The effects of even donning a camera ( and scary situations as a result of it)

guangong · Jul 15, 2018

Discretion. With a little practice it’s easy to take pictures without drawing notice. Forty five years ago I took many many photographs in North Korea that my handlers, standing right next to me, were unaware of. My current ongoing project on gluttony requires that nobody be aware, because my intention is not to embarrass or attract attention.
In this day and age a proprietor may have reason to be concerned, especially if the UK is flooded with an oversupply of lawyers and regulators like the USA.
Or use a camera that is capable but looks antiquated. My standby for “no photography permitted “ is my Super Ikonta B. The guards usually ignore me.

blockend · Jul 15, 2018

GRHazelton said:
Note that the Praktica LTL is a German camera

A Praktica shutter would wake the dead.

GRHazelton · Jul 15, 2018

blockend said:
A Praktica shutter would wake the dead.

Ever hear a Bronica S2a shutter??

Theo Sulphate · Jul 15, 2018

What do you mean by "an American city accent"? Assuming you are in the U.S. (as your other statements imply), did those guys sound different than other people in the area you live in?

Primary rule for all creatures on Earth: be aware of your surroundings.

There was a viral YouTube video a few years ago of a tourist photographer in Russia being accosted and surrounded by locals who were acting offended and pushing him around; one of them skillfully detaches and takes his lens.

GRHazelton said:
... A young woman who'd been in the picture but at some distance and with her back to the camera, apparently heard the shutter ...

Must be a very loud shutter!

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

Theo... Search YouTube for “First Amendment Audits”. Happens a lot in USA and if you look a bit further similar happens in Britain. Both citizens and law enforcement act completely bizarre too often when dealing with legal public photography.

I’ve seen the lens removal videos too... but always thought that was just a way to rob without the victim knowing they were being robbed. Pickpocket technique used to get a lens rather than a billfold, phone, or watch.

Sirius Glass · Jul 15, 2018

Fall said:
having an american city accent

First of all we do not have an accent you do. Secondly, having an accent is not illegal anywhere in the world.

Theo Sulphate · Jul 15, 2018

BrianShaw said:
...
I’ve seen the lens removal videos too... but always thought that was just a way to rob without the victim knowing they were being robbed. ...

Yes, exactly.

In the OP's case, my bet is that the American-city-accent guys were paranoid of being the subject of a photo, no matter how innocent. Some people get near-violent if they think you're staring at them (when you're not).

Ko.Fe. · Jul 15, 2018

You are not allowed to take pictures on private property without permission. Rough looking or just oldie they have legitimate complain. This is why some of us, who takes pictures on the street are not taking them inside as freely as on the street. Because we know the rules. If someone will ask and escalate on the street, they have no case. But in the store they do. And it doesn't' matter if you took it or not.
I have no hesitation to take pictures on the street while it is farmers market, but I would think twice to take them inside of the store. I do, for same reason as you, but with mobile phone and close.

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

Ko.Fe. said:
You are not allowed to take pictures on private property without permission. Rough looking or just oldie they have legitimate complain. This is why some of us, who takes pictures on the street are not taking them inside as freely as on the street. Because we know the rules. If someone will ask and escalate on the street, they have no case. But in the store they do. And it doesn't' matter if you took it or not.
I have no hesitation to take pictures on the street while it is farmers market, but I would think twice to take them inside of the store. I do, for same reason as you, but with mobile phone and close.

There is also a distinction between private property and property with public access, public or private.

No matter, problems seem to arise when people in public believe they have a right to privacy or when folks simply don’t know the difference between truly private property and any other. That seems to be when a lot of malarkey about “suspicious” and “this day and age we fear terrorism and use that to control your exercise of rights”.

When it gets almost comical is when photographers are on public property and folks think they can prevent people from photographing what’s in plain sight.

benjiboy · Jul 15, 2018

jnanian said:
its just part of having a camera and doing your thing.
i was doing location work for a newspaper and
the hotel i was sent to photograph sent their security guard
over to harass me. im not tall and this guy was like 6 feet and change
240# and built like a linebacker screaming and yelling inmy face ...
also been in eateries where customers saw my flash burst and they
grabbed the camera and wouldn't give it back ,,,
what can you do ? moving targets keep moving i guess

Didn't you think of asking permission first, and showing the hotel management your credentials ?, I'm not surprised at the way they reacted, its private property their customers might complain, and they are running a business.

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

benjiboy said:
Didn't you think of asking permission first, and showing the hotel management your credentials ?, I'm not surprised at the way they reacted

Their reaction is common. But our First Amendment is supposed to address that and be respected.

The grabbing of camera, or anything else, is battery. Yelling in face (and the like) is assault. Taking the camera is conversion. They do these things but they are in the wrong more often than not.

One thing people do, on both sides of the situation, is call the cops. That’s a crap shoot though. Sometimes the cops know what right from wrong, and sometimes not. They get lied to often too. But no matter, for any reason, they will formally trespass people if asked... whether the claim is true or not.

hoffy · Jul 15, 2018

GRHazelton said:
Ever hear a Bronica S2a shutter??

LOL! I have heard quieter guns then a Bronica S2a

Ko.Fe. said:
You are not allowed to take pictures on private property without permission. Rough looking or just oldie they have legitimate complain. This is why some of us, who takes pictures on the street are not taking them inside as freely as on the street. Because we know the rules. If someone will ask and escalate on the street, they have no case. But in the store they do. And it doesn't' matter if you took it or not.
I have no hesitation to take pictures on the street while it is farmers market, but I would think twice to take them inside of the store. I do, for same reason as you, but with mobile phone and close.

Quite true. Many strip malls and shopping centres have a no photography policy...... which never seems to apply if you take a photo using your smart phone and post it to social media.....

benjiboy · Jul 15, 2018

BrianShaw said:
Their reaction is common. But our First Amendment is supposed to address that and be respected.

The grabbing of camera, or anything else, is battery. Yelling in face (and the like) is assault. Taking the camera is conversion. They do these things but they are in the wrong more often than not.

Are you saying the U.S First Amendment allows a person to enter private business premises and start taking pictures of the premises and paying customers without the prior consent of the owners or management?

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

benjiboy said:
Are you saying the U.S First Amendment allows a person to enter private business premises and start taking pictures of the premises and paying customers without the prior consent of the owners or management?

Not exactly but pretty close. It’s First Amendment plus other rulings, of course.

Our Department of Homeland Security has issued notices that photography in government buildings - public lobby and non-secure areas - is okay. US Post Office has similar policy. Few employees and even fewer private security guards know about this. Courts are different since a judge can (and often does) write their own rules regarding the public and exterior areas of their courthouses. Nobody can effectively challenge that.

Private businesses are that difficult situation where the private ownership is compounded with the public access aspect. It’s an issue that seems still quite in debate. If it’s open to the public then many assume that the law cannot be trumped by a corporate policy.

Also quite in debate is what constitutes press credentials and if that includes free-press and independent-press or not. Freedom of the press is protected, which includes freedom to collect content regarding matters of public interest.

John said he was acting in a press capacity.

Generally what happens is that both sides in a public-access arguement can put up a fuss about their respective rights but if the business owner want to have the photographer trespassed, for whatever reason, they can ask police to do so and they will comply.

There are people who actively challenge these kind of situations. The confrontations can get very contentious and getting arrested, whether it sticks or not, can happen. While I firmly believe that we must protect our rights from abuse, including random interpretations, I’m not enough of an activist to get into trouble like that.

Truly private premises, like our homes, are protected from such activity... When the photography is being done ON their property. Photographic private property that’s in plain sight from a public property location is okay. Our Supreme Court has ruled that eyes cannot be trespassed.

Ko.Fe. · Jul 15, 2018

guangong said:
Discretion. With a little practice it’s easy to take pictures without drawing notice. Forty five years ago I took many many photographs in North Korea that my handlers, standing right next to me, were unaware of. My current ongoing project on gluttony requires that nobody be aware, because my intention is not to embarrass or attract attention.
In this day and age a proprietor may have reason to be concerned, especially if the UK is flooded with an oversupply of lawyers and regulators like the USA.
Or use a camera that is capable but looks antiquated. My standby for “no photography permitted “ is my Super Ikonta B. The guards usually ignore me.

Here is no discretion once your hand is on the shutter. And here is no discretion if you want to frame it right.

You could only be unnoticed if people are not noticing a.k.a. busy.
Or if it is early Annie Leibovitz style. Which is stay long enough with same people until at some point of the time they will stop reacting on it.
If you kept your hand on the shutter all the time in North Korea or jiggle a lot with cameras then I could believe in it. If not they just didn't care.
Just like they did with HCB in Moscow at first time.

It seems UK guards are really lame according to you, where I'm - no photography means no cameras. Mobile phone or Ikonta it doesn't matter here.

mshchem · Jul 15, 2018

BrianShaw said:
Not exactly but pretty close. It’s First Amendment plus other rulings, of course.

Our Department of Homeland Security has issued notices that photography in government buildings - public lobby and non-secure areas - is okay. US Post Office has similar policy. Few employees and even fewer private security guards know about this. Courts are different since a judge can (and often does) write their own rules regarding the public and exterior areas of their courthouses. Nobody can effectively challenge that.

Private businesses are that difficult situation where the private ownership is compounded with the public access aspect. It’s an issue that seems still quite in debate. If it’s open to the public then many assume that the law cannot be trumped by a corporate policy.

Also quite in debate is what constitutes press credentials and if that includes free-press and independent-press or not. Freedom of the press is protected, which includes freedom to collect content regarding matters of public interest.

Generally what happens is that both sides in a public-access arguementvcan put up a fuss about their respective rights but if the business owner want to have the photographer trespassed, for whatever reason, they can ask police to do so and they will comply.

There are people who actively challenge these kind of situations. The confrontations can get very contentious and getting arrested, whether it sticks or not, can happen. While I firmly believe that we must protect our rights from abuse, including random interpretations, I’m not enough of an activist to get into trouble like that.

Truly private premises, like our homes, are protected from such activity... When the photography is being done ON their property. Photographic private property that’s in plain sight from a public property location is okay. Our Supreme Court has ruled that eyes cannot be trespassed.

In the real world. If you start taking pictures of critical infrastructure, tunnels, bridges,chemical plants, be ready to be pounced on by the police. I have a friend that was traveling, he's a retired professor, high resolution medium format digital camera. He's taking landscape photos that included some sort of facility. He was on a public highway ,a county police officer tried to confiscate his camera, then memory card. My friend didn't want to end up dead or pepper sprayed. He reformatted the card, deleted everything, that got him out of a scary situation. If you are on private property you have no authority to do much of anything without the owners consent. Now if a charming beautiful young person, is walking down the street being pleasant and flattering everyone they can get away with a lot. As a 61 year old, 6'2", bald, lummox, I wouldn't expect much welcome from strangers without some buttering them up .

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

Yup... The real world is real. Whether rational or justified, bad things can and will happen. Some of who we pay to protect and serve are ill informed, overly cautious, and sometimes act like common thugs. Pushing ones rights to photograph everything that is visible in public too far is not for the feint of heart (or soul).

Theo Sulphate · Jul 15, 2018

mshchem said:
... I have a friend that was traveling, he's a retired professor, high resolution medium format digital camera. He's taking landscape photos that included some sort of facility. He was on a public highway ,a county police officer tried to confiscate his camera, then memory card. My friend didn't want to end up dead or pepper sprayed. He reformatted the card, deleted everything, ...

The better cameras have two cards, one which can back up the other.

With a film camera, maybe keep a spare roll handy and practice some quick hand moves for when you "remove" the film.

But it's bogus crap: anything visible from a public road should be free to photograph. If the government or whoever doesn't want it photographed, they can put a wall, a perimeter fence, or grove of trees around it.

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
The better cameras have two cards, one which can back up the other.

With a film camera, maybe keep a spare roll handy and practice some quick hand moves for when you "remove" the film.

But it's bogus crap: anything visible from a public road should be free to photograph. If the government or whoever doesn't want it photographed, they can put a wall or grove of trees around it.

The majority of “First Amendment auditors/activists” are using video because it provides content for their YouTube channel... which also allows them to assert free/independent press status. When seriously confronted they tend to live-feed to Internet so if confiscation or deletion happens they still have a chance at possessing their materials.

Another thing they do when ordered to delete is say their delete button is broken. That forces the requestor to think quickly and decide if their request is legal, and if they really want to push the issue.

As scary as it seems to defy an order from someone carrying a gun and wearing a badge, the majority of their questions legally don’t need to be answered and there is a big difference between a request and a truly lawful order. Cops can ask anything they want, will actively try for a self-incrimination, fish for totally unassociated potential violations, and use both guilt and intimidation tactics. They are trained in “verbal judo” and most learned those skills quite good.

mshchem · Jul 15, 2018

Theo Sulphate said:
The better cameras have two cards, one which can back up the other.

With a film camera, maybe keep a spare roll handy and practice some quick hand moves for when you "remove" the film.

But it's bogus crap: anything visible from a public road should be free to photograph. If the government or whoever doesn't want it photographed, they can put a wall or grove of trees around it.

Believe me if I went out to the nuclear power plant out here with any camera, the county sheriff would gladly take me in if I showed any resistance . If I had 500 protesters, CNN and the Pope, not so much. Arguing with a Deputy Sheriff with an 8th grade education on a gravel road about my 1st ammendment rights ain't for me.
Really it's about how far you want to push things, I'm a wimp so I am cautious . Still doesn't mean I don't want to tell them to f'off, innocent people go to jail every minute of the day.

BrianShaw · Jul 15, 2018

mshchem said:
Believe me if I went out to the nuclear power plant out here with any camera, the county sheriff would gladly take me in if I showed any resistance . If I had 500 protesters, CNN and the Pope, not so much. Arguing with a Deputy Sheriff with an 8th grade education on a gravel road about my 1st ammendment rights ain't for me.
Really it's about how far you want to push things, I'm a wimp so I am cautious . Still doesn't mean I don't want to tell them to f'off, innocent people go to jail every minute of the day.

And then there’s that... no matter what I wrote in my last response. Not for me, either... no matter how much I support protecting against the erosion of our rights.

removed account4 · Jul 15, 2018

benjiboy said:
Didn't you think of asking permission first, and showing the hotel management your credentials ?, I'm not surprised at the way they reacted, its private property their customers might complain, and they are running a business.

i was on a street and within my rights to photograph anyone i wanted,

Theo Sulphate · Jul 15, 2018

Much like the security guard who comes trotting out when photographing a simple building in the city, I think the reaction or encounter experienced in the field depends largely on the knowledge and attitude of the individual officer, who may or may not care that you are making a photograph.

jamesaz · Jul 15, 2018

To the op, was it your local store? If so, those folks are your neighbors. Talk to them.

Vaughn · Jul 16, 2018

Between in-store security cameras and the fact that every phone is a camera, I am surprised anyone got excited about a film camera. But paranoia reigns in the drug world and it spills over into the streets.

The effects of even donning a camera ( and scary situations as a result of it)

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency