[Blue]

. . . how 'bout if one was to claim to have a (gasp!) photographic memory? Now that ought'a be a show stopper!

Or set up an easle and start to paint or sketch instead? ( Stand back, there. This oil paint has CADMIUM in it an' I'm not afraid to use it! )

H2

I guess they would be subjected to "high voltage" shock treatments until the problem went away.

As far as the security guard at Los Alamos, I doubt he has security clearance to get into the areas that are of interest. That's based on my time at one of its sister facilities, ORNL (aka X-10).

[RioRico]

Many of Mike's points (and others) occurred to me at the time, including such as: Are you a sworn peace officer? If not, please piss off. But as I mentioned, we had better things to do than waste the afternoon interacting with security blokes. I think such pertains to many snapshooters accosted by real cops or rent-a-cops or whatever: Confrontation is tedious. Confrontation over trivia (such as a throwaway snapshot) isn't cost-effective.

Different situations, different efforts. Had I been alone, and not time-constrained, or on an image quest, or if I had captured interesting pictures, I'd be more inclined towards resistance, especially if the inquisitor wasn't a real on-duty cop. It's a matter of choosing one's fights. But I generally don't bother arguing with unofficial dickheads. That's like wrestling with a pig: one only gets filthy, and the pig rather enjoys it.

[mel]

The problem with this particular situation is that I was/am working for the entity that is telling people they can't take pictures (not just telling me, but anyone they see on the grounds with a camera). The crux of the issue here is ownership. The entity saying no photo does not own the property. The property is under the jurisdiction of the county parks department. So who has the say?

[MRRiley]

Have you contacted the Parks Dept yet Mel?

[mel]

No. I've passed on all the information I've gained from here and research, and a copy of that Photographer's Legal Guide book (can't remember the exact title) to the camp director, who is also a full-time employee of the foundation and has some actual juice in the organization. She's going to address it because she thinks it's BS too, and visitors with cameras should not be run off the grounds. It brings them into the buildings and give the foundation a bad image.

[Blue]

Mel, Do you have a connection with a local paper? This may be an interesting story to them. It comes down to how much you want to risk your job though.

[MRRiley]

I wouldn't go to the paper unless the Camp Director hits a stone wall... but if the Foundation rebuffs her I'd say all bets are off. If you like I could come down and attempt to get run off so I could make the call to the paper and you could have plauasible deniability... LOL

[mel]

That would be awesome Mike!! But let me give her a little time first. She's already met with them once when this first blew up (in front of my students no less arg) but I don't know where she is with the follow up. You would definitely need to show up with the BIGMA on a monopod though to really do the job right.

[Lowell Goudge]

Mel have you been able to establish whether the foundation has control of the entire property or just the buildings?

Aside from that point I think dealing with the director of the foundation is a good idea

I would not look to escalate the issue either publically or with confrontation until you have exhausted all other possibilities because I assume the class you are teaching is important to you. Once this issue escilates you can kiss that position and possibly others goodby especially if you do not exhaust all realistic professional avenues first.

[mel]

One of the problems with the foundation is that they are going to give the answer they want to give whether it's the right answer or not. The one thing I asked from from the facilities person (more than once) that confronted me was for a copy of the policy in writing just so everything will be clear and I can properly direct the students (see, putting the ball in his court but in a manner that makes me seem eager to comply). He repeatedly brushed my request aside. The camp director later told me that was because there isn't one.

I'm not sure the actual real answer will come from them. They'll make it be what they want it to be. And if the answer from the county matches theirs, so be it.

[Blue]

Do you happen to know anyone that is on that board? Or know anyone that is? I have had success on a few occasions that way when dealing with non-profits.

[simico]

The one thing I asked from from the facilities person (more than once) that confronted me was for a copy of the policy in writing
...
The camp director later told me that was because there isn't one.

Whenever I run into these unwritten, "made up on the fly" policies in our organization, I always say: "if it's not written down, approved and published by the appropriate authorities then it doesn't exist and I don't have to obey non-existing policies. Until you can show me the policy in the above form, I just disregard your request. Thank you and bye!".
Do I risk my position or job? Maybe a tiny little bit. But I know I'm right and don't care about idiots making up policies on the fly as they wish. I also couldn't care less about my personal records lol.

[MRRiley]

One of the problems with the foundation is that they are going to give the answer they want to give whether it's the right answer or not. The one thing I asked from from the facilities person (more than once) that confronted me was for a copy of the policy in writing just so everything will be clear and I can properly direct the students (see, putting the ball in his court but in a manner that makes me seem eager to comply). He repeatedly brushed my request aside. The camp director later told me that was because there isn't one.

I'm not sure the actual real answer will come from them. They'll make it be what they want it to be. And if the answer from the county matches theirs, so be it.

I wouldn't say that Mel. If the answer from the county matches theirs and that answer is that "photography can be prohibited by the foundation" then thats when the time to get the media involved seriously has come.

[Lowell Goudge]

One of the problems with the foundation is that they are going to give the answer they want to give whether it's the right answer or not. The one thing I asked from from the facilities person (more than once) that confronted me was for a copy of the policy in writing just so everything will be clear and I can properly direct the students (see, putting the ball in his court but in a manner that makes me seem eager to comply). He repeatedly brushed my request aside. The camp director later told me that was because there isn't one.

I'm not sure the actual real answer will come from them. They'll make it be what they want it to be. And if the answer from the county matches theirs, so be it.

But the question still remains, do the foundation under the lease or what ever agreement, have control over the grounds or the buildings only? THat question is findamental, because if the lease or agreement is for the buildings only then the grounds are public, and they cannot prohibit photography in a public place, even if it is photographing private(ly controlled) property as long as the photographers do not go out of their way to take the photos, like climbing trees etc. Additionally, even if the foundation controls the use of the buildings they may not have control over the use of the "image" of the buildings, i.e. the rights to the likeness or assuming there is some copyright or trade mark associated with the buildings.

what I find really odd, however, is the complete contradiction of the foundation, because you are teaching a class for them, in photography. Are they completely daft not to think that you or you students might actually, during class, take photos. It is a photography class afterall. You've gotta wonder

[Lowell Goudge]

Whenever I run into these unwritten, "made up on the fly" policies in our organization, I always say: "if it's not written down, approved and published by the appropriate authorities then it doesn't exist and I don't have to obey non-existing policies. Until you can show me the policy in the above form, I just disregard your request. Thank you and bye!".
Do I risk my position or job? Maybe a tiny little bit. But I know I'm right and don't care about idiots making up policies on the fly as they wish. I also couldn't care less about my personal records lol.

I am not sure you can use this argument. If this argument held, then you can go on anyone's private property and do as you please and ignore the land owner just because his wishes are not written down.

What I don't know is whether any employee of a private orginization has the legal ability to impose his / her wishes on the public, when it involves actions taking place on the employer's propertl (leased or otherwise). I think you would probably lose.