Photography in Public Places

tkamiya · Dec 11, 2009

Which remind me....

The company I work for has stopped us taking pictures with SLR type camera. We have been told, we can't even take pictures of the back yard portion of the business facing AWAY from building. One of us was required to get permission from security then from corporate for a permission to take photo outside - at the parking lot. Company name cannot be shown and door cannot be open. Few days later, I saw a bunch of people taking photos of our lobby area, with company name in the frame AND security guard was posing with them. These people were using regular point-and-shoot digital.

Obviously, there isn't much logic in this. If I want to violate the security of the company, I'd be covert and won't be pulling out SLR to make my presence and intentions known.

I think, there is a general phobia of SLR type cameras. I'm really tempted to show up with Large Format camera and set that up right in the lobby and see what happens... (not really but it could be fun - last day at work)

paul_c5x4 · Dec 12, 2009

Blacknoise said:
I was in the train station in Retford once and got stopped by some security guard and told that I'd have to delete my picture (the look on his face as he tried to find the screen on the back of my IIIf was priceless!). He then said he was going to confiscate my camera, I told him he had no legal right and he backed down.

From the horse's mouth - Just to cover your backside, could also inform (not ask) the station manager of your intent. But then you probably know about Network Rail's rules on the subject.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 12, 2009

paul_c5x4 said:
From the horse's mouth - Just to cover your backside, could also inform (not ask) the station manager of your intent. But then you probably know about Network Rail's rules on the subject.

If you ask, the answer will be 'NO', because that's the safe answer!

I took a picture in Liverpool Station with a 4x5 on a tripod. By the time security became aware of me, I was done.

wiltw · Dec 12, 2009

Britian must be populated with many pedophiles, perverts, and terrorists...judging by all the legislation against all the photographers with their phallus on the front of their dSLRs ;-)

wiltw · Dec 12, 2009

tkamiya said:
I'm really tempted to show up with Large Format camera and set that up right in the lobby and see what happens... (not really but it could be fun - last day at work)

"What's that you have?"
"Oh, its a surveying instrument"

RalphLambrecht · Dec 12, 2009

wiltw said:
Britian must be populated with many pedophiles, perverts, and terrorists...judging by all the legislation against all the photographers with their phallus on the front of their dSLRs ;-)

The only thing the world has to much of is lawyers and people who allow themselves to be intimidated by them.

removed-user-1 · Dec 15, 2009

bowzart said:
the various appealing menus just to show my wife what was available to eat since she wasn't with me.

I would have explained what I was up to, then politely told him that his menu suddenly looked a lot less appealing.

removed-user-1 · Dec 15, 2009

Ric Trexell said:
As for the guy that shot the Alamo, that is no doubt a federal historic site and just as you might not be able to sell photos taken in a national park, you might be prohibited from taking pictures there. However, again what difference does it make if you were taking photos there instead of standing 100 feet away and taking them with a telephoto?

Here are the US National Park Service rules about professional photography and filming. The way I read this, normal "scenic" still photography of the public areas of the park and facilities, during regular park hours, is absolutely allowed, professional or otherwise.

SuzanneR · Dec 15, 2009

The paranoia of photography has gotten ridiculous.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/...phs-your-kid-with-santa-should-we-arrest-him/

chorleyjeff · Dec 15, 2009

RalphLambrecht said:
If you ask, the answer will be 'NO', because that's the safe answer!

I took a picture in Liverpool Station with a 4x5 on a tripod. By the time security became aware of me, I was done.

And confirmed the staffs' view that photographers do not respect the wishes of the property owner. Do they have security staff in railway stations?
If you had bothered to inform the staff at Liverpool Lime Street station ( the main station in the city) you would have found them easy going and cooperative.

Uncle Goose · Dec 15, 2009

oh boy, this is going from bad to worse. This world has become a place of angst-ridden people, how sad it that.

Uncle Goose · Dec 15, 2009

chorleyjeff said:
And confirmed the staffs' view that photographers do not respect the wishes of the property owner. Do they have security staff in railway stations?
If you had bothered to inform the staff at Liverpool Lime Street station ( the main station in the city) you would have found them easy going and cooperative.

this makes me wonder why we have to ask this in the first place, after all, all we do is just capturing the reflection of light on objects, it's not that we actually take or even touch the object we photograph, nor do we disrespect the privacy as many thousands of commuters are using these stations. I'm not saying this may be used as an excuse to photograph into houses or so but at public accessible places no one should be bothered by people taking photographs. reflection of light is no-ones property to begin with.

KWhitmore · Dec 15, 2009

bowzart said:
I was in Montreal last month, walking the streets recording, with a digital camera, the various appealing menus just to show my wife what was available to eat since she wasn't with me. I had no problem for several hours, until a guy ran after me after I had photographed his window, which had his viands listed. He said it was ok to photograph, but he wanted me to ask first, and after a very low key discussion, told me that it is illegal to photograph storefronts! Well, of course this is baloney. What's the difference between your storefront and Notre Dame Cathedral's store front? The only difference is that it's yours, and you are paranoid.

I'm pretty sure it's baloney. Maybe he thought you were stealing his menu for another resto? :confused:

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

KWhitmore said:
bowzart said:

I was in Montreal last month, walking the streets recording, with a digital camera, the various appealing menus just to show my wife what was available to eat since she wasn't with me. I had no problem for several hours, until a guy ran after me after I had photographed his window, which had his viands listed. He said it was ok to photograph, but he wanted me to ask first, and after a very low key discussion, told me that it is illegal to photograph storefronts! Well, of course this is baloney. What's the difference between your storefront and Notre Dame Cathedral's store front? The only difference is that it's yours, and you are paranoid.

I'm pretty sure it's baloney. Maybe he thought you were stealing his menu for another resto? :confused:

Click to expand...

Well, yes, he said that pictures had been used "against" him. I do think it might be hard to imagine how a list of the most common items on any middle eastern menu (gyros, falafel, etc.) would provide much fuel for sabotage, and there was absolutely nothing out of the ordinary about the storefront. He must have thought my camera was capable of recording his thoughts. Maybe he's right.

It would not have been worth it to pursue any sort of arguement. I choose my battles, and this one had no standing. Let him have his miserable life in fear, if that's what he wants. Further conversation can bring nothing but escalation, and I've got better ways to use my energy.

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
The paranoia of photography has gotten ridiculous.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/...phs-your-kid-with-santa-should-we-arrest-him/

There is one possible issue here that I can understand, but certainly not the arrest, and yes, it's overblown - but consider the possibility that the fathers involved may have been on one side or another of a custody suit. Or that they could have kidnapped their own kids from the mothers.

Reminds me of a fellow I knew who photographed in a Las Vegas casino back in the 1960's. He was allowed two options. He could surrender his film, or have the camera taken from his broken arm. He ask why. "maybe someone doesn't want to be seen with somebody else."

With kids, the custody issue is the big one. Any school will verify this.

We do live in a fearful world.

Uncle Goose · Dec 15, 2009

if this is the world we live in the I rather go into the wild, live in a cabin without water and electricity and start sending bomb letters all around. Oh, no, wait, that was Ted Kaczynski....

DLawson · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
The paranoia of photography has gotten ridiculous.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/...phs-your-kid-with-santa-should-we-arrest-him/

I love that the offending photography happened just after he was shooting a Federal Building -- for the government.

Rudeofus · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
The paranoia of photography has gotten ridiculous.

http://freerangekids.wordpress.com/...phs-your-kid-with-santa-should-we-arrest-him/

The most scary part of this incident is the user comments in the original article where other photographers report about similar incidents in many other parts of the US. I would not be surprized if this story you linked to ends like the shameful tazer story at the University of Florida in 2007: all kinds of charges were brought against the guy, including felony charges, finally the guy was offered probation while the cops actions were labeled "justified" by the review board.

RalphLambrecht · Dec 15, 2009

chorleyjeff said:
And confirmed the staffs' view that photographers do not respect the wishes of the property owner...

Correct. I take the right to make a photograph on publicly accessible grounds anytime I see one, unless it gets in the way with peoples pride, privacy or dignity.

Other than that:

I steel nothing but light and leave nothing but footprints.

SuzanneR · Dec 15, 2009

bowzart said:
There is one possible issue here that I can understand, but certainly not the arrest, and yes, it's overblown - but consider the possibility that the fathers involved may have been on one side or another of a custody suit. Or that they could have kidnapped their own kids from the mothers.

Reminds me of a fellow I knew who photographed in a Las Vegas casino back in the 1960's. He was allowed two options. He could surrender his film, or have the camera taken from his broken arm. He ask why. "maybe someone doesn't want to be seen with somebody else."

With kids, the custody issue is the big one. Any school will verify this.

We do live in a fearful world.

Yes, and when asked by the fathers' of the kids, he deleted the images, and let the fathers' see that he had. (Although, the whole custody thing, it seems to me, shouldn't impinge on a photographer making pictures in a public place. You want to keep your kids hidden from the world... then keep them at home. And if that's how you go about dealing with custody issues, then maybe the other parent should be granted custody.) As for schools, they often have blanket agreements (they aren't public places in the same sense as a mall) , and those kids NOT to be photographed by the local media or what have you are usually known to the staff.

At any rate, once the pix were deleted, (and one of the few advantages of digital, IMHO, he didn't have to sacrifice the whole roll after all) that should have been the end of it, but the whole thing gets blown out of all reason in the name of "safety", when frankly, having the police expend resources to keep a photographer making pictures in a public place, which is protected under the Constitution here in the U.S. is an utterly ridiculous use of taxpayer resources.

bobwysiwyg · Dec 15, 2009

I agree with the overblown public feelings (fed by the press), but isn't a mall private property?

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

SuzanneR said:
...(Although, the whole custody thing, it seems to me, shouldn't impinge on a photographer making pictures in a public place.

No argument at all. Public is public. I do find the social dynamics rather interesting, not as a photographers' rights issue so much but as a window into the world we live in.

I worked at a college once where the photo editor of the paper, who should have known better, really, tried to remain unobtrusive to get candid images of children playing in the day care facility. He was surprised when the campus cops got very interested in what he was doing.

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

bobwysiwyg said:
I agree with the overblown public feelings (fed by the press), but isn't a mall private property?

I too agree with the overblown ... etc. but you are correct -- unless it might be the capitol mall in Washington DC - malls are private and there are no protections in the constitution for photographers in private places against being restricted. It is entirely within the rights of the mall, in fact, to throw the photographer out on his ear, just for having a camera. Of course, the whole thing is ridiculous, because of the previously mentioned cell phone issues, etc.

It really was not very smart of the photographer in this instance to attempt to photograph the cops. Not smart at all. I'm not saying he shouldn't be able to do so, but if you recall the incident with the encounter of Professor Gates and the Cambridge police, the incident escalated when Dr. Gates didn't just back down as so many police officers think is the appropriate way we need to show our respect for them. I suspect the cop took the law into his own hands and his job became secondary to his emotions. I think it is very important for photographers to understand that the dangers in their jobs are not limited to physical threats, like getting blown up in a war. It is very important to understand the human elements. Hey, you have a job to do. Don't make problems for yourself by being confrontational; it is not in your interest.

Photographers having rights to work in private spaces without clearance, sure, I have a problem with it, and I will justify my having a problem with it by the problem I have with private property. I do own some property, and I have enforced my property rights and will continue to do so. I have to admit that when it's my property, I feel entitled. When it is a corporation's property, I resent that they have the same rights I enjoy. Of course this is ridiculous and contradictory. It is an emotional thing, not rational. The corporation that owns the mall has the same rights I do. When it comes to private ownership, the constitutional rights which apply to public space don't apply - don't apply equally, in theory - to my property and to theirs. In practice, maybe not so equally. I suspect that everyone's equal, but some are more equal than others. Laws protect the wealthy and powerful, in practice, better than they do the poor and weak.

If my insurance company sets foot on my property and commences to take pictures of the moss on my roof, you can be sure I'm going to call the cops right away. Now, if I could have security guards, like they do, I'd have a better chance at enforcing my rights.

SuzanneR · Dec 15, 2009

bobwysiwyg said:
I agree with the overblown public feelings (fed by the press), but isn't a mall private property?

I suppose they are, but I'm not convinced that a place open to the public 18 to 20 hours a day should be above the first amendment, and never allow patrons to make photographs. In many places, they've become something akin to Main Street, no? And apparently this mall had the local police presence, and not the rent-a-cop variety, so they were able to enjoy the resources of their local tax base? So again, in a place where patrons can expect little privacy, why should the photographer be harassed for making pictures of seasonal shopping?

Larry Bullis · Dec 15, 2009

I certainly agree about SHOULD but I don't think the courts will. Of course, I suppose he can test it if he wants to go to the trouble and expense - and he'd almost certainly lose. The only way we'd ever know for sure is if he goes for it. Something like this, if the first amendment is invoked, would have to go all the way to the Supreme Court. We've seen where the majority's heart lies these days, 5-4.

When public police officers are used in situations like that, in all instances that I've ever heard of, they ARE rent-a-cops. Local police departments are often contracted by smaller municipalities, non-incorporated towns, and private clients - like malls, concert venues, etc. - who pay for their services. If they aren't under contract and paying their own way, I'd think their auditors would have something to say about it.

I wish it were "fair" but that's not likely. If I'm out there shooting for my bread and butter, I think it's really important to understand how things like this really do work, even though I wish it were otherwise, and navigate my way through the obstacles so I can get what I need. It might involve going to the office and getting clearance, making friends with the cop; at least, understanding the rules. And, it might be denied.

Photography in Public Places

tkamiya

paul_c5x4

RalphLambrecht

wiltw

wiltw

RalphLambrecht

removed-user-1

removed-user-1

SuzanneR

Moderator

chorleyjeff

Uncle Goose

Uncle Goose

KWhitmore

Larry Bullis

Larry Bullis

Uncle Goose

DLawson

Rudeofus

RalphLambrecht

SuzanneR

Moderator

bobwysiwyg

Larry Bullis

Larry Bullis

SuzanneR

Moderator

Larry Bullis

Photography in Public Places

removed-user-1

removed-user-1

Moderator

Moderator

Moderator

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency