Go Back   Rangefinderforum.com > Cameras / Gear / Photography > Rangefinder Forum > Photography General Interest

Photography General Interest Neat Photo stuff NOT particularly about Rangefinders.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes

Anyone care to opine on this one? Another "prohibition" of photos ...
Old 06-27-2018   #1
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
Anyone care to opine on this one? Another "prohibition" of photos ...

As some of you might know, they are building a new football stadium in Las Vegas for the soon-to-be Las Vegas Raiders. Of course both football and Vegas fans are interested in the construction.

A sign (below, not my photo) has been causing discussion and debate as to the legality of disobeying the orders on the sign to not photograph, and to not post on social media.

My impression (not shared with some others) is that if it's visible to the public from wherever it's legal to be, it's fair game to photograph.

Below is the sign in question, and a link to an article which has a tongue in cheek attitude about it is here:

https://vitalvegas.com/raiders-stadi...-way-in-vegas/

Any comments?

__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #2
bhop73
Registered User
 
bhop73's Avatar
 
bhop73 is offline
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Los Angeles
Posts: 710
I'd guess it's for employees/construction people working on the project, based on the last paragraph.
__________________
my flickr: http://www.flickr.com/photos/bhop73/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #3
Phil_F_NM
Camera hacker
 
Phil_F_NM's Avatar
 
Phil_F_NM is offline
Join Date: Jun 2004
Location: Philadelphia, PA
Age: 42
Posts: 3,956
It absolutely is legal to take photos of the site from the vantage point of the sidewalk. Good luck to the Raiders in taking on the 1st Amendment.
As was mentioned above, the notice is probably for employees working on the site.
Then again, in the current political climate, who knows what will happen if and when a photographer has to take a case to court and it is actually tried.

Phil Forrest
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #4
Bob Michaels
nobody special
 
Bob Michaels's Avatar
 
Bob Michaels is offline
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Apopka FL (USA)
Age: 75
Posts: 3,757
Well, to start off with there is the First Amendment to the US Constitution which has been litigated at length, which says this restrictions such as imposed by this sign are not in accordance with US citizens constitutional rights since December 15, 1791 SO LONG AS YOU ARE ON PUBLIC PROPERTY. Now when you are standing on their property, they can make their rules. Anyone can make a sign but ............. I would just ignore it so long as you are on public property. If someone of authority challenges you simply ask them to do so in a recordable format so you can address it formally with their office during business hours.
__________________
http://www.bobmichaels.org
internet forums appear to have an abundance of anonymous midgets prancing on stilts
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #5
Mackinaw
Think Different
 
Mackinaw is offline
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: One hour south of the Mackinaw Bridge
Posts: 3,559
Wonder if they're using public funds to build the stadium? If they are, good luck telling the public they can't take pictures of their stadium.

Jim B.
__________________
My fancy-schmancy gallery:
http://snowcountryphotography.com

My RFF Gallery:
http://www.rangefinderforum.com/phot...user=1453&sl=m
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #6
Ko.Fe.
Kostya Fedot
 
Ko.Fe.'s Avatar
 
Ko.Fe. is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Location: MiltON.ONtario
Posts: 7,284
"What happens in Vegas, stays in Vegas". I guess they don't want to you to stick lens through the fence and document it. In this case you are taking pictures of private property. They have their case, you are snapping pictures of private property without permission.

But if it is taken with UWA lens as part of the street view, screw them.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #7
dmr
Registered Abuser
 
dmr's Avatar
 
dmr is offline
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Somewhere in Middle America
Posts: 4,521
One thing is true, however, in Las Vegas, they do (still) sometimes play the game by their own, unwritten, rules!
__________________
My (NEW) Gallery
My Blog
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #8
Dogman
Registered User
 
Dogman is offline
Join Date: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,476
Taking pictures of private property (or taking pictures of persons) that are openly visible from a public viewpoint is perfectly legal in the US. You don't need permission from anyone to do so. If you trespass on private property to take the picture, that's a different story.
  Reply With Quote

The public is funding $ 750,000,000 of the costs
Old 06-27-2018   #9
Tim Murphy
Registered User
 
Tim Murphy is offline
Join Date: Oct 2015
Location: Harrisburg, PA
Posts: 387
The public is funding $ 750,000,000 of the costs

Dear dmr,

The stadium is supposed to cost $ 1.5 billion.

Clark County, the municipality where the stadium is being built, has issued bonds to cover half of that so if you aren't on site you can most certainly take pictures as it is publicly funded.

I think the first poster was correct when they said the sign was to keep people on site from photographing the construction.

Regards,

Tim Murphy

Harrisburg, PA
__________________
Then the coal company came with the world's largest shovel
And they tortured the timber and stripped all the land
Well, they dug for their coal till the land was forsaken
Then they wrote it all down as the progress of man.
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #10
charjohncarter
Registered User
 
charjohncarter's Avatar
 
charjohncarter is offline
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Danville, CA, USA
Posts: 8,728
I might be wrong but I seem to remember that Calabasa, CA somehow got around the public property problem 4-5 years ago. If I can find the reference I'll post.

https://www.theacorn.com/articles/ca...zi-dont-click/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-27-2018   #11
nickthetasmaniac
Registered User
 
nickthetasmaniac is offline
Join Date: Jul 2011
Posts: 1,161
Quote:
Originally Posted by dmr View Post
Any comments?
My take is that this seems like poorly communicated site rules, ie. 'as a condition of your entry to site, you are not permitted to take photos and share to social media etc. etc.' (which is pretty standard practice in Aus anyway), rather than site management trying to prevent people off-site from photographing/sharing photos of the site.
__________________
Ricoh GRII | Pentax SV, SP-F, MX & LX | Leica M2 | Olympus Pen F + 35RD | Minolta Autocord | Hasselblad 500cm + SWC/m

Instagram @other_strange_creatures
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2018   #12
Jamie Pillers
Skeptic
 
Jamie Pillers's Avatar
 
Jamie Pillers is offline
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Oakland, California
Posts: 4,027
So long as you're standing on public property (say outside the fence), you can take all the photos you want. At least that's the law in California and I assume the law in Nevada must be similar.
__________________
Talk to a stranger today!

Fuji X-H1; X-Pro1; XF10; Polaroid 250 (waiting for an 'art' project)

Flickr: https://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2018   #13
sepiareverb
genius and moron
 
sepiareverb's Avatar
 
sepiareverb is offline
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: St Johnsbury VT
Posts: 8,290
While the first amendment still exists we can make pictures of the site from the public way. I suspect that this may be on the list of offensive rights that will be legislated to the new Supreme Court shortly.
__________________
-Bob
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2018   #14
css9450
Registered User
 
css9450's Avatar
 
css9450 is offline
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Chicago
Posts: 1,903
I wonder if they're aware of the guy on Youtube who shows up every Sunday (when they're not working) and films a progress video with his drone? He stays outside the site across the street. Or possibly they're trying to scare him off.
__________________
Nikon S2, S3, F, F2, F3, FM2, FA, N90S, D80, D7000, D750, Sony a6000, Canon IIf, Leica CL, Tower type 3, Zorki 4, Vito B, Perkeo II, Rollei 35....
  Reply With Quote

Old 06-28-2018   #15
iamzip
Ambitious, but rubbish
 
iamzip's Avatar
 
iamzip is offline
Join Date: Dec 2007
Location: Philadelphia, USA
Age: 43
Posts: 742
I believe it is intended for people visiting the site. It's not uncommon to see signs like this when visiting manufacturing sites, or government sites, etc. Another intention may perhaps be to keep people aware of their surroundings, as a working construction site can be a very dangerous place, and one shouldn't be staring at ones phone while walking around.
__________________
"Put my trust in God and Man"
  Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



All times are GMT -8. The time now is 19:05.


vBulletin skin developed by: eXtremepixels
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.

All content on this site is Copyright Protected and owned by its respective owner. You may link to content on this site but you may not reproduce any of it in whole or part without written consent from its owner.