Bert Krages, an attorney who specializes in photography-related legal problems and wrote the Legal Handbook for Photographers, says, "The general rule is that if something is in a public place, you're entitled to photograph it."
(¸.·´ (¸.·`¤ ☆
You may use photos of public officials without a signed release, because their occupation, by implication, overrides their privacy rights.
(¸.·´ (¸.·`¤ ☆
According to Dan Heller in his Photography Business Series, "Photos shot in public settings may not require a release is because of a term called "fair use." Fair Use: By appearing in a public place, the individuals have implied consent.
(¸.·´ (¸.·`¤ ☆
"I believe there is a good case to be made that having lots of cameras in the hands of citizens makes us more, rather than less, safe. Legally, it's pretty much always okay to take photos in a public place as long as you're not physically interfering with traffic or police operations. With the proliferation of cameras in just about every device we carry, digital photography has become too ubiquitous to stop. Let's have a truce in the war on photography and set our sights on the real bad guys. Who, it seems, don't carry cameras anyway. " - Glenn Harlan Reynolds, who teaches law at the University of Tennessee.
(¸.·´ (¸.·`¤ ☆
Public information is an essential element of the glue that holds the public interest together, and that further serves to inform, advance and protect it. It is part and parcel of this nation’s democratic fiber, soul and spine. Citizens’ rights to know, indeed, is what separates a free country from those with autocratic leaders and tyrants who can quietly cover up misdeeds and, in many countries, make opponents disappear. The right to a free press, like the other First Amendment rights to freedom of speech, of religion, of public assembly and the right to petition government for redress of grievances, are all bound together. Wrongful repression of a free press in any form is not allowed under the Constitution, and it cannot be tolerated. It squelches the public interest. And if tolerated, it would steadily encroach further and further on the public’s right to know.
