Bridge District threathens photographer after noticing he shot the Golden Gate Bridge from an “illegal angle”
Feb 18, 2020
Dunja Djudjic
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Share:
Bay Area photographer Bruce Getty is facing legal action over a photo of the Golden Gate Bridge. According to the Bridge District, Getty took a photo of the bridge from an “illegal angle.” This led to him getting a cease and desist order and he’s threatened with prosecution if he shoots near the same area again.
If you visit Getty’s Instagram page, you’ll see plenty of photos of the Golden Gate bridge. Speaking to abc7 News, the photographer said that he’s “just a guy who likes to go on the rocks, and get a unique angle of the bridge.” He added that he’s “not the only one who does it.” Still, it wasn’t enough to save him from legal trouble over one of his images. It was taken from below the iconic bridge, with a 2018 Blood Moon photo composited into it.
According to the same source, Getty was accused of trespassing into the restricted area underneath the span to get his shot. Because of this, he received a cease and desist order from the law firm representing the Bridge District. They are also reportedly asking for any profits Getty has made on the image.
The Bridge District spokesman, Paolo Cosulich-Schwartz, said that they “enforce the law when it comes to sharing pictures of restricted areas at the bridge.” Still, Getty claims that he didn’t sell a single copy of this image, and he refuses to take it off his website.
Now, the thing is that there are security fences and a clear “no trespassing” sign in the area. Getty even explained how he got around the fences when the tide was low. He added that he got the ticket for trespassing at the same place back in 2014. Then last December, he says that he was stopped by the police for the same reason, in the same area. The police officer reportedly told him that he wouldn’t give him a ticket, but asked him to delete his photos. Getty claims that he refused.
Now, I’m not a lawyer. Just like Getty, I’m also “just a nobody taking pictures.” And while I’m usually on photographers’ side, it seems to me that he’s in the wrong here. There is a fence. There is a sign that forbids trespassing. Just because the tide is low, that doesn’t mean you can and should bypass the fences and take photos in restricted areas. That’s just my opinion, but I’d love to hear what you think about this case. Who’s in the right here?
Update 20 February 2020:
We have heard from the photographer Bruce Getty who has shared more info and his side of the story with us. He believes that the Bridge District is simply cracking down on photographers who have taken photos from this angle so they can “hunt for money.” Something like this has also been discussed here.
As I mentioned, Getty sees himself as “just a nobody taking photos.” However, he’s pretty darn skillful in my opinion, and photography has been more than a hobby for him. It has been, quite literally, a lifesaver. Getty was struggling with cocaine and alcohol addiction for years before he was admitted to Atascadero State Hospital in 2008, where he spent three years.
In 2011, Getty used an insurance check to buy a Nikon D600 and a computer from FireSide Camera. Photography has helped him to stay on the right track, and the Golden Gate Bridge has been one of his favorites hooting subjects. Hee keeps trying to find new and unique angles, which is what got him into trouble with the Bridge District and the police.
Getty tells DIYP that the area he was standing is not supposed to be off-limits. He was there on Christmas day with his fellow photographer friends, and there’s a “gray area” that shouldn’t be restricted.
“I’ve always accessed that place during low tide and the coastline is not supposed to be off-limits unless it’s specified by the military.” He says that there is an elevated road that is off-limits, but the same restrictions aren’t applicable to the coastline. “I’ve been there many times. It’s not a sensitive area and it’s not any more dangerous than any other area around the Golden Gate.”
The photo, as I mentioned, is a composite, which could potentially complicate the case even further. Getty photographed the bridge in 2014, while he captured the photo of the moon “in either 2018 or 2016,” as he says. However, in their cease and desist order, the Bridge District cites 2016 as the year of the alleged trespass, based on the moon photo. The thing is: the moon wasn’t photographed from the same “illegal angle,” and maybe not even in 2016.
Here are screenshots Getty sent us, showing the places where he was standing while taking the photos in question:
Another tricky thing is that the other side of the bridge doesn’t seem to be off-limits. The photos from a similar angle can easily be taken while staying on the other side of the “no trespassing” sign. Getty refers to some of his other images of the bridge, wondering: “Are these illegal angles because I’m pointing past the sign, but I’m not on the other side of the sign?”
[via FStoppers]
Dunja Djudjic
Dunja Djudjic is a multi-talented artist based in Novi Sad, Serbia. With 15 years of experience as a photographer, she specializes in capturing the beauty of nature, travel, and fine art. In addition to her photography, Dunja also expresses her creativity through writing, embroidery, and jewelry making.
Related Posts
Taking the “impossible” photos of the Milky Way above the foggy Golden Gate Bridge
Excuse Me? Why, Yes, My Camera DOES Take Great Pictures. Thank You For Noticing That
US District Court dismisses Carol Highsmith’s $1 billion copyright claim against Getty
Lily Robotics sued by San Francisco district attorney’s office
Join the Discussion
DIYP Comment Policy
Be nice, be on-topic, no personal information or flames.
37 responses to “Bridge District threathens photographer after noticing he shot the Golden Gate Bridge from an “illegal angle””
“The car’s window was open when I spotted the cellphone. I didn’t break any glass or open the door. I just reached in and took it.” Using a loophole to get past something trying to keep you out doesn’t make it ok.
I agree!
The signs are for the area, and Getty knows this. Doesn’t matter if he thinks he’s a “nobody taking photos” the law still applies to him. And yeah, he knows that for sure. This kind of attitude makes authorities crack down more and more, which in the long run makes it harder for ALL photographers.
Theft is not the same as trespassing! One is a crime, the other a misdemeanor… The sign was for the path, not the beach around it.
Sorry that’s not how trespass law works. Nice try though!
Your so called proofreader is certainly not in the right.
What is DIY about this?
Keith Jacobs are you new here? They do all kinds of photo news and have been for years.
Vincent Reyna yes. I was looking for DIY/how-to articles but it seems this is just another blog page. My search continues.
If you care to read the tabs on top of the page you might get it.
Have you seen this blog? https://macgyverphototips.blogspot.com
Years ago, this place used to be all DIY all the time. Now, you’re lucky if you see a DIY article every couple months.
Do it yourself trouble? :)
Probably not the same as it is in America, but in Australia intertidal zones (and rivers & their banks) are public property, and it’s illegal for a landholder to impede public access along them. So in this case, a photographer could walk along the intertidal zone, and shoot all they like, as long as they don’t cross the highest tide line.
Nobody cares about Australia. Go back to riding kangaroos lol
Thanks for chiming in Mr. President
I’ve been to that area of San Francisco. There are signs clearly stating that you are trespassing beyond a certain point on that beach. There are cameras all around. If you choose to ignore the signs then you should accept the consequences of your actions. Me? I stopped short and got the photos that I wanted and turned around. I don’t need the headaches and financial hit from any legal actions against me due to my poor choice of actions.
Disclaimer: IANAL
That said, he’s clearly in the wrong in that he was obviously trespassing. On the other hand, I have doubts that the Bridge District can do much about the picture itself, or even him selling the picture.
Why are those areas “restricted” in the first place? This all reads like a weird dystopian scene from a futurist’s novel. Asking him to delete the photos, demanding the profit. As far as I know that area is “restricted” to “protect the safety” of individuals who may wander into that area. Well, if someone chooses to go around the fence and into the area to risk their well-being for a cool photo, I don’t think it deserves this level harassment from the government or law enforcement.
On the other hand, if he was at the top of a truss or something the risk of falling into traffic and affecting a completely uninvolved 3rd party certainly justifies prohibiting access to that area with some kind of legal action or fine.
Ultimately though people are going to do stupid stuff – we all do from time to time. Sometimes that stuff gets us injured or killed and that’s no one’s fault but our own. I don’t believe in this level of government intervention attempting to protect us from ourselves when others aren’t in clear and present danger.
The restricted area that the photo was taken from comes very close to a sensitive security point. This is an area that is closed to the public for public safety reasons. I can’t go into further detail as to why.
Okay, so the guy is just a photographer not a terrorist. How would bridge security be able to tell the difference? Do they start profiling people or is it much easier to just make it prohibited to everyone?
Also, forcing him to delete his pictures removes his incentive to come back. It also sends a message to him and others like him not to come to the bridge and violate signs that say “no trespassing.”
I can guess.
I’d bet that area would be a great place for a terrorist to plant a bomb and blow the bridge.
No doubt every terrorist would want ‘blew up the Golden Gate Bridge’ on their resume.
I’m no angel, but when I see unambiguous signage, and especially when I am confronted by a LEO, I keep the F*** away.
Dude needs some jail time.
Would you mind an intruder(s) entering your home uninvited, esp when you’re not home? People like you make unreasonable and illogical excuses when it comes to other people’s properties and rights, but as soon as it comes to your properties and rights you suddenly change your tone. Hypocrite much?
Government property is The People’s property.
What if he was in a boat mere feet from dry land?
If I found someone photographing in my back yard I’m pretty sure I would have words to the effect of ‘cease and desist’. On the third occasion that I caught them I’d be pretty charmless about my response. This person is just making it harder for the rest of us and diminishes the strength of our moral arguments regarding reasonable access and rights to photograph in the public domain.
Super misleading headline, agree with the conclusion though.
Click bait… he trespassed. Good that he’s getting in trouble for it… and why are you posting this here? Isn’t this a DIY page?
The reason there is a fence with signage and security cameras should tell you something. The security concerns under a famous bridge are obvious. Pay him the tuition to go Con College for a few months, he will learn to behave like a decent citizen
The photo is his intellectual property. Period. The law is clear. They cannot force him to delete it or take it down.
Trespassing is a completely separate legal matter. Depending on the relevant jurisdictions and laws and regulations, it is possible the bridge district has the power to fine him or possibly refer the case to a prosecutor for potential (but unlikely) criminal prosecution. But none of that gives them any rights over the photo.
so if he came into your backyard, filmed your place and shared it online – you’d be ok with that? cause you know – it would be his intellectual property and all…….
Would I be okay with it? Probably not. Could the law do anything about it? Probably not, unless it rose to the level of harassment, stalking, invasion of privacy, or other jurisdiction-specific law. If I were a celebrity, if I were in a right to publicity state and the intruder got me in the frame, maybe.
The Golden Gate bridge is not a person. It has no privacy, feelings, or reputation to be concerned about.
In your example privacy laws would apply
Once again, the government says “don’t do it, but if you do, give us our cut and we’ll call it even.”
It’s not about the money. It’s about preventing criminals from profiting from their crimes. If they manage to make it unprofitable to violate the law, the hope is that this will deter the criminal from repeating the crime. So maybe I’m going overboard calling a trespasser a criminal but I’m just clarifying the principle of why they want to confiscate the proceeds of the picture.
They should stop wasting resources prosecuting people who go to these off limit areas. Just post warning signs, and just let Darwin take its course. If any people get injured or die just to get “the shot,” so be it. If they put themselves in harm’s way, don’t even bother sending rescue teams for them. They were warned. Now leave them be.
Don’t trespass. If you trespass and get caught don’t whine and make excuses. They don’t want people in that area and they made that clear. None of the loophole excuses carry any weight.
With that said, the authorities do not have any rights to the photo, the profits or to demand it be removed from public view. Their recourse is to charge him with trespass if they so choose and/or negotiate a deal to avoid the charge.
Bottom line amateur and professional photographers should all respect trespass notices.