Have you ever been harassed?

[480sparky]

One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please. Permits are a common thing. In my part of the world we have state parks. If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit. Either a one day permit or an annual permit. Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks. Permits do. Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.

Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world. In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle. It is a privilege. Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test. Not all that tough. Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.

Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license. Might make life simpler. Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones. Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots. May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.

Photography is not a privilege (at least in the US). It is a right. Guaranteed by the First Amendment.

 

[imagemaker46]

Yes, been lead out of venues at gun point on a few assignments in other parts of the world. Been asked to leave some zones because the rules say I can be there, but the one one person that hasn't read the rule book says different. I just roll with it, I used get upset, not worth it, and besides if you smile and talk quietly it really pisses people off.

All my incidents happened during the Olympics years ago. The problem now is that there are so many people with cameras that don't act in a professional manner, they get confrontational as soon as they are questioned by anyone, "I have the right to be here, it's a free country" well yes it is, just not here. People have little respect for anyone these days, especially anyone with authority doing there job. Learn the rules, follow the rules, respect the rules and you won't have problems. So many people feel entitled these days, and feel that rules don't apply to them. As soon as you put a camera in someones hand, they will fall under the watchful eye of someone, that's the nature of photography these days, especially in any public place.

 

[table1349]

One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please. Permits are a common thing. In my part of the world we have state parks. If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit. Either a one day permit or an annual permit. Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks. Permits do. Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.

Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world. In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle. It is a privilege. Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test. Not all that tough. Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.

Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license. Might make life simpler. Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones. Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots. May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.

Photography is not a privilege (at least in the US). It is a right. Guaranteed by the First Amendment.

Going where you damn well please on your own terms is not. With every right comes something a whole lot of people seem to forget. It's called RESPONSABILITY!

 

[480sparky]

Going where you damn well please on your own terms is not.

Did I say it was? Or are you just troll posting now?

With every right comes something a whole lot of people seem to forget. It's called RESPONSABILITY!

Well, technically it's called responsibility.

 

[SoulfulRecover]

Great discussion going on here, just wanted to say that the article got me thinking about other peoples experiences. I in no way meant for the article to be specifically talked about (not that its a bad thing). Just personal experiences

Ive only had two run ins.

One was while I was out with my class in a small downtown district. My partner and I were in front of a bar, metering for a light tower in the distance (shooting 4x5) and the owner came out and asked if we were from the new station. He didn't believe we were shooting still images and thought we were filming a news story talking about some stabbing that happened there a few days prior. He ended up hanging around and watched us till we left.

The other time was again for my 4x5 class. I went to a local Mexican American Cultural something or other building. It was for architectural photos. They came out and took my name down to call the school because they didn't believe I was a student (had my school ID even) and asked me multiple times to pay them $50 as a permit fee for commercial work. I told them to get bent and left. Luckily I had already taken my last image when they walked out

 

[KmH]

I love these online one sided stories with lots of quoted dialog.
Did the author/photographer record the conversations?
My bet is he's just going by memory.

The photographer's light stand (or a tripod) seems to have been sufficient to require a permit according to the permit office.

 

[480sparky]

...........My bet is he's just going by memory..............

He admits that at the end of the article.

 

[Buckster]

The only time I can think of that even comes close, I was in the passenger seat of a white work pickup with signs and an idiot light flashing on top, four-way flashers going, headlights, moving REAL slow, doing power system survey work.

As we passed by this awesome looking government building, I snatched up my ever-ready DSLR and started shooting. Pretty much immediately, 2 guards rushed down the wide, white, marble steps toward me, asked me what's going on, I answered, and they said to have a nice day.

So, not really harassed, just questioned.

I tracked down some cops once to have them help me gain access to a park that's restricted after dusk because of high crime and so on, in order to get night photos of a bridge from a particular vantage point. They were good with it, keeping watch for me for 15 minutes while I had my way. That was pretty cool of them.

 

[jcdeboever]

One of the issues not mentioned in the article, probably for good reason by the author, is that people just don't pay attention to the fact that just because you may pay taxes, the world does not become yours to do with as you please. Permits are a common thing. In my part of the world we have state parks. If you want to use the state park you must buy a permit. Either a one day permit or an annual permit. Taxes don't pay for the up keep etc at the state parks. Permits do. Camping permits, boating permits, fishing permits etc.

Simple fact is, you need permits for many things in this world. In this country you do not have a RIGHT to drive a vehicle. It is a privilege. Part of being granted the privilege is learning the laws and passing a driving test. Not all that tough. Same thing with piloting a plane, you need a license commercial pilot or private pilot, makes no difference.

Perhaps, with the explosion of photographers, since any idiot can now afford a camera, there should be a simple photographers license. Might make life simpler. Besides, look what happened with the explosion of drones. Now you have to register your drone because some of them are idiots. May not be long before you will have to get a drone operator license if the trend does not change.

I would fail the written and shooting test.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Trever1t]

I have been through this various times.

State and city parks have the right to require 'permit' for professional use of public lands for advertising, wedding, etc. I have had multiple conversations with City park management regarding this in my area. Seems many professionals use the parks for their own monetary gain, which is wrong, isn't it? But to what method can a park ranger determine if you are pro or not? It's by the gear. Now in my opinion this is prejudiced and wrong but I do understand their dilemma.

Now when I see the park authorities I just calmly tell them there is no commercial activity going on.

 

[jcdeboever]

I was harassed because I was taking pics of a oil refinery in Detroit. It was good stuff but immediately surrounded by homeland security people. Stuff was out of focus anyway.

Sent from my XT1254 using Tapatalk

 

[Solarflare]

Not by any official or person who thinks they're officials, no.

 

[407370]

Of course this is all geographically proportional.
Try taking a picture with any camera in any room with Middle East Arabs present, they will automatically demand the pics be deleted or they will call the cops and have you arrested for breaching their privacy.
My experience is that private security staff will always have an opinion on anyone carrying a camera within their eye line. Depending on whether I really want the picture or not I either ignore them and carry on (local laws permitting) or just nod and leave with a sarcastic comment like "you must really like your job" or " my goodness your job has a lot of responsibility" or similar.
There is zero point even trying to have a sensible discussion with someone who thinks they are within their job description to stop you taking photographs.
Just my experience!

 

[Braineack]

First, unless you've actually read the legislation, and were present at the event, I'm a little unclear on just how you can make that assertion. We only have one side of the story, so there are two sides missing.

I read the quoted ordinace in the article. Did you not? Even if the one-sided story is factually incorrect, we can still look at the actual ordinace -- the rest of the details of the story dont really matter.

§ 608-47. Filming and videotaping.

While in a park, no person shall take or permit to be taken for remuneration any film, photograph, videotape or television broadcast unless permitted under the City's film by-law and authorized by permit from the Toronto Film and Television Office.

re·mu·ner·a·tion
noun

1. money paid for work or a service.

If he wasnt shooting for money, then he didn't violate the ordinace. It's that simple.

Mmmmmm... not necessarily; in many cases there's no actual charge for permits, the intent is actually to exercise some control over what people are doing. Is it really fair that a photographer can waltz into a public park and hog the best area for a photoshoot?

Three Strawman arguments in one rebuttle. impressive.

First off, the cost of the permit is irrelevant because it's perfectly legal to shoot in a public park.

Second, that may be the intent of the law, but again, it's irrelevant. (FWIW, TORONTO MUNICIPAL CODE 608 has FIVE pages of rules dedicated to commerical dog walking. It has one sentence on commerical photography.)

Third, yes it's fair. That's like saying it isn't fair for me to bring a beach blanket and umbrella early in the morning and grabbing the best spot on the beach. Thrice, completely irrelevant.

Again.. Mmmm... is that what the legislation says, or could it perhaps read, "commercial". Just bcause there was no cash changing hands, this could indeed be considered a commercial shoot. Both the photographr's time and the model's time have value, and an exchange of value for value can be considered commerical (if you don't believe me, ask the IRS).

i actually read it. You apparently didn't. What an incredibly researched argument. bravo.

More probably this was someone who had an incorrect idea of what the rules were, and was trying to do his job as he understood it.

I agree, but it happens way too often.

Had this person exercised his due dilligence, he would have known that he was in an area where a permit was not required, and could have explained that to the official; if that wasn't satisfactory, then indeed, call the by-law enforcement person who would be able to verify it.

It shouldnt be the job of a regular citizen to have to protect himself and/or prove himself against the state who doesnt understand their own rules. But he did exactly what you suggested and called 311 after the janitor brought up the issue. I'm assuming again you didn't read the article and still decided to argue with me.

 

[runnah]

I immediately go limp and force them to physically drag me off the premises.