Photographer banned for creeping out folks

Thought this story would stir some interest.

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/amat...from-coffee-shop-for-creeping-people-out.html

I think that getting people to grow intolerant towards 'freedom' is a pretty easy way to free up law enforcement money. You know - 1984 and all that... I see it as a symptom of fear mongering. But I guess in the end - it really all depends on what kinds of messages are come across in terms of the interaction between photographer and photographee, etc. We don't really know the whole story - so it's kind of impossible to judge I think....

hey jon

i don't think it is fear mongering, or anything like that ...

SNIP

Sparky said:

We don't really know the whole story - so it's kind of impossible to judge I think....

Click to expand...

i think you said it ...

A 400mm lens could have saved this guy his problems.

Well part of the thing though, John - is you HAVE to admit - events like Sean Penn punching out a paparrazzo has created a general decrease in tolerance toward photographers - but also - and more importantly - stories we got post 9/11 about things like "be on the lookout for suspicous people with cameras, etc" has, I BELIEVE, created something of a climate of fear toward photogs and videographers etc. Added to this (I think this might be a bit of an obscure point) the extremely heightened sense of media awareness people seem to have these days - presenting 'image savvy' pictures on their facebook or myspace profiles etc - I think some people object to not being in full control of how they are perceived etc... but yes - I defer to "you never know" in this particular case. I just wanted to raise a point or two about the way pictures and media are being used in our society and how it's been radically changed in the last decade or two...

A link to my posting of the original Seven Days article

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

More comments have been posted there.

You know, I've got to side with the coffee shop here. According to the story, this guy has been doing this for a long time and he probably gets his kicks making other people feel uncomfortable. I like to take pictures of people in public too, but if I see that they're uncomfortable or annoyed, I'll stop. There is this little thing called common courtesy that too many people these days seemingly were never taught. Or is it just cool to be rude and obnoxious?

Thomas Wilson said:

Thought this story would stir some interest.

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/amat...from-coffee-shop-for-creeping-people-out.html

Click to expand...

Welcome to Amerika.

fschifano said:

You know, I've got to side with the coffee shop here. According to the story, this guy has been doing this for a long time and he probably gets his kicks making other people feel uncomfortable. I like to take pictures of people in public too, but if I see that they're uncomfortable or annoyed, I'll stop. There is this little thing called common courtesy that too many people these days seemingly were never taught. Or is it just cool to be rude and obnoxious?

Click to expand...

I generally agree here - but for them to bring legalities into it I find to be a bit over the top.

Also, here's the guy's flickr page:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/

General disjunct street style photography. Not really anything to write home about - but definitely nothing to be creeped out about either.


Also, concentrate on the information presented:

"The following Monday, March 1, a Burlington police officer again showed up at Scott’s workplace, and this time issued him a one-year universal trespass order that bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested."

Sorry, but that's just bullshit. You can't ban a guy from the entire place just because people don't like the fact that they're being photographed.

As long as the photographer observes the letter of the law, creepy or no, he is within his rights to photography on public properties, especially in light of the many public dollars that have and are going into this mall/project.

He should take legal action for civil rights violations, against all involved, if for no other reason than to keep 'officials' and business folk from doing away with our rights completely, through the indifference of the public at large. After all, who's to say in all honesty, that they are forever safe from being perceived as 'creepy' by whomever might cast their eyes upon them as they make a photograph on the street? Harassment of photographers by police and 'rent-a-cops' is much too common these days and we must push back if we are to keep our rights as free of restrictions as possible.

Sparky said:

Well part of the thing though, John - is you HAVE to admit - events like Sean Penn punching out a paparrazzo has created a general decrease in tolerance toward photographers - but also - and more importantly - stories we got post 9/11 about things like "be on the lookout for suspicous people with cameras, etc" has, I BELIEVE, created something of a climate of fear toward photogs and videographers etc. Added to this (I think this might be a bit of an obscure point) the extremely heightened sense of media awareness people seem to have these days - presenting 'image savvy' pictures on their facebook or myspace profiles etc - I think some people object to not being in full control of how they are perceived etc... but yes - I defer to "you never know" in this particular case. I just wanted to raise a point or two about the way pictures and media are being used in our society and how it's been radically changed in the last decade or two...

Click to expand...

bob dylan punched out paparrazzi back in 82 ' sean penn isn't much different.
i don't really buy into the whole climate of fear and all that, he had been
asked on several occasions (it seems) to stop bothering
the patrons so the coffee shop complained to "mall management" and they put their foot down
when i worked at a coffee shop there were people who were not
allowed in the shop because of various reasons ... this is the same thing.
that is, unless there is something else that the article didn't say ?

burlington vt is a pretty liberal place, the cia, uvm and a handful
of other colleges/ schools are there. it doesn't seem to me that
this is more than it is ... and the internet and people linking to it
blowing it out of proportion ...

at least it wasn't "the honey-man"

jnanian said:

bob dylan punched out paparrazzi back in 82 ' sean penn isn't much different.

Click to expand...

Marlon Brando as well if I remember right.

burlington vt is a pretty liberal place, the cia, uvm and a handful
of other colleges/ schools are there. it doesn't seem to me that
this is more than it is ... and the internet and people linking to it
blowing it out of proportion ...

at least it wasn't "the honey-man"

Click to expand...

Read it again:

"The following Monday, March 1, a Burlington police officer again showed up at Scott’s workplace, and this time issued him a one-year universal trespass order that bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested."

Not legal.

Both are right and I side with neither.
The street photographer has to take his chances with people, sometimes even making them down right uncomfortable for a shot. Sure is rude and creepy and even anti-social, but one should know when to push it and be ready for the backlash, especially if he's a "repeat offender". Not all street photography can be "legal" portraits of consent.
At the same time, it is rude and creepy and can be even offensive at times. So people have the right to complain.
I am often shy and respectful of others, but in a public setting, I sometimes break the social norms and etiquette for a picture: it could be a simple stare while I compose in my mind or focus the Hasselblad, or even ignore a request to stop. On the latter circumstance it has been always a whole scene and never shoved the lens in someone's face.
One has to take his chances and gamble with society when out photographing in street and it has always been like that. I don't think most subjects cared for Weegee or everybody loved Winogrand or Bresson for example.

Unfortunately, it seems now, the law's vice is closing in on photographers and society is getting more and more impatient and paranoid. Arrests are being made, film and memory cards confiscated, edicts drawn for banning are written as society is getting slowly fed up of people with lenses. Its usually the stereotypical photographer with the big camera and big lenses that is targeted and most often, users of small compacts and cellphones are not so much bothered, even if the latter has been under control for some time. Even though the public and authorities object to the actual content of a photograph and the subject matter, especially if it someone's face or "terrorist target", it is mostly the act and the outward presence of a photographer that lights up their alarms. Its so much easier and stealthier to take upskirts or snaps of airports with a cellphone, yet these "crimes" continue to pass unnoticed and unpunished.

Unfortunately, when a story like that reaches the common media, or even a focused blog, it stirs the pot even further and it becomes more and more difficult to do photography outdoors, especially in an urban and crowded setting. Its not difficult to accuse one for being a pedophile and ruin his whole life even if he is innocent, or of being a terrorist, or whatever. The laws already are in place, the public's opinion views most as creeps and paparazzi and cases are being constantly documented.

I remember a well known Greek Magnum photographer telling me how difficult is to find places anymore where people have a purity and innocence that doesn't look with suspicion the photographer. Nowadays its not "stealing someone's soul" but "what you're gonna do with the snapshot", what kind of profit you will make with someone's face or the state's building, be it money, fame, perverse pleasure or terror plot.
Its hard to be an artist on the street anymore, unless you sit in a corner with a music instrument and a hat for change.

Btw, thanks for the link of his Flickr page. I liked his work which is clear cut street photography, not unlike anyone's else who's been out on the street with a camera photographing people in their environment. Some look like posed portraits others are candids and some annoyed stares are to be found. One takes their chances.

Not having been there, it's impossible to judge how much of a common sense line the photographer might've crossed. However, the attitude of the coffee shop manager is ridiculous, if unfortunately all too common these days.

If Cartier-Bresson were living now, he'd probably have remained a painter and never troubled himself with a camera.

Assuming these are private establishments, don't they have the right to refuse service as long as it isn't based on something protected (race, religion, disability, etc)? If they decide not to let him into their establishments and he refuses to leave, that would be where the law comes in (trespassing I assume)?

Is the question here about what the businesses should of have done or is it a legal question? On the legal side, this seems pretty straight forward.

http://www.flickr.com/groups/onthestreet/discuss/72157623487952979/#comment72157623490344031 (accused "creepy photographer" discussing the issue)

Reading the post on the Consumerist peaked my interest. I am an attorney, albeit I don't practice anymore other than as it pertains to my businesses. I do like following legal issues and keeping up on how the law develops and deals with changing times. I must say that I found the Consumerist post terrible in its phrasing of the issue--the real controversy here and in how the Consumerist edited the facts to frame the issue.

For a much more thoughtful and thorough discussion, read all the referenced links and the links on the linked pages.

The Consumerist web site did a big disservice in how it selectively quoted an earlier article on the same topic. So much for the website, I will not be visiting it again if this is an example of their journalistic quality.

Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.

I've put my cameras away.

Click to expand...

Look at that, "photography was a hobby." They essentially just killed the guy's drive to take photos altogether. I can understand people not wanting their photos taken, especially in this age of seemingly ridiculous hysteria about supposed terrorists and perverts posting pictures of people on the internet, but legally, it seems the guy did nothing wrong.

thisismyname09 said:

Look at that, "photography was a hobby." They essentially just killed the guy's drive to take photos altogether. I can understand people not wanting their photos taken, especially in this age of seemingly ridiculous hysteria about supposed terrorists and perverts posting pictures of people on the internet, but legally, it seems the guy did nothing wrong.

Click to expand...

Yep - and that's how it works. Intimidate someone with "the law," put them at fear of being an outcast, or make them think twice about losing some form of personal investment or employment - and congratulations, we've just shut them down.

Amazingly fair, isn't it?

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/

I liked the pic of the woman smoking.

I'm already an outcast so I have nothing to lose from shooting street photography which makes up most of my photographic output ;-)

Anyway, I hope this guy fights the "no tresspass" issue served to him. What a crock! If he doesn't, it's just another nail in the coffin for street photography and another step forward for government control of our lives.

As things stand, I agree with you and am in complete sympathy with the photographer, not as a fellow or a member of the group, but as a wrongly persecuted man who had his freedom limited, his feelings hurt and his expressive licence take away for no good reason. If someone is being anti-social, is not him, is his opposition.

Sounds to me like the photographer was looking to make an issue out of it. He was asked to stop and didn't. If I owned the coffee shop and he was pissing off my patrons I'd try and get rid of him as well. He could find other coffee shops to pester and spread himself a little thinner.

johnnywalker said:

He could find other coffee shops to pester and spread himself a little thinner.

Click to expand...

True, maybe his strategy wasn't as sound and he could have averted the final outcome. He also could have remained more steadfast and not given up on his expression because of one serious obstacle. Like a cyclist who gives up cycling after getting hit by a car.
At the same time, I realize that he is simply human, he posed no real threat or by the looks of his photographs acted really disrespectfully, just pissed off the wrong people.

Businesses have the right to refuse service to any individual, and any private property owner has the right to refuse entry of any individual onto the property. All they did was to band together with other businesses and put their request that he not enter their properties on the books.

Photographers have the right to shoot anything that is visible, from a location on public property. So, he can keep shooting, whether or not people are creeped out, pissed, annoyed, etc. What he cannot do is to "harass" people.

People telling him to stop, and confronting him on the street in various harsh ways, trying to get him to delete pix is, however, much more likely to be ruled harassment and/or coercion than anything he could do by simply taking pix.

The article fails to mention whether he was shooting from private or public property, but sort of makes it sound like he was shooting from public property. (It says, "about 50 feet away", and says that he did not enter the business.)

So, it sounds like a total non issue to me. Both parties were within their liberties to do what they did.

As for the should of the matter.....well, should, could, would. It is hardly worth discussing. The law doesn't have any say in the should of the matter unless the "should" itself is made in to a "must" by part of a written law.