't do that, you'll get a ticket.
876123
Most London boroughs take a photo of the vehicle "in situ", showing the position of the vehicle and also the road markings/signs. Once the picture is taken it is then sent electronically for processing, the parking attendant has no access to it, so for him to falsify the photo would be impossible. \n\nUnless your photographic evidence was taken when you returned to your car, with the vehicle shown in the same position as it is shown in the borough's photographs then your evidence is likely to be rejected on the grounds that there is no continuity to the alleged offence. \nYou should be able to view all the pictures online if you provide the reference from your penalty charge notice. One of these pictures will definately show the positioning of your vehicle, even if the one's attached to your appeal didn't.\n\nIf you prove the ticket is invalid, can I ask what you are actually going to prosecute for???? A penalty notice issued in error is hardly in the public interest to proceed with and I doubt anyone will actually hear your case.
155156
Yes! It is considered indecent exposure unless you are on private property.
822560
most public high schools have cameras. They can be in the hallways, classrooms, food lines, gyms, bascily anywhere expect the bathroom and locker room.\n\nSome schools have cameras outside too.
985530
Its your property, you can have cameras wherever you want.
713585
Yes I have been several times and took my camera each time - as do thousands of others. Most grounds have a notice banning cameras but I think it is only aimed at keeping out professional photographers. So unless you have a camera the size of a bus and are close to someone from security who is having an off-day you will be OK.
41286
In my opinion if you put something out in public space you should expect it to be public. Also since it is not copyrighted it is not protected in the fact that someone can come along and use what you say in another public forum without giving you/blogger credit. \n If the blogger has any common sense/civility he should let his friends know that what they say could end up on his blog just like a journalist should be letting his quotes know that they will end up in print/ public view.
570213
Many corporations are like that not just walmart. Unless you have specific permission from the company you can't do it. You have to understand they sell products for many companies and each one is a client and that  client may object to a photograph even if its in the background nd ur taking a pic of your aunt at work. I used to work for a telemarketing firm, with the new cell phone technology with camera phones anyone caught doing that was fired. Try walking into a casino at las Vegas and taking pics of a friend sitting at a slot see what happens. I don't recommend it.
165374
Photograph copyright advice and tips\n\nFew photographers have a complete understanding of copyright legislation and its implications, but once you start operating as a freelance it becomes vitally important - otherwise you could find yourself financially out of pocket, or at the wrong end of a legal battle.\nWords & pictures Lee Frost \n\nCopyright legislation exists so that work generated by photographers, writers and artists is protected by law, thus preventing unauthorised reproduction of that work without the prior permission of the author, and ensuring some kind of economic deal is struck which pleases all parties involved. It also states that you have the right to be identified as the author of that work, and that it cannot be subjected to 'derogatory treatment'.\n   In other words, if you take a photograph that's published, you have a right to be paid by the publisher a suitable fee for its reproduction, and the right to be identified as the creator of that picture in the form of a credit or byline.\n   Similarly, it also protects the client in so far as if you assign copyright for a particular image to them, then you are in breach of copyright and liable to a penalty if copyright for the same image is assigned or licensed to another client, especially in a competing market.\n   Traditionally, photographers have been seen as inferior to artists and writers in terms of copyright. Fortunately, due to changes in copyright legislation, if you take a photograph you are now considered the author of it, whether it was commissioned or not, no matter who supplied the film, and therefore have first ownership on that copyright.\n   The only exception to this is if you are an employed photographer - in which case the photographs you take as part of your regular job are the property of your employer. As freelance photographers by nature don't fall into this category, you needn't worry about it.\n\nAssignment of copyright\nAt some point in your career you may complete a commissioned job for a client and be asked to assign copyright to them by signing a contract. Unless you have a good reason for doing so, such as being offered what you feel is a fair financial settlement, avoid this as you could lose out in the future.\n   The size of this settlement will depend on the client's reason for requesting that copyright be assigned to them. If they intend using the picture repeatedly in future brochures, say, then you should agree a fee for each repeat use. The same applies if they intend syndicating them to other companies, or using the pictures for publicity purposes. If future use can't be specified, then insist on retaining copyright and negotiating fresh deals for every subsequent use of the pictures - and get everything in writing so there can be no confusion about what has been agreed.\n   If you do decide to re-assign copyright to another party, remember they become the owner of those images in their entirety for all time, so you no longer have any claim on revenue generated from further sales. However, by retaining copyright, simply by refusing to sign it away, even if the client holds those images on their own property they must still seek your permission to sell them, and agree a financial payment to you from any sales revenue. Legally, they must also provide you with access to those pictures so you can offer them for sale yourself, although maintaining this can be difficult, so whenever possible, insists on holding the pictures on your own files.\n   As an example of how this can work, it is not uncommon for magazines to run their picture files like a stock agency and generate extra profit by selling images to advertisers, book publishers and so on.\n   If some of those pictures were taken by you during commissioned jobs for that magazine, then by law you are entitled to a share in the profits. However, if you assign copyright for those pictures to the magazine's publisher, you are not entitled
732734
It's okay to photograph them when they are in a public area, like award shows etc.  But if they are w/ their kids are just trying to have a lunch or having an intimate moment that's not cool.
113049
I'm not in the military, so I can't speak to military aircraft, but taking a photograph of a police helicopter is part of the public domain.  The only exception would be if you're hindering their work...like if you are in the middle of where they want to land or shining a bright light into the cockpit.  \nOh, and you can't trespass into a restricted area to take a picture (i.e. police station, behind police tape, etc.)
10466
It's legal for a business to record anything in the office, video or audio. With the exception of the bathroom, and even then they might be able to get away with it. \n\nIt isn't however, advisable for you to carry your own recording device into the office.
68265
Why can't you report it?  Anyway, you can follow a person (granted they don't have a restraining order against you), anywhere as long as it is on public or pseudo-public land (the public street system, for example, is public.  The shopping mall is pseudo-public, because it is a private building which serves the public interest).  You cannot follow them in a way that requires you going onto private land or property.  As for picture taking, if you are specifically taking a picture of an actual crime in progress, then that can be used as evidence and is no more illegal thank taking a mental 'picture' when you see a robery taking place.  Picture taking of anything else would be a touchy matter and should be avoided.  Rule of thumb: if a casual glance cannot detect illegality or suspicious behavior in a photo, then the photo should not be taken.  However, you should avoid such activites at all costs.  Depending on the nature of the crimes you are investigating, you may be placing yourself (and the public) in serious danger.  I would recommend that you consult with the police on this issue if there is even the slightest chance of violence.
351887
Public figures do deserve the same degree of privacy as we do.   However, the exception is, whenever they are in public...it is public.   They can never share our level of privacy when shopping at the mall or eating at a fast food restaurant.   If  George Bush decides to throw his milkshake at a waitress, then it needs to hit the national news.  If you do the same thing, it doesn't even have to ever be mentioned.    I don't think we have the right to know what a public figure is doing 24/7 or within the confines of their homes, unless they make it public.   If Angelina Jolie wants to walk around her house naked with the windows open and shades drawn, then by all means she's inviting the public in.    I don't believe the paparazzi should go to the limits they go to when getting pictures and such, but photo ops are photo ops.
1116235
The photographer owns the image unless they are working under some written agreement. They can't use your image for advertisement without your permission.