DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> Photography Discussion >> Photographer rights
Pages:  
Showing posts 1 - 25 of 42, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 11/12/2006 07:57:36 PM · #1
Whatever your opinion of the merits of free speech and free expression,
I was pleasantly surprised listening to the comments of the photographer when the police demanded he turn off his camera.

Removed link to YouTube.

Message edited by author 2006-11-12 20:50:53.
 11/12/2006 08:02:47 PM · #2
Warning -- lots of F-words.

Reposting link:
//www.youtube.com/watch?v=23QgunoRYxw

Message edited by author 2006-11-12 21:20:11.
 11/12/2006 08:04:47 PM · #3
F-stop this?
 11/12/2006 08:08:34 PM · #4
Originally posted by alfresco:
F-stop this?


More like F-Stop You :-)
 11/12/2006 08:52:06 PM · #5
I removed the link. I wasn't awestruck by the venecular, just amazed that someone would refuse to stop filming when the police had demanded.
 11/12/2006 08:54:57 PM · #6
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I removed the link. I wasn't awestruck by the venecular, just amazed that someone would refuse to stop filming when the police had demanded.


Why? They have no right to tell him to stop.
 11/12/2006 08:57:35 PM · #7
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I removed the link. I wasn't awestruck by the venecular, just amazed that someone would refuse to stop filming when the police had demanded.


No, it was fine to post... just needs a bit of warning for the users...

As far as stopping filming when the Police demanded... I'm not sure I would have stopped filming either, probably not, but I carry a City Issued Media Pass with me... LOL
 11/12/2006 09:03:49 PM · #8
I concur, I have no problem with the link nor the content.

As for me, I would have waited for The Man to start beating me before stopping the tape - freedom of the press baby, freedom of the press. They can pry my camera from my cold dead fingers.

Let freedom ring.
 11/12/2006 09:18:43 PM · #9
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
11/12/2006 10:30:24 PM · #10
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
11/12/2006 10:31:43 PM · #11
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.

As for the reason the kid was being detained...I don't have a problem with it. I think the only reason they took him anywhere was because of the crowd(and the camera). if everyone was calm they'd probably have left with just telling the kid not to hold up that specific sign.

I fully think that there is too much vulgarity in the world, and we're all getting complacent about it. I really don't want to be driving down the road and have my 7-year-old asking me what the sign that guy was holding said. "Fuck Bush." is not something that needs to be in the public eye. The cop was right, Change the sign to not have the profane language and it would have been a non-issue.

I'm not even a prude, I just wish that people knew of better ways to express themselves than vulgarity.
 11/12/2006 10:53:22 PM · #12
** Warning: This post has been hidden as it may content mature content. Click here to show the post.
11/12/2006 11:00:49 PM · #13
Originally posted by Baron152:
For total disclosure, I am a second generation cop and only ask for the benifit of the doubt. There are some bad cops but most will die for you without a second thought.


Agreed. My Dad, who is one of the most awesome people on the planet, has been a cop for almost 30 years. I was raised around cops. They were all good people. Unfortunately, we rarely hear about hero cops unless they've died, but everyone sure is willing to swap bad cop stories and the media falls all over itself to scoop them when they happen.
11/12/2006 11:26:25 PM · #14
Agreed. My Dad, who is one of the most awesome people on the planet, has been a cop for almost 30 years. I was raised around cops. They were all good people. Unfortunately, we rarely hear about hero cops unless they've died, but everyone sure is willing to swap bad cop stories and the media falls all over itself to scoop them when they happen. [/quote]

I just wish those that have the bad stories would realize that there are bad people in all professions. Be it the local 7-11 or the police department. But, for the most part, the local clerk will do you right at the convienience store and the local cop will offer a method to his madness if you just ask him/her his reasons why. No one ever wants to be examined the way police are examined, but I guarentee you, for the most part, you want the police around more then you want them gone.

11/13/2006 12:11:34 AM · #15
Originally posted by NathanW:
As long as the cameraman wasn't actually in the way of the police doing their job or putting himself/others in danger there isn't really much they can do about it.


Nathan I would politely disagree. Read thru this article

Can you photograph police on your own property?

The eventual outcome of that incident was supposedly the city had dropped it's prosectution because they were unsure whether they could win the case, but they still believed the man had violated the state's wiretap laws. Citation is about half way down this page

But the following video Funny video resulted in the officer being terminated, then reinstated, and a $60K payday to the girl.

Edited to correct spelling.

Message edited by author 2006-11-13 00:13:20.
 11/13/2006 12:36:33 AM · #16
From The Photographer's Right by attorney Bert. P. Krages II:

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e. g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

=====================================
Obviously, you cannot "interfere" with law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, but merely photographing them from a public place does not, in and of itself, constitute interference.

There are also restrictions on what you can do with those photos (without a release), such as commercially exploit them, but merely taking the photos is not illegal.

I highly suggest downloading the pamphlet and keeping a copy in your camera bag.
 11/13/2006 12:42:20 AM · #17
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From The Photographer's Right by attorney Bert. P. Krages II:

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

residential and commercial buildings



I got security called on me for taking pictures of a building the other day. I had gotten the shots I wanted by the time they showed up, otherwise we would've had words. They kept threatening to call the cops, and I told them that I didn't mind that at all... Of course, they didn't do anything. As I was leaving a cop walked by and the head of security that had been harassing me went and 'told on me.' The cop looked quizzically at the security guy and said there was no basis for asking me to leave... Ah, vindication... =]

Message edited by author 2006-11-13 00:43:05.
 11/13/2006 01:43:52 AM · #18
The examples I've used only complicate the issue. They both include audio recording which is the substance of the complain against Mr. Gannon, and also a topic in the first link.

Krages has a couple of interesting books as well as his short PDF, "The Photographers Rights". Kantor's article in USA Today is interesting reading also. USA Today

Jim Mcgee has some excellant suggestions at Should Photography Be Illegal

In McGee's article there is a quote from representitive of NYPD. He states "There are laws against taking photos at Triborough Bridge and Tunnel Authority bridges and tunnels." Is this true?

11/13/2006 02:07:09 AM · #19
Originally posted by GeneralE:
From The Photographer's Right by attorney Bert. P. Krages II:

Permissible Subjects
Despite misconceptions to the contrary, the following subjects can almost always be photographed lawfully from public places:

accident and fire scenes
children
celebrities
bridges and other infrastructure
residential and commercial buildings
industrial facilities and public utilities
transportation facilities (e. g., airports)
Superfund sites
criminal activities
law enforcement officers

=====================================
Obviously, you cannot "interfere" with law enforcement officers in carrying out their duties, but merely photographing them from a public place does not, in and of itself, constitute interference.

There are also restrictions on what you can do with those photos (without a release), such as commercially exploit them, but merely taking the photos is not illegal.

I highly suggest downloading the pamphlet and keeping a copy in your camera bag.


Does the law treat photography and video/audio captures as one in the same?
 11/13/2006 04:12:53 PM · #20
Originally posted by garrywhite2:


Nathan I would politely disagree. Read thru this article

Can you photograph police on your own property?

The eventual outcome of that incident was supposedly the city had dropped it's prosectution because they were unsure whether they could win the case, but they still believed the man had violated the state's wiretap laws. Citation is about half way down this page


The big difference in the above link you give and the original one is that the Nashua man had a clandestine system, while the man in the original link was out in the open and it wasn't hidden. The man in Nashua may have broken wiretapping laws (I don't really know).
 11/14/2006 12:47:12 AM · #21
I would agree with that. But I would also add that there are also common points. In the first video the person filming was advised that if he was making an audio recording he was in violation of Florida law. It would be at that point that I would have strongly considered turning off the camera and video.

Rather than to risk bodily injury and the likely event that all my gear would be destroyed, I think I would have opted to have a discussion with a field supervisor or the watch commander. For myself, I think it would have been enough to have known that the sheriff believed my conduct was unlawful.

The Nashua case surprised me. I've never bought a home security system that had a camera. Do the manufactuers warn that you must display a notice visible to the public that you are recording video and audio?

11/14/2006 03:14:16 AM · #22
Originally posted by NathanW:

I'm not even a prude, I just wish that people knew of better ways to express themselves than vulgarity.


I wish that too, but I wouldn't advocate censorship to achieve it.
 11/14/2006 03:30:37 AM · #23
Originally posted by Baron152:
Agreed. My Dad, who is one of the most awesome people on the planet, has been a cop for almost 30 years. I was raised around cops. They were all good people. Unfortunately, we rarely hear about hero cops unless they've died, but everyone sure is willing to swap bad cop stories and the media falls all over itself to scoop them when they happen.


I just wish those that have the bad stories would realize that there are bad people in all professions. Be it the local 7-11 or the police department. But, for the most part, the local clerk will do you right at the convienience store and the local cop will offer a method to his madness if you just ask him/her his reasons why. No one ever wants to be examined the way police are examined, but I guarentee you, for the most part, you want the police around more then you want them gone. [/quote]

I'm all for the police, protecting and serving by busting bad guys, meth labs, murderers etc. Cops have a helluva job.

However, I know that there must be entire departments that are screwed up. I was in Dallas on business and went downtown to photograph some of the buildings after dinner. I was on the sidewalk, on a public street taking a picture of a well-known office building when a very large policeman approached me and told me to stop taking pictures and to leave the area. I complied, not because I thought he was right, but mostly because I didn't feel like arguing with him and didn't want to get clubbed.

What I did do was write a letter to the Dallas city commission who evidently forwarded my tale to the chief of police who responded by telling me that it was due to the "increased terrorist threat since 9/11" that I was stopped from taking pictures. Such a load of BS. If they wanted to protect the building from terrorists, they should really remove the detailed structural drawings, floorplans and list of tenants from the public library (accessible online too, no login required) and the building's website.
 11/14/2006 06:13:31 PM · #24
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
Do the manufactuers warn that you must display a notice visible to the public that you are recording video and audio?


I don't know about that, but the siren I purchased for my van said I had to place a sticker inside the vehicle warning people of the dangers of the noise and that they should wear hearing protection (the sticker is in the van, just on the floor under some trash). I'm not about to put in earplugs while driving my van with lights and siren going, just so you know. *grin*

However, that said. If I were to purchase a home security audio/video recording system I would have numerous signs proclaiming so. I'd even have an obvious VCR set-up somehwere that the tape could be stolen out (with a viable recording on it), while keeping a master recording on another machine hidden somewhere else.
 11/14/2006 06:28:17 PM · #25
Originally posted by garrywhite2:
I've never bought a home security system that had a camera. Do the manufactuers warn that you must display a notice visible to the public that you are recording video and audio?

We have a system where I work with no signs, though I've seen them other places.
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 04:22:53 PM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


Home - Challenges - Community - League - Photos - Cameras - Lenses - Learn - Help - Terms of Use - Privacy - Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 09/10/2025 04:22:53 PM EDT.