| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/30/2010 09:22:25 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 12:51:42 AM · #2 |
| I'll be interested to see the final new article that was mentioned. Reminds me of the other recent incident of a news crew taping an Amtrak executive telling them there are no restrictions on photography, only to be chased out by a security guard following orders. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 02:28:33 AM · #3 |
I dont know, I just dont know. I've actually discussed this on DPC before and reconsidered. I actually bought a rebel XSI so I could snap a few shots on my next trip to the U.S.
Being a visitor, I dont think I have the same rights as you guys and dont want to risk being charged and worse deported. So when next time I come up, I'll stick to my usual routine. Blow my life savings at the malls and restaurants.
I may end up leaving the U.S. broke with unhealthy weight gain, but it wont be in handcuffs without my camera :D |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 07:42:30 AM · #4 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
I dont know, I just dont know. I've actually discussed this on DPC before and reconsidered. I actually bought a rebel XSI so I could snap a few shots on my next trip to the U.S.
Being a visitor, I dont think I have the same rights as you guys and dont want to risk being charged and worse deported. So when next time I come up, I'll stick to my usual routine. Blow my life savings at the malls and restaurants.
I may end up leaving the U.S. broke with unhealthy weight gain, but it wont be in handcuffs without my camera :D |
Maybe you should visit another country. ;) |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 07:58:52 AM · #5 |
Originally posted by dmadden:
I dont know, I just dont know. I've actually discussed this on DPC before and reconsidered. I actually bought a rebel XSI so I could snap a few shots on my next trip to the U.S.
Being a visitor, I dont think I have the same rights as you guys and dont want to risk being charged and worse deported. So when next time I come up, I'll stick to my usual routine. Blow my life savings at the malls and restaurants.
I may end up leaving the U.S. broke with unhealthy weight gain, but it wont be in handcuffs without my camera :D |
before 9/11 nobody cared. now if you take a picture of a possible target location people assume you must be a terrorist. if you are on public propeery you are in you right to photogragh anything that the public can see.
now if a cop harasses you, you really have no recourse but to comply becuase once you enter a confrontation with a cop, you are in the wrong. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 08:20:42 AM · #6 |
Originally posted by Original Article:
It was the second time within a month that I had a confrontation with security guards over videography at the Douglas Road Metrorail Station. The first time resulted in a captain from 50 State, the security company that contracts with Miami-Dade County, to “permanently ban” me from the Metrorail. |
Originally posted by Original Article:
The news crew was in town to interview me about Photography is Not a Crime for an in-depth segment on photographers’ rights that will be aired in about three weeks. |
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 10:39:46 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2010 11:03:30 AM · #8 |
I'd actually like to find out what the rules really are as this is the way i see it:
He was, as far as i can see, *inside* a building, once you step through that gate you are no longer in a wholly public place (that is why there is a turnstile). It may well be the *public* transport system, but i'll bet it is run by a company (maybe state owned but shouldnt make a difference) who would have the right to refuse entrance on their property. While the guard was probably not within his rights to do what he did physically, i think he may have been within his power to do what he was trying to do.
Of course i'm not that well versed on US law, but that is generally the thinking in the UK as far as i can tell in terms of experiences shooting in Canary Wharf and on the London Tube. You can get away with it as long as you aren't an ass about it, this guy seems to have been an ass about it... |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 11:19:52 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by dmadden:
I dont know, I just dont know. I've actually discussed this on DPC before and reconsidered. I actually bought a rebel XSI so I could snap a few shots on my next trip to the U.S.
Being a visitor, I dont think I have the same rights as you guys and dont want to risk being charged and worse deported. So when next time I come up, I'll stick to my usual routine. Blow my life savings at the malls and restaurants.
I may end up leaving the U.S. broke with unhealthy weight gain, but it wont be in handcuffs without my camera :D |
before 9/11 nobody cared. now if you take a picture of a possible target location people assume you must be a terrorist. if you are on public propeery you are in you right to photogragh anything that the public can see.
now if a cop harasses you, you really have no recourse but to comply becuase once you enter a confrontation with a cop, you are in the wrong. |
Only this wasn't a cop. It was a security guard, who has no police power. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 11:23:56 AM · #10 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
I'd actually like to find out what the rules really are as this is the way i see it:
He was, as far as i can see, *inside* a building, once you step through that gate you are no longer in a wholly public place (that is why there is a turnstile). It may well be the *public* transport system, but i'll bet it is run by a company (maybe state owned but shouldnt make a difference) who would have the right to refuse entrance on their property. While the guard was probably not within his rights to do what he did physically, i think he may have been within his power to do what he was trying to do.
Of course i'm not that well versed on US law, but that is generally the thinking in the UK as far as i can tell in terms of experiences shooting in Canary Wharf and on the London Tube. You can get away with it as long as you aren't an ass about it, this guy seems to have been an ass about it... |
Two things:
One: Just because a company is contracted to operate a publicly owned facility, doesn't give them the right to make rules that violate the rights of the citizens.
Two: The police, security and other aministration of these facilities have been told...repeatedly...that photography is allowed, yet they continue to manufacture reasons to harass people with cameras. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 11:46:08 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 11:55:55 AM · #12 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by inshaala:
I'd actually like to find out what the rules really are as this is the way i see it:
He was, as far as i can see, *inside* a building, once you step through that gate you are no longer in a wholly public place (that is why there is a turnstile). It may well be the *public* transport system, but i'll bet it is run by a company (maybe state owned but shouldnt make a difference) who would have the right to refuse entrance on their property. While the guard was probably not within his rights to do what he did physically, i think he may have been within his power to do what he was trying to do.
Of course i'm not that well versed on US law, but that is generally the thinking in the UK as far as i can tell in terms of experiences shooting in Canary Wharf and on the London Tube. You can get away with it as long as you aren't an ass about it, this guy seems to have been an ass about it... |
Two things:
One: Just because a company is contracted to operate a publicly owned facility, doesn't give them the right to make rules that violate the rights of the citizens.
Two: The police, security and other aministration of these facilities have been told...repeatedly...that photography is allowed, yet they continue to manufacture reasons to harass people with cameras. |
One: I would assume that just because it is publicly owned, it doesn't mean that it is public access...(think of the pentagon or the white house) By your assertions, visiting any historical monument in the states is by voluntary donation and not enforceable fee because of the rights you seem to be quoting... next time you visit such a site, please, quote that argument to them - that it is your right to do whatever you like and roam wherever you like, because it is "publicly owned land"...
Two: See the post above yours... |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 12:06:57 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
Indeed. It kind of reminds me of Monty Python and the Search for the Holy Grail, in the scene where Arthur happens upon the 'mud farmer' peasants, and the one peasant is being an unreasonable dick, and ends up screaming "I'm being oppressed! I'm being oppressed!"
It's like this guy came back with a bit of a "you embarrassed me!" chip on his shoulder and was determined to get his news story. He made no ACTUAL attempt to diffuse the situation by first lowering the camera and explaining his rights. He made no attempt to talk to anyone. He didn't contact the station to inquire about his supposed ban at any time, simply using his personal conceit and "I never got a formal letter" reasoning for entering the station again. Did absolutely NOTHING of any kind to make sure a second incident didn't happen. He simply went marching in, camera raised, looking for trouble. The fact that he took a swing at the security guard and then seemed to be proud of it, speaks volumes. You don't want trouble, then you back down and you use reasoning FROM THE START. You certainly don't pretend that you were simply "defending yourself" after purposely agitating from the get-go.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2010 12:10:33 PM · #14 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Two: The police, security and other aministration of these facilities have been told...repeatedly...that photography is allowed, yet they continue to manufacture reasons to harass people with cameras. |
I think what is happening in this regard, is that the policies about this are not making it down to the guy on the front lines. Perhaps a memo has been distributed and is not being perceived as something important enough to pay much attention to. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 12:14:20 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
Indeed. His first line from his first post on this "project":
"We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains." |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 03:37:08 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by inshaala:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by inshaala:
I'd actually like to find out what the rules really are as this is the way i see it:
He was, as far as i can see, *inside* a building, once you step through that gate you are no longer in a wholly public place (that is why there is a turnstile). It may well be the *public* transport system, but i'll bet it is run by a company (maybe state owned but shouldnt make a difference) who would have the right to refuse entrance on their property. While the guard was probably not within his rights to do what he did physically, i think he may have been within his power to do what he was trying to do.
Of course i'm not that well versed on US law, but that is generally the thinking in the UK as far as i can tell in terms of experiences shooting in Canary Wharf and on the London Tube. You can get away with it as long as you aren't an ass about it, this guy seems to have been an ass about it... |
Two things:
One: Just because a company is contracted to operate a publicly owned facility, doesn't give them the right to make rules that violate the rights of the citizens.
Two: The police, security and other aministration of these facilities have been told...repeatedly...that photography is allowed, yet they continue to manufacture reasons to harass people with cameras. |
One: I would assume that just because it is publicly owned, it doesn't mean that it is public access...(think of the pentagon or the white house) By your assertions, visiting any historical monument in the states is by voluntary donation and not enforceable fee because of the rights you seem to be quoting... next time you visit such a site, please, quote that argument to them - that it is your right to do whatever you like and roam wherever you like, because it is "publicly owned land"...
Two: See the post above yours... |
But it is a public access area. Also, there's nothing contradictory about charging an access fee as long as they charge everyone an access fee. Also, I can't roam anywhere on public property and do as I please, like yelling "Fire!" in a crowded theater, but I do have the right to take pictures and not have security goons interfere and quote non-existent laws or policies to intimidate me into complying with their paranoia.
|
|
|
|
07/31/2010 03:44:45 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by Yo_Spiff:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Two: The police, security and other aministration of these facilities have been told...repeatedly...that photography is allowed, yet they continue to manufacture reasons to harass people with cameras. |
I think what is happening in this regard, is that the policies about this are not making it down to the guy on the front lines. Perhaps a memo has been distributed and is not being perceived as something important enough to pay much attention to. |
So it's not only a case of having idiots working the front lines, but the incompetence runs up through the higher ranks. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 03:47:17 PM · #18 |
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
Indeed. His first line from his first post on this "project":
"We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains." |
So? His motivation isn't the issue, is it? He is within his legal rights to take pictures there, regardless of why he wants to do so. Had the security guards simply let him exercise that right, there would have been no problem. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 03:54:19 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
Indeed. His first line from his first post on this "project":
"We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains." |
So? His motivation isn't the issue, is it? He is within his legal rights to take pictures there, regardless of why he wants to do so. Had the security guards simply let him exercise that right, there would have been no problem. |
He was basically going on a witch hunt. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:16:04 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by jvaughn94:
Originally posted by Spork99:
So? His motivation isn't the issue, is it? He is within his legal rights to take pictures there, regardless of why he wants to do so. Had the security guards simply let him exercise that right, there would have been no problem. |
He was basically going on a witch hunt. |
No it was the rent-a-cops that were on the witch hunt. The photog was looking to expose them and seeing it any other way is to look with blinders on which is why they continue to attempt to usurp our rights.
Message edited by author 2010-07-31 16:16:31. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:21:45 PM · #21 |
| The photographer was obviously going out with the intent to cause trouble. He didn't go so he contribute anything of value to the internet. He went so he wave a camera around trying to get a security guards attention. He is a real-life troll. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:23:18 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by jvaughn94:
The photographer was obviously going out with the intent to cause trouble. He didn't go so he contribute anything of value to the internet. He went so he wave a camera around trying to get a security guards attention. He is a real-life troll. |
Photographic equivalent of 1960s sit-ins. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:23:47 PM · #23 |
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?
Message edited by author 2010-07-31 16:24:19. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:35:46 PM · #24 |
Originally posted by jvaughn94:
The photographer was obviously going out with the intent to cause trouble. He didn't go so he contribute anything of value to the internet. He went so he wave a camera around trying to get a security guards attention. He is a real-life troll. |
Yes his intent was to expose the violation of his first amendment right. He did this not just for him but for you! If he loses his right you do to. Civil disobedience is a good thing sometimes. I hope you think about this as it is very important, after all it is #1 on the list.
Message edited by author 2010-07-31 17:25:26. |
|
|
|
07/31/2010 04:54:04 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by jvaughn94:
Originally posted by Spork99:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by bvy:
Originally posted by VitaminB:
While I support everyones right to take a photograph anything public, this makes me wonder how much he antagonized the security just to make sure another 'incident' would take place. |
I considered this too. He showed up with a video camera. What was he planning to get footage of? I think he got footage of exactly what he wanted. |
I third this. The story totally reeks of a forced situation. |
Indeed. His first line from his first post on this "project":
"We had planned to ride the Metrorail through three stations to see if anybody would try to stop us from taking pictures of the trains." |
So? His motivation isn't the issue, is it? He is within his legal rights to take pictures there, regardless of why he wants to do so. Had the security guards simply let him exercise that right, there would have been no problem. |
He was basically going on a witch hunt. |
So? He exposed their intentional (and illegal) infringement on his rights. |
|
