This is what I think the default standard is. It pops up quite a bit on photography forums. The general consensus is that photos taken in a public space, for personal use, are permitted under the law and require no permission. But you might want to ask before you film/photograph a stranger out of respect, or at least in the interest of personal safety. In most jurisdictions, ALL commercial use requires written consent. Some even require payment. Which may not apply to a non-profit.
1 Like
I would think with Makerspace being a membership club that it might have to be a rule clarifying members privacy in the common spaces. Not sure if there is currently such a rule. Still, common courtesy would seem to dictate that a photographer SHOULD ask first, As silly as it sounds, perhaps it would help if you had a sign you could plop on the table that says, “No photos please” . This would also ensure no one photos your work if you’re left it to take a break.
3 Likes
DMS is a private place not a public space. People do work on things they do not want published - artists and inventors.
It is not too much to ask if you can take photos.
9 Likes
I respectfully disagree. DMS was founded on a culture of openness and it’s one of our greatest strengths as members and as an organization. If you’re working on something so secret it can’t be photographed or filmed then it’s not a good idea to work on it at DMS (this should be common sense). If someone says, hey, don’t film me or my thing, got it, I’ll respect that and other folks should too. Expecting people to ask like you’re in their domicile is bunk.
2 Likes
Sorry, I’m with Photomancer on this. DMS is not a public place. Photogs should ask. Its not a huge thing to do so. Security and surveillance systems withstanding obviously.
1 Like
Cool, no need to apologize. I didn’t say it was a public place. The focus of my post is the cultural shift. I want the space where this is okay to do (see post below).
You seemingly don’t. At least that’s how I see it. I hope someone comes by and films something at 3:00 AM in the morning and shares it and I hope the people who see it learn something or maybe even join.
1 Like
Here are some candid photos I’ve taken at DMS over the last few years (I’ve taken thousands of photos and hundreds of videos there). It’s inspiring to see what goes on at the space and many people have told me exactly that. If you’re in one of these photos and want it removed let me know. Otherwise… Enjoy. Maybe we can start a thread where we can share this kind of stuff rather than figure out how to remove it from our culture.
A Unimog fits inside. Good to know.
Witchcraft caliber woodworking.
Stormtroopers in the making.
Finance was once one of the things we made.
Holy shit that’s a lot of parts.
Class on 3D scanning larger objects.
Lifting the roof on a bus to home conversion.
Opening the first tool we imported from China ourselves.
Laser cut terrain based on open geographic data.
3 Likes
It is a treasured strength. But we also chose an opt-in paradigm. It is not a requirement, but an encouragement.
btw - that pic of the bus roof raising was a great memory of that feat, lol. For those that don’t know, a couple bought a big diesel pusher school bus. They made it into a RV\tiny home. Part of that was cutting the roof off and raising it a few feet higher.
https://thebigbustheory.wordpress.com/2016/03/
1 Like
I have a feeling that the opposite may be true.
DMS is a private entity. Even ‘public’ places like WalMart can prohibit you from filming etc… whilst on their property. More accurately, you need to ask permission FIRST. I believe DMS is no different.
If DMS has a policy on allowing filming/photos then all members should have agreed to it when signing up, and all guests should be made aware and also agree.
The crux of the question is really “Does DMS have a filming/photo policy in place?”. If no, then there is no implicit permission to film and DMS can ask anyone who IS taking pictures, without explicit permission, to delete said pictures and refrain from further activity. Notice the distinction between implicit and explicit.
This is no different from someone taking pictures of your house/property. If they are in a public place (i.e. the street) taking pictures then you can’t stop them. If they are on your lawn then you can stop them, force them to delete the pictures, sue them (interestingly for copyright infringement) unless you have given explicit permission to a) be on your property and b) film from that location.
Having said all this, if DMS DOES explicitly allow filming/pictures then the photographer should still certainly make sure that the subject is OK with that. This doesn’t mean the subject can STOP the photographer since explicit permission from the property owner (DMS) was given, but it is certainly polite and considerate.
Regarding working on intellectual property at DMS, unless everyone has signed an NDA (whic I am sure is not the case) then it is not the place to work on said project. Even talking with a friend can completely invalidate a patent and certainly risk someone stealing the idea.
2 Likes
DMS isn’t a public space though. It is a privately funded, membership driven organization. DMS can set their own rules.
Taking pictures from the street, which truly IS a public place is perfectly OK, but step onto DMS controlled property and it is no longer ‘public’.
1 Like
There is one mention of photography in the standing rules:
Harassment includes the following, without limitation:[…]
- Harassing photography or recording, including logging online activity for harassment purposes
As part of the anti-harassment policy, it hinges on a specific intent.
The BoD could of course adopt a policy, but absent one, I’d simply assume the same rules that apply in public.
But even being a private space, who holds this implicit authority you mention? Officers granted no executive authority? The Board granted no such authority? Chairs granted limited authority over their areas’ operations?
If this is truly seen as a problem, the BoD can create a policy and enable people to enforce it.
Absent this …
- If you’re at DMS, expect to occasionally be filmed, photographed, or otherwise recorded for personal consumption
- If you’re filming, photographing, or otherwise recording at DMS, don’t be an a__hole
4 Likes
“Generally if a private property is open to the public (like a restaurant, retail store, tourist areas, etc) you are allowed to take photographs and video unless it is expressly posted somewhere on the premise that you can’t. In most cases it’s okay to assume you’re allowed to take pictures and video in a shop that doesn’t expressly forbid it.”
From https://lifehacker.com/5912250/know-your-rights-photography-in-public
Except we are not that. The door is locked, People can’t just walk in uninvited.
We have classes open to the public. The public is allowed inside … many times the front door is unlocked before classes
1 Like
I like that last bit in particular.
Plus for many of those large wide focus shots, it’s entirely possible that, even if you go around and ask /everyone/ in the background that by the time you got back and went about framing your shot those people would even be in the frame and other people would be. For the close ups of a person and their work sure, it’s polite to ask first, but the shots of the space in general with lots of people it seems a little unrealistic
2 Likes
While we may allow them in classes, it requires someone to open the door. We are a MEMBERSHIP based organization. We are not at all public. We have events that we may invite public people in but by default that is not how we operate.
We are about to have a gift shop and a public rent-able classroom in the expansion. Some areas will be open to the public.
1 Like
I think your missing my point, for your inference made by the lifehacker link, we aren’t public and shouldnt expect to be photographed based on that.
I get what you are saying. We would be more compared to a reservation only restaurant or one that you are only allowed up front until you are guided to your seat.
I think you misunderstand me. Publishing photos of another’s intellectual property without permission is illegal under copyright law, but given the fact that the building is already under video surveillance, there is no reasonable expectation that one wouldn’t be photographed. I would still ask permission before taking pictures of someone else’s work, but if it weren’t published it wouldn’t be a crime. There being limited rules regarding photography in the space, I think that is where things stand. I welcome clear rules regarding photography in the Space and would happily abide by them.