Photography ontop of City Parking garages

[Kemotblue]

OKC COPTA is now strictly enforcing any type of sight seeing and personal photography atop of city parking garages. You now have to have a city issued permit. According to EMBARK the sightseeing and photography was getting out of hand. YES this will effect you during the spring BIG 12 Tournament Baseball games where people like to tailgate in the Bricktown parking garage overlooking the field during the Bedlam game. Also residents like to park and sit and watch the fireworks during the 4th and New Years. You would be asked to leave you would have to have a city issued permit. The parking fee does not constitute a permit.

[Urbanized]

Bricktown parking garage is privately owned and operated, and in no way affiliated with COPTA/EMBARK.

[kevinpate]

I've not attended an Opening Night or any other fireworks display in ages. Where do they launch from now? Several years back I thought they used the top levels of the city garages downtown as the launch areas for the fireworks.

[shawnw]

Is this why Steve was posting photos from parking garages on Twitter today?

[bombermwc]

I'd strongly question if you can't sit in the garage and DO something. Often, groups will say they are doing something but are unable to cite an ordinance. If i choose to pay to park in a garage and then choose to sit in my car and do something, they cannot force me to leave without giving me my money back. ie, i paid for a service and im using it. If i choose to walk around a garage and take pictures somewhere, then that's also protected as long as you aren't tagged as some terrorist scoping a target and i think any officer with half a brain would be able to tell the difference. So dont confuse a security guard with a walkie-talkie as an officer of the law. DEFINITELY not the same thing.

And if they are doing this, it would be a good time to contact your councilman and file some good old fashioned griping on the matter, along with why it's beneficial. Remember, complaints are trashcan liners if they dont have something to help solve a problem or help in some way. So complain about being harrassed and then tell about how your pictures are free publicity for the city when you post on social media.

[turnpup]

Wasn't this discussed on here several years ago? Seems like Will Hider got jerked around for taking pictures from a parking garage. Or was it something else?

[tomokc]

..

[LakeEffect]

Is this why Steve was posting photos from parking garages on Twitter today?

Yes.

[SoonerDave]

OKC COPTA is now strictly enforcing any type of sight seeing and personal photography atop of city parking garages. You now have to have a city issued permit. According to EMBARK the sightseeing and photography was getting out of hand. YES this will effect you during the spring BIG 12 Tournament Baseball games where people like to tailgate in the Bricktown parking garage overlooking the field during the Bedlam game. Also residents like to park and sit and watch the fireworks during the 4th and New Years. You would be asked to leave you would have to have a city issued permit. The parking fee does not constitute a permit.

What *kind* of permit?

[Zorba]

I'll just drop this here: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Unless there is a specific ordnance, they can't prevent photography from a public location.

[stile99]

OP specifically said X passed a rule, and it affects Y. An hour later it was debunked, pointing out that Y has absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with X. Looking on X's website there is no sign of this rule, and it isn't being discussed anywhere else.

The evidence (or lack thereof) suggests bombermwc nailed it. Paul Blart: Mall Cop doesn't get to enforce laws that don't exist.

[Pete]

It was only debunked that the Bricktown garage isn't city owned.

There is in fact a city ordinance about this:

[Urbanized]

I have a little bit of insight into this issue. The conversation on Twitter involved media members, avid photographers and EMBARK. The transit/parking agency (EMBARK) has established a photography permit. The permit specifically states that professional photographers - including media - must obtain permission to shoot from garages, and in the case of the media they must inform EMBARK of the nature of the story involved. The media bristles at this part in particular, and points out that EMBARK garages are publicly-funded. EMBARK in turn states that garages are NOT taxpayer-funded, and some debate transpires regarding TIF, public agencies, bonding, etc.

Anyway, I think both sides bowed up a little bit too much in the Twitter debate and that the likely real reason for the ban/permit was not communicated very well. I suspect that the real problem they were trying to address was professional PORTRAIT (and perhaps drone) photographers who are monetizing the garages by taking senior photos, engagement photos and the like, and in some cases engaging in unsafe behavior such as walking out on ledges for good shots, etc.. This is not an imagined issue; members of the public HAVE fallen to their deaths from places like the Santa Fe garage in the past while doing foolhardy stunts.

That said, EMBARK said in Twitter convo that they have never denied access to news media, and a participating reporter vowed to test this by taking photos without seeking permission. As far as I know that happened without incident and nothing else has transpired.

The whole thing was complicated by the fact that private security guards had taken the policy as an edict to run off ANYBODY who was seen taking photos, and EMBARK said this was an incorrect interpretation that they would discuss with their security company.

Again, I really believe the policy has more to do with portrait photography than anything, watching the conversation unfold as an impartial observer.

[mkjeeves]

It was only debunked that the Bricktown garage isn't city owned.

There is in fact a city ordinance about this:

There may be an ordinance against photography but what is cited is the trespassing ordinance, and it does not say anything about photograpy. My guess is someone's interpretation is owner is not granting you permission to do anything but park, and everything else is trespassing. Sounds flimsy to me if you did park there. Walking in and shooting may be trespassing though.

§ 30-32. - Trespass on private property.

No person shall trespass on private property.

(Code 1970, § 21-118; Code 1980, § 30-32)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-33. - Unlawful possession of or trespass on City property.

No person shall unlawfully take possession of any property, real or personal, belonging to the City, or which the City shall be entitled to possess or commit any willful trespass thereon, or unlawfully withhold possession from the City. The unlawful withholding or possession of any property mentioned shall be deemed a separate and new offense for every day the possession is withheld after the demand.

(Code 1970, § 21-131; Code 1980, § 30-33)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-34. - Trespass on school property.

No person shall trespass on school property.

(Code 1980, § 30-33.1; Ord. No. 19296, § 2, 10-3-89)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-35. - Trespass on public property.

No person shall trespass on public property.

(Code 1970, § 21-132; Code 1980, § 30-34)

State Law reference— Trespass, 21 O.S. § 1835 et seq.
§ 30-35.1. - Entering on certain posted public property.

(a)

No person, other than persons exempted in Subsection (b) of this section, shall enter or remain on any public property, on which signs have been posted prohibiting the possession of any weapons on said public property, who has possession of any illegal weapons, other than firearms.

(b)

The provisions of this section shall not apply to commissioned peace officers or duly CLEET licensed armed security personnel who are under contract with the posting entity, which owns, controls, leases or operates the posted premises.

(c)

Any person guilty of violating this section shall be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(Ord. No. 20509, § 1, 1-9-96; Ord. No. 21845, § 1, 11-6-01; Ord. No. 22883, § 1, 11-22-05)

State Law reference— Right of person to control weapons on property owned by such person, 21 O.S. § 1290.22.
§ 30-35.2. - Penalties for trespassing.

(a)

Any person guilty of trespassing upon private, public, school, or other duly posted property shall upon conviction for the first offense, be guilty of a Class "a" offense.

(b)

Any person guilty of a second and/or subsequent offense of trespassing upon private, public, school or other duly posted property after a prior conviction of trespassing on the same property shall upon conviction of the second and/or subsequent offense be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(c)

Any person guilty of trespassing on private, public or school property at any time other than during posted hours of operation, and who fails to leave immediately after having been told by a police officer in person or by means of a public address system to leave the premises, shall be guilty of a Class "b" offense.

(Ord. No. 22883, § 3, 11-22-05; Ord. No. 23677, § 1, 8-26-08)
§ 30-35.3. - Defenses to trespassing.

It is a defense to prosecution for "trespassing" on private property that a person at the time of the violation:

(1)

Has permission from the owner or person in lawful possession or control of the property, to be on the property contrary to posted notice of "no trespassing" and the business hours;

(2)

Had lawful authority as a matter of law to be present, including but not limited to utility easement repair, judicial order or license; or

(3)

An emergency or necessity reasonably requires that person's presence on the property in order to prevent a different and greater or more significant and immediate harm to that person or someone else.

(Ord. No. 23677, § 2, 8-26-08)

[Pete]

^

Right, but the point is COTPA is seeking to enforce the trespassing ordinance against photographers -- for some odd and random reason.

[Urbanized]

Pete, I suspect that ordinance is a generic trespassing ordinance, which can clearly be enforced in that garage because it is 100% privately owned.

That said, that sign has been up for some time, and I believe it is a CYA sign so that they CAN trespass someone if they choose to. The law requires that there be a notice posted on private property to serve as a warning before someone can be charged with trespassing, unless they were previously given a verbal warning.

Regarding that garage and that sign, it was up before the baseball season this year, and they did not stop anyone from viewing games, nor am I aware of them stopping anyone from taking photographs (the to floor is very popular for NBA b-roll, etc).

Again, I believe that sign mostly exists so that they can trespass panhandlers, suspicious persons and people engaging in risky behavior like skateboarding where the garage would be liable in case of injury. With that sign posted the po-po can trespass someone even without being called by the garage management. It's just a tool for enforcement.

[Pete]

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

[Urbanized]

Well, I see mkjeeves pulled the actual ordinance while I was typing that. As I suspected it is a generic trespassing ordinance.

And again, as I said in my other post, I don't believe EMBARK's reasons are odd. I suspect it is mostly about professional portrait photography. Also perhaps about controlling non-parker foot traffic in garages, which can pose as one thing but be up to another (auto burglary, for instance).

I don't find any of this curious, because I see an agency trying to protect itself from liability. It's just sound business practice.

[mkjeeves]

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

The War on Photography. It's a thing.

[Urbanized]

^

COTPA was engaged in a Twitter discussion with Steve Lackmeyer where they confirmed they were specifically concerned about photographers but did not explain why.

Again, as I have stated several times now, I believe their policy exists mostly because of professional PORTRAIT photography, which is a huge business downtown with people seeking industrial and/or skyline backdrops. I think EMBARK did a poor job of explaining this in that Twitter convo.

I think they threw in the media reference on the permit as a bluff. It's only natural to only want positive stories shot from your place of business. I ask that question myself; i.e. "what is the nature of the story?"

[SoonerDave]

The War on Photography. It's a thing.

The ticket you get from the machine is, in effect, a license to enter privately owned property for the purposes allowed by the license. Certainly skateboarders or bikers haven't bought a ticket, and whether everyone in a photo shoot has is a question. If you've got a situation where certain photogs are notoriously creating a hazard with their organized shoots in a garage, creating excess pedestrian traffic, yeah, that's a problem. For some guy just taking pics over the edge and not interfering with traffic, meh, let it go. I am guessing there is/are one or two specific commercial photogs being targeted in this instance and it kinda spread.

[Pete]

Just to be clear, COTPA garages are owned by the City -- they are not private property.

[mkjeeves]

My only encounter I've had with this in OKC was several years ago while shooting photos of the newly finished underground tunnel. There is no parking ticket to be had to enter and it's generally open to the public during certain hours. I was told no photography allowed for security reasons. I was alone, wasn't shooting portraits, just walking through the tunnel with a handheld camera. Nothing was said about a permit.

[Pete]

My only encounter I've had with this in OKC was several years ago while shooting photos of the newly finished underground tunnel. There is no parking ticket to be had to enter and it's generally open to the public during certain hours. I was told no photography allowed for security reasons. I was alone, wasn't shooting portraits and nothing was said about a permit.

Which garage? Santa Fe?

[mkjeeves]

Underground tunnel. http://www.downtownokc.com/maps/underground