ROLLIE'S URBAN LANDSCAPES AND TRAVEL PHOTOS!
ALL JOURNALS AND PICTURES ON THIS SITE ARE COPYRIGHT PROTECTED!
I have compiled a large collection of images on Fotki with a variety of aviation and travel photos. The site includes works of many individuals, organizations and news sources. Copyrights are duly noted on each image. The works primarily range from the 1940s to the present day. Scroll the index found on the left side of the web pages to find specific subjects. Enjoy the archive....
NO PHOTOGRAPHS ON THIS SITE MAY BE PURCHASED BY THE PUBLIC.
IMAGES NOT TAKEN BY ME ARE CREDITED TO THE APPROPRIATE PERSON/ORGANIZATION PROVIDING THE EXHIBIT.
FOR THE MOST PART, ANYONE OBJECTING TO THEIR PHOTOGRAPH APPEARING ON MY SITE WILL BE RESPECTED AND THE IMAGE, UPON REQUEST, WILL BE REMOVED.
AS TO PROFESSIONAL MODELS APPEARING AT A FREE PUBLIC EVENT/VENUE, YOUR REQUESTS IN THE FUTURE FOR REMOVAL WILL MOST LIKELY BE DENIED UNDER THE LAWS OF THE UNITED STATES UNLESS PHOTOGRAPHY AT THE SITE WAS NOT PERMITTED OR YOU MADE A REQUEST TO ME AT THE EVENT NOT TO PHOTOGRAPH.
THE FOLLOWING TEXT: COURTESY OF BERT P. KRAGES II, ATTORNEY AT LAW
The right to take photographs in the United States is being challenged more than ever. People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples have included photographing industrial plants, bridges, buildings, trains, and bus stations. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.
Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well-being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has an established history of contributing to improvements in civil rights, curbing abusive child labor practices, and providing important information to crime investigators. Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. Furthermore, the increase in people carrying small digital and cell phone cameras has resulted in the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of criminals.
The General Rules:
The general rule in the United States is that anyone may take photographs of whatever they want when they are in a public place or places where they have permission to take photographs. Absent a specific legal prohibition such as a statute or ordinance, you are
legally entitled to take photographs. Examples of places that are traditionally considered public are streets, sidewalks, and public parks.
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you need permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request.
Some Exceptions to the Rule:
There are some exceptions to the general rule. For example, commanders of military installations can prohibit photographs of specific areas when they deem it necessary to protect
national security. The U.S. Department of Energy can also prohibit photography of designated
nuclear facilities although the publicly visible areas of nuclear facilities are usually not designated as such. Members of the public have a very limited scope of privacy rights when
they are in public places. Basically, anyone can be photographed without their consent except when they have secluded themselves in places where they have a reasonable expectation of
privacy such as dressing rooms, restrooms, medical facilities, and inside their homes.
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:
Accident and fire scenes
Bridges and other infrastructure
Residential and commercial buildings
Industrial facilities and public utilities
Transportation facilities (e.g., AIRPORTS)
Criminal activities and arrests
Law enforcement officers
ADDITIONAL REVIEW OF PHOTOGRAPHER'S RIGHTS IN THE UNITED STATES FOLLOWS; COURTESY OF LINDSAY DOBSON PHOTOGRAPHY:
With respect to photographs taken in public, many people believe that you will need their consent before capturing or publishing a photograph containing their likeness or that of their children. If that were the case, it would be close to impossible for anyone to enjoy photography and our news and tourism industries would soon grind to a halt. In most circumstances it is largely impossible to avoid creating photographs in public or at public events which are devoid of people, and is it often the people who make an image both interesting and appealing (this is particularly true of ‘street photography’). Although the law is clear and unambiguous photographers are still sometimes subject to difficulties when innocently taking or publishing images containing people or children, and this article seeks to address the more common misunderstandings.
Do I need permission before I take someone’s photograph?
Not at all. There are no laws preventing photography of people, children, buildings, objects or anything else in a public place, or in any place open to the public where photography is not expressly prohibited. There is no expectation of privacy in a public place. But don’t be a pest, and don’t get in anyone’s way or cause an obstruction – if you’re overly persistent you could face a harassment charge (most usually this will be the province of the more aggressive realms of the paparazzi).
Can I publish photographs containing people and children?
Of course you can. For images captured in locations where there can be no reasonable expectation of privacy, the photographer does not need the permission of the individual(s) who appear in that photograph in order to publish it online, in a newspaper, textbook or in a magazine. The Data Protection Act includes a ‘special purposes’ exemption and such publication would not constitute a breach of the right to privacy. The general term for such usage is ‘editorial’ and the photographer can pass on or sell their work for that purpose (and may use the images for the purpose of artistic expression). Good examples include news reporters, event photographers and of course paparazzi. The same rights extend to all photographers, amateur or professional. Contrary to what most people think, there is no separate law governing the taking of or publication of images of minors (providing the image is not used to depict the indecent exploitation of children).
When can’t I publish pictures of people or children?
As mentioned earlier, you can’t publish images which depict a private act, or images captured on private land where the landowner forbids photography. Nor can you publish photographs which are defamatory (or indecent if the subject is a minor).
If I take somebody’s picture do they have the right to a copy of it?
I photograph events, just like other hobbyists, but quite often people get in touch and ask for digital copies of my photographs. Under Copyright law every image you create is your intellectual property – the people appearing in the photographs do not have any rights to the image and they do not have the right to ask for copies of your work. If that were the case, the photography industry couldn’t exist. It’s up to you what you do with your pictures, however photographs are sold according to their form and the manner in which they will be used. As a general rule a full resolution digital image will command a much higher pricetag than a print, simply because a digital copy (if the license permits it) can be used many times over online or as hard copy.