Photographer banned for creeping out folks

[clayne]

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.

I disagree, I believe this issue is definitely worth discussing. Now if you were only referring to the would/could/should part, then excuse that. Anyways, the business did not band together - it only takes 1 business according to the law. The entire thing is BS and not what we founded this country on.

 

[2F/2F]

I was indeed referring to the should/could/would part alone when I said that it was not worth discussing. (That is why the statement directly followed the should/could/would sentence, and was in a separate paragraph from the ones above.) I was stating that the should/could/would of the matter are not interchangeable with the actual laws on the matter. They are two separate things. Should he have done what he did? Answers will vary. Can he do what he did, by law? Yes. Same with the businesses.

...but I guess I also feel that the whole issue is being blown up, and that it is kind of a non issue, or at least a very minor one. Both parties were acting within their liberties, and both parties are enacting their rights to these liberties, on which this country was founded. Businesses can ban people from their property, as long as it is for an individual reason, and not solely because the people are part of a group (A.K.A. discrimination).

Re: "Anyways, the business did not band together - it only takes 1 business according to the law."

Are you saying that it only takes one business to ban someone from entering 67 businesses on a public street?

Please explain this.

The only way I can see this being the case is if the entire shopping area (including the streets and sidewalks, that is) is private property. In that case, the owners of the shi-shi private street can 86 him after asking him to stop, no problem.

 

[Q.G.]

I think you all focus too much on the way he chose to be a nuissance, too little on that he was just being a nuissance.
Photography? What photography? He's not a photographer. Just a pain in the behind with a camera around his neck. But because of nothing more than that, he can count on our sympathy? I think not.
It appears that he is doing his utmost best to be a jerk, and nothing else.

 

[accozzaglia]

Where a group of businesses band together, these are often the a priori formation of a BIA/D — business improvement area/district. I don't really know enough of the back-story — what happened well before press story and ban order. I'm not sure if any of us do. He could (and should) consider legal action to clarify the law in a test case, but whether he won or lost, I don't feel he would be doing a service for other photographers. A ruling in his favour is not going to make people suddenly get warm and fuzzy for candid-capturing photographers found out in the wild.

 

[clayne]

The guy was doing simple street photography in what appears to be a private/public area (a privately owned district [possibly, not 100% verified] - with public access). Such areas are still public game for photography. It's in the damn law. If you allow private entities to control the law you're setting yourself up for failure. And if you think that loss of these rights won't extend to photography beyond "street photography" you're solely mistaken.

 

[Rudeofus]

I think you all focus too much on the way he chose to be a nuissance, too little on that he was just being a nuissance.

Q.G.,

from what I read he was no nuissance, but just considered a nuissance by some hysterical people working in one particular coffee shop. The photograher posted the "offending" image and while you may or may not like the pic, it's neither harassing nor shows the oh so offended person in a demeaning way. Neither are the other pics the guy made something to feel uneasy about.

And to make one thing clear: This guy may still hang out in the street in front of the stores and is completely free to take any pictures he wants in that area!! The only thing accomplished by his ban is that he may not enter any of the stores in the area without risking arrest for trespassing. And the cops made a point of presenting him with this order in his work place, causing a lot more potential harassment and real embarassment than he ever caused with his camera.

I am all in favour of courtesy, and all in favour of rather not taking an image if someone reasonable may feel upset about it. But if I went on a rampage against you for having an avatar showing bananas, and the forum would permanently ban you for so terribly upsetting me, I'd predict you'd have an issue with this (and rightfully so! Not that I ever assumed the mods/admins would do such a crazy thing).

 

[perkeleellinen]

Some related thoughts:

I wonder if the public are growing more intolerant toward 'street' photography or if the media are picking up more of these stories as it makes good copy.

We're currently going through a boom period in photography rather like the SLR craze of the late '70s - early '80s. Cameras are ubiquitous either as machines in themselves or within phones. Given that everyone seems to have a camera and images are everywhere is hostility to 'street' shooting a form of boundary control?

What is the relationship between street photography and state / corporate monitoring of street scenes?

In the UK, the authorities are strict in (de facto) defining where and when photography is allowed. Concern about this seems almost entirely limited to photographers themselves. Furthermore, the rise in CCTV has not produced a popular and coherent mass opposition body. Yet the public and authorities seem to be increasingly hostile to private photography.

I wonder if it's in the state's interest to shift the focus onto private photographers and off CCTV monitoring whilst at the same time public unrest over CCTV monitoring is generalised and manifests at best as apathy toward police / photographer relationships and at worst as hostility toward individual street photographers.

 

[Rudeofus]

I wonder if the public are growing more intolerant toward 'street' photography or if the media are picking up more of these stories as it makes good copy.

What is the relationship between street photography and state / corporate monitoring of street scenes?

You may have hit the mark with this question, and the answer seems simple: purpose. People accept cctv cameras as being necessary for keeping them warm&cozy&safe. People accept mobile phone cameras taking shots of aunt Tilly in front of <insert your landmark here>.

And in the general populace that seems to be the two accepted purposes of photography: documentation of important events, and keeping memories. The notion, that photography can be a form of artistic expression has been seemingly lost in the cacophony of nowaday's image flood. Photographing a young female who is a complete stranger to you? Many common people won't understand the purpose of such an image and assume some predatorial motives.

Insisting on constitutional rights is not going to save the situation, if people get sufficiently upset they WILL pass some law somehow (just look at current legislation regarding guns in public places). My remedy would rather be: make street photography known as an art form. If people are proud to be in your picture, they'll line up just to be there.

 

[clayne]

We can also indirectly thank digital for the current wave of photographer harassment as well. I know - it's like the Godwin's law of APUG.

 

[perkeleellinen]

Photographing a young female who is a complete stranger to you? Many common people won't understand the purpose of such an image and assume some predatorial motives.

Yes and then furthermore the unease of the public is internalised and the photographer self-censors.

A nice example here is the Finnish photographer Sirkka-Liisa Konttinen who in the '60s produced a book of classic street shots around Newcastle in the UK. A couple of years ago she revisited the area to re-shoot for a new book but this time she set-up all her shots by getting to know her subjects and shooting them in a semi-formal fashion. In an interview she said she couldn't shoot in her old style as the public reaction to photography has shifted (especially around children).

 

[removed account4]

Marlon Brando as well if I remember right.



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.

from what i have read
Miroslav Tichý was also granted
no trespass orders and he continued
to photograph people from the other side of the fence.

if the photographer in question wants to keep photographing
as a hobby or whatever ... he can still do that.

i have been harassed by law enforcement and security doing
similar "street / surveillance" photography ...
this sort of work is full of obstacles he should have realized
that before he started ...


as far as the no trespass order not being legal,
it is legal. i haven't been to burlington in ages, but i think
the area he was "working" was a mall of sorts ... a bunch of local businesses
that call themselves a marketplace.

a lot of shopping malls don't allow photography, just like a lot of coffee shops and stores.

this doesn't really seem like much of an issue to me.

 

[stradibarrius]

The bottom line is either the photographer is breaking a law or he is not! If he is breaking some law then that is one thing, if he is acting within his rights he should be left alone. If the issue is that the merchants in the area are upset, that is not a legal position. If the people of this town are so upset, they need to pass some sort of law restricting photography but until then leave this guy alone. His photos look fairly routine anyway.
We certainly have enough government intrusion into our everyday lives as it is!!! Fat police, sugar police, smoking police.
Also the photographer has to know that if anything were to happen to one of the folks he has been photographing they will come looking for him.

 

[DLawson]

The guy was doing simple street photography in what appears to be a private/public area (a privately owned district [possibly, not 100% verified] - with public access).

Judging by their web site, this is a pedestrian only ("auto-restricted") street in the retail district. That is why his location was still public. It isn't clear whether all the businesses on the street are members of a common association.

(Never been to Burlington, so that's all I know.)

http://www.churchstmarketplace.com/...ief-history-of-the-church-street-marketplace/

 

[fschifano]

The bottom line is either the photographer is breaking a law or he is not! If he is breaking some law then that is one thing, if he is acting within his rights he should be left alone. If the issue is that the merchants in the area are upset, that is not a legal position. If the people of this town are so upset, they need to pass some sort of law restricting photography but until then leave this guy alone. His photos look fairly routine anyway.

But here's the thing. Where this photographer was working is private property. It's simple. On private property, the proprietor gets to say who can and cannot be there. If this photographer is hurting his business, then he's gone, end of story. If it was your bottom line being affected, you'd feel the same way.

 

[Tim Gray]

Of course everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but here it is from his own mouth: RFF. After looking at his photos and reading his account, it really doesn't sound like he was trying to be a dick about things. Also from one of the comments on the story, it sounds like he uses 28, 35, 50, and 135mm lenses.

Reading the comments of that story makes me sad.

 

[Rudeofus]

But here's the thing. Where this photographer was working is private property. It's simple. On private property, the proprietor gets to say who can and cannot be there. If this photographer is hurting his business, then he's gone, end of story. If it was your bottom line being affected, you'd feel the same way.

Are you sure he was taking pictures on private property? I have no indication so far that the street there was private property.

 

[Phil]

I think this will answer the private property/public question...

http://www.leg.state.vt.us/statutes/fullsection.cfm?Title=24APPENDIX&Chapter=003&Section=00321

 

[Q.G.]

Q.G.,

from what I read he was no nuissance, but just considered a nuissance by some hysterical people working in one particular coffee shop. The photograher posted the "offending" image and while you may or may not like the pic, it's neither harassing nor shows the oh so offended person in a demeaning way. Neither are the other pics the guy made something to feel uneasy about.

Still focussing on how he is being a pain in the behind, not seeing that he's just being a pain in the behind.

What, do you suppose, are those pictures proving?

Whether he has a camera around his neck or not, whether there is a law against it or not, when you are hanging around the same people everyday, unless they are particularly fond of you, you quickly get to be very annoying.

And he certainly managed to do that: be very annoying to many people. People who would in their turn like their liberty respected by not being pestered day in day out by some fool with an attention (or affection) deficit, who thinks having a camera makes being a pain in the behind legitimate.

Why would photographers have to stand up for him?

 

[wclark5179]

I took pictures down at Hennepin County Government Center. Cameras in a bag (I brought my Mamiya TLR equipment), the tripod fit in a spot on top of the camera bag that seemed to be made for it! The first thing I did was walk over to Minnesota Police Officer and asked for permission. He took me around to areas that thought woud be good for taking pictures, showed me a large U.S.A flag displayed on a wall, vistas of the Minneapolis Government Center. We visited for a few minutes, shook hands and then his last words were, "by the way thank you for checking in with me first before you set up."

 

[Rudeofus]

Still focussing on how he is being a pain in the behind, not seeing that he's just being a pain in the behind.

What, do you suppose, are those pictures proving?

These pictures, at least IMHO show, that he is not trying to stalk people or to take pictures which show these people in embarassing ways. If these people consider someone taking images so upsetting that they act like this, then maybe it's not the photographer who needs counseling. From what I've heard the problems this guy faces stem from one particular coffee shop in that area, it's not like a general popular uprising against some annoying guy.

Whether he has a camera around his neck or not, whether there is a law against it or not, when you are hanging around the same people everyday, unless they are particularly fond of you, you quickly get to be very annoying.

He did not hang out in their homes, nor in their stores. He hung out in an area which is meant for people to hang out in. It's a market place after all. Remember the comparison I made in my previous post: if I considered your avatar annoying, I shouldn't expect the rest of the world to follow up on my crazy believes. And I most certainly shouldn't expect cops to show up at your work place over this.

And he certainly managed to do that: be very annoying to many people.

How many people were annoyed? As far as I can tell it was two people from one store which made a racket about this guy. Now he's banned from entering 67 stores. Sounds reasonable?

People who would in their turn like their liberty respected by not being pestered day in day out by some fool with an attention (or affection) deficit, who thinks having a camera makes being a pain in the behind legitimate.

Note that he may still hang out outside those stores and take pictures :rolleyes: These people achieved exactly nothing except make fools out of themselves and the guy they hated so much: his pics probably get more views now than ever before. Streisand effect anyone?

 

[accozzaglia]

The guy was doing simple street photography in what appears to be a private/public area (a privately owned district [possibly, not 100% verified] - with public access). Such areas are still public game for photography. It's in the damn law. If you allow private entities to control the law you're setting yourself up for failure. And if you think that loss of these rights won't extend to photography beyond "street photography" you're solely mistaken.

Nothing is ever as simple as it is portrayed. Not even Cream of Wheat.

P.S., It apparently is a BID. It is a private property thoroughfare kept up and maintained by dues paid by members to the BID. Public rights-of-way may include subterranean conduits like water, standpipe, and buried hydro lines. But unless the photographer was standing at the mouth of the marketplace BID, then it does appear that shooting in situ without seeking verbal or written permission from proprietors first reserved proprietors the right to exercise action on their own behalf.

Zoning law varies from place to place, but property rights appear to win out within this specific geography.

 

[Q.G.]

Tell us where you live, and we'll arrange someone to hang outside your house for a while.
See how long you can stand that before trying to get a ban on him hanging outside your home.
I'll make sure he'll have cameras, and take your pic every time you get outdoors, don't you worry!


It's all too easy to claim that someone did and does no wrong, just because there's (supposedly) no law saying that he can't be doing what he's doing.
It's even easier (and all too fashionable lately) it seems, to rally a crowd of "defenders of free speech" to hide behind. Even when it has nothing whatsoever to do with free speech.

 

[Chiron]

Whether or not he was "being a pain in the behind" has absolutely nothing to do with this as he wasn't IN the store nor even in front of it. I did some digging and found that both parties are completely within their rights as has been stated. HOWEVER, there are several larger issues in play in Burlington A) Any of the businesses can put a ban on someone for any reason (this is normal, no surprise) but that ban extends to all 67 business - AUTOMATICALLY (not currently the norm). B) Not all of the businesses and managers know that any store can still allow anyone they want in their shop regardless of the ban C) There's no official list of names or photos of who is on the ban list - the Police don't even know and automatically believe/listen to the businesses C) The police are asked to notify the people/enforce the trespass ban without being fully aware of the situation - no questions asked D) Possibility of putting people in danger. E) The ban only applies to private property - so he can still walk around all he want, but can't even use the "public" restrooms unless they are city owned.

This has caused an issue for others already. There was one guy whose boss shorted him on his paycheck and got into a verbal dispute/argument. Later the prosecutor dropped all charges when it was discovered he was in the right (only on that point). But for the full year afterword, he couldn't even apply for a job anywhere in that area (it is implied that almost half the part-time jobs are in the district, that is unconfirmed). That brings up an issue of compensation and such. If someone is banned but has another job there, what happens? Are they allowed only at their work, or do they instantly lose their job at store B because of something unrelated at store A that caused a ban? If so, doesn't that imply a standardized employee agreement among multiple employers...and if so doesn't that imply some form of union on one side or another?? There are even more questions raised here if you consider one of the only close grocery (not a participant) and pharmacy's (participant) are right there. If someone's banned, but is in immediate need of prescription medicine there is a possible risk of life there (unlikely, but possible).

I am not taking either side, both were within their rights, technically. However if businesses want to group together "officially" like this, there needs to be some form of oversight and common sense on the local Law Enforcement's part since both sides are going to be looking at them to know what's legal and what's not. (And yes I know that's not even the job of the Police)

Just my $0.02 and thoughts on this.

 

[MartinCrabtree]

Anyone else find it odd/ironic that Vermont allows concealed carry of firearms without a permit?

 

[fschifano]

Not at all. I wish we could do it here. Some say that guns cause violence. I say, the violator would likely think twice about committing an act of violence if there was a chance that the intended victim could strike back with deadly force.