| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2005 11:04:10 PM · #176 |
Im going to disagree with Deguello. Standing on a public sidewalk or street and taking pictures of things in public view is not illegal or suspicious. Therefore in absence of any other illegal actions (such as harassing someone) on the part of the photographer, or other probable cause, the police in this instance were out of line. The best thing we can all do in situations like that is be polite but firm.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2005 11:57:14 PM · #177 |
Now that we decided to beat a dead horse again heh...
I agree with Deguello, you shed some light on the subject from a different point of view -- what you said makes sense -- thanks.
photodude, I think you misread it, I'm pretty sure you two are in agreeance.
Either way, I'm never calling the police again when I feel I'm in the right and being threatened. I'm no wuss, and can definately defend myself -- I took tang soo do and did some boxing too. There's really no one to blame for the police showing up but myself. New philosphy -- when I'm threatened, act first, call the police second. I might wind up in jail, but it will only be for the night -- self defense is self defense, and it'll be my word against theirs.
I'm not saying I'm going to go gallivanting around looking for trouble, taking the first swing, but next time, I'm going to gently set my camera down and put my fists up.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 08:58:51 AM · #178 |
| Sorry, I did not read the whole thread to see the topic had died....I am glad to have helped in a better understanding....Don't Stop Shooting... |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 12:52:31 PM · #179 |
Seems to me that in Deapee's case the police acted incorrectly and coercively. Since when do "suspected terrorists" call the police department for help? He called because he feared he would possibly be attacked yet the police, in their tone and manner, seems to have sided with the construction site supervisor. Since when is photogrphing anything from a public sidewalk a crime? Yet Deapee was made to feel like a criminal. This incident should have probably ended within 15 minutes after his identity was confirmed and all sent on their way. It should not have taken 45 minutes since he was not suspected of any crime.
While I have no doubt that police recruits are taught the right way to do things in the police academies around the country, there is a long history of police improprieties and corruptions. Even before 9/11 there were huge questions regarding how the police conducted interrogations and obtained false confessions. Since 9/11 these seem to have flourished, especially for photographers. I post this article again, in which the author was photographing the Federal Building, and other locations nearby, from a public sidewalk and was then accosted and detained for 2.5 hours by the police in a dirty basement room and made to feel like a criminal. He was eventually set free without being charged with any crime. The ACLU and many news outlets accross the country have reported on coercive interrogations that have resulted in false confessions. These are most likely policies that are decided at higher levels of management for, imo, to instill fear in the public, maintain the power structures within the US, and get us used to a more military rule here in the US. |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 01:35:54 PM · #180 |
Originally posted by deapee:
I was harrassed by a construction site supervisor today. I was on the public sidewalk near his site shooting in.
He demanded to know who I was and who I worked for. I told him I shoot for personal enjoyment and told him I was sorry and would leave. |
As someone who's personally done a lot of industrial photography, I can vouge that them hassling you, while not necessary in this case, is completely legit and you photographing the site is illegal.
The site Foreman have to protect the rights of the company building there. SOrry, thems the rules.
You can't go near a site with a camera without explicit written permission from the builder.
P.S. You knew you didn't mean any harm, but technically, the construction worker could take your film or have you delete the files. That's probably what he wanted when he jumped the fence. You wouldn't believe how much conspiracy goes on between competing construction companies/sites...if you knew, you wouldn't wonder why he was bugging you.
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 13:40:20. |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 01:37:04 PM · #181 |
Olyuzi is correct, IMO, in the abstract; there is a huge issue here regarding infringement of individual rights on mere unfounded suspicion. When photography becomes branded as a "suspicious activity" we all suffer for it one way or the other.
"Why are you shooting my house?"
"Because it's cool, I like it..."
"You can't do that, it's my house and you have no right!"
Sheesh.
In the individual case, that deapee actually is the one who called the cops is irrelevant. If I was a terrorist with a good cover and I was about to be jumped by a construction guy claiming I couldn't shoot his site, I'd call the cops too, in an attempt to look innocent.
Police can't assume a damned thing. They'd be crtazy to take anyone on face value. Making "assumptions" can be deadly.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 01:44:57 PM · #182 |
Them's not the rules at all. In the US if you're on public property you can take photos of whatever you want. He wouldn't have the right to take your film. If you're on private property that's another matter, but from the sidewalk you're fine.
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
As someone who's personally done a lot of industrial photography, I can vouge that them hassling you, while not necessary in this case, is completely legit and you photographing the site is illegal.
The site Foreman have to protect the rights of the company building there. SOrry, thems the rules.
You can't go near a site with a camera without explicit written permission from the builder.
P.S. You knew you didn't mean any harm, but technically, the construction worker could take your film or have you delete the files. That's probably what he wanted when he jumped the fence. You wouldn't believe how much conspiracy goes on between competing construction companies/sites...if you knew, you wouldn't wonder why he was bugging you. |
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:42:50 PM · #183 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
you photographing the site is illegal.
|
You're wrong. As long as you're in a public place, you can photograph anything that can be seen. If they want privacy, they can build a tarp around the job site.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:46:47 PM · #184 |
Hey I can only tell you what my own experience was with the legal issues of the work I ACTUALLY DID. At the time I was working with 7-Eleven, I'd like to think they knew what they were talking about.
It's a wonder how anything gets accomplished when everyone thinks they're right.
hahaha |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 02:54:47 PM · #185 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Hey I can only tell you what my own experience was with the legal issues of the work I ACTUALLY DID. At the time I was working with 7-Eleven, I'd like to think they knew what they were talking about.
It's a wonder how anything gets accomplished when everyone thinks they're right.
hahaha |
heh...nah, I don't just think I'm right -- it's the law. I've looked into this pretty deep.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:00:09 PM · #186 |
Originally posted by deapee:
heh...nah, I don't just think I'm right -- it's the law. I've looked into this pretty deep. |
If it were that simple then there'd be a lot less lawyers :-)
Not that you're wrong, I'm just playing devil's advocate. I haven't read anything technical in this thread, just a lot of people saying "I know you are but what am I?" hahaha.
J/k |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:03:30 PM · #187 |
DeaPee's right. I was an architectural photographer and I had to know the law as well. With rare exceptions (sensitive military bases are one) you cannot be stopped from photographing any structure if you do it from a public place.
OWNERS and CORPORATIONS will tell you otherwise, but they are just bllowing smoke.
It's the same principle as disclaimers; I can put up a disclaimer, even have you sign one, absolving me of any responsibility for what happens on my property, and that doesn't protect me for one millisecond if something happens due to my negligience. If this weren't the case, we'd have skateboard parks in every neighborhood with kids in it...
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:04:16 PM · #188 |
Originally posted by Corwyn:
Originally posted by Morgan:
Originally posted by Jacko:
What he said
Originally posted by doctornick:
Glad I live in Canada... |
|
DITTO |
Did we mention Canada Rules!! |
No, but I'll second that! :-)
|
|
|
|
01/14/2005 03:49:04 PM · #189 |
Originally posted by lykofos:
That's bullshit! I've taken photos like that and luckily have never been stopped. I'm very vocal when it comes to that kind of stuff. I much prefer the US flag from 1774, a rattle snake coiled/ready to strike and the logo "Liberty or Death. Don't tread on me." That embodies the true American spirit in my opinion.
I would let them know that I'm contacting my lawyer and the ACLU. I then would have given the police a speech on misguided paranoia, harassment, and the definition of freedom vs police state while being detained.
I'm so glad we're local. Message me and let me know the address/location of where you were shooting. I'm going there on my next day off to get some photos for personal enjoyment and for my portfolio. Boy oh boy, I hope I get approached. I'll post back and let y'all know what happens. |
And lykofos??? Did you go there?? What ws the result??
This trhead was a great read.
Jacko, did you know you can't buy pie in Germany? (I haven't seen it anyway) |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 04:30:20 PM · #190 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
The site Foreman have to protect the rights of the company building there. SOrry, thems the rules.
You can't go near a site with a camera without explicit written permission from the builder. |
So...I cannot go to a public park, with my camera, if it just so happens to be next door to an apartment building that is under construction without written permission from the foreman? I am speaking of a specific situation where the a public park and a construction site are only seperated by a chain link fence.
A person, under authority of the constuction company, can just patrol the park and take film and delete files at will?
I'm sorry, that is incorrect.
edited : grabbed wrong quote.
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 16:38:19. |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 04:31:48 PM · #191 |
Originally posted by jbeazell:
I'm sorry, that is incorrect. |
That's been established. |
|
|
|
01/14/2005 04:35:52 PM · #192 |
Originally posted by GoldBerry:
Originally posted by jbeazell:
I'm sorry, that is incorrect. |
That's been established. |
errr... nevermind... going back to the hole I came out from :)
Message edited by author 2005-01-14 16:37:39. |
|
|
|
01/15/2005 08:55:51 PM · #193 |
| This has happened to me, too. I understand the post-9/11 concerns, so I always co-operatie with the authorities (whether they be police or property managers) when it comes to providing them with identification and explaining my intentions. But I always stand my ground as far as exercising my First Amendment right to take pictures on public property. My advice would be to be patient and non-confrontational. If the property manager is confrontational, call police. If the police are confrontational, report the incident to their supervisor. |
|
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: 06/26/2025 02:52:13 PM EDT.
