Pixiq

I agree with the first amendment regarding public photography but I always thought it was a secondary issue. I consider the fact the Declaration of Independence starts out stating 'life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness' are inalienable rights should seal the deal. And I quote:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed...

So the purpose of the US government is to secure my liberty and pursuit of happiness.

Interesting.

However, the Glik decision ruled that people have the Constitutional right to photograph police/public officials and said nothing about "one's own personal use". It doesn't matter what you're going to use the photos or video for.

On the other hand, how would this legal theory or opinion impact private businesses and their cameras following us wherever we go?

Arguably, that footage is solely for the business' personal use. Therefore, they don't have a First Amendment right to record us.

So if I write a book for my own personal use it's not protected speech? Must get better lock for my diary. I know, I'll just encrypt it on my hard drive. Wait a minute that won't work either since we can apparently be compelled to hand over the password.

Carlos, For the record:

I choose to record events in a public space, regardless of location, or time, using both family, friends and strangers as a back-drop for the express purpose of communicating to the "Photography is not a Crime" website, as well as other websites that our "First Amendment Rights shall not be infringed." Though my photography might be used in a "private recreational photography" context in addition, for all intents and purposes, Law Enforcement and any other Government agency shall assume that I can and will at anytime using my discression, upload my content to any website, video sharing site or blog of my choosing for the express purpose of showing that I do have a first amendment right to photography/videography.

This should meet the legal requirements listed above. Please note also that I use my real name on this blog and I can point to this entry in a future date should the need present itself.

Even a family album picture is to shared with other people, and so is a picture on your wall, unless you are a hermit. I don't understand why private speech should be less protected than public speech.

The first amendment is all well and good. But it seems that this goes beyond first amendment issues. I mean, I doubt the founding fathers had any notion that they would need to explicitly state a right to "take notes" or "make drawings" in a public area when they explicated the right to freedom of speech. It would have seemed too obvious to them that a person can take notes or make drawings of public things if they want. And taking a photograph is the 20th century rough equivalent.

It just seems absurd that one has to assert one's right to record something done in public (unless there's some exceptional reason). I doubt the founding fathers even conceived that they would need to assert such a "right to record" public things (or else they would have).

So the very fact that we have to try and PROVE our right to record public things by tying it into the first amendment right to free speech is just absurd. We shouldn't have to have an explicit right to record things that everyone can see in plain view anyway! And it's sad that, apparently, we do - even sadder that some judges feel we don't have that basic right.

What will be next: that we don't have the right to LOOK AT things that are in public view unless there's a first amendment purpose in looking at it??? Amazing.

One of the reasons I began blogging was to make certain that my photojournalistic photography, often involving police, would be interpreted appropriately as protected speech if the question were ever raised.

Thank you for keeping everyone informed about one of our most important rights and personal protections. Keep up the great work!

Even though we do not yet have a First Amendment right in all Circuit Courts of Appeal to videotape public officials in the public performance of their duties, we still have the right to videotape everyplace that is not forbidden by law.

Since all laws must conceivably serve the public interest and since most laws do, that is still a lot of places.

We must also respect the rights of subjects in our photos or videos. Fortunately, most of those rights relate to USE of the images, not to CAPTURING the images.

I know of only three cases where mere capturing of images is illegal—child pornography, certain secure military installations, and copyrighted structures (which I find to be a weird concept).

I continue to follow the principle that if I am in a public place, I may take photos of anything squarely in the public view.

Carlos: I look forward to the day when I can legally record police activity here in Illinois. In anticipation of that day I would like to purchase a PINAC press pass from you. Please let me know how much money to send and and an address or PayPal account. Thanks for all you do and have done. Ray Zell

It seems to me that EVERY TIME I take a photograph I'm doing so in order to communicate and/or express myself. If that's the only criteria then its a slam dunk.

Let's not forget that in the United States, everything is allowed unless it is forbidden. The rights laid out in the Constitution are NOT your only rights.

If there is no law against the pictures you are taking, you don't have to invoke the First Amendment at all.

Journalists—Swept Up in Mass Arrest at Occupy Oakland.

"On Saturday, Occupy Oakland re-entered the national spotlight during a day-long effort to take over an empty building and transform it into a social center. Oakland police thwarted the efforts, arresting more than 400 people in the process, primarily during a mass nighttime arrest outside a downtown YMCA. That number included at least six journalists, myself included, in direct violation of OPD media relations policy that states "media shall never be targeted for dispersal or enforcement action because of their status."

After an unsuccessful afternoon effort to occupy a former convention center, the more than 1,000 protesters elected to return to the site of their former encampment outside City Hall. On the way, they clashed with officers, advancing down a street with makeshift shields of corrugated metal and throwing objects at a police line. Officers responded with smoke grenades, tear gas, and bean bag projectiles. After protesters regrouped, they marched through downtown as police pursued and eventually contained a few hundred of them in an enclosed space outside a YMCA. Some entered the gym and were arrested inside.

As soon as it became clear that I would be kettled with the protesters, I displayed my press credentials to a line of officers and asked where to stand to avoid arrest. In past protests, the technique always proved successful. But this time, no officer said a word. One pointed back in the direction of the protesters, refusing to let me leave. Another issued a notice that everyone in the area was under arrest.

I wound up in a back corner of the space between the YMCA and a neighboring building, where I met Vivian Ho of the San Francisco Chronicle and Kristin Hanes of KGO Radio. After it became clear that we would probably have to wait for hours there as police arrested hundreds of people packed tightly in front of us, we maneuvered our way to the front of the kettle to display our press credentials once more.

When Hanes displayed hers, an officer shook his head. "That's not an Oakland pass," he told her. "You're getting arrested." (She had a press pass issued by San Francisco, but not Oakland, police.) Another officer rejected my credentials, and I began interviewing soon-to-be-arrested protesters standing nearby. About five minutes later, an officer grabbed my arm and zip-tied me. Around the same time, Ho—who did have official OPD credentials—was also apprehended."

http://motherjones.com/mojo/2012/01/journalists-arrested-occupy-oakland

"The camera is arguably one of the most important of all inventions… it is the single tool that has the ability to stop time, record history, generate art, tell stories, and communicate messages that transcend language like nothing else ever conceived." - Jim Jannard

Mike