Security Risk!?

[Nathan King]

I was out today attempting to take a few photographs of a few architectural features of a downtown building today since we had some beautiful lighting in the late afternoon. I had a medium format camera set up on a tripod on public land across the street. I was setting up when a security guard for the building came across the street and asked if I was with the news. I calmly told him I was an amateur photographer, fully expecting him to let me go about my business. Instead, he told me I must pack up and leave immediately. I (still calmly) asked why as I was not trespassing on the private property. He simply said no images of the building may be taken, and of course, played the 9/11 card. I reiterated my belief that I was well within reason to be there, but he successfully bullied me away from the building...he even watched me pack my things and walk away. Is this sort of thing common? Is there anything that can be done? I can attempt to obtain written permission, but doubt that will be granted given the strict guidelines given to security staff. It is absurd that a private company would attempt to govern a person's actions when off property.

The ironic thing about all of this is that I went to New York and Chicago for vacation earlier this year and did the exact same thing without any hassle whatsoever. Go figure!

 

[Bill Burk]

Sorry for your unfortunate treatment. What if you were to get permission in advance, and had a real incentive...

I imagine there are many buildings near you where you could practice Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) and Historic American Engineering Record (HAER) photography, where you could stand tall and proud and show your right to photograph the building is not only sanctioned but was requested!

 

[Bill Burk]

I was once asked to leave the Century Plaza Towers of LA... after I got the shot.

 

[Dr Croubie]

Not sure about the US, but in Australia that only counts for "prescribed sites", which are mostly military.
So there shouldn't be any reason you couldn't.
That said, don't argue with the guy with the gun.

 

[JackRosa]

> A park ranger once asked me if I was taking shots professionally. When I told him photography was a hobby, he allowed me to stay.

> About 10 years few ago,I was taking pictures of a dam in NY - the police (several, in fact) arrived and asked me numerous questions. Then they asked me to leave the park! Apparently, someone nearby thought my 8x10 camera (on tripod) looked like a rocket launcher and called the police.

> My approach is to be polite and not insist. If they ask me to leave, I leave. Better leave that be put in the back of a police car

 

[snapguy]

learning

You are learning that there are a lot of overbearing, uninformed and ignorant people on this planet. I was a photojournalist for many years and got my usual menu of hassles. But today is really terrible. At some point serious photographers have to work together and fight back or we willl all be afraid to point our lens at anything but our own backyards. Confronting a rent-a-cop is probably not the way to do it. I should think a well informed letter to his boss, the local newspaper and other media and so on is worth considering. The Chamber of Commerce should know that the local Keystone Cops are cutting down tourism, for one thing.

 

[Theo Sulphate]

I'm assuming you weren't photographing a government building or financial building; security personnel at those places have reason for not trusting anyone.

Other than that, the guard probably knew full well you were not a threat. Instead, he probably saw it as an opportunity to write something in his daily report to show that he was doing his job and was vigilant.

Unfortunately, things like this just make it easier for him and others like him to justify and continue such actions.

Also, if either you or he called the police, I'm certain the police will always support the security officer.

In a way, it's sort of like during WWII when even civilians had to be careful what they talked about -- or what they photographed. But, for the most part today, what happened to you was unjustified.

 

[Light Guru]

Get yourself one of these. Or just print out the text.
Dead Link Removed

You had situation #1, 3 and 6 on the list and unless he can name the spicific law that states that that property cannot be photographed he cannot make you stop.

 

[winger]

There likely wasn't any true legal reason for him to do that. I'll admit some bias, but I think this is more likely to happen with security guards than with police or especially state police officers. I know the Massachusetts State Police were told and reminded by all user e-mails to note photographers, but that they were allowed to photograph if not blocking the public way and if not on private property. Anyway, somewhere on the web, there's a pdf that boils the rights of a photographer down to one page. I used to have a copy in a camera bag, but I can't find it there now. Ah - http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

If it had been me and I was there without my son, I probably would have either played the "blonde card" or asked him to call the police since I was on public property. Since I've been hoping to find some time to shoot in Omaha (if that's where you were), let me know next time you want to go. Hopefully I'll be able to make it without the little dude or with help to watch him.

 

[munz6869]

A few years back, I was shooting a building in Melbourne from across the road, and a security guard from the complex wandered over and demanded I stop. I told him that I didn't believe he had the authority to do that, but he was very overbearing (invading my personal space, etc). Eventually he said 'I'll let you make one shot', which, with a Graphic View Monorail (not exactly stealthily) set up, was all I was going to do anyway (and the shot was actually very boring/poorly composed when I processed it later ) - he hovered about whilst I was doing it and generally made the entire experience a bit unpleasant. The next day I sent an email to the Melbourne Film Office, asking exactly what my obligations/rights were in relation to this matter, and I was astonished to receive a nice email back from them, and apology from the building managers, and that the security contractor had been released (from that site). It's not very nice for someone to lose their job over something so petty - but I was heartened that the city affirmed the right of photographers to photograph in public areas, and that the building managers acknowledged that their representative had overstepped (literally) his jurisdiction somewhat.

That said, I'd only be confident to challenge something as obviously wrong as this in my home city - on travels, when similar things have happened, I just down tools and walk away politely. I just wouldn't know the local laws/regulations well enough, and troubles can really wreck your day/holiday.

Marc!

 

[Theo Sulphate]

What is stated on that card may be true, but, as it is written, it's merely a collection of statements on a card. On what authority are these statements true? I'm not a lawyer, but to have weight, it should reference, at the least, legal cases where these situations have been decided upon. Otherwise, I could print up my own card to say anything.

EDIT: the PDF at least references an attorney.

 

[polyglot]

Not everywhere has that craziness. Hell, I was stopped in the Moscow subway by a couple of transit police; though we shared basically no language, they made it clear that photography was OK, I just wasn't to setup a tripod.

Australian cops also don't seem to be half as criminal as their USAnian brethren.

 

[shutterboy]

Sorry about my language, but such people just get on my nerves, and I just tell the over enthusiastic security guard to go fuck themselves. If they dare to touch me or my gear (and it had happened once), I make sure they don't touch anything else for a while. Of course, the only people I even bother to even respond to are police officers in uniform and most of the time they let me go on my business when I tell them the precise law which I am following.

 

[Steve Smith]

most of the time they let me go on my business when I tell them the precise law which I am following.

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I don't understand what you mean by this part. Laws generally tell you what you can't do, rather than telling you what to do, or follow as you put it.


Steve.

 

[hdeyong]

I was photographing the underside of the bridge between Detroit and Windsor, Ont. Pretty soon a car drives up and a security guy gets out and says I can't take pictures there for security reasons. This kind of thing has happened several times in several places, but it always takes these guys a little time to appear, and they've never asked me about the pictures I've already taken.........

 

[removed account4]

i have photographed the built environment, including restricted government areas that civilians have never
seen ... and usually it is just phone call and get permission to make the photographs if you don' t want to be hassled.
you typically get back what you give, and if you hassle a security guard they will push-back.. this isn't really true for
all cases though ... but most

 

[winger]

With more reflection, I would do what Marc did - send a letter to the management of that building letting them know what happened. Incidents like this are only going to stop when the security guards are told what the actual laws are (most get no training).

 

[TimFox]

I noticed that you had no problems photographing buildings in Chicago. I have never been hassled by a Chicago Police Department officer while shooting legally from sidewalks with a large-format camera and tripod, although several of them were curious about the equipment.
Security guards, however, are a perennial nuisance. Amusingly, I usually encounter them when I am on the sidewalk in front of their building, but photographing the building across the street (or river), since photographing a tall building from six feet away is not usually a good idea. Of course, if I am on private property, I must move

 

[rst]

I only got in contact with security folks once. I had my pinhole camera setup in front of a financial building to photograph the main entrance (here is the image: Click!)

I had just finished the exposure when a car arrived and parked in front of the building. The security officer in the car gestured and it seemed that he wants to talk to me. I thought OK, let's be nice and walked over to him and asked if he minds me taking photographs when he told me: No he does not mind as I stand on public ground, all he wanted to know is if it is OK for me if he parks the car in front of the building or if he ruins my image, in that case he would have parked somewhere else. So security people can be nice.

Cheers
Ruediger

 

[ParkerSmithPhoto]

Not to generalize but many people who work security jobs aren't terribly bright, and if you get someone who thinks that building and its security is their kingdom, things could get ugly quick.

I think line #3 is the important one: 3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.

Despite you having the right to make a photograph, having a violent run in with a security stooge might not be worth it.

 

[Rick A]

I think line #3 is the important one: 3. Private property owners can prevent photography ON their property, but not photography OF their property from a public location.


Except, I believe, in Florida where it is illegal to photograph farms. Corporate (read mega-corporations like Monsanto) farmers successfully lobbied the state to prohibit photography of their shenanigans (livestock conditions, farm practices, etc.). Correct me if I'm wrong on the state. You cannot even stand on public property to shoot over the fence at them.

 

[summicron1]

I was out today attempting to take a few photographs of a few architectural features of a downtown building today since we had some beautiful lighting in the late afternoon. I had a medium format camera set up on a tripod on public land across the street. I was setting up when a security guard for the building came across the street and asked if I was with the news. I calmly told him I was an amateur photographer, fully expecting him to let me go about my business. Instead, he told me I must pack up and leave immediately. I (still calmly) asked why as I was not trespassing on the private property. He simply said no images of the building may be taken, and of course, played the 9/11 card. I reiterated my belief that I was well within reason to be there, but he successfully bullied me away from the building...he even watched me pack my things and walk away. Is this sort of thing common? Is there anything that can be done? I can attempt to obtain written permission, but doubt that will be granted given the strict guidelines given to security staff. It is absurd that a private company would attempt to govern a person's actions when off property.

The ironic thing about all of this is that I went to New York and Chicago for vacation earlier this year and did the exact same thing without any hassle whatsoever. Go figure!

This is bullshit from an overenthusiastic rent-a-cop -- As a reporter at the Ogden newspaper this question came up from someone taking pictures of federal buildings here in Ogden, so I went to the regional head of General Services Administration in Denver. They said the law says that you can take a picture of anything you can see from the sidewalk, which is public right of way. They can restrict you from going onto their property if they want, but on public sidewalks you can shoot anything you can see any way you want.

If they yammer on about security and terrorism, take out your smartphone, google the building, and show them that there are already pictures of the inside of the building available in the internet.

Tell the cop that and ask them to check with their General Services Administration office if they are unsure.

 

[Ricardo Miranda]

Whilst I agree with most of your post, I don't understand what you mean by this part. Laws generally tell you what you can't do, rather than telling you what to do, or follow as you put it.


Steve.

Steve,
This reminds me of something I read years ago:

"...having a list of things you can't do (UK) leaves plenty of scope for the imaginative citizen to dream up things the authorities haven't got round to making illegal; whereas having a list of things you can do (as in America) leaves the authorities plenty of scope to find reasons for locking you up."

From Xenophobe's guide to the English, Anthony Miall and David Milstead

 

[lxdude]

Nathan,
The guard had no right to do what he did. His "jurisdiction" ends at the property line. He can't even control a public easement on the property.

 

[Nathan King]

Interesting discussion. I was very pleasant with the guard despite very gently and respectfully questioning the policy. He was quite professional and pleasant as well. I feel he didn't personally care what I did, so I don't think this is a case of a rogue guard.