DPChallenge: A Digital Photography Contest You are not logged in. (log in or register) 
 

DPChallenge Forums >> General Discussion >> The War on Photographers. continues
Pages:  
Showing posts 76 - 100 of 149, (reverse)
AuthorThread
 08/02/2006 11:58:13 PM · #76
expedience at the price of accuracy. refresh for correction. ;-)
 08/02/2006 11:58:46 PM · #77
Hey art, you should have written al qaeda in arabic... you silly nut.. :)

If it's not in arabic, they won't believe you and will hassle you.
 08/03/2006 12:00:20 AM · #78
Originally posted by lendahand:

His advice was basically this:
- Look before shooting
- Be polite (say that you didn't know usually worked)
- Say you're a student
- Have your student ID ready
- and if all else failed, be prepared to surrender your film


Photographer's Rights

They have no right to confiscate your film under any circumstances, without a court order, or you're apprehended in the commission of a crime.

Edit: Apprehended *and* arrested.

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 00:06:49.
 08/03/2006 12:00:51 AM · #79
Hey nshapiro, I was just looking thru your portfolio. You got some good stuff in there, brother. I'm impressed. Especially love your super wide angle shots.
 08/03/2006 12:01:35 AM · #80
Originally posted by eschelar:
Hey art, you should have written al qaeda in arabic... you silly nut.. :)

If it's not in arabic, they won't believe you and will hassle you.

thanks for pointing that out.
Refresh for additional correction...

08/03/2006 12:02:41 AM · #81
Originally posted by angelfire:
just from a security guard in our local air port.


So... one of the offenders themselves.
 08/03/2006 12:06:02 AM · #82
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
ADD: yes I have a concealed permit.


It's rare that I go out, carrying my camera, without my sidearm. Concealed of course, but still. I just don't like the idea of standing around with a couple thousand dollars in gear waiting to be mugged.
 08/03/2006 12:06:17 AM · #83
Originally posted by MPRPRO:



[b]or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press;


Ah! Here is our solution. Become a blogger. Bloggers are now members of the press. Register your blog with all the search engines. Print your own press credentials. Volia! You're a member of the press and enjoy the same rights and priviledges. When you encounter these security people be sure you know the rules. Be polite. Get the name of the officer/s. Get the name of their superiors. Be sure to complain up the chain of command if you're abused. The place to complain is not at the point of conflict. If asked to leave, do so. The moment you refuse, YOU become the problem. Fight your battles where you can do the most good; the internets. ;)
Let everyone who visits the area in question know what happened to you. Suggest that maybe 1000's of cell phone , and PnS photos of the area would be a neat thing to accumulate on an internet site. Forward the URL of said site to the above mentioned chain of command and to the local politicians. Always be polite. It aggravates the shit out of these people when you are polite. They don't expect it and it takes them by surprise.
08/03/2006 12:11:44 AM · #84
Originally posted by angelfire:
Okay. Due to 911 it is no longer to permitable to take pictures of the buildings, outside or in, nor of the run way. You may have been sarcastic and I agree whole hartedly with you that it's crazy, but they have to be cautious of security. Oh and yes the guard should have erased your pictures and taken your information. Bottom line is the world is screwed up and because of a few the mass will suffer.


This may have already been said, but I haven't read the entire thread yet, so...

9/11 changed nothing legally regarding what you can take photos of. You are legally allowed to photograph buildings and bridges, airports, runways, etc. You can take photographs in subways (NYC tried to make it illegal, but failed in doing so) and inside airports, just not at security checkpoints. The catch (and this is the way it has always been, not just since 9/11) is that you need special permission if you will be standing on private property while taking the photo. You can take photos of private property to your heart's content if you yourself are on public property.

Also, a police officer/security guard would need a court order to confiscate or erase anything. People are paranoid/ignorant, but this is still a free country.
 08/03/2006 12:13:10 AM · #85
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Originally posted by eschelar:
Hey art, you should have written al qaeda in arabic... you silly nut.. :)

If it's not in arabic, they won't believe you and will hassle you.

thanks for pointing that out.
Refresh for additional correction...


No problem Art. I'm always there to get your back....

Or stab it... Whatever takes my fancy... ;)



Message edited by author 2006-08-03 00:14:00.
 08/03/2006 12:15:09 AM · #86
Originally posted by eschelar:
No problem Art. I'm always there to get your back....

Or stab it... Whatever takes my fancy... ;)

Careful Keiran, all this Glock talk has got me considering packing a sidearm myself - just so as not to feel left out.
 08/03/2006 12:21:20 AM · #87
Originally posted by chimericvisions:


They have no right to confiscate your film under any circumstances, without a court order, or you're apprehended in the commission of a crime.

Edit: Apprehended *and* arrested.


Heheheh, always carry an old CF card with you that you got with a starter camera. IE 16 meg card, useless to you.
In about a dozen of the holes in the connector end break off some tiny wires (resistor leads work well). When they ask for your card just palm this one and give it to them and make a big deal about getting it back. Get a reciept. Write down the ser number off the card.
Then go home, enjoy a brew, and try to imagine if they destroyed some expensive equipment with their "catch".
;) Remember to call and write demanding your card back. You might get some "feedback" ;)

Disclaimer:
Of course you might be like me and forget you've done this and plug the sucker into one of YOUR cameras!
heheheheheheeh
 08/03/2006 12:21:43 AM · #88
on 2nd thought...

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 00:22:21.
 08/03/2006 12:24:02 AM · #89
Originally posted by Sammie:

I guess sometimes, it pays to be a middle aged woman - we're totally invisible to everyone!


That's not it at all. They've seen your last blue ribbon and figure you'll make'um
look real nice!
 08/03/2006 12:24:08 AM · #90
Originally posted by Southern Gentleman:
I get out of my car and confront him. When I stood up I was about 6" taller and about 50 lbs. larger with a shoulder holster containing a glock 30.

I just gotta say ... F@#% YEAH!

And to stir the pot some... check out Loose Change if you haven't seen it already.
Google Video

I'm not saying I believe all of it but it raises lots of questions.
Questions that should be answered under oath.
 08/03/2006 02:10:26 AM · #91
Well, I did it. I shot about 30 shots mostly outside PDX, but a few inside. Nobody said boo. I even took my time (about 45 minutes) and set up my tripod and everything. I'll do some processing tomorrow and show y'all a few.

Phew! In the beginning I was more nervous than a virgin at a frat party...
 08/03/2006 02:13:38 AM · #92
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Phew! In the beginning I was more nervous than a virgin at a frat party...

Don't you mean more nervous than a virgin at a GTG with yanko and cloudsme?
 08/03/2006 02:24:57 AM · #93
The same thing is true of bridges where you are not allowed to film or take pictures when on major bridges. The production team for the last XMen movie ran into this problem with the golden gate bridge....
 08/03/2006 02:36:25 AM · #94
me thinks what peeves people most is that only those with huge cameras are stopped while those with tiny cameras or phone-cams are allowed
 08/03/2006 07:54:44 AM · #95
Although one time, many years ago, on an international business trip I was waiting to pick up my luggage for customs when this little DEA beagle came out to sniff all the luggage. I went to take a picture of it because I have a beagle... well I was promptly told to put the camera away and that no pictures where to be taken.... now the same area has signs all over that pictures are not allowed.
 08/03/2006 08:06:01 AM · #96
excellent reference, neil. everyone should bookmark that.
Originally posted by nshapiro:
The War on Photographers - Pop Photo


it's a bummer that you were hassled, but, all the same, the reality of our times is that there has been little to no propper instructions given to the people serving on the bottom rungs of enforcement. as misguided as they are, they are doing what they perceive to be their job, and it is up to you to make the split second decision as to how to deal with it.

you have choices: 1) walk away from it. 2) fight it. walking away from it means walking away from it. it does not mean arguing or discussing it with your confronter. it means simply saying "ok" and leaving. on the other hand, fighting it does not mean getting into it with your confronter. it means that you are going to take the time to bump the issue up the chain until you reach someone who can properly educate those below. it means simply asking to speak to a superior who can answer your specific questions about the situation.

obviously, we're all better off when someone choses option 2, but that does take a committed effort. your confronter is going to be a lot more stressed out than you, especially since you are pleasantly getting his boss involved. the key is to let them know that time is on your side, and that you have all day to get it worked out. you can even smile when you are finally pushed to the point of asking someone, "have you ever been involved in a civil lawsuit for unlawfully detaining citizens?"

the all depends on whether or not you have time to deal with it then, when you could really make a difference. let me give you some examples. last week, when shannon and i were shooting in grand central station, i went out of my way to talk to some of the policemen working there. i even went so far as to get one to pose for me.

i knew we were going to be there a while, and i wanted an ally, in case we got hassled.

on the other hand, the next day, jpr and i were working our way down from chinatown to city hall to meet up with some other dpc'ers, and we came across those incredible benches at the federal courts center.

i found myself being yelled at by a security person. she went through the whole diatribe that everyone's familiar with (9/11, can't photo federal buildings, blah, blah, blah). at that very moment, i did NOT have time to deal with it. on one hand, i was quite sure she didn't know what she was talking about; on the other hand, i had two unresolvable issues. one, i didn't have time to waste, and two, i did NOT know who owned the property i was standing on (i wasn't on a sidewalk). so, rather than risk anything, i let her watch me delete a couple throwaway shots, and then we parted ways. a point here is to know who owns the property you're on, and to know what their policies are.

on my way to the airport, i was taking photos from the cab. the cabbie started yelling, "no photos!! no photos!! it's against the law!!!" ok, i could have argued with him, and, he could have thrown me out of his cab, and, i could have missed my flight home...it wasn't worth it.

however, when banmorn and i were shooting in 30th st station last year, we got hassled by a policeman. we did take the time to escalate it up the ladder to the point where a superior officer chided the lowly beat cop for bothering us.

ok, all of this is after the fact. what might make more sense is to head it off before hand. first, find out who owns the property you want to stand on when you shoot. if you're absolutely sure you're on public property, you should be completely within your rights. next, maybe ask permission from whoever owns or manages the property you want to shoot. who knows, they might even invite you in for a closer look behind the scenes.

one of the biggest problems i've noticed is people over-complicating and over-thinking simple issues. for all intents and purposes, "commercial" use of photography is nothing more than using an image in an advertisement. unless your intent is to sell an image for "commercial" use, you are well within your rights to photograph anything you want (as long as you are abiding by whatever property-owner restrictions are in place). this is simply another issue (like security), that you have to evaluate as to walk/fight: do you have the time to handle it the right way?

i have my own method for dealing with police, especially after hours. when i see them (or when i see that they've seen me) i go up to them first, introduce myself, and tell them what i'm doing. i tell them i'm glad to see them, and that i'm glad to know they're out there, paying attention to what's going on. depending on the situation, you might honestly say, "you know, i've been really wanting to get this shot, but i've always wondered how safe it was around here--i'm glad to see you."

i know there are a lot of things that are more unfair and unreasonable today than they were five years ago, but, human nature has not changed. no matter how frustrated you are, no matter how much righteous indignation you have, if you feel you have to fight fire with fire, you're going to spend an awful lot more time stressed out and fighting than you are going to spend on photography. it's really a matter of how you want to handle it.

cheers,
skip

Message edited by author 2006-08-03 08:09:20.
 08/03/2006 08:12:36 AM · #97
While in NYC on Monday, we had no trouble shooting anywhere we wanted, even in Central Park with a monopod. Where we did have problems was on the Top of the Rock. The security people who scan your bags said that monopods were fine. So we used them. I was in midshot when a "guard" told me to put it away. They left Vince alone. After about 15 minutes another guard told him to put his away and he question why when the xray guys said it was fine. They exchanged a few words and Vince finally put his pod away. About 20 minutes later Vince came back and said we can use the monopods. I guess no one had the real answer as to why or why not, and they decided we could use them. One guard thought it might be a tripping hazzard but another guard told me that they own the view from the building and Kodak is also up there taking pictures of the tourists for a fee.. Although the Kodak people tripped over their own tripods several times.

We have only been questioned one time and that was shooting some pictures of the Blue Ridge Mountains from a nice hill near our home.
This vantage point is also in the flight path of Dulles Airport. The hill is in a Fire Departments parking lot, so we would have to be really stupid terrorists to stand there and take pictures. The officer who questioned us was polite and just said they get calls all the time from people taking pictures from that place.

08/03/2006 09:22:56 AM · #98
Originally posted by khdoss:
blah blah blah


and that's saying something 'cause you guys are SHADY! :P

(ps -- when the hell did you get a d2x?)
 08/03/2006 09:58:37 AM · #99
Ya got to think and remember also that because of 9-11 many businesses and agencies get a lot of money for security they really don't need. In order to keep the purse open they have to show that they accomplishing something. If they can reeport anything suspicious then the justification for continued funds can be made.

Last year a very similar thing happened to me when driving through New Mexico. I stopped and took some pictures of a cotton fieldin a small insignificant town. They also had a oil refinery there so I stopped on the side of a public road to take a photo of the towers. Immediately I was surrounded by a small time police force. After they threatened me with civil law suits from the oil company, and took all my information saying that I was being reported to Homeland Security as a suspect, they let me go. Didn't even look at the photos or demand their removal. In this case I think this town was "owned" by the oil company and this was another way for them to justify federal funds to maintain security. It amounts to an extra million or two profit with nothing to do for it.
 08/03/2006 10:17:30 AM · #100
Originally posted by bmartuch:
I think one of the problems is that some people like to be told what to do and think. I think it makes them feel more secure.


By no means am i trying to disrespect religeon here, but is that not what the role of the church was in the middle ages? Ok in this case it was demons and the devil, before it moved on to the infidel. Similarly now.. its the terrorists! Give your rights to the power that protects you, and you shall be "free". I know its a bit extremist, but im just trying to put things in perspective before we lose even more. This is the goal of terrorism, is it not?
Pages:  
Current Server Time: 07/31/2025 09:12:49 AM

Please log in or register to post to the forums.


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: 07/31/2025 09:12:49 AM EDT.