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.
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.
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>.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?
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.
Marlon Brando as well if I remember right.
Read it again:
"The following Monday, March 1, a Burlington police officer again showed up at Scotts 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.
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).
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.
Are you sure he was taking pictures on private property? I have no indication so far that the street there was private property.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.
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.
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.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?
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.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.
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?And he certainly managed to do that: be very annoying to many people.
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?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.
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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?