The Tulsa Forum by TulsaNow

I have a question about taking video or still images in public.  I know that it's illegal to engage in voyeurism like trying to photograph in a restroom or changing room, but my question is where this information may be found in the Oklahoma statutes.  Title 13, section 176 deals with wiretapping - recording an telephone call requires the consent of just one party, for instance, and that's somewhat different from taking photos or video tape in public.

I ask this because of the proliferation of tiny video cameras, some of them in use by bicyclists as a means to document actions on the street.  And in one instance that I know of, a cyclist with a camera attached to his bike or his helmet was threatened with arrest under federal wiretapping laws when he had the camera running during a traffic stop by police.  They confiscated his equipment and I do not know if it was ever returned.

Finally, there's some interesting reading on Photography Is Not A Crime, a blog about photographers being harassed or even arrested while taking photographs in public. 

http://carlosmiller.com/ (http://carlosmiller.com/)

There's a document I keep in my camera bag...

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

If an LEO tries to keep you from photographing something in the public domain, very calmly retrieve this document from your bag and present it to the officer.  I've had to do this twice when taking photos of airplanes at the airport.  They try to harass you initially, but show them this.  It usually clams them up and they wind up leaving.  I've never had one tell me to go away when I did...

But, as always, YMMV.

Simply put, if there is not a reasonable expectation of privacy (not taking pictures through someones windows, ect), than it falls under public domain, which means that you can click away.

That site has the story about the Oklahoma City teacher that was manhandled and arrested when he took pictures of an arrest following a high-speed chase:
http://carlosmiller.com/2008/07/07/oklahoma-state-troopers-force-photographer-to-delete-images/#more-578

They also have the opposing views, as well.
USA Today published a statement from the International Union of Police Associations claiming that officers are justified in violating citizens' First Amendment rights because they have been stripped of that privilege themselves:

"Much is said about First Amendment rights regarding the videotaping of police officers. While officers often have legitimate complaints about misuse of video tapes, we are still sensitive to the right granted under the First Amendment. That’s because we don’t always enjoy that right.
If we make a statement contrary to what a commander thinks, we may face subtle but onerous retaliation in our workplace. It may be a demotion, a negative evaluation, days off without pay or a transfer to less than desirable duty."

My favorite is, of course, the Tennessee trooper that insisted a man delete photos he had taken on his iPhone because the iPhone was pointing a laser at the officer and he feared for his safety.

BUT....

....you cannot use said media to make a profit from it if it includes a likeness of something/someone on that media without the parties consent to do so.  Whether that likeness be in person or another image or product.  Why do you think you see so many videos with people's faces blurred on syndicated shows like Cops or other LEO reality shows?

I call BS...

ALL workers are subject to those same punishments in the workplace if they do the same things (in essence, go against what the boss says), up to and including termination.

There should never be a case where taking photo in the public domain should EVER be construed as a crime, unless it's for National Security Purposes, and even then, it should be PLAINLY POSTED.

I read a piece some time ago about a photographer in DC getting stopped for no apparent reason.  It seems he'd photographed the unmarked building housing DARPA and the security people would not allow it.

And you're right about using an image for a commercial purpose.  To do that, signed model releases are necessary.  But on a public street no one has an expectation of privacy, so if you're shooting for personal use or editorial use, any image should be permissible.  Now, I wouldn't take a photo of a child without the parent's consent because that's just creepy, but it's an entirely different thing when a police officer insists we cannot take photos of him doing his job.  That's overstepping the bounds of his authority.

If you are shooting for, say, a reality show or a modeling assignment, you need to have everyone on-camera sign a release form, or blur their face (if identifiable). 
If your shooting news or vacation snapshots, there's no such legal requirement, but if your work may be publicly displayed you may be asked to obscure someone's identity for various reasons.  That's on a case-by-case basis, varies with community standards, and entirely your option.

Police may ask for copies of photos they need for an investigation, but they cant legally confiscate or destroy un-copied originals on the spot.  The few exceptions would be at military bases and nuclear reactors.

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but can't you deny law inforement even copies of your photos/vidoes unless legally compelled by court order?

That's my understanding, and I know businesses have done that to protect themselves from liability.
It's your call, and in special cases it's not unusual for photographers or news agencies to make copies available without a court order in the interests of good relations.  In either case, it's not legal for someone to confiscate or destroy a photographers originals in the field, such as with the OHP case in Oklahoma City where the police handed an illegally seized camera around trying to figure out how to delete possibly incriminating photos.

You have had someone actually read that document ? Its the length of the Declaration of Independence..lol
Plus if you dont present me with a pair of 2X glasses. Forget about it.

Yes, I have...I figured this person scanned it and let me go.  There's enough info on that sheet to dissuade any LEO from trying to say 'you can't take pictures here'.

Of course handing them your attorney's card works as well

Yes, that would do it also...

Hoss,

And then I would submit if it is related to national security, it shouldn't be out in public in the first place.


What America needs is more free speech!!
  - By someone, but can't remember who.

But then what do you do if it's a facility within photo-shot that has to do with national security and you're photographing it outside of a known military border fence.  Say something like Groom Lake (aka Area 51)?  And what if you have a $15,000 zoom lens that can determine the gender of a gnat from 2500 meters (for those not metric savvy, that's about a mile and a half)?

I have worked with some people associated with places like Groom lake.  Trust me, you won't get close enough to get a decent picture, even WITH that camera.  In fact, the guys there have actually extended their reach beyond the borders of the military zone into public land.  Camo-dudes is their nickname.

Here is an interesting place if one is into that conspiracy stuff.  Of particular note, is some of the equipment this guy talks about that is made here locally in little ol' Tulsey-town!  How about that?
(I will leave that as an exercise to the observer to discover which equipment that may be, but will/may confirm or deny if presented comments about it.)

http://www.dreamlandresort.com/

I'd love to have a helmet camera in one of those rare moments when I've been stopped by the police.  If the LEO complained, I could say, "If you're doing nothing wrong, you have nothing to worry about!"

The Maryland case guy had a helmet cam, the stop was uneventful, and it wasn't until he posted the movie on YouTube that the state had a complaint - however illegitimate.

Hopefully, the ACLU can help him with this travesty.

They raided his home and took his computers as well?

"A motorcyclist was showboating and recording himself doing it using a helmet cam. While stopped at a stop light, an off duty police officer stepped out of his unmarked car with his gun drawn. The rider received a citation and posted the whole episode on YouTube. 4 days later MD state police seized his computers and helmet cam and threatened to arrest him because it is illegal to record someone without their consent."

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QNcDGqzAB30[/youtube]
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BHjjF55M8JQ[/youtube]

Personally, I think that motorcyclist would piss me off in traffic, and justice was served by stopping him and giving him a hefty ticket.

Where that fell apart was how the traffic stop was made, which was indistinguishable from a carjacking.

This is not a case of state security but rather one of the highway patrol's bruised ego.  The guy that deserved the ticket incidentally documented an improper stop, and rather than acknowledge that, the highway patrol brass had a child's tantrum and dug the trooper's hole big enough to fit the whole department.

If you can walk up to someone wearing this on their head
and claim you didnt know you might be photographed...

Apparantly the law has to do with audio recordings.  Wonder how they manage to wire informants in that state.

Yeah, that guy completely deserved a reckless driving ticket. It still doesn't excuse the behavior of the officer who decided he needed to pull out his gun for a freaking daytime traffic stop. (and hide it from the officer that shortly pulled up behind the two of them)

hell, the guy even admitted he deserved the ticket.  Personally I'm not sure how I would react to some guy cutting me off in a car and jumping out with a gun telling me to get off the bike, given the fact he didn't even announce who he was until after he was up beside the guy, and never showed any kind of identification.  I think I might have pulled some avoidence menuvuers and when the marked car pulled me over say "thank god your here, that guy back there jumped out of his car and pulled a gun on me".

I have watched the video several times and the traffic stop was very professionally done with restraint.  This idiot was doing 135mph!!
Even to the point of the cop getting out and drawing the gun for the few seconds it took to see there was no threat.  No problem with the stop at all.


What I have a big problem with is the MSP response AFTER the posting.  They had nothing to apologize for.  Nothing to be ashamed of (unlike so many of these cop videos!) and yet, they reacted like this?? 

I realize we are in a headlong rush to a police state (can you spell "Patriot Act"??) but we aren't there yet!  Or maybe we are....

Drawing a weapon during a daytime traffic stop when the driver/rider's hands are clearly visible is not an example of "restraint," unless you're comparing it to actually shooting the rider.

not to mention the faliure to identify who he was.

Now, can you imagine what would have happened if the motorcycle driver had drawn his own and shot the officer, before he identified himself?  The motorcycle driver would have been well within his rights under self-defense.

That's why the officers actions were wrong.  Identify yourself first ALWAYS.

I kinda think that since the rider KNEW he was being followed by cops - he looked around to see them behind him once in the video - and the cop in front yelled out that he was a cop, and the black and white behind him was rolling up with lights and sirens at the same time - there was pretty solid evidence to this clown that he was being stopped by cops.  I believe it would stand up to more than a reasonable doubt argument that he did know they were cops.

At least if he didn't, and pulled a gun thinking these guys were hijackers and they blew him away, it would pretty much be a clear case of evolution in action.  He is already a walking organ donor driving the way he does - no brain up there - just warm body parts awaiting a transplant - so I guess I wouldn't be very sympathetic.  One can only hope he doesn't kill someone else with him when he goes out.

But my point is it was on tape having the officer NOT identifying himself first after getting out of an unmarked vehicle.  If you're getting out of a black/white in full uniform, that's a given.

Actually, when he turns around and looks at the car behind him, it's an unmarked.  So, once again, how was he to know this was a cop?

I heard all sorts of things about taking pictures in public, if you get a stranger in your shot  you need to get a written release from them in order to use that shot, unless you can't make out the person's face and can't tell who it is. (If it's for personal use only then other rules apply) Then for famous people there are no rules, they are hounded by cameras all the time and by the tabloid newspapers. The camera mounted stuff is all new and no doubt in time they will make laws about that stuff. Google is now making street level views of many of the nations bike trails with a cyclist riding the trails with a camera mounted on his bike of helmet.

How are the trails in Omaha?

You can now tour Universal Studios in LA on Google Streets

(http://i131.photobucket.com/albums/p309/kallsop2/Universal.jpg)

Actually, the laws remain the same regardless of a percieved level of fame.  What makes the differance is "news" publication and "entertainment" and/or commercial publications.  Your reference to "personal use" depends on what that personal use is.  So in other words, it doesn't matter who is photographed, or who is doing the photographing, it comes down to what the end use of said photograph is. 

PAWNEE — The Pawnee County Sheriff's Office's claim that a broken camera prevented jailers from taking Sheriff Roger Price's mugshot is being disputed by people who were booked into the jail around the same time.

Price was charged July 14 in Pawnee County District Court with grand larceny and two counts of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, all felonies.

He is accused of stealing a trailer and of driving two vehicles that were seized in drug arrests.

The Pawnee County Sheriff's Office's camera has worked, inmates say, but it hasn't captured the embattled sheriff's image.

http://www.tulsaworld.com/news/article.aspx?subjectid=11&articleid=20100806_12_A16_PAWNEE767529

It was the flash, the flash didn't go off so we'll have to try again another time.

Because the car right behind the unmarked was marked, had lights flashing, and sirens running.

I didn't see it, but wouldn't be surprised if the unmarked had one of those little bubble-gum lights in the dash...

You didn't see it, but yet you are going to make an assumption it was there and therefore say that the guy on the bike had to see it?  And kinda funny, I didn't see any flashing lights behind the unmarked when he looked back.  In fact, didn't see anything behind it except road.

The video didnt show any flashing lights, nor the audio any sirens.  When the guy came out of his car with a gun there was no way to tell that it was anything but a carjacking, and the department was probably embarrassed that their sloppiness was documented.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7iZm97_vDbc[/youtube]

OAKLAND -- The Oakland school district has agreed to pay $99,000 to settle a lawsuit filed by a photojournalist over a confrontation with its former police chief during an October 2008 protest.

Jane Tyska, who works for Bay Area News Group's Oakland Tribune, was covering an immigration march in East Oakland's Fruitvale neighborhood when she was grazed by a squad car driven by Art Michel, the school district's former police chief.

Michel accused Tyska of intentionally swinging her elbow into his car, blocking the street, and trying to incite a riot among the mostly teenage protesters. Tyska's camera was rolling during part of the heated exchange, in which the police chief called her a "lying (expletive)." Michel detained Tyska and confiscated the videotape, but it was later returned to the Tribune. The District Attorney's Office declined to file charges against the journalist. Two months later, Michel resigned.

In December, Tyska filed suit against Michel and the school district, accusing the officer of violating civil rights laws, as well as of assault and battery. Representatives from the Oakland school district settled the case through mediation, said Tyska's attorney, Terry Gross, of Gross Belsky Alonso. Michel wasn't required to participate in the process, Gross said.

Troy Flint, a spokesman for the Oakland school district, said he hadn't heard about the settlement. But, he added, "obviously, the conduct in this incident was not the type we condone, and we're happy to put this behind us."

In a prepared statement, Tyska stated, "I'm very happy that the OUSD has taken responsibility for the actions of its former police chief. "... If it wasn't for the video I shot, this abuse of power would never have come to light. It's now illegal in a dozen states to record police activity, and this case is an excellent example of why that right needs to be protected. One of the reasons people often fear cameras is because they tell the truth."