[Fcsnt54]

.
Today I was taking a photo of a retail building, from a public street.


I was testing the bokeh of a couple new lenses. I only wanted photos of the building, and landscaping around the building. I carefully waited until everyone was out of the photo to take my shots.

Well, one angry, 30ish, woman drove her car over to me and shouted and swore up a storm about how she didn't want her photo taken. I expect she likely called the cops after she left (but I'll never know because I too left the area). By the way, she was alone in the car - no kids.


Really made my day. Have you ever had someone in your face about taking perfectly legal photos?


I believe that I'm legally permitted to shoot what ever is in eye-shot from a public location. While I did not take this angry woman's photo (or anyone else's), I believe that here in Wisconsin USA I would have the right to do so under these circumstances if I choose.

In the future, I'm thinking of carrying a copy of whatever law gives me permission to shoot on public property. That way, I can simply show it to such angry people (and ignorant cops too) should the need arise.

Might anyone have a link for the legal document I'm looking for?
.

I would have probably made the situation worse by saying something along the lines of..." Don't worry,I'm not taking pictures of you. If I did my camera would either break or turn into a brick as your image would cause a computer virus"

Yes it is not a polite comment by any means, but she is already angry because of nothing. so it couldn't make the situation worse. Well unless it's in a not so good neighborhood, then I'd probably just ignore her and be about my business, or at least ask her to move as she is ruining the shot... Haha

[MarkJerling]

We've been doing it all wrong. The trick, apparently, is to wear high-viz. They you can go anywhere. I think photographing things in high-viz may be the answer!

You Tube

You Tube

And a clipboard. If you have a clipboard you're official!

[swanlefitte]

I would have probably made the situation worse by saying something along the lines of..." Don't worry,I'm not taking pictures of you. If I did my camera would either break or turn into a brick as your image would cause a computer virus"

It's better than Bruce Gilden. Watch his YouTube stuff and it is hard not to cringe. He has one in New Orleans on the streets I walk.

[Wheatfield]

With respect, though, doesn't that risk increasing tensions? It doesn't deal with that person's issue, and potentially adds to their annoyance when they feel they're being ignored.

I'm not saying you're in the wrong, nor criticising your approach. I'm genuinely interested as to how you see that playing out, and how it has played out in the past...

The problem is that one is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The person accosting the photographer is not likely to admit they are wrong. Human nature being what it is, once the person is on the path of dickery, they will be very focused on the road they have chosen.

Engaging such a person, however reasonably, is more likely to cause an escalation than anything else. I agree with the logic of not engaging a harasser at all, though no outcome is guaranteed. At least if the engagement is fully one sided, then it is a case of harassment, not a conversation.

Add in the very real possibility that the person who is getting exercised may decide that any engagement is threatening, and there is a very real possibility of things going very sideways. One thing that we have less worry about than our American friends is the possibility of a person who decides someone is a threat pulling a gun.

The problem is that one is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The person accosting the photographer is not likely to admit they are wrong. Human nature being what it is, once the person is on the path of dickery, they will be very focused on the road they have chosen.

Engaging such a person, however reasonably, is more likely to cause an escalation than anything else. I agree with the logic of not engaging a harasser at all, though no outcome is guaranteed. At least if the engagement is fully one sided, then it is a case of harassment, not a conversation.

Add in the very real possibility that the person who is getting exercised may decide that any engagement is threatening, and there is a very real possibility of things going very sideways. One thing that we have less worry about than our American friends is the possibility of a person who decides someone is a threat pulling a gun.

Agree completely, especially as to the last sentence. People who are limited to edged weapons and blunt objects are clearly not as dangerous - unless of course you happen to be older, weaker, or disabled and not permitted effective means of self-defense. Along the lines of the second paragraph, I'd quote Thomas Jefferson, who said that "an armed society is a polite society", not because people will respect you if you're armed, but because a person who is armed has a greater need to be sensible of others' feelings precisely because one would wish to avoid any conflict at all when he is carrying the means to end life.

[monochrome]

.
None of my photos EVER have ANY people in them. I'm not "surreptictiously" taking people photos because I never photograph people.


That's my main point, it's getting so ugly out there in public that photographers are even getting confronted when taking non-people photos.

Perhaps its just getting ugly in Wisconsin.

[monochrome]

Not engaging and walking away is probably the safest strategy.

People claim a right to not have their sensibilities questioned or their feelings hurt. The right of self-determination is the primary fundamental Right undergirding our entire sense of freedom and Liberty. If I just walk away my right to self determination and freedom of movement (Liberty) is infringed by their unreasonableness. If everyone has an individual, self-determined right to tell me “NO!” then I have no right to anything.

[monochrome]

The problem is that one is damned if they do and damned if they don’t. The person accosting the photographer is not likely to admit they are wrong. Human nature being what it is, once the person is on the path of dickery, they will be very focused on the road they have chosen.

Engaging such a person, however reasonably, is more likely to cause an escalation than anything else. I agree with the logic of not engaging a harasser at all, though no outcome is guaranteed. At least if the engagement is fully one sided, then it is a case of harassment, not a conversation.

Add in the very real possibility that the person who is getting exercised may decide that any engagement is threatening, and there is a very real possibility of things going very sideways. One thing that we have less worry about than our American friends is the possibility of a person who decides someone is a threat pulling a gun.

Not if I’m carrying a bigger gun.

[reh321]

This is America. You don't need a law to give you permission to do anything. You have personal liberty. You can do whatever is not unlawful.

This depends on your definition of "unlawful". MBTA has a clearly written regulation that requires a signed form {obtainable only in person from their HQ in Boston} if you are to take a photo on their property. They have their own police with real police powers.

[texandrews]

I would rely on my somewhat anti social cattle dog to keep the nutters at a safe distance, (for them)

Photo accessory of the day award.

[texandrews]

We've been doing it all wrong. The trick, apparently, is to wear high-viz. They you can go anywhere. I think photographing things in high-viz may be the answer!

Sneaking in EVERYWHERE for FREE (Yellow Vest Experiment) - YouTube

And a clipboard. If you have a clipboard you're official!

And another photo accessory of the day award! It follows an idea I've had before, to do stealth art installations. Mine included a hard hat and a magnetic sign for the side of my vehicle that sorta looked like my municipality's logo....

[texandrews]

This depends on your definition of "unlawful". MBTA has a clearly written regulation that requires a signed form {obtainable only in person from their HQ in Boston} if you are to take a photo on their property. They have their own police with real police powers.

Just because that regulation is clearly written does not mean it is lawful!

[reh321]

Just because that regulation is clearly written does not mean it is lawful!

No court has ever over-ridden their rules.

[Wheatfield]

Agree completely, especially as to the last sentence. People who are limited to edged weapons and blunt objects are clearly not as dangerous - unless of course you happen to be older, weaker, or disabled and not permitted effective means of self-defense. Along the lines of the second paragraph, I'd quote Thomas Jefferson, who said that "an armed society is a polite society", not because people will respect you if you're armed, but because a person who is armed has a greater need to be sensible of others' feelings precisely because one would wish to avoid any conflict at all when he is carrying the means to end life.

How’s it working out so far?

[monochrome]

This depends on your definition of "unlawful". MBTA has a clearly written regulation that requires a signed form {obtainable only in person from their HQ in Boston} if you are to take a photo on their property. They have their own police with real police powers.

What @dlh means is - in the USA - all rights are presmptively vested in the individual except those rights granted by the polity to the State through their elected representatives. In the case of MBTA, one assumes some elected governmental body vested in the Authority a limited amount of control over its property, and the capacity to set the terms of use thereof through a license, in the form of a ticket or permit, but there is no ‘law’ that removes from me any individual right whatsoever.