Ever been yelled at for taking pictures?

[FlashSpeedo]

just curious if anyone else been yelled at for taking pictures

yes, in Amsterdam walking through the red light district. i figured somebody would take offense, so i was shooting discretely from the hip from across the street, and keeping my camera hidden by my coat. some crazy guy actually chased me 2 blocks. yikes--all for a few bad fuzzy pictures.

 

[voodoocat]

I got escorted out of a flea market a couple years back for taking pictures. There weren't any signs saying No Photographs so I protested (while someone had their hand on my arm) and I also had say, "Please remove your hand from my arm" and they did. The place had been written up in the local paper as a fun place to go and knock around, whether you were buying anything or not....boy, that was not the vibe I got. From the initial, "She's taking pictures! Stop that girl!!" they finally let out that they thought I was a spy for a competing flea market....taking pictures of their fabulous wares "so they'd know what they were up to", or something. :roll: They were paranoid, so it was kind of fun getting the heave-ho.

Definately the best story in this thread!

federal building, bridge, blah, blah...... FLEA MARKET!!

 

[Digital Matt]

Since when are security guards law enforcement officers? Security guards at federal buildings have no powers to search and seize beyond what any security guard has, no matter what they may believe. I don't see what difference my location makes -- you've obviously not done any research on this issue. You'll find that most if not all "photography bans" at federal buildings are simply zealous security guards overstepping the bounds of their authority (which is again, extremely limited, legally).

A quick Google search found this article, as a quick example: http://www.unknownnews.net/031008faa.html "The Department of Transportation, the Cabinet department that contains the FAA, said it is looking into the incident. Spokesman Robert Johnson said there is no rule against taking pictures of the FAA building, but photography is one of the factors that security guards take into account when determining whether people should be challenged."

Do you believe everything you read on Google.com? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but when you have a $1000 digital slr in hand, you bet safe. I was told it was private property, and photography was not allowed, on the property. I was surrounded immediately by 6 guards. It was a lot easier to show them the pictures and let them watch me delete them, than to get into some big legal arguement, where I don't know the exact law. None of that is worth a few pictures.

 

[terri]

Definately the best story in this thread!

federal building, bridge, blah, blah...... FLEA MARKET!!

That's right, I'm an outlaw, baby!

 

[Bob_McBob]

Do you believe everything you read on Google.com? I'm not saying you are right or wrong, but when you have a $1000 digital slr in hand, you bet safe. I was told it was private property, and photography was not allowed, on the property. I was surrounded immediately by 6 guards. It was a lot easier to show them the pictures and let them watch me delete them, than to get into some big legal arguement, where I don't know the exact law. None of that is worth a few pictures.

I have no reason to believe the story I found is made up. It's a reputable source, and the person involved is fairly well-known. Do you doubt its authenticity? There are plenty of other examples to be found from various news sources.

There is an important distinction between giving up your rights to avoid a confrontation and saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings. You have every right to take photos of a federal building. I will not go as far as to say you can photograph on the propery of said buildings -- access is certainly restricted internally -- but there is no federal law banning photography of the buildings themselves, as you can see from the FAA example. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I seriously doubt the guards were in any legal position to make you delete your photos.

As I said before, they are overstepping the bounds of their authority. The fact that they make vague references to the Homeland Security Act while doing so does not make it any more legal.

 

[Digital Matt]

They didn't make any references to the homeland security act. I did because I'm aware of it and the problems it has caused photographers. There is a ban on photography of the Brooklyn bridge as a result.

I never said photographing federal buildings was illegal. I said it was illegal to do so on the property, which is true, when it is private property, which it was.

 

[Nikon Fan]

My uncle said he was watching CNN and they said that now photographers aren't allowed to take pictures of the subways...because they could be terrorists. I'm glad that the gov is doing what it can to keep us safe, but it sure sucks for photography sometimes!!!

 

[Jeff Canes]

This is part of the Patriot Act that was passed after 911. It gives special powers to federal government to fight terrorism. It experts this year I think, and is up for renewal. There is some talk about how it denies civil rights to both US citizens and non-citizens. But I am sure it will be extended. Some in the current administration are call for an unlimited time extension. I hope and pray it's not.

 

[walter23]

I can't believe everyone gives in so easily. No security guard has the right to make you delete your photos, or detain you for taking them. They rely on fear and deceit to terrorize people into believing they're some sort of authority. Walk away, don't let them push you around.

Better yet, point your camera at them and start snapping. You can get some amusing photos that way.

As for the terrorism / (not-really-)PATRIOT act angle, all the better reason to start defying authorities. Everybody should do it. It's just the old control-people-by-fear trick resurfacing with a new label. It might get you into trouble, but with those laws you're already in trouble, so what the hell, hey?

 

[steve817]

yes, in Amsterdam walking through the red light district. i figured somebody would take offense, so i was shooting discretely from the hip from across the street, and keeping my camera hidden by my coat. some crazy guy actually chased me 2 blocks. yikes--all for a few bad fuzzy pictures.

Your lucky, while my friend was there last year a tourist was stabbed by one of the pimps for doing the same thing.

 

[Artemis]

I have no reason to believe the story I found is made up. It's a reputable source, and the person involved is fairly well-known. Do you doubt its authenticity? There are plenty of other examples to be found from various news sources.

There is an important distinction between giving up your rights to avoid a confrontation and saying it's illegal to photograph federal buildings. You have every right to take photos of a federal building. I will not go as far as to say you can photograph on the propery of said buildings -- access is certainly restricted internally -- but there is no federal law banning photography of the buildings themselves, as you can see from the FAA example. I don't know the specifics of your situation, but I seriously doubt the guards were in any legal position to make you delete your photos.

As I said before, they are overstepping the bounds of their authority. The fact that they make vague references to the Homeland Security Act while doing so does not make it any more legal.

I think there is a such thing as choosing your battles.

I must side with Matt on this one, as, one of the main reasons I have learnt to trust his judgement.
Sometimes, even though we know we may be in the right, we must back down because it is the best thing to do...rather than waste the light Matt had arguing with security, he opted to end quickly, and move on to another set of pictures, saving his limited 10 - 20 min light...I feel this is the best option.

Just my thoughts

 

[friendlyphoto]

I really think these law maker has nothing better to do so they create these useless laws.

They are not protecting us or create any safer enviornment.
1) If a terrorist really want to take photos of the subway, federal building, or any bridges, they wont be holding a huge expensive camera. They will be holding a small camera cel-phone. Those phone have very good photo quality these day and can transfer the picture directly over the phone insteadily. No need for uploading to PC, process them and email and stuff. I dont see them banning companies from manufacting the phone because they are creating an unsafe enviorment for this country.

2) 1 year after 911, I was able to go to downtown NY to take pictures of the Federal Reserves. No guards with machine-gun brothered to stop me or question me. I even have a picture of a guard with a machine-gun outside the fed. Revs. So how safe is that.

3) I dont know how ture is the law regarding banning people from taking picture of Brooklyn Bridge. I drive on it everyday and I still see poeple snapping photos of the bridge, off of the bridge and stuff. No one enforce this law as well.

4) When I went to Florida and HK last year, I was carrying my camera on my neck the whole time in the Airport. Taking pictures of the airport, and planes taking off and landing. No security office or employee brother to question me.

5) A couple of weeks ago, I had a very nice oppunority to take some night photos from the brooklyn side and 1 picture I was able to include the brooklyn bridge. Also I see so many people taking photos along me with tripods and stuff. No enforcement were patroting the area. So if one of them is a terrerist, how safe is that.

So I come to the conclusion that even thought there is such a law, no one really enforce them, just like J-walking, and driving and using cel without hands free in NYC (some time you will still get a few cops that follows the book, but thats like 3% out of the whole department).

So why have such a law you said?? I think the government only create them so they can cover the own butt when something happens. They can say "We did our best, but it failed".

But I totally disagree on these useless, makes no sense acts. It only take away our human Rights and give some government officials more authorities to abuse law obeying people like us (photographer trying to make a living and people enjoying the hobbies and tourist that is bring income to the State). We are not hurting nobody. Can we all be friends......

Hope I didnt offend anyone, just my $.02 and opinion. Peace!

 

[Kuristopha]

i used to cruise around with my headphones and rollerblades on taking photos, if anyone yelled i'd pretend i didn't hear em. "Darn kids and there blasting music!"

One time i got a tight picture at this convenience storeof this old guy eating donuts, great shot, but the owner was choked that i didn't ask. i apologized and ran.

 

[Dweller]

Today at a public outdoor skate park. I hung out for a couple of hours before pulling out the camera, chatting with some of the skaters and just watching hat was going on....


pull out the camera, get 4 shots in and had one guy get all bent out of shape about me taking pictures there...

outside...

in a public park...

 

[DocFrankenstein]

Arguing with the FBI is not a good thing... even though technically the security guy is not a "peace officer" and can only practice citizen arrest, it's a BAD idea.

I was on the "casino island" in montreal. There was a huge spherical white structure and a pool with absollutely flat water in it... It was beautiful, I wanted to get the reflection.

The security guy comes up. "You need a permit to take pictures. It is government property"
"No we don't"
"Sir, are you calling me a liar?"
"Yes"
"I called the city hall (at 11:20 pm) and checked with them. Nobody has been issued a photography permit for today..."
"It's a public place. People take pictures of it all the time I have total right to take pictures. Are you trying to infringe my freedom of expression?"
"You can not take pictures here, sir."
"Can I stay in the park?"
"Yes you can, but you cannot take pictures."

Fine

We were walking around for 40 minutes with that guy escorting us in his cruiser.

I would LOVE to continue arguing with him, but:
1) montreal is not my city
2) I was breaking 11 o'clock curfew we have in canada
3) I had 6 beers in me, and a few more in the bag.

When confronted, KNOW that you have the right to take pictures.
LEO: You can't blah blah blah....
You: Sir, my legal counsil has advised me that it is within my rights to take pictures at such location.
LEO: blah blah blah?
You: Sir, am I under arrest?
LEO: No.
You: Thank you very much for your time, sir. I'd like to be excused now.