Was asked to DELETE a photo today!

[lxdude]

In the UK you can ask an officer if you are being detained. If the answer is no, you can walk away.


Steve.

Same here.

 

[michaelbsc]

Same here.

But a lot of it has to do with attitude. If you are being a real jerk they can find something even if it is dropped.

 

[JohnMeadows]

But a lot of it has to do with attitude. If you are being a real jerk they can find something even if it is dropped.

And the problem is that with a lot of cops, anything less that immediate, unquestioning obedience, or even the slightest hint of knowing your rights, makes you a "real jerk."

 

[jcayer]

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

+1

Unless she was a tourist

 

[David Goldstein]

Actually, you are being "detained".

As I recall from my police days, it was legally classified as an arrest. A police officer is not required, (in the U.S., anyway), to inform people they are talking to in an official capacity that they are under arrest. Police officers can also allow people to go on their way once they are satisfied.

Keep in mind, I am talking about when an officer is officially conducting police business, such as an investigation.

 

[lxdude]

As I recall from my police days, it was legally classified as an arrest. A police officer is not required, (in the U.S., anyway), to inform people they are talking to in an official capacity that they are under arrest. Police officers can also allow people to go on their way once they are satisfied.

Keep in mind, I am talking about when an officer is officially conducting police business, such as an investigation.

Yes, you're right. The word arrest can be applied to detainment, that is, a person can be arrested and detained.
But there's a distinction between that and the more commonly used and understood meaning of the word, and even more so with the term "under arrest", which was used in the post to which I replied.

 

[David Goldstein]

Yes, you're right. The word arrest can be applied to detainment, that is, a person can be arrested and detained.
But there's a distinction between that and the more commonly used and understood meaning of the word, and even more so with the term "under arrest", which was used in the post to which I replied.

Legally, arrest means exactly what I outlined earlier. Custody is the action a police officer actually performs when he takes a person to the police station and books them, ie, "the officer took the suspect into custody" - which means the officer has now taken responsibility for the person and their possessions and is required to keep an accounting of all such matters to satisfy the court.

Unfortunately, for the average person, arrest is confused with custody due to too many cop shows.

 

[Ric Trexell]

People are so dumb about photography.

There are two things that our lawmakers and police don't understand about photography that make their actions dumb. First, to be told you can't photograph a building assumes that the person taking the picture is using a standard lense and is close to the building. With a telephoto lens you can get a picture from so far away that no one would even think you are taking a picture of that building. Second, just because a guy has a camera, that should not be any more suspect than the million people walking past that building with a camera equiped cell phone. If the police wish to confiscate your camera, then ask them to confiscate all the cell phones on this street as those are potential picture takers. If they are worried about terriorists taking pictures, I doubt that the camera of choice would be a medium format mounted on a tripod. To harrass people with a camera makes the police look like idiots. Why then do they insist on doing it?

 

[David Goldstein]

In the UK you can ask an officer if you are being detained. If the answer is no, you can walk away.


Steve.

I believe that is true in the U.S. as well - as I said in my other posts, it is when a cop is acting within his legal authority and his holding a person in "arrest" is to aid in an investigation the officer might be pursuing.

 

[moose10101]

As I recall from my police days, it was legally classified as an arrest. A police officer is not required, (in the U.S., anyway), to inform people they are talking to in an official capacity that they are under arrest. Police officers can also allow people to go on their way once they are satisfied.

Keep in mind, I am talking about when an officer is officially conducting police business, such as an investigation.

That may have been the terminology in your police days, but today, "detention" is quite different than "arrest". Detaining someone only requires an officer to have "reasonable suspicion", while arresting someone requires "probable cause". Making an arrest without probable cause can be a quick way to the unemployment line.

An arrest also gives an officer the authority to conduct a complete search of the individual, as well as the person's vehicle, and it gives the officer the authority to remove the person from the scene. Detention simply allows the officer to keep the individual from leaving, for a short period of time, while they investigate and question the individual.

Bottom line, if a currently employed officer believes that "arrest" and "detain" are legally classified as the same thing, he/she is in the wrong line of work.

 

[Steve Smith]

Copyright is a civil, not criminal, matter so the police should never be involved unless they are alleging a criminal act (such as trespass).

This is a reply to quite an old post in this thread but I want to point out that in England it is different. Trespass is a civil rather than criminal offence and police cannot remove you from property which you are trespassing on.


Steve.

 

[lensworker]

If the police wish to confiscate your camera...

Tell them "not without a court order signed by a judge."

As I understand it, in the United States police can only confiscate cameras/film/memory cards if -
(1.) they have a court order
(2.) they arrest you and your camera/film/memory cards are taken into evidence

Also -police may (or may not) be able to confiscate your film/memory cards if a crime has been committed and you have photographs that may be used as evidence. To the best of my knowledge, this would require a court order; they can't confiscate your property just because they are "the police."

Take a look at the following pages for clarification: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
and http://asmp.org/tutorials/frequently-asked-questions-about-privacy-and-libel.html

 

[Steve Smith]

As I understand it, in the United States police can only confiscate cameras/film/memory cards if -
(1.) they have a court order
(2.) they arrest you and your camera/film/memory cards are taken into evidence
.....
can't confiscate your property just because they are "the police."

Same in the UK.


Steve.

 

[Fotophreek]

You sir, are my hero.

 

[lensworker]

By coincidence, I was asked to delete a photo two days ago. I was photographing a woman at the farmer's market dressed in a sarong with a scarf. I got a bit too ambitious (and a bit careless) and she "caught" me.

She asked if I took her picture. I replied that I had. She wanted me to delete it and I replied "I can't delete it - this is a film camera." She was nice enough about it; she said "we don't like to be photographed" then told (not asked, but told) me not to print the photo, which I did not agree to. That was about it, no big deal.

Lesson learned: Don't get overly ambitious (or careless) when photographing women in middle eastern garb.

And use a film camera.

Yes, I will print the negative - it is my image and it is my right to do so. And if it's an image I like, I will exhibit it at some point.

 

[JerryWo]

Amazing

I went into DC to take pictures of the "Occupy DC" gang in Mcpherson Park. I got a few good shots of a cool looking black man with dread-locks. He finally realized I was taking his picture and he said, "...my image is my property....".

a public park
a few blocks from the White house
a public park
tents, protesters, spectators
you're protesting
and you want privacy?

He was bigger than me - and I'd already got a few shots, so I wandered off.

Jerry W
Warrenton, VA

 

[lensworker]

He finally realized I was taking his picture and he said, "...my image is my property....".

Jerry W
Warrenton, VA

This gent is obviously misinformed - he has no reason to expect privacy in a public place. That point has been previously established by court rulings here in the U.S.

The best short explanation of this issue I have read so far is this: "People have a right to control the way their images is used - not a right to prohibit someone from photographing them in a public place" or words to that effect.

 

[vpwphoto]

He also has the fredom of speach to ask you to stop (nothing wrong with that).
IF you are too close and continue to photograph in a harassing way he might choose to get the police involved, public place has nothing to do with it. If he is a private person once he asks you to move on you should, no need to argue anout public places and such.

I am a professional with some 25 years of experiance and few photos are worth upsetting the public about, or spending a night or two in jail. There are lines I WOULD cross as a professional and would be happy to spend a day in jail right or wrong to provide an employer with an image. The world HAS changed, the law is flexible, just becuase you think case law is one your side, upsetting a private person with continued picture taking no mater how cool they look is just itching for a fight. Now if they were involved in a protest line etc fine.. if they are sitting against a tree alone, take the shot or two and move on...

 

[2F/2F]

The best short explanation of this issue I have read so far is this: "People have a right to control the way their images is used - not a right to prohibit someone from photographing them in a public place" or words to that effect.

That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.

 

[vpwphoto]

That just isn't the case. Someone can snap your photo in public and pretty much do whatever they want with it.

Care to introduce libel law into the discussion? A private individual vs a "public" individual there are different standards as to what is fair. That being said if you participate in a protest you are stepping into the public arena.

Again minding ones own business, sure you can snap a photo.... but continuing to do so, takes a step toward harassment, and depending on the use takes a step toward defamation and libel. Although I do not know a situation where a photograph has been considered libel... then again it used to be just professionals taking photographs for use in professional publications. Personal web-sites posting on facebook and blogs are a whole new arena.

If I were minding my business in a park, and as I take it one of you (cocky thugs with a camera) started photographing at length my families activities, you would be itching for a fight. I just heard a family of "dwarf people" who are sick of being photographed when in public, there is a point of just common human decency. I tried to photograph a women in her 90's that was a public fixture here in Indiana, she declined in a public place... nothing wrong with that, and I kept my honor in her memory. Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might, that's all I have on the matter.

 

[Steve Smith]

Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs the right to pursue, having a legitimate media credential might, that's all I have on the matter.

A media credential does not (and should not) change the way the law applies to anyone.


Steve.

 

[Rudeofus]

Care to introduce libel law into the discussion?
[...]
one of you (cocky thugs with a camera)
[...]
Having a camera does not exactly give you thugs
[...]

Speaking of libel and insulting behavior .... After reading your recent postings here in this thread I am not sure whether you should be the one writing about manners here in this otherwise quite polite forum ....

 

[brucemuir]

Pot, meet Kettle.

Don't get how 'brandishing" a camera in public qualifies you as a thug.

 

[Sirius Glass]

What if I am carrying a thug of water? Is that brandishing a thug? :confused:

 

[vpwphoto]

I have followed this thread, My impression of a couple of the folks is that the right to photograph makes "sitter immune" to any objection.

I photograph farmers markets and such, I do not get upset with a member of the public that asks me to refrain. I have been asked to delete a photo from a film camera, I simply assure them I will make a note of it and honor their request.

At a farmers market, park etc, I see no point in arguing about it.

I have seen the on-line collections of would be "ethnographers" with collections of "large people" in embarrassing situations... I do think this boarders or crosses the line of public ridicule or libel.

I was 20 something once and I am sure I acted thuggish too brandishing the law... I honestly think a few of the posters do have a little too much "drama" about the situations, and I guess I suppose I exhibited the same in my previous comment.

Yes I do think a press credential does allow somewhat more latitude to pursue a photograph. A group of "small" people being followed in a Chicago park by a blogging photographer isn't the same as a human interest story by a magazine.

Just being out in public doesn't make you appropriate fodder for a pursuing photographer.... it's all about use intended use, and again with the proliferation of digital media, and easy distribution of photos the rules are changing.

Thanks for listening.

My use of the word "thug" was in as much that some of the post had the flavor of "hey I have this camera, I have rights to photograph in public!!" and it seemed to me that while this is true the photographers forget that there are rights on the other side of the coin too.