| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/07/2009 11:19:10 AM · #26 |
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
With due respect Larus, that's a bit harsh. There are as many threads from elsewhere reporting similar situations, most notably the UK. None of us like it, but let's try not to paint with such a broad brush. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 11:24:41 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
With due respect Larus, that's a bit harsh. There are as many threads from elsewhere reporting similar situations, most notably the UK. None of us like it, but let's try not to paint with such a broad brush. |
Harsh or not, I don´t care, it my opinion, wich I am entitled to, wether you agree with me or not. Your countrymen with regular reports like in this thread have stripped away any desire I might have to come over for a visit, it´s just not worth the bother and the same goes for the UK. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 11:52:54 AM · #28 |
I don't think Larus' opinion is at all isolated. As a non-American looking in, the general impression I get of the US is of a country becoming extremely paranoid and increasingly unwelcoming. The image it brings to my mind is of a miser sitting at a table with a pile of coins gathered protectively in his encircling arms, darting frightened looks over his shoulders while muttering, "Mine, all mine!"
Accurate or not, this IS the impression that's being projected to other nations, which is very sad.
eta; Btw, I'm referring to the image shown by all media, not singling out this site.
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 11:55:21. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 12:04:12 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I don't think Larus' opinion is at all isolated. As a non-American looking in, the general impression I get of the US is of a country becoming extremely paranoid and increasingly unwelcoming. |
As an American look around me, I'd have to agree with you. A truly sad state of affairs...
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 01:07:29 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I don't think Larus' opinion is at all isolated. As a non-American looking in, the general impression I get of the US is of a country becoming extremely paranoid and increasingly unwelcoming. |
As an American look around me, I'd have to agree with you. A truly sad state of affairs... |
First let me say that I agree in principle that the situation is getting out of hand, not just here in the US, but in many places. Then let me temper that remark. The reality is that there are relatively few places where reactions seem over the top. I've shot in major cities across the country, almost all after 2001, and I have only once been bothered by security/police.
Many times these reactions to photography are driven not form security fears but from concerns over commercial sale of images of "copyrighted" structures. IMHO, this second phenomenon (again, not limited to the US) is the more serious. The "security concern" issue is readily refuted, and I believe that in time this will come full circle. The realization that "ubiquitous imaging" is a security *benefit* and not a risk will dawn upon those folks charged with setting security policy, and photography will be seen as a benefit, not a risk.
The "copyrighted material" scam on the other hand has the potential to absolutely ruin urban photography. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 02:24:02 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by OdysseyF22:
Originally posted by BeeCee:
I don't think Larus' opinion is at all isolated. As a non-American looking in, the general impression I get of the US is of a country becoming extremely paranoid and increasingly unwelcoming. |
As an American look around me, I'd have to agree with you. A truly sad state of affairs... |
First let me say that I agree in principle that the situation is getting out of hand, not just here in the US, but in many places. Then let me temper that remark. The reality is that there are relatively few places where reactions seem over the top. I've shot in major cities across the country, almost all after 2001, and I have only once been bothered by security/police.
Many times these reactions to photography are driven not form security fears but from concerns over commercial sale of images of "copyrighted" structures. IMHO, this second phenomenon (again, not limited to the US) is the more serious. The "security concern" issue is readily refuted, and I believe that in time this will come full circle. The realization that "ubiquitous imaging" is a security *benefit* and not a risk will dawn upon those folks charged with setting security policy, and photography will be seen as a benefit, not a risk.
The "copyrighted material" scam on the other hand has the potential to absolutely ruin urban photography. |
I believe that the copyright issue over structures originated with the French when they claimed the lighting of the Eiffel Tower was protected and as a result, any images of the landmark at night used for commercial purpose were infringing. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 02:51:21 PM · #32 |
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. |
A day into my boycott and I am still holding strong.. Will update this thread everyday for the next 5 years..
Or until it gets locked, whichever comes first. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 04:01:25 PM · #33 |
| You may need some help here - day 2's always a hard one. I'm right here with you. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 05:42:39 PM · #34 |
Well just to lighten your thoughts a bit, America is home to 370 Million People. So the few hundred active Members you find on DPC from America, of which a small percentage have actually encountered problems is hardly a major issue. I have walked around LAX Airport SanFran Airport Chicago Ohare as well as Alanta International Airport with my camera in hand and never once got stopped by a TSA agent. You would think that security at Airports would be the most concerned with photography. I have also walked around Various cities, LA, Oakland, SanFrancisco, Saltlake City, Reno, Chicago, the Twin Cities, Nashville, Louisville, St Louis, other places in the South and East again with a Camera in my hand and the only time I was asked to put my camera away was in front of the Circus Circus Casino in Reno, Which was for a reason I can understand and agree with. I think until you actually spend some time shooting in the States, you should keep an open mind. Just because a few people have had problems does not mean it is spinning out of control. For the record, I was in Auckland NZ a few weeks ago and was asked not to film several places with my video camera, even a little old Indian man who didn't want his Dairy in my video was outside asking me to not film his building. I am not going to Boycott the Entire Country because of a few Right Protected Buildings or a Paranoid little old Man.
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 06:44:01 PM · #35 |
While I really don't want another argument (seriously this time), don't you guys see a bit of hypocrisy coming from the photographer side of the argument here? Its their building and they whomever [i]they[/] are, do not want their building photographed. I cannot count the number of times that some whiny, amateur photographer has posted here and other threads on how their photo has been 'stolen' and used without their permission. You guys are saying that, since it is in a public place, you should be able to copy their art and architecture and use is how you please. If you post your art on public sites and public venues, why does the same thought process not apply? After all, it is in public...right?
I have only ran into that issue once here in Atlanta. The SunTrust building, my favorite building here, forbids photos to be taken on their premises. No big deal, as the better shots of the structure are from across the street, but that is their policy. I have had guards hassle me once or twice, then only to point out that there would be no issues if I'd just cross Peachtree. That seems to be an appropriate right, does it not? I absolutely do not agree with the policy, but I feel like the same thought process canapply to their artwork as applies to mine?
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 06:44:02 PM · #36 |
While I really don't want another argument (seriously this time), don't you guys see a bit of hypocrisy coming from the photographer side of the argument here? Its their building and they whomever [i]they[/] are, do not want their building photographed. I cannot count the number of times that some whiny, amateur photographer has posted here and other threads on how their photo has been 'stolen' and used without their permission. You guys are saying that, since it is in a public place, you should be able to copy their art and architecture and use is how you please. If you post your art on public sites and public venues, why does the same thought process not apply? After all, it is in public...right?
I have only ran into that issue once here in Atlanta. The SunTrust building, my favorite building here, forbids photos to be taken on their premises. No big deal, as the better shots of the structure are from across the street, but that is their policy. I have had guards hassle me once or twice, then only to point out that there would be no issues if I'd just cross Peachtree. That seems to be an appropriate right, does it not? I absolutely do not agree with the policy, but I feel like the same thought process canapply to their artwork as applies to mine?
Thoughts? |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 06:51:42 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by ericwoo:
While I really don't want another argument (seriously this time), don't you guys see a bit of hypocrisy coming from the photographer side of the argument here? Its their building and they whomever [i]they[/] are, do not want their building photographed. I cannot count the number of times that some whiny, amateur photographer has posted here and other threads on how their photo has been 'stolen' and used without their permission. You guys are saying that, since it is in a public place, you should be able to copy their art and architecture and use is how you please. If you post your art on public sites and public venues, why does the same thought process not apply? After all, it is in public...right?
I have only ran into that issue once here in Atlanta. The SunTrust building, my favorite building here, forbids photos to be taken on their premises. No big deal, as the better shots of the structure are from across the street, but that is their policy. I have had guards hassle me once or twice, then only to point out that there would be no issues if I'd just cross Peachtree. That seems to be an appropriate right, does it not? I absolutely do not agree with the policy, but I feel like the same thought process canapply to their artwork as applies to mine?
Thoughts? |
its one thing to photograph a structure, its another to copy the building and build your own just like it. I think you have your views skewed a little
now, i know i wouldn't want someone taking a picture of my picture, that i can argue with
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 18:52:45. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:08:03 PM · #38 |
Lets say someone stands in your front yard and photographs your house. Then they go out and publish a book about Houses with several photos of your home in the book, What would your reaction be to that? I think in the case of Rights Protection, It is not the fact that people are taking photos of the buildings, It is the fact that the owners of the property have no idea what the photographers intentions are. That is why they simply ask you not to photograph their property.
Originally posted by BeefnCheez:
its one thing to photograph a structure, its another to copy the building and build your own just like it. I think you have your views skewed a little
now, i know i wouldn't want someone taking a picture of my picture, that i can argue with |
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:32:46 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Bugzeye:
Lets say someone stands in your front yard and photographs your house. Then they go out and publish a book about Houses with several photos of your home in the book, What would your reaction be to that? |
If it was for sale, contact the realtor immediately and add 30% to the asking price. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:35:42 PM · #40 |
| I plan on boycotting the Steelers..... |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:46:20 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by neophyte:
I plan on boycotting the Steelers..... |
Just boycot Ben. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 07:49:14 PM · #42 |
lol, I do that by default every year unless they are playing the Vikings or Bears then I allow myself a stay of boycott and become a fan until the game is over. That rule applies to anyone playing the Vikings or Bears.
Originally posted by neophyte:
I plan on boycotting the Steelers..... |
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 08:04:37 PM · #43 |
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
Hey Lárus when you decide to come to the US come to the Pacific NW. Up here we are darn near Canadians and have tons of beautiful scenery and cities to phtograph. Kind of like Iceland. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 08:28:17 PM · #44 |
| Larus you just pop on over to Arizona, the only thing you are not allowed to photograph is my large arse! Other than that anything goes here! Hell we even lick frogs, chew cactus and smoke our garden plants to get high and it is all legal. Come on over!!! |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 08:48:04 PM · #45 |
Just got back after an 8 hour drive today...I'll have to catch up on the thread and then I'll post some VERY REVEALING photos of all the secrets Pittsburgh is holding.
BTW - I wrote a note to the mayor too via their website. I will say that no REAL policeman hassled me at all walking around taking pictures. I did a lot of walking around in the Oakland area, and that was fine. It was only downtown Pittsburgh.
|
|
|
|
09/07/2009 08:59:46 PM · #46 |
I agree that the testosterone flows mightily well at PPG with the Joe-Rent-A-Cops. I aimed my camera a little too high for their liking one day, and was told not to take shots of the building, too.
How friggin' stupid.
As if you can't simply Google what the building looks like. I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it at that. It'll be a little hard for me to boycott Pittsburgh living here and all, but I can boycott PPG :) |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 09:01:58 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
That'd be your loss.......8>)
There are screwball people everywhere, and we here in the US certainly don't have the market cornered on them.
Just look at a map, add up all of the instances you've EVER heard of photogs being harassed, divide that into the square miles of the US, and see just how insignificant of a number that really is.
Seriously, that's a bogus equation, but the times that you get hassled are so disproportionate to the times you don't, it's a non-issue, really.
Most of the time it's by some power-mad rent-a-cop or lackey who takes it upon himself to exercise authority that they do not have. I usually just apologize, let them know I'm aware of their demands, then go off and do my own thing elsewhere, usually coming back and getting the shots I want anyway. Sometimes, you do have to go away and come back another time.
I generally have pretty good luck with most of where I want to shoot by going up to their office and talking to them first. Some places naturally have policies in place, i.e. retail because of the competition, but generally building complex people are okay if you talk to them nicely.
I was in Atlantic City this weekend, walked into the Pier Shops at Caesar's Palace, and was promptly told by the guard/security officer right inside the door that I wasn't permitted to take pictures inside the building. I hadn't even pulled it up to shoot anything! I then browsed around the plaza, and saw no less than 100 different tourists with their P&Ss doing the snapshot thing. I didnj't get bent out of shape or anything......I had pretty much just told the man "Okay." and moved on....once I was away from this one guy, and was around others shooting, I didn't worry about it.
Funny thing, the next day.....walked into the SAME entrance, another two guards were there, and an important looking woman with an enamelled nameplate was with them.....I paused by them, they were talking, then the important lady smiled brightly and asked if she could help me. I replied that I was looking for suggestions as to a good restaurant, remarked on how terrific the setup was in their shops, and we chatted for a few minutes about their wonderful facility. As we were wrapping up, I held up my big, nasty camera and asked if it was okay if I shot photographs while I was there with my family. She told me to snap away to my heart's content. When I mentioned that I had been stopped by a guard and told not to the day before, she frowned and told me that outside of photographing the merchants' storefronts, I was more than welcome to shoot......and added that I was to tell anyone who questioned me to see her.
My point is......to a certain extent, you have to do this little dance that makes them GIVE you permission, and in such a manner that they get to feel magnanimous about it, and I've very rarely been NOT allowed to shoot something I really wanted to with that perspective. I'm just not that concerned about missing the occasional shot because of some guy with a power complex. Sometimes I don't get the shot, but so what?
When I look back at all the shots I've gotten because I've sought out the right person, asked them for their help, and was effusive in my gratitude, sincerely, most of it's been things I might not have gotten any other way. I like it that I get to talk my way into places that you can't just wander into simply by expressing an interest in the place, the people, and what it's all about. I find that most of the time, they like to show off what they do.
Anyhow......don't let a bad day get you down, and do a little homework if you get hassled yet really want to shoot something. You may find that one simple call or visit may open doors you never knew existed.
My whole railroad collection is the benefit of asking the right person the right thing. I thought maybe I could shoot some old, abandoned railroad cars, and I found myself with a framed image on the wall of the station house, and taking a ride in the locomotive one fine, sunny, Saturday afternoon with the railroad owner giving me the tour.
You never know.....8>) |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 09:13:21 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by alanfreed:
As if you can't simply Google what the building looks like. I could go on and on, but I'll just leave it at that. It'll be a little hard for me to boycott Pittsburgh living here and all, but I can boycott PPG :) |
PPG Place. PPG Place. PPG is just a tenant now. Grubb & Ellis is who you want to boycott.
Message edited by author 2009-09-07 21:29:08. |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 11:12:15 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by jbsmithana:
Originally posted by LalliSig:
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. |
Hey Lárus when you decide to come to the US come to the Pacific NW. Up here we are darn near Canadians and have tons of beautiful scenery and cities to phtograph. Kind of like Iceland. |
JB, one of these days we'll create Cascadia! :) |
|
|
|
09/07/2009 11:58:00 PM · #50 |
US Copyright law protects buildings constructed after 1986, however that doesn't mean you can't photograph the building, but only limits how you may use the photos, i.e. you can't use them for commercial purposes, such as stock images. Images taken for private, critical, or "artistic" use are still perfectly legal. You can take all the photos of the lit-up Eiffel Tower you want, you just can't sell them.
If you are on private property, the owners can restrict/forbid photography, but as long as you are on public property you can photograph pretty much anything (with a very few exceptions, mostly military installations); you're just limited in what you can do with them.
I strongly suggest you all download, print and carry with you The Photographer's Rights by attorney Bert P. Krages II; carry enough copies to give one to anyone who challenges your right to take a photo. He also now has versions applicable in the UK, Australia, and Portugal.
If you're a professional photographer, you might want to invest in his Legal Handbook for Photograpers which will have more detail. |
|
