# Taking a picture? You must be a terrorist...



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

In the mid 90s I was lucky enough to be able to attend the Tarrant County Junior College photography program. It was my introduction to "real" photography and my instructors were excellent. One of the subjects that came up were the legalities of taking pictures in public. As I remember it, the whole thing came down to the first amendment right. If something can be seen in public, a photographer has the right to take a picture of it. This could be a building, a car or even persons on the street. If a person for some reason has a sensitivity to being photographed then they just shouldnt go in public. There are many times when photography is being used....newspaper journalists, artists and just tourists taking snapshots.

One night my instructor had taken a group of us to downtown Fort Worth to do a field trip on night photography (you know, the strange nuances of reciprocity and exposure) and one of the students set up his view camera on a sidewalk to take a picture of a large mural depicting the cattle drives. Along comes a security guard and tells him "You cant take a picture of that, its private property". She proceeded to get an education on the first amendment from the student (who was a hothead anyway) and then my instructor came over and calmed the situation down.

There are some caveats though. You cant use a super telephoto lens to peer into someones window (other other such place which may have the expectation of privacy), you cant take a picture of someone and use their likeness as a sort of brand name to make money off of (like say marketing posters of them). I dont remember any other such limitations or the exact letter of the law anyway so I welcome anyone elses input on the subject.

In todays day and age (post 911) we live in a proto Orwellian culture where I fear that people may mistake an amateur taking a photo with a view camera and light meter as "suspicious behavior". What helps further this along is most of the public think of cameras as digital point and shoot and as such (its not like they really knew before about serious photo work anyway) they wont understand what someone is doing when they see odd equipment they arent familiar with. I had finished doing some shooting one night and drove through a fast food joint on my way home and the girl serving me saw my light meter and coiled up shutter release cable and looked frightened and asked what it was. Did she think it was a bomb? This was back in the 90s....today it might result in a phone call. Homeland security in the days following 911 asked citizens to report people "photographing landmarks" because after all, thats what terrorists do to scope out a potential target site. Also today I doubt there would be any leniency from a police officer suspicious of what youre doing....you cant just whip out a copy of the bill of rights and tell him you have the right to do this that or the other. Even though you may be right and them surely wrong, it would do you little good because just "talking back" might be considered "a public disturbance".


lets hope i dont end up in gitmo


----------



## usayit (Jul 16, 2008)

It is a "Brave New World"... indeed


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

usayit said:


> It is a "Brave New World"... indeed



holy cow....i was just reading Neal Boortz blog and he posted a link to this news article.....albeit in Britain.

*Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park
*
By David Wilkes
Last updated at 1:46 AM on 16th July 2008

    * commentsComments (30)
    * Add to My Stories Add to My Stories

When Gary Crutchley started taking pictures of his children playing on an inflatable slide he thought they would be happy reminders of a family day out.

But the innocent snaps of seven-year-old Cory, and Miles, five, led to him being called a pervert.

The woman running the slide at Wolverhampton Show asked him what he was doing and other families waiting in the queue demanded that he stop.







One even accused him of photographing youngsters to put the pictures on the internet.

Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.

Yesterday he said: What is the world coming to when anybody seen with a camera is assumed to be doing things that they should not?

This parental paranoia is getting completely out of hand. I was so shocked. One of the police officers told me that it was just the way society is these days. He agreed with me that it was madness.

Father-of-three Mr Crutchley, a consultant for a rubber manufacturer from Walsall, West Midlands, was with his wife Tracey and their sons when the pleasant Sunday afternoon out turned sour.

He said: The children wanted to go on an inflatable slide and I started taking photos of them having a good time. Moments later the woman running the slide told me to stop.

When I asked why, she told me I could not take pictures of other peoples children. I explained I was only interested in taking photos of my own children and pointed out that this was taking place in a public park.

I showed her the photos I had taken to prove my point. Then another woman joined in and said her child was also on the slide and did not want me taking pictures of the youngster.'


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 16, 2008)

Welcome aboard.  

This has been discussed many times on the forum...usually after someone has an incident with security personnel.


----------



## Overread (Jul 16, 2008)

Agreed - its appearing in almost all the photography forums and some have letters to mps being sent off and some are signing petitions.
Infact the only photoforum I am on (and have seen) where its not appearing is a wildlife and nature one - no people or urban areas at all.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 16, 2008)

usayit said:


> It is a "Brave New World"... indeed



Erik Blair and Aldous Huxley... Perfect references for describing the political state of "The West". But let's not forget H.G. Wells "New World Order".


BTW, they now selectively arrest you and confiscate your cameras at the point of an un-safety'ed machine-gun in some places NYC - On the public streets!


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> Welcome aboard.
> 
> This has been discussed many times on the forum...usually after someone has an incident with security personnel.



and what is usually the final disposition?

i am an hour north of NYC by train....I would LOVE to take a view camera there for some shots of Saint Patricks cathedral...but they have armed guards with machine guns and german shepherds outside.


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 16, 2008)

> and what is usually the final disposition?


Pretty much what you said at first...


> Even though you may be right and them surely wrong, it would do you little good because just "talking back" might be considered "a public disturbance".



It's usually best to just move along and not stir thing up.  

The best (or just funniest) advice I've heard on the topic...is to wear a goofy hat when shooting in public.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 16, 2008)

From what I understand (last month and prior anyway) if you're not being political (no shirts with writing, no signs, no flyers, no running shoes) or _perceived_ as being political, you can shoot stills almost anywhere on the street and permits and appointments are required for the insides of some buildings. I don't know which ones require it and which ones don't though.

The paramilitary guerilla police there quote some kind of city ordinance when taking your stuff and/or arresting you but it's currently only selectively enforced at the law-enforcement level and from what I understand anyway all cases challenged are kicked out of court as there either there is no such ordinance or it's illegal. I haven't nailed down which it is.

And I think just the opposite way as Big Mike. I think we all need to show up and demand our rights in mass.  I loved hearing about the student that started getting hot about her/his constitutional rights!  Awesome!  We all need to do that or it's just going to get worse - and worse - and worse...


----------



## Big Mike (Jul 16, 2008)

I agree that we _'should'_ stand up for our rights and fight back against the tyranny of ignorance from those enforcing the law & rules.

That being said, would you rather just move on or spend a day in 'captivity'?  If they are delusional enough to think that they are allowed to stop you from taking photos in public...then you can probably outsmart them and get your shot anyway...and it's probably best to avoid those types of people as much as possible anyway.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 16, 2008)

Me personally? I would probably go on monday with a goofy hat to get the good pics and then return on friday with 100 friends and video cameras and make an issue out of it.


----------



## usayit (Jul 16, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Erik Blair and Aldous Huxley... Perfect references for describing the political state of "The West". But let's not forget H.G. Wells "New World Order"



Exactly... The next step...

Limit and destroy free thought and the general public's ability to acquire knowledge, process it, and dissiminate to others.  oops... already happening with the limitation of free speach and access to college education.  Lets not forget it has happened several times in human history already.  

Call me paranoid... call those dystopic novels fiction (they are) but there are deep lessons to be learned.  Trade in personal liberties for security... never!




> Mr Crutchley, 39, who had taken pictures only of his own children, was so enraged that he found two policemen who confirmed he had done nothing wrong.



Big thumbs up to Mr. Crutchley.  That was the appropriate action to take.

I experience this madness to a lesser extent on a weekly basis.  My wife and I trade off taking care of my 19 month old son to limit the expenses of child care.  A lone father, young boy, camera (as always), in a playground.  I get this cold and distant reaction from the other mothers in the area.  To the point that I feel compelled to pickup and hold my son as an attempt to reaffirm my "fatherhood".  It doesn't seem to be the case when my wife is with me.....  It must suck being a single father in this environment.




btw... attempting to fight for your rights aggressively on the streets in front of a cop will usually result in a disorderly conduct charge (catch-all used to control the situation).  No big deal BUT it will ruin and waste your day.


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

Is Sally Mann considered a child pornographer because her work involved her children? Is Joel Peter Witkin considered a murderor because his work involved dead bodies?


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

a friend of mine just sent me this. (i dont see the ability to add attachments so I uploaded it to my website)

http://uncensoredfreespeech.nfshost.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf


----------



## Easy_Target (Jul 16, 2008)

mallard said:


> Also today I doubt there would be any leniency from a police officer suspicious of what youre doing....you cant just whip out a copy of the bill of rights and tell him you have the right to do this that or the other. Even though you may be right and them surely wrong, it would do you little good because just "talking back" might be considered "a public disturbance".


Of course, lest we forget about that FBI memo that deems anyone who quotes or cites the constitution as a terrorist. 

Actually "talking back" to a police officer can get you any of the following charges: disrespect of a police officer, public nuisance, public disturbance, refusal to comply with police, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest. Didn't do anything wrong? District attorney, doesn't care and neither do the cops. Serves you right for talking back.

That's why I'm leaving the US as soon as I can.


----------



## JHF Photography (Jul 16, 2008)

mallard said:


> and what is usually the final disposition?
> 
> i am an hour north of NYC by train....I would LOVE to take a view camera there for some shots of Saint Patricks cathedral...but they have armed guards with machine guns and german shepherds outside.




Ummmmm...... what exactly are you talking about?  I was there last fall, took a ton of pictures from both the outside and inside.  No one said a peep, and there are most definitely not ANY guards with guns or dogs.

By the way, I wandered all over lower Manhatten for 5 days with SLR, bag with lenses, and tripod in tow, took over 1500 pictures, even photographed some of the local law enforcement, and was never once stopped, questioned or harassed.


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

JHF Photography said:


> Ummmmm...... what exactly are you talking about?  I was there last fall, took a ton of pictures from both the outside and inside.  No one said a peep, and there are most definitely not ANY guards with guns or dogs.
> 
> By the way, I wandered all over lower Manhatten for 5 days with SLR, bag with lenses, and tripod in tow, took over 1500 pictures, even photographed some of the local law enforcement, and was never once stopped, questioned or harassed.



thats cool....my thread is about the premise. The only altercation with security I saw was in the 90s and i was wondering if in the post 911 world if it had gotten worse. NYC is fun to spend the day walking and shooting.

I'd like to check out your NYC pics if you have them in a gallery


----------



## KD5NRH (Jul 16, 2008)

Big Mike said:


> The best (or just funniest) advice I've heard on the topic...is to wear a goofy hat when shooting in public.



Hey! 

Neither my leather fedora nor my straw hat is what I'd call goofy, they just match the Coronado Safari vest.  Since I work for one of the only two security companies with a presence in about a 60 mile radius, (and have friends at the other one) I can quote the policy manual back at most of the guards I run into, and police just seem to recognise the vest and what it implies.


----------



## Mystwalker (Jul 16, 2008)

Mallard - is that in US? Those do not look like your normal officers - never seen one that heavily armed. Also, what's with the holsters? Looks like these guys are getting ready for a gunfight.

Does that german shepherd look like he care about constitutional rights?


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Mallard - is that in US? Those do not look like your normal officers - never seen one that heavily armed. Also, what's with the holsters? Looks like these guys are getting ready for a gunfight.
> 
> Does that german shepherd look like he care about constitutional rights?



yeah, that was in New York City in front of Saint Patricks Cathedral....actually they were pretty cool, I got a shot of the cop with the dog looking at me shrugging his shoulders. Im sure in the popular areas they are used to tourist snapping pics left and right.

its the unpopular stuff that i like.......like old crumbling buildings, power plants (i used to shoot one in Texas with my 4X5 Crown Graphic and could see every little bit of detail on an enlargement) and other strange stuff like the underside of bridges, in dark alleys......anywhere i see lots of mundane detail.


----------



## KD5NRH (Jul 16, 2008)

Mystwalker said:


> Does that german shepherd look like he care about constitutional rights?



As long as he stays attached to that donut disposal system, he's not going to get anywhere fast.   :mrgreen:


----------



## hamster (Jul 16, 2008)

Hi Keith.


----------



## Joves (Jul 16, 2008)

Easy_Target said:


> Of course, lest we forget about that FBI memo that deems anyone who quotes or cites the constitution as a terrorist.
> 
> Actually "talking back" to a police officer can get you any of the following charges: disrespect of a police officer, public nuisance, public disturbance, refusal to comply with police, disorderly conduct and/or resisting arrest. Didn't do anything wrong? District attorney, doesn't care and neither do the cops. Serves you right for talking back.
> 
> That's why I'm leaving the US as soon as I can.


 Actually you do not have to follow an unlawful order or, allow your person or, personal property be seized. The problem is too many people are backing down so, they think they can get away with it. I would like an officer to arrest me and, violate my rights, I need the money for more glass.


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

hamster said:


> Hi Keith.



hi cha! _(ya creepy internet stalker!)_


----------



## hamster (Jul 16, 2008)

mallard said:


> hi cha! _(ya creepy internet stalker!)_




I was here first!  Post some non cat pics.


----------



## mallard (Jul 16, 2008)

hamster said:


> I was here first!  Post some non cat pics.



you know, thats hard to do. I got a couple new cameras (well, new to me) and all I could think of to shoot was my tomato plant and Dreamgirl. This weekend im getting up before dawn and hiking down the beach to the state park to see what the sound looks like at daybreak....the best light is real early or real late.

yall still got that cuda?


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

usayit said:


> Exactly... The next step...
> 
> Limit and destroy free thought and the general public's ability to acquire knowledge, process it, and dissiminate to others.  oops... already happening with the limitation of free speach and access to college education.  Lets not forget it has happened several times in human history already.



Exactly right! Nailed it man! You must be over 30... 



> Call me paranoid... call those dystopic novels fiction (they are) but there are deep lessons to be learned.  Trade in personal liberties for security... never!



Right on! But actually on an interesting note those novels may be more non-fiction than fiction. Both Huxley and Wells said as much before they died and it ties in 100% with the work Carrol Quigley did while inside the CFR in NY there. Other globalists of importance have echoed all those things and admitted more than enough to scare the hell out of me - or make me angry and determined!






> Big thumbs up to Mr. Crutchley.  That was the appropriate action to take.
> 
> I experience this madness to a lesser extent on a weekly basis.  My wife and I trade off taking care of my 19 month old son to limit the expenses of child care.  A lone father, young boy, camera (as always), in a playground.  I get this cold and distant reaction from the other mothers in the area.  To the point that I feel compelled to pickup and hold my son as an attempt to reaffirm my "fatherhood".



Combat it with friendly engage. 



> It doesn't seem to be the case when my wife is with me.....  It must suck being a single father in this environment.



I was widowed with 4 small children (at the time) here in Japan and I'm so glad I was a semi-free country (like Japan) and not the USA. The community spirit here is warm and welcoming and VERY accepting of all types. I imagine the country life is still so in the USA but the cities are a bust I gather.




> btw... attempting to fight for your rights aggressively on the streets in front of a cop will usually result in a disorderly conduct charge (catch-all used to control the situation).  No big deal BUT it will ruin and waste your day.



A price easily paid if that was the goal. Just make sure it was worth it. Get it filmed, narrated,  and distributed!


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 17, 2008)

Maybe you only have to look like a foreign tourist?
When we were in NYC in April of 2006, I could take photos anywhere I liked, no one ever approached me (did not try to go to St Patrick's Church, though, I really and truly missed out on that), I wasn't disturbed by anyone.

In London (later that same year), however, we were approached by Security inside the Canary Wharf shopping mall and were told that photos "with big cameras" (meaning: dSLRs of any kind) were not allowed, we'd need to get permission for those by the manager, though photos with compact cameras were allowed. Shows how little security know about what kind of photos also some compact cameras can take ... :roll: (That was during a TPF Meet-Up and there were a good MANY of us with DSLRs...).

Maybe I've so far only been lucky???


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Maybe I've so far only been lucky???



Yeah, we're not saying typical average tourists ever see much or any of this (although you see the signs of it). It's selectively enforced on people trying to (or who are perceived as trying to) use those locations to express a political opinion or inform others of some situation. Such has been the American way of doing things up until 9/11/01 or so and more recently (since ohhhh, ummm, the 70's?) with the monopolizing corporatization of our news and information sources, has become ever so much more important. 

Sightseeing photographers might occasionally catch some spill over and the current direction if allowed to proliferate will surely deny them access to buildings and structures that they paid for as taxpayers (even more-so than now I mean). It might also make all kinds photography illegal is some situations or in some places - and waiting till _after_ that happens is waiting too long for the way the US works. But anyway as a camera toting sightseer I doubt you'll see any aversion presently.


----------



## Robin (Jul 17, 2008)

mallard said:


> holy cow....i was just reading Neal Boortz blog and he posted a link to this news article.....albeit in Britain.
> 
> *Father-of-three branded a 'pervert' - for photographing his own children in public park*


 
Yeah I read about that in the paper. Ridiculous. 

Never been confronted myself but knew someone who did. She was taking portraits of a friend in a park and some woman stormed up and started accusing her of photographing her child. She even showed the woman all her photos on the LCD but she just accused her of deleting the ones of her child. Psycho.


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

Robin said:


> Yeah I read about that in the paper. Ridiculous.
> 
> Never been confronted myself but knew someone who did. She was taking portraits of a friend in a park and some woman stormed up and started accusing her of photographing her child. She even showed the woman all her photos on the LCD but she just accused her of deleting the ones of her child. Psycho.



You know, i think its those people who should be investigated, not the photographer because when the first assumption that anyone taking a picture in public is sneaking shots of kids for prurient reasons is just themselves sick in the head. I suppose Blind Faith and Led Zeppelin album covers are considered child porn by those kind of people.

What would happen if all the photographers in the world just stopped. (the sound of atlas shrugging). Would the public enjoy a world without any photographs? Stop for a second and contemplate that and it stuns me how widespread and important the medium is to our culture yet how little the public understands the needs and rights of photographers to do what it is they do.


----------



## Robin (Jul 17, 2008)

I know, sometimes these people accusing innocent photographers could be considered guilty of harassment.


----------



## Judge Sharpe (Jul 17, 2008)

I guess that it is just my karma but I have never been questioned about taking photographs anywhere anytime. I have done so all over the United States. I usually do not try to take pictures inside of commercial establishments unless they encourage such, but in public and private places, parks, playgrounds, streets. museums and even military bases I have never been hassled. Maybe I just look like what I am, a typical tourist. I dress nicely, am polite, and try to be un-intrusive. More people are curious about my equipment than anything else. I have never witnessed the harassment that has been described in this thread. Just timing I guess. I for one am glad to live in the United States and would not care to live else where. Problems? Yes, but those exist everywhere. I can go just about anywhere, do not have to show any papers, can say what I please, and basically do what I want. Where else in this earth can anyone do that? 
Judge Sharpe


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

"papers" == Driver's lic. / ID card you know?


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 17, 2008)

But I even photographed the 360° camera at the ceiling of the GPO in New York because I liked its reflection and no one came up to me to tell me off. Admittedly, I did so with the Powershot, i.e. a compact camera, which meant I did not visibly lift a camera to my eyes, but ... nothing happened.


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

I too do a lot of surreptitious snapshots and havent encountered any trouble, but the kind of photography I am wondering about would most likely in my case be 4X5 view camera on a tripod getting a carefully framed and exposed picture. That used to take me up to a half hour to get one shot. Its this kind of photography that creates interest either bad or good. Fortunately a lot of people might think its cool and be more inclined to agree with you.....its the little power mongers that cause problems...the barney fifes of the world.

One time I was parked in the parking lot of a city park at night....was the only person there and had my Crown Graphic set up on a tripod taking a long exposure of a small building there (actually part concession stand, part restroom) and up drives a Mansfield Police officer. He gets out of his car and asks me what I was doing and what that contraption was. I told him it was a camera and I was taking a long exposure. His only question was "why that building?" because to him it seemed boring. Then I explained to him reciprocity and the chemistry of light on film and the chemical reactions involved and how at night with a floodlight on the side of the building on a sign and bushes in the darkness off to the side how technically difficult it is to get a picture exposed correctly and how miraculous our eyes are when you think about it. Then he started talking about the cameras his family had and really got into it.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

"But I even.." ?

Sounds like you're trying to make a case for saying that the people who have been arrested or had their cameras smashed and/or confiscated aren't real or something.  Jump on youtube and look at all the tazerings of people (on occasion to the death!) for just politely asking unwelcome questions at public dissertations during the appropriate Q&A sessions. Ask yourself what a "free speech zone" is and how it could possibly be free if you can only do it in a zone somewhere off to the side, out of the way where it's of zero impact and consequence. etc. I could bring up many more extreme or specific examples like permanent and semi permanent road blocks specifically for asking people for their papers and tazing, beating, and jailing those who even question the process, and etc. etc. but that wouldn't be specific or related to cameras so I won't. Just to say that America is probably the most un-free nation on the planet right now with most (or at least too many) of the US citizens thinking it's the most free.  It's so much like Germany was in the late 30's in the USA right now it's truly sad! But many German's thought they had it good and were loved by their government at that time too. 

I guess I better quit before I get too off topic but just know that although it didn't happen to you personally it is happening to 100s perhaps 1000's, of people a month and there's at least 10 new videos showing it just about every week (if not per day) on you tube, private servers, and elsewhere. Not all, but very much of it involves the use cameras as an excuse to harass and disenfranchise good citizens.


*EDIT*: I hope that didn't come across as an attack or too gruff - I don't always word things in the most eloquent manner.

BTW, Very cool mirror-ball shot!


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 17, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Sounds like you're trying to make a case for saying that the people who have been arrested or had their cameras smashed and/or confiscated aren't real or something.



Well, if it sounds that to you, I certainly did not mean to say so.
All I meant to say was that as a tourist to the United States I personally did not encounter any kind of trouble with security or police for taking photos. They only kindly informed me that putting up a tripod right in front of The Capitol was not welcome, even for the most touristy of reasons. So I packed it away.


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> "But I even.." ?
> 
> Sounds like you're trying to make a case for saying that the people who have been arrested or had their cameras smashed and/or confiscated aren't real or something.  Jump on youtube and look at all the tazerings of people (on occasion to the death!) for just politely asking unwelcome questions at public dissertations during the appropriate Q&A sessions. Ask yourself what a "free speech zone" is and how it could possibly be free if you can only do it in a zone somewhere off to the side, out of the way where it's of zero impact and consequence. etc. I could bring up many more extreme or specific examples like permanent and semi permanent road blocks specifically for asking people for their papers and tazing, beating, and jailing those who even question the process, and etc. etc. but that wouldn't be specific or related to cameras so I won't. Just to say that America is probably the most un-free nation on the planet right now with most (or at least too many) of the US citizens thinking it's the most free.  It's so much like Germany was in the late 30's in the USA right now it's truly sad! But many German's thought they had it good and were loved by their government at that time too.
> 
> ...



its ok to speak your mind.....as long as people are respectful to one another they shouldnt feel any reason to be afraid to speak the truth as they know it.

i remember during the primaries in New Hampshire a reporter asked Gulianis staff an uncomfortable question about 911 (yes, these guys were reporters for some conspiracy nut newspaper but as far as I know the first amendment covers all free speech and the press regardless of how unpopular it may be. The first amendment was set up to protect unpopular ideas, not the ones that made everyone feel cozy) and Guilianis staff had the New Hampshire police arrest the guy and haul him out of there. He was representing a news website, had the proper press pass (which they applied for and were given), he was not disorderly but they still removed him from the premises but later declined to press charges. 

At least he didnt have to yell _"Dont taze me bro!"_


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

@ LaFoto,

That's cool. I thought I might be misunderstanding or that is was unintended. Glad that's indeed the case. I hope you don't feel like I was jumping down your throat or anything. Frogs are bad enough.


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> They only kindly informed me that putting up a tripod right in front of The Capitol was not welcome, even for the most touristy of reasons.



which makes it discrimination against large format photography....unless they view a tripod on the sidewalk as "impeding traffic flow" which should be a judgement call on the scene, not a blanket ban. Yale University has some wonderful old buildings and spires and the one shot I really wanna get (in the winter with snow blanketing it) just happens to be from the middle of the street


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 17, 2008)

mallard said:


> At least he didnt have to yell _"Dont taze me bro!"_



Hehe, yeah, that video went viral. I wish more would. The active gun confiscation they're doing in some parts of the country scares me more than the camera nabbing but that really IS off topic.

So why did I say it? One might wonder?


----------



## Overread (Jul 17, 2008)

LaFoto said:


> Well, if it sounds that to you, I certainly did not mean to say so.
> All I meant to say was that as a tourist to the United States I personally did not encounter any kind of trouble with security or police for taking photos. They only kindly informed me that putting up a tripod right in front of The Capitol was not welcome, even for the most touristy of reasons. So I packed it away.


 
Its a funny thing, but it seems if you are either using a small camear (point and shoot or camera phone) or look, act and sound like a tourist you don't get bothered at all.
Look like a normal resident of the country however and suddenly you are a potential criminal.

In the UK I put it down to the police targets that government puts out 0 if they don't meet arrest quotas they get penelties - so our police are encoraged to go after quick and simple arrests/convictions etc in order to get their quota targets met. A tourist would bring a lot of fuss and paperwork to process - a normal resident won't. Plus everyone has a point and shoot - not everyone has an SLR - so its easier to target a minority group rather than a whole population.


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Hehe, yeah, that video went viral. I wish more would. The active gun confiscation they're doing in some parts of the country scares me more than the camera nabbing but that really IS off topic.
> 
> So why did I say it? One might wonder?



especially in the Katrina aftermath.

think of it, an entire major american city has been blown off the map, thousands of people are homeless, there IS NO law enforcement or other services to assist people and what did they do? if the national guard caught people in possession of firearms, even legally owned firearms they paid for they were confiscated and then left the people to their own devices. I dont know about you but if I had a wife and kids to care for and we just lost all we had and were thrust out into the middle of chaos.......i would consider it criminal for a government entity to violate my RIGHT to be armed to protect myself and my family.

the SCOTUS just ruled in favor of the 2nd amendment....lets hope they side with the 1st as well.


----------



## LaFoto (Jul 17, 2008)

Please don't return to bringing up the topic of firearms... We've had no less than three threads locked for this - maybe a day before you joined, mallard. We declared the discussion of use and possession of firearms a "TPF-no-go-area". Please.


----------



## Puscas (Jul 17, 2008)

I've had one semi-professional security guard in NYC telling me to stop taking pictures (that was on the steps of the Supreme Court building). I didn't want to cause a scene so walked on.
But otherwise, no problems here. Even takings pics of armed officers is usually not a problem.

btw: those guys in Mallard's pic are called Hercules-teams. They are anti-terrorist brigades that pop up all over town. It's usually two men and the (bomb sniffing) dog. Recently extra teams have been stationed at busy subway stations. 





pascal


----------



## hamster (Jul 17, 2008)

mallard said:


> you know, thats hard to do. I got a couple new cameras (well, new to me) and all I could think of to shoot was my tomato plant and Dreamgirl. This weekend im getting up before dawn and hiking down the beach to the state park to see what the sound looks like at daybreak....the best light is real early or real late.
> 
> yall still got that cuda?


----------



## mallard (Jul 17, 2008)

hamster said:


>



bah....blocked at work. I'll check it out when i get home.

i hope you got a shot of it with your yashica sitting out in the desert with the Hale-Bopp comet drifting silently overhead.....hehe


----------



## christopher walrath (Jul 17, 2008)

SILENCE!  I CLICK YOU!!!!!!  I NEED SOME FREAKING NEGATIVES!  I saw a blue Holga.


----------



## usayit (Jul 17, 2008)

you ok there Chris?   

hahaha


----------



## mallard (Jul 18, 2008)

hamster said:


>



man that is sweet.....i bet the g-force slams you into the seat when you floor it


----------



## RMThompson (Jul 18, 2008)

Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety. *Benjamin Franklin*, _Historical Review of Pennsylvania, 1759_


----------



## THORHAMMER (Jul 18, 2008)

Lately Ive been getting along well with police, they just want to talk to you and make sure your cool, I dont have a big issue with them although the laws may technically protect me from talking to them at length, *id rather have them on my side* all things considered.

Security guards on the other hand are worse. 90% of the ones I've talked to just dont know the law, and they make up laws on the spot. 

Since the art that I love to make involves industrial areas at night I have to take precautions, and I can see their curiousness, but they are neither detectives nor police officers and I am not going to ever surrender to the requests of guards while on public property, they can make note on a clipboard, thats their job. NOT walking out on the sidewalk and harrasing someone 300 feet from their post. 

I've made up a set of rules for myself. 

1.Talk to Cops 
2. Dont talk to Security Guards
3. Port Guards - Give an explanation, but then ignore and continue to work 
4. if they dont leave you after 5 mintues and you still need to shoot there,  call the police and tell them whats going on

I've tried to reason, explain, even shown them the law in print. 99% They dont understand/care/want to/ever ever ever..... Its ALWAYS a crapshoot to try to talk to security guards. Last time I *took *the time to show them what I was doing and my portfolio I ended up surrounded by 8 guards on a public sidewalk being accused of working for bin laden. 

I was a little worried, but pulled out the 800000 v taser and dry fired once. 
lets just say it works well to disperse a crowd. 

Now, I just tell them im taking picture, put my headphones on and keep shooting. If they get in my face I show them my taser, and take off my headphones. 

I looked up the law regarding to security guards and pure *public property*, ie sidewalks, streets, greenbelts, alleyways etc... 
*Open to the public* is still the same laws, but they have more reason or right to talk to you or to be scared of you if your inside a structure taking pictures, I can see from their point of view to talk to you, but not to try to delete your pictures... 

thought you guys would like to know the info....

-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone touching your property or yourself while giving you verbal threats is guilty of a barrage of things, dont awnser back, back up and defend yourself. 

Him touching your equipment is coercion, harrasment for sure. possibly also battery, also you could be reasonably scared he will try to steal your equipment, or cause you bodily harm , so its theft, coercion, and harrasment just by him reaching to touch your lens. 
(Not block your lens, but touch) 

Furthermore, any verbal threats he makes might be terrorist threats of violence which might be a felony if hes talking about hurting you. Its a real law here in california. Also false kidnapping, coercion, and false arrest/detainment  if he doesnt allow you leave. 
Also when it goes from coercion to actual touching then thats battery, and possibly assualt depending on what happens next. 

Someone trying to even silently grab your camera is at the least guilty of attempted theft 

Someone using their body to block the camera but they are not grabbing at it with their hands, you should try to out manuever them, if its not possible and they are not escalating, thats a good sign, just call the cops its harrasment but your not in danger probably. 

But when a hand comes out to grab a lens , or if its to block the shot but they come within one inch of the lens, im using the taser, im in fear for my saftey and my equipment at that point. Looks like they might steal something, hey they are in your face advancing and making movements towards your gear. Your in the right. 

Warn them verbally they are illegally threatening you and your equipment from theft or damage,  And if they make any moves for your gear or yourself that you will defend yourself. 

Taser their ass and call the cops 
-------------------------------------------------------------

Most of the time though they just sit in their trucks and call their boss, some of the time they call the cops, and prob 10% of the time they get in your face. its those 10% that I carry the taser for.


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 18, 2008)

I think it's intelligent advice to talk with the police whenever possible! They are just people like us and many of them hold the same opinions about these things as we do. Many are also waking up to some of these issues as indeed we are.  It's much better to have them on our side than it is to make enemies of them - I agree! But that also doesn't mean giving up your rights to ones who don't understand the constitution and bill of rights.

Just thought I would mention that.


----------



## TechBuys (Jul 23, 2008)

Bifurcator said:


> Erik Blair and Aldous Huxley... Perfect references for describing the political state of "The West". But let's not forget H.G. Wells "New World Order".
> 
> 
> BTW, they now selectively arrest you and confiscate your cameras at the point of an un-safety'ed machine-gun in some places NYC - On the public streets!





Yet another reason not to visit New York...  )


----------



## Bifurcator (Jul 23, 2008)

Only if you're wearing an "INVESTIGATE 9/11" t-shirt.


----------

