# Have you ever been harassed?



## SoulfulRecover (Jan 28, 2016)

These Photos Got Me Kicked Off a Beach in Toronto

Just curious to hear other peoples stories about situations similar to this. I always find it interesting


----------



## Braineack (Jan 28, 2016)

people wanna cop.

just ignore everyone.  cops legally allowed to not have to understand the laws they enforce in the US.  People in power like power and like being a pain in the ass for no good reason.

take the ticket, keep shooting, and win in court.   take videos of encoutners so you can publically shame them on YT in the process and then win your settlement with teh city out of court.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 28, 2016)

this is the real reason people are switching to Mirrorless


----------



## vintagesnaps (Jan 28, 2016)

In my area many places now issue permits and/or charge for a photo shoot to be conducted on the property/at the venue (parks, etc.).

This is not to him 'commercial' because he didn't have a client - but what's he doing?? He's not out there sight seeing or taking a walk, he's set up with a model doing a shoot. Even if it's in trade or portfolio building, it's related to doing work as a photographer.

It depends on who owns the property but if there are employees that clean up and a PR person then it's run by an agency of some sort; it's up to them what they allow as far as someone conducting business on their (city/county) property. He could have looked at their website or called and gotten informed before he went out there. Don't assume. He did, found out he made a wrong assumption, and found a public way to air his complaints. This is not the way to establish a good reputation as a photographer. If he had a complaint instead of arguing with the maintenance worker (who only seems to know that commercial shoots require a permit) then leave, go to the offices and talk to someone about it.

So now I suppose they'll need to change the municipal law to cover that it requires a permit to do a photoshoot, period (with a model, for the purposes of a portrait session, in trade, for portfolio building, etc. etc.).

He should have checked it out ahead of time. There are restrictions in sports - some places don't allow longer telephoto lenses, etc. So find out before you go someplace and don't assume.

edit - And notice the publicity this got him... a link at the bottom to his website, facebook page, instagram etc. etc. Thought he was acting as if he isn't a pro photographer... what bs. And look at all the places he says he's shot weddings - so how does he NOT know that he may need to get a permit??? what a load... this kind of behavior just helps bring photography down as a profession.


----------



## Designer (Jan 28, 2016)

_"And yet, in this strange world of permits and photography, there’s a presumption of guilt if I use a certain type of camera, bring a certain type of equipment, take pictures at a certain time of day, or wear a certain type of clothes."_

Appearances are everything to people of a certain mindset.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 28, 2016)

vintagesnaps said:


> In my area many places now issue permits and/or charge for a photo shoot to be conducted on the property/at the venue (parks, etc.).
> 
> This is not to him 'commercial' because he didn't have a client - but what's he doing?? He's not out there sight seeing or taking a walk, he's set up with a model doing a shoot. Even if it's in trade or portfolio building, it's related to doing work as a photographer.



all moot.  he in no way violated the ordinance.



> So now I suppose they'll need to change the municipal law to cover that it requires a permit to do a photoshoot, period (with a model, for the purposes of a portrait session, in trade, for portfolio building, etc. etc.).



YES! if they want the ordiance to cover people taking pictures of other people, then yes, they need to write it in the law in that manner. 

the law, as written, is clear.

plus the ONLY reason for the ordinace as written is because money is invovled. and no gov't is going to allow a transactions to take place without getting their beak wet.

If the law says that if money was exchanged, you need a permit to shoot, then that the ONLY way he can be in violation of the ordinance.  No money was exchanged for the pictures, therefore there was no violation.

This was nothing more than a lonely park employee, who has the reading comprehension of a turtle, with nothing better to do but to pretend he had a real badge and real authority, without any reasonable suspicion of an actual violation of the ordinace.


----------



## Vtec44 (Jan 28, 2016)

Canadians...   j/k


----------



## tirediron (Jan 28, 2016)

Braineack said:


> all moot.  he in no way violated the ordinance.


First, unless you've actually read the legislation, and were present at the event, I'm  a little unclear on just how you can make that assertion.  We only have one side of the story, so there are two sides missing.



Braineack said:


> plus the ONLY reason for the ordinace as written is because money is invovled. and no gov't is going to allow a transactions to take place without getting their beak wet.


Mmmmmm...  not necessarily; in many cases there's no actual charge for permits, the intent is actually to exercise some control over what people are doing.  Is it really fair that a photographer can waltz into a public park and hog the best area for a photoshoot? 



Braineack said:


> If the law says that if money was exchanged, you need a permit to shoot, then that the ONLY way he can be in violation of the ordinance.  No money was exchanged for the pictures, therefore there was no violation.


  Again.. Mmmm... is that what the legislation says, or could it perhaps read, "commercial".  Just bcause there was no cash changing hands, this could indeed be considered a commercial shoot.  Both the photographr's time and the model's time have value, and an exchange of value for value can be considered commerical (if you don't believe me, ask the IRS).


Braineack said:


> This was nothing more than a lonely park employee, who has the reading comprehension of a turtle, with nothing better to do but to pretend he had a real badge and real authority, without any reasonable suspicion of an actual violation of the ordinace.


More probably this was someone who had an incorrect idea of what the rules were, and was trying to do his job as he understood it.  Make no mistake, I'm not fond of petty functionaries, and people who don't know the rules, but I'm also not fond of photographers who don't follow rules, and who think that they should be above the law - as Vintage said, they give us all a bad name.  Had this person exercised his due dilligence, he would have known that he was in an area where a permit was not required, and could have explained that to the official; if that wasn't satisfactory, then indeed, call the by-law enforcement person who would be able to verify it.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 28, 2016)

SoulfulRecover said:


> These Photos Got Me Kicked Off a Beach in Toronto
> 
> Just curious to hear other peoples stories about situations similar to this. I always find it interesting



I think that the author of the article is being a bit unreasonable.  In public land, it's appropriate for authorities to manage it so it isn't abused or made unavailable for public use.  Case in point: imagine if a film crew had set and effectively pressured people to stay away from that stretch of beach b/c the actress was changing?  Or imagine if something on the lines of a real commercial beach photo shoot was going on (with photographer, assistant, MUA, production assistant, a couple of models, a changing tent or at least someone holding up big towels).  Or a wedding party showing up at the flower garden and trampling some of the grass and flowers or taking over the gazebo?

So what most public venues do is that require a permit for "commercial" photography.  So what is "commercial" photography?  Generally it's determined by most venues as to whether or not you use a tripod, if you have lights, a crew of people helping out.

Yep, you're right--there is commercial photography that uses ambient light, no crew, and no tripods.  And noncommercial stuff that involves all of those (for instance, a light-painting get-together I set up with a group of 25, steel wool on fire, everyone with a tripod, some speed lights and other various forms of light and other equipment out the wazoo...but completely amateur and noncommercial).  So it's not possible for the authorities to be accurate and precise with the laws.  Instead, if you look like you're commercial (dominating a location, a model posing, changing clothes, using a tripod, using lights), in most public spaces in the US (and evidently some in Canada) you can expect to get a ticket if you don't have a permit.  And no, I don't see that as government graft or trying to grab money (though I'm sure it is in some places).    There is a venue (a public garden and park) here where I live that is so popular for wedding portraits that they park not only has permit requirements for this (and other commercial photography), they have to limit the number of permits per day to avoid overuse or to keep photographies and wedding parties from getting in to each other's way.  This is about how to manage public space.  

And yeah, it's a hassle when as a  photographer I have to get a permit.  Or I can't stay as long as I'd like.  Or I can't bring all of the equipment that I'd like to (without it being labeled a commercial shoot).  But public land and park authorities really do need to try and manage the resources for the good of all.  And that's why you get laws in almost all North American public lands about permits being required for commercial film and video shoots--not just to make money, but mostly to control the use of the land and make sure it's available for everyone.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 28, 2016)

If I own a hockey stick in Canada, am I automatically a professional hockey player?


----------



## tirediron (Jan 28, 2016)

What brand of hockey stick?


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 28, 2016)

tirediron said:


> What brand of hockey stick?



A really really expensive one.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 28, 2016)

Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.


----------



## JoeW (Jan 28, 2016)

imagemaker46 said:


> Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.



Yep, there's way too much of this...where security guards or even cops don't know the law.

But the article in the OP is talking about a situation where someone is working with a model on a beach and doesn't have a permit.  Here's another example to illustrate why requiring a permit for use of public land is sometimes a good thing.  Lafayette Park is in DC and across from the White House.  During the Reagan Administration it became common for groups to camp there  b/c they insisted it was "free speech" and making a point about homelessness.  The US Park Service had trouble getting permission to kick them out even though it destroyed the park (grass turned to dirt, park not usable by the public).  Eventually, the US Park Service won the right to require that groups get permits for use of a range of public land (like farmers demonstrating by parking 20-30 large combines and tractors on the DC Mall b/c family farms were doing poorly).  It allows the US Park Service to deny use to groups who might create damage, or to make sure there are opportunities for the public to have access, or at least space out the big events to the park can recover and the staff and do upkeep.  Imagine if there was a concert at the park every day--how much trash would collect and spill over.

Now you're saying...what does this have to do with one individual photographer taking shots on a beach (or in a park)...and the answer is:  when it's public land, someone has got to make sure that some individuals aren't using it in ways that degrade the park or reduce it's availability to the rest of the public.  And one way to do that is to restrict commercial use and require permits.  And it gets fuzzy as to what is commercial or not--a film crew there to make a Hollywood product is clearly "commercial."  Someone who brings 3 lights, a blanket and an assistant (plus parents) to video a birthday party of 20 kids who are 5 years old...probably not commercial but still worth regulating b/c of the size and impact on the rest of the public.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 28, 2016)

One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please.   Permits are a common thing.  In my part of the world we have state parks.  If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit.  Either a one day permit or an annual permit.  Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks.  Permits do.  Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.  

Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world.  In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle.  It is a privilege.  Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test.  Not all that tough.  Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.   

Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license.  Might make life simpler.  Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones.  Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots.  May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 28, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please.   Permits are a common thing.  In my part of the world we have state parks.  If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit.  Either a one day permit or an annual permit.  Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks.  Permits do.  Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.
> 
> Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world.  In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle.  It is a privilege.  Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test.  Not all that tough.  Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.
> 
> Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license.  Might make life simpler.  Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones.  Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots.  May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.



Photography is not a privilege (at least in the US).  It is a* right*.  Guaranteed by the First Amendment.


----------



## imagemaker46 (Jan 28, 2016)

imagemaker46 said:


> Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.


All my incidents happened during the Olympics years ago.  The problem now is that there are so many people with cameras that don't act in a professional manner, they get confrontational as soon as they are questioned by anyone, "I have the right to be here, it's a free country"  well yes it is, just not here.  People have little respect for anyone these days, especially anyone with authority doing there job.  Learn the rules, follow the rules, respect the rules and you won't have problems.  So many people feel entitled these days, and feel that rules don't apply to them. As soon as you put a camera in someones hand, they will fall under the watchful eye of someone, that's the nature of photography these days, especially in any public place.


----------



## table1349 (Jan 28, 2016)

480sparky said:


> gryphonslair99 said:
> 
> 
> > One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please.   Permits are a common thing.  In my part of the world we have state parks.  If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit.  Either a one day permit or an annual permit.  Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks.  Permits do.  Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.
> ...


Going where you damn well please on your own terms is not.  With every right comes something a whole lot of people seem to forget.  It's called *RESPONSABILITY!*


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 28, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> Going where you damn well please on your own terms is not.



Did I say it was?  Or are you just troll posting now?



gryphonslair99 said:


> With every right comes something a whole lot of people seem to forget.  It's called *RESPONSABILITY!*



Well, technically it's called *responsibility*.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Jan 28, 2016)

Great discussion going on here, just wanted to say that the article got me thinking about other peoples experiences. I in no way meant for the article to be specifically talked about (not that its a bad thing). Just personal experiences 

Ive only had two run ins.

One was while I was out with my class in a small downtown district. My partner and I were in front of a bar, metering for a light tower in the distance (shooting 4x5) and the owner came out and asked if we were from the new station. He didn't believe we were shooting still images and thought we were filming a news story talking about some stabbing that happened there a few days prior. He ended up hanging around and watched us till we left.

The other time was again for my 4x5 class. I went to a local Mexican American Cultural something or other building. It was for architectural photos. They came out and took my name down to call the school because they didn't believe I was a student (had my school ID even) and asked me multiple times to pay them $50 as a permit fee for commercial work. I told them to get bent and left. Luckily I had already taken my last image when they walked out


----------



## KmH (Jan 28, 2016)

I love these online one sided stories with lots of quoted dialog.
Did the author/photographer record the conversations? 
My bet is he's just going by memory.

The photographer's light stand (or a tripod) seems to have been sufficient to require a permit according to the permit office.


----------



## 480sparky (Jan 28, 2016)

KmH said:


> ...........My bet is he's just going by memory..............



He admits that at the end of the article.


----------



## Buckster (Jan 28, 2016)

The only time I can think of that even comes close, I was in the passenger seat of a white work pickup with signs and an idiot light flashing on top, four-way flashers going, headlights, moving REAL slow, doing power system survey work.

As we passed by this awesome looking government building, I snatched up my ever-ready DSLR and started shooting.  Pretty much immediately, 2 guards rushed down the wide, white, marble steps toward me, asked me what's going on, I answered, and they said to have a nice day.

So, not really harassed, just questioned.

I tracked down some cops once to have them help me gain access to a park that's restricted after dusk because of high crime and so on, in order to get night photos of a bridge from a particular vantage point.  They were good with it, keeping watch for me for 15 minutes while I had my way.  That was pretty cool of them.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 28, 2016)

gryphonslair99 said:


> One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please.   Permits are a common thing.  In my part of the world we have state parks.  If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit.  Either a one day permit or an annual permit.  Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks.  Permits do.  Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.
> 
> Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world.  In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle.  It is a privilege.  Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test.  Not all that tough.  Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.
> 
> Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license.  Might make life simpler.  Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones.  Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots.  May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.


I would fail the written and shooting test. 

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Trever1t (Jan 28, 2016)

I have been through this various times.

State and city parks have the right to require 'permit' for professional use of public lands for advertising, wedding, etc. I have had multiple conversations with City park management regarding this in my area. Seems many professionals use the parks for their own monetary gain, which is wrong, isn't it? But to what method can a park ranger determine if you are pro or not? It's by the gear. Now in my opinion this is prejudiced and wrong but I do understand their dilemma. 

Now when I see the park authorities I just calmly tell them there is no commercial activity going on.


----------



## jcdeboever (Jan 28, 2016)

I was harassed because I was taking pics of a oil refinery in Detroit. It was good stuff but immediately surrounded by homeland security people. Stuff was out of focus anyway.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## Solarflare (Jan 29, 2016)

Not by any official or person who thinks they're officials, no.


----------



## 407370 (Jan 29, 2016)

Of course this is all geographically proportional. 
Try taking a picture with any camera in any room with Middle East Arabs present, they will automatically demand the pics be deleted or they will call the cops and have you arrested for breaching their privacy.
My experience is that private security staff will always have an opinion on anyone carrying a camera within their eye line. Depending on whether I really want the picture or not I either ignore them and carry on (local laws permitting) or just nod and leave with a sarcastic comment like _"you must really like your job"_ or_ " my goodness your job has a lot of responsibility"_ or similar. 
There is zero point even trying to have a sensible discussion with someone who thinks they are within their job description to stop you taking photographs.  
Just my experience!


----------



## Braineack (Jan 29, 2016)

> First, unless you've actually read the legislation, and were present at the event, I'm  a little unclear on just how you can make that assertion.  We only have one side of the story, so there are two sides missing.



I read the quoted ordinace in the article. Did you not?  Even if the one-sided story is factually incorrect, we can still look at the actual ordinace -- the rest of the details of the story dont really matter.



> *§ 608-47. Filming and videotaping.*
> 
> While in a park, no person shall take or permit to be taken for remuneration any film, photograph, videotape or television broadcast unless permitted under the City's film by-law and authorized by permit from the Toronto Film and Television Office.





> *re·mu·ner·a·tion*
> _noun_
> 
> money paid for work or a service.



If he wasnt shooting for money, then he didn't violate the ordinace.  It's that simple.



> Mmmmmm...  not necessarily; in many cases there's no actual charge for permits, the intent is actually to exercise some control over what people are doing.  Is it really fair that a photographer can waltz into a public park and hog the best area for a photoshoot?



Three Strawman arguments in one rebuttle.  impressive.

First off, the cost of the permit is irrelevant because it's perfectly legal to shoot in a public park.

Second, that may be the intent of the law, but again, it's irrelevant.  (FWIW, TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE 608 has FIVE pages of rules dedicated to commerical dog walking.  It has one sentence on commerical photography.)

Third, yes it's fair. That's like saying it isn't fair for me to bring a beach blanket and umbrella early in the morning and grabbing the best spot on the beach. Thrice, completely irrelevant.



> Again.. Mmmm... is that what the legislation says, or could it perhaps read, "commercial".  Just bcause there was no cash changing hands, this could indeed be considered a commercial shoot.  Both the photographr's time and the model's time have value, and an exchange of value for value can be considered commerical (if you don't believe me, ask the IRS).



i actually read it.  You apparently didn't.  What an incredibly researched argument.  bravo.




> More probably this was someone who had an incorrect idea of what the rules were, and was trying to do his job as he understood it.



I agree, but it happens way too often.



> Had this person exercised his due dilligence, he would have known that he was in an area where a permit was not required, and could have explained that to the official; if that wasn't satisfactory, then indeed, call the by-law enforcement person who would be able to verify it.



It shouldnt be the job of a regular citizen to have to protect himself and/or prove himself against the state who doesnt understand their own rules.  But he did exactly what you suggested and called 311 after the janitor brought up the issue.  I'm assuming again you didn't read the article and still decided to argue with me.


----------



## runnah (Jan 29, 2016)

I immediately go limp and force them to physically drag me off the premises.


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 29, 2016)

jcdeboever said:


> I was harassed because I was taking pics of a oil refinery in Detroit. It was good stuff but immediately surrounded by homeland security people. Stuff was out of focus anyway.
> 
> Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


Yeah, I wouldn't do that down there.  They're really sensitive about that because there's no gap between the refinery stuff and the public lands around it (highway, etc) and they're expanding it in what little space they have. A lot of controversy too from activists - the latest is they want a waiver to increase pollution from the plant.

Also don't loiter around the bottom of the bridge near the water even though they're supposedly making a park there now, and the tunnel is sensitive too.


----------



## runnah (Jan 29, 2016)




----------



## Gary A. (Jan 29, 2016)

Here I am getting arrested.





The photog is not me.  I was shooting the arrest of an AP Photographer (above) when the authorities also arrested me for good measure ... two is better than one, (the hand is attempting to physically stop me from taking photographs).

The odd part is that this was at an Angel baseball game, not a riot or protest or anything cool like that. I get harassed all the time, I've been detained a few times, rarely charged, never convicted.

@ the OP- I believe all your assertions to be spot on as to the criterium used to determine if a permit is required ... but, on the flip side, there is some requirement/responsibility on your end to know the law as well. As you were totally ignorant of said law, you were at a severe disadvantage when defending yourself to your oppressors. If it were I, when simple reason doesn't resonant with the immediate authority, (and when that that happen...), I'd request to speak to their superior.

While posting your frustrations on the internet is helpful in blowing off some steam, a letter to the elected officials/decision makers at the jurisdiction responsible for the park could be a course that produces a long term and positive effect on this problem.

The guy who accosted you was just doing what he was told/heard and was enjoying his day in the Sun exercising that power.  At that level, it is sorta like arguing with a vending machine that gave you the wrong candy. Responses for authority, typically, doesn't get much better as you go up the food chain. But the odds for a rational response will increase the high up you go ... but be aware that you still need to find a 'superior' who actually gives a rat's about your situation and not also take the easy course of reading policy verbatim and acting within that context .... And ... that person has not to care about stepping on the toes of their underlings ... so if the stars line up appropriately, it could be resolved in your favor. Any misalignment and you have a ticket.  I feel that by going 'upstairs' to superiors, at least I'm getting more Cluck-for-my-Buck, the authority is costing me time  ... in return I'll try to cost them money as well and superiors make more money than underlings, advantage Gary.

I don't know how things work in Canada, but here if you really feel righteous over the incidence, then lodge a formal complaint with the jurisdiction. Call the local news outlets and forward them your story, send your story to everybody in the parks department (hopefully you have the names of the people you spoke with on the day of the confrontation), find a free attorney, sit down with an elected official. There are plenty of avenues you can take to correct this problem and further your cause.

I understand where the park owner is coming from, I see it nearly everyday. Commercial/Pro photogs setting up at parks and public places and using those venues as backdrops. (I live in LA ... can you imagine the mess that occurs when wedding and commercial photogs set up in Hollywood and the beaches, blocking pedestrians, yelling at them and taking over piers and tide pools from the general public. On top of it, these photogs probably don't even live in the city and pay nothing in taxes for the maintenance. It's a win-win for the photogs and a lose-lose for the city and city taxpayers and general public.) Out here all the entertainment venues have different rules, from the general no pro cameras, to no dSLRs, to no lenses longer than six inches to no cameras at all. Some like the Hollywood Bowl, have different rules depending on the event so you have to spend time looking to see which rules will be enforced for which event.

I can see the new ordinance coming down to limit public places to non-commercial photography/commercial-with-a-permit only. Those who are scheduled for enforcement most likely having similar questions as you ... "How can I tell the difference between a commercial photographer and a non-commercial photographer?" Someone pretty low in the food chain, someone who has no expertise in photography, coming up with a list of rules ... that list is now policy ... the underlings read and enforce that policy literally. Welcome to our world.


----------



## tirediron (Jan 29, 2016)

Braineack said:


> > First, unless you've actually read the legislation, and were present at the event, I'm  a little unclear on just how you can make that assertion.  We only have one side of the story, so there are two sides missing.
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 Not quite...  the Government of Canada uses the Oxford definition, vis:  _"Reward, recompense; (now usually) money paid for work or a service; payment, pay."_  Further, Revenue Canada ("our" IRS) is very clear on the point that income or payment is not strictly limited to cash, and that a worker's time has value, so, under the Canadian definition and application, he could have been said to be receiving remuneration.  Now, I don't expect that this was really the spirit of the law, but if push came to shove...

That said, good for you for actually reading the act.  No, I did not; it seemed way too much like work to me.


----------



## Braineack (Jan 29, 2016)




----------



## waday (Jan 29, 2016)

407370 said:


> Try taking a picture with any camera in any room with Middle East Arabs present, they will automatically demand the pics be deleted or they will call the cops and have you arrested for breaching their privacy


I did once. They smiled and posed. It was the craziest thing.


----------



## jaomul (Jan 29, 2016)

I do the harrassing


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 29, 2016)

waday said:


> 407370 said:
> 
> 
> > Try taking a picture with any camera in any room with Middle East Arabs present, they will automatically demand the pics be deleted or they will call the cops and have you arrested for breaching their privacy
> ...


You now have their souls forever captured in that photo, stolen away from their physical being.


----------



## waday (Jan 29, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > 407370 said:
> ...


Oh man, I didn't want to have to take responsibility over souls.

Wait, would that make me a god?


----------



## astroNikon (Jan 29, 2016)

waday said:


> astroNikon said:
> 
> 
> > waday said:
> ...


No, just some dude with a camera.

But, I wonder if that makes a difference if it's a Film camera, or Digital ?

or small format vs 35mm, medium or large format film  or  APS-C, FF, 4/3, micro sensors ?


----------



## waday (Jan 29, 2016)

astroNikon said:


> waday said:
> 
> 
> > astroNikon said:
> ...


Darn. Well, if we set up a study to determine which sensors steal people's souls, we can rule the world AND underworld.

If you pay me enough money (or do my bidding), I won't steal your soul.


----------



## DanOstergren (Jan 29, 2016)

I was kicked out of the Hoyt Arboretum in Portland once for conducting a fashion shoot there with a large team. I had no issue with being kicked out though and didn't argue with them because I knew from the beginning that it was likely to happen. The clothing designer (who was budgeting this shoot, and all our budget covered was lens rental, scrim rental, and hiring a really amazing model) was intent on this location and when I recommended we get the permit, he insisted that we did not need a permit, and I certainly didn't have it in my budget to buy one. I was using the clothing designer's camera and he paid for the lens rental, so if anything was confiscated, it would be on the designer's budget. I'm surprised they didn't kick us out sooner, because we were walking around with a giant scrim and a big rolling clothing rack, with a team consisting of 6 people including me. There was no way of denying that this was a commercial shoot.
When they kicked us out, they were really nice about it and told me how to go about getting a permit to be able to come back to finish the shoot.


----------



## hamlet (Jan 30, 2016)

I was once. I usually kill them with kindness, i'm very gentle in person.


----------



## John_Olexa (Feb 1, 2016)

The day after the 2002 La Plata Tornado I was walking up Rt 6 to the media tent. There was a state trooper watching me walk up the street. After about 5 minutes I stopped in front of the firehouse which had a light pole fall in front of it to take a picture, the trooper went off. Started hollering like he was being attacked by killer bees or something LOL. Even the worker on a nearby roof stopped to see what was going on. I fired off a quick motordrive burst and started walking again when I reached him he glared and said "media tent is that way!" Why it bothered him so bad I don't know, not like there was any traffic on the road. Funny thing is just 2 weeks before I was shooting special olympics and a state trooper (not the same one) received an award and sought me out and ask if I would take a picture. I guess that was ok! I did and dropped off an 8x10 at the barracks for him.. free of charge.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Feb 1, 2016)

I would've looked at the guy driving the cart and said "You're a freakin' GARBAGE MAN" and walked away.


----------



## nerwin (Feb 2, 2016)

Only at a stupid mall once and I was using my phone to take a picture of something I saw. I felt like I was being targeted, or profiled because other people were taking pictures. I wont be going to that mall again. Lol

But so far when I'm out taking pictures with my DSLR, people have been pretty respectful. I was in Boston once and I took a picture of a couple cops and they even posed and smiled..didn't not expect that. Haha.


----------



## Didereaux (Feb 2, 2016)

The Dodo was given the answer.  An answer that could be had almost anywhere stupid people work for the public and exceed their job descriptions.  Annoying, but solvable.
"*Me:* “Okay, so in the future, what can I say or do to prove to someone that I am not shooting commercial images?”
*PR:* “Well just get the name of who is harassing you and then call us.”
*Me:* “Right, but what do I say to them to prove my case? To avoid a fine?”
*PR:* “Just get their name and give us a call and we’ll straighten it out.”  "


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Feb 3, 2016)

I think, if we took a poll, the number of people who've never been harassed would dwarf the number of those who _have _been to the point where the latter would be statistically non-existent.

I've been shooting for right about 40 years, and it's never, ever happened. Not once.

I'm not saying it's not a big deal for those it happens to, but I also think it's important to keep the frequency of its occurance in perspective.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 5, 2016)

The majority of the time, people will ask about what I'm shooting.

Typically it's "you can still buy film for that???"

If I'm shooting with the DSLR, no ones pays any attention to it.

Oh, forgot about the time I took a photo of a kid playing violin.

I happened to be walking downtown in Austin Tx with my girlfriend on a beautiful sunny Saturday along "The Drag" and came across this kid. He had just pulled out his violin and I pulled my camera up to eye level in a "may I take you photo" kind of way. The kid smiled and continued. So I adjusted my settings and snapped the photo. When I went to walk away the kid asked if I had a dollar. I told him no I do not. That's when he started to complain saying "You stole my image!!" "How can you steal an Amish boys image!!" I told him sorry but that's not how it works and continued on my way.

The not so great photo;




&quot;Stolen Image&quot; Shot on expired Kodak Gold 200 by Shutter_Inc., on Flickr


----------



## john.margetts (Feb 6, 2016)

If someone is playing a musical instrument in the street, they are busking. That means they want money. If he oked your taking the picture, it was in the expectation you would put some coins in the hat. If you took the picture and did not pay, it was very rude of you to say the least.

www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk


----------



## unpopular (Feb 6, 2016)

Id trust a cop to know the law before some random photographer, let alone some random photographer posting legal advise on the bastard stepchild of photo.net


----------



## MartinCrabtree (Feb 9, 2016)

I'm 6'1" pushing 300 lbs long haired and ride big noisy motorcycles. The only people who harass me are cops.


----------



## jcdeboever (Feb 9, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> I'm 6'1" pushing 300 lbs long haired and ride big noisy motorcycles. The only people who harass me are cops.


Me too (size) but it's a little different in Detroit, they put a gun in your pie hole and I'm not talking about the cops.  

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk


----------



## PhotoriousMe (Feb 10, 2016)

runnah said:


> I immediately go limp and force them to physically drag me off the premises.


----------



## katsrevenge (Feb 10, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> I'm 6'1" pushing 300 lbs long haired and ride big noisy motorcycles. The only people who harass me are cops.



I'm 5'3" in shoes, often in a skirt, and ride an old school Dutch style step through bike. 

...I don't think anyone actually even sees me.. LOL


----------



## unpopular (Feb 11, 2016)

MartinCrabtree said:


> I'm 6'1" pushing 300 lbs long haired and ride big noisy motorcycles. The only people who harass me are cops.



Literally the only time I ever got pulled over was when I used to drive a rusty old el camino with glass packs. Back then it was like every other week, not once ever getting a ticket. Just a warning once because my tail lights were out. On that stop they even got my wife's ID, just in case, I guess.

The last time I was pulled over was when some yuppies broad-sided us on the highway, totaling the el camino. They were found at fault.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 11, 2016)

john.margetts said:


> If someone is playing a musical instrument in the street, they are busking. That means they want money. If he oked your taking the picture, it was in the expectation you would put some coins in the hat. If you took the picture and did not pay, it was very rude of you to say the least.
> 
> www.johns-old-cameras.blogspot.co.uk



Completely disagree about it being rude. He was out bumming around for money when he is perfectly capable of working a job not to mention he was out in public. For him to get as upset as he did is being rude. He should have shrugged it off and continued to do what he was doing. He should not expect to be paid just because he's out and about. Plenty of people snapped photos and continued on their way. He was being an ass just to be an ass.


----------



## SoulfulRecover (Feb 11, 2016)

Photographer Harassed Online After Calling Out Pop Star for Stealing His Photo


----------



## unpopular (Feb 12, 2016)

While this may not apply to the above article, I do think that subjects should have some rights provided that they had not signed a release. I don't think it's right that someone can take my image and have exclusive rights to it. I'm not arguing on grounds of privacy, I think people should have some inherent rights concerning their likeness.

Of course, the law doesn't agree with me ... and it's unlikely most photographers would either. Especially not paparazzi photographers.


----------



## Mr. Innuendo (Feb 14, 2016)

You got a photo out of the deal. Would it have killed you to throw the kid a buck or two?

If I take someone's photo on the street; especially someone who's homeless or, like in your case, busking, I give them something. I'd hate to think I'm such a tightwad that I couldn't do that.


----------



## decyjohn (Feb 17, 2016)

I think the definition of sexual harassment can intimidate people. I've often seen women and men alike brush off comments that bothered them because they didn't want to seem overly sensitive or they aren't sure something really counts as sexual harassment.


----------



## The_Traveler (Feb 17, 2016)




----------



## minicoop1985 (Feb 17, 2016)

I've been pestered by local community service before. More annoying than anything.


----------



## decyjohn (Feb 22, 2016)

If something makes you uncomfortable, whether the comments were directed at our or something else, your first step should be to review your company's harassment policy. Most company's outline a process for addressing harassment incidents, such as notifying a supervisor or filing a formal complaint. If no policy is outlined, discuss the situation with your HR manager. Do not assume ignoring the issue will go away and don't deal with severe issues alone.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 22, 2016)




----------



## unpopular (Feb 22, 2016)

decyjohn said:


> I think the definition of sexual harassment can intimidate people. I've often seen women and men alike brush off comments that bothered them because they didn't want to seem overly sensitive or they aren't sure something really counts as sexual harassment.



its not every day that a spammer has some insight.


----------



## table1349 (Feb 22, 2016)

decyjohn said:


> If something makes you uncomfortable, whether the comments were directed at our or something else, your first step should be to review your company's harassment policy. Most company's outline a process for addressing harassment incidents, such as notifying a supervisor or filing a formal complaint. If no policy is outlined, discuss the situation with your HR manager. Do not assume ignoring the issue will go away and don't deal with severe issues alone.


Begin at the beginning and go on till you come to the end; *then Type.*


----------

