Know your rights

[Battou]

Keep in mind all I shoot really anymore for art is night industrial, this is a huge huge issue for me, ( I should have said that before)

Yeah, CanAm is new, I don't think he has had the opertunity to see the bulk of your work.

 

[Arch]

Well its a good job i was asleep when most of these posts where made or i would have locked it a while ago.

Please, if i continue to leave this open READ my previous post.

 

[Rick Waldroup]

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.


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.



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.

Hey, I understand exactly where you are coming from. But this opens up another can of worms, doesn't it. And that is "intent." What are the intentions of the photographer- why is he taking those photos, what will he do with those photos, if anything. And that is a really gray area for law enforcement. Here is a story I posted a few months back about this very issue. I think in this instance, you see a perfect example of the old saying "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile."

Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was basically written to stop pervs from taking photos with cell phones and so on and then posting the shots on the internet and other places. However, the law was so vaguely written, that soon, prosecutors around the state began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.

In 2005, in Southlake, Texas, a very affluent suburb of Dallas, Lewis Vogel was arrested for shooting innapropriate photos at an Octoberfest celebration in the town square. Several ladies at the event noticed him shooting photos of, what they said were pictures of nothing but young girls. The ladies approached a couple of police officers and told them about it. The cops asked Vogel if they could see the pictures. He showed the photos to them on his camera and they promptly arrested him and confiscated the camera.

The Southlake police department held a press conference a few hours later detailing the arrest of Vogel to the media. That evening, the story ran on every evening TV newscast, featuring Vogel's name. Vogel had no prior criminal record. Not even a ticket. Nothing. He explained to the authorities that he was testing out his new camera and he had shot several photos of pretty girls in the crowd, as well as other things happening at the event.

Vogel was released on bail. A few days later, another press conference was held in which a city attorney announced that all charges against Vogel had been dropped and an official apology was made to Vogel. The attorney said, that after reviewing the photos, there was absolutely nothing illegal about his activity.

Of course, the damage to Vogel's reputation had been done. I believe that Vogel later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws and then ask the police to enforce these laws. A lot of times, publicity seeking politicians pass band-aid type laws instead of dealing responsibly with the real problem.

This is what worries me. These are the type of things that politicians love to get their teeth in because it makes them appear tough on crime, etc.... when in reality, it is ridiculous and absurd.

And you know, I don't know what the answer is. Of course, everyone wants to protect children, but somewhere, somehow, we have got to hit a middle ground and reign in this hysterical fear that a boogeyman with a camera is hiding around every corner, in every bush. I wish I knew the answer.

 

[Battou]

Hey, I understand exactly where you are coming from. But this opens up another can of worms, doesn't it. And that is "intent." What are the intentions of the photographer- why is he taking those photos, what will he do with those photos, if anything. And that is a really gray area for law enforcement. Here is a story I posted a few months back about this very issue. I think in this instance, you see a perfect example of the old saying "give 'em and inch and they will take a mile."

Here is an example of when well intentioned laws are misused by authorities. In 2003, I believe, Texas passed a law prohibiting unauthorized photography inside locker rooms, dressing rooms, etc. The law was basically written to stop pervs from taking photos with cell phones and so on and then posting the shots on the internet and other places. However, the law was so vaguely written, that soon, prosecutors around the state began extending the scope of the original law to "catch" perverts in public taking "questionable" photos.

In 2005, in Southlake, Texas, a very affluent suburb of Dallas, Lewis Vogel was arrested for shooting innapropriate photos at an Octoberfest celebration in the town square. Several ladies at the event noticed him shooting photos of, what they said were pictures of nothing but young girls. The ladies approached a couple of police officers and told them about it. The cops asked Vogel if they could see the pictures. He showed the photos to them on his camera and they promptly arrested him and confiscated the camera.

The Southlake police department held a press conference a few hours later detailing the arrest of Vogel to the media. That evening, the story ran on every evening TV newscast, featuring Vogel's name. Vogel had no prior criminal record. Not even a ticket. Nothing. He explained to the authorities that he was testing out his new camera and he had shot several photos of pretty girls in the crowd, as well as other things happening at the event.

Vogel was released on bail. A few days later, another press conference was held in which a city attorney announced that all charges against Vogel had been dropped and an official apology was made to Vogel. The attorney said, that after reviewing the photos, there was absolutely nothing illegal about his activity.

Of course, the damage to Vogel's reputation had been done. I believe that Vogel later filed a multi-million dollar lawsuit against the City of Southlake.

This is what happens when you have vaguely written laws and then ask the police to enforce these laws. A lot of times, publicity seeking politicians pass band-aid type laws instead of dealing responsibly with the real problem.

This is what worries me. These are the type of things that politicians love to get their teeth in because it makes them appear tough on crime, etc.... when in reality, it is ridiculous and absurd.

And you know, I don't know what the answer is. Of course, everyone wants to protect children, but somewhere, somehow, we have got to hit a middle ground and reign in this hysterical fear that a boogeyman with a camera is hiding around every corner, in every bush. I wish I knew the answer.

Yes, I understand exactly where you are comming from, and yes it is a diffrent can of worms comming out of the same case of cans. That case of cans is the band-aid type laws you mentioned. However the internet is not always a part of things but that is another story.

The problem lies in these "Quick Fixes" that never get reworked into proper fixes. This applies to both fields discussed here, Child protection and Anti-terror laws. They get thrown together so quickley they are infringing on the rights of the people they are supposet to protect. That is the bull of the issue.

 

[rob91]

Abuse of power has been going on ever since power was given to someone, and to blame the abuse of power on our administration is complete ignorance. Anyone and EVERYONE with power abuses it, the subtleness of the abuse of power depends on the person.

Yes, and since the beginning of time people have been killing and raping each other, since when is that acceptable? And who would you like us to blame, the ****ing boy scouts? Smokey the Bear? Burt Reynolds?

 

[rob91]

Something I don't believe that article addresses is that in private places open to the public you are free to take pictures unless asked to leave. I'm not a lawyer but that's the assumption I was under. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

 

[JerryPH]

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.

There is no physical damage from taking a picture, you and I both know that, but if you had a child and saw some mysterious man taking pictures of your child... and it was potentially a pedophile scoping out your kid, I am sure that this would make you mildly uncomfortable to say the least.

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

No one is living in fear, at least they should not be. However, the facts are that there ARE a lot of bad people out there that DO use a camera with severly bad intentions. Photographers are NOT the target of these issues... but the "bad" people with the cameras are. Unfortunately, upon first sight, it is impossible to distinguish which one they are... so you play better safe than sorry... and tell them to move on.

If I had kids, I would confront ALL the good photographers on this planet and tell them to move on just on the one in a billion chance that there was someone scoping out my child. I do not know anyone (unless they are a negligent or uncaring parent), that would not do exactly the same either.

This is not called living in fear, it is called a fact of life in the world today and accepting the fact that there are bad people out there which we do need to protect our kids from... and on a daily basis. It may be sad, but it is true none the less.

As far as any rights of photographers are concerned, I say that simple common sense and courtesy will get you out of ANY situation more than waving around some stupid piece of paper that defines your rights. Start yelling and screaming about your rights as a photographer because someone reported you to the police as taking pics of kids in a park... then be prepared to be handcuffed and hauled off to the local precinct for the old anal probe verification. Talk to the parent as a concerned human being for a few seconds and then moving on without further ado is the SMART thing to do.

I don't need someone to protect MY rights for me. I respect their wishes and can take my pictures without needing to offend anyone. For any one parent that screams stalker, I can easily find 10 that will let me take pictures openly and without restraint... if not candidly, then simply by walking up to them and ASKING.

Oh...I wasn't targeting your post specifically, Rick, I was talking more generally, but I did want to answer your question and use it as a spring board to air my opinion.

 

[patrickt]

A group of photographers were in town and being quite inconsiderate. One man got within two feet of a blind beggar taking photos. She could hear the camera and was asking what was going on and he ignored her. When he finished he joined a group of friends at an outdoor cafe and ordered beer. I went over and started taking photos, very close, of them drinking beer. Suddenly, they were upset. They wanted to know what I was doing. I ignored them and kept snapping pictures and they got angrier. Then I said, "How's it feel?"

I'm amazed at the self-centered people whose world is defined by their rights.

The pictures on my walls are almost all of people I don't know and were taken in public. In the last ten years I've had perhaps two people object. I've had another six or so ask me not to take pictures when I asked them if I could. Big deal.

FWIW, if you choose to take photos at 3 a.m. in an area with no other people the police would be remiss if they didn't stop. I went through a phase of night shots in alleys and before long the police officers who worked nights knew me and usually just waved. Having a camera in your hand does not define you.

 

[THORHAMMER]

Something I don't believe that article addresses is that in private places open to the public you are free to take pictures unless asked to leave. I'm not a lawyer but that's the assumption I was under. Please, correct me if I am wrong.

Yes you are correct , If its open to the public You cant get in trouble for it, but have to leave upon request.

If there are signs, then you are on more tricky ground. I believe state law
(at least for CA) says you have to be warned once per visit before it can be tresspassing. I dont know about other states

 

[THORHAMMER]

FWIW, if you choose to take photos at 3 a.m. in an area with no other people the police would be remiss if they didn't stop. I went through a phase of night shots in alleys and before long the police officers who worked nights knew me and usually just waved. Having a camera in your hand does not define you.

If the police came up and asked you a few questions on the street thats one thing, totally fine about that, thats actually a good thing.

but pulling you over without suspicion of any crime and illegal search and detainment that happens a lot out there; that im upset about. I thought I had made that very clear earlier.

 

[skieur]

If the police came up and asked you a few questions on the street thats one thing, totally fine about that, thats actually a good thing.

but pulling you over without suspicion of any crime and illegal search and detainment that happens a lot out there; that im upset about. I thought I had made that very clear earlier.

In law, the police cannot even legally stop you, interrogate, ask questions, or anything else without "just cause" and taking photos is no more "just cause" than walking down the street.

skieur

 

[Los Angeles]

Some of you guys are so ridiculous.

If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport. I used to do this pre 911 all the time. My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.

Taking a photo of someone elses child with out permission is unacceptable. Sure most of the time its not going to be a nut doing this but its just not worth the risk. A parent does not need some weirdo to become obsessed with your kid. Remember your photo is not more important than my level of comfortability. If you cant respect that Ill help you.

If you owened the buildings that someone was taking pictures of at 3am and did not really understand photography you might also think it was a bit odd, and could lead to criminal activity.

Act like an adult and remember that your part of a society that has its share of crime.

 

[Socrates]

Some of you guys are so ridiculous.

If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport. I used to do this pre 911 all the time. My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.

Taking a photo of someone elses child with out permission is unacceptable. Sure most of the time its not going to be a nut doing this but its just not worth the risk. A parent does not need some weirdo to become obsessed with your kid. Remember your photo is not more important than my level of comfortability. If you cant respect that Ill help you.

If you owened the buildings that someone was taking pictures of at 3am and did not really understand photography you might also think it was a bit odd, and could lead to criminal activity.

Act like an adult and remember that your part of a society that has its share of crime.

:hail:

To that I'll add that a bit of common courtesy wouldn't hurt. "Hi there, my name is abc and I'm taking pictures of children for xyz reason. Would you mind if I took some of your child? I'd be more than happy to send you copies." Of course, the answer may be "No" and, in which case, a courteous "Thank you, anyway" as you depart wouldn't hurt anyone.

 

[RMThompson]

Some of you guys are so ridiculous.

If you dont think things have changed after 911 go down to LAX and try and take photos of the planes taking off from the streets outside the airport. I used to do this pre 911 all the time. My opinion FWIW is thats fine if you get a little harassed what if you were a terrorist and the authorities stopped a possible attack.

Taking a photo of someone elses child with out permission is unacceptable. Sure most of the time its not going to be a nut doing this but its just not worth the risk. A parent does not need some weirdo to become obsessed with your kid. Remember your photo is not more important than my level of comfortability. If you cant respect that Ill help you.

If you owened the buildings that someone was taking pictures of at 3am and did not really understand photography you might also think it was a bit odd, and could lead to criminal activity.

Act like an adult and remember that your part of a society that has its share of crime.

The issue here is not about "acting like an adult", it's about our RIGHTS.

I don't think that many people capture the concept of TERRORISM... it's not to kill random people, that is just a tool used to create TERROR, and by changing the way we live is nothing more than succumbing to their demands.

That being said, I am all ABOUT preventing terrorism, but Americans losing their rights as citizens is too great a cost. What starts with no Photography at night of an airplane can easily transform into "no photography within 100 yards of an airport" which can easily transform into something much much worse! It's a slippery slope of losing our civil liberties.

The simple fact is no terrorist is going to gain much by taking pictures of an airport at night... there is no information to gather that cannot be gathered otherwise, unless they've also trespassed onto the property (but thats another story).

To the parents that worry if their child is going to become obsessed over, do you wrap them in beekeeper outfits when they leave the house? If not, someone is going to SEE them eventually, and yes, you'll run that risk. I'm willing to wager that a photographer out in the open taking pics of kids frolicking is not doing it for ill-intent, unless he is hiding in some bushes with a 400mm lens.

As a father of two little girls you can best believe I would still ASK anyone taking pictures of my kids, but to this day I've never ONCE seen the scenario at any playground or part where someone without kids is taking pics of other peoples kids at random. Just doesn't happen frequently to worry about.

I'm not suggesting people start getting rude with each other, but we DO need to know our rights as photographers, and it's each of our responsibilities as citizens of the USA (for those of us that are) to uphold the rights that we have!

 

[Socrates]

As a father of two little girls you can best believe I would still ASK anyone taking pictures of my kids...

What would your reaction be if the response was "Screw you, this is my RIGHT!" (which has been the tone of many of the posts in this thread)?