Once again - with the Security Guards

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

07/31/2010 04:57:39 PM · #26

good article from popular mechanics on the legality.

//www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/computer-security/taking-photos-in-public-places-is-not-a-crime?click=pm_latest

an excerpt:

So what should you do if you're taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop? First, be polite. Security people have tough jobs and probably mean well. Ask them what legal authority they have to make you stop. (If you're in a public place, like a street, a park, etc., they have none; if you're in a private place, such as a shopping mall, they may have a basis for banning pictures.) Krages advises those hassled by security guards to threaten to call law enforcement. If it's an actual police officer who's telling you to stop shooting, ask to speak to a superior. And remember--you never have a legal duty to delete pictures you've taken.

Panasonic LUMIX-DMC ZS100

07/31/2010 05:04:53 PM · #27

Originally posted by SteveJ:

I find this type of incident inflammatory. I am not aware of US laws regarding the rail system, but in the UK you can take photos or videos on mainline stations. However, once you go on the Underground/Tube/Metro, then it is a whole different ballgame. No photography is allowed on these services and the Tube staff and British Transport Police can stop you and/or have you ejected from the station. I believe it is all to do with safety, flashes going off on the underground is not the best scenerio for safe operation.

If it is a service/property run by a private company who employ security to maintain the safety of the site, then they can stop anyone from taking photos, whether or not the service is public. They are not protecting the service, but the site and its functions. However, this does not give them the right to confiscate equipment or assault a person. They can ask you to stop, and if you continue, can call the Police to deal with the problem.

The way I see this episode, as an ex-cop, is that the poster of the story was deliberately trying to provoke the company and its security staff. The security guards acted outside their legal parameters and as such commited the offences of assault and criminal damage. As for the OP asserting the fact that is a public property, just read the article. It states that said photog had been warned on a previous occasion and threatened with a life ban. Surely that clearly states that although the public have access, it is not a public place?

Maybe in the UK, but things are different here in the States.

It is inflammatory. So is just about any assertion of legal rights in the face of an oppressive and unjust authority. I think our countries had a little spat over such things 230 some years ago.

He was trying to provoke them into violating his rights, so?

And, no private security cannot stop someone from taking photos regardless of their agreement with the state with possible exceptions for military installations etc. It's a train station, not a missile base.

They threatened him with a life ban? So? Again, they were simply trying to intimidate him into complying with a non-existent and illegal prohibition on photography. They could have threatened him with anything really, that doesn't mean it's within the scope of their authority to enact or enforce such a ban. They were simply blowing smoke.

jvaughn94

Canon EOS-1000D Rebel XS

Canon EF 50mm f/1.8 II

07/31/2010 05:11:46 PM · #28

It's the same as purposely trying to piss someone off. I.E., Trolling.

wheeledd

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

07/31/2010 05:12:12 PM · #29

Originally posted by mycelium:

Photographic equivalent of 1960s sit-ins.

I had exactly the same thought. I grew up in Virginia in the 1950's. It was illegal under Virginia law for blacks and whites to be together in "places of public accommodation" such as restaurants and movie theaters. In the early 60's a black friend of mine and I went to *every* movie theater in Fairfax County (right outside Washington, D.C.). We were refused admission to *all* of them. It was impossible for blacks in Fairfax County to go to a movie.

Yes, we were intending to cause trouble. But I like to think that the trouble we caused hastened the end of the era of legal discrimination in Virginia. Black citizens can now go to movies in Fairfax County.

Now I am a photographer and I find that my rights to take pictures are being arbitrarily restricted. I'm glad there are people willing to "cause trouble" to protect my rights.

~~DanW

rooum

07/31/2010 05:27:21 PM · #30

Originally posted by wheeledd:

Originally posted by mycelium:

Photographic equivalent of 1960s sit-ins.

I had exactly the same thought. I grew up in Virginia in the 1950's. It was illegal under Virginia law for blacks and whites to be together in "places of public accommodation" such as restaurants and movie theaters. In the early 60's a black friend of mine and I went to *every* movie theater in Fairfax County (right outside Washington, D.C.). We were refused admission to *all* of them. It was impossible for blacks in Fairfax County to go to a movie.

Yes, we were intending to cause trouble. But I like to think that the trouble we caused hastened the end of the era of legal discrimination in Virginia. Black citizens can now go to movies in Fairfax County.

Now I am a photographer and I find that my rights to take pictures are being arbitrarily restricted. I'm glad there are people willing to "cause trouble" to protect my rights.

~~DanW

I agree totally with this post by Dan. In this country that i am in (UK) human rights are being swept away quite rapidly and yet more miscarriages of justice happening all the time (recently another death at the hands of the police has been swept under the carpet here). Photography rights may seem like small stuff compared to that but it is certainly worth fighting for i'd say.

inshaala

Canon EOS-7D

Sigma 10-20mm f/4-5.6 EX DC HSM for Canon

08/01/2010 08:15:39 AM · #31

Originally posted by Spork99:

Now you just sound like an anarchist who hates the authorities: "oppressive and unjust authority"... Where do you draw the line between a missile base and a train station? Both are part of the critical national infrastructure in place to defend and ensure the uninterrupted operation of your country. You do realise that one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the last decade was in a train station dont you? Or are we all suffering from a lapse in concentration?

Oh and no - it isnt public access - look at the turnstyles... you need to pay to go in, by definition that excludes people from entrance, and therefore is not public...

At the end of the day, there are ways to go about this, and there are ways to not go about this. The mass protest of photographers outside Scotland Yard a year or so ago was one of them, this is not. Reason - it just antagonises people and that security guard will forever hate photographers and tell his mates about it. You need to work with people, not against them...

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/01/2010 12:16:42 PM · #32

Originally posted by inshaala:

The issue isn't whether or not a train station is a possible target for a terrorist, it's whether harrassing innocent photographers plays any useful role in preventing such an attack.

There's little evidence that photographs play a significant role in planning such attacks, and if they did, I'd expect the terrorists to be at least a little more subtle about their nefarious activities.

I know if I wanted surveillance-type photos of a station I'd walk through with an iPod Nano in the palm of my hand shooting HD video, not set up a monoPod with an SLR and a big ol' lens, while handing out business cards in case anyone wanted to order an "artistic" print ...

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

08/01/2010 12:35:52 PM · #33

Is there a record of one terrorist being apprehended for taking photos of potential targets anywhere on this planet? Where's the precedent for justifying harassment of a photographer taking photographs of a building to blow it up? Has a photographer ever been to trial for taking a photo of a building? No.

Then why are we being singled out? Why aren't painters being asked to stop drawing bridges or buildings?

Terrorists must be lol every time they see an article like this.

Mike

Tamron SP 24-70mm f/2.8 Di VC USD Canon Mount

08/01/2010 12:37:24 PM · #34

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by inshaala:
Now you just sound like an anarchist who hates the authorities: "oppressive and unjust authority"... Where do you draw the line between a missile base and a train station? Both are part of the critical national infrastructure in place to defend and ensure the uninterrupted operation of your country. You do realise that one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the last decade was in a train station dont you? Or are we all suffering from a lapse in concentration?

The issue isn't whether or not a train station is a possible target for a terrorist, it's whether harrassing innocent photographers plays any useful role in preventing such an attack.

There's little evidence that photographs play a significant role in planning such attacks, and if they did, I'd expect the terrorists to be at least a little more subtle about their nefarious activities.

I know if I wanted surveillance-type photos of a station I'd walk through with an iPod Nano in the palm of my hand shooting HD video, not set up a monoPod with an SLR and a big ol' lens, while handing out business cards in case anyone wanted to order an "artistic" print ...

what interesting in the US is that the attempted time square bombing a few months ago, the police used tourist video footage and pictures in its investigation.

there's an argument to be made that more people people taking pictures actually makes us safer.

terrorist not only have to worry about surveillance cameras but everyone ( and that about everyone) with a camera or cell.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

08/01/2010 12:43:18 PM · #35

Originally posted by Jac:

Terrorists must be lol every time they see an article like this.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to get societies to change the way they live.

BTW: Last week I had a nice chat with a security guard at the Shell oil refinery, who told me that the site was officially designated as a "soft target" and that, while they couldn't prevent taking pictures from the street, they'd prefer people didn't, and told me which department to contact to arrange for permission to shoot inside the facility.

I told him I was well aware of the concerns/problems (through forums like this), and that I didn't take pictures which would reveal any secure or sensitive information. He never asked to look at the pictures ... I gave him a business card. :-)

Message edited by author 2010-08-01 12:58:00.

one2one

Olympus E-5

Olympus 7-14mm f/4.0 Zuiko Digital Zoom

08/01/2010 01:26:04 PM · #36

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by Jac:
Terrorists must be lol every time they see an article like this.

The whole purpose of terrorism is to get societies to change the way they live.

Like I've said several times on this forum; Terrorists win! They don't need to blow up more buildings, our governments are on a tear and they're not going to stop until they control every aspect of our lives until the terrorists have nothing left to do but laugh, at us, for not having any rights left to defend. oh hum

08/01/2010 03:54:42 PM · #37

Originally posted by inshaala:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Maybe in the UK, but things are different here in the States.

It is inflammatory. So is just about any assertion of legal rights in the face of an oppressive and unjust authority. I think our countries had a little spat over such things 230 some years ago.

He was trying to provoke them into violating his rights, so?

And, no private security cannot stop someone from taking photos regardless of their agreement with the state with possible exceptions for military installations etc. It's a train station, not a missile base.

They threatened him with a life ban? So? Again, they were simply trying to intimidate him into complying with a non-existent and illegal prohibition on photography. They could have threatened him with anything really, that doesn't mean it's within the scope of their authority to enact or enforce such a ban. They were simply blowing smoke.

Now you just sound like an anarchist who hates the authorities: "oppressive and unjust authority"... Where do you draw the line between a missile base and a train station? Both are part of the critical national infrastructure in place to defend and ensure the uninterrupted operation of your country. You do realise that one of the most devastating terrorist attacks in the last decade was in a train station dont you? Or are we all suffering from a lapse in concentration?

Oh and no - it isnt public access - look at the turnstyles... you need to pay to go in, by definition that excludes people from entrance, and therefore is not public...

At the end of the day, there are ways to go about this, and there are ways to not go about this. The mass protest of photographers outside Scotland Yard a year or so ago was one of them, this is not. Reason - it just antagonises people and that security guard will forever hate photographers and tell his mates about it. You need to work with people, not against them...

Maybe I am an anarchist, so what? I and everyone else have the right to take pictures in that train station without being harassed. It's not just me saying so, it's the government, the police and the people running the train station. The idiots in charge of security think it's some kind of threat...it's not.

You can say what you want about it being public or not, I don't care what you think. The fact is that it's a public place.

As far as antagonizing people, if you don't like it, you're free to be a doormat when it comes to your rights or maybe you'll even stand up in a group when it's safe and then when it's one on one, face to face, you'll back down from your convictions and cower at the feet of some rent-a-cop. If any antagonizing was done, it was initiated and escalated by the security goons. Have you ever stood up for something? Maybe you should put your camera away and wait for them to tell you what rights they'll let you exercise.

Besides, the police don't need to know the law.

08/03/2010 09:35:14 PM · #38

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/03/2010 09:48:23 PM · #39

Originally posted by Spork99:

Besides, the police don't need to know the law.

Considering that the police did seek the legal opinion of the District Attorney, perhaps you should direct your grievance in that direction.

Don't know about anyone else in here, but from my perspective, you really seem to have a disdain for police officers and security guards in general. I really don't know what caused it, but you really need a hobby to vent your frustrations.

Have you ever considered photography. :O)

Ray

Message edited by author 2010-08-03 21:49:26.

08/03/2010 11:34:50 PM · #40

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:
Besides, the police don't need to know the law.

Considering that the police did seek the legal opinion of the District Attorney, perhaps you should direct your grievance in that direction.

Don't know about anyone else in here, but from my perspective, you really seem to have a disdain for police officers and security guards in general. I really don't know what caused it, but you really need a hobby to vent your frustrations.

Have you ever considered photography. :O)

Ray

I have a great disdain for ignorance of the law when it comes to those who are supposed to interpret and enforce the law. Even more broadly, ignorance of any subject matter when knowledge of that subject matter is central to one's supposed area of expertise. When that ignorance threatens someone's fundamental rights and threatens to wreck their life, it really pisses me off.

RayEthier

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 USM

08/04/2010 12:18:22 AM · #41

Originally posted by Spork99:

... Even more broadly, ignorance of any subject matter when knowledge of that subject matter is central to one's supposed area of expertise. When that ignorance threatens someone's fundamental rights and threatens to wreck their life, it really pisses me off.

DO tell me...How do you feel about doctors, lawyers, architects, car manufacturers and a bevy of other trades and occupations, where mistakes can and often do prove fatal. Do you condemn all equally, or do you ever stop and think that no one is perfect and that each and everyone of us can, and probably do impact negatively on those in our environment.

We are all ignorant to varying degrees and the issues you are addressing here while important are in all probability not the type of issue that concerns most of us... at least not to the degree you seem to ascribe to it.

Ray

K3Master

Pentax K-3

Pentax D-FA* 70-200mm f/2.8 ED DC AW

08/04/2010 12:35:05 AM · #42

Originally posted by RayEthier:

Originally posted by Spork99:
... Even more broadly, ignorance of any subject matter when knowledge of that subject matter is central to one's supposed area of expertise. When that ignorance threatens someone's fundamental rights and threatens to wreck their life, it really pisses me off.

DO tell me...How do you feel about doctors, lawyers, architects, car manufacturers and a bevy of other trades and occupations, where mistakes can and often do prove fatal. Do you condemn all equally, or do you ever stop and think that no one is perfect and that each and everyone of us can, and probably do impact negatively on those in our environment.

We are all ignorant to varying degrees and the issues you are addressing here while important are in all probability not the type of issue that concerns most of us... at least not to the degree you seem to ascribe to it.

Ray

That's alright Ray, Spork isn't worth the effort :D

08/04/2010 12:49:53 AM · #43

Originally posted by RayEthier:

It's the same when those mistakes are made because of willful ignorance or incompetence by anyone or any group of people. A doctor operates on the wrong side of the patient...an engineer signs off on a drawing change without reviewing the changes because he wants to get to the golf course...an automaker decides that the cost of paying claims is better than making a car safer...an oil company drills a well on the seafloor without any plan for what to do it things go wrong... Maybe I just take these things seriously because I take my own work related responsibilities seriously...if I fuck up, people can get hurt or die...so I make damn sure I don't fuck up.

In these cases though it borders on the absurd, especially when you see something like the case where the Amtrak representative in a train station with a photographer, explaining how, of course it's OK to take photos when he's interrupted by a security guard who informs him, incorrectly, that photography is not allowed.

Of course when the police, prosecutors et al are involved and people start getting arrested, for "felonies" that aren't, it quickly gets more serious, especially when people have to go to trial over this nonsense. That's the kind of things that damage lives, even if the charges are dropped or they're found "not guilty". Just the threat or the idea that one could be put through such an ordeal because they choose to assert their rights definitely intimidates people from acting within their rights. All because the people who have the power to inflict such trauma don't wield their power responsibly.