[MRRiley]

With respect to public places, there is often an 'easy' way to deal with this. If you can see any reason why there might be restrictions, find a staff member, be friendly, and ask if there are any restrictions. Sometimes you'll find there are very reasonable restrictions in place, and they aren't "No Photography".

For example, in the London Underground, you're not allowed flashes, or tripods. These are actually pretty reasonable things to forbid.

I realise that while in most countries photographers do have legal entitlements to take photographs in public places, but acting with a sense of entitlement is no way to make friends and influence people.

By this, I'm not suggesting that you go along with the restrictions where, for example, a private company's security guards might try to stop you photographing their building from public land - but politely informing him that you understand photography is forbidden on their property, and if he will kindly show you where the boundary is (so you don't cross it), you'll make sure you comply with their rules.

cpopham...

an explanation of my post...

1. Union Station in Washington DC is United States federal property that is divided into 2 areas.... a train station administered by AMTRAK, a quasi-federal company that operates most long distance passenger rail in the US... and a shopping mall/food court operated and managed by a private contractor called LaSalle.

2. 2-3 years ago, security guards working for LaSalle began approaching photographers with "professional looking cameras" and stating that the mall area was private property and that photography was not allowed. They characteristically ignored people with P&S cameras and cell phone cams.

3. Numerous knowledgable local photographers began researching the issue and discovered as they suspected that LaSalle did not "own the mall section of the station, indeed it is federal public property which they simply manage. The photographers contacted local media to air the issue.

4. Fox News in DC decided to interview Union Station management and were on camera with the Amtrak manager when a LaSalle security guard approached them in the boundary region between the passenger area and the mall and informed them that photography was not permitted. The reporter asked what the rule was and the guard said "I can't tell you that but you have to stop filming". I cannot find a copy of the video any more as Fox seems to have deleted it. It was rather hilarious to watch.

5. Eleanor Holmes Norton (DC congress critter) weighed in after the video stirred public opinion up and informed LaSalle that they could not interfere with photographers. The only restrictions they could enact were restrictions on tripods (because they block foot traffic) and large productions (models/casts/multiple cameras/lg crews/etc require a permit).

6. New photography policies were posted about a month ago and they seem to be better but they still leave a lot open to interpretation. There is one part about the press/media having to get a permit before shooting which could conceivably apply to a lone newspaper photographer shooting background photos for a story. This part will probably be contested as an infingement upon the "freedom of the press" guaranteed in the 1st amendment to the US Constitution.

Now, as for "acting with a sense of entitlement"... Why shouldnt I act like I am entitled when I am? On private property the owners can restrict my activities, but in public my pursuit of legal activities should not be restricted.

Your mileage may vary in other countries naturally, but in the US, I AM entitled!

---

Last edited by MRRiley; 11-19-2008 at 04:58 PM. Reason: typo

[cpopham]

Now, as for "acting with a sense of entitlement"... Why shouldnt I act like I am entitled when I am? On private property the owners can restrict my activities, but in public my pursuit of legal activities should not be restricted.

Your mileage may vary in other countries naturally, but in the US, I AM entitled!

My point, really, was that the security guard / staff member who approaches you likely has nothing at all to do with the policy. If he isn't seen to be enforcing it, he may get in trouble and may even lose his job. They probably know very well it's rubbish, and may well be embarassed about it. Either way, there's no need to ruin the day of a person who is simply doing their job.

And, more practically, if you're correct, and you have a legal right to be there, then the guard presumably cannot lawfully detain you, or attempt to confiscate your belongings... their only course of action would be to call the police, at which point wouldn't you be in the clear because as they are not the owners they cannot have you served with a trespass notice?

I absolutely agree with you that on public property you shouldn't be prevented from doing things which you're legally entitled to do, and which are socially acceptable (which usually is a point of law anyway). All I was doing was relating my experience that I have found that being polite, and making myself known to staff first has so far worked out well for me.

I can't help but think as well, that if Wheatfield is right, and photographers are simply the new bogeyman, then isn't the best way to fight this by proving them wrong? By being polite, and acting with consideration for others in public, and by getting on well with law enforcement and security personnel?

[bnishanth]

Why does it bother you? It's just the government taking the piss. I don't believe you should find it offensive and you should sit silently by regarding things that bother you. After all, they don't mean you any harm by it. Lighten up.

Sounded good enough elsewhere, didn't it?

It doesn't bother me and I'm not offended either. BTW, I haven't registered yet and will think about it if I ever get harrassed. But it has caused lot of invonvenience to my other club members who are more into street / candid / derelict photography.

You are still irked by the other thread aren't you ? Oh..Mr Clarkson, what have you done...!!!!

Cheers
Nish

[Wulifou]

Why shouldnt I act like I am entitled when I am? On private property the owners can restrict my activities, but in public my pursuit of legal activities should not be restricted.

Your mileage may vary in other countries naturally, but in the US, I AM entitled!

Rules and laws vary indeed a lot in other countries. And I agree with you that no rule, government or person should restrict your legal activities. The difficulty is to find out what exactly is considered legal in the place you're in. France for instance is very, very, VERY restrictive with photographers. I recently was asked to take some pictures for a local newspaper about an (public) event at a (public) school. Not only did I need the written permission of all the parents who's children were on the picture (not a generic permission signed at the beginning of the year, no, a special permission for this specific event), I also needed the city council's permission (because you recognize the school on the pictures) and the newspaper had to assure a neighbour that they would crop out of the selected image his house one could spot in the background.

Now, that certainly seems completely nuts. But I don't entirely agree with the posts that link these restictions and fear of the photographer to terrorist activity. Most of these restriction have their origin in the bad behaviour of the (even worse) photographers themselves. There have been so many examples of people beeing invaded in their privacy by photographers who did something legally right but morally plain wrong, that some rules simply had to be made. Unfortunately, and as usual, when rules become laws, governments always tend to overshoot the original idea.

I therefor also ask for the permission when I'm not sure of the legal status I'm in. It's not a question of beeing obliged to, it's a simple question of courtesy which helps a lot.

[keithg]

Know the feeling. Went to a Bronco's game at Suncorp. Got stopped with my 50-135 on the camera. I said it wasnt going to reach far. It was just to take a pic of the stadium. They let me in when i showed them my corporate box ticket. They said only P&S cameras were allowed. Next time ill take a 20x zoom Fuji or Olympus p&s. Nah. I just wont go again.

[Wheatfield]

I suspect that police and security guards act the way they do because they feel frustrated and helpless about stopping the real terrorists prior to the act. Sadly, what they are doing is actually a waste of time for them and the public.

It's really more likely that they act the way they do because they can, and in the process they try to make up spot laws to control what they want to control.
France is what it has become for photographers directly because of the involvement of paparazzi photographers in the death of Princess Diana and her boyfriend.
While the French legislators had a typical knee jerk over reaction, at least they had a reason for reacting.
In North America (I am being a bit centrist here), there are no expectations of privacy in public places (there are a few exceptions, such as changing rooms and public washrooms), and there is no entitlement or expectation regarding not being photographed in public.
The only restriction is that those photos may not be published for commercial gain without a release from the recognizable people in the photograph.

Police and security guards acting badly towards photographers when they are within their rights is not a show of frustration and helplessness, and terrorism is just not a concern within North America or most of the world.
The one major incident North America has seen saw some three thousand people perish. Compare this to the approximately forty thousand deaths by automobile the USA sees every year.
If the cops want to be frustrated about anything, let them be frustrated by that. It's something they can actually do something useful about.

No, the cops/rent-a-cops act the way they do because they think they can get away with bullying people. The real terrorists are the ones who actually cause harm in some way.

Terrorists are a very small statistical blip in all but one very small plot of real estate in the Middle East, so I guess I have to wonder exactly what real terrorists the police elsewhere have a right to feel frustrated about not having stopped?

What they are doing when they impede someone's lawful business is called intimidation and harassment, and it is against the very laws they are supposed to be upholding.
When the law enforcement arm of society starts acting that way with impunity, they have become the terrorists, and can no longer be trusted in their jobs.

[baltochef920]

It's really more likely that they act the way they do because they can, and in the process they try to make up spot laws to control what they want to control.
France is what it has become for photographers directly because of the involvement of paparazzi photographers in the death of Princess Diana and her boyfriend.
While the French legislators had a typical knee jerk over reaction, at least they had a reason for reacting.
In North America (I am being a bit centrist here), there are no expectations of privacy in public places (there are a few exceptions, such as changing rooms and public washrooms), and there is no entitlement or expectation regarding not being photographed in public.
The only restriction is that those photos may not be published for commercial gain without a release from the recognizable people in the photograph.

Police and security guards acting badly towards photographers when they are within their rights is not a show of frustration and helplessness, and terrorism is just not a concern within North America or most of the world.
The one major incident North America has seen saw some three thousand people perish. Compare this to the approximately forty thousand deaths by automobile the USA sees every year.
If the cops want to be frustrated about anything, let them be frustrated by that. It's something they can actually do something useful about.

No, the cops/rent-a-cops act the way they do because they think they can get away with bullying people. The real terrorists are the ones who actually cause harm in some way.

Terrorists are a very small statistical blip in all but one very small plot of real estate in the Middle East, so I guess I have to wonder exactly what real terrorists the police elsewhere have a right to feel frustrated about not having stopped?

What they are doing when they impede someone's lawful business is called intimidation and harassment, and it is against the very laws they are supposed to be upholding.
When the law enforcement arm of society starts acting that way with impunity, they have become the terrorists, and can no longer be trusted in their jobs.

AMEN!!!

Bruce

[ve2vfd]

No, the cops/rent-a-cops act the way they do because they think they can get away with bullying people.

AMEN!

Most police officers do excellent work in impossible conditions (you could not pay me enough to be a cop!!! I'll stick to running into burning buildings!), but sadly a handfull of them are bullies with a gun and a badge...

And for some weird reason many rent-a-cops I've dealt with in the past seem to be power hungry bullies... don't know why, it may be that they are frustrated they couldn't be real cops...

But this whole "making up rules" crap does have to stop... and the only way it will stop is to complain and expose those who do it.

You go to a ball game and they won't let you in with your camera but let in people with point and shoots? Make sure you write to the stadium/team owners and tell them of your displeasure, and that they lost a customer. Don't forget to CC your letter to local media.

You get harassed by a rent-a-cop while on public land taking pictures? Demand his name, ID and employer and file a complaint informing them that you reserve the right to take legal action for his violating your civil liberties.

And of course when dealing with a real cop, there is no point in arguing... he can make up a charge of "disturbing the peace", so politely comply and take down his badge number and ID info.

Pat

[MRRiley]

Being "polite" is always a good thing and I have and will continue to try to be as long as they are.

However when a rent-a-cop grabs my Holga demanding that I delete the photos I was taking and then attempts to open it after she figures out it is a film camera so she can destroy the film (not my story but it can be found HERE) I WILL get very "not polite."

I personally think the photographer in the above story should have had the rent-a-cop charged with assault.

The big problem with this whole situation is that with every act of harrasment, our rights are eroded. One incident generally does not amount to much in the larger scheme of things but many small incidents add up and result in people changing their behavior. At that point, when we no longer feel like we are allowed do do a completely legal thing because it could be misperceived, the terrorists have won at least a small victory.

[baltochef920]

Being "polite" is always a good thing and I have and will continue to try to be as long as they are.

However when a rent-a-cop grabs my Holga demanding that I delete the photos I was taking and then attempts to open it after she figures out it is a film camera so she can destroy the film (not my story but it can be found HERE) I WILL get very "not polite."

I personally think the photographer in the above story should have had the rent-a-cop charged with assault.

The big problem with this whole situation is that with every act of harrasment, our rights are eroded. One incident generally does not amount to much in the larger scheme of things but many small incidents add up and result in people changing their behavior. At that point, when we no longer feel like we are allowed do do a completely legal thing because it could be misperceived, the terrorists have won at least a small victory.

Mike

You are absolutely right on point, as is Wheatfield..

There is no denying that the paparazzi in general, as well as a certain number of dSLR owners, engage in morally questionable acts of photography that of late have seemed to garner a lot of press..I would be the first to assert however, that more morally questionable acts of public photography are committed EVERY day by people wielding cell phone cameras than all other types of cameras put together..The proliferation of these morally questionable still & video images on the internet has branded all photographers with the same tarry brush..

During the past year whenever someone tries to bring up 9-11 as an excuse for any erosion of our freedoms, I just hold up my hand in the front of the speaker's face (rude, I know!) & politely explain that 9-11 was 7 freaking years ago & what has substantially changed to make us ANY safer than we were on September 10, 2001??..

The answer is, of course, not very much..Our intelligence agencies still do not willingly share information..The FBI hates the CIA who hates the DIA who hates the DEA who hates the NSA who hates the NIS who hates Army Intelligence who hates Air Force Intelligence, all of whom hate Homeland Security..And, the Coast Guard & the Border Patrol who should be getting as much intelligence & funding as ANY of the other branches of the military seem to me to be treated like everyone's red-headed stepchildren..They are treated like second-class citizens when it comes to funding & support..TSA is marginally effective..Just ask any Israeli what they think the TSA's chances are of stopping any real committed terrorist from accomplishing their mission..

The bigger & more visible a camera is, the easier it is to target the owner of that camera..

Most security guards earn fairly low wages..I believe that many of them are frustrated, wanna be cops..Almost every single security guard that I have come into personal contact with (10 or so) & gotten to know has been at the very least a fairly lazy person physically..None of them have been particularly fit..Many of them have a dubious moral code, by which I mean that they are morally lazy ..Most have not been well educated..None of them know the law as it pertains to photography..Most have a poor understanding of just what their duties are in & on the private property that they guard..Most have a poor understanding of their own Constitutional rights, much less how their job impacts the Constitutional rights of the public they are supposedly guarding against & protecting..Most are very poorly trained, & follow-up training or continuing education was not something that I ever saw any evidence of..

The only way to stop the constant erosion of our freedoms is to stand up for them..Unfortunately, that requires more than just sounding off verbally at the misinformed & or power-hungry security guard at the time of the incident..Like Mike said, the only way to effect change in these private companies is to physically write a polite, but firm letter that informs the upper management of your dissatisfaction & your willingness to take legal action if the situation is not rectified..If push comes to shove you MUST be willing to take these people to court..That requires time, as well as money..In my experience, most people are completely unwilling to commit to their time, much less any of their money..And, therin lies the crux of the problem..People are willing to throw a hissy fit when something occurs, but in general, are not willing to follow up in any meaningful way..That is the main reason our freedoms are being eroded..Apathy, combined with a healthy dose of selfishness..

Bruce

[cpopham]

However when a rent-a-cop grabs my Holga demanding that I delete the photos I was taking and then attempts to open it after she figures out it is a film camera so she can destroy the film (not my story but it can be found HERE) I WILL get very "not polite."

I personally think the photographer in the above story should have had the rent-a-cop charged with assault.

And I'm certainly not condoning that sort of thing. A trained security guard should be well aware of what they can, and cannot legally do - obviously attempts to take private property by force are not amoungst those things.

What I am trying to say is that there is always a lot of anger in a thread like this, and I think it would be unfortunate were a person reading it to go out and end up in a regrettable incident with a security guard, or officer of the law who was simply attempting to do their job.

Most of these restriction have their origin in the bad behaviour of the (even worse) photographers themselves. There have been so many examples of people beeing invaded in their privacy by photographers who did something legally right but morally plain wrong, that some rules simply had to be made.

I therefor also ask for the permission when I'm not sure of the legal status I'm in. It's not a question of beeing obliged to, it's a simple question of courtesy which helps a lot.

I agree with you completely, and I'm glad someone else 'gets it'.

[lithos]

And for some weird reason many rent-a-cops I've dealt with in the past seem to be power hungry bullies... don't know why, it may be that they are frustrated they couldn't be real cops...
Pat

Amen, brother! If they act like arseholes, there's a reason their not on the force.

I was watching a guy put money into an ATM. I was watching for all of maybe three seconds, when the security guard standing next to the guy says "Hey, this isn't a ****ing circus."

I very, very nearly said "That's funny, because I can see a clown" but didn't. He had the Smith & Wesson, after all. What was hilarious, though, was that he was wearing mirrored sunglasses. In a shopping centre. I know what you were wearing them for, mate - intimidation, supposedly. So people can't see your eyes. They must do wonders for peripheral vision. Ooooo.

Had my camera around my neck, but I always do. It was the middle of the mall, so I don't know how he handled the hundreds of people that must've walked by him.

I also got asked last week, in the middle of the Myer Centre's food court, to put my camera away. Been in there a thousand times before with an SLR around my neck, but a Kiwi guard came up to me to tell me to put it away. Fair enough, I suppose - there were rather vague signs at the entrance that no one reads.

But still, it would be a long day for security guards to have to tell every Tom, Dick and Achmed to put away his cameraphone.

Swear to god, the first thing I'm gonna do if I become a photojournalist is get an Olympus 4/3 Micro point and shoot. It'd be a great way to become invisible. My warnings would get downgraded from "Sir, there are no cameras in this venue" to "Just no flash photography, ok, mate?"

[MRRiley]

However when a rent-a-cop grabs my Holga demanding that I delete the photos I was taking and then attempts to open it after she figures out it is a film camera so she can destroy the film (not my story but it can be found HERE) I WILL get very "not polite."

I personally think the photographer in the above story should have had the rent-a-cop charged with assault.

And I'm certainly not condoning that sort of thing. A trained security guard should be well aware of what they can, and cannot legally do - obviously attempts to take private property by force are not amoungst those things.

What I am trying to say is that there is always a lot of anger in a thread like this, and I think it would be unfortunate were a person reading it to go out and end up in a regrettable incident with a security guard, or officer of the law who was simply attempting to do their job.

I don't believe I ever advised anyone to do anything beyond standing up for their rights. In the case of rent-a-cops on public property, if they insist on trying to enforce rules or a law that you feel does not exist or that is "unlawful" then my advise is to have them call a real police officer or better yet, call the police yourself. This is risky in and of itself because many of the real police are as clueless about our first amendment rights as the security guards are, but at least the real policeman has real authority. If you are on bonafide private property the equation changes and you must legally follow the security guard instructions. If you don't, the most they can do is have you arrested for trespassing. They cannot examine or erase your photos not can they seize your equipment. Only a real police officer has seizure authority and then only AFTER you are under arrest.

Most of these restriction have their origin in the bad behaviour of the (even worse) photographers themselves. There have been so many examples of people beeing invaded in their privacy by photographers who did something legally right but morally plain wrong, that some rules simply had to be made.

I therefor also ask for the permission when I'm not sure of the legal status I'm in. It's not a question of beeing obliged to, it's a simple question of courtesy which helps a lot.

I agree with you completely, and I'm glad someone else 'gets it'.

I DO GET THE POINT!!!

"Asking permission" is fine if (1) there is someone obvious to ask who actually has authority to say yes or no, and (2) if you really think you need to. After all the worst they can say is no and they might just say yes. Whether their permission is actually needed or valid is another question that you are free not to ask as you wish...

My problem is that punishing ME for someone else's "bad behavior" is unjust and should not be tolerated in a free society. I know this actually happens all the time but that still does not make it right. YOU may chose to ignore it, but I will not!

The other issue here is that many (note I do not say ALL) of the rules to which you refer either do not actually exist beyond the "opinion" of the rent-a-cop agency or the enacting agency does not any statutory authority to enact them (ie: they are ILLEGAL). In cases where the restriction is lawful and authorized by statute, I will comply without (much) complaint, but when the restrictions are clearly unlawful I will register my vigoruous complaints with the appropriate authorities.

[Lowell Goudge]

I have read all the points raised here and there are a lot of good arguments on both sides, BUT, regardless of right or wrong, moving towards what will become confrontational with someone who probably does not, himself know the truth of the matter is pointless.

If a security gaurd tells you no, simply ask for the written copyu of the policy he is enforcing. It really should be posted if there are to be no photos, but if all else fails, he should be capable of producing what he is following on paper.

If you feel what he is enforcing is wrong legally, protest it with management, not the guard. They don't have the authority to change it any way.

But one other point I note here in the whole discussion is whether or not photo's were used in past terror attacks, and if not, why pick on photographers.
The bottom line is most terror attacks are one of a kind events, no one knows what will happen next, what targets are next etc. One logical argument is an SLR is too obvious, but then again what better way to hide what you are doing but in plain sight?

Every one needs to take a big step back on this issue.

I accept it for what it is, but then I was in the air, over NYC at 9:00am on 9/11/01 so I have (no pun intended) a different point of view.

[Wheatfield]

I have read all the points raised here and there are a lot of good arguments on both sides, BUT, regardless of right or wrong, moving towards what will become confrontational with someone who probably does not, himself know the truth of the matter is pointless.

If a security gaurd tells you no, simply ask for the written copyu of the policy he is enforcing. It really should be posted if there are to be no photos, but if all else fails, he should be capable of producing what he is following on paper.

If you feel what he is enforcing is wrong legally, protest it with management, not the guard. They don't have the authority to change it any way.

The problem isn't rent-a-dorks enforcing illegal policies, the problem is that they seem to think they can make up policies on the spot, and then enforce them.

But one other point I note here in the whole discussion is whether or not photo's were used in past terror attacks, and if not, why pick on photographers.
The bottom line is most terror attacks are one of a kind events, no one knows what will happen next, what targets are next etc. One logical argument is an SLR is too obvious, but then again what better way to hide what you are doing but in plain sight?

Sure, and the first time the WTC suffered a terrorist attack, it was car bombs, as was the Federal Building in Oklahoma City.
Driving a car into an underground parking lot is as obvious as it gets....

Shall we ban automobiles from using the streets on the offchance someone has a few bags of fertilizer in the trunk?

Every one needs to take a big step back on this issue.

I accept it for what it is, but then I was in the air, over NYC at 9:00am on 9/11/01 so I have (no pun intended) a different point of view.

[/QUOTE]

No, this is actually quite a serious issue, as it goes to laws being broken by law enforcement officers, and police harassment of citizens doing lawful things.

It really is just a few steps away from people being disappeared by jackbooted thugs in the middle of the night