The War on Photography Continues
This week we received more news of the continued war on photography. The NY Transit Police – aka Thugs, Inc. arrested another photographer. This time for taking pictures of the subway EVEN THOUGH IT’S NOT ILLEGAL TO MAKE PHOTOS THERE! So we’re at the point where the cops are pretty much MORE dangerous to photographers in New York than your average mugger.
I am not sure what it is about handing someone a gun and a badge that gives them the feeling they’re above the law, but it’s pretty apparent that in New York anyway, that’s par for the course.
But is there anything we can do about it?
The online forums and social networks are full of people posting their outrage. Guess what – nobody cares. It’s going to take more than tough talk to stop the cops from harassing photographers.
It’s time that photographers start sticking up for their rights by using the administrative, judicial and legislative process. If a cop (or anyone else) stops you from engaging in legal photographic activities, sue them. If security guards illegally detain you, call police and tell them you’d like them to investigate a kidnapping. File complaints against those who impede your right to photograph with any administrative body that will listen. Contact your legislative representatives and ask for statutory protection.
If a police department is sued, has to pay money, and is publicly outed for harassing photographers they’ll learn a lesson that all the complaining in online forums can’t teach. Recently, Seattle had to pay money to a photographer for harassment. The SPD revamped its policies to provide more training to the cops to get them on the cluetrain – i.e., that it’s not a crime to take pictures.
In the UK, the government is trying to make it illegal to take a photo of a police officer or soldier. Once that happens, you can kiss whatever press freedom is left goodbye along with the right to pursue photography in a peaceful manner. Cops will just claim that photographers were making images of police or soldiers (whether or not they are) and fines and jail sentences will follow.
We can stop this from happening (at least in the USA) if we act quickly – but ACTION not words is what is required. Go to court. Sue the bastards. Make them pay. Don’t just vent in an online forum. The people who need to hear you aren’t there listening. They’re out hassling other photographers because nobody’s taught them the lesson that there is a price to pay for violating our Constitutional rights.
In closing, I’d also like to challenge the profession photo associations to become a great deal more aggressive on these issues. Organizations like the PMA, NAPP, WPPI, PPA, ASMP and others collect lots of dues and have a louder voice than the average photographer. Yet, these organizations seem content to try to negotiate these problems away. It isn’t working. It hasn’t worked. It won’t work. You can’t negotiate with a bully. The only thing a bully understands is a kick in the rear. Stop trying to talk to unreasonable people. Take them to court. Teach them what the law is. Take their money. Shine the public spotlight on their activities. Get the public at large to realize that if they allow their police force to act in a manner that’s contrary to law – it’s the PUBLIC who will foot the bill. I suspect that while few outside our industry care about our plight, they WILL care about having to pay damage awards when we win our day in court.
Sorry for the rant – but at least I feel better.
Trackbacks
- TWIPPHOTO.COM » The War on Photography Continues - TWIPPHOTO.COM
- TWIPPHOTO.COM » The War on Photography Continues - TWIPPHOTO.COM
- TWIPPHOTO.COM » The War on Photography Continues - TWIPPHOTO.COM
- Heavy handed policing of photographers | g2
- Heavy handed policing of photographers | g2
- The Problem of Street Photography - 3
- The Problem of Street Photography - 3
- timlauer.org » Recently found items… - February 21, 2009
- timlauer.org » Recently found items… - February 21, 2009
Comments are closed.
Calling 911 sounds completely reasonable if you are being unjustly detained– yes, kidnapped– by anyone, including a uniformed officer of any kind. It will provide a timestamped, official record of the emergency instantly.
It is getting stupid all this stopping people taking pictures. However, in some situations, I would agree with the rule about not taking pictures of military personnel.
It is getting stupid all this stopping people taking pictures. However, in some situations, I would agree with the rule about not taking pictures of military personnel.
What about photojournalist, images of war with military personnel, will they be arrested? Tourist taking photos of the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace, arrested also? Pictures of the Queen with security in the background, arrested? Is the government so stupid, did they really think about this.
Why is this such an issue for politicians to make illegal and police to arrest everyone? What happened to cause such an over reaction in the past year?
I agree it needs to be stopped and fast. I am not a member of any of the groups mentioned so how and who do I get to notice?
What about photojournalist, images of war with military personnel, will they be arrested? Tourist taking photos of the changing of the guards at Buckingham Palace, arrested also? Pictures of the Queen with security in the background, arrested? Is the government so stupid, did they really think about this.
Why is this such an issue for politicians to make illegal and police to arrest everyone? What happened to cause such an over reaction in the past year?
I agree it needs to be stopped and fast. I am not a member of any of the groups mentioned so how and who do I get to notice?
This is great. Thanks for posting this. I am giving a speech in my Speech class about the rights of photographers. Also hoping to be able to speak at the next Town Hall meeting in my town to talk about this. This is some great material for my speech. And I believe you to be a credible source of information!
This is great. Thanks for posting this. I am giving a speech in my Speech class about the rights of photographers. Also hoping to be able to speak at the next Town Hall meeting in my town to talk about this. This is some great material for my speech. And I believe you to be a credible source of information!
I’m not trying to be a nay sayer, and god only knows that every photographer should be aware of his legal rights and avail themselves for any due process they may be afforded by law, BUT its important to be aware that filing a suit for legal damages (money) isn’t always an option. While the Washington state legislature may have waived the immunity normally granted to police for performing functions the have a good faith beleif are apart of their job many other states have much higher threshold for bad behavior by police. For instance in Wisconsin, short of an intentional tort, the police enjoy immunity from liability for all acts done in their official capactiy that involve discretion. That means illegally detaining someone is an act that is immune from liability for money damages as long as its a case of negligence and not an intentional violation of your rights. Check your local state jurisdiction for the details because a lot of states are different.
I’m not trying to be a nay sayer, and god only knows that every photographer should be aware of his legal rights and avail themselves for any due process they may be afforded by law, BUT its important to be aware that filing a suit for legal damages (money) isn’t always an option. While the Washington state legislature may have waived the immunity normally granted to police for performing functions the have a good faith beleif are apart of their job many other states have much higher threshold for bad behavior by police. For instance in Wisconsin, short of an intentional tort, the police enjoy immunity from liability for all acts done in their official capactiy that involve discretion. That means illegally detaining someone is an act that is immune from liability for money damages as long as its a case of negligence and not an intentional violation of your rights. Check your local state jurisdiction for the details because a lot of states are different.
Rich this is why I suggested pursuing administrative and legislative options as well as legal options. I would note that the immunity you’re talking about is often “qualified” immunity which means it is NOT absolute. In the case of a violation of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, photographers may be able to bypass such immunity by suing in federal courts under 42 U.S.C 1983. Consult a lawyer before believing someone that you can’t sue the cops.
Rich this is why I suggested pursuing administrative and legislative options as well as legal options. I would note that the immunity you’re talking about is often “qualified” immunity which means it is NOT absolute. In the case of a violation of Constitutionally-guaranteed rights, photographers may be able to bypass such immunity by suing in federal courts under 42 U.S.C 1983. Consult a lawyer before believing someone that you can’t sue the cops.
Don’t forget the power of a well organized peaceful protest. Hundreds of photographers with gear in hand should appear at any venue that prohibits photography with as much camrera gear as they can carry and effectively shut down that venue’s ability to make money on the average customer. If all those people complaining on the net spent a few hours complaining in person I think their voices would be heard just a bit louder. Thanks for the update Scott.
Don’t forget the power of a well organized peaceful protest. Hundreds of photographers with gear in hand should appear at any venue that prohibits photography with as much camrera gear as they can carry and effectively shut down that venue’s ability to make money on the average customer. If all those people complaining on the net spent a few hours complaining in person I think their voices would be heard just a bit louder. Thanks for the update Scott.
I live in NYC and I am sadly aware of is fact. Apparently, the Port Authority owners of the “subway” deem it “private property” and as I have been told many times, they reserve the right not to have their property photographed. I have even seen tourists have problems with simple point-and-shoot with the police. The theory is much like that of shooting in a mall. Couple this with the “War on Terror” and you have your present situation. Private, Public I don’t know who’s right? However, if you know where and when to shoot you can stay and take as many picture as you like!
I live in NYC and I am sadly aware of is fact. Apparently, the Port Authority owners of the “subway” deem it “private property” and as I have been told many times, they reserve the right not to have their property photographed. I have even seen tourists have problems with simple point-and-shoot with the police. The theory is much like that of shooting in a mall. Couple this with the “War on Terror” and you have your present situation. Private, Public I don’t know who’s right? However, if you know where and when to shoot you can stay and take as many picture as you like!
So we’re at the point where the cops are pretty much MORE dangerous to photographers in New York than your average mugger.
Are you kidding me. Do you actually think a cop is worse to a photographer in New York then a mugger. Unless you resist arrest the cops won’t shoot you. Can you say that about the average New York City mugger?
Now I’m not saying the cops are correct in this situation, but saying cops are worse then muggers is absurd. They are just trying to protect New York City from another terrorist attack. How many of those cops personally knew people who were killed in 9/11. Now they do need to be trained on photographers rights but it’s worse as far as I’m concerned to compare them to muggers.
Other then that one sentence I agree with the rest of the post.
So we’re at the point where the cops are pretty much MORE dangerous to photographers in New York than your average mugger.
Are you kidding me. Do you actually think a cop is worse to a photographer in New York then a mugger. Unless you resist arrest the cops won’t shoot you. Can you say that about the average New York City mugger?
Now I’m not saying the cops are correct in this situation, but saying cops are worse then muggers is absurd. They are just trying to protect New York City from another terrorist attack. How many of those cops personally knew people who were killed in 9/11. Now they do need to be trained on photographers rights but it’s worse as far as I’m concerned to compare them to muggers.
Other then that one sentence I agree with the rest of the post.
On the last podcast, Fred and Steve mentioned that SFPD will harass anyone who uses a tripod. Is that an actual law?
Personally, I have only experienced being impeded one time. This last December, I was taking photos outside the Whitehouse along with HUNDREDS of other tourists. I went to take a photo of a Secret Service Agent with a DSLR. He aggressively asked me to stop and gave a lame reason. I did not feel like pushing things that day.
On the last podcast, Fred and Steve mentioned that SFPD will harass anyone who uses a tripod. Is that an actual law?
Personally, I have only experienced being impeded one time. This last December, I was taking photos outside the Whitehouse along with HUNDREDS of other tourists. I went to take a photo of a Secret Service Agent with a DSLR. He aggressively asked me to stop and gave a lame reason. I did not feel like pushing things that day.
Very well written call to action. Thank you for posting this, I hope more of us start standing up for our rights.
Very well written call to action. Thank you for posting this, I hope more of us start standing up for our rights.
It was hyperbole Stephen – relax – but frankly – I’d take on the mugger by myself before I ever called the cops. And PLEASE stop with the 9/11 stuff. It’s really getting old and the excuse that cops have been using to destroy our Constitution. I reject that completely. And by the way, there’s plenty of evidence to support the fact that cops in New York will shoot you whether or not you resist. Read the newspaper.
FYI – I won’t let this thread go off on a 9/11 direction.
It was hyperbole Stephen – relax – but frankly – I’d take on the mugger by myself before I ever called the cops. And PLEASE stop with the 9/11 stuff. It’s really getting old and the excuse that cops have been using to destroy our Constitution. I reject that completely. And by the way, there’s plenty of evidence to support the fact that cops in New York will shoot you whether or not you resist. Read the newspaper.
FYI – I won’t let this thread go off on a 9/11 direction.
This is ridiculous. I know this is a point of debate though. I’ve seen it on one of the forums I visit quite frequently. The argument is privacy vs public. Do people still have privacy when they are in public? I would say no. Taking pictures of people at the subway should not land you in jail.
This is ridiculous. I know this is a point of debate though. I’ve seen it on one of the forums I visit quite frequently. The argument is privacy vs public. Do people still have privacy when they are in public? I would say no. Taking pictures of people at the subway should not land you in jail.
Mm, correct me if I’m wrong but the MTA controls the subway, not Port Authority. Port Authority however, controls the PATH and they do prohibit photography at their stations for the reason you stated. There’s a plaque at their Journal Square station that explicitly lists the things you can’t do on their property. So I’ll shoot in the NYC subway system but not in the PATH.
Mm, correct me if I’m wrong but the MTA controls the subway, not Port Authority. Port Authority however, controls the PATH and they do prohibit photography at their stations for the reason you stated. There’s a plaque at their Journal Square station that explicitly lists the things you can’t do on their property. So I’ll shoot in the NYC subway system but not in the PATH.
Yet still be aware that NYC is the place where a group of plain clothed officers were completely acquitted of any wrong doing in shooting to death innocent lawful citizen while he was simply exiting his own home. Because they suspected wrongdoing without any evidence…
Yet still be aware that NYC is the place where a group of plain clothed officers were completely acquitted of any wrong doing in shooting to death innocent lawful citizen while he was simply exiting his own home. Because they suspected wrongdoing without any evidence…
On the prohibition for photo of a army or policy in the UK: does does this mean that you will not be able to take a pic of the changing of the guard&
On the prohibition for photo of a army or policy in the UK: does does this mean that you will not be able to take a pic of the changing of the guard&
The tripod issue is interesting. I (and hundreds of others) were happily shooting at the top of Sears Tower in Chicago. I was asked politely, then told emphatically to put the tripod away. Tripods are “dangerous and someone could get hurt”. I was filled with righteous indignation and stormed off, but then realized that though it seemed like a public place – like a mall, it’s not!
At least I got a few shots of before the Gestapo swooped in.
The tripod issue is interesting. I (and hundreds of others) were happily shooting at the top of Sears Tower in Chicago. I was asked politely, then told emphatically to put the tripod away. Tripods are “dangerous and someone could get hurt”. I was filled with righteous indignation and stormed off, but then realized that though it seemed like a public place – like a mall, it’s not!
At least I got a few shots of before the Gestapo swooped in.
Can someone explain to me why a terrorist would draw attention to them selves by using expensive DSLR equipment? If they were trying to gather info, wouldn’t they use a point and shoot to draw less attention to them selves? If they were to use a DSLR, I’d imagine they would do it from a long distance and a long lens so as not to be caught. Seems obvious to me. Why don’t our Law Enforcement Officials get this?
I plan on leading my photo club on a peaceful photo walk downtown soon this summer. I wanted to find out if there were any ordinances or restrictions that I should be aware of. I sent an email to the Sheriff’s department and they suggested that I get a hold of the city’s legal department. The response that I got back after asking what rules or laws were against photography was that the city would not give me legal advice. This from the “Law Enforcers” and the agency who make the local laws. If they don”t know (or have) the answers, who would you suggest I turn to who does???
Can someone explain to me why a terrorist would draw attention to them selves by using expensive DSLR equipment? If they were trying to gather info, wouldn’t they use a point and shoot to draw less attention to them selves? If they were to use a DSLR, I’d imagine they would do it from a long distance and a long lens so as not to be caught. Seems obvious to me. Why don’t our Law Enforcement Officials get this?
I plan on leading my photo club on a peaceful photo walk downtown soon this summer. I wanted to find out if there were any ordinances or restrictions that I should be aware of. I sent an email to the Sheriff’s department and they suggested that I get a hold of the city’s legal department. The response that I got back after asking what rules or laws were against photography was that the city would not give me legal advice. This from the “Law Enforcers” and the agency who make the local laws. If they don”t know (or have) the answers, who would you suggest I turn to who does???
I would understand it more if they were taking pictures of people that did not wish to have their picture taken, but of random photographers photographing different structures, they should not be hassled by police forces.
-Jack
I tell ya what. The WTC PATH station is lousy with people taking photos. In any case, the Port Authority is a public entity and Port Authority property is public property and would be bound by any edict covering public property.
I tell ya what. The WTC PATH station is lousy with people taking photos. In any case, the Port Authority is a public entity and Port Authority property is public property and would be bound by any edict covering public property.
Thanks Scott, I work two blocks from ground zero. Anyone using 9/11 to justify such a stance leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ll say no more.
Thanks Scott, I work two blocks from ground zero. Anyone using 9/11 to justify such a stance leaves a bad taste in my mouth. I’ll say no more.
Please tell me how many photographers have shot people. Also, how is stopping photography going to stop terrorist attacks? I really haven’t seen any convincing argument that photographs are all that necessary or particularly useful in planning a terrorist attack or really, any kind of crime. All it is is a security theater, maybe cops like to feel like they’re doing something useful for their time and paycheck, but stopping photography only seems to be something they do to break up their boredom.
Please tell me how many photographers have shot people. Also, how is stopping photography going to stop terrorist attacks? I really haven’t seen any convincing argument that photographs are all that necessary or particularly useful in planning a terrorist attack or really, any kind of crime. All it is is a security theater, maybe cops like to feel like they’re doing something useful for their time and paycheck, but stopping photography only seems to be something they do to break up their boredom.
I don’t understand… What do these cops say you are doing that is illegal? I have never had this happen except on the first day of the dnc in Denver but I understood why they were checking me out, and they let me keep shooting…
I don’t understand… What do these cops say you are doing that is illegal? I have never had this happen except on the first day of the dnc in Denver but I understood why they were checking me out, and they let me keep shooting…
Agree with you in principle and the NY police deserve absolutely no support for their actions. It is sad but true that a good percentage of them have always been obnoxious and their recently acquired and self promoted hero status certainly hasn’t helped matters.
I would go the peaceful protest route, turning up en masse where a photographer has been arbitrarily stopped from taking photographs. A list of photographers phone numbers should be made available in all cities and when something goes down a call goes out and as many as can show up gear in hand. Twitter would be a great tool for this.
While litigation may seem like the way to go I wouldn’t be prepared to sell my house to pay for the process.
TBH odds are the mugger would do less damage, compare:
mugger – takes camera, phone and wallet – several hours dealing with credit card companes and police reports and a few thousand dollars lost.
cop – arrests you which goes on record and could affect your future and possibly current employment, many thousands in legal fees, days spent dealing with lawyers and court over a period of months.
The mugger gets my vote!
TBH odds are the mugger would do less damage, compare:
mugger – takes camera, phone and wallet – several hours dealing with credit card companes and police reports and a few thousand dollars lost.
cop – arrests you which goes on record and could affect your future and possibly current employment, many thousands in legal fees, days spent dealing with lawyers and court over a period of months.
The mugger gets my vote!
I was stopped by a ranger at a local (California) State Park a few months back while taking pictures with my D3 and a long lens. He advised that I needed a permit of some sort for photography intended for commercial purposes. That struck as quite odd, but frankly he was very cool about it, and let me go on my merry way when I told him I was just a hobbyist shooting personal work.
I’m heading to another significant local point of interest tomorrow and will be extremely pissed if I am harassed by their rent-a-cops. I checked their web site carefully for mention of any restrictions on photography, and found none.
I was stopped by a ranger at a local (California) State Park a few months back while taking pictures with my D3 and a long lens. He advised that I needed a permit of some sort for photography intended for commercial purposes. That struck as quite odd, but frankly he was very cool about it, and let me go on my merry way when I told him I was just a hobbyist shooting personal work.
I’m heading to another significant local point of interest tomorrow and will be extremely pissed if I am harassed by their rent-a-cops. I checked their web site carefully for mention of any restrictions on photography, and found none.
I’ve posted on quite a few websites about this, as truly it depresses me that a photographers rights are being cut away.
The most telling thing in this post is “The online forums and social networks are full of people posting their outrage. Guess what – nobody cares.”
A very true statement from what I’ve seen. Plenty vent, but few take action.
As documented online, plenty of Press Photographers showed up at Scotland Yard to protest about the UK section 44 law. It did not make it not international media coverage. Which I find bizarre itself. A snippet on BBC or SKY local is lame.
The truth is it’s a control thing. Control the media, and everything looks good for a government.
There are already a few blogs out there with tourists showing tickets they’ve got in London for photographing tourist sights. And it will continue. It’s now law, and will take years to reverse. Sad thing is, the majority could care less. So it won’t be changing any time in the next decade or so. Meanwhile read 1984 before that too is banned
I was just back in NYC in September and we took the subway over to Little Italy. I was snapping photos of anything and everything down there and no one ever said anything. Has it become that bad in six months or did I just get lucky?
I was just back in NYC in September and we took the subway over to Little Italy. I was snapping photos of anything and everything down there and no one ever said anything. Has it become that bad in six months or did I just get lucky?
Every time I read one of these stories, I wonder what the cop’s side of the story would be. I’m all for rights and freedom (though not sure we have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to take photos on public property). But photographers, like every other group of people, include some folks who lack common sense or can be real jerks. Perhaps the photog in this case was impeding foot traffic, causing a danger to himself or others or just being belligerent when asked to move 5 feet to the side so people could move freely through the station.
Two sides to every coin. I’m just saying.
Every time I read one of these stories, I wonder what the cop’s side of the story would be. I’m all for rights and freedom (though not sure we have a CONSTITUTIONAL right to take photos on public property). But photographers, like every other group of people, include some folks who lack common sense or can be real jerks. Perhaps the photog in this case was impeding foot traffic, causing a danger to himself or others or just being belligerent when asked to move 5 feet to the side so people could move freely through the station.
Two sides to every coin. I’m just saying.
Chris it doesn’t matter what the cop’s side of the story is. The Transit Authority already admitted that the cops were wrong. The citation should have never been issued. So everything that happened after that wouldn’t have happened if the cops had just done their job.
The police union coaches these guys to say whatever they need to – true or not – to try to clean up their bad behavior. I don’t care one bit what the cops would say here because I’d bet my bottom dollar their lying. There’s just too much of this garbage going on. When it happens to you – maybe you’ll change your opinion.
Chris it doesn’t matter what the cop’s side of the story is. The Transit Authority already admitted that the cops were wrong. The citation should have never been issued. So everything that happened after that wouldn’t have happened if the cops had just done their job.
The police union coaches these guys to say whatever they need to – true or not – to try to clean up their bad behavior. I don’t care one bit what the cops would say here because I’d bet my bottom dollar their lying. There’s just too much of this garbage going on. When it happens to you – maybe you’ll change your opinion.
At the core is the belief that anyone would take pictures prior to committing some horrid act of destruction. Are you serious. Pictures of all the great and important landmarks in NYC already exist in triplicate. A terrorist can go to google earth and with street-view see all that needs to be seen. Seriosly, cops just love the power, UNDESERVED and UNREGULATED authority has corrupted them as a standard practice. How many of us get nervous near the police without having committed a crime. Shouldn’t we feel BETTER when a cop is around? how often do you? This has always been a source of frustration for fellow new yorkers. Scott, love you, and agree 400%.
At the core is the belief that anyone would take pictures prior to committing some horrid act of destruction. Are you serious. Pictures of all the great and important landmarks in NYC already exist in triplicate. A terrorist can go to google earth and with street-view see all that needs to be seen. Seriosly, cops just love the power, UNDESERVED and UNREGULATED authority has corrupted them as a standard practice. How many of us get nervous near the police without having committed a crime. Shouldn’t we feel BETTER when a cop is around? how often do you? This has always been a source of frustration for fellow new yorkers. Scott, love you, and agree 400%.
Thanks John you bring up a good point. Anyone who’s committed to destruction like 9/11 is going to be smart enough to know how to use a public database, Google and other very, very widely available tools for research. There are detailed architectural plans on file in NYC for every single structure in the city. There are MILLIONS of photos of NY subway trains. This 9/11 nonsense is degrading and deplorable. It cheapens the actual suffering of real terror victims. It’s nothing more than an excuse for a bunch of heavy-handed bullies to throw their weight around. It will only stop when these bullies get called to account.
Thanks John you bring up a good point. Anyone who’s committed to destruction like 9/11 is going to be smart enough to know how to use a public database, Google and other very, very widely available tools for research. There are detailed architectural plans on file in NYC for every single structure in the city. There are MILLIONS of photos of NY subway trains. This 9/11 nonsense is degrading and deplorable. It cheapens the actual suffering of real terror victims. It’s nothing more than an excuse for a bunch of heavy-handed bullies to throw their weight around. It will only stop when these bullies get called to account.
9/11 is/was important, but I think there is an attempt here by law enforcement to upgrade their power and achieve higher funding. Its the patriot act, passed in an atmosphere where millions of fools didn’t realize that passage was so wrong. But, would you rather be thought of as un-american? Unfortunately it comes across as new russia instead. I am a native new yorker but left for the ‘burbs years ago. I visit the city, never feel safe taking pictures and prefer to get in and out as much as possible. and its a shame.
9/11 is/was important, but I think there is an attempt here by law enforcement to upgrade their power and achieve higher funding. Its the patriot act, passed in an atmosphere where millions of fools didn’t realize that passage was so wrong. But, would you rather be thought of as un-american? Unfortunately it comes across as new russia instead. I am a native new yorker but left for the ‘burbs years ago. I visit the city, never feel safe taking pictures and prefer to get in and out as much as possible. and its a shame.
I took many pictures of subway and elevated trains in New York last summer. The day before I was leaving, a Transit cop told me it was not permitted. But he did not confiscate my camera or arrest me. I guess I was lucky. So the images reside on my hard drive.
I took many pictures of subway and elevated trains in New York last summer. The day before I was leaving, a Transit cop told me it was not permitted. But he did not confiscate my camera or arrest me. I guess I was lucky. So the images reside on my hard drive.
I agree totally. I was in London this summer and shot all day without anybody stopping me. I even got a very good shot of a bobby. I don’t lee how the U.K. cna ban photography at big tourist attractions. There is no way to tell 5 million people to put away their camera because it is illegal. hearing this make me more glad to live in America.
I agree totally. I was in London this summer and shot all day without anybody stopping me. I even got a very good shot of a bobby. I don’t lee how the U.K. cna ban photography at big tourist attractions. There is no way to tell 5 million people to put away their camera because it is illegal. hearing this make me more glad to live in America.
Another example of this growing problem…. as I walked into a Burger King restaurant this morning, in a Cleveland suburb, I noticed a bold sign on the door that read: “No photography or video allowed in this store” I wonder if this movement will become as widespread as “no shirt, no shoes, no service” (which is a valid policy for health reasons). -jb
Another example of this growing problem…. as I walked into a Burger King restaurant this morning, in a Cleveland suburb, I noticed a bold sign on the door that read: “No photography or video allowed in this store” I wonder if this movement will become as widespread as “no shirt, no shoes, no service” (which is a valid policy for health reasons). -jb
Here’s an idea: a global one week photographers strike! …and I mean everybody involved in image taking… cameramen as well.
Let’s see how people (including cops) feel! (no images for news, sports, art, publicity, etc.)
There are times when I wonder where all this fear of photography came from!
When discussing these issues with friends I can’t help saying:
“If someone wants to photograph you… smile! You should be glad they find you interesting. Approach them and ask for a copy if you want… I’m sure they’ll feel honored to give you one.”
I was in Beijing a few years ago. If you pointed a camera in the direction of a soldier, you were told to stop. Guess the Western countries are catching up.
I was in Beijing a few years ago. If you pointed a camera in the direction of a soldier, you were told to stop. Guess the Western countries are catching up.
First of all, I’m not defending, in any way, illegal detention of photographers or of anyone else. I’m a photographer, and I jealously guard my right to take photos in public places.
That being said, it is a fact that terrorists DO surveil their targets prior to attacks; they DO use photographs and video to get current information about security measures, and to test the vigilance of those providing the security. Would I expect them to use a DSLR, tripod and pro lens? No, I think a point and shoot would suit them better. Do I think the current paranoia about everybody with a camera is over the top? Yes, 99.9+% of photographers have perfectly fine intentions.
I just want to make clear that there is a genuine concern about surveillance prior to attacks, but that concern IN NO WAY justifies the overreactions we’ve been seeing from cops and private security personnel.
First of all, I’m not defending, in any way, illegal detention of photographers or of anyone else. I’m a photographer, and I jealously guard my right to take photos in public places.
That being said, it is a fact that terrorists DO surveil their targets prior to attacks; they DO use photographs and video to get current information about security measures, and to test the vigilance of those providing the security. Would I expect them to use a DSLR, tripod and pro lens? No, I think a point and shoot would suit them better. Do I think the current paranoia about everybody with a camera is over the top? Yes, 99.9+% of photographers have perfectly fine intentions.
I just want to make clear that there is a genuine concern about surveillance prior to attacks, but that concern IN NO WAY justifies the overreactions we’ve been seeing from cops and private security personnel.
Burger King is a PRIVATE establishment. They have every right to ban photography inside their restaurant. In fact, the vast majority of retail establishments do NOT permit photography inside their walls and haven’t for years.
Burger King is a PRIVATE establishment. They have every right to ban photography inside their restaurant. In fact, the vast majority of retail establishments do NOT permit photography inside their walls and haven’t for years.
Tim S how many terrorists do you know? What EVIDENCE do you have to support your position? Or is this just your gut reaction? I did a great deal of research and found only one case where terrorists used photos to help plan an attack – it was the London bombings. And they got their photos – wait for it – online from a government website – not from a camera they carried to the site. If you can cite examples, I’d love to see them.
Scott-
I count myself lucky to be able to say I don’t know any terrorists personally.
It’s NOT my gut reaction, but unfortunately I don’t have specific instances at hand that I can cite; my information comes from a class I took some years ago (pre-9/11) about the dynamics of terrorism that included several case studies of attacks. Detailed surveillance, which included photography, occurred prior to just about every attack.
Again, I deplore the overreactions to innocent photography and the chilling effect they have on regular folks exercising their right of free expression; I’m saying it’s not true that terrorists don’t use photography for recon/surveillance prior to attacks.
Scott-
I count myself lucky to be able to say I don’t know any terrorists personally.
It’s NOT my gut reaction, but unfortunately I don’t have specific instances at hand that I can cite; my information comes from a class I took some years ago (pre-9/11) about the dynamics of terrorism that included several case studies of attacks. Detailed surveillance, which included photography, occurred prior to just about every attack.
Again, I deplore the overreactions to innocent photography and the chilling effect they have on regular folks exercising their right of free expression; I’m saying it’s not true that terrorists don’t use photography for recon/surveillance prior to attacks.
I understand what you’re saying. I just think it’s totally specious. Again – any photos terrorists would need to carry out an attack on the New York subway are already available online. Stopping every single person with a camera on a subway platform is stupid and in no way enhances the security of the USA. It’s a red herring and it may make somebody FEEL safer – but it doesn’t MAKE us safer. If anything, it makes us LESS safe and at the same time puts in peril the very way of life we claim to want to protect.
I understand what you’re saying. I just think it’s totally specious. Again – any photos terrorists would need to carry out an attack on the New York subway are already available online. Stopping every single person with a camera on a subway platform is stupid and in no way enhances the security of the USA. It’s a red herring and it may make somebody FEEL safer – but it doesn’t MAKE us safer. If anything, it makes us LESS safe and at the same time puts in peril the very way of life we claim to want to protect.
I’m sorry, I didn’t want to go “Michael Moore” on this, but what the hell kind of excuse is this to justify harassing photographers?? You can buy a small arsenal of weapons and storm a school but no cameras!
Look, if you’re going to prohibit photography because of terrorism here’s what you’ll also need to do:
- Prohibit mobile phones with cameras (you can just be a terrorist pretending to be on the phone while you film everything around you)
- While you’re at it, prohibit clothing all together (you never know what people are hidding under it!)
- In fact, why not dig out everyone’s eyes!!?
When you start to strip people’s freedom under the excuse that others may use that same freedom to harm you… then the “bad guys” have already won!
Allow this sort of behavior and you’re one step closer to not being allowed to talk to others over the phone, use a computer, go for a walk or do anything else without some “authority” breathing down you’re neck.
I’m sorry, I didn’t want to go “Michael Moore” on this, but what the hell kind of excuse is this to justify harassing photographers?? You can buy a small arsenal of weapons and storm a school but no cameras!
Look, if you’re going to prohibit photography because of terrorism here’s what you’ll also need to do:
- Prohibit mobile phones with cameras (you can just be a terrorist pretending to be on the phone while you film everything around you)
- While you’re at it, prohibit clothing all together (you never know what people are hidding under it!)
- In fact, why not dig out everyone’s eyes!!?
When you start to strip people’s freedom under the excuse that others may use that same freedom to harm you… then the “bad guys” have already won!
Allow this sort of behavior and you’re one step closer to not being allowed to talk to others over the phone, use a computer, go for a walk or do anything else without some “authority” breathing down you’re neck.
Sounds like I got my TWIP “Photography is Not a Crime” t-shirt just in time for my return to the U.S.
In Tokyo I photographed trains from all angles, including on them, on the platform, in the station, etc. It’s hard to imagine being harassed for doing that.
What about combing photo walks with flash mobs? I mean, what would the NYPD do if 50 photographers show up at the subway station for a little mass civil disobedience??
What about combing photo walks with flash mobs? I mean, what would the NYPD do if 50 photographers show up at the subway station for a little mass civil disobedience??
What we are seeing here is your basic two acts of stupidity here. (1) The law in the USA is fairly straight forward here. If it is public property and you have public access you can take a photo. The problem here seems to be a disconnect between policy makers and the law. I have this scary feeling the policy makers are basing their policies on the movie “Ronin” and the TV show “24″.
(2) We are seeing extreme laziness by the police and security officials. If they were truly protecting secure areas then they would go after every person with a pocket camera, laptop with a camera and camera phone. They are only going after photographers because DSLR are easy to spot. It comes down to plain laziness.
As for the Great Briton it looks like they are going through 1984 25 years late. Has anyone check the Thames River lately for LSD maybe that is they are getting so bizarre.
What we are seeing here is your basic two acts of stupidity here. (1) The law in the USA is fairly straight forward here. If it is public property and you have public access you can take a photo. The problem here seems to be a disconnect between policy makers and the law. I have this scary feeling the policy makers are basing their policies on the movie “Ronin” and the TV show “24″.
(2) We are seeing extreme laziness by the police and security officials. If they were truly protecting secure areas then they would go after every person with a pocket camera, laptop with a camera and camera phone. They are only going after photographers because DSLR are easy to spot. It comes down to plain laziness.
As for the Great Briton it looks like they are going through 1984 25 years late. Has anyone check the Thames River lately for LSD maybe that is they are getting so bizarre.
Be carefuly about shuttting down a venue’s ability to make money. Depriving owners, even corporate owners, of their income will not sway public opinion in your favour… Indeed you are more likely to turn popular sentiment against your cause.
Be carefuly about shuttting down a venue’s ability to make money. Depriving owners, even corporate owners, of their income will not sway public opinion in your favour… Indeed you are more likely to turn popular sentiment against your cause.
I’m still trying to figure out why any permit is needed for any photography anywhere public?? I mean, unless you are blatantly impeding someone else’s activities, why must this be taxed and regulated? Granted, I am a headstrong Libertarian and therefore see most of government as completely useless; but really, a permit to take pictures?
This is especially egregious to me when in a state or national park as in your experience. I own that park as much as any of my fellow citizens, how is recording digital information hurting anyone/thing?!
I’m still trying to figure out why any permit is needed for any photography anywhere public?? I mean, unless you are blatantly impeding someone else’s activities, why must this be taxed and regulated? Granted, I am a headstrong Libertarian and therefore see most of government as completely useless; but really, a permit to take pictures?
This is especially egregious to me when in a state or national park as in your experience. I own that park as much as any of my fellow citizens, how is recording digital information hurting anyone/thing?!
Years ago I worked as security guard at Tysons Corner Virginia. Not a day would go by when I, or other guards would have to stop somebody from photographing on the mall property. Now a mall is private property and the landlord has the right to say no, though I never stopped to bother the family taking a snap as a scrapbook memento. Never had a problem with the policy because like I said the mall is private property.
Well then one night I am in Georgetown doing some night photography (this was back in 1992) and I took a picture of a cop ticketing a car and the cop went ballistic. He asked if I worked for a newspaper, I told him no. He informed me I broke the law by taking his picture, I told him I had every right since we were in public. Turns out I was wrong, at least back then, there use to be law in DC that to take a picture of a police officer you had to be “vetted” by the police department first. I believe everything changed when some DC cop handcuffed a Post photographer to a mailbox who had not been “vetted” and the Post with its resources sued.
Still its getting crazy, I had a co-worker hassled at a football game because the the local cops thought he was shooting up the cheerleaders skirts. I was given grief for taking picture of cop car sitting without its occupant under a street lamp recently. I have also photographed cops talking to kids, standing guard at the ticket box, standing outside the house of a family of a murder victim, directing traffic and never had a word said to me.
I guess my point is there are bad laws, bad policy and bad overbearing cops. Just like there have always been and always be. Eternal vigilance is necessary to combat all three.
Years ago I worked as security guard at Tysons Corner Virginia. Not a day would go by when I, or other guards would have to stop somebody from photographing on the mall property. Now a mall is private property and the landlord has the right to say no, though I never stopped to bother the family taking a snap as a scrapbook memento. Never had a problem with the policy because like I said the mall is private property.
Well then one night I am in Georgetown doing some night photography (this was back in 1992) and I took a picture of a cop ticketing a car and the cop went ballistic. He asked if I worked for a newspaper, I told him no. He informed me I broke the law by taking his picture, I told him I had every right since we were in public. Turns out I was wrong, at least back then, there use to be law in DC that to take a picture of a police officer you had to be “vetted” by the police department first. I believe everything changed when some DC cop handcuffed a Post photographer to a mailbox who had not been “vetted” and the Post with its resources sued.
Still its getting crazy, I had a co-worker hassled at a football game because the the local cops thought he was shooting up the cheerleaders skirts. I was given grief for taking picture of cop car sitting without its occupant under a street lamp recently. I have also photographed cops talking to kids, standing guard at the ticket box, standing outside the house of a family of a murder victim, directing traffic and never had a word said to me.
I guess my point is there are bad laws, bad policy and bad overbearing cops. Just like there have always been and always be. Eternal vigilance is necessary to combat all three.