Well, he kept his camera (most likely a Rollei), so I image that the film 'disappeared'. This was in the 50s, so I think statute of limitations comes into force.
People have gone insane...
-
A
- Thread starter CropDusterMan
- Start date
Recent Classifieds
-
For Sale AF-Nikkor 20mm f/2.8D
- Started by Robert Kerwin
-
For Sale FS: VELBON Tripod Quick Release Plates...NOS!
- Started by AnselMortensen
-
For Sale Halogen Bulbs
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Chemicals for sale
- Started by Peter Schrager
-
For Sale Enlarging Lenses - Bundle of Three
- Started by jdart3000
Forum statistics
I was confronted by a young security guard recently in a public place, while taking photos of my wife and young son with an old Canon rangefinder. I was told I was engaging in suspicious activities and possibly "photographing buildings" (I am an over-the-hill late middle-aged guy who fiddles with film cameras). I basically told him to beat it (in a more or less polite way). He tailed me and my family when we were walking back to our car later.
Maybe he was envious and wanted to get to know you better. Sounds like you have a good thing going there. But what a weird "pick-up" line to use.
Nah, I think I just have a "guilty face"Maybe he was envious and wanted to get to know you better. Sounds like you have a good thing going there. But what a weird "pick-up" line to use.
He needed to make himself feel important.
My only truly negative experiences out and about have been with outsourced security guards, always protecting their buildings from 'being photographed.'
Now I proactively try and seek them out if it's likely to be an issue.
I try and befriend them/defuse any situation before they go into confrontational mode.
But then I also tend to avoid the more high security tourist areas these days because the hassle has become not worth it to me.
It's ironic that your engaging in a 'flagrant act of photography' results in you being the one facing suspicious activities and minor harassment.
I've found that security guards that 'catch me' in this flagrant act are almost always very aggressive in how they deal with me, yet it is I who must keep my cool and explain myself.
It's annoying, it can be so challenging to have someone suddenly up in your face asking you to explain yourself.
The world we live in I guess.
And so many public spaces here are not actually public spaces at all but owned and patrolled by outsourced security guards and of course that is almost always a battle to be lost, rare are the understanding security guards, I treasure them when I find them. It's funny how as we move to a world utterly saturated by mobile phone usage, almost every person is holding one in their hand, I'd say 80% of people are actually staring at it as they walk, that a camera becomes an ever more suspicious thing.
What is wrong with photographing buildings? To my understanding it is still legal in the US.
(But actually the same happened to me in the Netherlands. Though it was not a security guy but the police themselves...)
If a photo or video is to be used for commercial purposes, I believe a Location Permit is required. I've done that, along with getting model releases.
Other than that, photographing buildings is not a problem (most buildings appear in Google Street View anyway).
What happens is that hired security guards sometimes convince themselves they Need To Do Something to be important and justify their presence.
It is illegal to photograph government buildings in the United States. The Feds went after a tourist who took some pics of a cute little small town post office some years ago. Most post offices have a sign somewhere that says it's against the law. As for private buildings the law allows law enforcement wide latitude. It might be technically legal to photograph sensitive things like railroad stations and power plants but I wouldn't try it.
Please cite the law, statute, or fatwah that states photography of government buildings is illegal. If you can find it, I'll admit I was wrong.
Any building of any kind that's visible by the public from a public space may be photographed. That's why the internet and photo albums are awash with photos of the White House, Hoover Dam, art-deco court buildings, etc. There are even trainspotter-like people who photograph power transmission line pylons.
Photography inside may be a different matter.
The Feds may well have intimidated or run that tourist off, but they were wrong.
- Joined
- Jan 1, 2016
- Messages
- 190
- Format
- 35mm
BULL!
The last time I was at the US Capital (early one morning a few months ago) I seem to have attracted the attention of a couple of machine-gun equipped police who were patrolling the building. They looked at me and then again with binoculars so I smiled, waved and showed them my camera (it was an old medium-format folder). Their response was classic... they waved back and stepped behind the pillars, presumably so I had a nice clean image. No hassle; no apparent concern; ho harassment at all. Maybe the difference is that these were real police who are professionals and know real threat situations and not "rent-a-cops" who imagine threat situations in their fantasies.
Well where you live Steve I was once confronted by a pirate who must have been 20 ft tall. It was downtown Black Gang Chine
pentaxuser
Yeah, it is technically legal, but they'll definitely come and harass you. Our post office here downtown has a neat, elongated, corrugated steel siding that causes some neat textures the 2-3 hours before the sun goes down. I'll often use it as a background for street photography because it's such an interesting backdrop, but have been hassled by security guards multiple times for hanging out there with my camera. Same goes for the courthouse down the way with a nice textured siding that provides a good backdrop. Legal, yes. Get your camera smashed by goons, maybe.
Go to the post office and look around for the notice yourself
Better yet bring and use your gear while your at it. I already checked with more than one postmaster.
Google it. Federal property is off limits. If I am wrong give the the link.
Ok MY mistake. It is technically legal since 2010. But 9/11 gives them wide latitude. They could just charge you with something else. True or false they are still charges. I am not making this stuff up. Read the news. It's been covered in Popular Photography a few times. There is no photo I want so much that I am willing to sit in a police station or jail while they work out the technicalities. I don't care if I am legally correct. The Real Life consequences are what concern me.
If it's touristy I've never had a problem either. But at the 9/11 Memorial they did point out to me that it's prohibited in some parts but otherwise snap away.
My apologies. I have had the misfortune of being a government employee for more than fifteen years and it was always drummed into us that neither we nor the public were allowed to take photos. I was not aware of the 2010 ruling clarifying the legality. But false arrest and harassment are no secret and it's not uncommon, or you could just be charged with something that has nothing to do with photography per se.
As for the post office my local postmasters must have the old notice. I just Googled the latest public notice for post office lobbies. The 2016 edition is worded much less strictly BUT permission must still first be obtained from the postmaster or installation head if photography for other than the three or four purposes stated is to take place. I assume tourist snaps still do not fall into those categories. By the way I was one of those tourists as a kid thirty years ago (but not the one in the article referred to!).The postmaster at that office scared me and my parents so well I never got over it. So please forgive me for erring on the side of caution.
No problem - I didn't intend my reply to sound harsh or hostile.
The Post Office in the town I grew up in was a nice art-deco building from the 1930's -- maybe a Depression-era WPA project. It was beautiful. I honestly don't know if I'd ever photographed it in the 1960's when I lived there.
I dare not look it up in Google or Street View because I don't want my memory of that place to be updated with the present day.
I don't think it's accurate to say that we live in a police state; if we did, the murder rate in South Chicago probably wouldn't be what it is. Local law enforcement has been relentlessly maligned and slandered over the last few years, so I'm more inclined to support them than to give them grief. Most them probably feel that they have much more important things to do than to harass photographers. Rent-a-cops are a different story.
The big jerk in the OP's story seem to be the dude who went ballistic over the prospect of being in a photo.
Dale
The big jerk in the OP's story seem to be the dude who went ballistic over the prospect of being in a photo.
Dale
| Photrio.com contains affiliate links to products. We may receive a commission for purchases made through these links. To read our full affiliate disclosure statement please click Here. |
PHOTRIO PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:  |