| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2008 09:30:45 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
spazmo - that difference is being eroded even as we speak - don't rely on it. they can always sell the public space and then its private and you can't use it.
|
No, the difference remains, it's the status of the property that can change if public property is privatized. And you can use it, but that use is subject to different rules. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:31:43 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
spazmo - that difference is being eroded even as we speak - don't rely on it. they can always sell the public space and then its private and you can't use it.
trinch - good for you - anyone interested in joining me and trinch in getting arrested to prove the point ? Actually I'm serious - a mass photo in at some so called private space. a great idea. Civil disobedience anyone ? |
Dude, for those who want to get blacklisted go ahead. But I tell you, it wont be fun getting your name off the no-fly list and all those other black lists you might not know about. For example, if you search for a job, they look your record up and it shows that you have been in some suspect list. Well, guess what? the employer will not hire you and does not have to give you a reason either.
I avoid confrontation with the guards and the police. Simply because their jobs are hard enough with the real criminals. I dont need to add to it. When I am asked to stop on their property, I apologize, stop and leave. If I am in a public area and a cop asks me to stop, I do too. Is a photo worth that much trouble to me? no. Unless I was a reporter, then thats a different story. But as a photographer no. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:34:16 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
a mass photo in at some so called private space. a great idea. |
A lousy idea, and you'd lose. If your ticket to Giants Stadium says "no photography," then you must respect that. Even if you think of the stadium as a public space, it's not... and the owners could prohibit photography long before 9-11. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:38:52 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
Trevytrev - i can't believe you really meant that because it doesn't represent the law on either side of the3 water - the rules are about taking pictures on, not of, property.
There is a relevant distinction to be made between property which is genuinely and legitimately private - your living room for example, and property which is only quasi private - a mall or station complex. These places are private only because of a quirk of the laws of real property. To all real intents and purposes they are public spaces.
Were people to perform sexual acts in the main concourse at Grand Central I have no doubt that we would express our outrage bu complaining about people doing such things in public. |
If it were about taking pictures on property, that is owned by someone other than the government, then the landowner or management company has the right to decide who is on their property as long as they are not violating any local anti-discrimination laws. Since photographers are not a protected class then they would not be violating any of those. If it were about taking pictures of property, as long as you are not on the property then you should be able to click away, though if it is a trademark building or item what you do with that image is controlled by copyright laws. In the case that was posted by the OP the photographer was on private property. Just because the mall opens their doors to the public for business does not mean they waive their private landowner rights. They still maintain all liability for what happens on that property so they should be able to maintain property rights. It seems to me you believe that since the public is allowed on the property then the owner loses control of that property and their rights, I disagree.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:41:36 AM · #30 |
| I discovered that Vienna, Austria, is a giant no-picture zone. Everything on any of the tourist grounds is considered copyrighted by the city of Vienna, or some such. At any rate, there are tons of No Camera signs everywhere. Kinda takes the fun out of a vacation if you happen to be a hobbyist photographer. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:41:38 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Jac:
I've said this before elsewhere and I'll say it here today.
Osama Bin Laden has won. Period. |
Yup, I agree whole heartedly. We allowed the conservative side of the country to further their agenda because of the actions of a weak man, who lives 1000 years in the past. Locking the cockpit doors was the only response needed to 911. All this crap about no liquids, checking my shoes, yada, yada, yada, is a complete waste of time. The one trillion dollars expended in Iraq was wasted. Think about what the infusion of one trillion dollars into our current energy research could yield.
As far as photography goes, I can image any train, bus, station, airport, you name it in IR, UV, visible and you'll never know I was there. So, all the BS about cameras and terrorism is just that: BS. It's all what cops call "flying the flag". Showing their presence in a vain effort to influence those who flaunt the laws to move elsewhere. It's like talking water into taking another path. Futile.
And I bet Osama, who attacked us because we temporarily occupied a portion of The Kingdom during Gulf War I, realizes he has screwed the pooch now. Because the infidel is right next door now, in force. And probably for the next fifty years. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:42:41 AM · #32 |
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Dude, for those who want to get blacklisted go ahead. But I tell you, it wont be fun getting your name off the no-fly list and all those other black lists you might not know about. For example, if you search for a job, they look your record up and it shows that you have been in some suspect list. Well, guess what? the employer will not hire you and does not have to give you a reason either. |
Jaime, for the average person, you are right. But for journalists, getting arrested for standing up to freedom of the press is a feather in their cap. In their case, I imagine employers will be lining up at their door because they know they are people who's first priority is getting the story. Even if the story is 360 panoramics of Union Station.
And for the record, Union Station is owned by Amtrak, which is a government corporation. Thereby, it is a public place despite being under private management. (Jones Lang LaSalle is the property management company)
Edit for bold.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 09:44:24. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:44:58 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Let me get this straight...
A journalist, with a press pass, can be stopped from taking pictures of a publically owned (privately managed) location with unimpeded access to the public.
Scary. Personally, I would have gotten myself arrested just so the courts can set a precedance to stop this behaviour. This is no longer freedom to photograph. This has breached into freedom of the press. |
A press pass simply identifies a person as a legitimate member of the media. It doesn't give a reporter special powers or rights. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:14:39 AM · #34 |
Trevytrev - no that's not waht i said.
what i said is that where a space fulfils both a public and private function then the law should reflect that. i do not believe the landowner should give up all their rights over the land when they make it open to the public. but i believe that some of these rights should fall into abeyance.
Scalvert - I wouldn't for a moment suggest that a sports event at a stadium is a quais public event of the kind I proposed above - it is clearly private and the sports team or whoever retain the right to control photography. Fine.
This is about those places, alrglry unticketted, that people walk through on a daily basis without ever thinking about their legal status. like stations, parks, streets. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:23:39 AM · #35 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Originally posted by JaimeVinas:
Dude, for those who want to get blacklisted go ahead. But I tell you, it wont be fun getting your name off the no-fly list and all those other black lists you might not know about. For example, if you search for a job, they look your record up and it shows that you have been in some suspect list. Well, guess what? the employer will not hire you and does not have to give you a reason either. |
Jaime, for the average person, you are right. But for journalists, getting arrested for standing up to freedom of the press is a feather in their cap. In their case, I imagine employers will be lining up at their door because they know they are people who's first priority is getting the story. Even if the story is 360 panoramics of Union Station.
And for the record, Union Station is owned by Amtrak, which is a government corporation. Thereby, it is a public place despite being under private management. (Jones Lang LaSalle is the property management company)
Edit for bold. |
I googled and searched and cannot find where Amtrak owns that Union Station, could you provide a link, not saying your wrong I was unable to find it with my limited searching. I did find this though and the whole situation probably could have been avoided with a simple phone call or email. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:49:07 AM · #36 |
Trev, besides Wikipedia, I also can't find anything concrete. However, given that congress spent $160 million in restoration 20 years ago, I can't imagine a private corporation has since bought the place.
ETA: info on the Union Station Redevelopment Act of 1981.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 10:59:14. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:11:12 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Tev, besides Wikipedia, I also can't find anything concrete. However, given that congress spent $160 million in restoration 20 years ago, I can't imagine a private corporation has since bought the place. |
I read as well that they spent a bunch of money on the restoration but I'm not sure if they are technically owners of the property. I think it was more of a joint venture with the private sector to help in the restoration and preservation of a historical building. There was also the added benifit that Amtrak and other trains would use the station. I would assume that Lang LaSalle management company holds all liability for that property and anything that happens there so I would consider them the property owners for the sake of this discussion. As I posted before it doesn't seem that they are unwilling to allow photography but you need to ask for a permit or permission, I do not feel that is an unreasonable request.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 11:13:29. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:11:16 AM · #38 |
Did you read the wikipedia page or just link to it?
It clearly states that "Union Station is owned by the non-profit Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, but an 84-year lease of the property is held by New York-based Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation and managed by Chicago-based Jones Lang LaSalle." |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:29:03 AM · #39 |
Actually, I just read the part in the right margin that said: "Owner: Amtrak". (I hate Wikipedia)
That being said, I checked the US Code and Wikipedia is (hold on now) wrong...
TITLE 40, SUBTITLE II, PART C, CHAPTER 69, SUBCHAPTER I, §6902
Assignment of right, title, and interest in the Union Station complex to the Secretary of Transportation
The Secretary of Transportation has the right, title, and interest in and to the Union Station complex, including all agreements and leases made under sections 101–110 of the National Visitors Center Facilities Act of 1968 (Public Law 90–264, 82 Stat. 43). To the extent the Secretary of Transportation and the Secretary of the Interior agree, the Secretary of the Interior may lease space for visitor services.
ETA: Link
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 11:31:00. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:32:09 AM · #40 |
But the real point ....
Is not who owns the station - in a democracy we arer not limited to disciussing what the law is - we can also discuss what it ought to be |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:45:53 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
But the real point ....
Is not who owns the station - in a democracy we arer not limited to disciussing what the law is - we can also discuss what it ought to be |
What do you feel is unjust or unfair about the law and how would you change it? |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 11:47:57 AM · #42 |
Have you raed the thread at all ?
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:09:56 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
Have you raed the thread at all ? |
Yes I have and and quite honestly I don't understand how someone who preaches about freedom and their rights being taken away wants to take away rights from someone else for their benefit. Whether you want to believe it or not, a mall, although open to the public, is private property and the landowner should be able to maintain all of their rights. You stated:
where a space fulfils both a public and private function then the law should reflect that. i do not believe the landowner should give up all their rights over the land when they make it open to the public. but i believe that some of these rights should fall into abeyance
According to you what rights should fall into this category of abeyance?
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 12:14:30. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:16:38 PM · #44 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
But the real point ....
Is not who owns the station - in a democracy we arer not limited to disciussing what the law is - we can also discuss what it ought to be |
So, which rights would you take away from property owners and give to the public for free?
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 12:19:42. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:22:28 PM · #45 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
Have you raed the thread at all ? |
I've read the entire thread and also do not see what, in particular, you feel is unfair or unjust.
I agree with the OP that the photographer was off base. He set up a tripod in the center of a busy concourse at rush hour to take a 20 minute pano. What was he thinking?
The place is a shopping mall as well as a train station and historic building. Clearly with all his connections to the media he could have anticipated problems with his set up, no?
Photography is not prohibited at Union Station. Tripods may be restricted...probably at the discretion of the security officers. DPC'rs, however, have taken a group shot there with tripod and remote. It took awhile to set up the photo and group and make several shots. We were not harassed in any way. I've shot there many times since without incident. I've seen events, media and film crews there.
This was in 2005:
I think if the photographer had been proactive in asking a security officer for permission to set up for his 20 minute exposure he'd probably have gotten permission or been directed as to how to get permission. He was, instead, hoping that he could just show up and be accommodated without any concern for public safety. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:23:09 PM · #46 |
Trevy - law is not natural or innate - it is man made - an expression of opinion
All rights involve, by definition, a curtailment of the rights of others - eg your right to walk in the street curtails my right to prevent you from walking in the street.
There is always a trade off between the rights, duties, powers and obligations of the many groups and indiviuals in society (see the jurisprudence of hohfeld and others for more detail).
I don't accept that property rights are in any way sacred. they can be superceded by other rights, such as the rights of private individuals.
The question is where the compromise in drawn. This will vary from case to case, but in the case of whaT I have chosen to call quasi public spaces, a workable rule would seem to be something like that the landowner should retain all those rights which are necessary to protect his property and his free use of his property and the permitted use of his licencees (ie the public, people who are allowed on - licensed to be there). Also of course the rights to alienate the property.
Not felicitously worded but you get the idea.
This would allow the application of rules which protected the fabric of the property and the economic viability of the property.
The public would retain the right to do whatever they would be able to do in a public place which did not interfere with the rights of the property owner protected by the rule above.
This seems like a reasonable compromise between the competing rights at stake here.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:36:36 PM · #47 |
Just to rebutt accusations that the photographer was either a prick (as stated in the title) or was wholly unconcerned with the public/private aspect, a direct quote from the blog seems in order. He seems rather thoughtful about it and aware of the issues, admitting he doesn't know the finer points.
"I'm still trying to sort out the incident. While I have no doubt that Union Station is managed by a private company, I think it's hard for them to argue it's a private space, and that journalists cannot take photographs there without permission. Granted, it's not a public street like the Silver Spring incident, but the situation is otherwise similar. I also question their right to demand that we erase photos, and am puzzled by the capriciousness of their overall position, given how they first allowed us to take photos but then changed their minds, offering mixed messages as to why." |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:43:44 PM · #48 |
| I fail to see how what he was doing could be characterized as "journalism." He went there to demonstrate the camera to friends. Also, he wasn't arrested. If he had been, it would probably have been for loitering and not for taking "illegal" images. There is no evidence that you cannot take images in Union Station. There is, however, a big difference between "taking photos" and setting up a tripod for a 20 minute exposure or exposures. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:52:37 PM · #49 |
Looking at the pictures it hardly looks as though the station was busy in which case it seems unlikely that they were causing any real obstruction. (Of course arguments of journalism aren't really relevant to this without taking on the whole issue of blogging and its 'quasi-journalist' feel. Sorry to use another 'quasi'.) As for permits though they're generally unneccessary and can easily end up with excessive consultation for what are essentially snapshots. I'm not saying these guys were entirely reasonable, twenty minutes is asking for some hassle, but asking for a reason to be verified by someone a bit higher up than a 'rent-a-cop' doesn't make you a 'prick' either.
Also why should we need to get permits every time we move, basically everywhere is owned in some way and the border between public and private is often vague, if you're later found to be gaining commercially then you can be sued. And terrorism threat arguments are ridiculous considering how easy it would be to get plans for any major sites through public records anyway.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 12:59:28. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 12:54:46 PM · #50 |
| Sorry, but I still think if he would have just asked permission first, it would have been okay. Hell, they might even have given him special permissions and roped off the area. The plain and simple fact is, you get more flies with honey than you do with vinegar. |
|
