Local Library

[Shadowman]

After decades of visiting my local library I found out they have restrictions for photography on their premises. No photographing of patrons, you cannot use the library grounds for any personal or commercial shoots. Different rules apply if you are a professional and you must register with the organization prior to any shooting. Wondered if any of your local libraries, universities, etc. have any such written policies?

[zen]

John,

I wonder if this rule applies to the entire County system, or only to your local town library which is a part of the County system? For example, in our town, the Library sits 100 feet from Town Hall, with both buildings adjacent to a decorative pond with fountain, geese, decorative plantings, etc., so would be difficult to omit the library building "and premises" from many shots of potentially photogenic subjects. My bride and I were married at town hall years ago, and I do have some shots of the location.

Your info makes me want to inquire next time I go to Town Hall or Library. Thanks for the heads up.

Zen

[Shadowman]

Hi Zen,

The policy covers the entire county, like you I've taken photos in the building and on the grounds and have never had anyone stop me. I know the central library have cameras mounted everywhere and I've seen the guards monitoring them, I'm tempted to register just in case I'm stopped in the future.

[William W]

Sure do.

And Shopping Malls; Schools; etc - mostly all 'public' enclosed areas have a 'policy' which is enforceable under law.

Here, the law regarding is mainly always is under 'The Enclosed Lands Act' or similarly titled State Legislation.

Funny, I was discussing this topic a few weeks ago with one of my daughters - she has a passion for some particular peculiar aspects of the law: it appears that the Westfield Group have removed many if not all of the signage at the Malls' entrances which (used to) explain the prohibition of Photography within their Shopping Complexes.

Apparently and according to "informed sources" the "new look" Westfield Shopping Complexes want to ensure 'a positive customer experience' and apparently, burly security officers telling customers that they cannot take pictures was not an enriching customer experience - so the signage has been removed but the right to prohibit photography still exists.

I tend to carry a camera just about everywhere I go. And I have grey hair, so with that many flying hours up I am not that fussed and don't usually get ruffled easily.

In simple terms the laws are all similar in each State - the owner (or the Authority) has the right to prohibit or restrict Photography within the 'enclosed land' - that means whilst the Photographer is 'standing within the enclosed land'.

The law does not mean a person cannot carry a camera inside enclosed land, nor does it mean that the owner or authority has the right to look at, nor handle one's camera or look at the images in the camera.

Nor does the law mean the owner or authority has the right to instruct the deletion of any image created before the instruction was given to cease making images, because Photography is prohibited.

It is interesting. Perhaps the rapid development of Mobile Phone Imaging has been the catalyst for the Westfield Group to change their thinking on a few things . . . I should go to the Library this afternoon after work and see what happens when I snap a photo of the new Librarian!

WW

[William W]

. . . Your info makes me want to inquire next time I go to Town Hall or Library. Thanks for the heads up.

I think it is better to inquire via a dis-associated and non-involved source as to what is the law.

Asking the Librarian what one can and cannot do inside the Library, is like asking the Headmaster if you can have an extension for the assignment that HE set for you to do . . . much better to find out from the Curriculum Documents what are the rules set down for the granting assignment extensions.

WW

[IzzieK]

Interesting thread. I will attempt to go to the Library tomorrow and see how I go...

[Shadowman]

Hi Izzie,

The restrictions come as a surprise because I've used my camera on numerous occasions, once I was even in the stacks testing out an UWA; even had it set on the floor and remotely triggered and as I said I know there are multiple cameras throughout the library and know one said a thing. I've had guards admonish me for eating a candy bar yet never a word about my camera.

[rpcrowe]

Unless, signs forbidding photography are posted in areas to make them visible, I would just shoot and worry about the legality later. After all, the "camera police" won't take away your camera.

I shot a lot of jewelry stalls in the Grand Bazaar of Istanbul until, one vendor pointed out a "No Photography" sign. I stopped shooting then but, still had a nice collection of jewelry imagery. I noticed that all the stalls had the "no photography" sign, but didn't see them until mention was made...



I visited a jewelry shop in Hong Kong and was told that it would be fine to shoot the artists making the jewelry but asked not to photograph the sales floor because of security reasons. That seemed like a very reasonable rule and I complied with it...

[Shadowman]

The library mentioned also had rules for the media, if the assignment (video or photography) was library related then its okay, if the assignment was "man on the street" then it is a no-no. The media is responsible for obtaining any releases. Amateur photography only allowed if permission granted, but no photographing patrons.

[John 2]

Sure do.

And Shopping Malls; Schools; etc - mostly all 'public' enclosed areas have a 'policy' which is enforceable under law.

Here, the law regarding is mainly always is under 'The Enclosed Lands Act' or similarly titled State Legislation.

Funny, I was discussing this topic a few weeks ago with one of my daughters - she has a passion for some particular peculiar aspects of the law: it appears that the Westfield Group have removed many if not all of the signage at the Malls' entrances which (used to) explain the prohibition of Photography within their Shopping Complexes.

Apparently and according to "informed sources" the "new look" Westfield Shopping Complexes want to ensure 'a positive customer experience' and apparently, burly security officers telling customers that they cannot take pictures was not an enriching customer experience - so the signage has been removed but the right to prohibit photography still exists.

I tend to carry a camera just about everywhere I go. And I have grey hair, so with that many flying hours up I am not that fussed and don't usually get ruffled easily.

In simple terms the laws are all similar in each State - the owner (or the Authority) has the right to prohibit or restrict Photography within the 'enclosed land' - that means whilst the Photographer is 'standing within the enclosed land'.

The law does not mean a person cannot carry a camera inside enclosed land, nor does it mean that the owner or authority has the right to look at, nor handle one's camera or look at the images in the camera.

Nor does the law mean the owner or authority has the right to instruct the deletion of any image created before the instruction was given to cease making images, because Photography is prohibited.

It is interesting. Perhaps the rapid development of Mobile Phone Imaging has been the catalyst for the Westfield Group to change their thinking on a few things . . . I should go to the Library this afternoon after work and see what happens when I snap a photo of the new Librarian!

WW

This situation is precisely reflected in England (not sure about Scotland - Donald?) with the only difference being terminology i.e. for "Enclosed Space" read "Private Property" which these days includes Railway stations now that they are in private ownership. Schools and in fact anything where children are involved is likely to lead to trouble and are best avoided. Public buildings generally expect you to obtain permission and sometimes sign an undertaking not to use the images for commercial purposes. I have been charged for this privilege in a couple of cathedrals. In the case of Museums and Galleries, there is usually a prohibition on photographing the exhibits, a restriction not generally exercised on the continent nor I noted in Toronto whilst I was there, where the only prohibition is the use of flash. No matter where, I always ask and have rarely been refused.

[William W]

. . .This situation is precisely reflected in England (not sure about Scotland - Donald?) with the only difference being terminology i.e. for "Enclosed Space" read "Private Property" which these days includes Railway stations now that they are in private ownership. Schools and in fact anything where children are involved is likely to lead to trouble and are best avoided. Public buildings generally expect you to obtain permission and sometimes sign an undertaking not to use the images for commercial purposes. I have been charged for this privilege in a couple of cathedrals. In the case of Museums and Galleries, there is usually a prohibition on photographing the exhibits, a restriction not generally exercised on the continent nor I noted in Toronto whilst I was there, where the only prohibition is the use of flash. No matter where, I always ask and have rarely been refused.

I think we each need to be comfortable with what procedure we adopt.

I rarely ask permission, though sometimes I do. For example (much like Richard’s experience) inside a Jewellery Store there was clearly a BIG sign in the Sales area - “PHOTOGRAPHY PROHIBITED” ... but there was a rear section of the store where the Artists/Technicians were working and rolling Gold Thread to use in Crockery: I found the work fascinating and (my Italian no so good) motioned to my camera asking if I could make some pictures – with gusto a loud responses “Prego” when they got the gist that I was making close up images of their hands and their tools of the thread, they opened the door to give me a better position . . . it’s all about communication and rapport (and my wife consequently spent money too, so it’s all a part of creating a relationship). But in a large area or big establishment (like a railway station) I wouldn’t necessarily ask anyone for permission, but I would not blatantly break the law, either.

I have a collection of (Available Light) Church Interiors. I am generally in awe of the Architecture and History contained within Churches (and Graveyards too). I started my collection many decades ago and I’ve rarely asked permission to Photograph – but I feel good putting money in the Box inside the Church – so I do.

I don’t practice any particular avoidance of Photographing Minors. Infants, Children and Youths are spectacular Subjects, often providing the most natural of human emotion without the learned responses typical of many Adults. I have been challenged a few times, but not often. I think only ever challenged at only at Sporting Events (Soccer and Field Hockey), never Swimming Event or at the Beach (go figure?) and at some of those events I was ‘officially endorsed’ by the organizers. I think a lot as to do with the gear one totes around at Minors’ Sporting Events or on the beach. If you don’t look like “one of the Dad’s” even using a big (white) lens , then my two or three cameras usually arises some suspicion – I still can’ figure out why I have never been challenged at a Swimming Pool though?

As for Kids in the street or in “Chocolate Shops” I think they’re fantastic Subjects.


I don’t avoid the Military or the Police, either, but do check what the laws are first and I always practice carrying my gear OVERTLY and with obvious intent and I make precise and purposeful movements. I also don’t avoid photographing women without asking them– again I think it is all about creating rapport and also being (feeling?) secure in carrying and using a camera.


But I think the overwhelming rule for each of us, is to do what you think is the best for all concerned.

This is an old thread which touches on many of these related topics.

WW