Is Photography Dead?

jamusu · Feb 4, 2008

Scootermm.

Point well taken, but I never once became overheated. They did. They were upset that I asked for their badge numbers. Once again, point well taken.

Also, is it too much to ask that we no longer use the term rentacop to describe the campus policemen. This term as been used a couple of times. There may be some among us who are security guards and I don't want any of them to be unintentionally offended by continuing to use it.

Is photography dead? I hope not because I only started my photographic journey exactly two years ago last month.

Jamusu.

photomc · Feb 4, 2008

Is photography dead? No. Has our ability to photograph become problematic? Yes. Have been out with Matt (scootermm) and we have been asked what we were doing (none law enforcement, though). Overall, most people will ask what is going on (hey those are some big, strange looking cameras) so it is normal for someone to ask.

Part of what we do, makes us more of a focus (no pun intended) for people to notice. If we were using a cell phone camera or some smaller camera we could take photographs much easier and no one would even notice. Climb under a darkcolth of a view camera or set up a tripod and see who comes out of the woodwork. These are paranoid times, and we should be aware that not everyone in the public has an open mind about such things. Imagine if you go to a playground to photograph kids doing what kids do...having fun. Now consider that there is a parent who for whatever reason suspects you have less than photographic/artistic thoughts...the police will be there in no time. Is that right, not in my mind, but I understand how the parents might feel (even though my kids are adults now). We should do what we can to ease the concerns of the public by informing them of what we are doing when ask, just as Jamusu did. The campus police did not get upset because he was photographing the construction, they became upset over the question about badge numbers (and I actually understand that - they don't want to here from someone about rights, harassment, etc.)

Bruce Osgood · Feb 4, 2008

More times than not it is better to ask forgiveness than permission.

Nobody who's job is to protect a building or bridge or whatever, will say yes. They only know NO! That is what they are being paid to say. That is the safe answer, it will keep them employed.

SuzanneR · Feb 4, 2008

scootermm said:
they have a job to do and they did it.
If someone calls the campus police, the campus police (as part of their job) need to respond to it. Thats commonplace.

I speak from experience, I have had this happen more times than I can count. I have NEVER had any issues or even heated discussions. If you take a calm and cordial tone with them, inquire about what issues there are, what laws are being broken, etc etc and do it in a polite and cordial manner you're likely to find the situation completely simple to deal with.

I say this in regards to being out in the open, but it has held true even when I've been trespassing, alot of times I'm on private property when I am shooting alot of the stuff I enjoy shooting. Even then, and even when firearms have been pulled on me, I've been able to quell the situation and politely either leave or more often than not, continue shooting after a good long discussion. In texas its damn near impossible to be standing anywhere that ISN'T on private property.

best advice, don't get heated at the rentacop/campus police because you are upset that a random woman called you in (thats what it sounds like from your initial post) or because they were doing their job, a$$holes are in every line of work and usually can be talk through things with.

in regards to photography being dead?... No.
As long as we all keep shooting, the photographic heart beat keeps chugging along.

Firearms??

Guess that big camera looks scary!!

As to the OP, not dead, but under attack it seems. If we keep our heads level, and stay polite, it should survive this ridiculous onslaught.

BobNewYork · Feb 4, 2008

Most of the campus police I've come across are actually bona fide, accredited state police officers. I understand that responded to a report. I do not understand that they said taking photographs was illegal - it isn't. I do not understand their belligerence when asked to identify themselves. Their job is to enforce the law, which itself is established to protect individual rights. If they have a problem answering questions of rights and legalities - which they brought up - they're in the wrong line of work. I'm not surprised that they "retaliated" over the expired license, (of course there was no leg to stand on there!) when annoyed by the temerity of someone to question them but I'm afraid it's a terrible indictment of the mentality of these responding officers.

That being said, there is a huge move to prevent photography. NYC recently proposed banning of all photography in the city unless pre-approval from NYPD was obtained and the photographer had a $ 1 million liability coverage. This would have included tourists! I believe that it died a death because the tourist industry lobbied.

I understand the need for caution, but preventing the openly taking of photographs in the name of anti-terrorism has become a nonsense. "Casing the joint" is not done openly - and this growing terror over photographers is a sad change. Here locally, someone called the police on me for taking photos in a gravel pit! Three squad cars responded - to a gravel pit!!!

The world's gone mad - and we won't be allowed to document it!!!

CBG · Feb 4, 2008

It bothers me that police and private security guards aren't always trained better on how to distinguish between real threats and nonsense. It bothers me both as a photographer and as a citizen. Were a real terrorist to want to quickly gather a lot of visual data the way to do it would be something like to pose a fake family in front of a target and take a bunch of video i.e. the equivalent of hundreds or thousands of images - lots and lots of data. Or just drive by a few times with video camera rolling. I really want our law enforcement to be paying attention to the things that matter.

A bunch of hobbyists and pros shooting art photographs with tripods etc stand out like a sore thumb. Waiting for the light, using filters to get it perfect, taking forever to make a good image and so on... Not the quick, low profile a bad guy would maintain. Extended questioning and bothering of serious photographers just doesn't make good sense.

The authorities really should have a clearer idea of the law regarding photographing what I assume is a publicly visible structure. They had the right I suspect to say the camera couldn't be on private property, but to say it was illegal was evidence of either poor training or an attempt to badger the photographer.

When I've been in similar situations, maybe I've been lucky, since a brief explanation of what interests me has sufficed to sort things out. I think I've had the good fortune to run into the sorts of authorities I wish were ubiquitous.

It also speaks to the sad state of our visual cultural literacy in the USA that one has to explain why the making of visual art is of interest. That gets under my skin when it results in photographers and artists time getting wasted.

That said, at least these campus police didn't grab the camera and open it or seize it, or seek to arrest the photographer.

Best,

C

removed account4 · Feb 4, 2008

i tend to call police and let them know i am going to be photographing
when i am out in "public" either at night or daytime.
i have been scrutinized too too often, and i don't mind the
police or rental cops watching my back.

sometimes the cops run interference for me ... and i don't mind
providing a coffee to keep them happy either ...

BobNewYork · Feb 4, 2008

CBG - You're right, there should be better training in using appropriate judgment in these situations. There should also be training in public relations. Frankly I've seen a terrible growth in the "us & them" attitude which has the potential for terrible long term consequences. WE should all be in this together, but if the public becomes alienated the lady who dropped the dime in this instance won't drop the dime for a real issue.

Unless common sense prevails photography, except in a studio environment, will come under increasing pressure. If fewer and fewer photographers think that it's worth the trouble to go out and photograph then those remaining will stick out even further - and be under more scrutiny / pressure.....and the beat goes on!

The only antidote is for everyone to just get a grip and look ahead - not over their shoulders!

nc5p · Feb 4, 2008

The real villain here is the "cell phone hero" woman. In Albuquerque, at least they would have given her a ticket for talking on her cell phone while driving. (Last year a lady got ticketed for phoning in a drunk driver. He got away but she didn't!)

The city cops here get uptight about photographers. This was going on many years before 9/11, the businesses worry about photos that might end up in a liability case against them. Other than "vigilantes" I've taken photos out here in the county with no problem.

Hospitals do get all upset about photography, you mention a medical center. This is because of HIPPA, though I really doubt that the act says anything about photographing outside buildings. Dept. of Veterans Affairs cops are really draconian about it! If they see someone across the street from a VA hospital they take their film/cards.

thuggins · Feb 4, 2008

These sorts of incidents are becoming increasingly common. However, it is perfectly legal to take pictures of anything that is visible from public property. Even on private property, you can photograph anything if you are not trespassing. You should have gotten the name of the woman who filed the complaint, and sued her in civil court for making a false police report. The only way these incidents will stop is when these paranoid morons realize that they are liable for their baseless actions.

Chris Breitenstein · Feb 4, 2008

No.

Liberty is.

okto · Feb 5, 2008

Until you can't do it anymore, it's not dead. Dead is a binary state. Something either is or isn't deadthere's no leeway.

MurrayMinchin · Feb 5, 2008

Too many people cramped up in too tight a space makes them edgy. My advice? Move out to a less populated area, or up north where people are a little more laid back

Murray

Kimberly Anderson · Feb 5, 2008

The following post wins the 'Perfect Answer' award. Nicely written, nicely done.

scootermm said:
they have a job to do and they did it.
If someone calls the campus police, the campus police (as part of their job) need to respond to it. Thats commonplace.

I speak from experience, I have had this happen more times than I can count. I have NEVER had any issues or even heated discussions. If you take a calm and cordial tone with them, inquire about what issues there are, what laws are being broken, etc etc and do it in a polite and cordial manner you're likely to find the situation completely simple to deal with.

I say this in regards to being out in the open, but it has held true even when I've been trespassing, alot of times I'm on private property when I am shooting alot of the stuff I enjoy shooting. Even then, and even when firearms have been pulled on me, I've been able to quell the situation and politely either leave or more often than not, continue shooting after a good long discussion. In texas its damn near impossible to be standing anywhere that ISN'T on private property.

best advice, don't get heated at the rentacop/campus police because you are upset that a random woman called you in (thats what it sounds like from your initial post) or because they were doing their job, a$$holes are in every line of work and usually can be talk through things with.

in regards to photography being dead?... No.
As long as we all keep shooting, the photographic heart beat keeps chugging along.

MP_Wayne · Feb 5, 2008

I cannot speak for the laws in the US, but in Canada (Calgary), a former photography instructor from the local technical college was leading a small class of students on a field trip to the University of Calgary. It was a daylight session composing photos of the buildings and various sculptures. The trip was cut short by an intervention by University security, and despite providing identification and explanation, she and the 10 students were kicked off the campus. It was cited as private property.

It appears that the same circumstance was applied in the OP's experience.

In the paranoid frenzy since 9/11, I have been directly harassed and/or scrutinized by police at least 1/2 dozen times. All instances were on public property and seemingly, the mere possession of a tripod is enough to garner a report to the police of "suspicious activity".

The best defense for us, as photographers, is to be sure of our legal standing (i.e. public versus private property) and to (pardon the pun), stand our ground in the face of individuals exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, the War on Terrorism has become, in some cases, a War on Photographers.

DannL · Feb 5, 2008

Michael Slade said:
The following post wins the 'Perfect Answer' award. Nicely written, nicely done. . . . .

Oh Wonderful! Now you tell me there were gifts and prizes.

jamusu · Feb 5, 2008

If not yet dead, what are things that we can do as photographers to ensure it does not die due to the many rules and regulations society now places before us?

I think Jnanian's point of contacting the police beforehand is an excellent idea. I believe I may take this route in the new future.

I thank you all for the responses. It delights me to see the positive attitudes towards the longevity of photography.

Jamusu.

Kilgallb · Feb 6, 2008

When I was 19 years old got in trouble in Banff National Park when a Park Warden demanded to see my ID while hiking in the back country. I refused, which is my right. He offered to give me accomodation in the grey Bar Hotel if I did not comply. I still fume about this thirty years later. Forget 9/11, this thing has been happening for years.

Uncle Bill · Feb 6, 2008

MP_Wayne said:
I cannot speak for the laws in the US, but in Canada (Calgary), a former photography instructor from the local technical college was leading a small class of students on a field trip to the University of Calgary. It was a daylight session composing photos of the buildings and various sculptures. The trip was cut short by an intervention by University security, and despite providing identification and explanation, she and the 10 students were kicked off the campus. It was cited as private property.

It appears that the same circumstance was applied in the OP's experience.

In the paranoid frenzy since 9/11, I have been directly harassed and/or scrutinized by police at least 1/2 dozen times. All instances were on public property and seemingly, the mere possession of a tripod is enough to garner a report to the police of "suspicious activity".

The best defense for us, as photographers, is to be sure of our legal standing (i.e. public versus private property) and to (pardon the pun), stand our ground in the face of individuals exceeding their authority. Unfortunately, the War on Terrorism has become, in some cases, a War on Photographers.

This scares me that it happened in Canada. I am getting sick of the culture of fear.

MP_Wayne · Feb 6, 2008

Uncle Bill: "This scares me that it happened in Canada. I am getting sick of the culture of fear."

Yep - the insanity is north of 49th Parallel too. In fact, I was rousted in broad daylight in 2004 on a busy street corner in NW Calgary by 2 of Calgary's finest. I was running a test roll of film through a stubby, 600mm Catadioptric lens (so nothing of any significant length). When accosted, I was asked what I was doing to which I replied "Taking photos, testing this lens from a store (I pointed to it 1/2 block away) to see if I want to buy it". "We'll need to see some ID." I tried everything to trap them in a lie with not success. Finally, in response to why this was happening, I was told "Well, in these times of heightened concern for national security, we have to check out suspicious activity". To prevent a ride downtown, I provided my driver's license (luckily the store did not keep that when they loaned me the lens) and was "checked out" on the Car computer.

And what was on the 4 corners? [1] a student union building (some 150 metres away) for a local technical college. [2] a self service gas station [3] an "Earl's" casual dining restaurant and [4] a small sales office selling condos for an upcoming tower being constructed.

SO, it was just authority run amok - and all for the capital crime of "taking photographs". The world is a sad place...

Richard Mendales · Apr 5, 2008

I'm not sure that the problem is just photography. In many US suburbs, there are no sidewalks, and I've been stopped and questioned just for walking--without a camera. Perhaps the best approach would be to simply confine ourselves to nature photography. I have never been stopped by a bear in uniform, despite all the commotion about protecting our right to arm bears...

arigram · Apr 5, 2008

BobNewYork said:
The world's gone mad - and we won't be allowed to document it!

That's exactly it.

bessa_L_R3a · Apr 5, 2008

It's annoying as hell to be picked on by security but I think we just have to be calm about it, explain what's going on to the officers, try to put ourselves in their position, and be done with it. We live in fear-fueled age and terrorists make our passion a lot harder to pursue. But I think it's still an essential pursuit. If street photogs and the like stopped doing what they do, an important cultural contribution would lost.

I wanted desperately to shoot the inside a poultry slaughterhouse that looked like it was stuck in a time warp with dust covering anachronistic appliances, the hot stench of chickens in their cages located feet from the kill kitchen, and workers killing chickens like clockwork in the steam. It was awesome!! Lucky for me I'm a Spanish interpreter so I started talking to the old Cuban dude and he was very polite but told me I couldn't shoot inside because of the terrorist situation, that apparently the FBI strictly prohibits photography in there due to potential for bio contamination threat.

AutumnJazz · Apr 11, 2008

I've just skimmed through the thread, so sorry if this has been said, but...

You didn't have to give them your driver's liscense because you weren't operating a car, and they hadn't seen you operating one.

Not everyone over the age of 16 has a driver's liscense, which is why they can't ask you for one.

bjorke · Apr 11, 2008

OverlordXenu said:
I've just skimmed through the thread, so sorry if this has been said, but...

You didn't have to give them your driver's liscense because you weren't operating a car, and they hadn't seen you operating one.

Not everyone over the age of 16 has a driver's liscense, which is why they can't ask you for one.

They can't demand ID unless it's a Terry Stop -- that is, they believe a crime has been committed. An officer who refuses to aloow themselves to be identified knows that a crime has been committed -- by them! This also applies in spades to non-cops who have identified themselves as cops.

In the US, most states follow the Pruneyard decision (The Silicon Valley flickr group meets regularly right in the Pruneyard Mall, btw). If an area is open to public thoroughfare as part of its normal business, even if it is private property, none of your First Amendment rights (which include photography) are waived.

Next time, youi'll know that these bozos are just yippy little dogs.

Is Photography Dead?

jamusu

photomc

Bruce Osgood

Membership Council

SuzanneR

Moderator

BobNewYork

CBG

removed account4

BobNewYork

nc5p

thuggins

Chris Breitenstein

okto

MurrayMinchin

Membership Council

Kimberly Anderson

MP_Wayne

DannL

jamusu

Kilgallb

Uncle Bill

MP_Wayne

Richard Mendales

arigram

bessa_L_R3a

AutumnJazz

bjorke

Is Photography Dead?

Membership Council

Moderator

Membership Council

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency