Photographer Banned From Coffee Shop...

tjones8611 · Mar 16, 2010

I thought this was an interesting read...

Amateur Photographer Banned From Coffee Shop For Creeping People Out

usayit · Mar 16, 2010

"This one should be fun. On one side you have a guy who is perfectly within his rights to hang out and photograph people in a public place."

Ok.. lost interest in the article after that line. Public place does not mean public property. I am a photographer who is sick of seeing unnecessary limits placed on people taking pictures. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for a merchant to make their number one concern the customers. For the cafe owner, it is essential to the business that the patrons are comfortable.

I don't know the details but the sheer fact that this photographer is "creeping" multiple individuals tells me he is pushing his/her boundaries.... and not helping the already damaged image of a photographer.

Overread · Mar 16, 2010

Yep what USA said.

I don't get why the photographer has to be a pain for that coffee shop or area, he's clearly been asked leave more than once yet continues to keep coming back. Sure he has rights, but sometimes one has to be polite as well and respect the rights of others.

We also have very few details to go on but it sounds like he (the photographer) is now lurking outside the shop to shoot in? It sounds like rudness and an abuse of his right - keep acting that way and soon people will see that right revoked.

Village Idiot · Mar 16, 2010

usayit said:
"This one should be fun. On one side you have a guy who is perfectly within his rights to hang out and photograph people in a public place."

Ok.. lost interest in the article after that line. Public place does not mean public property. I am a photographer who is sick of seeing unnecessary limits placed on people taking pictures. On the other hand, it is perfectly reasonable for a merchant to make their number one concern the customers. For the cafe owner, it is essential to the business that the patrons are comfortable.

I don't know the details but the sheer fact that this photographer is "creeping" multiple individuals tells me he is pushing his/her boundaries.... and not helping the already damaged image of a photographer.

You srsly should have read farther. He was shooting from outside the coffee shop. How can some one serve a no trespass order to some one that's never entered the premises.

Also, check out his flickr stream:
on Flickr - Photo Sharing!

It's pretty good. He's a street photographer and it's not all of girls hanging out outside of a coffee shop. Some street photographers are notoriously shy and don't like the idea of running around with a large camera and lens out just taking picture of everyone; some don't like the idea that the sight of a camera will change a person's disposition, essentially negating the reason why people find street photogrpahy so intriguing in the first place.

I see it more as a few paranoid people causing undue alarm at some one's expense.

the iconic image · Mar 16, 2010

This is an interesting "issue," that is always discussed from 2 completely separated perspectives and yet there is ONLY ONE perspective that matters. Lets look at the 2 most common perspectives. There is the photographer who uses a little 12 volt operated box with a piece of glass attached to it to record an image. Then there are the people and things that the little box is pointed at who for one reason or another, make a choice in their own mind to be uncomfortable with the man holding the little box.

Both have every right in America at least, to do what they are doing, and feel how they choose to feel about it. If you are looking at this from a purely objective point of view and not involved in any way but only an observer, how would you look at this if it were the photographer who filed a complaint against the people who were bothered by his little 12 volt box ? Personally I think it is extremely odd for anyone to allow a battery operated image recording box to "make" them feel creeped out. What about the man or woman who walks by a scene and records the visual in his or her mind and takes that memory home and thinks about it ? What about an artist who records a scene on canvas rather than a memory card ?

Limits. Yes there are limits in the law, in general common sense, and in every aspect of life. I recently was in Paris France shooting beautiful sidewalk scenes. I came up on a little flower shoppe and was taking a couple of photos when a man came out of the shoppe and started yelling at me in French! I didn't know what he was saying but I knew he wasn't wishing me a happy birthday.. I spoke to him in english and he responded that I should ASK before I just started taking pictures! Now I am on a public sidewalk, I am perfectly within my rights EVEN IN FRANCE!!! to do what I was doing, but I apologized to him, asked him if it were ok to continue and at that point he was like, sure go ahead. So I get it that in some cases being within your right to do something isn't enough. HOWEVER, in THIS case with the article we are talking about, I think the photographer should fight the "trespass," in court before he is subsequently harassed anywhere someone feels "creeped," at his presence. His photography while less than stunning, is perfectly within the law, and his right to pursue his lawful endeavor in America far outweighs the choice others make to feel "creeped out," by it.

Those of us who are professionals have been harassed for years by those who would rather us not do what we are paid to do and legally have every right to do. You never get used to it but you find ways to get the job done in spite of it. This guy should fight this in court or he is going to face this harassment everywhere he goes.

the Iconic Image

matfoster · Mar 16, 2010

epp_b · Mar 16, 2010

I was going to make a long-winded post here about how the photographer is completely in the right, but TII did it for me.

PhotoXopher · Mar 16, 2010

Yeah, now that I actually had time to read it and realize he was NOT in the coffee shop that changes things... from what I could see he wasn't even taking pictures of people in the coffee shop, just the people outside it.

gsgary · Mar 16, 2010

WTF, i got to page 10 and all the shots were shot on the street, he has done nothing wrong if i lived near him i would go and join him and really wind them up.

usayit · Mar 16, 2010

Yeh.. so on suggestion, I did read further. I don't see how being banned from a place of business is anyhow appropriate if he/she were not in the coffee shop or any of those establishments. I can't see any judge issuing such order when there is no history of being on such premises.

I'd like to observe the photographer because obviously something they are doing is making these people very uncomfortable. That in of itself might not be illegal but there is some sort of consideration. I've a bit of street photography and when a group of people say "no".. I don't insist.. it is their wishes even though I may be legally right.

Case in point.. Children. I take special consideration to children often asking parents first (it helps if my own son is playing with them)

In the end... there's a large enough group that will have this fellow in their minds whenever they see a photographer on the street. Its bad for the rest of us.

gsgary · Mar 16, 2010

usayit said:
Yeh.. so on suggestion, I did read further. I don't see how being banned from a place of business is anyhow appropriate if he/she were not in the coffee shop or any of those establishments. I can't see any judge issuing such order when there is no history of being on such premises.

I'd like to observe the photographer because obviously something they are doing is making these people very uncomfortable. That in of itself might not be illegal but there is some sort of consideration. I've a bit of street photography and when a group of people say "no".. I don't insist.. it is their wishes even though I may be legally right.

Case in point.. Children. I take special consideration to children often asking parents first (it helps if my own son is playing with them)

In the end... there's a large enough group that will have this fellow in their minds whenever they see a photographer on the street. Its bad for the rest of us.

There is no way he can be as bad as Bruce my hero
[ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IRBARi09je8&feature=related[/ame]

ghpham · Mar 16, 2010

There 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. Clearly, this person did not as he was asked multiple times not to come back and take pictures. Secondly, you cannot take pictures of a person anytime you want and post it anywhere you want without their consent. In this case, the woman asked him to delete her photo, and if he had half a brain, he would have complied. He is setting himself up to wind up in court one day for harrassment charges.
Our scout troops ALWAYS asked the parents to signed a release for BOTH parents and kids for us to be able to use the photographs.

gsgary · Mar 16, 2010

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

Where have you got this information from ? isn't that what the papers do and their photographers

MrRamonG · Mar 16, 2010

Damn I hate photographers.

Village Idiot · Mar 16, 2010

ghpham said:
There 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. Clearly, this person did not as he was asked multiple times not to come back and take pictures. Secondly, you cannot take pictures of a person anytime you want and post it anywhere you want without their consent. In this case, the woman asked him to delete her photo, and if he had half a brain, he would have complied. He is setting himself up to wind up in court one day for harrassment charges.
Our scout troops ALWAYS asked the parents to signed a release for BOTH parents and kids for us to be able to use the photographs.

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.