|
if you ask me, the photographer doesn't come across all too well in that.
“We’ve had a problem with him a number of times before — taking pictures of women, specifically, on the sneaky side of things — without asking their permission,” she says. “A number of customers have come in and said, ‘There’s a guy out there taking pictures and it’s really creeping us out.’”
when someone asked Scott what he was doing, she claims he became defensive and argumentative.
“I got scared, actually, because he got really aggressive with me, not physically but verbally,”
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
"he’s spent many of his lunch hours shooting artsy, black-and-white photos of people on Church Street: homeless people, the elderly, families with children, anyone who catches his eye."
"much of the time, his pictures are candid shots taken from a distance with a telephoto lens"
at least you now know who to blame for the queue...
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Jules... edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Big man with the telephoto there.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jules... I'd personally be happy if the queue consisted of more of that and less of squirrels, it'd at least be a slight step in the right direction (tho with a million other steps left to take!).
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Socially awkward photographer misses opportunity to convey intentions to shop workers. Police investigate and enforce legal trespass order. Many public places now private property. Unfortunate all around.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The trespass order is highly questionable since he did not do anything while ON private property. The street he was taking his pictures on is public property - he did not cross the property line onto any of the properties that are now banning him.
As for the police - photography is not a crime and the questioning particularly at his place of business is nothing more than thinly-veiled harassment. Photographers in NYC have received five figure settlements for similar police encounters.
AFAIAC he is being punished for exercising his constitutional rights on public streets.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Jim Poulos edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Well, his approach might not be that palatable, but it's still bullshit and should be fought vigorously.
It does illustrate though how your demeanor changes perception. If he were a skinny, smiling hipster with a Leica would he still be viewed as suspicious?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
there is a difference between exercising your rights and abusing them.
if the guy could articulate or even knew why he was doing what he was, then I'd imagine it wouldn't have gone this far.
I think the main problem in all of this is "if a business owner requests that we issue a notice of trespass, we’re OK with that. We don’t require that an illegality happened"... it's nothing to do with photography... if they take a dislike to you for any reason then that's it... you're out!
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I know I am the minority of one on this, but as a store owner I dont allow that shit. And I really really hate when people aim their cameras in my shop and pretend the fact that they are within their legal rights to do so excuses their "anti social behaviour". And really, it doesnt matter if its a skinny with a Leica or a DSLR perv, the approach and intent is everything.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Justin: They are within their legal rights if they're on public property. Do you not understand that yet?
I've shot into stores plenty of times because I thought there was a photograph to be made. That makes me anti-social?
I really have a double whammy in the second one. A kid standing in the entrance of a store. The horror! The shame!
www.flickr.com/photos/bform/317571482/
www.flickr.com/photos/bform/2400461120/
@James: Is abusing your rights illegal? What's the definition of abusing? I hate loud talkers in public. Smokers bug me too. What about people who stink on the subway?
It's like pron. As objectionable as some of it might be to our sensibilities, it needs to be protected unless it breaks the law.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
hey bryan, I said they are within their legal rights, and I put anti social behaviour in quotes because it isnt my choice of expression, it is the crime quoted by the british cops in that other thread, jesus, i even spelled behavior the funny way to illustrate that.
I once had a gentleman take a picture of somebody changing in the dressing room, in my opinion that IS antisocial. And while I could not prove that is what he was doing I still told him to leave the store. On another occasion a "famous person" was in my store and some lady was harassing her with a camera. I consider that to be anti social also.
edit.
oh whatever, I just looked at your two examples, (nice pictures BTW) that isnt at all what im talking about.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
justinsdisgustin (a group admin) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
If someone is in a dressing room on private property, there's a reasonable expectation of privacy.
Edit: @Justin: Thanks, but when you said shooting into stores, that's what I thought about.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
bryanF. edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
okay so take the same girl in your picture, put her 15, 20 feet inside the store, and suppose instead of just standing there looking cute, she was having her diaper changed. Now instead of being across the street or wherever, you are standing at the mouth of the store shooting in. Is that arguably a rude, invasive, socially questionable action?
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
justinsdisgustin (a group admin) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
justinsdisgustin I'd firstly say changing a child's diaper in a public store in plane sight of other people was slightly questionable... but of course anyone attempting to photographic would be more so!
bryanF. It's not illegal, but may raise public concerns, which is probably what happened here, and people took whatever actions they had available to them (the trespass stuff) and used it. exercising their rights.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@justin: Yes, that is questionable behavior, but I'm with James, so is changing a child's diaper in plain view in a public store.
@James: look at the language you are using. "Public concerns." Isn't this the same logic for stopping people under Section 44?
“The First Amendment was designed to protect offensive speech, because nobody ever tries to ban the other kind”
Like I said earlier, as objectionable as we may find his behavior and technique, I think these are the situations we should defend vigorously. Because, what next?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
bryanF. to a certain extent it is. but it's how the police deal with the "concern" that is the issue.
In this case they simply issue the trespass stuff without need for any real wrong doing.
same with section 44's. They seem to jump straight in with them without maybe just having an informal conversation to establish if there is even any public concern.
oh and the other thing is that the police in many cases regarding the section 44's are acting on their own behalf... where they believe the public "may" see something as a "potential" risk or raise suspicion.
at least in this case, there is a history and it does seem to have escalated to this rather than it being the first action.
edit: in the uk if this happened on repeated counts he'd probably be hit with an anti social behavioral order.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Account inactive go to: www.jamesdodd.net (a group admin) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
well see first of all "public store" is a misnomer, a store is private property. And what I do in my private store is my business. Sometimes, if the need arises I change a diaper (not my own of course, my baby's) obviously I dont do this when there are people in the store. But lets forget about the diaper, what about a breast feeding mother? What about standing in front of planned parenthood taking pictures of the people inside? Or a lingerie shop? or a sex toy shop? or a gay bar? or or or. Whaaatever, you get my point. You dont have to agree with me and I dont have to agree with you. I think some people use their cameras to invade, annoy and offend, and I would rather not "vigorously defend" their right to do so. I think some people who are terrorists use their cameras to plan their diabolical acts, I dont think they should be allowed to do so. I think it sucks that legitimate street photographers such as yourself should get painted with the same brush as those others, and that is what I would defend vigorously against.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
 |
Lumiere Images [deleted] says:
Edited due to my misjudgement and jumping the gun as usual.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Lumiere Images edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Anyone found his flickr account yet? Why postulate when the photos may say it all?
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Arionomous edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
If this went all the way to the SCOTUS, I think Bryan would be right. However, I'm finding myself agreeing with Justin on this. And I think James has the pulse.
This person seems to be what we used to call a douchebag (but not quite the scumbag) --not sure the cool kids say that anymore.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Anyone found his flickr account yet? "
Nah. What give him more reason to act like a stalking paparazzo?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@justin. I wonder - does your store have a CCTV camera spying on people who walk past your store?
The arguments you make are for people who takie pictures while inside private property or a place of business. Those arguments are irrelevant when discussing the legal right to take pictures on public property.
As for the overused cliche' that terrorists use cameras - please read www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2008/06/the_war_on_phot.html
I can't even begin to tell you how sick and tired I am of hearing that phony excuse authorities use to harass photographers. Jesse James did not need cameras to case the banks he was going to rob, and terrorists have not used them to "case" their targets. As if having images of the World Trade Center would even have mattered in the attack they made from above....
As far as I am concerned a camera is a LEGAL piece of equipment and people using it should be treated no differently than if you were wearing a watch or using a cellphone, equally legal pieces of equipment.
Police should only enforce laws as written, not make them up. The United States has not evolved into a police state (yet) so I deeply resent being told by police that something is illegal or not allowed when I know the law clearly says it is allowed.
Finally as to the trespass order - some people here say that anyone can be banned from stores for any reason. What if I wanted to ban cops from my store? Would that be a valid reason? How about people with green ties? This photographer is being punished for what he is doing in the street - not any rules he violated inside any of the stores. I hope the ACLU sues and every one of those stores has to spend thousands in legal fees defending themselves!
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lumiere Images [deleted] says:
I've found his Flickr account.
Let me know if you want me to post it here or not.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"does your store have a CCTV camera spying on people who walk past your store? "
What's that got to do with Justin's opinion?
"a camera is a LEGAL piece of equipment"
Was it deemed illegal, cuz I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. A firearm, in most jurisdictions are also legal "equipment" but you would not place it in front of a teller's window either.
"Police should only enforce laws as written, not make them up."
From the blurb that's exactly what they are doing. Now, if it goes up tot he state court or the circuit court and gets thrown out, that's another story. But, from what it appears, they ARE following their laws.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
My shop, my rules. Period. I pay the rent so I say what goes. Try walking around a shopping mall with a camera and see how long it takes to get your ass escorted out.
Having said that I'll shoot whatever I want in the street. And I'll stop and directly defend my right to do so if someone has a problem with it. It almost NEVER happens. People can vibe you out pretty quick. If you've got something to hide people will pick up on it. I walk straight up to women and shoot them face on from 2 feet away with a 28mm and have never had anything more than a puzzled look or a muttered "creep".
This guy sound like a douchbag. Period.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Blacky (just an asshole) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
"This guy sound like a douchbag. Period. "
I could not agree with you more.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Jim P Photography apparently you ban people with green ties from your store.
Lumiere Images I found it too.. chances are, if it's posted he'll be over here in due time (most people see the thread crop up in the stats etc).
We could of course just invite him to contribute to the discussion?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
Here's the Flickr.
Seems fairly common to me. I could probably post photographs all night from photographers who shoot in similar situations. Maciej? I mean, come on. Solomons shoots into shops. Almost every single street photographer utilizes commercial stores in compositions. And many, will shoot directly into the store.
I think what pisses people off is the telephoto issue. Ok, not our tool of choice, but really, why should we call somebody a douchebag for using a telephoto. I mean, I've walked down the street in the dark plenty of times and used my flash. And so have countless others in this group.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
james.morris [deleted] says:
Oh ffs, here it is www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
Meanwhile, a 'creepy man' with a photographic memory can still stand around remembering all the people he sees. And who knows what happens to the video footage that the storekeepers secretly shoot all day of their customers?
What they really need to do is build some kind of thought-crime detector.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
james.morris [deleted] says:
This guy sound like a douchbag
Yeah, because you should always evaluate a person's character from a news article -- journalists always objective.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Ok, drop the trespassing and get him on stalking. End of story.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lumiere Images [deleted] says:
Sounds good James.
Invite him along then we can hear his side of the story and not the hearsay side.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@maartyn:
"a camera is a LEGAL piece of equipment"
Was it deemed illegal, cuz I didn't see that mentioned anywhere. A firearm, in most jurisdictions are also legal "equipment" but you would not place it in front of a teller's window either.
Placing a firearm on a tellers window IS illegal. Besides it is designed to kill. I don't know any cameras that can kill - except for perhaps some Soviet models:) That is the big difference: .A camera should be treated no differently than a cellphone.
@maartyn: The police are allowing themselves to be used as if they are private enforcers when NO LAW HAS BEEN BROKEN. I can only hope that these blanket trespass orders are declared unconstitutional just like many loitering laws were years ago. This is nothing more than an abuse of police power by the state,
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Occasionally, Scott asks his subjects’ permission to be photographed."
What does occasionally mean? Once?
"Scott claims he was about 50 feet away when the woman"
That seems paparazzo territory to me.
"taking pictures of women, specifically, on the sneaky side of things — without asking their permission,” she says. "
In and of itself that means nothing. Taken together with the rest of his behavior, it's at least questionable.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
THAT'S IT! Bad B&W street portraits???!!! Give me a MF'n break. Not only is this guy a douchbag he also needs to find a new hobby 'cause he sucks at this one.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"Placing a firearm on a tellers window IS illegal."
No it's not. Brandishing is (AFAIK). Open Carry is allowed in some states.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I've sent him a message... dunno if he'd be interested to chat about it tho?
Jim P Photography they stated that no law have to be broken to enforce this type of thing.
there's a link to burlington mayor's email if you wish to raise the matter with them over here:
www.nycphotorights.com/2010/03/burlington-vermont-declare...
I'm not sure what the deal is in the US, but in the UK trespass is a civil problem not a criminal, so they wouldn't even need to get the police involved over here... only in the case of further incidents or harassment.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@maartyn: so what if it's paparazzo territory? Not illegal. We all know Beat Streuli, right?
www.beatstreuli.com/astor-place-03.html
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I know paparazzo is not illegal (with the exception of some jurisdictions). But it's just douchebaggery, in my view.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lumiere Images [deleted] says:
If telephoto use means being a douchebag then i'm guilty of that.
I have used my 600mm mirror lens on numerous occasions to isolate people from backgrounds.
www.flickr.com/photos/lumiereimages/4034537661/
At the moment though i'm really into my 85mm F1.4 and i don't see anything wrong with using any type of lens as long as you get the shot that you are after.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Is using a flash with a 28mm like Gilden douchebaggery too?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@bryanF - Nope. I love that guy.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
if used by a douchebag it is :D
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Account inactive go to: www.jamesdodd.net (a group admin) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
"Is using a flash with a 28mm like Gilden douchebaggery too? "
Dude's not sneaking behind things and then running away when found out. So, no.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"If telephoto use means being a douchebag then i'm guilty of that."
Damnit, it's all context. Things aren't always this or that. In the context this guy used it (tele), to me, it appears to have been douchebaggery. I was not making a blanket statement about all tele shots taken from public places into private scenes.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I can see this photographer's side of things. The problem with asking permission first and/or taking pictures from close up is that he loses the element of surprise, people tend to pose (if they agree) and the expressions are no longer natural. The moment he wanted to capture is gone.
I have seen his Flickr account and the pictures are quite artistic!
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Jim P - "taking pictures from close up is that he loses the element of surprise"
Then he is doing it wrong. People look plenty fucking surprised when Gilden shoots them. Check out some of the video of him shooting in the street.
If by "artistic" you mean boring and harmless then yes I agree with you.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Blacky (just an asshole) edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
@maartyn: well, I'm not going to base my opinion solely on the account from a newspaper or from what the subjects say.
And besides, who cares what the subjects think? Tough crap. I'm sure if you did an interview with Gilden's subjects they'd probably have some choice words for him.
Dude's not sneaking behind things and then running away when found out.
In both examples of my own from above, I made the photograph and walked away immediately. I'm a relatively fast walker too. Does that make me a douchebag?
Again, I'm not a proponent of using telephoto lenses or being sneaky, or really even going back to the same spots over and over again, but simply because someone chooses to do so, doesn't give them any fewer rights to work in public than the rest of us.
What it sounds like is that people don't like the guy, so he must be a douchebag and guilty.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"The problem with asking permission first and/or taking pictures from close up" But apparently he's doing it from afar. So it's unlikely he's getting permission anyway.
I have no problem with him not asking for permission. I don't think I have, or it's been so seldom I cannot recall. It's more the way he goes about his business. Sneaking around with a tele, getting in people's grille when they disagree with him, other times just stealing away when discovered and being a general PITA.
None of what he's doing might be found illegal, which is why I'm just giving you my opinion on his approach.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"And besides, who cares what the subjects think? Tough crap. I'm sure if you did an interview with Gilden's subjects they'd probably have some choice words for him. "
Sure, some people probably would classify him as a jerk, but being up-front and blatant's gotta count for something. I gotta respect that.
FYI: Douchebag The slang usage of the term dates back to the 1960s.[6] The term refers to a person with a variety of negative qualities, specifically arrogance and engaging in obnoxious and/or irritating actions without malicious intent. Seems to fit.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Maartyn, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspaper. I had hoped that the paper would have given me the chance to explain the real story. The reporter told me that he would print the picture that caused the stink and that he would print a link to my photos. He didn't do either of these things. He also didn't tell me what the coffee house was saying about me despite that I directly asked him, thus giving me no chance to refute their silly allegations.
I am not out there sneaking around taking pictures of women. In fact, I ask permission a lot before taking pictures of many subjects. And, if you look at my stream you'll be able to see that. You should also be able to tell from my photos that I most commonly use smaller focal length lens. Specifically, I use a Zeiss 28, 35 and 50. That telephoto there talking about is a big, bad 135mm.
I'll post below what I posted in the rangefinder forums. Please, try to keep an open mind.
I'm the guy they banned. The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I'm more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.
Here is the photo:
www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/
The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.
She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:
www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/
Also, I've since learned that the woman in the photo is the same manager who confronted me the previous time. It was my error that I didn't recognize her the second time. For this I am deeply sorry. Had I realized it was the same gal I would have passed up on the shot. I need to make a correction. The person in the photo is not Mara but another worker for the coffee shop named Rose. I misunderstood the information previously provided to me. Sorry.
The following Monday I was banned.
Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.
Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.
I've put my cameras away.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
sevencardan edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
good response. absolved.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Props for showing up and defending yourself.
You present a good, coherent case. If that's all there is to it, then I would rescind my previous comments. Still, we're only hearing one side of the argument. We're not hearing the claims by the business owners nor the people who it would appear, did not welcome your photography. One cannot absolve knowing only one side.
There are a quite a few unaswered questions. The foremost, to me, would be where is the coffeshop, exactly? Is it on a public street or within the Burlington Town Center complex? Even if you are in the parking lot of most of those places (from the photo it looks like a mall/outlet) and the streets which provide vehicular flow, those are still private property. I.E, cops will not ticket you for not stopping at the stop sign in that parking lot (but will get you for a DUI one's civil the other criminal code).
If it's on a public (i.e. not privately owned, as opposed to one defined by whether the public can use it) street, then I would support your claim.
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
maartyn edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
I only read these threads to see if Godwin's Law makes an appearance, which it usually does.
The woman/angry manager in the snow is a lovely photo.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
It is interesting hearing the different views people have about this subject. How hard is it to convince the public that photography is okay when photographers cannot agree amongst themselves?
Photographing someone on the street or someone through the open door of a store or even someone changing a babies diaper in public are all actions that we see with our own eyes. These acts are not being hidden from view. They are readily viewable by anyone in the area who chooses to turn their head and open their eyes.
What makes the act of photographing such an issue? If I was doing something that I didn't want anyone to see I wouldn't be doing it in public. There are far more images made of each and everyone of us on a daily basis by all of the surveillance cameras than we know. We live in a society where we are viewed all the time. Why is it okay to view people with hidden cameras and then complain when someone openly takes a picture of someone in a public setting?
When we get to a point where people can take legal action against others because they were 'creeped out' then it is time to redefine our values.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks Dan. By your tone and from looking at your photographs, I definitely give you the benefit of the doubt. And think this is a perfect example of the paranoia the public has over photography.
I'm really curious why some people in this discussions took the news report at face value?
Throwing around the term "douchebag" was inappropriate in my mind, but of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I wish I had more time to discuss this but I'm on vacation in Hawaii right now. :) And thanks to sevencardan for sharing his experience. I did, however, want to add one thing about this private vs public debate.
I recently learned that in 1988 a Quebec photographer snapped a photo on public steps. The woman sued the man and the case eventually made it to the Canadian Supreme Court, which ruled that, even in public, the woman had a reasonable expectation of privacy but this is only the case for publishing the said photograph, even in non-commercial venues, like Flickr. That law is still on the books as far as I know but it never extended beyond Quebec, even though the case did reach the Supreme Court.
While I am not a Canadian and have never lived in Quebec, I do not like the ruling and am thankful it never extended beyond that province. Given the changes in technology and citizen journalism, I wonder how the case would be interpreted today. Probably not so different, I fear. In public space, I don't see why the media should have any more rights than your average person with a camera -- we are all journalists.
Anyway.. there are many nuances to the finding and maybe I'll have more time to comment when I return from vacation. That last thing I'd like to add is that the case was civil and not criminal.
If you're interested, you can find more about the case here:
ambientlight.ca/laws.php
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
John Goldsmith edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
"Throwing around the term "douchebag" was inappropriate in my mind, but of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion. "
Bryan, indeed, it might be proven my initial take was wrong. Still, we're only hearing one side.
===================
And let's not forget, the drunk bastard who beats his wife is a very nice guy at the office, by all accounts. (just sayin')
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@sevencardan What you described is _exactly_ what I had imagined. I've had similar reactions from people. My guess is that there is but one person objecting to your photography. She'd probably object even if you didn't take a photo of her because that is the kind of person she is.
I find the reaction here confusing. As for asking, let me quote the first line of the description of this group, "A group dedicated to candid situations that momentarily reveal themselves amidst the mundane hustle and bustle of everyday life. " Wow, I didn't know that meant I should have the person sign a model release and then pose for the camera. Not my idea of candid.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@Happy Tinfoil Cat what are you on about?
@sevencardan thanks for popping by.
"she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that."
makes me wonder what the situation would have been like if you had deleted the image, or expressed more regret for taking it at the time...
saying ok, might not have been enough to put her at ease?
who knows, it's all hearsay isn't it.
But wow, burlington seems crazy regarding this law, seriously how did that thing get passed and why is it still about today?:
www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Wonder if this is still the case?
"Participating businesses have no way of knowing if a customer is on the banned list. The police department and the Church Street Marketplace (the agencies that oversee the program for retailers and bars, respectively) don't circulate the names, photos or physical descriptions of offenders. Moreover, many merchants didn't even know they could let anyone they like into their stores, even people who are banned. Others had no idea how the program works or didn't even bother to tell their managers or employees about it."
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
maartyn You were more than happy to pass judgment when all you had to go on was the magazine article. Now that the photographer is here, suddenly all we have is "one side"?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@James, it seems to be based on Vermont's law of Unlawful Trespass, which looks like it's been around for some time.
So, if I'm reading it correctly, it's possible to be imprisoned in the US without due process for a civil matter? That's scary.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
what? there was imprisonment?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
No- but if you check the link, that's one of the sanctions if the order's breached.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
A trespass order is just official notice that you're no longer welcome on a particular piece of property. To you it then becomes like any other property not open to the public--if you trespass you can in fact be arrested for trespass (which I'm sure does seem strange to those from a culture without explicit criminal trespass). But that trespss charge is still subject to full due process.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Poagao
"You were more than happy to pass judgment when all you had to go on was the magazine article. Now that the photographer is here, suddenly all we have is "one side"?"
I wouldn't characterize myself as having been happy about it (and you're making quite a leap saying I was more than happy, perhaps exuberant?). The article appeared to have spoken to the parties involved. Being that the publication doing the story had used Dan's photos in the past, I would have thought they'd give him a fair shake.
Are you saying we have heard from all sides now?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Sadly, a universal trespass order restricts me from visiting some 60 plus storefronts on Church St. There is no due process, no way to appeal or object. And, only one place needs to request that it be issued and it needn't notify the other involved businesses of it's intent.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Not to go all spelling police, but isn't it "Burlington"?
ok return to the actual conversation.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Well damn, those photos almost couldn't be less objectionable. And some were even taken with a G10, one of the least-obtrusive cameras out there. Funny how hyper-sensitive we're getting about privacy at the very moment we're tacitly approving the most intrusive government/corporate invasion of privacy in US history. [edit: Frontline did an interesting, surprising analysis of how modern surveillance works; it can be viewed here.] Is that irony?
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
krameroneill edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
Diffuse with a smile. It's free and simple. Have people not figured that out yet.
Obviously we don't know how sevencardan behaved. He could take great photos but be one dodgy looking dude on the street. (I'm not saying you are.) But I mean, what is so difficult about going for the candid and if you're (general 'you') 'caught' - give a little smile. If they care enough to confront you give them 30sec of how wonderful photography is and make them feel special. I guess this is easier for some more than other.
If there was some guy always hanging around the one area and 'acting' guilty then I might have a problem with it. If I went to talk to him and he was over aggressive ('It's my right' etc) or acted like he was caught-in-the-act.. then yeah I might think twice about him..because maybe he is up to no good. Basically if you're playing the 'i love street photography for the humanity of it all' card then you're required to be a human face and not a lens barrel when the moment requires it..because there are people up to no good.
This comment is general..not geared towards sevencardan.. As I said, I don't know how he behaved.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
sevencardan would you really have a problem tho? if they don't know you're on the list, have no idea who's on the list, can anything even be done (apart from deterring you through fear of arrest alone).
I'd write to a few store managers, tell them the situation, see if they honestly would bar you from their stores.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Thanks to James for posting the links.
The universal trespass law is ripe for abuse, it would seem. Some lawyers have the opinion it violates constitutional rights. We might find out if it does, if it gets challenged at the state or federal level.
I can see where if it were not universal that it could be used by businesses as a tool to keep some choice people out of their businesses but for it to apply to all business who subscribe to it is ridiculous. And the part about not having recourse, except to have the order rescinded by the complainant is severely wanting in due process.
The aforementioned opinion has little to do with the case we've read about. Who knows (but the participants) what transpired between the parties. I've heard from one side that it was pretty harmless (however, perhaps not tactful) We've not heard from the other. Maybe it was a power hungry manager, or a girl who was being harassed, or who knows.)
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
"I find the reaction here confusing. As for asking, let me quote the first line of the description of this group, "A group dedicated to candid situations that momentarily reveal themselves amidst the mundane hustle and bustle of everyday life. "
What's confusing about it? that people have the tenacity to ask questions and not be bunch of patsies? Or that a voluntary group's (motto) does not exert control over the actions and opinions of its members.
"Wow, I didn't know that meant I should have the person sign a model release and then pose for the camera. Not my idea of candid. "
Where is that implied anywhere? Are you serious, or was it just early for you? I was just stating an inconsistency in the claim that someone said they "occasionally" ask for permission while at the same time they stated they use telephoto lenses. It seems impractical, at the least.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@maartyn... he's either confused, not read the entirity of the thread so jumping to a quick conclusion, or trollin
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
True, universal trespass is hard to enforce when the other stores may not be aware of what a given banned person looks like or even if they're on the list. But, I've gone and got my face in the news paper. Sorta shot myself in the foot that way.
The other idea of contacting store owners and feeling out what they're thinking is a good idea. In fact, I know a few of them and intend to get in touch with them this week. We'll see how it goes.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
good luck with it
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
The trespass warrant is basically an official warning by the cops. "we don't have a reason to arrest you right now but we can tresspass you. Come back again and we will have a reason to arrest you (the tresspass warrant)"
I've been arrested 3 times because of those damn things. Also arrested once for trespassing without having a prior warning (for being on the grounds of a high school at 2am)
anyway, I don't think seven has been banned from 60 separate stores in various locations. More like he was banned from a certain area which happens to have 60 stores within it's boundaries. A certain 'shopping district' or something like that.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
flat5: the stores are arrayed around Church St and the other streets of the downtown Burlington area. All the streets are public,so, they can not prevent me from being present on the sidewalk, but, should I darken a store's threshold...well, that's another story. Thanks, however, for the support and open dialogue. Please, continue to talk and think about this from all angels and, don't let my presence on the forum stifle the dialogue.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Lumiere Images [deleted] says:
Thanks for coming on the forum and good luck with everything!
It's nice to hear from the horses mouth as we say.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
Right, but it's not like there's a store that you are allowed in but you can't go into one on the left or right of it. (or is it?)
I'm not sure how it works in VT but those things typically expire or tend to get lost after a while. you might want to check in to that. I wouldn't sweat it too much (unless of course you have another run in with the cops at said locations)
in my case, I was skateboarding so it's hard to stay incognito.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
severncardan
the saddest thing about this whole episode is that you have decided to put your camera away. i hope you reconsider.
thanks for presenting your side.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@James Dodd - Not trolling, just confused.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@James Dodd
"there is a difference between exercising your rights and abusing them.
if the guy could articulate or even knew why he was doing what he was, then I'd imagine it wouldn't have gone this far."
This sounds extremely elitist, and to me implies that their should be a standard of intelligence in order to have rights. Bullshit!
@justinsdisgustin
The latest photo in your photo stream, which you posted here,
www.flickr.com/photos/justinsdisgustin/4432671414/
I am confused by this photo, and your posting of it. I guess I dont understand how that image and this statement jive, "I know I am the minority of one on this, but as a store owner I dont allow that shit. And I really really hate when people aim their cameras in my shop and pretend the fact that they are within their legal rights to do so excuses their "anti social behaviour". And really, it doesnt matter if its a skinny with a Leica or a DSLR perv, the approach and intent is everything. "
Can you please explain the difference between your taking of this photo, which I actually have no problem with, and your ardent stance against individuals taking photos in your shop.
(edited to remove the photo and replace it with the link)
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Joel... edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
@Joel
'dressing room, harassing her with a camera, diaper changed, lingerie shop? or a sex toy shop? or a gay bar?'
I think he gave a flavour of what he meant. It's not a black and white scenario. It is a clash of equal rights, and given that street photogs are a minority the balance is tipped slightly against us. It is. So respect for the grey area is needed. It's not a yes or a no, it's circumstance.. So I dunno, avoid being a pest whatever way you can -speed, discretion, interpersonal skills, whatever.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@This I's Eye,
I dont think I have stated my position on this, most likely because it is not a black and white issue. I agree with you though, every situation is different, and individuals have different levels of sensitivity. I just dont see a problem with aiming a camera into a store and taking a photo, an act which seems FAR less invasive or rude than standing in a grocery store aisle and photographing someone while they shop for lettuce. At least in the case of the former, you are within your rights, the latter you are at the mercy of the store owner. Given the photo and statement, justinsdisgustin's position seems hypocritical, thats all...
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Joel... edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
Joel... not elitist at all,
how the heck is that elitist? and how the heck can it imply that?
I'm not sure you understand what I was trying to say at all?
Surely it's pretty obvious that if someone has more information about something they can better articulate it to another person and thus stand a better chance of getting out of situations like this (or at least not ending up in them).
Now that doesn't in any way mean that if you aren't intelligent that you don't have rights! have you even read the articles in question? Do you even know that you don't have to be in the wrong (or have any right) to be banned from the store?
plus anyway, my statement was based on a lack of information and was a bit presumptive (for example I thought the report was accurate)
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@James Dodd,
I apologize if I have taken your comment out of context. I took your comment, "there is a difference between exercising your rights and abusing them.
if the guy could articulate or even knew why he was doing what he was, then I'd imagine it wouldn't have gone this far." to mean 'serves him right' for being ignorant.
Of course I read the article, and this trespass order could easily be abused, and, in an abstract way makes me think of,
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
Joel... edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
|
|
@joel the short answer is that I am a hypocrite. On a personal note, i wish you wouldnt have posted my picture in this thread. Especially with the colors being so fucked up. If you needed to illustrate your point you might have just linked to it instead.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@justinsdisgustin
Taken care of :-)
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
I would still work this area. Just change your style a bit. Adaptability is key in these situations. I know my rights at all times but I also am keenly aware of how I look and others impressions of what I do. I also listen to my inner voice if I think a subject will be a pain in my arse it's possible I may pass them up. I'd rather spend more time shooting than getting tangled up with some jerk that thinks they know "the law".
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
You know Justin, just to be pedantic, you're actually not a hypocrite. Hypocrites pretend one thing while they actually are something else. You're pretty up-front about it, so, it's just not hypocrisy.
Holding inconsistent values ideas is not hypocrisy, no matter what any one tells you.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
@joel thanx for pulling my shot, it was never intended for public consumption. I only had it up so that a friend could try to fix the awful color cast in photoshop (since I dont have it).
@maartyn thanx for drawing that distinction. I get called a hypocrite and a douchbag in this group at an inordinate rate.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
Thing is, in the US you can take pictures anywhere that you have the right to be or is accessible by the public, meaning: I can walk into Bank of America, sit down with the branch manager and halfway through the interview fire off a shot. He can then ask me to leave and I am required to. If I refuse, or come back without permission, I can be arrested for trespassing.
Photography in and of itself is not illegal (except in cases of child pornography, some government buildings, etc). Period.
The only real point of the thread is to talk about how not to get into these kind of issues, but everyone has their own way of working and it seems like it works -- until one day it doesn't -- and then you're banned from shopping throughout your hometown.
At least the wife can't send you out to pick up diapers or milk the next day. ;)
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
maartyn could you provide us with a suitable slur that we can tarnish justin with?
many thanks.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I always liked jewbag, but I guess I prolly dont get a vote?
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
@ Schoolbookdepository:
Check back again soon, I think Godwin's Law isn't too far away now...
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
oh relax, im just joking.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
|
I wasn't referring to anyone in particular.
...there are, like, 35,256 members of the group.
Posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
|
|
sevencardan's response is quoted in almost its entirety on consumerist
holy crap it is the whole thing... all they did was take out "Maartyn,"
Originally posted 27 months ago.
(permalink)
pe‡er edited this topic 27 months ago.
|
HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) /
Discuss
maartyn You were more than happy to pass judgment when all you had to go on was the magazine article. Now that the photographer is here, suddenly all we have is "one side"?
Feed – Subscribe to HCSP (Hardcore Street Photography) discussion threads