NO PICTURES! NO PICTURES!

Tis a shame. A wonderful Art Deco building like this NEEDS photographing. Very nice Jim, very nice.

Were you standing on the publicly owned sidewalk or on private property?

Thanks Alex & Thomas.

Mateo, I was standing on a public sidewalk.
This building is owned by a large insurance company (EMC) and the guy said that they do not want it photographed.

I was going to stand my ground to prove a point but decided that it wasn't worth the hassel.

I am going to make a phone call to the City Counsel about the situation today though.

Jim

Great photo! Of course it is the camera, not the photographer - right?

You are correct dr bob, it HAS to be the camera!

I called City Hall today and talked to the legal department. They told me that I am well within my rights to photography downtown as long as I am on Public Property. The only thing they could think of is that EMC does not want the building photographed because of "Copyright Infringement".

I didn't know that you could Copyright a building

Jim

Congrats on the great images Jim. Stirling results.
Regarding the 'copyright infringement'; perhaps you could try saying "Don't worry I won't charge for these ones".

Jim, sounds like you made a wise choice going with the Leica. I don't imagine you would have been able to catch such a neat image with all the time it would have taken to set up a view camera!
Best,
Daniel

The rock and roll hall of fame tried to do the same thing about copyrighted buidling and not shooting the image. USA Supreme court ruled in favor of the photographer. So long as you are on public property, you can shoot away to your hearts content.

hmmm, a new protest march. Hundreds of photographers with hundreds of cameras.. with heh heh heh hundreds of flashes wandering about the country stunning everyone with their mass (non-violent) attacks on locations like this..

ahhh if ya'll could only see the carton that's playing in my head right now.. hee hee hee.