| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2008 12:59:47 PM · #51 |
Originally posted by canary:
Looking at the pictures it hardly looks as though the station was busy ... |
20 minutes = 1200 seconds
1200 seconds / 200 images = 6 second exposure per image.
I think it would be difficult to tell how busy the station was from those exposures.
As for me, I don't think the guy was a "prick" for questioning authority. I do think if he's going to claim professionalism he should act like one. That would include researching the venue and its restrictions. At minimum placing a phone call or walking up to a security officer and asking before being asked. ...and don't start me on his blog post that indicates he stood there and "twittered it" while discussions were under way! |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:15:44 PM · #52 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by canary:
Looking at the pictures it hardly looks as though the station was busy ... |
20 minutes = 1200 seconds
1200 seconds / 200 images = 6 second exposure per image.
I think it would be difficult to tell how busy the station was from those exposures. |
I would expect a large amount of that time would be the automatic repositioning of the camera between each frame. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:35:27 PM · #53 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
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. |
Unfortunately it's usually easier and more effective to beg for forgiveness than ask for permission |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 01:55:08 PM · #54 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Originally posted by canary:
Looking at the pictures it hardly looks as though the station was busy ... |
20 minutes = 1200 seconds
1200 seconds / 200 images = 6 second exposure per image.
I think it would be difficult to tell how busy the station was from those exposures. |
I would expect a large amount of that time would be the automatic repositioning of the camera between each frame. |
I've been in Union Station at 4:30 on weekdays before. Trust me, it's a busy place. And my point still stands, there is no way from the images to determine if it was busy two days ago when he was there or not. But it's highly likely that it was even if the location is not the most busy part of the station.
Try this for an analogy: Instead of a camera and a tripod, a guy shows up with a guitar and a lawn chair and a handful of friends. He plunks himself down in the same spot and starts playing so he can demonstrate to his friends how great the acoustics are in the grand old building. When confronted by security he refuses to move. He continues playing and questions the officer about his rights to freedom of peaceable assembly. He fails to produce a permit. After some time and two more security officers requesting he desist he tells them he doesn't know how to stop... How would this be any different? |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 02:13:37 PM · #55 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
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. |
Then I suggest you get to work getting the law changed.
I'd wish you good luck, but I absolutely do not agree that someone who owns property should not do as they wish with it or control what activities are sanctioned while on it.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 16:42:51. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 02:43:10 PM · #56 |
Originally posted by KaDi:
Try this for an analogy: Instead of a camera and a tripod, a guy shows up with a guitar and a lawn chair and a handful of friends. He plunks himself down in the same spot and starts playing so he can demonstrate to his friends how great the acoustics are in the grand old building. When confronted by security he refuses to move. He continues playing and questions the officer about his rights to freedom of peaceable assembly. He fails to produce a permit. After some time and two more security officers requesting he desist he tells them he doesn't know how to stop... How would this be any different? |
So he's playing the guitar. and one security guard comes over and says 'that's fine, keep playing'. Then another one comes over and says 'you can't do that here' and they ask 'why?' and get a variety of different answers that change over time because they aren't sure there's any actual reason why not. Is it not then reasonable to ask to speak to someone in charge after several of the employees have been demonstrated to not have clue if it is allowed or not and if not, why it isn't? And I'd agree, it wouldn't be any different. If the security guards don't have a clue why or why not and some think it is fine and others think it isn't for some unknown reason, don't you think you'd be reasonable to ask to have someone who has a clue explain things?
As to the shutter speeds, you can see people walking around. Each exposure looks to be a couple of seconds or less, with a fair bit of time devoted to repositioning the camera.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 14:51:32. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:17:53 PM · #57 |
| It's real simple. When threatened with arrest, simply ask why. They must provide with you the exact code violation for which you are being arrested. If they don't know, they either have to go and find out, or just go. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:33:11 PM · #58 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
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. |
I understand your position better but completely disagree. First, I do feel that property rights are sacred and are no different than individual rights, in fact I believe they are intertwined with each other and to disregard one is to disregard the other. Second, how would you define quasi-public ? Is it any place of business? Just businesses that have hanger rounds? Star Bucks? Barnes and Noble? Local supermarket? If I own the property that you allow the public to do what ever they want how can I ask them to leave at closing time? Can I ask them to leave at all since I am curtailing their rights to be in that public space? I know this is the extreme but when you strip a private owners right to make decisions about their property you are indeed stripping an individuals rights. The analogy of you walking in the street supercedes my right to block you is not the same, the street is public property a mall is not, you do not have the right to be in a mall that is privately owned, or any other privately owned place of business for that matter.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:36:38 PM · #59 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
It's real simple. When threatened with arrest, simply ask why. They must provide with you the exact code violation for which you are being arrested. If they don't know, they either have to go and find out, or just go. |
It would be trespassing in this case. When asked to leave private property you don't have a choice and I do not believe the law requires any explanation on why you are being asked to leave some one's private property. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 03:59:20 PM · #60 |
for hat it's worth the issue here in this case isn't rights but privalages. On private property, all-be-it publicaly used, you don't have the right to be there, it's a privalage, and the property owner has every right to disallow any use they wish.
on public property the matter is different, however your rights even in a public space are not absolute, there are limits even there. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:54:46 PM · #61 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by KaDi:
Try this for an analogy: Instead of a camera and a tripod, a guy shows up with a guitar and a lawn chair and a handful of friends. He plunks himself down in the same spot and starts playing so he can demonstrate to his friends how great the acoustics are in the grand old building. When confronted by security he refuses to move. He continues playing and questions the officer about his rights to freedom of peaceable assembly. He fails to produce a permit. After some time and two more security officers requesting he desist he tells them he doesn't know how to stop... How would this be any different? |
So he's playing the guitar. and one security guard comes over and says 'that's fine, keep playing'. Then another one comes over and says 'you can't do that here' and they ask 'why?' and get a variety of different answers that change over time because they aren't sure there's any actual reason why not. Is it not then reasonable to ask to speak to someone in charge after several of the employees have been demonstrated to not have clue if it is allowed or not and if not, why it isn't? And I'd agree, it wouldn't be any different. If the security guards don't have a clue why or why not and some think it is fine and others think it isn't for some unknown reason, don't you think you'd be reasonable to ask to have someone who has a clue explain things?
|
You'd think it should be reasonable, but it doesn't have to be. Maybe one guard thinks the activity is not disruptive and another one does or the station becomes more crowded in the time between each guard's visit and what was an out of the way activity is now impeding people trying to move about.
The simplest (and best IMO) solution would have been to call ahead and ask.
It's been several years ago, but I wanted to shoot inside Union Station in Los Angeles for a photography class project so I called ahead, told the person in charge what I wanted to do etc. and they agreed. When I was shooting, I was approached by a guard who informed me that I would have to leave, blah blah, blah. I just told him my name and the name of the person I had spoken to. He went to check and when he returned even offered to get me access to some interesting off-limits areas. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 04:57:36 PM · #62 |
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Trinch:
It's real simple. When threatened with arrest, simply ask why. They must provide with you the exact code violation for which you are being arrested. If they don't know, they either have to go and find out, or just go. |
It would be trespassing in this case. When asked to leave private property you don't have a choice and I do not believe the law requires any explanation on why you are being asked to leave some one's private property. |
Image this scenario... You decide to go on a trip to the Grand Canyon to do some photography. You book airline tickets, hotels, and rent top of the line glass. Once there, you wait till sunset and set up for some wonderul photographs. All the sudden, a uniform shows up who works for the some management company operating the gift shop across the overlook. He tells you you have to leave. Doesn't give an explanation, can't cite any requlations, just says leave or I arrest you for trespassing. If you want a picture, you can get a postcard at the giftshop.
Can you honestly say you are OK with this?
Granted there is a diferrence between these two situations. The Grand Canyon falls under the Department of Interior while Union Station is under the Department of Transportation. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 05:14:21 PM · #63 |
Originally posted by TCGuru:
[quote=thelobster] We had bombs over here too - and i don't claim that the response here has been any less draconian ... |
Like shooting innocent civilians on the subway platform. :-( |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:32:09 PM · #64 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Originally posted by trevytrev:
Originally posted by Trinch:
It's real simple. When threatened with arrest, simply ask why. They must provide with you the exact code violation for which you are being arrested. If they don't know, they either have to go and find out, or just go. |
It would be trespassing in this case. When asked to leave private property you don't have a choice and I do not believe the law requires any explanation on why you are being asked to leave some one's private property. |
Image this scenario... You decide to go on a trip to the Grand Canyon to do some photography. You book airline tickets, hotels, and rent top of the line glass. Once there, you wait till sunset and set up for some wonderul photographs. All the sudden, a uniform shows up who works for the some management company operating the gift shop across the overlook. He tells you you have to leave. Doesn't give an explanation, can't cite any requlations, just says leave or I arrest you for trespassing. If you want a picture, you can get a postcard at the giftshop.
Can you honestly say you are OK with this?
Granted there is a diferrence between these two situations. The Grand Canyon falls under the Department of Interior while Union Station is under the Department of Transportation. |
No. The train station in this case is privately owned. That's been already covered in this thread. Please read before posting. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 08:01:11 PM · #65 |
Originally posted by Melethia:
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. |
Now that is worth a campaign, I would certainly let them know my tourist dollars won't be spent there. Darn, and I had hoped to visit the Spanish Riding School there, someday. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:21:17 PM · #66 |
| I wanted to go to Union Station and take pictures there this summer...now I will be all paranoid and nervous...so will amateur photographers like me be hassled? |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:32:19 PM · #67 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
Why should we have to ask for a permit to take pictures in a public or quasi public place ?
I'm prepared to bet that the station in question has recieved the benefit of public money in some form at some time, renovation, policing etc.
The existence of a permit asystem implies the right to refuse a permit. |
Let me clear something up
Union Station is a TRAIN STATION operated by AMTRAK (IPC is the management company)
It is AFAIK Private property
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:38:58 PM · #68 |
Originally posted by slickchik:
I wanted to go to Union Station and take pictures there this summer...now I will be all paranoid and nervous...so will amateur photographers like me be hassled? |
I doubt you will be hassled if you are casually taking pictures, though it would benefit you to go to security and inform them of your intentions. Their web site states that you should fill out a form and request permission, I would suggest you do that a few weeks before you go. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:42:59 PM · #69 |
| Let's not call Amtrak a "Private" corporation. It is similar to the US Postal Service. It's not actually a government entity, but it operates under a government charter. Amtrak recieves almost a BILLION DOLLARS per year from all of us (including the overwhelming majority of us who never ride on their trains). |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:45:15 PM · #70 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Let's not call Amtrak a "Private" corporation. It is similar to the US Postal Service. It's not actually a government entity, but it operates under a government charter. Amtrak recieves almost a BILLION DOLLARS per year from all of us (including the overwhelming majority of us who never ride on their trains). |
Agreed ... but that doesn't change the fact that the station is private property for the sake of this discussion
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:12:51 PM · #71 |
Originally posted by JimiRose:
Originally posted by Cam:
Here is a picture of the thing he was using.
That would probably make police a bit uncomfortable.
Here |
As I pointed out before, is a terrorist really going to use ANYTHING like that? From the guard's point of view - if it's a bomb, they're taking their time setting it up, and seem to be enjoying a chat with passers by whilst doing so. If it's a camera they're not exactly being subtle about it a gigapan is clearly not a covert piece of kit. |
He had a canon. Of course it was considered a threat. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:13:06 PM · #72 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Let's not call Amtrak a "Private" corporation. It is similar to the US Postal Service. It's not actually a government entity, but it operates under a government charter. Amtrak recieves almost a BILLION DOLLARS per year from all of us (including the overwhelming majority of us who never ride on their trains). |
AMTRAK owns and operates the trains, they do NOT own the station.
From Wikipedia (Once again for those who cannot read before posting): "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."
None of those owners or lessees would make the station public property. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:17:18 PM · #73 |
Regardless of what the last person entered in Wikipedia, Union Station is owned by the United States Government, more specifically, by the Department of Transportation. Look it up.
United States Code:
Originally posted by Trinch:
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. |
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:27:34 PM · #74 |
Originally posted by Trinch:
Regardless of what the last person entered in Wikipedia, Union Station is owned by the United States Government, more specifically, by the Department of Transportation. Look it up.
United States Code:
Originally posted by Trinch:
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. |
|
1968? Try something a bit more recent. Which Union Station does that refer to anyway? I can think of at least 4 "Union Stations" in the US off the top of my head.
Better yet, why don't you go down there and setup a tripod and a camera, get in everyone's way and cry "Public Property!" when they arrest you? I'm sure you can speak to the ACLU after they unwire your jaw and remove your casts.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 22:30:19. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 10:32:43 PM · #75 |
Spazmo, the article is referencing an act passed in 1968, however, that is the text from the current US code. In otherwords, hasn't changed since.
ETA: Feel free to look for yourself.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 22:34:11. |
|
