Suspicions Warranted?

Nearly a year ago I started the post: "Is Photography Dead", due to the fact that I was nearly arrested for taking night shots of a building being constructed on the grounds of a hospital/medical college. A woman saw me taking the pictures and called the campus police, which I thought to be a drastic overreaction as well as totally unwarranted. I had another instance that was somewhat similar today, but no police were involved.

While using the Bank of America ATM drive thru, I noticed an object next to the ATM machine that I thought would make for an interesting photograph. Ironically, this was the one day that I did not have my camera with me in my vehicle, so I went home to retrieve it.

Upon returning to the bank, I promptly entered and showed my Bank of America ATM ID to the bank manager while explaining to her that I am a documentary photographer and would like to photograph the particular scene. She gave me the go ahead.

As you would imagine, I received suspicious looks and glances from individuals outside of the bank. Strangely they were not from those using the ATM machine, but rather those who were using the drive thru banking services. In fact I believe one guy tried to run me over.

He was watching me intently while at the teller window, which was at least 30 feet away from the ATM machine. The entire time he never took his eyes off of me. He was making me feel uneasy so I had no choice but to use my Pentax-K1000 as thought it were a rangefinder so that I could keep an eye on him.

After finishing his transaction, he sped around the corner erratically in the direction I was standing/photographing, tires screeching, and truck wobbling. I calmly stepped to the side and started back photographing.

Needless to say, as I was loading my camera equipment to leave after finally feeling that I captured the image I wanted, the bank manager approached me and asked, "Are you still taking pictures of that scene?" I told her that I was just wrapping it up. She replied,"Good because the people are starting to complain." I told her that I noticed there looks and glances, but I shoot film and the process is a bit slower than digital." I thanked her and with a smile she said, "You are welcome," and re-entered the bank.

It took much longer that I thought it would to capture the shot (20-25 minutes) due to the many individuals who were using the ATM. Had it not been so busy I believe I could have captured it much quicker and not worn out my welcome.

In this case I do not blame the people for complaining and acting suspicious of my presence. In fact, I expected their reactions which is why I asked for permission before hand. I must admit had I been on the other end of the situation I would have thought it odd to see a man standing outside of a busy bank taking pictures of an ATM machine between the hours of 2:00-3:00 in the evening.

In my view this is the total opposite of how the woman at the hospital reacted. I do not blame the people in this instance, (minus the crazed guy in the truck), for reacting in the manner they did. I believe their complaints were valid, their suspicions to be warranted.

Do you?


Thank you,
Jamusu.

Photography is a crime!

HA!

You should have made the image with an 8x10 view camera. That would really freak people out.

I had a bunch of these stickers made last year. Sounds like you could use one.

People always get suspicious when they see the pistol grip on my super 8.

My wife saw a shirt she said she wanted to get me that said something like "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist!"

This terrorist-phobia that the politicians and media have fomented is really awful.

Some years back whilst a teenager I did a night shoot for Dairy Queen. The cops rolled in and gave me such a hard time. The manager came out and told them I was working for him, so they left. Then a bunch of kids came around thinking that I was photographing them for the cops. Seems the newspaper had said the cops would be photographing the kids drinking, littering, etc. Everybody was mad at me, except Dairy Queen. That and a few other experiences drove me away from photography for several decades.

Don't know what metropolitan area you live in, but I would say Yes, their suspicions are warranted. The people walking up to the ATM primarily have to worry about a loiterer trying to steal their PIN and card, or making a snatch at cash. The people in their cars have a much more serious threat: carjacking. The odds may be small, but if it does happen the chances of serious injury or weapons coming into play is greater. If I were alone in my car at the drive-thru, being distracted by the bank teller, and I had to sit there as a sitting duck while I saw someone hanging around doing anything out of the ordinary I'd get jumpy too. If that person were taking pictures, I would assume they were faking. I'd have no idea you've cleared your little exercise with the management. But unlike the guy in the truck, I wouldn't just be keeping an eye on you; I'd also be keeping an eye out for your accomplice trying to come up the side of my car from behind. And if you were standing in the exit such that you had to move to let the truck out, I'd say you were standing in a very dangerous spot. The speeding and tires screeching was to inform you that if you tried to stop him, he was going to run your ass over.

Maybe I'm paranoid, or indicative of the paranoia in society in general, but I wouldn't cut you any slack just because you appeared to be doing something I like to do too. And I have to wonder whether you really were aware of how you'd be perceived, or whether you decided you didn't care if it was provocative. Hope you got some magnificent pictures out of it.

Jerry Thirsty said:

Don't know what metropolitan area you live in, but I would say Yes, their suspicions are warranted. The people walking up to the ATM primarily have to worry about a loiterer trying to steal their PIN and card, or making a snatch at cash. The people in their cars have a much more serious threat: carjacking. The odds may be small, but if it does happen the chances of serious injury or weapons coming into play is greater. If I were alone in my car at the drive-thru, being distracted by the bank teller, and I had to sit there as a sitting duck while I saw someone hanging around doing anything out of the ordinary I'd get jumpy too. If that person were taking pictures, I would assume they were faking. I'd have no idea you've cleared your little exercise with the management. But unlike the guy in the truck, I wouldn't just be keeping an eye on you; I'd also be keeping an eye out for your accomplice trying to come up the side of my car from behind. And if you were standing in the exit such that you had to move to let the truck out, I'd say you were standing in a very dangerous spot. The speeding and tires screeching was to inform you that if you tried to stop him, he was going to run your ass over.

Maybe I'm paranoid, or indicative of the paranoia in society in general, but I wouldn't cut you any slack just because you appeared to be doing something I like to do too. And I have to wonder whether you really were aware of how you'd be perceived, or whether you decided you didn't care if it was provocative. Hope you got some magnificent pictures out of it.

Click to expand...

_________________________________________________________________
Jerry Thirsty.

In my original post, I stated that their suspicions were both valid and warranted. I am not asking for any slack from my fellow Apuger's in this instance.

Why must you doubt whether or not I was aware of how I would be perceived? I would not have asked for permission to take the photographs in the first place had I not expected the complaints beforehand.

In this case, you were not paranoid, or indicative of the paranoia in society in general, nor the individuals at the bank. This is one time that I would have to say that their suspicions were warranted.

I hope I got some magnificent pictures out of it as well.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

Maybe I'm paranoid, or indicative of the paranoia in society in general

Click to expand...

the second. In the same time I have to say choosing an ATM machine or the surrounding area as your subject is when you ask for trouble.

I'm going to guess that you're in a major metropolitan area and I belive that has a lot to do with it. I live in a small town (45,000 population) and use everything from handheld 35mm rangefinder and SLR to 8x10 on a tripod. I've photograhed all over town, repeatedly, including buildings, bridges, festivals, banks, kids... and no one here as ever so much as looked at me funny. The only times I've had problems have when I've been in large cities; small towns here in Indiana don't seem to care (but they do recognize the 8x10 monorail as a camera, which is interesting to me.)

Mike

jamusu said:

_________________________________________________________________
Jerry Thirsty.

Why must you doubt whether or not I was aware of how I would be perceived?

Thank you,
Jamusu.

Click to expand...

In your original post, you state that "I received suspicious looks and glances from individuals outside of the bank. Strangely they were not from those using the ATM machine, but rather those who were using the drive thru banking services." From your phrasing, it appeared to me that you didn't understand why it was the vehicle occupants (as opposed to the pedestrians) who were acting suspicious of you, so I was trying to give an explanation for that.

Is the medical/hospital campus private or public?

Photographers have the right to take photographs of anything in the public domain. That includes public servants (like police officers) and public property. It falls under the 1st amendment rights we all enjoy here in the United States of America.

Now having said that, local law enforcement officers like to sometimes think they, and the city they represent, supersede the Constitution, but they do not. As a photographer, you have the right to remind them that they are public servants in the public domain and you have every right to take their photograph, or the photograph of anyone, or anything else, in the public domain.

So it all comes down to whether that campus hospital/medical center is public or private, or any other location you choose to photograph.

Jason Mekeel

Jerry Thirsty.

There were no pedestrians. Everyone was in vehicles. The ATM that I was photographing was the drive thru version attached to the building. I was not standing directly in front of it, but instead maybe 12 feet away on a grassy patch/curb that separated the Bank of America parking lot from a Jiffy Lube. Although, I would move in from time to time to get a tighter frame, or different angles.

When those who wanted to use the ATM drove up, I would immediately stop photographing and let my camera hang from my neck, change my filters, or record my photographic information on a sheet of paper while standing on the grassy patch/curb.. Some of them would even wait for me to finish a shot and then pull up to the ATM machine, others waived goodbye. I would then resume photographing.

As stated earlier, their suspicions were fully warranted, but I found it rather peculiar that those using the ATM were less suspicious than those using the drive thru banking services. I thought that it would have been the other way around, or more a combination of both.

I see where you were coming from. Hopefully this explanation clears up any confusion on my part.

Thank you,
Jamusu.

Get yourself two or three traffic cones, a reflective vest and a hardhat.
Put the cones around the site and you'll be invisible.

John Koehrer said:

Get yourself two or three traffic cones, a reflective vest and a hardhat.
Put the cones around the site and you'll be invisible.

Click to expand...

What a great idea. Look like you're "supposed" to be there.

I might add, that regardless of how dumb it may seem, letting the local cops know you'll be photographing etc might help in similar circumstances. The last thing you need is one more distraction.

Thanks,

C

never take pictures near vehicles. As police now use photo for all kinds of evidence, people get really tetchy if they see you around their vehicle... they will assume you are police and get irrational. I once did a night shoot of a busy roundabout and traffic crossing, nice open shutter, neon blurs etc etc - never again, was stopped, followed, threatened, the works :-(

If we back off and allow either the authorities or 'joe public' to curtail our enjoyment of photography, we might as well pack up, sell our gear and take up Scrabble.

Events like 9/11 in the US and 7/7 here in the UK have been stoked up by the right-wing anti-freedom tabloid and gutter broadsheet press to the point where every photographer is instantly 'guilty' of some indeterminate terrorist or perverted act until they can prove themselves innocent. I can only speak about the situation in the UK but I've been stopped by Police and harrassed by pedestrians for nothing more than taking photos in public streets. I simply - but quite plainly - explain I'm entitled to shoot what I want, when I want in a public place. No-one has the right to stop me, hand over my gear / film or view / delete my shots (I also use digital).

We either face up to these cretins and claim our rights back or we sink further into the police states over which our governments would happily preside. If we don't, those who would bring down our (failing) forms of western democracy will have won a big battle.

viridari said:

My wife saw a shirt she said she wanted to get me that said something like "I'm a photographer, not a terrorist!"

This terrorist-phobia that the politicians and media have fomented is really awful.

Click to expand...

I'm thinking of having a similar one made along the lines of

"I'm a photographer - Not a peadophile, nor a terrorist - just a photographer

NOW PISS OFF!!!!"

Somewhat rude, I know, but I'm getting sick and tired of being treated with suspicion when I'm out doing something completely lawful. How many perverts do you see with a Bronica on a tripod for God's sake??

Adrian; spot on! As far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that any terrorist group has resorted to photographic surveillance (of any kind) prior to perpetrating any act. I am firmly of the opinion that the UK and US governments are using the paranoia that they've created to keep people fearful and maintain their grip on power. Every government needs a bogeyman to 'protect' its people from so that it can say 'What a good govenrment are that keep you safe. Please vote for us again...."

I have a long list of experiences with cameras and paranoid people... when I was in college in the early 1990's, I carried my camera everywhere, and one time was challenged by a grocery store manager when I went shopping with my mom; it was a Nikon, on a flash bracket instead of a strap so I guess he thought it "looked professional." He walked up to me and said, "What do you think you're doing with that camera?" to which I replied "I'm carrying it." He left me alone.

A few years back, an Arabic man was arrested for shooting video of buildings in downtown Charlotte... I do not know what happened to him, but after that I made it a POINT to go downtown and very conspicuously take pictures of buildings. Nobody bothered me a single time, but I guess that's because I am white and generally wear business casual...

I recently had a very strange experience. Shopping with my fiance, I noticed that the sunlight was hitting a nearby building just right so I walked across the parking lot to take a couple photos... two cars pulled up and drove past me - one backed up to do so - while I shot; when I was done, they both sped off. Not sure what that was all about.

Paul Jenkin said:

Adrian; spot on! As far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that any terrorist group has resorted to photographic surveillance (of any kind) prior to perpetrating any act. I am firmly of the opinion that the UK and US governments are using the paranoia that they've created to keep people fearful and maintain their grip on power. Every government needs a bogeyman to 'protect' its people from so that it can say 'What a good govenrment are that keep you safe. Please vote for us again...."

Click to expand...

Paul - actually, it is a known fact that terrorist organizations have used photo and video surveillance to plan attacks. For example, when allied forces finally entered the caves at Tora Bora in Afghanistan, numerous photographs dating back over at least a decade were found documenting the insides of a variety of government buildings in the Washington DC area, including areas that were normally off-limits to the general public.

All this, yet nobody kicks up a fuss about CCTV cameras being almost everywhere...

No kidding, huh.

We now live in the age of fictional crimes. The validity of any perception of threat is inherent in the claim that one feels threatened. Insensitivity to one's perception of threat, while not a crime in itself, will eventually result in a crime: vagrancy, disturbing the peace, blah blah.

Reasons for fear are myriad, and I cannot account for all of them. Paranoia is a clinical diagnosis, and I do not have the time to diagnose while trying to photograph.

I do ask permission even where it is not required, just to show consideration. If permission is not granted, I inform them that no permission is warranted. This usually results in great indignation at my insensitivity (a high crime in the 21st century) and that's when I tell them to piss off.

I am not a lawyer. If you are confronted by a cop, start by quoting this if you believe your rights are worth it-

Title 18, U.S.C., Section 242
Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

Section 241 is also germane I would think if there is more than one cop.

These are really worth reading.

Paul Jenkin said:

Adrian; spot on! As far as I'm aware there has never been any suggestion that any terrorist group has resorted to photographic surveillance (of any kind) prior to perpetrating any act. I am firmly of the opinion that the UK and US governments are using the paranoia that they've created to keep people fearful and maintain their grip on power. Every government needs a bogeyman to 'protect' its people from so that it can say 'What a good govenrment are that keep you safe. Please vote for us again...."

Click to expand...

I'm sure our governments have taken plenty of surveillance images prior to perpetrating terrorist acts, but thats contentious and this is not the thread for it. You are right on the money with the scaremongering points though.
It is really quite sad.