| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/06/2009 12:03:53 PM · #1 |
Ok, I'm downtown Pitts now, and I have been hassled three times already by security guards telling me I can't take pictures. The latest was just by my hotel while I was taking a picture of the WATER in a fountain.
This appears to be a "rule" throughout town...I was told by one of the hotel drivers that the person who works security for the hotel was stopped and told he could not take pictures of one of the downtown buildings.
In another case, I was shooting up a PPG building in the Market Square area--the buildings are reflective black glass and very cool. I found a nice abstract shot and the security guard stopped me. I asked him if it's public or private property and he said private so I stopped. But he said it was because of 9/11 (not copyright).
This is really absurd, and stupid. I have a ton of pictures of the building anyway I shot from a distance and even before he stopped me. And I bet there are hundreds or thousands of them already on the Internet.
BUT: I was thinking, how can we protect our rights? I think the only way is a large public boycott of photographer unfriendly cities or areas. What do you think?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 12:11:02 PM · #2 |
What would happen to YOU if you just said to them, "Thank you, but No thank you"???? Especially if you are on a public street... Can they recite to you the city ordinance or state law that gives them the right to prevent you from taking pictures???? Or, are they just asking people to stop, and because they are a figure of authority, people usually will agree & move on...
I have no idea, these are just the first questions that came to mind.. I know if you are on private property, then you must leave if they say so.. But, if you are on public property, then do you have to comply??? |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 12:18:25 PM · #3 |
It's not like I was tresspassing...but the land is privately owned so I guess they make the rules.
I just can't think of anything more stupid though. What is the security risk of a photographer taking a picture of the facade of a building from closeup, versus down the street with a zoom. What is the security risk of my taking pictures of a fountain?
These guys are poorly trained, and/or whomever is telling them to do that is really stupid.
If it's the owners of the buildings and the businesses, though, I can't think of any better way to fight back than to start a boycott. Suppose you owned a downtown business and found out that there was a lot of bad press on the Internet about your town being photographer unfriendly, and people planned to go elsewhere? I think the business owners would start fighting for photographer rights.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 12:21:05 PM · #4 |
this link is the most helpful and broad on this subject
//news.cnet.com/8301-1023_3-10166532-93.html
it wasn't that interesting anyways!
Message edited by author 2009-09-06 12:46:38. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 12:40:36 PM · #5 |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 01:30:39 PM · #6 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
If it's the owners of the buildings and the businesses, though, I can't think of any better way to fight back than to start a boycott. Suppose you owned a downtown business and found out that there was a lot of bad press on the Internet about your town being photographer unfriendly, and people planned to go elsewhere? I think the business owners would start fighting for photographer rights. |
I used to work for PPG, they would likely welcome a ban on photographs and the bad press would not bother them at all, upper management has always seemed to be a paranoid group that would hate to think someone might make a penny selling a photo of their business. I am sure a lot of corporations are like that, they like to think they have a lot of secrets to protect...lol |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 02:07:48 PM · #7 |
| Not surprising there was a show called “Parking Wars” featuring the Philadelphia Parking Authority, that seemed to take joy in the aggravation they can cause drivers. When I go back east for a visit I will definitely go south of that state.. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 02:10:29 PM · #8 |
and they likely do... at least the banking and insurance industries...
got their hand out, and fists clenched at the same time...
Originally posted by PapaBob:
they like to think they have a lot of secrets to protect...lol |
Message edited by author 2009-09-06 14:10:58.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 02:20:42 PM · #9 |
| Spend the rest of the weekend in Cleveland. We are only two hours away and the place is MUCH friendlier. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 03:07:50 PM · #10 |
I predict this is a trend which will spread. I fear it's becoming more "in vogue" for authority to lord it over the populace.
Some predictions from The Great Slippini:
1. More portable fences around public events.
2. More security people at public events.
3. Signs at public events declaring the right of security to look through your bags.
Government workers want to justify their paychecks, so they have to keep coming up with new rules for your protection.
Oppression is trendy as long as it's politically correct... so far.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 03:28:54 PM · #11 |
I had a similar experience in downtown Dallas a few years ago. I complied because it was a giant policeman with a club and a gun who told me to stop taking pictures, but then I wrote a letter complaining to the City Council and Mayor's Office. I received a letter from the chief of police, citing bullshit terrorist concerns as to why photography was now illegal. So, I did some research on the building online and through resources at the library. I was able to come up with a shocking amount of detail about the structure of the building, its tenants, operations and identified several vulnerabilities. I then sent all of this information to the chief of police, the city council and mayor, letting them know that if someone wanted to attack their precious building, no photos were necessary, they just needed their local library and Google, so perhaps they should make those illegal too.
Fuckers.
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 03:38:07 PM · #12 |
Neil, I've had the same trouble with the PPG building. At Christmas they have the tree and skating rink and they will let you take pictures of the tree or skaters but not of the building (I, too, was trying to do a cool reflective shot thing). I did manage to get a few good ones while one step into the street (with the guard watching), but it wasn't quite what I wanted.
Friggin paranoids. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 03:48:39 PM · #13 |
| here's my theory: it's not the building they are trying to protect, they know very well how much detailed information about the bldg is publicly available. My theory is they just don't want their picture taken, and don't know enough about photography to realize that the power to refuse to have your picture taken in public doesn't exist any more. They are also probably worried that if you should set up a tripod & all, you might turn into a public nuisance/hazard, they might have an incident on their hands. They might have to protect you, or arrest people, should someone violently object to having their picture taken. That's my theory. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 04:04:42 PM · #14 |
I'm wondering if there is a law, or it is just "policy" against taking pictures.
Though if you ask the nice officer to show you the section in the law, (s)he may just decide to take you to the station to let you have a look.... Which is why I probably would have moved along also. If we do not exercise our rights, they will be lost... Where are those brazen kids who used to be willing to take a stand?
Must be at home tweeting and facebooking...
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 05:03:33 PM · #15 |
I am certainly up for the boycott - I pledge I will not visit downtown Pittsburgh in the next 5 years. That should hurt `em.
With you all the way on this one bruvva. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 05:47:30 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by Simms:
I am certainly up for the boycott - I pledge I will not visit downtown Pittsburgh in the next 5 years. That should hurt `em.
With you all the way on this one bruvva. |
What if I do visit Pittsburgh, but bring lots of spray paint and draw penises all over everything?
|
|
|
|
09/06/2009 05:47:32 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by ambaker:
Though if you ask the nice officer to show you the section in the law, (s)he may just decide to take you to the station to let you have a look.... |
Or a ride to some dark alley where they can make Rodney King's beating look like a Love-in. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 08:21:11 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by PapaBob:
I used to work for PPG, they would likely welcome a ban on photographs and the bad press would not bother them at all, upper management has always seemed to be a paranoid group that would hate to think someone might make a penny selling a photo of their business. I am sure a lot of corporations are like that, they like to think they have a lot of secrets to protect...lol |
PPG sold the building to Hillman Properties around 2000. They were even looking at relocating corporate headquarters at one point. Grubb & Ellis manages the property, and they're the ones that impose these ridiculous rules. Here's another ridiculous rule of theirs -- there's a fountain in the plaza and the kids must wear shirts and shoes if they're going to play in the water. Huh?
The concern with shooting the building is one of security. You can shoot pictures on the grounds, say of your friends at the ice rink, but if you point the camera upward, a guard will show up. If I see someone shooting the building before a guard does, I tell them to be discreet.
Also, the guards are a threat to no one. A lot of them are old or just lethargic, and I've never known them to be terribly aggressive. You can usually see them coming from a distance and easily outwalk them. I'll be curious to see how they handle G-20.
Market Square is public property; as far as I'm concerned, they had no right to tell you anything, Neil. Of course the lines are blurred now that they've fenced it off and leveled it.
Some forbidden pictures...
     
Message edited by author 2009-09-06 20:42:38. |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 09:18:57 PM · #19 |
Yes, I will boycott the place, too. ;-)
Maybe you could do a series of photos of the city skyline but put a "Censored" stamp on the offending building(s). ;-t |
|
|
|
09/06/2009 09:24:40 PM · #20 |
Another way to bring out some light on this silly practice is to go public.
A nicely timed letter to the editor to local paper(s) or, better yet, a detailed summary of your experience, including any sources or contacts you encountered, to a bylined reporter in your Pittsburg area might be fruitful. In other words, give a reporter something concrete to build a story on.
A little ridicule/humor never hurt when countering stupidly officious behaviour. And I know you can phrase your words so that your story would appeal to a reporter.
You can always copy your legislative folks. If you did that, I'd suggest a mixup in the forwarding process so as to delay their copies for a few days.
:-))
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 01:02:23 AM · #21 |
Originally posted by nshapiro:
Ok, I'm downtown Pitts now, and I have been hassled three times already by security guards telling me I can't take pictures. The latest was just by my hotel while I was taking a picture of the WATER in a fountain.
This appears to be a "rule" throughout town...I was told by one of the hotel drivers that the person who works security for the hotel was stopped and told he could not take pictures of one of the downtown buildings.
In another case, I was shooting up a PPG building in the Market Square area--the buildings are reflective black glass and very cool. I found a nice abstract shot and the security guard stopped me. I asked him if it's public or private property and he said private so I stopped. But he said it was because of 9/11 (not copyright).
This is really absurd, and stupid. I have a ton of pictures of the building anyway I shot from a distance and even before he stopped me. And I bet there are hundreds or thousands of them already on the Internet.
BUT: I was thinking, how can we protect our rights? I think the only way is a large public boycott of photographer unfriendly cities or areas. What do you think? |
Missing an opportunity here.
How about a Security Guard Challenge. Take a photo of an actual security guard who hassled you for during an actual photo shoot.
Oh, this could be brilliant ... send a few thousand DPC photographers into the world trying to take pictures that will get themselves hassled! Oh, that's good!
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 01:02:41. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 02:54:52 AM · #22 |
I've never had any desire whatsoever to visit Pittsburgh. I'll gladly boycott the place. It won't do any good though. Who's going to give a damn if a few photographers boycott a place like Pittsburgh? However, a few well publicized civil rights lawsuits might get their attention.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 03:51:40 AM · #23 |
Now that is a wonderful Idea. Who volunteers to go to Pittsburgh with some Bail Money? Slippy is going to need some..
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What if I do visit Pittsburgh, but bring lots of spray paint and draw penises all over everything? |
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 10:57:30 AM · #24 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Now that is a wonderful Idea. Who volunteers to go to Pittsburgh with some Bail Money? Slippy is going to need some..
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
What if I do visit Pittsburgh, but bring lots of spray paint and draw penises all over everything? |
|
Sorry, I can't go, I'm boycotting! |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 11:08:05 AM · #25 |
| As a foreigner, it´s threads like this that have made me as a photographer boycott the USA as a whole, and I know I am not the only one. |
|
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: 08/27/2025 04:46:22 PM EDT.
