# Harassed For Taking Pictures



## DennyCrane (Sep 18, 2011)

I'm sure other photographers here have heard of these situations.  Generally, they're cases where police or private security personnel tell  a photographer that they are not allowed to take pictures. Today, it  finally happened to me. As you may know, I often go to Ralph Wilson  Stadium before Buffalo Bills games and take pictures. I've gotten great  shots of former Bills players, the stadium, the fans, police officers,  etc. 

Today, I was approached by the stadium security and asked to stop taking  pictures. I asked why, and was told that security was instructed to ask  people not to take pictures of security personnel or where they were  working. Now, this year, there's heightened security at NFL games,  including involved pat downs before you're allowed in:







But the company, Contemporary Services Corporation, is taking it further  by harassing photographers. The CSC employee was a bit taken aback when  I challenged him on why I was being asked to stop taking pictures. He  then told me his employee handbook had a section telling employees to  stop people from taking pictures. After telling him I was in a public  place, and therefore within my rights to take pictures of whatever I  wanted, and that I was going to continue, he asked me again to stop. I  asked him who he worked for and who his supervisors were. He told me  "Contemporary Services Corporation" and pointed to a golf cart seating 2  people. I was done with the security drone and went right over to the  cart:






Here is the audio of the exchange:

http://www.esnips.com/doc/697d0277-3c28-416d-90b9-5a447e159264/rec00007

They clearly had no idea what the rules were let alone the law. Nor, did  they know that Erie County owns the property and that the Buffalo Bills  merely lease it for games. Their first answer to my questioning was  "People don't like having their picture taken" and that as a  photographer, I "needed permission to take their picture". Absolutely  untrue. I explained to them that in a public place... even IF it were  private property... there is no reasonable expectation for privacy.  Anyone can take pictures unless there are postings saying that  photography is prohibited. Now, I've been taking pictures up there for 5  years and have never been harassed before, and I certainly know the  law. These clowns did not. Eventually, they radioed their supervisors  and were informed that there was no rule against people taking pictures.  I immediately said "thank you" and walked away. The point was made, so  there was no reason to stay any longer. I did, however, hear a CSC  employee at a different gate say "That guy with the camera. He's the  one". So, apparently, there was some radio message about our exchange  sent out. At that point, I headed directly off the stadium property and  went home. It pays to be a little paranoid and it doubly pays to have  good situational awareness at all times when you're out with your  camera. I highly doubt they'd give me any trouble if I'd stayed around,  but why take chances?

So, the moral here is, KNOW THE LAW. You are entitled to take pictures  of whatever you want in a public place, and this includes pictures of  police, fire, EMS personnel, or private security employees. You may not  be detained for taking pictures. NO ONE may ask to see your pictures,  take your film or memory cards, demand erasure, etc. Only a court order  can require you to hand over your property.

If you're ever in a similar situation, above all else, remain  professional. You have the legal high ground. Don't let it get away from  you by acting like a damned fool. Ask them what legal reason they have  for asking you to stop taking pictures. Know the law and explain it to  them. Get the name of the group they work for. Get the name of them. If  possible, record the audio of the conversation, take pictures of them,  etc. I recorded the audio on my phone and got a picture of the  supervisors without making it obvious. 

I have sent an EMail to the CSC Buffalo office manager where I explained  the events. I did not mention the recordings or the pictures. I will  await a response before I talk to the local news stations, the paper, or  anyone else.


----------



## Robin Usagani (Sep 18, 2011)

Power trip!  Good job challenging them!  I will definitely listen to it when im not busy.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 18, 2011)

Good job! What a bunch of douchebags at that security company! A thought might be to write to your local area newspapers and their sports columnists...you know, the guys who always need a story...tell them about this ridiculous treatment of ticket-holding fans by a few power-hungry rent-a-cops. Provide them with some FACTS about the stadium ownership, the number of the company, any managers or supervisors you talked to,etc. ANd, write a letter to the editor...maybe you can compose a really good letter that will generate some moral outrage among Bills fans, and generate some backlash for the douches at the "security" company.

BTW Denny, your link as provided on 9/18/2011 is showing up as "Bad Link". I would LOVE to hear the conversation!


----------



## imagemaker46 (Sep 18, 2011)

Security is just doing their job, but what happens is that they are so paranoid about pictures these days they will step over the line to stop anyone.  If you are accredited media for the game they have no business even talking to you, that pass gives you pretty much a free run to shoot whatever you want.  It was good that you challenged them, not enough people do these days.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 18, 2011)

OK, the link should work now. It defaulted to "private". I set it to public and I ~think~ it's working.

And, thanks for the support!


----------



## Compaq (Sep 18, 2011)

*Lawyered!


*&#8203;Nice job


----------



## clanthar (Sep 18, 2011)

Good job standing up to them -- also good call walking away. It's not worth a busted camera. I've had a number of similar encounters and private security has been the worst as they rarely have any clue what really is and isn't legal. They do seem much more aggressive of late.

Joe


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 18, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> Here is the audio of the exchange:
> 
> http://www.esnips.com/doc/697d0277-3c28-416d-90b9-5a447e159264/rec00007


It looks like you have to install the "eSnips downloader" to download that file...
...A lot of people aren't going to want to do that - and I for one, would - but it's only available in .exe, which is useless to me.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 18, 2011)

there SHOULD be a player appearing. It's working for other people.


----------



## usayit (Sep 18, 2011)

good job!!

btw... I believe certain states require all parties to be informed of a recorded conversation.  Most states are ok with it as long as you are a party to the conversation.


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 18, 2011)

usayit said:


> good job!!
> 
> btw... I believe certain states require all parties to be informed of a recorded conversation.  Most states are ok with it as long as you are a party to the conversation.


It varies by state (look up the law for your state), but it's either of these two options:

One party must be aware (you) OR both parties must be aware.

(In Texas (my state), I believe that only one party is required to be aware of the recording.  It has been a while since I looked it up, so that may not be accurate - I think it is though...)


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 18, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> there SHOULD be a player appearing. It's working for other people.


It's working now.  Not sure what was up before...

I totally had a different voice in my head for you...


----------



## Josh66 (Sep 18, 2011)

You have also reminded me that I need to put my digital voice recorder in my camera bag, and leave it there.


----------



## Eclivic (Sep 19, 2011)

Just a little info here, In some states it is a state crime, regardless of private or public place to take pictures of REAL law enforcement.


----------



## KenC (Sep 19, 2011)

Well handled, Denny!  If this is really the first time this has happened to you, either you don't get out enough or things are a little more relaxed around Buffalo than around the bigger cities.  I had several incidents in the Chicago area.  One was totally understandable because it was federal security personnel on the grounds of a VA hospital (apologized profusely, mentioned someone I knew that was working there that day, left immediately and didn't lose any pictures).  Another time a security guard from a private office building approached me on the sidewalk outside and told me it was OK to take pictures, but not of the building itself!  I wasn't interested in doing that anyway so I didn't get into it with him.  Here in Philly I have had much less trouble with this, for some reason.


----------



## Railphotog (Sep 19, 2011)

Funny just yesterday I came across a fenced off area where a local brewery is expanding.  A sign is posted saying no photos without the consent of the construction company.  Of course I took a few!  Can't imagine why the sign is posted, the construction fence is right beside a public sidewalk and street.  Maybe they don't want photos of their employees loafing?


----------



## The_Traveler (Sep 19, 2011)

madtownguy said:


> I can't believe people get hassled for taking pictures though, I've heard it too but it never has happened to me.  But we don't live in a free country regardless of what anyone says and in some ways that good.  Mexico is a free country, very very free.  I love it there because of it's true freedoms, but with that comes a ton of problems _(edited for political content)._... ha ha



It's pretty rude to sneak a political rant into a photo discussion.


----------



## Heitz (Sep 19, 2011)

That first picture can easily be misinterpreted...in a hilarious way.


----------



## Mitica100 (Sep 19, 2011)

The_Traveler said:


> madtownguy said:
> 
> 
> > I can't believe people get hassled for taking pictures though, I've heard it too but it never has happened to me.  But we don't live in a free country regardless of what anyone says and in some ways that good.  Mexico is a free country, very very free.  I love it there because of it's true freedoms, but with that comes a ton of problems _(edited for political content)._... ha ha
> ...



He is gone.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 19, 2011)

Were you outside of the fences? Even if it's a public place and they're selling tickets to the venue and you're inside the venue, they can tell you not to take photos. IF you don't listen, they can tell you to leave and if you don't, they can get you for tresspassing.


----------



## Village Idiot (Sep 19, 2011)

Eclivic said:


> Just a little info here, In some states it is a state crime, regardless of private or public place to take pictures of REAL law enforcement.



Find me those states please. I know some states have officers that try and use wire tapping laws, but that's generally for recording officers and even then, it usually get thrown out in court.

I don't know anywhere where it's illegal to take a photo of a real law enforcement officer if you're on public property.


----------



## MTVision (Sep 19, 2011)

Eclivic said:
			
		

> Just a little info here, In some states it is a state crime, regardless of private or public place to take pictures of REAL law enforcement.



Where did you get your law degree?  It is not a state crime in any state to take pictures of real law enforcement. A cop can arrest your for taking his picture if he asks you not to but you will be released right off because they can't charge you with anything. If you are interfering with the polices ability to do their job that's a different story. You can take pictures of basically whoever you want in public places - not just public property. 

FYI - 
CA, CT, FL, IL, MD, MA, MI, MT, NV, NH, PA, WA 

These are the states that all parties need to consent in order to record it. Basically the recorder has to be in plain view. All other states are one-party consent laws!


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 19, 2011)

Village Idiot said:


> Were you outside of the fences? Even if it's a public place and they're selling tickets to the venue and you're inside the venue, they can tell you not to take photos. IF you don't listen, they can tell you to leave and if you don't, they can get you for tresspassing.


I was outside the gates. Essentially, it's the area between the parked cars and the gates where you hand over your ticket and enter. Legally, there is no prohibition against taking any pictures.


MTVision said:


> Eclivic said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


One of the reasons I had my phone out in plain view as I was recording the conversation... even though NY is a one party consent state. 

And, I really do go there to photograph a lot during football season... and have gotten some decent shots. I know quite a few local photographers who wander around before the games, taking pictures. Regardless, this won't stop me from going every home game and continuing to take pictures.


----------



## Zess (Sep 22, 2011)

I think they're just trying to do their job but you handled the situation very well

Good work


----------



## Bukitimah (Sep 22, 2011)

I think those involved are not briefed or do not understand their security risks. The management simply deployed them without giving them clear directions. In such a case, their supervisor should come forward and explain why photographs are not allowed. I am sure if there are good reasons, I too will support the instructions.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 24, 2011)

Update- I got an email from the local manager of the security company. He wants to talk to me, so I'll give him a call on Monday.


----------



## tonic289 (Sep 24, 2011)

Any kind of lawyer whether they be for defendant or plaintiff can convolute arguments to serve their cause but in the end, justice prevails. We don't live in the era of where mobs rule or don't live in communist countries where mobocracy of a few chanting 'down with oppressors' have legal basis under American rule of law ; hence, their arguments having no merit ..The photographer's case meets the standards upon where the law rests: plausibility and justice.


----------



## photocoach (Sep 25, 2011)

not sure it's as easy as all this.  Public Place, sure - But it's private property.  Gone are the city owned stadiums and here in PA, it pretty much not cool, without a release.  I think it's "if face is shown, or can be made out."  

Interesting talk here - 

I'm happy you got on them though.  

I always teach to GET THE SHOT!

I was yelled at many times, but I "got the shots"

My way.. take em, get yelled at - GET ALL DUMB DUMB and say sorry. 




ha ha!

Get the shot!

This country is going to hell.


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 25, 2011)

tonic289 said:


> Any kind of lawyer whether they be for defendant or plaintiff can convolute arguments to serve their cause but in the end, justice prevails. We don't live in the era of where mobs rule or don't live in communist countries where mobocracy of a few chanting 'down with oppressors' have legal basis under American rule of law ; hence, their arguments having no merit ..The photographer's case meets the standards upon where the law rests: plausibility and justice.


I honestly have no idea what you're trying to say here. Was this post in any way related to the thread's topic?


----------



## DennyCrane (Sep 25, 2011)

photocoach said:


> not sure it's as easy as all this.  Public Place, sure - But it's private property.  Gone are the city owned stadiums and here in PA, it pretty much not cool, without a release.  I think it's "if face is shown, or can be made out."


As stated in the first post, this was not private property, but public property owned by Erie County.


----------



## KmH (Sep 25, 2011)

tonic289 said:


> Any kind of lawyer whether they be for defendant or plaintiff can convolute arguments to serve their cause but in the end, justice prevails.


That is totally naive. :er:


----------



## KmH (Sep 25, 2011)

photocoach said:


> I think it's "if face is shown, or can be made out.".


Nope!

First, it's not the photographer that gets to decide, it's the person in the photo and the courts that gets to decide if they are recognizable or not.

Any indentifier works for recognizability: a scar, a tattoo, a mole, custom made clothing, etc, there doesn't even have to be a face in the shot.


----------



## jake337 (Sep 25, 2011)

Top Flight Security of the World Bytch!


----------



## HomelessBoy (Sep 28, 2011)

Good game lol...


----------



## fwellers (Sep 28, 2011)

I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public. 
The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics. 

Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?

Can I hear some discussion about what is "public" ? 

Thanks,
Floyd


----------



## Hickeydog (Sep 28, 2011)

fwellers said:


> I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
> The OP said that since the county owned the stadium, it was public. Is that true ? Reason I ask is that the Feds own places where they act like the owners and can tell you not to take pics.
> 
> Or a public parking garage. It's property that someone owns. So if a security guard tells you not to take pics, he is acting as an agent of the owner and you must comply right ?
> ...



The way I understand the law (and I'm NO lawyer), a privately owned public place, like a bar, McDonald's, ski resort, etc, is that you can take pictures to your heart's content, as there is no expectation of privacy, but the owner can ask you to leave, and if you don't, then you're trespassing.  

Of course, I could be 100% off on this.


----------



## DennyCrane (Oct 2, 2011)

Hickeydog said:


> fwellers said:
> 
> 
> > I understand about being able to take pics of anything in public. Where I get confused is what constitutes public.
> ...


This is essentially correct, but if there's a posted sign prohibiting photography on private property w/o permission, you must comply. Like at a concert hall where some big act is playing or something. However, in my case, where it was public property and a public place, take all the pictures you want of whatever you want. Again, there are limits of things where there ARE expectations of privacy... someone keying in their PIN at an ATM, looking up someone's dress, using a long zoom to photograph inside a private residence. It's all very common sense. Don't photograph something you shouldn't look at anyway, photograph in a public place, and you'll be fine.


----------



## Redbaron (Oct 5, 2011)

Obviously common sense should prevail - if someone was taking inappropriate photos of someone, or photos of my son and I deemed it inappropriate I'd certainly be having words. Anything else is fair game IMO.

Taking photos of military installations in former Soviet block countries is a bad idea as well...... trust me


----------



## SituationNormal (Oct 5, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> Update- I got an email from the local manager of the security company. He wants to talk to me, so I'll give him a call on Monday.



So how did the conversation end up going? I'm curious as to the managers response.


----------



## photo guy (Oct 28, 2011)

That is kind of like one of my local restaurants. Burger King. Hosts car shows and wants customers and public to come and look and take photos but has a sign on each entry to the building saying no photography allowed. Double Standard in my opinion. Many, many people were at the last show taking photos and went in to eat so I think they should relax about it so they keep getting business.  Funny thing though, they have surveillance cameras inside watching everyone and everything but no warning signs of any kind on their entry doors notifing anyone about it which is law in my state stating it has to be posted.


----------



## SituationNormal (Oct 28, 2011)

Not necessarily a double standard. The signs on the doors are prohibiting photography from being taken from inside the building; not from the parking lot.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 28, 2011)

Bukitimah said:


> I think those involved are not briefed or do not understand their security risks. The management simply deployed them without giving them clear directions. In such a case, their supervisor should come forward and explain why photographs are not allowed. I am sure if there are good reasons, I too will support the instructions.


Therein is the reason that there are "rules" for not photographing security personnel and their locations, etc. It's the heightened security and the very real threat of an attack like 9/11. It is illegal to photograph any of the bridges in NYC for that reason. Unfortunately as photographers we are going to see more and more of this security/police harassment and PROBABLY will see the laws actually change. The reason? How do you determine who is taking photos for a terrorist organization? 
The kicker there will be that the terrorists will be the ones taking photos with a spy camera. I am pretty confident that the terrorists aren't the ones standing out there with DSLR's and a bag of gear taking photos... they are walking through the gates legal as hell with a little point and shoot in their pocket which is allowed. 
So, it'll get harder and harder on us in order to give the US Public a "feeling" of being more secure from terrorism when in all actuality all they are doing is harassing the law abiding photographers. A criminal is going to be a little more sneaky than to stand out there with a big ol' DSLR to his eye and a bag of gear on his back the size of a toddler.


----------



## MLeeK (Oct 28, 2011)

DennyCrane said:


> Hickeydog said:
> 
> 
> > fwellers said:
> ...



It BECOMES private property when it is leased to the Bills. Kind of like if you rent from the public housing authority. That's publicly owned property. It is leased for all intents and purposes by the renter who then makes it private property. 


On the flip side... I will be shooting at Ralph Wilson on the field on 11/3 for one of the high school championship games. Press pass and all.


----------

