# Taking Pictures in your Army Career?



## jarko (29 Oct 2004)

Hey,

When i get to basic training will i be able to bring a photographic camera and take pictures of everything i want to remember for life? I would love to keep my memories of whatever I do through my career in the forces through photos. So will i be able to bring a camera and take pictures whenever (BMQ,SQ,BIQ) and the rest of my career??.

Thx


----------



## Inch (29 Oct 2004)

In most cases, yes, of course the exception being sensitive/classified material. Other than that, snap away, just be sure to ask before snapping pics of some piece of equipment, example: When I went to Fort Knox with my reserve unit, we all wanted to take pictures of the AH-64 Apaches, we got a "dog and pony" on one in the hangar. The only pics we could take was of the outside, we couldn't take pics of the engine compartment or the cockpit since that stuff was considered sensitive.

Cheers


----------



## Tracker (29 Oct 2004)

Be careful with the camera, don't take pictures of things that might haunt you in the future.


----------



## Da_man (29 Oct 2004)

Tracker said:
			
		

> Be careful with the camera, don't take pictures of things that might haunt you in the future.




Showers?  ???


----------



## AlphaCharlie (29 Oct 2004)

On my courses last summer the instructors encouraged us to take lots of pictures, as many of them regretted not taking pics when they did their courses.


----------



## D-n-A (29 Oct 2004)

Yea, you can take a camera with you, just be carefull you don't get it broken. When I was on my basic course, I just bought one of those disposable cameras you can get at london drugs an safeway.


----------



## armyrules (31 Oct 2004)

when i go for basic trainig i am definitaley bringing a camera with me i want to capture every part of my wonderfulcareer


----------



## Gouki (31 Oct 2004)

I plan on making scrapbooks out of all my military experiences... Basic, and onward...Which will probably end up including SQ and infantry QL3.. and 4... and up to 8 or however ungodly amount they have now.


----------



## arctictern (31 Oct 2004)

I am going to take a picture of the really mean seargent when he is yelling at me so I never forget it.


----------



## jarko (31 Oct 2004)

Sweet, gonna buy a shitty camera at the $1 store.


----------



## Korus (31 Oct 2004)

Be careful of what you take pictures of on your BMQ..

I've got a nice buddy of some of my buddies when the pl marking time as punishment in the barracks by our bunks.. but a MCpl was around the corner and saw the flash, and then me fumbling to hide the camera. Luckily someone else distracted him by doing something stupid (intentionally or unintentionally, I'm not sure) and he forgot about it.

The best part was that I managed to stay in step the whole time  ;D


----------



## Pte. Bloggins (1 Nov 2004)

LOL!

Yeah, but definetly take pictures, that way when you tell your friends stories about what you did this summer they'll have to believe you. (My mom liked the one of me ironing my bed...she asked why I never clean my room like that at home  ;D)


----------



## brneil (3 Nov 2004)

Take pictures sure but two warnings.

Don't take a picture of anything that you don't want others to see they have a funny way of getting out and don't try to sell a picture taken while you are on work hours the commercial rights belong to the CF for all photos taken while on duty.


----------



## Torlyn (3 Nov 2004)

brneil said:
			
		

> Take pictures sure but two warnings.
> 
> Don't take a picture of anything that you don't want others to see they have a funny way of getting out and don't try to sell a picture taken while you are on work hours the commercial rights belong to the CF for all photos taken while on duty.



IS that law written somewhere?  I can see pictures that have images that are the CF's (equipment, uniform, etc.), but I can't see them denying ownership rights for say, landscape photography taken on duty..  Could be wrong.

T


----------



## Goober (3 Nov 2004)

Wouldn't it be a conflict of interest thing? Something written on your contract when you first signed up?


----------



## chrisf (3 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> IS that law written somewhere?   I can see pictures that have images that are the CF's (equipment, uniform, etc.), but I can't see them denying ownership rights for say, landscape photography taken on duty..   Could be wrong.
> 
> T



It was produced while you were in their employ... therefore, it belongs to them.


----------



## Torlyn (3 Nov 2004)

Just a Sig Op said:
			
		

> It was produced while you were in their employ... therefore, it belongs to them.



Really?  Because even though I'm a photographer, when I'm working for a firm in Calgary (subcontracting, I guess you'd call it), I still own any images taken that aren't a direct result of my contract...  (ie doing a wedding if I get a good architectural shot, I own it, not the studio.)  Wonder if the CF have it written down somewhere...

T


----------



## Slim (3 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Really?   Because even though I'm a photographer, when I'm working for a firm in Calgary (subcontracting, I guess you'd call it), I still own any images taken that aren't a direct result of my contract...   (ie doing a wedding if I get a good architectural shot, I own it, not the studio.)   Wonder if the CF have it written down somewhere...
> 
> T



Why, why oh why must you people always argue. You have been told...By a member of the CF who is in the know...and still you have to argue!

When (or should I say IF) you are ever employed by the CF I hope you try that particular brand of BS on your drill instructor...See where it gets you. In the mean time why don't you take the cotton out of your ears and put it in you mouth and listen to the people who know what they're talking about.

Respectfully

Slim


----------



## chrisf (4 Nov 2004)

Torlyn said:
			
		

> Really?   Because even though I'm a photographer, when I'm working for a firm in Calgary (subcontracting, I guess you'd call it), I still own any images taken that aren't a direct result of my contract...   (ie doing a wedding if I get a good architectural shot, I own it, not the studio.)   Wonder if the CF have it written down somewhere...
> 
> T



Because copyright law is a bizzare quagmire.

Or ditto on what Slim said. Take your pick.


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

For the love of Pete, I asked a question, asked for some solid material to back your claims (Slim) and that's the BEST you can come up with?  Sig Op, I understand that copyright laws are a bitch but from what I've found on the justice website is that copyright images are owned by the person CREATING said image...  Therefore, if I take the picture, I own it, not the CF, unless I'm reproducing an image of an already copyrighted item.  (ie, taking a picture of a Sea King, the CF owns that image, as it's their bird) If you've got anything to disprove that, please let me know, I don't want to make any mistakes when I go.

Slim, just because *you* say something is true, doesn't mean I'll take it as such.  If you've got concrete evidence to support your claims, great, I'll bow down to that, but until then, quiet.  IF you're "in the know"  then let me know where I can find that info, or why *you* are in the know.  Last I checked in your profile, you're retired (not a knock, I obviously hold your service to our country in high regard), so whatever info you may have could very well be out of date.  I'm not trying to argue, I'm trying to get a solid basis for the information you're posting, that's it.  If you've got it, post it.  If not, don't.

T


----------



## Slim (4 Nov 2004)

Torlyn

Access to a military base or installation is controlled by a set of rules called DCAARS (Defense Control Area Access Regulations)

Effectively when you enter a military controlled area your rights dissapear.

They can stop you for no reason, search your car for no reason, detain you for no reason And yes, even if you're still a civvie! There is a sign at the entrance to each base in Canada stating this.

Included in these rules are very specific rules about picture taking. They are not normally enforced but easily could be (including seizing your camera without cause)

Now these rules are not usually enforced without good reason but they can be at the drop of a hat. As a militia MP I have, in the past, dragged a pair of civvie journalist from their vehicle kicking and screaming about their rights...And taken their cameras. It was explained to them in detail... after they were flex-cuffed and sitting in the dirt.

So Torlyn, the next time a serving member or former member of the CF tells you and your Ninjaclub something , sit back, be quiet and listen. 

Slim


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

Slim said:
			
		

> So Torlyn, the next time a serving member or former member of the CF tells you and your Ninjaclub something , sit back, be quiet and listen.
> 
> Slim



Blah blah blah...  Hey, that's great, except the question wasn't "what rights do I have on base" or "who can search me on base" it was "Who owns the image taken on a military base".  IF DCAARS has something on that, please forward me in the right direction.

I was stunned by your response that basically says if I (for example) were to be on base, you, for whatever reason, could completely suspend my charter rights for absolutely no reason, thereby committing a criminal act yourself...  Very interesting, Slim.  Do I doubt DCAARS?  No, not at all.  And being a reserve MP, you obviously have more experience in that area than I.  I was unable to find DCAARS anywhere (DND, justice website et al) so if you could point out it's location to me, I'd love to find the part of it that specifically deals with image rights.  And, the part that says an MP can suspend all of my rights for NO reason.

For the record, when any of the standing/retired members have pointed out my misinformation whatever the source, they've done it with proof or at least relevancy, and in those cases, I take it as gospel.  Those members (yourself included) know way more about it than I do, and I've never debated that.

So Slim, next time a person asks a question, read it, deliver whatever RELEVANT information you have, otherwise sit back, be quiet, and listen.


----------



## Eowyn (4 Nov 2004)

Actually, Torlyn, the person who initially brought up the fact that the CF would own the rights, is a serving JAG Officer.  Somehow I think he would know.


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

Eowyn said:
			
		

> Actually, Torlyn, the person who initially brought up the fact that the CF would own the rights, is a serving JAG Officer.  Somehow I think he would know.



That's all I needed to hear.  

Slim - All you needed to do was show me or state:

21. Except with the prior consent of a designated authority, no person shall bring into or have on any controlled access area any photographic equipment or any recording or transmitting device, whether such device records or transmits images, sounds, data or other information of any type whatsoever.

Good.  So we've determined that without permission I can't bring in photographic equipment.  DCAARS says nothing about ownership of images, but as Eowyn pointed out, a serving JAG member would know, ergo I bow to the JAG member's knowledge.

And in regards to the journalists, were they trespassing?  I'm just wondering how you were able to search for NO reason...  DCAARS has fairly specific limits to searches, by the looks of it...  It says you can be searched upon entering and exiting, right?  Other than that, you must have had "[security guard may search if there are "reasonable grounds to believe that the personal property is or may contain anything that is likely to endanger the safety of any person within the controlled access area."  Perhaps our JAG could enlighten me...

T


----------



## Slim (4 Nov 2004)

I arrested them because they were photographing something they were told not to...

Torlyn

A military base is a different world. YOu give up your normal rights when you enter one...Oh sure they have to justify what they do but, believe me, the rules to seize and search are VERY DIFFERENT from out on the street. The MP's do no need your consent to search, nor do they have to see you doing something wrong...All they need to stop you is a reasonable beliefe that you are doing, or have done, something that is against the rules.

Are you a journalist by chance...?


----------



## Torlyn (4 Nov 2004)

Slim,

  No, I'm not a journalist (I figured that they probably tried something like that) nor do I have any love for them.  I used to work security at some of the hospitals in Calgary, and have had more than my fair share of run-ins with them, so that I couldn't be one.  I'm a bit of an art photographer, and I've been curious about this because I do take a lot of pictures, and I do have stuff up at an art gallery in town.  I was curious as to whether I would be able to do that (show my photos), should I get in to the CF and take any on base.  I PM'd brneil, (he's the JAG officer Eowyn mentioned) so I'm sure he'll be able to respond to that specific.

In regards to the "different world" on base, I understand that now (I read DCAARS) and wholeheartedly agree with the policy.  Thanks for pointing it out.

  As for the journalists, they should have known better.  We had to launch a few from the children's when we had a Jehova's Witness girl in who was refusing blood transfusions.  (Her father was fighting it, so there was a bit of a media scrum)  It blew my mind that they believed they had the right to invade the privacy of all of the sick kids on the cancer ward just to get a photo op...  Sigh.

T


----------



## brneil (4 Nov 2004)

Here is my attempt to try and put this one to rest.

There are many photos out there taken by service members while they were deployed/onduty.  The large number of these photos were not sold or otherwise used for profit but rather posted in scrapbooks or websites.  No problem.

The difficulty comes in two situations:

1) Member takes photos while on duty - According to the Copyright Act the photos are deemed to be work product  of the employer UNLESS there is an agreement in place that says otherwise.  This follows the basic premise that while you are on duty you are working for the employer and all work product therefore belongs to them.  This is not to say that you would not be able to get permission later to use the photos for any number of reasons.  Permission not really needed for personal enjoyment or keeping a scrapbook type record.

2) The second situation is in regards to classified materials/objects.  Obviously there are particular provisions in order to maintain the classified status.  These regulations are of a National Security nature and thus apply to civilians as well as CF members.

My original comment was simply to provide a warning to some that the use of photos taken while on duty for a profit reason without receiving permission from the chain of command COULD land you in hot water.  No one in the CF is trying to stop people from sharing their stories and experiences.

Hope this can put the topic to rest.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (4 Nov 2004)

I think its time to make sure of that.
Thank you, brneil.


----------

