Photographer Banned From Coffee Shop...

epp_b · Mar 16, 2010

ghpham, you are quite obviously misinformed...

here are multiple issues, but first and foremost, he was on private property. The parking lot of ANY mall belongs to the owner of the mall and you will have to comply with their requests and abide by their policies.

OK, this is somewhat true: they can tell you to leave, but that's the extent of their power over you.

Secondly, you cannot take pictures of a person anytime you want and post it anywhere you want without their consent.

Yes, you can. If you are not selling the photos, the subject is simply a person in a public place and has no right to privacy beyond what can be seen from a public viewpoint.

In this case, the woman asked him to delete her photo, and if he had half a brain, he would have complied.

No. No one has the right to tell you to delete photos, not even the police.

usayit · Mar 16, 2010

gsgary said:
There is no way he can be as bad as Bruce my hero

Bruce is a big guy with a big stature.... something that he has going for him. If I were to do what he does in NYC, I'd probably get my rear end handed to me on a platter. I simply don't have the genes.

Joves · Mar 16, 2010

Village Idiot said:
You're wrong on most all accounts. Church St. Marketplace from where he was banned is a large outdoor shopping area. It could be considered a public area, much like an identical area in Northern Virginia where the complex tried to ban photographers. It was established that is was a public area and they didn't have the right to do so.

Further more, it doesn't say exactly where he was standing. If he was standing on a public sidewalk, then they couldn't ask him to not photograph people.

I'm not sure what country you live in, but in the US there is no expectation of privacy when in public. A photographer can photograph who ever they want, when ever they want when the person is in a public place. This can be old people, young kids, fat people, retarded people, disabled people, aliens, cats, dogs, whatever.

A person is not allowed to use some one's likeness for commercial purposes without a model release. They could post it all over the internet or where ever they please if they're using it for artistic or editorial purposes without that person's consent.

And by no means does a photographer have to comply with an order from a uniformed police officer, let alone a civilian to delete images from their camera. If a cop were to take the persons camera and do so, it would be considered destruction of evidence and property.

All of the above is supported by the laws of the wonderful United States of America.

Well I dont know the area so I cannot say but, if the area despite having what appears to be a common area, is not necessarily public. If it is like some of the market squares I have seen the moment you step off the sidewalk going around it you are on private property. Now he can stand on the public sidewalk and shoot in but, he cant go into the comman area and shoot if he has been banned from it. I have a feeling this is why the judge issued the order is he was on what was private property. So now he can stand on the public sidewalk and shoot in. That is just the way it is for him. And I would do it just because I had been kicked out.

I agree that if it is in the public realm then too bad so sad for those who dont like it. In the public areas you have no expected rights of privacy. Dont like it then cover your face or stay home.

Renol · Mar 16, 2010

I'm on the side of the photographer. It doesn't matter if people think he's "creepy" or "rude" for taking the pictures and not deleting the files. The simple truth is that so long as he is not taking pictures of people in the shops or whatnot the naysayers have NO RIGHT to do anything about it. Can they complain? Sure. Complain away. But the moment businesses like these start taking legal actions against a protected right it sets a precedent that slowly erodes the rights of everyday people.

KmH · Mar 16, 2010

epp_b said:
Secondly, you cannot take pictures of a person anytime you want and post it anywhere you want without their consent.

Click to expand...

Yes, you can. If you are not selling the photos, the subject is simply a person in a public place and has no right to privacy beyond what can be seen from a public viewpoint.

You can sell images of that person all day long as art, but they cannot be used to promote or advertise a business without their consent (model release). If you were to get to the point of selling so many of those images that in the eyes of the court you are now into 'distribution', it could be another matter.

srinaldo86 · Mar 16, 2010

I bet if these people complaining saw his flickr they would rather add the photos up to their facebooks rather than complain.

epp_b · Mar 16, 2010

You can sell images of that person all day long as art, but they cannot be used to promote or advertise a business without their consent (model release).

Ah, thanks for the correction.

Kristov · Mar 16, 2010

I did a bit of research before Mardi Gras, just so I didn't break any laws. On the street, there are no laws saying you cannot photograph people. Inside establishments, however is a different thing entirely.

I think he should fight it, if he can afford to that is.

Renol · Mar 17, 2010

Kristov said:
I did a bit of research before Mardi Gras, just so I didn't break any laws. On the street, there are no laws saying you cannot photograph people. Inside establishments, however is a different thing entirely.

I think he should fight it, if he can afford to that is.

There's another article out there that says he's planning to sue with the help of the ACLU.

craig · Mar 17, 2010

Tired rant to say the least. Right up there with film vs digital.

Photographers rights are quite simple. You have the right to photograph what ever you want. If you get busted then you are screwed. Point is do not get busted.

If you are truly concerned about this topic write your congressman. About a year ago there was a protest in LA concerning photographer rights. A dismal amount of people showed up and nothing got done. I guess it is a lot easier arguing about it on the interweb. Do not let this happen again. Make a movement people!

Our rights are being taken away daily. Consider the FCC's relaxation of ownership rules for one. Soon Clear Channel will hands down own the media. To me that is a lot scarier then dumb ol' photographer rights.

Love & Bass

benhasajeep · Mar 17, 2010

There is one thing the police can do is cite him for loitering if asked to move along and he refuses. If indeed the street where he is taking the pictures is actually a public way / sidewalk.
If it is private property then they can ban him from the area. But I do believe he is in the right to take the pictures that he wants. Now having him constantaly doing it may not be the friendliest thing to do. As mentioned it is his right to do so. If the shops don't trust this individual due to bad physical presentation, maybe they should hire security or request more police to patrol the establishments. I am sure the photog is not the only seedy person in the area going by some of his pics (if indeed the photog is a seedy looking person).

Hamtastic · Mar 17, 2010

I don't know what the property issues are. I want my right to photograph in public, but I support a private property owner/manager's right to control the activities in their establishment. I also don't think it's all that uncommon for merchants and police to use tactics like this to get perceived troublemakers to move on. If he was on public property, and the subjects were on an open patio I don't think a judge would rule they have much expectation of visual privacy. I'm sure a local lawyer could tell the photographer the odds of winning or losing the case in court.

On the other hand we all have the right to do all sorts of things that we don't do because it creeps people out. It's not just photography. Folks that are creeping people out, however they are doing that, get asked to leave and if they don't the cops are called. There are obviously plenty of photographers working in public that aren't creeping people out, as well as a bunch of perverts that are trying for butt and boob shots.

I just wish the masses understood photography better. They see a giant f/2.8 70-200, and they think it's like a telescope. They don't understand that it has less magnification than many compact cameras. The pervs and the terrorists are working with concealable, compact cameras. The image quality is more than enough for their purposes. Only the photo geeks are hauling SLRs.