Know your rights

[Rick Waldroup]

Suppose a stranger did the equally innocent act of offering your grandchildren candy?

That goes right back to my statement about being alert, being aware, and being cautious.

Once again, I ask you, what physical or mental harm comes to a child the moment someone snaps a shutter?

 

[eterrisinCYQX]

Maybe some of our Aussie friends can chime in here. I read that there are some beaches now in Australia that will not allow photography of any kind. Is this true? And if it is, what do they base this absurd law on?

Know it's true on manyclothing-optional beaches, except by employees/without certain permission, but that of course makes sense. Not sure about other locations.

​

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Know it's true on manyclothing-optional beaches, except by employees/without certain permission, but that of course makes sense. Not sure about other locations.​

Yes, I can see where it would be a problem with clothing optional beaches.

That is like most, if not all, nudist camps here in the US do not allow photography.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

Yeah, one should have there life threatened for photographing a child, and capturing the peak of innocence. The reason why we have adopted rights and have written them down, and enforce them is because people dont respect each other. We dont respect each others opinions, thoughts, beliefs or even that they exist. Because of this, we as a group, and sometimes individuals with the power to do so have adopted fundamental "rights" for ALL people.

The fact your sons felt the need to threaten someones life and limb is irresponsible at best. Its why we had to adopt these rights to begin with.

Common sense is a rare commodity in this day and time. Thanks for the post.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Yes, the clown with the Instamatic should have had some common sense.

So your advocating threatening someones life cause they took a picture of your grandaughter ? I mean thats pretty wack.

You wouldn't ask them what the pictures for in a polite way, or ascertain
what they were doing, Art project, school project, newspaper, etc.... these are all common, but you just go up and threaten there life ?

Gee what a shame? How can you talk about human rights, you have no place, your statement makes you basically a terrorist.

The real shame will be when you threaten and assault a photographer, then you go to jail for 5-10 with a felony and terrorist threat on your record (2 strikes) and your grandkid grows up without a dad because you wanted to punish someone for doing something totally legal and pretty darn normal among artists.

Actually, thats not a shame, if thats your MO, you need to be off the street.

Attn moderators, this guy is advocating terrorist threats and murder.
How is that OK ?

After reading this I wonder, do we have a duty to report the post to the authorities in case this guy
kills some poor photographer in the future. ?

--------------------------------

 

[redls1bird]

^ +1

 

[DSLR noob]

I posted this because a rent-a-cop told me not to take pictures at a mall. I didn't expect a page about what's morally right and wrong, just about what you can and can't do just in case you've been wrongly told. Guys, keep it clean, lets not debate about what's right or wrong with taking the picture of a child. also, security in all aspects, photographic or not, have doubled their restrictions since 911 in America, let's not deny that. It's not to say they weren't strict before, but it's just worse now. So let's not beat each other up, but rather learn what our rights are, so that a rent-a-cop or suspicious neighborhood watch member doesn't ruin a good shot okay?

 

[Miaow]

Maybe some of our Aussie friends can chime in here. I read that there are some beaches now in Australia that will not allow photography of any kind. Is this true? And if it is, what do they base this absurd law on?

I'm not so sure on the beaches though there is a nudist beach near here that I'm pretty sure it isn't allowed (cant be too certain though as I've never been there LOL) there was something in the local paper about it they have the police patrol there heaps cause they get a lot of people watching those bathing there.

some kids sporting events though it's not allowed to take pics - even of your own child (in case others get in the shot) i believe - Im pretty sure i read that a while ago in a paper

 

[CanAm]

--and no, people are not tired of playing find the terrorist, I've had hour long discussions with detectives that have 17 years under there belt and are heading up anti terror squads in LAPD and LBPD. You simply dont know what you are talking about.

Apparently my point was lost on you.

Anti-terror squads and terrorist investigators are one thing.

Some cop harassing a photographer because he's taking pictures of stuff, or reporting people for "terrorist acts" when they have no such intent is another.

 

[Mystwalker]

That goes right back to my statement about being alert, being aware, and being cautious.

Once again, I ask you, what physical or mental harm comes to a child the moment someone snaps a shutter?

There is nothing wrong if that person is "just a photographer".

But with the number of pervs that our lovely justice system can't keep in jail, I would rather not take any chances.

As a "photographer", you want "your rights to be respected" ... fair enough. As a parent, it is my right to be protective (over-protective maybe). You are free to take all the pictures of buildings, fountains, etc ... that you want. I do not even have probs with you take pictures of federal buildings - even those that I'm in.

 

[Mystwalker]

I posted this because a rent-a-cop told me not to take pictures at a mall. I didn't expect a page about what's morally right and wrong, just about what you can and can't do just in case you've been wrongly told. Guys, keep it clean, lets not debate about what's right or wrong with taking the picture of a child. also, security in all aspects, photographic or not, have doubled their restrictions since 911 in America, let's not deny that. It's not to say they weren't strict before, but it's just worse now. So let's not beat each other up, but rather learn what our rights are, so that a rent-a-cop or suspicious neighborhood watch member doesn't ruin a good shot okay?

Not sure a "rent-a-cop" is going after you for "911" reasons. He is either harrassing you, or he has orders from his boss to not allow photographers.

I'm guessing he is follow orders from boss.

I have no problems if others want to take pictures of my house, my car, my dog, etc ... BUT I would feel like I am intruding on someone's privacy if I did the same thing without asking for permission first. "First Amendment Rights" has it's uses, but I have a feeling founding fathers did not have paparazi in mind when they crafted it.

I've said it before - it is a sad world we live in because I do not trust anyone to take pictures of my daughter without asking me first. Fear has nothing to do with it - distrust of mankind is closer.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Apparently my point was lost on you.

Anti-terror squads and terrorist investigators are one thing.

Some cop harassing a photographer because he's taking pictures of stuff, or reporting people for "terrorist acts" when they have no such intent is another.

Not trying to be mean, but I think your point was lost before it got to your keyboard.

Both Terror squads and task forces exist in greater numbers now then ever before and cops/guards reporting terror activity against guilty before proven innocent photographers are abundant.

Thats the call they are making every time they stop you and make you give them your address or ID your suspected of terrorism. Its illegal and its also a terry stop. There is no articulatable crime you are about to commit by taking the pictures therefore no basis for the stop. Only patriot act gives them the power to circumvent the constitution for whatever reason they want, photographers or other.

So, what point were you trying to make ?

 

[Battou]

People do seem to be more jumpy about industrial buildings and infrastructure now. I was kicked off of 2 places this winter barely being on their property.

I saw a version of the photographers laws saying that even if you were illegally trespassing -the photos taken would still be yours.

These people you refer to are not there to stop photography, They are there to prevent an assortment of things like theft, personal injury and a few others. Nine times out of ten they really don't give the back side of a rat if you snap off a few shots of a building, however once you step within the property line the company who hired him is responsable for what ever happens to you, thus by technicality they are obligated to have you removed from the premisis.

"rights and such aside" ...

I've said this before ... I would have a real problem with someone taking pictures of my daughter without asking me first.

As a "real photographer", do you really want your zoom shoved up your $%@! by a nervous parent?

There is "the law" and there is common courtesy and decency. I am sure most photographers are not out to test their rights and probably want trouble less then parents. In today's world, I draw the line at my daughter being photographed by strangers, and I am sure many parents feel the same way.

Sponsored events - company parties, Easter egg hunt, Christmas in the park ... I may feel differently.

I am currently a Child Care provider and I am the first one step infront of a lens I feel is in the wrong place at the wrong time reguardless of body.

As you said there is situational reactions, when in large groups of children I see no reason for some one who showed up with with their kids to snap away at who ever they feel like with what ever they want. At the same time though with any groups some one who shows up out of no where with a 80-200 macro zoom and no kids in tow, is not going to like me at all.

I am the kind of person who will tell some one to change their lens or leave, and if they refuse, the children I am entrusted with are gone no two ways about it. Shoot with a short lens I can tolerate but anything giving anysort of close up I will not stand for.

Can someone explain to me what physical harm there is in taking a photo of a child? What actual harm befalls that child when a person clicks a shutter.

Where in the hell did this insane friggin' fear come from about taking a photo of a child?

I have never seen such hysterical rants about shoving lenses up peoples asses, about the photographer having a short life span, and so on, simply because someone raised a camera and took a picture of a child.

Are you people for real? Do you really want to live in fear like this all your life. And for the guy who thinks nothing has changed since 9/11 about photographers taking photos on the streets- you must not hit the streets and do much shooting.

I am a street shooter and since 9/11 I can't tell you how many times I have been stopped, sometimes detained, and harrased by authorities. Before 9/11, it was extremely rare when this happened.

It starts here and it needs to end here. We have to take our rights back and I'm not just talking about photography. How many of you guys expect the "terrorism alerts" to pick up as we get closer to the national election? If the American people do not put their foot down and say enough is enough, then we have only ourselves to blame for this hysteria.

Once again, what the hell is wrong with taking a photo of a child at a playground acting, well, like a child? This is absurd. Be cautious, be aware, but do not live in fear.

Stop living in fear.

Taking photographs of children is not the issue, it's those who take the opertunity to get innapropriate shots of children wile they play. It is very easy to get some shots thet could be of sexual interest to pedophiles wile children are playing, trust me I've thrown away dozens of them taken by shere accident, both male and female. If one sets their mind to it the results could be devistating to the one in the picture. That is the source of the fear around it. This is why I do not allow people I do not know nor can validate their presence to use long lenses regardless of their intentions. To be quite frank I don't care how skilled the person is, they are not going to get a good upskirt shot with a 50mm from 40 yards.

At the same time I have no qualms with parents using stuff like that regardless of who they're taking pictures of or even using them my self as I am confident parents intentions are fine.

 

[CanAm]

Not trying to be mean, but I think your point was lost before it got to your keyboard.

Both Terror squads and task forces exist in greater numbers now then ever before and cops/guards reporting terror activity against guilty before proven innocent photographers are abundant.

Thats the call they are making every time they stop you and make you give them your address or ID your suspected of terrorism. Its illegal and its also a terry stop. There is no articulatable crime you are about to commit by taking the pictures therefore no basis for the stop. Only patriot act gives them the power to circumvent the constitution for whatever reason they want, photographers or other.

So, what point were you trying to make ?

You're arguing two sides of the same coin then. First you said that the whole anti-terror thing has legitimate backing, and now you're saying being accosted for taking photos is highly illegal.

Not to be mean, but I think you'd be better received if you didn't waste half of your articulation on trying to be an internet tough guy.

Even though 9/11 went down (a full SIX years ago), that's no excuse for being treated like a criminal without committing any crimes. We need to get over this whole domestic terror thing and live our lives like we used to. Not everyone is a bad guy, not everyone is out to get you.

I understand what you're saying entirely. I've been illegally searched for bogus reasons a couple times. Before I could have had the cops' jobs for harassment, but now I'm powerless.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Even though 9/11 went down (a full SIX years ago), that's no excuse for being treated like a criminal without committing any crimes. We need to get over this whole domestic terror thing and live our lives like we used to. Not everyone is a bad guy, not everyone is out to get you.

I understand what you're saying entirely. I've been illegally searched for bogus reasons a couple times. Before I could have had the cops' jobs for harassment, but now I'm powerless.

Ok Ok OK ., ive been touchy today. Here is why. something happened to me friday night. This should clear up my position.

BTW I agree with a lot of what you just said.

I think the problem here is I shoot 99% of the time @ night in indusrial areas, this is MY world and im in it 15-20 hours a week, a lot of you prob dont know that. Its a huge huge issue to us that pursue night photography.

Im sick of wasting 30 minutes everytime a cop drives around the corner or a security guard decides to call you in and when you know in the back of your head its an illegal stop, it really sucks after a while....

Its also uber frustrating when people who obviously dont spend any time shooting in the industrial areas at night are telling me there is no problem and im making excuses for whats always been there when just last friday I am detained in handcuffs for 30 minutes shooting from public sidewalk while my car is illegally searched. I think you would get a little touchy too. Put yourself in my shoes, nobody deserves that for pursuing art, pre or post 911

I'm pursuing legal actions with the aclu currently and the watch commander is deciding wether or not to get rid of the guy. Its just now on Digg and mirrored to my blog.

http://digg.com/politics/Photography_is_not_a_crime_Illegally_detained_in_LB_Ca

of course law enforcment is there to do what, ENFORCE LAW, not make up laws, and not break laws. Thats all Im saying.



"internet tough guy" lol....... :lmao: I like it....but no sir, just standing up for your rights as well as mine. Your welcome !!

Can AM, look at my flickr page and check out the night photography, youll see how seriously I take it and why...
http://www.flickr.com/photos/uniqimage/collections/72157603197840256/

I shoulda mentioned that earlier....