# Ever been yelled at for taking pictures?



## skiboarder72 (Feb 19, 2005)

I had my first experiance with this a few weeks ago, i was talk pictures of this lit up neon sign in front of this theator and 3 security guards walked out of the theator and asked my what i was doing and told me i couldnt take pictures of the building, oh well i still got 5 nice pictures out of it  

just curious if anyone else been yelled at for taking pictures


----------



## audreyld (Feb 19, 2005)

Were you outside on public property?


----------



## Artemis (Feb 19, 2005)

Actually I think they were wrong, but maybe they would be right.

but thing is, im 16, so I can pull the puppy dog eyes and a sad sigh...if im lucky  or they will think im a "Wufian" and chase me down the street...but neither has ever happend before


----------



## selmerdave (Feb 19, 2005)

I pulled over and got out of my car recently to get a shot down a Brooklyn street (in Bed Stuy for New Yorkers), it was sunset.  I took one shot and heard from across the street "Get that sh*t out of here!".  I didn't get a second picture.

Dave


----------



## Artemis (Feb 19, 2005)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> I pulled over and got out of my car recently to get a shot down a Brooklyn street (in Bed Stuy for New Yorkers), it was sunset. I took one shot and heard from across the street "Get that sh*t out of here!". I didn't get a second picture.
> 
> Dave



 ouch!


----------



## walter23 (Feb 19, 2005)

I was yelled at by a security guard for taking photos of the aftermath of a bank robbery.  I got a good shot of her talking into her radio and holding her hand up at me too


----------



## Walt (Feb 19, 2005)

Ever been yelled at for taking pictures? 
Yes, by my wife!  :lmao:  :lmao:  :lmao:


----------



## Walt (Feb 19, 2005)

....and by my mother too!


----------



## danalec99 (Feb 19, 2005)

I was not yelled at, but was asked to refrain from taking pictures of a mall that I was covering... private property.


----------



## AIRIC (Feb 19, 2005)

Try being an aviation photographer!

Eric


----------



## Artemis (Feb 20, 2005)

AIRIC said:
			
		

> Try being an aviation photographer!
> 
> Eric



I did, and I tell yah, I reached new heights


----------



## Michael Griffiths (Feb 20, 2005)

Took some pictures over the shoulder of one of those satellite channel camera men pushed my camera away - then called me a bloody amateur.  Had a feeling a fight would start but it didn't come to it :blushing:


----------



## 4HourNap (Feb 20, 2005)

..........................


----------



## darich (Feb 20, 2005)

selmerdave said:
			
		

> I pulled over and got out of my car recently to get a shot down a Brooklyn street (in Bed Stuy for New Yorkers), it was sunset.  I took one shot and heard from across the street "Get that sh*t out of here!".  I didn't get a second picture.
> 
> Dave



Maybe he didn't like your camera!!!   

I've been spoken to in NYC. I was taking an abstract type shot looking up the face of the building...1 NY Plaza if i remember right.....I got 2 shots and a security guard appeared from nowhere and told me to move along.
neither of my shots were particularly good so he probably saved me some card space!!


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 20, 2005)

I almost had my camera confiscated when I was photographing a Federal building in downtown Cleveland.  I didn't realize it was a federal buidling. I was walking around just before sunset, following the light play on the tops of buildings, and  I walked into the courtyard taking pics and someone yelled, "Hey, stop right there!".  A guard came over and started reading me the riot act.  He then called his superior, and 3 other guards came over.  They told me it was illegal to photograph a federal building while in feredal property.  If I had been across the street, it would have been no problem. I showed them the shots, and deleted them in front of them, and they let me go.


----------



## tr0gd0o0r (Feb 20, 2005)

If you look the part, play the student card,  it usually works pretty well.  People love helping students


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 20, 2005)

Feds don't like helping anyone   I tried that card.  It may well have gotten me out of losing my camera I suppose, but didn't win me my shots back.


----------



## steve817 (Feb 21, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Feds don't like helping anyone  I tried that card. It may well have gotten me out of losing my camera I suppose, but didn't win me my shots back.


 
I would have had to go home and recover those images off of my card out of spite.


----------



## Rob (Feb 21, 2005)

I find it really funny how some people can get soooo angry when you're just taking a picture of their building. They wouldn't bat an eyelid at someone urinating round the back... but taking a picture.... I'm a very bad man.

Still, I wouldn't advise taking pictures of the MI6 building from the pavement outside, especially if you wear a turban. I suspect you'd get quite a rapid response.


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 21, 2005)

I can't believe everyone gives in so easily.  No security guard has the right to make you delete your photos, or detain you for taking them.  They rely on fear and deceit to terrorize people into believing they're some sort of authority.  Walk away, don't let them push you around.


----------



## ahelg (Feb 21, 2005)

Well actually, in some countries, if your on private property, and if they have a rule saying that you can't take photos on their property, then yes they can make you delete the photos and send you away. What they can't do is stop you from doing it outside of private property, e.g. standing on the other side of the road.

It's a bit irritating, soon we'll be forbidden from even looking at some building.


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob_McBob said:
			
		

> I can't believe everyone gives in so easily.  No security guard has the right to make you delete your photos, or detain you for taking them.  They rely on fear and deceit to terrorize people into believing they're some sort of authority.  Walk away, don't let them push you around.



Umm, I'm pretty sure here in America, security guards at a federal building, federal as in FBI, have the right to do anything they want, especially now after the Homeland Security act.  These were not mall rent-a-cops.


----------



## Ivana again (Feb 21, 2005)

yea it happend to me also once. In Vincent van Gogh museum, when I was taking picture of famous picture Flowers layball: 
( I dont know exactly name for them on english) 


 :badangel:


----------



## LaFoto (Feb 21, 2005)

I was out looking for farmhouses and sheds and stables and all such things and came through that tiny village where there was a wonderful, large, half-timbered farm house. I stopped and took the photo out of my side window, then zoomed in on a detail with the telephoto lense. Suddenly I had this sensation of warmth and moisture at my ear and clearly heard some VERY loud breathing. I turned and looked DIRECTLY into the mouth, nose, later eyes, face... of the hugest dog I've ever seen!!! *urk* :shock: Very slowly neared from behind the dog's owner, a lady about my age, and asked: "May I hear what you are doing?" I put on my sweetest smile (sweatiest inside, what with that enormous creature still sniffing me out) and explained I was working on a photo series on barns, sheds and stables and simply couldn't leave out this beautiful house. She accepted my explanation ... but to let that beast go in front, I mean...!!! What, if I - by mere chance - had a dog phobia? I could have died on the spot - of a heart attack! What did she think?


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 21, 2005)

ahelg said:
			
		

> Well actually, in some countries, if your on private property, and if they have a rule saying that you can't take photos on their property, then yes they can make you delete the photos and send you away. What they can't do is stop you from doing it outside of private property, e.g. standing on the other side of the road.


Obviously they have the right to ask you to leave if you're on private property, but they still can't make you delete any photos you may have taken.


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 21, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Umm, I'm pretty sure here in America, security guards at a federal building, federal as in FBI, have the right to do anything they want, especially now after the Homeland Security act.  These were not mall rent-a-cops.


That is simply not true.


----------



## ahelg (Feb 21, 2005)

Well I'm not sure what the law says, but it's probably better for both you and the guard if you do it.


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob_McBob said:
			
		

> That is simply not true.



And you know this how?  Your location says you aren't even living in America.  The homeland security act gives law enforcement the right to do just about anything if they suspect terrorism, which is what photographing a federal buidling conjures up in their mind.


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 21, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> And you know this how?  Your location says you aren't even living in America.  The homeland security act gives law enforcement the right to do just about anything if they suspect terrorism, which is what photographing a federal buidling conjures up in their mind.


Since when are security guards law enforcement officers?  Security guards at federal buildings have no powers to search and seize beyond what any security guard has, no matter what they may believe.  I don't see what difference my location makes -- you've obviously not done any research on this issue.  You'll find that most if not all "photography bans" at federal buildings are simply zealous security guards overstepping the bounds of their authority (which is again, extremely limited, legally).

A quick Google search found this article, as a quick example: http://www.unknownnews.net/031008faa.html _"The Department of Transportation, the Cabinet department that contains the FAA, said it is looking into the incident. Spokesman Robert Johnson said *there is no rule against taking pictures of the FAA building*, but photography is one of the factors that security guards take into account when determining whether people should be challenged."_


----------



## terri (Feb 21, 2005)

I got escorted out of a flea market a couple years back for taking pictures.   There weren't any signs saying No Photographs so I protested (while someone had their hand on my arm) and I also had say, "Please remove your hand from my arm" and they did.   The place had been written up in the local paper as a fun place to go and knock around, whether you were buying anything or not....boy, that was not the vibe I got.       From the initial, "She's taking pictures!  Stop that girl!!"  they finally let out that they thought I was a spy for a competing flea market....taking pictures of their fabulous wares "so they'd know what they were up to", or something.    :roll:    They were paranoid, so it was kind of fun getting the heave-ho.


----------



## FlashSpeedo (Feb 21, 2005)

skiboarder72 said:
			
		

> just curious if anyone else been yelled at for taking pictures



yes, in Amsterdam walking through the red light district. i figured somebody would take offense, so i was shooting discretely from the hip from across the street, and keeping my camera hidden by my coat. some crazy guy actually chased me 2 blocks. yikes--all for a few bad fuzzy pictures.


----------



## voodoocat (Feb 21, 2005)

terri said:
			
		

> I got escorted out of a flea market a couple years back for taking pictures.   There weren't any signs saying No Photographs so I protested (while someone had their hand on my arm) and I also had say, "Please remove your hand from my arm" and they did.   The place had been written up in the local paper as a fun place to go and knock around, whether you were buying anything or not....boy, that was not the vibe I got.       From the initial, "She's taking pictures!  Stop that girl!!"  they finally let out that they thought I was a spy for a competing flea market....taking pictures of their fabulous wares "so they'd know what they were up to", or something.    :roll:    They were paranoid, so it was kind of fun getting the heave-ho.


Definately the best story in this thread!  

federal building, bridge, blah, blah......  FLEA MARKET!!


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob_McBob said:
			
		

> Since when are security guards law enforcement officers?  Security guards at federal buildings have no powers to search and seize beyond what any security guard has, no matter what they may believe.  I don't see what difference my location makes -- you've obviously not done any research on this issue.  You'll find that most if not all "photography bans" at federal buildings are simply zealous security guards overstepping the bounds of their authority (which is again, extremely limited, legally).
> 
> A quick Google search found this article, as a quick example: http://www.unknownnews.net/031008faa.html _"The Department of Transportation, the Cabinet department that contains the FAA, said it is looking into the incident. Spokesman Robert Johnson said *there is no rule against taking pictures of the FAA building*, but photography is one of the factors that security guards take into account when determining whether people should be challenged."_




Do you believe everything you read on Google.com?  I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but when you have a $1000 digital slr in hand, you bet safe.  I was told it was private property, and photography was not allowed, on the property.  I was surrounded immediately by 6 guards.  It was a lot easier to show them the pictures and let them watch me delete them, than to get into some big legal arguement, where I don't know the exact law.  None of that is worth a few pictures.


----------



## terri (Feb 21, 2005)

> Definately the best story in this thread!
> 
> federal building, bridge, blah, blah...... FLEA MARKET!!


That's right, I'm an outlaw, baby!


----------



## Bob_McBob (Feb 21, 2005)

Digital Matt said:
			
		

> Do you believe everything you read on Google.com?  I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but when you have a $1000 digital slr in hand, you bet safe.  I was told it was private property, and photography was not allowed, on the property.  I was surrounded immediately by 6 guards.  It was a lot easier to show them the pictures and let them watch me delete them, than to get into some big legal arguement, where I don't know the exact law.  None of that is worth a few pictures.


I have no reason to believe the story I found is made up.  It's a reputable source, and the person involved is fairly well-known.  Do you doubt its authenticity?  There are plenty of other examples to be found from various news sources.

There is an important distinction between giving up your rights to avoid a confrontation and saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings.  You have every right to take photos of a federal building.  I will not go as far as to say you can photograph on the propery of said buildings -- access is certainly restricted internally -- but there is no federal law banning photography of the buildings themselves, as you can see from the FAA example.  I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I seriously doubt the guards were in any legal position to make you delete your photos.

As I said before, they are overstepping the bounds of their authority.  The fact that they make vague references to the Homeland Security Act while doing so does not make it any more legal.


----------



## Digital Matt (Feb 21, 2005)

They didn't make any references to the homeland security act.  I did because I'm aware of it and the problems it has caused photographers.  There is a ban on photography of the Brooklyn bridge as a result.  

I never said photographing federal buildings was illegal.  I said it was illegal to do so on the property, which is true, when it is private property, which it was.


----------



## Nikon Fan (Feb 21, 2005)

My uncle said he was watching CNN and they said that now photographers aren't allowed to take pictures of the subways...because they could be terrorists.  I'm glad that the gov is doing what it can to keep us safe, but it sure sucks for photography sometimes!!!


----------



## Jeff Canes (Feb 21, 2005)

This is part of the Patriot Act that was passed after 911. It gives special powers to federal government to fight terrorism. It experts this year I think, and is up for renewal. There is some talk about how it denies civil rights to both US citizens and non-citizens. But I am sure it will be extended. Some in the current administration are call for an unlimited time extension. I hope and pray it's not.


----------



## walter23 (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob_McBob said:
			
		

> I can't believe everyone gives in so easily.  No security guard has the right to make you delete your photos, or detain you for taking them.  They rely on fear and deceit to terrorize people into believing they're some sort of authority.  Walk away, don't let them push you around.



Better yet, point your camera at them and start snapping.  You can get some amusing photos that way.

As for the terrorism / (not-really-)PATRIOT act angle, all the better reason to start defying authorities.  Everybody should do it.  It's just the old control-people-by-fear trick resurfacing with a new label.  It might get you into trouble, but with those laws you're already in trouble, so what the hell, hey?


----------



## steve817 (Feb 21, 2005)

FlashSpeedo said:
			
		

> yes, in Amsterdam walking through the red light district. i figured somebody would take offense, so i was shooting discretely from the hip from across the street, and keeping my camera hidden by my coat. some crazy guy actually chased me 2 blocks. yikes--all for a few bad fuzzy pictures.


 
Your lucky, while my friend was there last year a tourist was stabbed by one of the pimps for doing the same thing.


----------



## Artemis (Feb 21, 2005)

Bob_McBob said:
			
		

> I have no reason to believe the story I found is made up. It's a reputable source, and the person involved is fairly well-known. Do you doubt its authenticity? There are plenty of other examples to be found from various news sources.
> 
> There is an important distinction between giving up your rights to avoid a confrontation and saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings. You have every right to take photos of a federal building. I will not go as far as to say you can photograph on the propery of said buildings -- access is certainly restricted internally -- but there is no federal law banning photography of the buildings themselves, as you can see from the FAA example. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I seriously doubt the guards were in any legal position to make you delete your photos.
> 
> As I said before, they are overstepping the bounds of their authority. The fact that they make vague references to the Homeland Security Act while doing so does not make it any more legal.



I think there is a such thing as choosing your battles.

I must side with Matt on this one, as, one of the main reasons I have learnt to trust his judgement.
Sometimes, even though we know we may be in the right, we must back down because it is the best thing to do...rather than waste the light Matt had arguing with security, he opted to end quickly, and move on to another set of pictures, saving his limited 10 - 20 min light...I feel this is the best option.

Just my thoughts


----------



## friendlyphoto (Feb 24, 2005)

I really think these law maker has nothing better to do so they create these useless laws.  

They are not protecting us or create any safer enviornment.  
1)  If a terrorist really want to take photos of the subway, federal building, or any bridges, they wont be holding a huge expensive camera.  They will be holding a small camera cel-phone.  Those phone have very good photo quality these day and can transfer the picture directly over the phone insteadily.  No need for uploading to PC, process them and email and stuff.  I dont see them banning companies from manufacting the phone because they are creating an unsafe enviorment for this country.

2)  1 year after 911, I was able to go to downtown NY to take pictures of the Federal Reserves.  No guards with machine-gun brothered to stop me or question me.  I even have a picture of a guard with a machine-gun outside the fed. Revs.  So how safe is that.

3)  I dont know how ture is the law regarding banning people from taking picture of Brooklyn Bridge.  I drive on it everyday and I still see poeple snapping photos of the bridge, off of the bridge and stuff.  No one enforce this law as well.

4)  When I went to Florida and HK last year, I was carrying my camera on my neck the whole time in the Airport.  Taking pictures of the airport, and planes taking off and landing.  No security office or employee brother to question me.

5)  A couple of weeks ago, I had a very nice oppunority to take some night photos from the brooklyn side and 1 picture I was able to include the brooklyn bridge.  Also I see so many people taking photos along me with tripods and stuff.  No enforcement were patroting the area.  So if one of them is a terrerist, how safe is that.

So I come to the conclusion that even thought there is such a law, no one really enforce them, just like J-walking, and driving and using cel without hands free in NYC (some time you will still get a few cops that follows the book, but thats like 3% out of the whole department).  

So why have such a law you said??  I think the government only create them so they can cover the own butt when something happens.  They can say "We did our best, but it failed".  

But I totally disagree on these useless, makes no sense acts.  It only take away our human Rights and give some government officials more authorities to abuse law obeying people like us (photographer trying to make a living and people enjoying the hobbies and tourist that is bring income to the State).  We are not hurting nobody.  Can we all be friends......  

Hope I didnt offend anyone, just my $.02 and opinion.  Peace!


----------



## Kuristopha (Feb 24, 2005)

i used to cruise around with my headphones and rollerblades on taking photos,  if anyone yelled i'd pretend i didn't hear em. "Darn kids and there blasting music!"

One time i got a tight picture at this convenience storeof this old guy eating donuts,  great shot, but the owner was choked that i didn't ask.  i apologized and ran.


----------



## Dweller (Feb 24, 2005)

Today at a public outdoor skate park. I hung out for a couple of hours before pulling out the camera, chatting with some of the skaters and just watching hat was going on....


pull out the camera, get 4 shots in and had one guy get all bent out of shape about me taking pictures there...

outside...

in a public park...


----------



## DocFrankenstein (Feb 25, 2005)

Arguing with the FBI is not a good thing... even though technically the security guy is not a "peace officer" and can only practice citizen arrest, it's a BAD idea.

I was on the "casino island" in montreal. There was a huge spherical white structure and a pool with absollutely flat water in it... It was beautiful, I wanted to get the reflection.

The security guy comes up. "You need a permit to take pictures. It is government property"
"No we don't"
"Sir, are you calling me a liar?"
"Yes"
"I called the city hall (at 11:20 pm) and checked with them. Nobody has been issued a photography permit for today..."
"It's a public place. People take pictures of it all the time I have total right to take pictures. Are you trying to infringe my freedom of expression?"
"You can not take pictures here, sir."
"Can I stay in the park?"
"Yes you can, but you cannot take pictures."

Fine 

We were walking around for 40 minutes with that guy escorting us in his cruiser. 

I would LOVE to continue arguing with him, but:
1) montreal is not my city
2) I was breaking 11 o'clock curfew we have in canada
3) I had 6 beers in me, and a few more in the bag. 

When confronted, KNOW that you have the right to take pictures.
LEO: You can't blah blah blah....
You: Sir, my legal counsil has advised me that it is within my rights to take pictures at such location.
LEO: blah blah blah?
You: Sir, am I under arrest?
LEO: No.
You: Thank you very much for your time, sir. I'd like to be excused now.


----------



## photo gal (Mar 8, 2005)

The security guards took my camera away at a Bruce Springstein concert one time.  Boy I pitched the biggest fit.  They finally agreed to take the camera for the night, have the film developed and take only the Bruce pics.  It was kinda funny actually and I got them to make doubles.  Got the camera back at the end of the show and the rest of the pics on the role about a week later.  : )


----------



## Bob_McBob (Mar 9, 2005)

photo gal said:
			
		

> The security guards took my camera away at a Bruce Springstein concert one time.  Boy I pitched the biggest fit.  They finally agreed to take the camera for the night, have the film developed and take only the Bruce pics.  It was kinda funny actually and I got them to make doubles.  Got the camera back at the end of the show and the rest of the pics on the role about a week later.  : )


You actually let them take your film?  What did they do, cut out all the negatives with him in the frame?


----------



## NikonChick (Mar 10, 2005)

Well heres my 2 cents worth.
1. most people are cool with you taking picture of them or their property as long as you ASK. I realize that as shy photographers we dont like to do that, but there it is.
2. most countries (including the US and Canada) have privacy acts that are designed to protect the privacy of people and their property. This includes their images. If you want to show images of them or their property, you need their permission... Thus model and property releases.

on a side note (that frankly I should keep to myself, but Im not that kind of girl); Deleting images that you are asked to delete of US federal property is definately the right move.... I dont neccessarily agree with it and no offence to you americans and I dont want to start US policy debates here.... but the US has a power hungry war monger as president right now who isnt the least bit concerned with the rights of american citizens and Id be willing to bet if trouble ensued from the refusal to delete images there would have been much more to worry about in that situation.... especially, heaven forbid, if Digital Matt isnt a racist and has friends who arent rich, red necked southerners.

REALLY.... no offence intended to the average american!! Im Canadian... we love everybody....


----------



## dalebe (Mar 10, 2005)

asked you what you were doing? "taking pictures of course", yes i'm always getting yelled at for taking pictures, from my other half, "will you please put that camera down"....


----------



## oriecat (Mar 10, 2005)

There is some interesting information on this type of stuff at www.photopermit.org and their forums.

This thread has actual references to real US laws, which is always nice to see, as opposed to so many "the law says..."  What law and where does it say it?
http://www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=36


----------



## Shilts (Mar 10, 2005)

.....6'2'' & 200lbs, not been shouted at yet !!!


----------



## ShutteredEye (Mar 10, 2005)

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm 

Interesting site.  Check out the PDF rights guide for your camera bag.


----------



## mad_malteaser (Mar 11, 2005)

This reminds me of a story when I visited Belgium last Christmas. My friend and I went to an Art History museum. Now I know normally you can't pictures in places like that, but there were no signs and when I saw the most gorgeous view out into a courtyard and no one was around, I thought I'd take the chance. 

I should have known I was going to get caught. The second I switched the camera on, there was this huge guy behind me, breathing down my neck (kind of like the big dog with you La Foto!). Only problem was he didn't speak any English. He just kept wagging his finger and shaking his head then beckoned me to follow him!

Oh the shame when I was escorted off the premises with all the other staff waiting at the entrance, tutting and saying (I imagine) horrible things about me! Still, given the same situation, I'd probably take the chance again!


----------



## luckydog (Mar 11, 2005)

We Aussies suffer from some of the same photographer fearing laws that you Northern Hemisphere types do.

Example 1. Some councils in Sydney require you to obtain a permit from lifeguards before taking your camera onto the beach. Even with said permit you are only allowed to take pictures of your own family and no-one else.

Example 2. Being military we have some big restrictions on photography as you would expect. We are prohibited from taking pictures without authority from Base Commanders and all images are the property of the Government and must be registered. Even after this we cannot use them or publish them. If i was to go to an airshow (public event) and was standing next to a civillian taking the same photo as he was of one of our assets, he can do whatever he wants with it but i, again, am bound by the Govt holding copyright of my image and again cannot use or publish. Go figure that one??

I have been bailed up many times by security police with big toothed hounds for taking photos but i play the game and have my authority on me (also must contact security and tell them when and where i am about to take photos, and call them when i finish). To take a defence related photo takes less than a minute, to register it correctly can take 4 hours per shot! I don't take many pictures any more and even military Photogs play by these rules and they hate it with a passion.

I rarely take candids but will ask if i want to take one (often told to piss off)


----------



## art tesian (Mar 13, 2005)

Yes i have been hunted from public buildings before and its a growing trend here,
especially if you look,or are proffesional.Getting written permission is becoming more
necessary.
In national parks the rangers  may try to stop you,again if you look proffesional?,
ie.nice camera and tripod.They worry about liabilty claims and you making money
for nothing as the government pays for the upkeep of the park.
You may have to pay a fee and shoot from certain spots,also check with native
title holders so you don,t upset them. Brisbane australia


----------



## SamD (Jul 20, 2005)

FlashSpeedo said:
			
		

> yes, in Amsterdam walking through the red light district. i figured somebody would take offense, so i was shooting discretely from the hip from across the street, and keeping my camera hidden by my coat. some crazy guy actually chased me 2 blocks. yikes--all for a few bad fuzzy pictures.


 
Yeah, Taking shots in the red light district is a very bad idea. I have personnally seen 3 pimp/security types pick up and throw a shot snapping tourist into the water canal that runs the length of the main district. From what i saw, they were orignally just trying to get the camera into the water but when he struggled, they simply picked him up and dumped him over the side.

Besides, i wouldn't want any pictures of the hookers, they were giving me the evil eyes anyway.


----------



## rallyxe (Jul 20, 2005)

I was chased through the red light district by pimps while i took photos..
don't ask about that..


----------



## elsaspet (Jul 20, 2005)

I've been yelled at a few times.  There are photographer's rights and I carry a copy in my wallet.  Do a websearch using the term: "Photographers Rights" and download it.  It will keep cops and security off your back.
But it doesn't stop the mindless thug.  Below is a picture of a Klansman who was about to give me a good pounding before being stopped and arrested by police.


----------



## thebeginning (Jul 20, 2005)

DocFrankenstein said:
			
		

> *"You need a permit to take pictures. It is government property"*
> *"No we don't"*
> *"Sir, are you calling me a liar?"*
> *"Yes"*
> ...


----------

