Was asked to DELETE a photo today!

[Shawn Rahman]

From Madison Square Park today, taking a picture of the Flatiron Building, when a woman comes up to me out of nowwhere and tells me that she didn't want her photo taken, and can I please delete it?

Imagine her surprise when I told her that: 1) I wasn't deleting anything; 2) she wasn't what I was photographing; and 3) that I was using a film camera, and even if I wasn't I wouldn't have deleted it anyway.

She was pissed, and started arguing with me. I told her that if she wants privacy, she should stay home.

Made my freakin' day. Viva analog photography!

 

[markrewald]

Awesome!

 

[dreamingartemis]

High five to you man!

 

[mgb74]

Or you could have simply said you we're hired by her husband's lawyer and your contract does not permit you to delete photos.

 

[mopar_guy]

Somebody argued with you in NYC? That's hard to believe.

 

[spacer]

Since I like to avoid confrontation if at all possible, I'd tap at the back of the camera a couple times and say "all right, deleted."

 

[Christopher Walrath]

You should have got her address and sent her a print.

 

[Barry S]

I have a general rule of thumb not to argue with crazy people. I would have said ok, pressed a button (any button) on my camera, made beep boop bop noises, and said, "Done!".

 

[BrianL]

Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks. I was once approached while shooting downtown by a security guard of a building exterior I was photographing. He said that he was to make inquiries of a person if a tripod was used or what appeared to be a professional camera. He was not totally convinced I was not a professional as I had the Meastro tripod (yes, it was my field tripod and has been for some 20 years) as well as my Bronica system and the Polaroid Pack camera, think it was the 180. However, he just said okay when I handed him my business card showing I was a senior employee of a big 4 accounting firm but suggested I lose the tripod in the future.

 

[tkamiya]

This may sound strange coming from a photographer but I prefer not having a photograph taken myself either especially if I don't know what it is going to be used for.

IF I was using digital camera, I'd gladly delete it. Obviously, I can't do that if I'm using a film camera.

 

[tomalophicon]

Let's get more posts than the DELETED thread. Maybe then it can finally be deleted.

 

[Newt_on_Swings]

turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill.

LOL so this is the plan:

Take empty spools of film with you in camera, pretend to shoot with a tripod, and then hand over empty cassette for $10. Change clothes, Repeat.

Or... Shoot 35 shots or 11 120 shots, and take last photo of building. Have film developed and printed for free! Change clothes, Repeat.

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies.

I think the guy got scammed. In Canada, buildings (being non-people) cannot hold copyright and as long as you are on public space, you can photography as much as you want. There is no expectation of privacy for a building; I would have gone to the station to make a point of it as copyright infringement (which this is not) is a civil, not criminal, matter. What are they going to charge your with?

The local camera club specifically covered this section recently, when they brought in a local lawyer who specializes in media and copyright. You cannot copyright a building in Canada, period. As such, anyone can photograph it as long as they are not trespassing.

 

[Existing Light]

LOL so this is the plan:

Take empty spools of film with you in camera, pretend to shoot with a tripod, and then hand over empty cassette for $10. Change clothes, Repeat.

Or... Shoot 35 shots or 11 120 shots, and take last photo of building. Have film developed and printed for free! Change clothes, Repeat.

 

[spacer]

I tend to agree with Kevin. The only real copyright on a building has more to do with the blueprints and whether another architect copies protected design elements. If you plant a building out in public, you can't lay claim to every photon that might possibly have bounced off of it. And, after all, all we're really doing is collecting those stray "free" photons.

Philosophically, I think the same about photographing people "in the wild", but civility would have me restrain myself from photographing someone who, directly or indirectly, makes it clear they don't want to be in the picture.

 

[Steve Smith]

Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes.

I think that is probably nonesense.


Steve.

 

[Steve Smith]

This may sound strange coming from a photographer but I prefer not having a photograph taken myself either especially if I don't know what it is going to be used for.

I don't like being photographed myself but I wouldn't stop anyone stupid enough to want a picture of me.

Steve.

 

[BrianL]

Not sure the expectation of privacy is relavent when it comes to image making of a nonperson. If it were, then there would not be issues with photographing persons on the street and publishing them. This area of law was not where I practiced and there are differences between the US and Canada. Privacy and IP are exclusive legal issues.

 

[Monito]

Let's get more posts than the DELETED thread. Maybe then it can finally be deleted.

And you'd just be wasting another thread.

 

[Monito]

Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks.

I don't doubt your report of what happened, but the behaviour of the manager and the policeman seems completely out of line and unsupported by copyright law or other law. Building plans are copyright, not the buildings themselves.

Can you point to or help us find any credible reference to any law allowing them to extort film from photographers?

You can start here: http://ambientlight.ca/laws/overview/what-can-i-photograph/

 

[Kevin Kehler]

Not sure the expectation of privacy is relavent when it comes to image making of a nonperson. If it were, then there would not be issues with photographing persons on the street and publishing them. This area of law was not where I practiced and there are differences between the US and Canada. Privacy and IP are exclusive legal issues.

Copyright is a civil, not criminal, matter so the police should never be involved unless they are alleging a criminal act (such as trespass). Asking someone to delete an image (or expose a roll of film) is destruction of evidence and cannot be made to happen without a judge's permission - so you cannot be charged with refusing to destroy evidence or civil disobedience. Further, the copyright holder would be required to show that the photograph violated copyright which would be almost impossible since you are not making a copy of the building, but an image of the building. You are also free to photograph people and publish those images, as long as the images are not for commercial gain and do not present the person in a slanderous or negative manner. Photojournalism, artistic license and editorial usage are well established uses - even if you took a photo of a person and wanted to sell a print, you could. If you wanted to use the image to sell a soda or as an example of licentious behavior, that would be different.

 

[CGW]

Did you get permission from the manager of the Flatiron Building? Here in Toronto you can not photograph the one here for any reason without getting permission as it is used in so many movies. Not even for private, nonommercial purposes. I was in the grill one day when someone was taking photos and the manager walked out and politely asked the person to delete the files or turn over the film and he;d process it an send the photos taken that were not of the building plus pay for a replacement roll. The person told the manager to buzz off and within a few minutes an officer approached and suggested the person take the offer or accompany him to the local station. The person handed over the roll and his address and received what looked like a $10 bill. I asked the manager about the incident and he told me the building was copyrighted as an image and taking a photo of it without permission was an criminal offence. I then asked it they would give permission and his response was if for noncommerical use, no problem but othewise there was a fee for a shooting permit. Up here many places seem to have similar requirements including public parks. I was once approached while shooting downtown by a security guard of a building exterior I was photographing. He said that he was to make inquiries of a person if a tripod was used or what appeared to be a professional camera. He was not totally convinced I was not a professional as I had the Meastro tripod (yes, it was my field tripod and has been for some 20 years) as well as my Bronica system and the Polaroid Pack camera, think it was the 180. However, he just said okay when I handed him my business card showing I was a senior employee of a big 4 accounting firm but suggested I lose the tripod in the future.

Funny but I've shot the old Gooderham Building often with all kinds of gear and tripods and never had this issue--ever. City Hall doesn't apparently object, either:

http://wx.toronto.ca/inter/culture/...a2d6288de8344e75852572b100585dc0?OpenDocument

It's a heavily tourist-infested area down there, so much so I doubt there's dedicated manpower sufficient to harrass every gawker with a phonecam or p&s.

Not sure a CA designation is a guaranteed "get-out-of-jail-free" card 8^)

 

[JohnMeadows]

Methinks I'll be heading downtown in the next few days to take a few shots of this building , just to see what happens

 

[artonpaper]

Somebody argued with you in NYC? That's hard to believe.

Good one, that made me laugh.

But you know I've been shooting in NYC for years and I've had very few problems. One time a guy said I couldn't shoot his store window. I just said too late and walked away. Another time a parking garage attendant said no pictures. I was shooting my own reflection in one of those convex mirrors. I said why not? He said it's against the law. I said no it's not as long as I stay on the sidewalk. He just no pictures. So I said the same thing again, too late.

 

[Alex1994]

Surely if you're in a public place you relinquish your right to privacy.