| Author | Thread |
|
|
05/15/2008 02:30:06 AM · #1 |
A couple of photographers almost got arrested at Union Station for refusing to stop photographing and leave the location when ordered by the station management. Then one writes a blog about it trying to make the owner look hateful towards photographers.
It is great that we have rights to take photographs, most of the time, of most things. However there always has to be someone who doesn't understand or care about photography law or common courtesy and crosses the line giving the rest of us a bad name.
I am not a lawyer but for the non-legals here, in the US at least basically it is legal to photograph in a privately owned yet public area without permission, however if requested to stop or leave by management the photographer must comply and discontinue at once. While Union Station is a public area it is privately owned and therefore qualifies.
I expect someone to correct something in the above so until someone more knowledgeable weighs in take my legal advice with a grain of salt.
link to blog
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 02:48:34 AM · #2 |
I don't know
a) They received a direct cease and desist request. He disobeyed
b) They receive a direct request not photograph the guards and to delete any pictures he had already taken of them. He disobeyed AND posted the damn pictures on the net.
Legality aside, the next photographer that comes by is probably going to be beaten down, tasered, then stuffed into Guantanamo Bay for the next century simply because they were the next innocent photograph.
This guy might think he was being firm but courteous but I imagine the folks on the other side of the fence might think otherwise.
What would I would have done? (Instead of confronting the guards) I would have asked to book an appointment with someone since apparently the request for them to stop shooting came from higher up. Their request was reasonable, it was their reaction to the guards that was wrong.
That's just my opinion however.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 02:51:22 AM · #3 |
Uhoh, by your tone I wasn't clear. I was suggesting the photographers in this case were WAY out of line and that there always has to be some idiot that threatens the rights for the rest of us.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 02:51:37. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:14:13 AM · #4 |
Couldn't disagree more.
Forget the legality of it - the question is 'is the law right' ?
This kind of thing is happening in the UK as well - vast areas of what ought to be, and formerly were, public spaces are being sold to companies and redesignated private spaces. (Shopping streets get doors and roofs and become malls for example.) This allows people to be excluded for a variety of reasons - youth, style of dress, carrying cameras to name but a few.)
At the same time areas which always were private but were generally treated as public, station concourses for example, suddenly become ultra aware of their private property status and start to enforce idiotic rules (about cameras for example). the rise of the low pay, low IQ security cretin adds to the problem - these people suffer from their low status and like to take it out on kids, ethnic minorities, people with cameras.
The photographers in this case are standing up for the basic freedoms which other posters in this thread mention - the right to take photographs which harm no one in what ought to be a public or quasi public place.
And bear in mind that the privatisation process need not stop with turning shopping streets into malls - the local authority could for example sell the public space in the street where you live, pavement and kerb and roadway to some sort of company. It could then be gated and controlled in the same way as the station. Then you would be prohibited from going into the street and taking pictures of your own house. Of course this is unlikely because you would be one of the privileged people who lived in the gated community, so let's say you could be prohibited from walking into another person's street and taking a picture.
This creeping privatisation of public space, (often performed under the guise of counter terrorism), is real - run a google search - and if photographer's rights are to mean anything bedyond the right to use a light box in your back bedroom then someone ought to be supporting people who stand up to authority rather than condemining it.
[thumb]//thelobsterpad.blogspot.com/2007/04/night-shots.html[/thumb]
Me doing my bit for freedom.
Join the struggle while you may
The revolution is just an f-stop away |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:27:15 AM · #5 |
| If they got a permit there would not have been a problem. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:29:40 AM · #6 |
Why should we have to ask for a permit to take pictures in a public or quasi public place ?
I'm prepared to bet that the station in question has recieved the benefit of public money in some form at some time, renovation, policing etc.
The existence of a permit asystem implies the right to refuse a permit. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:32:04 AM · #7 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
Why should we have to ask for a permit to take pictures in a public or quasi public place ?
I'm prepared to bet that the station in question has recieved the benefit of public money in some form at some time, renovation, policing etc.
The existence of a permit asystem implies the right to refuse a permit. |
Liability. What happens if someone trips over the tripod that they were using. The United States is a sue happy place.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 06:33:09. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:48:22 AM · #8 |
i haven't been able to google up a proper link to occupier's liability in the US - if anyone has one .... - but in the UK liability used to be common law and was brought into a statutory framework in the 50s. The essence of the tort, (and I strongly suspect that the US would be the same) is fault. Just because you trip over a tripod on someone else's land does not make this a ground for liability, without more being shown.
But even if this is not so - this attitude is similar to allowing terrorist threats to take away photographers rights. The argument runs along the lines of - There is a problem with the US torts system - don't worry about it we'll just curb the rights of ordinary Americans to make free and harmless use of their public spaces, that'll fix it.' |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:52:25 AM · #9 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Liability. What happens if someone trips over the tripod that they were using. The United States is a sue happy place. |
It's not just that, I think everyone here is still a little on edge after 9-11. Union Station is full of average people and the attacks then were aimed at average people. If they would have talked to someone on high and asked, the outcome and their treatment might have been a little different. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 06:55:36 AM · #10 |
We had bombs over here too - and i don't claim that the response here has been any less draconian - but we shouldn't let fear (whether beased in reality or not) become the tool by which governments rob us of our basic freedom.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:03:07 AM · #11 |
Originally posted by thelobster:
We had bombs over here too - and i don't claim that the response here has been any less draconian - but we shouldn't let fear (whether beased in reality or not) become the tool by which governments rob us of our basic freedom. |
Agreed, but they could have simply asked permission first and that would have swayed any fears. Right? :) |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:05:34 AM · #12 |
I don't think this guys acted out of line at all, he had every right to query what was happening and considering the fact his equipment was mid shoot I can understand that he didn't want to be moved. As thelobster points out it's so often the case that underpaid and overworked security guards on a power trip will stop you without genuine authority. The police have recently been guilty of a similar thing in the UK - forcing a photographer to delete photos he had taken of a celebrity at a public event (as an anti-terrorism measure!?!) - simply because they themselves did not understand the law. It is not, therefore beyond reason to question these situations and see where you stand.
At the end of the day, what genuine harm is there in taking pictures of a train station? I can already hear shouts of "Terrorism, man!" coming back at me, but really? Is a terrorist going to take the time to do a 200 shot gigapan 360 degree exposure? With his journalist mates hanging around? Then questioning his impending arrest? Uh uh.
As for tripping over the tripod - people these days are more scared of losing their money through lawsuits than of terrorism. Kind of ironic when you think about it. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:09:48 AM · #13 |
| TCGuru - the basic idea of having a permit system is so they can refuse it - it's not there because they like to be asked nicely |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:16:53 AM · #14 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Liability. What happens if someone trips over the tripod that they were using. The United States is a sue happy place. |
Does having a permit stop someone from tripping over a tripod? Creating rules about use of tripods - such as not being allowed during busy times or in very high traffic areas is reasonable, but should not require a permit. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:16:55 AM · #15 |
Here is a picture of the thing he was using.
That would probably make police a bit uncomfortable.
Here |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:22:46 AM · #16 |
Originally posted by Cam:
Here is a picture of the thing he was using.
That would probably make police a bit uncomfortable.
Here |
As I pointed out before, is a terrorist really going to use ANYTHING like that? From the guard's point of view - if it's a bomb, they're taking their time setting it up, and seem to be enjoying a chat with passers by whilst doing so. If it's a camera they're not exactly being subtle about it a gigapan is clearly not a covert piece of kit. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:30:42 AM · #17 |
Legalities on both sides of the water aside for a moment, what I really object to is the implied label of 'Pervert' when you do take photographs in public! If current paranoia is to be believed, anyone who owns a camera, that isn't a phone as well, is obviously a terrorist or pornographer! I understand and realise the need for a greater sense of awareness but give use a break!
I have been hassled by security staff in several public places in the last year and rather than confront the rent-a-cops, mostly because I value by body parts, I have obliged them and moved on. When I did take the point up with the owners of one large shopping complex near me and explained the situation to them, we reached an agreement - I wouldn't turn up unannounced and they in return wouldn't dump me and my kit in the sea. It only takes a phone call and I am good to go. Seems like a good compromise to me.
It is difficult to argue the finer points of privacy law with the uniforms who, and I say this with the greatest respect, really don't give a sh*t about the law.
|
|
|
|
05/15/2008 07:53:06 AM · #18 |
I've said this before elsewhere and I'll say it here today.
Osama Bin Laden has won. Period. Look at how we live today. Just look around you and you will see that the terror has proved to be a good weapon to change our ways. They will strike again because they know it works, even if they all die and lose control of a country or two.
The enemy is toasting their victory every time a similar situation like the one described by the OP happens.
We have lost this war on terrorism but have only begun to suffer the consequences.
Ok enough doom and gloom. Have a super day and watch out for them guards, they see you as a possible threat to their freedom, or so they've been told. ;\ |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 08:48:04 AM · #19 |
| I don't see how this particular story fits into the terrorism craze. No where in the article does he mention that the guards inform him that they are worried about terrorism so this is really about a private land owner exercising their right to determine who or when you can take pictures on their property. If this were a government building or public street and they were asked to leave by regular police I would say they have a bitch but this is the private sector. Just because it's open to the public for business does not mean they waive their rights to their property with the exception that they cannot break local anti-discrimination laws. The law is right, if I own something I should be able to control who/when takes pictures of that property. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 08:53:21 AM · #20 |
Originally posted by photodude:
Originally posted by faidoi:
Liability. What happens if someone trips over the tripod that they were using. The United States is a sue happy place. |
Does having a permit stop someone from tripping over a tripod? |
No, but as I understand it the NYC permits are for commercial photography and require a million dollars in liability insurance, too. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:04:52 AM · #21 |
Trevytrev - i can't believe you really meant that because it doesn't represent the law on either side of the3 water - the rules are about taking pictures on, not of, property.
There is a relevant distinction to be made between property which is genuinely and legitimately private - your living room for example, and property which is only quasi private - a mall or station complex. These places are private only because of a quirk of the laws of real property. To all real intents and purposes they are public spaces.
Were people to perform sexual acts in the main concourse at Grand Central I have no doubt that we would express our outrage bu complaining about people doing such things in a public place. This is because such places have a dual social status - they are private as regards the laws of sale of land and public spaces as regards social activity
The law, regrettably, takes a unitary approach here, failing to recognise the dual nature of the space. in the past, maybe pre 9/11 maybe earlier, the gap has made up by the use of discretion on the part of the authorities. That discretion has largely been withdrawn. The law needs modification to redress the imbalance created by the withdrawl of the discretion.
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 09:19:23. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:14:40 AM · #22 |
| George Orwell lied about the date------1984 |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:16:27 AM · #23 |
Let me get this straight...
A journalist, with a press pass, can be stopped from taking pictures of a publically owned (privately managed) location with unimpeded access to the public.
Scary. Personally, I would have gotten myself arrested just so the courts can set a precedance to stop this behaviour. This is no longer freedom to photograph. This has breached into freedom of the press. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:18:24 AM · #24 |
In a privately owned space, regardless of it being open to the public, all activities and access are at the discretion of the management. Their judgement doesn't have to make sense to you or anyone else.
There is a distinct difference between true public property like the sidewalk, a park or what-have-you and a privately owned space accessible to the public like malls, stadiums and this train station. |
|
|
|
05/15/2008 09:20:36 AM · #25 |
spazmo - that difference is being eroded even as we speak - don't rely on it. they can always sell the public space and then its private and you can't use it.
trinch - good for you - anyone interested in joining me and trinch in getting arrested to prove the point ? Actually I'm serious - a mass photo in at some so called private space. a great idea. Civil disobedience anyone ?
Message edited by author 2008-05-15 09:21:54. |
|
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: 08/23/2025 12:50:07 PM EDT.
