At the NHCC "End of the Year" banquet I had a discussion with Fred about photographers being harassed. He was photographing in Times Square and was stopped and asked to show his PERMIT!!!
I have also had this conversation with several of you via email and we know that it is real! I would love to hear your experiences and comments, I know that you have stories to tell.
If you follow any professional photographers Blogs, etc. then you know that they have the same problems that we have.
The Photographer’s Right -- A Downloadable Flyer Explaining Your Rights When Stopped or Confronted for Photography http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
The Photographer’s Right is a downloadable guide that is loosely based on the Bust Card and the Know Your Rights pamphlet that used to be available on the ACLU website. It may be downloaded and printed out using Adobe Acrobat Reader. You may make copies and carry them your wallet, pocket, or camera bag to give you quick access to your rights and obligations concerning confrontations over photography. You may distribute the guide to others, provided that such distribution is not done for commercial gain and credit is given to the author.
Are photographers really a threat?
Bruce Schneier The Guardian, Thursday June 5 2008
What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?
Bruce Schneier The Guardian, Thursday June 5 2008
What is it with photographers these days? Are they really all terrorists, or does everyone just think they are?
Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We've been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it's nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don't seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it's a movie-plot threat.
A movie-plot threat is a specific threat, vivid in our minds like the plot of a movie. You remember them from the months after the 9/11 attacks: anthrax spread from crop dusters, a contaminated milk supply, terrorist scuba divers armed with almanacs. Our imaginations run wild with detailed and specific threats, from the news, and from actual movies and television shows. These movie plots resonate in our minds and in the minds of others we talk to. And many of us get scared.
Terrorists taking pictures is a quintessential detail in any good movie. Of course it makes sense that terrorists will take pictures of their targets. They have to do reconnaissance, don't they? We need 45 minutes of television action before the actual terrorist attack -- 90 minutes if it's a movie -- and a photography scene is just perfect. It's our movie-plot terrorists that are photographers, even if the real-world ones are not.
The problem with movie-plot security is it only works if we guess the plot correctly. If we spend a zillion dollars defending Wimbledon and terrorists blow up a different sporting event, that's money wasted. If we post guards all over the Underground and terrorists bomb a crowded shopping area, that's also a waste. If we teach everyone to be alert for photographers, and terrorists don't take photographs, we've wasted money and effort, and taught people to fear something they shouldn't.
And even if terrorists did photograph their targets, the math doesn't make sense. Billions of photographs are taken by honest people every year, 50 billion by amateurs alone in the US And the national monuments you imagine terrorists taking photographs of are the same ones tourists like to take pictures of. If you see someone taking one of those photographs, the odds are infinitesimal that he's a terrorist.
Of course, it's far easier to explain the problem than it is to fix it. Because we're a species of storytellers, we find movie-plot threats uniquely compelling. A single vivid scenario will do more to convince people that photographers might be terrorists than all the data I can muster to demonstrate that they're not.
Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.
Fear aside, there aren't many legal restrictions on what you can photograph from a public place that's already in public view. If you're harassed, it's almost certainly a law enforcement official, public or private, acting way beyond his authority. There's nothing in any post-9/11 law that restricts your right to photograph.
This is worth fighting. Search "photographer rights" on Google and download one of the several wallet documents that can help you if you get harassed; I found one for the UK, US, and Australia.
Don't cede your right to photograph in public. Don't propagate the terrorist photographer story. Remind them that prohibiting photography was something we used to ridicule about the USSR. Eventually sanity will be restored, but it may take a while.
The right to take photographs in the United States is being challenged more than ever. People are being stopped, harassed, and even intimidated into handing over their personal property simply because they were taking photographs of subjects that made other people uncomfortable. Recent examples have included photographing industrial plants, bridges, buildings, trains, and bus stations. For the most part, attempts to restrict photography are based on misguided fears about the supposed dangers that unrestricted photography presents to society.
Ironically, unrestricted photography by private citizens has played an integral role in protecting the freedom, security, and well-being of all Americans. Photography in the United States has an established history of contributing to improvements in civil rights, curbing abusive child labor practices, and providing important information to crime investigators. Photography has not contributed to a decline in public safety or economic vitality in the United States. When people think back on the acts of domestic terrorism that have occurred over the last twenty years, none have depended on or even involved photography. Restrictions on photography would not have prevented any of these acts. Furthermore, the increase in people carrying small digital and cell phone cameras has resulted in the prevention of crimes and the apprehension of criminals.
As the flyer states, there are not very many legal restrictions on what can be photographed when in public view. Most attempts at restricting photography are done by lower-level security and law enforcement officials acting way beyond their authority. Note that neither the Patriot Act nor the Homeland Security Act have any provisions that restrict photography. Similarly, some businesses have a history of abusing the rights of photographers under the guise of protecting their trade secrets. These claims are almost always meritless because entities are required to keep trade secrets from public view if they want to protect them.
From Scott Kelby
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1465
The High-Wire Act of Getting Photo Permits
http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1465
The High-Wire Act of Getting Photo Permits
Who needs a permit?
Again, there is no hard and fast rule about who needs a permit, but generally if you’re shooting in a city, from the sidewalk, with a handheld camera (even a professional DSLR), you don’t need a permit.
However, the moment you decide to unfold a tripod, in most big cities, it instantly becomes “permit time,” because now this has just gone from a tourist with a nice camera, to a commercial photo shoot.
But here’s the catch:Let’s say you’re not using a tripod at all; you’re just hand-holding a DSLR, and you’re on a public sidewalk talking photos as you walk around the city–that’s not a problem, right? Well, it depends on what you’re shooting. If you’re on the sidewalk, but shooting a commercial building you can almost bet a security guard from that company is going to come out and ask you to stop. I’ve even heard them demand that you erase the shots you’ve taken of “their building.”
Now, this opens that whole, “Does he have the right to stop me from shooting a building out in public view while I’m on a public sidewalk?” debate. Well, of course not (perhaps), but that won’t stop them from trying. In fact, try this sometime; stand outside a downtown building in Chicago, Detroit, LA or New York and start taking photos and take a look at your watch to see how long it takes for a security guard to come and tell you, “You can’t shoot there!” So lets say you pitch a fit, tell him he has no right to stop you, and demand that he call the cops (which probably won’t take much convincing by the way), and then the police arrive at the scene.
Will the policeman know what the local guidelines are for shooting private buildings? Are there even local guidelines for this at all? So, at the end of the day; it’s going to be up to this police officer who answers the call to decide whether you continue or not.
More from Scott Kelby -- when he tried to photograph inside Grand Central Station (with a premit)
Bert P. Krages is an attorney and an amateur photographer who specializes in areas of intellectual property and wrote a book on photographers’ legal rights:
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/158428059X.
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/158428059X.
7 comments:
Just to explain where this is stemming from...
First they began saying the 2nd Ammendment was only a collective right. You need to be a member of the active militia in order to have the right to bear arms.
Guess what follows?
Freedom of Speech is also becoming a collective right. Exclusive to members of the press. You now need a press pass.
Our rights on all levels are deteriorating. Those who give up their rights hoping for a bit of security, will lose them.
I was walking through a local reservoir where I have always enjoyed taking seasonal landscape pictures. It was nice summer day and I had my tripod in hand, my camera hanging on my neck and I was just walking around looking for a picture op. A rather large SUV was driving down the road toward me and as it got closer the occupant started to look at me. He got closer and we acknowledged each other with a nod. As soon as he was closer I saw that it was a police officer but thought nothing of it. He stopped right next to me and just said “you can’t have that in here”. I did not know what he was talking about so I asked him what. He replied “you can’t have a camera in here”. Still puzzled I asked “since when”. He replied “since 911”. I followed with “I can’t even take scenic pictures of scenery?” He said ”no”. I apologized and told him I was never aware of that regulation and did not see signs to that effect. I put my camera away and kept on walking. On the way out I looked for signs to that effect and did not see any. I have not been back there since then.
One day I was at a mall which had some interesting architectural detail. I snapped a couple of shots and kept on shopping with my wife. In a very short amount of time I had security guards all over about having taken the pictures. They told me I can’t take pictures in the mall and so I stopped. I soon realized after that that a man kept on following us everywhere we went. It was easy to determine he was security and following me because everywhere we were he wasn’t too far. My wife went inside a store and I decided to wait outside and observe this individual who was following us. He stopped and was looking at a store window that allowed him to see me in the reflection. I purposely stared at his back for awhile to give him a hint “you cover is busted” since he could see my reflection in the window. My wife stepped out of the store and we walked back in the direction of this individual who was still looking in the store window all of the time my wife was inside (about 15 minutes). As we walked right behind him I said to my wife so he could hear me clearly “have you ever noticed how easy it is to tell what some people are up to at times?” He got the message and immediately stopped following us.
I was applying for a position as a business properties real estate photographer for a web-based Real Estate company. Part of the application process required me to take pictures of buildings and submit them. My father–in law happened to be at the Dempsey medical center where there are several nice office buildings in the area so I decided to take a few pictures on the way to visit him. One of the buildings was on the way up the hill to the medical center. I snapped a few pictures and walked back to my vehicle. I was barely back in my vehicle when a state police car blocked me from backing out of my parking spot. I was questioned for taking pictures and explained what I was doing which seemed quite harmless to me. I was told that reason I was stopped was that I walked by their helipad with a camera, which I did not even notice. Interesting enough, I went to the hospital cafeteria several days later while visiting my father in-law again, and who was right behind me but that same officer. We stared at each other very briefly and neither one of us said a thing.
One day I was on constitution plaza in Hartford where they have an interesting water fountain which I had photographed many times in the past, even during the holiday season. It was a summer mid-afternoon and there was barely a soul on the plaza. I set up my tripod and started taking different views of the fountain. A security guard soon approached me and told me the owners didn’t want me taking pictures on the property. Rather than say I had never been stopped before. I just apologized, told him I am erasing the pictures which I did, and left. I felt like if I had a smaller pocket digital, I would not have been questioned.
Now I always carry a card with a list of photographer’s rights available online at:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm. (PDF)
Bert P. Krages is an attorney and an amateur photographer who specializes in areas of intellectual property and wrote a book on photographers’ legal rights:
http://www.amazon.com/Legal-Handbook-Photographers-Rights-Liabilities/dp/158428059X.
June 17, 2008
http://flash.popphoto.com/blog/2008/06/photography-h-2.html
As the battle of photographer vs. NYPD rages on, this latest Hall of Shame (dis)honoree, an unidentified New York City police officer, forced photographer Simon Lund to do the unthinkable… give up his film.
According to a report from villagevoice.com, Simon Lund, a commercial photographer, has a habit of hitting Coney Island every summer to expand his personal portfolio.
He has never run into any trouble until Memorial Day weekend this year, when he was approached by a woman while shooting. The woman accused him of taking pictures of her son, which he said he was unaware of. Lund knew that even if her were taking pictures of her son, it was perfectly legal if the photos were for personal use.
The family of this boy confronted the cops, who sided with them. The Village Voice reported that the cop told Lund that, "You should destroy your film right now, or give it to her. You've got to give up your film, or things are going to get much worse for you."
Lund chose to give the woman his film rather than run the risk of going to jail. He reportedly asked her remove any pictures of her son, and return the rest of the photographs to him.
The Village Voice reported that “Lund was intimidated by a cop into giving up his film, even though he was doing nothing wrong and wasn't formally accused of anything.”
According to Chris Dunn, the New York Civil Liberties Union’s associate legal director, “Police officers are not allowed to look at images without consent of the photographer, and they have no authority to order someone to let them look at their picture or confiscate their film. And it happens all the time.”
Many speculate that this hostility against photography was perpetuated by the 9/11 terrorist attacks, but this article from The Guardian proves the suspicion is unwarranted, and presents the belief that movies are responsible for this stereotype.
The article points out thirteen specific terrorist incidents in which the attackers, including those behind the 9/11 attacks, the London and Madrid bombers, and all Palestinian suicide bombings, never photographed their “assignment” before hand.
What will it take to end this war on civil liberties? A cease-fire from the NYPD would surely help... Unfortunately, peace negotiations have yet to begin.
—Kaitlin Tambuscio
Editorial Intern
*Note: Lund was not arrested as originally reported, he was however asked to give up his film, perhaps another reason to make the switch to digital.
Let me add another. About 4 yrs ago I was at the Circuit City in North Haven, Connecticut.
As I was pulling into the store I saw a beautiful gorgeous red/orange sun setting over the train depot.
And as luck would have it - I actually had my DSLR. So I go to take my picture and within moments am confronted by police officer.
Mind you, I cannot get a !@#$% police officer to respond when I call 911. But thanks to 9-11 they're there within moments of me trying to take a picture.
I was asked to show ID, etc. Needless to say by the time all this had transpired the sun had set.
Guess what, the next time a police officer confronts me on taking a photograph they're going to get a stinging rebuttle.
"Sir/Madaam, there is nothing that I am doing that is illegal. This photograph requires precise timing and opportunity. But unless you are charging me with a crime and ready to haul me downtown and spending the next few months being in court being sued. You can wait...frankly if you guys can't respond to my 911 calls - I see no reason to show you an urgency."
Post a Comment