|
Search this group's discussions
|
Hassled for Photography?
|
A San Francisco photographer was recently hassled for taking photos in an underground train station. This event has sparked some debate about photography in the post 9/11 age of paranoia and suspicion.
Personally, I've been told not to take photos plenty of times, but only in private places (likes stores and casinos). The owner of a private place has every right to prohibit photography. But in a public place, the photographer has every right to shoot what they like, and I've never been hassled in a public place.
So I'm curious: Have you ever been hassled for taking photos? Tell your stories here.
Posted at 12:28PM, 16 February 2005 PDT
(permalink)
|
(1 to 100 of 253 replies in Hassled for Photography?)
|
I was hassled recently by a young salesgirl for taking pictures of mannequin heads at a kiosk in the middle of a mall outside of San Francisco. I was yelled at by a manager of a grocery store in Reno, Nevada for taking pictures of my son while he was shopping for groceries. I got nasty looks from a few police officers at the recent San Francisco anti-abortion/pro-choice rally when I took photos near them and of them. I was asked some paranoid questions by the owner of a grocery store in Pacifica, who came outside to ask me why I was taking pictures of the front of his store. He didn't seem to appreciate my explanation about reflections in the window. The one place I thought for sure I'd get hassled was when I took pictures of my mother after surgery in the ICU in Dallas, Texas (I couldn't resist--such a bizarre place, the ICU and Dallas too), but the ICU staff didn't say a word.
--deborah lattimore
Posted 89 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been hassled by MUNI for filming the trains at the West Portal station. A rather stern woman walked over about 10 minutes after we started and asked what we we're filming. I told her the "street scene". She retorted that "we aint allowed to take any pictures of the trains". Other than that I've only been asked not to take photo's in department stores, at the American Consulate in Paris, or inside museums or snotty art galleries. Same story I guess.
Posted 89 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I haven't personally been hassled (yay for Canada!), but I recently read this photographer's rather scary account of problems he ran into: 69.93.170.43/
Posted 89 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"do you have a license to do that?" "huh?" i answered. "are you licensed to take photos here?" at the time it was the stupidest thing i ever heard of. but it was valid.
i was at a bus stop and was just testing my lens. i did notice an elderly man doing tai chi and put him in my viewfinder but didn't shoot. this guy must have seen me. i was so stunned i didnt answer. he continued to interogate me "why are you taking pictures of people? what are you going to do with them?" i explained to him this was public property, and i can legally shoot whatever i wanted. i explained to him at public places, parks, the street, i can take photos of anyone, even police, children (while legal i never do that unless i ask, or visually confirm with a okay nod, with the parent first. imagine how would you feel if your child said to you, "a stranger took a photo of me at the park."), fires, accidents, protests, etc.
but then he insisted on his other questions, "why are you taking photos?" i tried to explain to him for art. but i he didnt seem to get that (art) or felt satisfied with that answer. i wish i had some of my photo to show him at the time, but nothing was good on my memory card.
in the end, he seemed pretty seemed dejected by the fact that legally i could do whatever and yet he wanted to catch me doing wrong. he did have a final point that was good, "what are you going to do if you run into someone who is not going to just talk to you?". that is something i should be more prepared for. ironically, i had a piece of paper called "the rights of the photographer" written by a law firm, given to me by rustman. it is a great summary explaining what photgraphers can do. i usually have that in my bag, but unfortunately, i left it at home that night.
now im going to xerox that and keep one in my wallet. also makebusiness cards with thumbnails of my photos on it, so i can just bust those out to show anyone hassling me that im taking photos for art. i still dont know, as that man pointed out, what to do if someone wont reason with me, say wants to confiscate my camera, arrest me (though legally the can't), or simply just want to kick my ass. i think i'd try to hit them in the head with the bottom or the camera and try not to bust the lens...
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Ive never been illegally hassled. I used to live on a military base and decided to take some pictures by the flightline near by house. It was only guarded by a wire so I took some photos though the fence. A MP officer stopped me and asked me what I was doing.
Needless to say, I got a free escort home and a nice dicussion with my father on what not to take photos of.
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Quas, thanks for posting that link. That's an amazing (and scary) story.
The most recent hassling I have received was deserved. Once in a long while I do a little bit of trespassing to get shots...like this one:
That's on a ranch near Avila, and I just couldn't resist. It's just rural enough around here that there was nobody around to formally ask permission, yet I just had this feeling that somebody would probably come to me if I crossed the fence. I was right. I was wearing a dark jacket which was more than a little obvious from the road, and I imagine about 100 of the ranchers friends and neighbors called me in. (Actually I probably would have gotten away with it if I hadn't lingered so long). Anyway, after about an hour I saw a white pickup truck arrive at the fence I had hopped over, and two big rancher guys get out. This was when I was done and heading for it to leave and I prayed they weren’t going to shoot or arrest me. When I got to the fence (about ready to barf with nervousness), we had an extremely short exchange--I just explained I was trying out my new camera, and I hoped they didn't mind if took some lovely pictures back there? They seemed surprised that I even found it interesting. They also seemed to be relieved to find I was just a girl with a camera--I get the feeling they were just making sure I wasn’t up to something no good, like hunting.
That was my adrenaline rush for the month. Obviously I don’t do as much of this business as I would have in years past—it would be kind of hard to care for my kids from jail ;)
Originally posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
Twinmama edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
You know, I wanted to take pictures of the barracades around all the "public" monuments around DC for the "lost" issue. Because I feel our freedoms as photographers and citizens have been lost. But I was scared of being hassled after reading stories of detention for this and seeing several people hassled for taking shots in the Metro stations.
I was hassled once in the subway in Rome for shooting. "It is not possible to take pictures of the train!" she yelled. pre 9/11. I remember thinking, "Thank goodness this crap doesn't happen in MY country."
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I took this picture when President Bush came over to the UK in November 2003. These two policemen were standing outside a bookshop at the corner just a few hundred metres from the Houses of Parliament.
They asked me to come over and their only complaint was that I had taken his photograph without asking him first. This was surprising as it was at the time when the Stop Bush rally was taking place and a woman had chained herself to the top of the gates at Buckingham Palace.
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I carry this with me, though I have never been questioned or stopped in New York ... yet.
www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In the airport in Philadelphia I almost got my camera taken away. At the time my sister was trying to take a photo of me near the entrance of the international terminal because I was leaving the country for like months. The woman was so rude about it too, she pretty much said that if she didn't put the camera away immediately that it would be confiscated. As if we were photographing some secret information or something, it was near the damn entrance to the terminal. There is like nothing there but the metal detector and the x-ray machine. I wasn't photographing the inner workings of a plane or something. Even so, it isn't illegal to take photos in airports. I think that is the only non-private place I have been hassled anywhere. I was hassled in a casino before as well. I never knew you weren't allowed to take photos most (I assume) casinos. You see them on television and magazines all the time. I guess I sort of can understand it, but since they are touristly places the thought that it would be prohibited never crossed my mind.
In a photo course I took this past summer our professor gave us a copy of those rights. Good to have these days I guess, though I'd assume law enforcement and people at airports and such would still give you a hard time regardless.
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I can't recall having had any trouble in London. Except of course when in a gallery space in which there were clear signs asking for pictures not to be taken which I may have accidentally overlooked.
Once whilst taking pictures of reflections in a shop window staff did get a tad itchy. Needless to say they thought it a bit strange for anyone to be taking pictures of reflections. Although I forget where that was, might have abroad. But nothing came of it.
I do admit to being a little too self-conscious when it comes to taking pictures of people in public. So I am a hesitant there. Will try and better myself.
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been told off many 'a time for snapping in places I shouldn't be..but then, that's because I want photos of things other people can't get. They usually stop be before hand though :(
I read a couple of weeks ago that they are now trying to ban all photography on Bondi Beach through fears that photographers may be snapping children. I can understand the cause - but personally I think it is taking matters too far. What next? Banning the streets unless you have a special photography pass? ...ahh I can see it now - another government scheme to make money
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
girlsetsfire, sensitive subjects are not just the inner workings of planes, but entrances to potential targets. How heavily guarded are they? Where exactly are the metal detectors? I think the Madrid bombers took pix of platforms, etc. to see where the most people congregated so they could kill the most people.
Also, I used to work in casinos in Atlantic City. One reason they don't want photography is because people who arent' supposed to be there (i.e., they've lied to wives, husbands, Gambler's Anon counselors, etc.) about where they are and don't want proof that they were where they weren't supposed to be. Also lots of really high rollers don't want to be indentified. Sounds crazy, but casinos will go to great lengths to protect gamblers. Meanwhile, EVERYTHING in the casino is photo'ed by the "eye in the sky" security cameras, so what's the point, I say?
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
_Matz [deleted] says:
i have not been hassled, yet, but at least the laws in germany would support the one who hassled the photographer in the station. the fact is that the owner of "something" owns the rights for that "something". that can be a private home, a piece of jewelery or in this case the station. at last here stations are ususally owned by some company. therefore those places are not really public. usually nobody hassles me when i take a picture in a place like that, yet the law is on their side if they do.
Posted 88 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Strangely, i've found this to be a regional issue - At least for me. Having traveled around the US, Canada, and UK this year for various shoots, there is certainly a noticable difference between say, what you'll be hassled for doing in San Fran and New York, Winnipeg or Chicago. I'm a creative director for a small design company in atlanta, and in the past 12 months, me and the photographer i travel with have been berated by homeland security near the port of Los Angeles, dismissed from the offices of Environment Canada (we actually had permission there, too), yelled at across streets for taking pictures of buildings in San Francisco, and detained at the border in Canada. The sense of fear and secrecy from police and security is overwhelming. But when we visited Chicago and Minnesota...totally different story. There, we were never hassled once - and in Chicago offered (by a security guard no less) suggestions on where to get better shots of the buildings we were capturing. Strange. We shot on the El with no problems. In the front yards and in the lobbies of high profile landmarks, and right on the lakefront without even an angry look. Are midwesterners simply nicer, or maybe just not as worried about 9/11-related threats?
Also - getting hassled in grocery stores for even having a camera visible is commonplace pretty much everywhere. Anyone know why that is?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have a photographic pet peeve. And that is the use of the term "Shoot" pertaining to what you do with your camera. My camera does'nt shoot anything and I dont shoot anyone with it. It only captures light. Maybe I'm being over sensitive of the use of this word, but I do think it can affect the way we perceive the use of a camera. Theres nothing macho, manly or aggresive about taking a photograph. I try not to use this term but it is so commonplace now that I use the term mistakenly now and then.
I recently visited my local police station with my son's boy scout troop. And as we were on a tour of the station I stopped and read the large printouts of "reported suspicious activity" from our homeland security dept. Most of the reports were of "suspicious indiviual seen photographing" something or other. This is updated daily and I thought it was interesting.
I have a friend who is a state delegate who was telling me that after the military invaded Afghanistan that they found a large amount of photographs and architectural drawings and floor plans of MD State and Federal Government buildings in the caves. The terrorists had alot more plans and they were awfully organized.
I recently took a lot of images in the Smithsonian Museums in Washington, D.C. I've been photgraphing in these museums for years. This was the first time though in which I was told several times by several different guards in several different museums that it was "OK" for me to take pictures in the museums. I got the sense that this was some new training received by the guards, because normally they have never spoken to me.
People have been harrassed for a long time for taking photographs due to the extreme power we assign to images. This is nothing new. But what we do with images is changing.
I assume people are being a bit more cautious and safer perhaps. I hope this is a benefit in the long term. I love the freedom I am given to photograph where & when I do, I dont want to loose that. I also dont want anymore harm to come to innocent people.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
markwithnohair edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
The NYPD is okay with photos. It's the rent-a-cop security guards that cause the problems. I've been hassled taking pix of the architectural details on the Federal Reserve Bank in NYC and at the World Trade Center construction site. Both times I was on a public street taking pictures of scenes that were in full public view. In both cases the guard actually ran out from his post to chase me away. There was no reasoning with them -- their claims of "security" trumped all discussion.
It's gotten to the point that I actually feel guilty when I take out my camera.
So much for the land of the free.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been told before that there are restrictions on photography on the London Underground, but it's never been a problem for me personally. According to the TFL website, though, "anybody" who wants to take photos requires permission. Flash photography and tripods are banned, and there's a list of activities you can't shoot (vandalism, drugs and, oddly, ticket touts). More info here.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I am often told to stop taking pictures here in NYC, now and then by subway people, constantly by idiot security guards, and rarely by NYPD - in fact I don't think NYPD has ever told me to stop. Sometimes I argue about it, sometimes I ignore them, and if I feel like I was done anyway I'll quit.
Just the other night on the subway I was shooting a light bulb at the top of some stairs (high security risk, right? - plus I was rather tipsy after a beer tasting downtown). It was about 3:00 a.m. A transit station guard stopped to let me know that there was a diversion due to track construction, and looked at my camera.
"You know you can't do that, right?"
"Actually I can," I said, though in fact the tripod was probably not OK - she wasn't talking about the tripod anyway.
"My supervisor says it's illegal."
"It's not. You guys tried to ban it but the City Council turned it down."
She mulled this over. "Are you 100% sure about that?"
"Yep."
"Oh. Well OK then."
When there was a bomb scare in my neighborhood I was a little wary of taking pictures, but NYPD and the Fire Department were fine with it; they just ignored the cameras. I was impressed, actually.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Linus Gelber edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I live in New York City and I go out taking photographs all the time all over Manhattan, and I have actually NEVER been hassled by anyone for taking photographs on the street. I was yelled at once for taking photographs inside a museum, but I had missed the no photographs sign, so I was in the wrong.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I think this is a regional issue. I've taken my camera into grocery stores, photographed police, gone into fire stations, and the like and never been hassled. I live in a small city, though, and we don't have the same issues as large cities (we don't have trains or subways for one). Even our national monuments and parks are a free-for-all for photography. Heck, I've even gone to the naval observatory and taken photographs and not had issues.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was hassled once while I was taking photos in a market in London. The most upsetting thing was that I did ask for the premission from the stall owner and he indicated that it was fine to take photos. A minute later, the owner walked away from the stall and one of his staff just blocked my camera with his hand and yelled at me - it was outrageous!!!
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Lomogirl edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Years ago after the Oklahoma City bombing, I was stopped at the Federal Courthouse in Newark while taking a pic. I had parked my car in a no parking zone and got out just to take a quick shot. I was quickly approached by an officer. After a few questions I assumed cleared me of being a terrorist, he actually told me where the best spots to take pictures of the building were.
I now work in the security field. In this post 9/11 society, sometimes government guidelines can be very confusing or difficult to follow for local law enforcement and security personnel.
In high photography areas, homeland security strongly recommends that officers/personnel keep track of photographers in specific ways to ascertain whether a possible security risk may be involved, to minimize any inconvenience to law abiding citizens. In low photography zones, other guidelines are to be followed. Some may be more aggressive than others in following these guidelines or even misinterpret them, settling for the "safer than sorry" philosophy..
My organization takes great lengths to properly train our personnel to make informed security decisions especially when it comes to contact with private citizens or tourists. I know that some other police and security organizations have little to no training and sometimes take some initiatives a little further than necessary.
And private citizens who are told to be on the constant lookout for strange or weird behavior can take this up to a whole other notch.
A family member was recently taking a couple of shots at a local mall. She was there for over 2 hours, taking pics as she shopped. Right before she exited, she was stopped and questioned by a security officer. Apparently a shopper was concerned and contacted the security office to report suspicious behavior near the Santa's Workshop area. She took general pics of the decorations.
Although I personally know the importance of being vigilante in this day and age, I also know how important it is for citizen photographers to take a stand for our rights. This is the only way to guarantee that certain freedoms are not eroded away.
If you find yourself being questioned by a law enforcement official or security personnel, be honest about what your are doing and why. Don't be confrontational or difficult. If the situation has rubbed you the wrong way, do issue a complaint making your feelings heard to the right authorities. The majority will take your complaints seriously. Fear of lawsuits continues to be a top concern for most organizations.
And please write, call or talk to your state and federal representatives. Venting here is great, but venting to them is better. Silence is really the only thing we truly have to fear.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
F*O*T*O*G*R*A*F*I*A ~by~ Nelo Esteves edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I have a set dedicated to photos I took at the IKEA near my house, and I was amazed at how many fellow flickrites told me they had been harassed doing the same thing. Anyone else have troubles at IKEA? I got some weird looks, but no one told me to stop or leave. Maybe they know how much money I spend there.
PS I am by no means trying to trivialize the other, more potentially dangerous situations that other photographers have found themselves in. I salute those who go out on a limb to take a good photo.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
~My aim is true~ edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Many stores have policies against photography because they see a potential for "spies" from the competitive stores getting photos of their displays, etc. ... at least that's what I've been told by the local supermarket.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
There was a time when I was in East St. Louis taking pictures of the city. Several people walking around the city, even ones who were not even in the angle of my picture taking came up to me and argued to me that what I was doing is illegal. Which in fact nothing was, not a single bit, all legal. Took a good fifteen minutes of hassling to get away from the people. Kinda scared me but I trusted the people not to do anything harsh.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
not hassled exactly just raised voice :) it was at a Ramadhan 'breaking fast' market.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've only been hassled when attending one of my daughters parties at a sport centre. There was a roller hockey game in the main sport area. I had my camera, over my sholder, and wandering on the viewing gallery. I was asked about 3 times, "have you the paperwork to photography in here?". My answer was "No, but then I'm not taking any pictures." I had glares for the next 10 minutes as I watched the game. If it was a ballet lesson then sure, but these kids? (14-18) were in full ice hockey gear, you couldn't tell if they were kids, or adults.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
MiloTheGreat edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I was harrassed a few weeks ago for taking photos at the Princess Diana memorial water fountain in Hyde Park, London! Even though the place was full of camera-toting tourists, a pimply-faced young security guard came over to me (probably because I was shooting with a professional, Canon EOS 20D with battery grip). He stood in front of me and began interrogating me, asking what newspaper I worked for and said I had to apply for media permission to shoot the fountain! Although I do work for the media, I was just shooting for personal reasons. I told him I was just an amateur photographer and he asked to see my photos. I said "no thank you" and he walked away.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Like any other right, there is not a universal right to take photos. Sometimees the cops or rent-a-cops are in the wrong. Sometimes the photographer is.
If you're on private property and are asked to stop, you should stop. If someone asks you to stop taking pictures of their house, or their kids, you should stop. If you're taking pictures of a Ramadan festival and you're asked to stop, you should stop!
On the other hand, if you're in public and a rent-a-cop with no authority tries to stop you, don't let him. If a cop tries to stop you and he's in the wrong, explain to him nicely what the law is, but don't argue.
And finally, for those in New York City, remember this is a city still traumatized by the attacks four years ago, and everyone remembers that the hijackers spent time beforehand videotaping the buildings. It doesn't matter whether it's rational or not -- show a little respect! It's not all about you.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
No, AlexDC, it isn't all about me. But I am not going to let terrorists' prior actions take away my right to engage in perfectly legal behavior.
I have been hassled twice for taking legal photographs in public: once in NYC by an MTA token booth employee, who screamed at me that I was breaking the law (I asked her to either show me the law or call the police), and once in Atlanta (story here.)
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Vidiot edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
My most recent bad experience was having two boys (age 10 or so) accuse me of "stalking" them. I was just taking pics in my neighbourhood and they were playing in the street. I was hurt.
Worst story I've heard (surely you all must've heard SOMETHING about it?) was of the Iranian-Canadian photographer who was arrested, tortured and killed for taking photos in Iran.
I guess it's all testament to the power of photography. I don't mind if people think I'm a freak. I just wish they'd stop treating me like my camera and I are dangerous.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well, let's be clear here. It's actually not a "right." There is nothing in the Constitution that gives you an unlimited right to take photographs.
The most one can say about it is there aren't many laws on the books regarding it, so cops don't have the right to stop you in most cases. Still, there are some cases where a sense of good judgement and social and civic responsibility should prevail. Remember, just because there aren't laws now, doesn't mean there won't be in the future, and the best way to do your part to hasten the passage of such laws is to go around snapping pics with a bad attitude.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"And finally, for those in New York City, remember this is a city still traumatized by the attacks four years ago,..."
Yes, I remember 4 years ago. I witnessed the whole thing from 50 feet away. I am reminded of the devastation everyday. You needn't lecture me or anyone else in NYC about that day. As long as we want to consider the US as the land of the free and the home of the brave, then we cannot sacrifice liberty for the perception of safety.
I'm sure that the terrorists made phone calls. Do we prohitbit telephones? They used ATMs. Do we ban those also?
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Manzari edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
About 5 years ago , while visiting the Vatican, specifically The Sistine Chapel , I was asked to put my camera away.
Again upon entering the casino in Monaco, no cameras were allowed inside.
But I've had no trouble elsewhere in my travels.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Alex, I don't quite understand your lecture...particularly on the Constitution. Of course there's "nothing in the Constitution that gives you an unlimited right to take photographs." But if I'm on public property, taking pictures of public buildings, in public, breaking no laws, then I will bristle when authority figures such as police or rent-a-cops hassle me with no good reason.
To put it another way, I don't have a "bad attitude" unless someone accuses me of breaking laws that don't exist. (And even then, I'm courteous, but I'm not going to apologize unless I have something to apologize for.)
I'm all for increased security. But we should rationally examine what does and does not threaten that security. And knee-jerk reactions to movie-plot threats don't help anyone.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
People of the shop were very angry I took this pic ? Perhaps someone will find some commercial secrets or something to steel there ?
I had less problems with that one.... After I took the pic, policemen were laughing.... Unusual because there was a lot of stress as always during the arrest...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Most of the problems I've had have been in Italy when I've been visiting family. They have some very strict rules on what you can and cannot photograph! Mostly I'm worried about the Major of London and what crazy rule he'll bring in next about what we can and cannot photograph *sigh*
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@Alex.DC: The Constitution is not a document that "allows me" to do something as it is a document that describes the limits on what powers are afforded to the Federal government. What I think you're describing or aiming for is Napoleanic law: that which isn't allowed is forbidden, which is (generally) not how law in the U.S. is interpreted. Tests of "reasonable" or "I know it when I see it" are frequently struck down as points of law.
I'm quite tempted to quote Franklin on the subject of treating freedom with kid gloves in the name of "security."
To the more general point, I've only had problems photographing outside a museum. As in the amphitheatre and museum building itself. I wasn't asked to stop photographing, but was asked by security to be discrete, lest someone inside the museum feel threatened and contact security.
I figured I was doing everyone a favor by being obvious.
Now, two weeks ago, trying to photograph at Fort Mason near the foot of the Golden Gate, an officer "stopped" a friend and I, more as a point of indicating we were noticed and to indicate they were closing the area in a few minutes. He then went on to give us directions to other spots we could photograph the bridge that were close by. Perfectly pleasant.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
You will get hassled and/or have your camera confiscated if you take pictures of US embassies. I knew not to do so because I was forewarned, but apparently if you have your camera out anywhere within view of the embassy in Berlin and are taking pictures they will come up and take your film/camera. Oddly enough, pictures were quite welcome of the Brittish embassy down the street.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I recently travelled to Tunisia for the World Summit on the Information Society, and was detained for 90 minutes by plain-clothes "police" for taking a photograph of a Mobil gas station logo. The entire process was totally grey, with the "police" refusing to show me any identification or provide their names. By the time a supervisor came to the scene of the crime (where I was detained), there were a dozen of these guys arguing amongst each other about what to do.
While waiting for the supervisor to come, I discretely deleted the image I had taken and took a blurry, abstract shot of the sign from the hip - the arguing group never noticed.
When the supervisor arrived and was briefed by the group, he did ask to see the image, and gave me a "man, that picture really stinks" glance (haha). He explained to me that this was a routine stop, and I was free to go.
I did ask him if it was forbidden to take such an image for future reference, and he suggested that there were some very nice areas to photograph in Carthage and Sidi bou Said (the closest tourism spots). Point taken for the remainder of my visit...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not even in sleepy old Perth are photographers safe from interrogation. This was the first time that it's happened, but I'm sure it wont be the last.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
hassled for photographing:
- shopfronts.
- railway stations.
- protesters.
- schoolchildren.
- security guards.
- police.
The schoolkids episode probably bothered me the most - two twelve year old boys in school uniform, bored out of their minds waiting for a bus. i'd taken several shots from the hip of other people waiting, then got a couple of the kids. several minutes later a policeman approached me, said someone had reported me, could he see my photos? he was very polite, so i had no problem showing him the shots, plus many others of businessmen, granny shoppers etc. he seemed ok, but still asked for my i.d. so he could "run a check" through the system. when i returned to the bus stop after the questioning, several people looked at me strangely - at least one of them must have thought i was a dangerous paedophile, most of them knew i'd been questioned by the police. it left me feeling cold, embarrassed, and afraid for myself and my photos ... because i recognised a public moment of innocent childhood and caught it on camera? i hate to think of what might have happened if i'd used film that day, not digi, and had been unable to show the pics on the spot.
as for the police ... to save space, let's just say that, no matter how hard i try to be discrete and/or polite, they seem to have it in for me whenever i point my camera at them:
when i'm indiscrete and/or impolite, they get pretty annoyed, too:
funny (as in strange, as well as ha-ha) story: was recently berated, yet again, for photographing police - from a distance, as they questioned an assault victim (who, incidentally, i know). they wanted me to delete the shot, but i refused. whaddya know, the next morning i managed to delete it by mistake? (coffee hadn't kicked in.) wait, there's more: two days later, i was called by the police - they wanted my photo as evidence, to see if it showed any injuries on the victim. since i'd deleted it - as per their request - i was told i'd technically destoyed evidence, a crime, but they'd let me off. i was also told i had "hindered police" by taking the photo, and officially warned again. i didn't feel like pressing the irony of my hindering the police by gathering evidence for them ... but it was a pretty juicy and bemusing contradiction nonetheless.
sorry if i seem to ramble, but this is important to me (it made me join the group, just to express my thoughts - if that's a breach of etiquette then, well, deal with it). sometimes i just have to empty my head and see what lands.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i had stopped to take some pictures awhile back in a rather rundown section of the city. within minutes i am literally surrounded by some very serious looking sheriffs deputies, who tell me to put my hands up and stand still. i had no idea at the time, but apparently i was taking pictures near the county jail. a few of the shots contained some sheriffs vehicles (the subject of the photos)which also contained some very out of focus images of the jail building. once the cops had determined that i was not a terrorist or working for some news service (same thing to them i guess), they were nice enough, but made me erase those images from my camera. i pointed out that nowhere were there any signs or notices that there was a secure area and photography was prohibited, and i never wouldve been there taking pictures in the first place if there had been. the sargeant said he would "take it under advisement" and then we actually had a nice conversation about my nikon. this was back in october. i drove by there again recently and there are still no signs. so far, this is the only time i've ever been hassled about taking pictures.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Firesign edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I recently moved to DC and was warned about taking pictures of monuments and such. I think the exact quote was "the quickest way to find a capitol policeman is to set up a tripod" but on a recent trip the only people that approached me were desprate families and foreign visitors who wanted me to take a picture. Plus while I was in the Lincoln Memorial a couple set up a video camera on a tripod in the main entrance partially blocking it so they could get video of them kissing with the Washington Monument in the background.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Even out in Hawaii, this kind of thing happens, as you said, in this post 9/11 era.
A couple of months ago, I was killing some time waiting for my wife, who works in one of our state government office buildings. With kids in the car nearby, I was walking around the building, shooting some pix, pretty much facing away from the building. A few were of an interesting cloud pattern in the sky that afternoon. A few were facing the general direction of this particular office building, too.
Apparently, a security guard from a private company contracted by the state to provide building security thought what I was doing was suspicious and after awhile a state police cruiser pulls up and parks next our car, again, where the kids are sitting and waiting playing their gameboys. One officer stays by the vehicle the other approaches me as I'm shooting a tree with some relatively interesting bark patterns.
The officer who approached me asks me if I work for the news media. I reply that I don't and that I'm simply waiting for my wife to finish work and point out the kids waiting in the care a few feet away. The officer laughs, and tells me that the building security guard was nervous about this "strange guy taking pictures near the building"...and cites all the paranoid calls they have to respond to, even now, some four years after the 9/11 attacks. Contrary to my admittedly unusual avatar, the real me is one of the most normal, non-descript people you'd ever likely meet and almost instantly forget.
Funny thing is, if you see me and you saw the security guard who called the state police, you'd see that she more closely fits a potential terrorist profile than I do! Not to mention, if I *were* a terrorist, I hardly think I would be standing out in plain site taking pictures! I would be concealing myself someplace, so as not to attract any attention...and I bet a lot of terrorist take their kids along on case jobs, too!
I've had a couple of other incidences, too, at or near shopping malls, but nothing quite like this! It's really pretty funny, but I guess, if you look at it from the security people's perspective, better safe than sorry.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Watari Goro 渡五郎 edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Can someone explain the logic a police officer uses to determine that a tripod is a sure sign that someone might be a terrorist? I mean, c'mon, if I were a terrorist doing reconnaissance I would not be carrying a tripod. I would be using a discrete mobile phone cam.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm very pro-photographer's rights, but for the most part, I agree with Alex.DC, with respect to the limitations of photographers rights, such as with private property, etc. However, the right to take photographs is very much a constitutional matter. When someone stops you from taking legal photographs, they are violating your first amendment rights. When the MTA in NYC decided not to try to implement the ban on photography, they cited that they came to the realization that it would be impossible to enforce AND the ACLU convinced them that it would violate citizens' First Amendement rights.
However, as Alex stated, your rights are never "unlimited". There's always the balance between your rights and the rights and safety of others. You can't walk into someone's backyard and take photos because it violates their right to privacy, and it's usually trespassing, too, even if there aren't any signs. Similarly, you can't sneak into a secured government building and take photos because of national security.
You can legally take photos of children in public at any time, but it should come as no surprise when parents and others around you are a little wary. I had a instructor, an older gentleman in his late sixties, that was accosted by a very angry parent during a photo outing because he was taking photos of his daughter sitting on the curb of a very busy street in San Francisco's Chinatown doing her homework.
Suffice it to say, it almost got violent and the police were called. The police informed the father that there was nothing they could do because it's not illegal for my instructor to take photos in a public place, which made the father absolutely livid. He was shooting chrome, so, just to settle the father, they came to an agreement that when the film was developed, he would mail it to the police station.
Can someone explain the logic a police officer uses to determine that a tripod is a sure sign that someone might be a terrorist?
Nope.
And please write, call or talk to your state and federal representatives. Venting here is great, but venting to them is better. Silence is really the only thing we truly have to fear.
I agree. I had a run-in at the Port of Oakland and contacted the Port about it. Bjorke asked me to post it to his site... www.photopermit.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=229
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
purplezebra edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Funny, I got hassled at Schiphol Airport for taking pictures on the day I got the JPG mag e-mail about the new topic for issue 5. Nothing serious, just a security guy asking me what I was doing.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I had a very odd run-in with the manager of this pub in west London over taking photos of it.
Now, the thing is, this pub featured in the cult British movie "Withnail and I", but it's never actually been called "The Mother Black Cap" until now. I knew that although the film took place in Camden, that this scene was obviously filmed in Notting Hill (the tower block in the background is a bit of a London landmark). So I was really pleased to spot it while walking home from Portobello Road one afternoon.
While I was taking photos, standing actually in the middle of a public street, someone who identified himself as the pub's manager came up and told me that I couldn't take photographs of his pub. "Er," I said, "yes I can. I'm standing in a public street and I can take photos of whatever I want."
"No you can't," he said. "We've got" - and I swear I am not making this up - "a licence not to be publicised." Now (a) if you don't want publicity, don't change the name of your pub to tie in with the only notable thing ever to have happened there; and (b) no such legal instrument exists in English law, or ever has done. If you want someone not to take a photo, ask nicely. Don't start making stuff up.
So if you ever find yourself in west London, around Westbourne Park tube station or Portobello Road, swing by and take a few photos. It's at the corner of Tavistock Road and St Luke's Road, between Westbourne Park and Ladbroke Grove tube stations. Google map of the area here - the pub is actually at the end of St Luke's Road, where it meets Tavistock Crescent.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The only trouble I've encountered with photography, thus far, has been the event with this leaf:
I've been reading these posts and they're ridiculous and atrocious to me. I found the linked article about federal agents at the Ballard locks by Ian Spiers particularly angering as well as inspiring. When I say inspiring, I mean that I'm going to straight to the Ballard locks wearing all black, sunglasses, and a pea coat.. Toting bags and bags of camera junk, a 35mm camera, a chunky RB76 and a MINOX SPY CAMERA. I'll make a holster for it that goes inside the front of my pants. I adore ruffling the authoritative feathers...
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
caracal y jaguarze edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
Here in Sydney there are a group of us that have been meeting up for a mid-week flickr photo session. Its been great. After 4 meets we are have a 50% success rate of being told off for taking pictures. First time was at Sydney Central Station:
The second time was last week when a few of the guys were taking pictures of a building at Australia square as shown here. I mean, I can understand that everyone is nervous about national security ect. but the crime seems to be if you do it on mass then your a red beacon for trouble! We are locals so I can only imagine the hassle that the poor tourists must be getting. None the less we will endeavour to harass the people and buildings of Sydney, if they like it or not :P
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
what about churches? are churches public places?
i´ve been prohibited to take photos in a church that was open to visit by tourists. i understand if they prohibit the use of flashlight, if art suffers. but in my case it was long time exposure.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
-sel edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
most churches are considered private property, in a legal sense (assuming you are in a country which seperates church and state), even though they are usually open to public access. there could be several reasons for the objection, maintaining quiet sanctity being among them.
oddly enough, when i visited india i found it was the christian churches that were restrictive with photography, more so than the hindu and buddhist temples (never had trouble in a church at home in oz). i guess it's polite to ask first before photographing inside a place of worship, if there are no obvious signs in place.
simon: i'm a big fan of withnail and i. the absurdity of your story could well be a legacy of the filming on the pub's inhabitants. heh. thanks for the location specs, hopefully i'll remember by the time i get to london (if ever), so i can stake them out with a tripod and a naive tourist accent ;-)
merejames: i'm gonna have to make it to one of those meetups soon, methinks. safety in numbers :-)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In August of 2005 I was detained and investigated for taking a picture near a refinery in San Pedro, Ca.
An off-duty LAPD officer saw me standing on a public bridge, taking the picture. He accosted me when I returned to my vehicle and asked why I was taking pictures. I explained I was merely engaging in my hobby. The officer said he had to detain me, because it was suspicious behavior “in these times.” He called in to the Long Beach Police on his cell and told me I had to stay until they arrived. Soon after, a cruiser from the Los Angeles Port Police drove by and he flagged them down. After speaking with me for several minutes, they agreed that I seemed to be just what I claimed to be: an amateur photographer. I then left the scene.
Several days later, I received a phone call from a detective with the LAPD, “Port of Los Angeles Terrorist Threat Division - Liaison to Homeland Security.” (Or some such title…) He informed me that he had conducted a background check on my identity and that I “checked out okay.” He wanted to know what kind of camera I used and also asked me to email him the picture I took. I obliged him, but later have regretted doing so.
The street stop was bothersome enough, but I was very surprised about the background investigation. However, the detective did tell me “photographing critical infrastructure is legal, as long as it is done from public property, BUT if officers see anything suspicious, it will be investigated.”
So in the end, I was investigated for being suspicious, not for doing anything illegal. I don’t believe I appeared suspicious that day, as I was in public, carrying a camera bag and a tripod, taking a picture of a train bridge near a refinery. At least they didn’t tell me to stop taking pictures. The more I think about it, the more it ticks me off. The sad thing is that now I fear being harassed if I desire to take pictures of industrial or infrastructure subjects. Worrying is not going to stop me, but I shouldn't have to be apprehensive about doing something that is within the law.
Here is the offending image:
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@stepleader - Why do you now regret having obliged them with the photograph? What happened?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Just my two cents worth for the 'fear of tripods'.
While it may be obvious to you and me that a camera goes on a tripod (its our hobby!), to a policeman who wasn't there the whole time and arrives to see a tripod with 'something' on top (maybe something long and black), there is potential for harm.
As photogs we think of them as stable shooting devices. But in a police officer's world, so do people with guns who want to do Bad Things, accurately. Yes. I know, 'worst case scenerio' thinking, but it's what the cops are paid to try to anticipate.
Besides, which cop wants to be on the evening news after the fact: "Why didn't you check on the guy with the tripod Officer?"
"Ah, I was sure it was just a photographer you know?"
"But isn't it your job to make sure, not to assume?"
Or put yourself in their shoes: Can you imagine having to walk up to every stranger with a tripod to ask them what they're doing for fear it might be the one crackpot in a million who isn't just taking pix? Sheesh. Give 'em a break, make it easy to approach you.
Reading through some of the stories there are clearly jerks who have stepped way over their authority to hassle others. But those folks are apparently few and far between.
Any policeman who wants to know what I'm doing will get all the cooperation he/she wants out of me. I'd be happy to let 'em see my review screen (ah digital!).
And you know, ever since 9/11, I'm one of those people who keeps an eye out for suspicious behavior. Like checking an abandoned shopping bag standing in a stairwell in the subway last Christmas.
As photogs who sometimes are in 'sensitive' places which also make for great photos... we can just as easily be on the lookout for other photog types who don't really 'fit'. Now there's a thought.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Purplezebra,
After I submitted the photographs to the police, I realized that they would probably be put in a file somewhere, with my name on it. In the unfortunate event of a terrorist attack on a refinery in southern California, I’m sure I would be questioned further. Maybe they would turn my life upside down trying to find something. Perhaps it isn’t a big deal, submitting the images. The investigation was already concluded at that point.
I’m not upset at the patrol officers over this, or the detective who investigated me. It’s the policy they are following that should change. To me, it seems like a waste of valuable resources. Anyone can photograph the same area that I did simply by driving by in their car and pointing a camera out the window. No one would ever be the wiser. There must be better things for law enforcement officers to do rather than intimidate people who are just indulging in their hobbies.
Also I should note…that the detective who investigated me specifically asked if I would report any suspicious activity to him. I answered yes, as I certainly would. And, I would probably have photographs as evidence. But for me to do that, I would have to be witnessing something very much out of the norm. I wouldn’t even think of reporting anything like witnessing a photographer taking pictures!
If I am stopped again I will cooperate, but won’t be surprised if an officer oversteps his authority.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Recently, outside my local shopping centre of a public busway, I began to take photographs of a tourist bus. The kind that has an open top. I had no idea, a security guard had been watching me on closed-circuit television. He tract me down and politely asked me to stop filming, because as he said, 'this was a security risk'. For Christ sake,i was photographing a tourist bus, which I was about to board anyway, people were waving at the camera. I sometimes wonder. Had I been a tourist on that bus photographing my surroundings, including the security guard, and other people, would he have stopped me filming then?
www.personal.u-net.com/~luso/turbusb.jpg
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I live in Chicago. I was taking some photos of the various L stations one afternoon. At one point a security officer came up to me to ask why I was shooting photos, but left me alone when I said I was a photo student.
This semester I took a view camera class... That was interesting. We had to take those large cameras out into the city. People were very curious. Some thought we were shooting a movie. Some thought it was survey work. One person got really paranoid because he thought I was.. a spy. He asked me a lot of questions, but didn't threaten me or call the police or anything.
So I've been pretty lucky so far in public shooting situations.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Another incident I just recalled. A brief one and I can see why there might be some paranoia among the security community here.
Unless I "missed the memo", though, I was unaware that photos in airports was prohibited. Maybe it's up the individual airport. Either way, while I can understand that philosophy, it would be nice if there were signs posted in plain view so stating or a repeating announcement, like the ones that drone on and on about "unattended bags" over the PA system.
However, even if there IS such a policy that prohibits taking pictures in airports, two things that always tick me off are: 1.) the lack of common sense used oft times when enforcing said policy, if one exists, and 2.) the outright rudeness in most cases of security people in informing you that you can't take a picture there.
As we were arriving at the "John Wayne" Airport in Anaheim, I took a picture of my son and daughter walking through the airport with their little bags in tow, documenting my son's second and daughter's first trip to Disneyland. Now, mind you, this is a pic taken only of the kids walking, in-stride, not set up and posed with any potentially "sensitive" areas even remotely in the background. Some female security guard rudely shouts out to me, "Hey, don't you be doing that in here! Put that camera away!"
I complied, not wanting to make a scene and spoil the moment and excitement for the kids, but the surest way to get into an arguement with me (and probably almost anyone) is to be rude and beligerent like this guard was.
Again, I was taking a picture of kids toting their luggage...yeah, that's a real "terrorist" kind of thing to do. Had it not been for the kids, I most surely would have gotten into it with this airport rent-a-cop for her attitude. The lack of courtesy and common sense is what really ticks me off.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ Watari Goro and others who have mentioned taking photos at airports: Taking photos in airports per se is not illegal in most places, however it is illegal in most western airports to take photographs of or near security installations (I note an earlier mention of photographing near the x-ray machines). For example if you look, most airports I know in the UK, Australia and in Europe too have clear signs banning photography in security areas. Regardless of whether people think it's reasonable or not, the idea behind it is to make sure that people can't use these images to try and beat airport security. Taking shots in arrivals terminals, departure gates etc. should be perfectly legal and anybody giving you hassle is just on a power-trip. Just be aware- many airports have military sections and you can get into trouble shooting if they are in the background.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
While taking this picture  in Oklahoma City last September, a guard came out of a door on my right and informed me that I could not take pictures of the building...the Murrah building was just a couple blocks away...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
thank you, mr walker for the answer.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I'm a photojournalist, and to say that I've been hassled is an understatement, there have been more than a few times where I've been yelled at and physically threatened for taking pictures. Granted a number of these times the people had very good reasons for not wanting their image in a newspaper, a time that comes to mind would be the annual Marajuana Festivle in Madison, WI people smoking pot in public usually do not enjoy cameras in their faces. It is my standard process however to just tell them "too bad" and keep shooting, if they try to grab my camera I've laughed in their face.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
:) when i take pics of strangers... i say "SMILE" really loud, and people usually smile back... snap snap
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
cyntheticflava edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I had film confiscated in Lurgan, Northern Ireland about 20 years ago. I accidently took a picture that included an army patrol so not a problem.
Lomogirl: was that in Borough market? I have taken pictures in there and noticed a "no photography" sign afterwards.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Hassled? Oh yeah! By a security guard for taking pictures from the public sidewalk on a city street. Also hassled by a bohemian type for taking candids at a drum circle. He didn't like that I didn't ask permission. I don't ask permission when people are performing in a public park - they're doing their art, I'm doing mine. Besides, they didn't ask my permission to make a lot of noise in MY park.
People get awfully paranoid these days, especially when I'm lugging around a big telephoto. Everyone wants to know what I'm up to. But they don't ask questions if Seven-Eleven security cams shoot them? My intent is much more benevolent than some bigass corporation's!!!
These contrived cop/security guard/homeland security issues are total horseshit. Any malicious party can get a really nifty satellite photo from Google, every cell phone has a camera on it now, and as for that poor guy at the Ballard locks, taking notes is now a fuckin crime! This is just the power-hungry trying to keep the rabble in line. The last three decades have been a fluke in regards to a more relaxed attitude towards civil liberties. Now Bush and his buddies want to turn back the clock to the good old days of shoot first ask questions later - and all while he "praises" the life of Rosa Parks. If he'd been president when she sat down on that bus, she would have died in Gitmo still waiting to be charged. What a hypocrite!!!
The general rule is that so long as it's not a matter of national security (beware of who's interpreting this), you are clear to shoot from a public space, even if you are pointing at private property. Bedroom windows probably get a little dicey, though... ;-)
As a personal rule, I never shoot a pic of anyone's kid without an adult in the frame - Like a child sitting on an parent's shoulders. And seldom do I even do that...not really interested in kid pics anyhow.
And although I use the word, I agree with the dislike of the terms "shoot" or even "take" a picture. Hey, the light bounced my way and I caught it!!!
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
athomic edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
|
JamesieAB - Is there really a "No Photography" sign in Borough Market now? I love taking pics there.
The rude salesman I mentioned was in St James Piccadilly Market (a few stores next to Waterstones)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
last week i had my name and details taken by a police officer. i was investigated as a potential terrorist for taking photos of 'sensitive' buildings in the city centre from a public footpath...
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I've been pretty lucky over the years with nothing more than the occasional "how many pictures does one guy need!" comment (That one came from a fisherman with a bag of about 30 rods - no irony there then! ;P )
I'd never really thought about the whole "shot" thing before, having "cocked" a shutter and "fired off a few frames" all my life but I take the point. However it does all get a bit Zen, if only on the quantum level, when we consider what might have been caused by our camera "capturing" a few photons. Can we really be sure that one of them wasn't going to go on to start a reaction which could have changed the world? Instead of which it gets trapped in a piece of Velvia! I've never been too concerned about the far off hurricanes but I do look at butterflies with a new awe these days.
The idea that anyone who takes pictures with kids in them is up to no good, that buildings are under threat if someone takes their picture and that police/traffic wardens/security guards etc. have the right to not be photographed is something which is slowly but surely spreading across the globe. Common sense and statistics must show how unlikely this is but we still have to live with it - so I suppose a degree of common sense on our part is also needed together with a fair idea of our reasoned response if someone does challenge our right to use a camera.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
If they try to stop us from taking pictures, what's next. If we see something and can remember and describe it vividly, is that also a crime?
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Manzari edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
The other day I was in a shop in Calafate, southernmost of Argentina, close to the Perito Moreno glacier, and I took a picture of my boyfriend (not a general view of the shop) and this girl comes and tells me I can't take pictures. I know it's a private place and it's her right, but the thing I inmediately do is say to my boyfriend, "let's go, honey" (in Spanish, of course, and loud enough so she can hear it) At least I think I have the right to make clear she bothered me, and that I'm not going to buy anyting there. It's that a nice way to treat clients? I don't think so.
One thing I have noticed it's that the bigger the camera the easier it is to be bothered about taking pìctures. If i was to take pictures for a wrong reason i would surely take them with a cameraphone. I'm sure no one would say a word.
By the way, in case you go to Madrid, visit Atocha Train Station. It´s beautiful, but have in mind it's forbidden to take pictures there for security reasons (as I was told the other day)
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
LomoGirl: Yes there was a sign the last time I was there (a few months ago), I ignore it now and apart from funny looks from a few traders I had no problems. Of course it might depend on when you go, Friday and Saturday are deli market days and the rest are for plain old fruit and veg.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i was asked to stop taking photos about 4-5 distinct times in airports. london-gatwick, mexico cityx3 and dallas-ft worth were where it happened.
most of these i was traveling with only a disposable camera, so i thought it might have seemed more suspicious than if i was doing it with a proper camera... but i was stopped taking a digital picture at mexico city anyway.
they just said to not take pictures anymore, never got stopped or anything
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The worst situation I ever had was in Paris. I was snapping up shots of a lot of porn shops this one guy started yelling at me and I sort of dismissed him... I was out on the street (!) and he ran over throttled me and attempted to tear the camera out of my hands... I fought over it and managed to keep it, but it was still pretty disturbing.
Oh.. and I once had a BIG meathook thrown at me from the back of a truck in the early morning Manhattan hours of the meat packing district....then struck on the side of the head by a big fist.
But these were both pre-911.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Once me and some friend were asked to get the hell out of a departament store in the biggest mall in Latin America (that's not the biggest anymore) because they asked me to take some photos of them with alcohol stuff (e.g., scoth, wine, bacardi)...
This year, I was taking some shots of a high class mall at night, that's very known in my city because of the rich greek architecture and because it used to be a place to stock sugar to export to Europe at the colonization times, and I decide to take some photos of the roof and some draws in it... Then I notice a security guy with a walk-and-talkie in the second floor.. After some time I saw other guy, this time in the first floor (where I was) replying in the radio.. I walked upstairs to go to the mirror there but it was closed because it was raining I suppose, so I decide to eat a pizza in the third floor, went there, eat it and when I was coming back to the first floor and notice they were still watching me.. I joined in a photography store there, spend some time asking prices and more and decided to back to a bookstore in the other side of the pedestrian street... Well, I noticed that the guy who was in the 2nd floor was in the 1st talking with other security guy.. Then I just went out there with no problem, crossed the street and joined in the bookstore, where my dad was waiting for me for a while... And what? I saw a guy with a walk-and-talk in the second floor waiting for me.. And it's the end..
shots I took in this mirror some months before that all:
www.flickr.com/photos/henriquev/24803891/
www.flickr.com/photos/henriquev/24803892/
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was stopped for photographing this train wheel: www.flickr.com/photos/johnnyflash/72600274/in/pool-jpgmag/
(forgive the link i don't know how to enter the actual image) In an open to the street train yard in an industrial area in Fall River Massachusetts. I was almost drawn down on by 3 officers and frisked for being suspected of planting bombs in the train yard. I was in plain sight, with my bright red golf with the high beams on and my big 4x5 tripod out in front of the car in the lights... it was just silly.... so they kept me there untill the other officers that joined the frey had searched the entire train yard... I had business cards and id and agreed to have my car searched and everything... so I sent the station a copy of the print afterwards as a kindof "see... just pictures!" Now I make sure that I call the business line of the police where I am going to be taking photos of anything remotely "questionable" and that seems to help a bit. Invite them to send by a patrol car to check in with you and make sure you are who you say you are on the phone.. most of the time they won't even bother.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was stopped and questioned for this pic:
www.flickr.com/photos/robobuzz/33908366/
and the cop specifically said he would not have stopped me pre-terrorist attacks. But these *are* school busses. So I wasn't all that offended by his investigation of me. The most interesting part of the encounter was his interest in the other photos in my camera, as I cycled through them on the little display for him.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Never been hassled (yet) for public photography. But I have worked as a security guard at a museum that had a no-photography policy regarding items on loan. (We didn't have the rights to the images.) I can assure you that the last thing we wanted to do was hassle someone for taking a photo - but that was the policy and I was being paid to enforce it. That's not to say that some of my coworkers weren't jerks - but you can find those on either side of the lens.
I find it interesting that a common theme in this thread is that it is somehow unreasonable that police/security forces are being asked to step up their efforts after Sept. 11 / Mar. 11 (Spain) / July 7 (London). Many of the comments seem to imply that the cops and government are attempting a power grab - I wonder why no one seems pissed at the terrorists that brought all these changes about?
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Because this is not the "terrorism makes us angry" thread. This is the "hassled for photography" thread. We're photographers pissed at people who tell us not to shoot where we have every right to shoot. And that's what this thread is for.
If you want a "terrorism sure is poopy" thread, feel free to start it, but not here. This group is about photography.
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
fraying edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
I was hasseled for taking this photo:
After I took this shot someone who worked in the building stopped me and asked why I was taking a picture of the lock. I had to explain that I was actually taking a picture of another part of the door. He was pretty hostile, but left me alone after that.
Posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i was hassled in a club 2 years ago when dj tiesto came in the island... i was taking pictures from the balcony of the club, when suddenly a guy came from behind and was trying to take my camera away. I was asking him what he was doing and he kept saying "did you take a pictures of me? did you? did you?" and i kept replying "no" !!! he pushed me on the wall telling me that if i dont delete the picture he was gonna kill me and things like that....i was really schocked and i panicked but thank god my friends saw what was going on and they came to rescue me...
it was a really bad experience
Originally posted 79 months ago.
(permalink)
Mary Savvidou ♥ edited this topic 79 months ago.
|
|
i was questioned by police for taking pictures of the subway. They came to my house saying we caught you taking pictures on a security camera.
this is the picture i was caught taking outside a subway station.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Occasus: No one is saying that security shouldn't be improved. What we are saying is that the security measures should make sense.
Who decided that photography is a threat? The terrorists used cell phones to conspire; they used an ATM to get money to pay for the airline tickets; they drove a car to the airport... By the logic being used, wouldn't it make more sense to prohibit these things?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was recently stopped by a fellow passenger taking a flight out of Detroit on to Tampa Florida. Normally on any trip I take pictures from the beginning to the end. In this case I was in the terminal, after having cleared the security check point, taking photos of the plane and some of the surrounding areas. I guess from the angle I was shooting it looked like I was shooting the "emergency fuel shutoff” sign near the maintenance entrance going out to the plane. The gentleman stopped me and questioned me why I was taking a picture of the sign. Though I hadn't taken a picture of it at that point, I flipped through the images to prove to him. After that he proceeded to suggest I was some how doing reconnaissance work for a terrorist group and threatened to call security. I was a bit floored by his response so just to piss him off I did take a photo of that sign and told him to call security if he felt so threatened.
  
The guy never called security. Given there were close to 80 people witnessing our conversation no one else seemed threatened. The majority I don't think even cared. So, none the less, I boarded the plane and arrived in Tampa with out incident except for a 5-minute exchange with a pompous jackass.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
reading your stories really makes me curious to do a map of where the most incidents happen.
the absurdity: nobody takes same care of webcams on public buildings, on banks, public traffic transports & warehouses. don´t need to tell you the list is longer (al tracking & location, stored info on cards, biological systems, RFID, AI etc
so why worry for photos? if being harrassed i´ll probably ask what they think about this stuff...
anyway, it´s so endlessly stupid to think a terrorist group will choose an obvious method for raising information!
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
-sel edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
I've been hassled so many times just for photography.
been jailed, lost all my expensive equipement, beaten up and ..... it's a long story, But I never stop phtography and loving people.
Just take a moment to pay my respect to Zahra Kazemi, Iranian-Canadian photojournalist who died in Iranian custody on July 11, 2003, almost three weeks after she was arrested for taking pictures outside a prison during a student protest in Tehran.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
* Ahmad Kavousian * edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
it is very sad, that the world get more and more paranoid !
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ahmad Kavousian's post is making me wonder how many photographers have died for their profession, hobby, or lifestyle. It's ridiculous for anyone to get hurt or incarcerated for taking photos in a rightfully public setting, though we all know in certain situations that is never the case. But for someone to be killed is absolutely unacceptable in any situation. I guess it's something that is unavoidable, but certainly those people should never be forgotten.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
In October 2001, I was reported to the FBI as a "middle eastern" man "taking pictures of bridges (more below).
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
nathangibbs edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
|
Nathan - can you tell us more about what happened and how? (And, it should be noted, the photo above is a photoshopped illustration - not an actual photo.)
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I was in Milwaukee, a city I've never visited, walking down a street taking photos. When I got close (but across the street) from this large office building with a blue glass curtain wall, a security guard popped out and started yelling at me from across the street.
I crossed to him and asked what the problem was. He said I was taking photos of a federal building and will be arrested and charged with a felony. (THe IRS leases space there.)
I laughed and said that's ridiculous and kept snapping pictures to spite him. He said if I was going to continue to take photos he was calling the police.
He then spoke into his walkie-talkie to have security take my picture from "camera 3" and I waved; he called the police.
I walked on back up the street taking more photos when a cop caught up with me. He asked me what I was doing and I told him. All he said is that they were sensitive about the building since 9/11 and he told me to enjoy my visit to Milwaukee.
Three days later I was told to stop taking pictures of the Merchandise Mart in Chicago (where I live) because it was private property.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
ten-nine edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
I got hassled for taking this shot in a department store with my polaroid, but I couldn't resist!
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I have so far never been hassled or asked to not take photos.
I took tons of photos from tourists and tourists building in Rome, the Subways of Lisbon, Paris, London, the Swiss Railway and never was asked to stop.
Not even on the Airports - while on business travel, I always take my camera with my and take photos of things I like - very openly. No problem so far, not before 9/11, not after. Oh, they don't let me ride in the cockpit anymore, true.
The above photo was taken before departure from Schiphol Amsterdam this January. When arriving the day before, I took some of the sunrise - just from the gate. The "Security" there only asked me what I wanted to do when I pulled out my camera and actually pointed a table out where I could change lenses more comfortably..then I said I'd want to take a picture right here in the finger and: No problem.
In London I took the security themselves:
I'm sure they noticed, but nobody approached me.
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
_af_ edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
I got hassled and was told no pictures were allowed at Whole Foods in AOL Time Warner building when it first opened.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
i was hassled by this guy:
for taking a picture of these:
and you know there's even a group for this kind of stuff here:
you can't take pictures here!
Originally posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
cjw333 edited this topic 78 months ago.
|
|
....Salaam Allah almost ARRESTED at LACMTA Gold Line Union
Station.......
........yea you heard it right when it was over 2 to three hours
later ( IN ROUGH HARD HANDCUFFS ) i was finally released in the
courtyard of the LACMTA Taj Mhal tower .....
for over 2 to three hours on a sunday afternoon / evening these
and i will calll them KLU KLUX KLAN----NAZI GESTAPOS PIGS !!!!!
Tried to find .......SOMETHING TO PUT ME IN CUSTODY ON ..............
these "" group of white lynchers men "" asked me over and over again
accusing me of being a ''middle-eastern-terrorist'' and did not want
to hear i was a BLACK MAN born form american so' callled indian....
it was worse than a JOB INTERVIEW BACKGROUND CHECK !!!
hell was i am RUNAWAY SLAVE who refuse to be a GOOD NIGGER ......
and stay on the plantation ( pick cotton and behave boy !!! ) ......!!
my crime is taking pictures of trains and just because my LACMTA
contractors badge is back in 2003.....there is no expiration DATE
on the god dammed badge!! if i am taking pictures so fucking what?
( i wanted to say that but it is hard being in hard HANDCUIFFS )
over and over again i asked what is the charge ? they said a WARRANT?
i wanted to say it this way ""FROM FUCKING WHAT AND WHERE ""
still no matter how intellegent and how much i wanted to find out what
california juristriction ( padadena, los angeles, sacramento ) ??
WHO I AND WHAT COURT ISSUED WHAT WARRANT WHEN DATE TIME DIVISION WHO?
no answer except the typical ""POLICE - PIGS - MEAN - RESPONSE""
we got you our custody ''nigger'' and we can do to you what we want!
i am walked up to the courtyard where even more PIGS ARRIVE little
pigs seargent pigs PORK EVERYWHERE on the radio trying to get me
PUT IN JAIL WHERE ALL BLACK MEN WHO HAVE THE GAUL TO TAKE PICTURES OF
TRAINS THE NERVE OF THAT GOD DAMMED NIGGER jail him now !!!!!!!!
......................................................................
hey !! thats what it felt like being on the recieving end of this
my son is off to IRAQ fighting for FREEDOM and his FATHER ME is being
HANDCUFFED BY VICIOUS PIGS IN KKK GESTAPO LOS ANGELES SHERIFFS !!!
.....................................................................
i said it again and again .........if i was a WHITE MALE i would have
never been stopped and questioned and TARGETED FOR ARREST AND JAILING!
i was all over the blue line red line and had no problem until it
was time to go home on the gold line ( one more shot of a single )
you want to forget racism and being targeted because you are a
black american ....and what is this shit about why i changed my name
back in the late 1970s to SALAAM ALLAH from my old christian name
i dumped because of my religion and bleiefs ?? so fucking what ??!!!
WHAT KIND OF RACIST ANTI MUSLIM CRAP IS THIS ??.....kiss my ass.....
do i look ''' middle eastern ''' to you fool ?? shit !!! what ??
no court no judge no prosecutor would hold me on what charges ??
still these GESTAPOS- KKK - NAZI - WHITE MALES REFUSED TO TELL ME ..
like they had the real shit and i was going to prison !!! 4 what?
....................................................................
another one half hour and finally they let me go !!
i wanted to say something but i did not want to give these fools.....
so when i see the elderly black man being beaten to a pulp in NO..
finally i got back on the gold line and when home mad enough to RIOT
.............................................................
" jesus look at that nigger with that camera taking pictures
of our trains the absolute gaul of him ARREST HIM NOW "
!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
thats how i feel about it
i did nothing wrong to nobody did nothing harmed nobody
what the f--- ?
what did i do to deserve this ?
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
ferg690 [deleted] says:
One thing that might of made you stick out is the fact that you took pictures of only trains, I myself can see how that can be misinterpreted as suspicious. You personally didn't do anything to deserve this, but in this post 9-11 era, we have to think a little harder about what we do in Big Cities and small towns alike. Racism goes both ways, there is no one sided racism.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thank you for all the great reading. What I have taken from all this is, I too hate to be restricted because of other people's (terrorists) actions. I value my basic American rights and as a Veteran and an amatuar photographer, I enjoy being armed with things such as:
www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf that I found on this site, and will now carry with me at all times faithfully, and in triplicate. I will always ask when I can, and appropriate. Be considerate of others, but stand firm in my persuit of happiness with my hobby. I've always been told it's a free country until you infringe on the rights of others. Guess that last part is a lawyer'$ dream. Guess we could use, Do unto others....... etc. Been tested, yes. Hasseled, yes, but I will not knowingly infringe on others rights and I don't want them to take away my simple pleasures of photography. Be respectful, educated with current laws, and try to leave everyone with a harmless memory of the photographer.
Posted 78 months ago.
(permalink)
|
(1 to 100 of 253 replies in Hassled for Photography?)
|
The Unofficial JPG Magazine Group /
Discuss
Feed – Subscribe to The Unofficial JPG Magazine Group discussion threads