Slashdot Mirror
Photographers Face Ejection Over Lenses
destinyland writes "Zooomr CEO Thomas Hawk was ejected from a San Francisco art museum because the security guard apparently thought his expensive camera could be used to spy on female employees. Another photographer notes that 'many people consider a professional-looking camera a threat,' and the state of California has even passed a law against telephoto lenses being used to intrude on celebrities' private lives. Hawk is routinely confronting security guards who argue that photographing their buildings represents a 'security threat.' Ironically, four weeks ago while attending Microsoft's Pro Photo Summit, he was told he couldn't even photograph the lobby of a Hyatt Hotel."
Hawk is routinely confronting security guards who argue that photographing their buildings represents a 'security threat.'
A few months ago I was in the Prudential Center Mall and Copley Place in Boston. I was just looking around after attending Red Hat Summit. I saw a store that I knew my wife would love to have a picture of and took a picture of the front of it with my cell phone. A security guard came over and told me that I couldn't take pictures inside the mall. At first I thought that she was wrong about that, but decided not to challenge it since I already had taken the picture I wanted and didn't want to do anything that would jepordize missing my flight later that day. So I walked away and went over and asked another security guard about the policy on taking pictures and she also stated that you can't take pictures inside shopping malls. I went back to a computer and looked it up and found that they were wrong. If they asked me to leave, I'd have to leave or else face trespassing charges, but they can't stop me from taking pictures in what is considered a public place. They are just using something similar to the chilling effect to try to stop me because I'm guessing the owners of the shopping mall don't want people taking pictures. For the record, I know shopping malls are privately owned, but they let you walk in and out freely without needing a key.
Is this all fallout from 9/11? If so, did OBL ever think in his wildest dreams he'd be able to fuck us up this seriously?
Then only terrorists will have nice photos.
The evil telephoto lens. . . .
Part of the hardcore faithful who believed in Apple long before it was cool again to do so
I was stopped on Christmas Holiday day in Chicago's downtown Ogilvie Transportation Center, the terminal where half the commuter trains come and go. I was firmly admonished to cease and desist taking pictures of my girlfriend in fromt of a Christmas Display in front of one of the stored at the center. I joked that the camera had no film (get it, digital, ha-ha), but the security officer was not amused and said he would have to take my camera and arrest me if I took any more pictures. WTH?
I understand security is an issue, and scary stuff has happened, but stopping people from enjoying their holidays this way doesn't improve or increase our security a whit. Nada, Zip! If someone wants the information about what a building looks like, it's certainly easy to do on the covert. But, it's probably not even necessary, as blueprints and photos exist on the internet for any target one might find interesting.
This, in some oblique way is a victory for terrorists, they've cowed us into being such pussies that we no longer can live day to day and enjoy things freely as we should be able. Annoying. Frustrating. Embarrassing.
(The following text applies, I believe, in the USA, Australia, the UK and maybe other places, check with your local lawyer, I'm not one.)
Unfortunately, inside privately owned buildings they (being the owners, managers or agents) can prevent you from taking photos (or, ask you to leave). (If they ask you to delete your photos, you tell them to fuck off, or just pretend to. But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)
However, outside, on public property, they can't do shit, and you tell them that.
Most of the time, you just need a smaller camera. It won't take as nice photos (perhaps), but it is much less obvious, and beats not being able to take photos at all.
By the way, the often used "security threat" or "terrorism" bullshit, is just bullshit. If a terrorist wants to take a photo, they don't need a big obvious camera, they just use a small one. More to the point though, tourists (terrorists?) take photos of public buildings everyday, unless you are willing to fuck with your tourist revenue...
For comments around public photography and laws around photography in the UK:
http://www.sirimo.co.uk/ukpr.php
http://www.chapterthirteen.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=64&Itemid=56
For the USA:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
http://www.photosecrets.com/law.html
Lots of links for different countries:
http://www.photolawnews.com/
There are also guides for Australia I believe, and other countries.
I wank in the shower.
I need to stuff a copy of The Photographer's Right in my camera bag in case something like this ever happens...
The Register has two recent articles about similar stories and general photography paranoia in the UK.
The war on photographers - you're all al Qaeda suspects now
UK clamps down on bus-spotting terror menace
1. How dare [private citizens] stop [private citizens] from taking photographs of public places [without any interest in the private citizens that happen incidentally to be in the shot]! Censorship!
2. How dare [the State] take pictures of [private citizens] in public places [for the express purpose of recording and monitoring the acts of those citizens]! Privacy, Police State!
There, fixed that for you. If we're going to debate (I know we're not, but...) let's at least get our terms of reference straight from the start.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Goddamnit, that totally fucks up my plans. Without those pictures, how the hell am I supposed to draft my plan to bomb the Hyatt Hotel? Knowing what the lobby looked like from one fixed angle based off photos from some random dude was totally vital to my ability to plant the bomb properly. Now how in the world could I possibly ever get hold of such pictures?
UTF-8: There and Back Again
Someone has taken the time to compile the rights of a photographer in various places. There's a pamphlet size pdf file you can get from http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Another issue is that the US does not have freedom of panorama, meaning if you catch any copyrighted work in your photo, your photo is considered a copyright violation if you publish it without permission. They probably take issue with professional photographers taking high res, sweeping photos of their facilities and then possibly making money from them.
Choose one.
No.
You sound like a textbook on logic explaining what a false dichotomy is; there's a big difference between the government monitoring citizens without their consent and people taking personal photos in public places, and there's most definitely a lot of gray area between them.
Believe it or not, this is not hypocracy. We limit the powers and abilities of the government in the Constitution of the United States. This is something that apprarently you and many others have forgotten. As a private citizen, I can tell people what they can and cannot publish on my press, I can tell people on my property that they are not allowed to have handguns in my home, I can take and endorse an official "household religion", and I can deny people the right to peacibly assembly on my front lawn.
The government cannot do any of the above.
I'm professional photographer and it is more dificult actually take photographs on public places when you are using dSLR camera, because normal humans believe that photos goes right away to news papers etc.
But these days you can buy compact cameras what are actually better than dSLR on normal use, like camera what shutter speed is 40'000/1 and you can take 60 FPS on 6Mpix. Or you can have camera what has 28-420mm (35mm) objective with 10-12Mpix.
You dont get dSLR inside to music concert if you dont have press card, because guards takes your camera away because you cant take photos without permission of the show. But they dont stop you taking inside these ultra-compact cameras what has bigger zoom on them, what would mean that you need to carry a huge zoom lens if using dSLR.
This is now actually gone too far away, it is harder to take even document photos on streets without someone coming to yell to you that they dont like to be in photos. And it was hard enough ten years ago to tell some people that I dont need to remove photos if I take them on public places and they are not in embarrassed situation. Now it is almost impossible to tell someone that I HAVE rights to take photos on public place, and I can remove them if I want to please them, but if they come to yell to me, I'm bretty sure that I do opposite thing and I dont remove them.
I never shoot people in embarrassed situation, but when people just sees the dSLR, reaction for it is more like someone would say "We must support communistic party" in U.S on the 4th july.
But I can take photos easily without problems when using pocket or compact camera what has bigger zoom and more megapixels than my dSRL.
Google can drive up a private driveway and take a picture, but the public can't photograph inside a public museum? If google is going to go about playing big brother, the least they could do is work on establishing precedent for the rest of us.
I agree about the stupidity and unreasonableness of not allowing photographs for some vague security concern or not allowing photos to be shot out in the street but on the other hand what people find comfortable or uncomfortable often has little to do with the ultimate effect. People have preferences for totally random reasons and these include not wanting to have perfectly harmless spiders in their rooms to feeling uncomfortable being photographed or by extension in the presence of visible photographic equipment (automated recordings for security are parsed differently).
If people don't like big cameras in the lobby of their hotel since it makes them feel uncomfortable then the hotel should ban such cameras just like it eliminates spiders from the rooms. The hotel's job is to make it's guests feel comfortable and since it's a private establishment it's totally reasonable for them to ask you not to take pictures in the lobby. Of course you would probably rather stay at a hotel with a different policy but that's what's great about choice.
In short people who feel uncomfortable being photographed should be allowed to have hotels that cater to their preferences.
If you liked this thought maybe you would find my blog nice too:
Who modded this troll? Wake the fuck up alright?
There's a whole bunch of kicking and screaming going on over Google Street Map right now because they dare actually do the work and make an actual product that has scared a few people into realizing that maybe the idea of "public space" wasn't exactly what they thought it was. "When you're in public you can be photographed in public, get over it" is my opinion but some have the idea that Google has shown that the law of "you can photograph anything that is 'in public'" is flawed and , in-fact, there's an expectation of privacy that goes beyond the 4th amendment (in the US) and reeks of something we can only call "cultural values".. and Google threatens to erode those values.. Boo Hoo.
So no, this isn't a freakin' troll, it's a pertinent point on the current battle that is going on between those who want more freedom or those who want more privacy or those who just want to be able to find the restaurant they're looking for in the 20 minutes they've got to arrange their trip.
How we know is more important than what we know.
When I took the trans-Siberian in the 1970's, there was a long list of things (airports, train stations, bridges) that you weren't supposed to take pictures of. This was enforced (if spottily), too. I heard of people being arrested for photographing a bridge.
At the time, this was viewed (in the West) as evidence of the paranoia of a dictatorship and a closed society. Now, I guess it is a sign that the Soviet Union was in the vanguard of the development of civilization after all. Who knew ?
I think one big factor in all this is the increased use of privatized "security" services. At the micro-level, these guards don't have the security of a good job, police training, police force and cultural backing, and good educational background. I'm not saying all cops are great (consider the Dem convention in Chicago), but for a given person, their mental state is better suited to making judgements, and better informed. At the macro-level, this is getting a little into conspiracy status, but it is in the interests of the security companies to foster an environment of unquestioning acceptance of authority, even if the reason to be asked to do something is not apparent. In the case of the police, they are ultimately accountable (to whatever extent the people choose to call them on it); but these companies have to rely on an atmosphere of acceptance.
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
Hawk was well aware of the policy. He choose to violate it, claiming to be some sort of "renegade photographer" whose rights to photograph are more important than those of others to enjoy the venue in peace, and more important than the
This is not a censorship issue. This is a guy being an ass in a museum and getting ejected.
There have been legitimate issues of people being unfairly or illegally harassed for taking photographs in public places. This isn't one of them.
Tom Swiss | the infamous tms | my blog
You cannot wash away blood with blood
In Nigeria. The company I worked for used to hire a lot of fresh-out-of-school interns with no experience and train them up so they could then get better jobs outside (it was part of our CSR to do skills development). Sort of like an internship, but they earned a salary. While I was on a project there, one of the 'youngsters' as we called them was asked to come join me on the project to learn. He had never been on a plane before, or out of South Africa. So of course he took LOTS of pictures, including of the airport in Lagos - since these things were all new to him.
Next thing he knew, he gets arrested by airport police - his pictures of airplanes apparently constituted industrial espionage !
Now how you can be guilty of industrial espionage against a country for taking pictures of technology NOT DEVELOPED IN THAT COUNTRY, and on the market to the whole world for 30 years (try finding a plane younger than that in Nigeria) I don't know, but that was their excuse.
I got one of my local contacts to go bail him out, a bit of money changed hands (this WAS Nigeria after all) and he was released with the charges dropped.
I just never expected that the idiocies of corrupt guards (whether they are private security acting for corporate overlords or cops acting for the state is really rather irrelevant) being able to intimidate people out of basic rights (taking a picture is a form of art, that's expression = free speech) happening in the so-called DEVELOPED world. You EXPECT that kind of bullshit to happen in Nigeria, you don't expect it in the USA.
Mind you, these days that's not so true anymore, recent history has made me believe that the US's love affair with civil liberties is pure lip service.
Unicode killed the ASCII-art *
^well said^ IMO.
I new I shouldn't have wasted that mod point.
From my quick analysis beyond the article, it seems like there really isn't much to see here other than Thomas Hawk raising a stink about being kicked out of the museum. This has received fairly good coverage on sfist.com.
In particular, in the first story you'll see a comment from another visitor who witnessed the event which points out that he was acting like a possible perv:
Of course, Mr. Hawk isn't just stopping with raising a minor internet stink, he's trying to get Simon Blint fired.
I'm sorry folks, but if you think this is censorship, you're 100% wrong. This isn't censorship, this isn't about 9/11, this isn't about terrorism. It's about people doing malsocial actions that make the other visitors and staff of a museum feel uncomfortable. Not uncomfortable because of false terrorism threats, but uncomfortable because he's being kinda creepy.
My Slashdot account is old enough to drink...
Looks like a great opportunity to sell those itty-bitty "spy" cameras. If that's what they want, that's what they'll get.
What?
In 15 years, all but the most expensive cameras will be smaller than your father's SLR with a 50mm lens.
Cell phone or other other small cameras will have the equivalent of 20-1000mm or better zoom with resolution at least as good as 35mm film. Cameras in jewelry and clothing won't be uncommon. People with poor eyesight and high-end security personnel will use cameras with cranial implants or direct-to-eyeball displays to augment or replace their eyes.
In 2023, will the only way to carry a camera into a building be to present a doctor's prescription that it's a medical necessity?
I for one do not welcome our future, er, I mean present-day camera-banning overlords.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
and I thought terrorists and pervs used cellphones. But, the two real reasons that museums don't permit cameras are: 1. Museums use images of exhibits for raising funds to finance the operation of the museum. 2. Flash photography damages the exhibits by exposing exhibits to excessive UV light.
In Nigeria.
Say no more!
I own a Canon EOS 5D and a few lenses, one of them is a fairly large 70-200mm f2.8L. I usually bring it to outdoor events that my younger family members might be in (sports, graduation, anything where I'll be far from what I'm trying to shoot) and I always feel like people think I'm a creep. They see the huge camera and think "I hope he's not taking pictures of MY kid!"
I think people have an idea from movies that the bad guys always have some huge fancy cameras and they need to take dozens of photos before they can do their evil deeds. I don't think they realize there already exist hundreds of photos of any potential targets online, and someone would be better off with a small concealable camera, or even a hidden video camera recording the area as you go around.
There's so much paranoia about cameras, and this isn't just because of 9/11. It's been illegal to photograph the Verrazano bridge from on the bridge or at the toll booths for years before 9/11. I've almost had a camera confiscated taking a photo at the toll booth of a man on a motorcycle waving his ezpass around trying to get it to read.
There is no specific law against photography on private property, but the property owner can revoke your "invitation" to be on that property, turning you into a trespasser which then makes your presences on that property illegal.
Fight Spammers!
I'm not a security guard.
But do try to see it from their point of view.
Often they are told by their bosses that "this is the policy, enforce it". It's not like they have the luxury of saying "hey I think this policy is stupid".
So if they don't tell you to stop, they could lose their jobs.
If they tell you to stop, and things go the wrong way, they could also lose their jobs (see one of the cases involving Mr CEO photographer[1]).
It's not like most of them can afford the _time_ and money to seek legal redress if they get sacked just for being put in a stupid situation that's completely their fault.
If the security guard is really being an asshole, then maybe he deserves it.
But if the security guard is NOT being an asshole about it, maybe you should take it up with the people setting the policy, not the guard. Do you absolutely have to take that picture?
Sure you have the right to swing your fist about, as long as it is what the courts may view as a reasonable distance from others. But that doesn't necessarily mean you _have_ to keep swinging it about, when someone requests you to stop for whatever reason.
When someone wield a gun and a uniform and makes you do something, yes sometimes that can be bullying.
BUT don't forget, you can wield the law and be a bully as well.
If my friend asks me to stop taking pictures of him even in public places, I'd probably stop. Perhaps the guard is not your friend, but why not be friendly?
You can be 100% in the right all the time and have no friends.
[1] Seems a security guard showed Mr CEO Photographer the finger and lost his job for it. I'm not aware of the full story, and yes maybe the guard was out of line, but I dunno, security guards losing their jobs for showing someone a finger? Heck, real cops don't seem to lose their jobs for doing worse.
It's an interesting piece. The photographer in question is within his right to take the photographs he takes. He's also not very bright and a jerk. He's a very untalented photographer looking for attention by giving himself a brand ("illegal, underground photographer" as he repeats several times). Of course, the photographs he takes could be taken by anyone with no incident - he just likes to fight with people to get a response, and then make some bloggy headlines from it.
This resonates well with the college-aged blogger crowd that is inclined to feel outraged at authority for fun. For reference, I'm quite concerned with many of the real issues murkily reflected in this story, but as a grown up, I'm concerned with them in a grown up fashion. When I take photographs with my professional camera in places where that's not allowed, I take what I need or want to take, then move on. I don't yell in the faces of the guards and try to provoke a response. While that works for this photographer in terms of getting a response worthy of blog attention (which isn't very impressive if you ask me), it is rather ineffective at letting him take his photographs.
"I zero-index my hamsters" - Willtor (147206)
No, call the police. When they take your camera, it is theft, or grand theft depending on the camera.
Fight Spammers!
if you want real trouble, put a view camera on a tripod in front of a bridge. At least security guards know what a dSLR is.
link for those who have no idea what it is either.
Schneier did a piece on this not too long ago. He included this handy link to a PDF with a good rundown of your legal rights when it comes to taking photographs (hint: you have more than you might think).
I think there's something that's missed in all these discussions of photographers' rights: Why *do* people feel threatened by photography?
It seems that just about everyone feels anxious about being photographed by strangers: police, security guards, but even (most?) regular people.
Why? Is it a fear that somehow the photos can be used to cause actual harm? Is it the fear that a stranger photographing you can only be up to no good, even if you're not sure if/how he'd use the photos to harm you? Is it the fear that with so many laws on the books, just about anything you're doing is illegal, and photos can be used to help convict you?
Because clearly terrorists are going to use expensive, professional equipment instead of $10 cell phones. If I had $100,000 burning a hole in my pocket I'd walk around with a 1200mm lens just to see the responses I'd get. Judging by policies like this I'd probably be tasered, shot, and arrested.
There are numerous documented cases of photographers being hassled as either child-molesters (if children appear in the frame - even if they are their own kids) or terrorists - even if photographing in a public space.
The police (well, PCSO's - lite police, with no training worth a dam' or any police powers) regularly harass photographers. Even if you are in the right, there's nothing to prevent them detaining you for several hours without charge.
For whatever reason, the powers that be have remained remarkably silent on the issue. When pressed, they avoid saying that taking photos in a public place is legal. Instead they put caveats around it, such as mentioning public order offences and invasion of privacy (although the number of CCTV cameras makes a mokery of this).
As it is, countries like North Korea or Iran have fewer restrictions on what law-abiding citizens or tourists may do in a public place.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
Whatever the politicians say about winning the war on terror the fact that basic freedoms are now repressed and questioned as a matter of course means we have lost a lot.
In Nigeria
Were you delivering or trying to colled my$47,463,678,456 US?
I drink to make other people interesting!
You'd have a point if you could find one person who said both things. There are multiple people that post here, you know, with a wide variety of opinions.
Proud neuron in the Slashdot hivemind since 2002.
*grumble* collect
I drink to make other people interesting!
So Google Street View is a state trying to monitor the acts of citizens?
Just ask the rent-a-cop. It is against the law. Just don't ask them what law, because they don't know. Then when pushed, it is "against the company's law."
I knew companies bought laws, but I didn't know they passed laws.
Fight Spammers!
I think he's talking about google street view, in which case your frame of references are wrong.
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
Most of the stink that Google has gotten into has been cases where the photographers went onto private property to take pictures of private property.
People certainly have the right to complain in other cases, but there is no expectation of privacy, just a desire.
Street photography has always been about being subtle. You don't run around with a DSLR and a giant bloody bazooka of a lens, like so many mid-life crisis 'photographers' who rush out and buy a giant bloody telephoto lens (The sort who just want to show up their mate after they bought a bigger barbeque or hot-tub).
I hear about folks getting hassled in my town all the time by police for photography. Carry a nice compact DSLR and an unobtrusive little prime lens and you're largely free to do whatever the hell you want. I use an Olympus E410 and carry an old OM 28mm and 50mm in my pocket. Never had an issue.
Mostly though, just don't look like a creepy weirdo and you'll escape most trouble.
The issue really isn't what you photograph but what you intend to do with the photographs. If you intend to shoot on private property and resell the work then you will need a property release form from the owners of the property otherwise they can sue you and take a chunk of your profits.
Similarly, people can not be just photographed at will. Just because somebody stands in a public park, does not give you the right to photograph and reprint them without their permission. The photographer would need the person to sign a model release form.
The exception to this rule would be for editorial purposes. If you take a picture of say a car accident to send to the local newspaper and your photo should include a bystander the bystander can not sue you for republishing their photo as they were at a "newsworthy" event.
The bottom line is this, people are nervous in the post 9/11 world and with advent of the Internet it is far easier to publish photos and very difficult to control their distribution. Right or wrong this makes all sorts of people nervous.
At the end of the day, what matters is not your opinion or the security guard's opinion but that of judge's should it end up in a civil court.
I just carry a simple point-and-shoot camera with a great lense and high mega-pixel count. I can photograph pretty much whatever I want. I have a feeling that most terrorists won't be stupid enough to be running around with a $20,000 camera with a $2,500 lense on it - and if they are, they will be photographing from a distance - not right up next to the building or inside of it. People are so stupid. But I guess its that whole "false sense of security" - we will create the illusion that we know what we are doing. Shoot, if I were spying on something, I would probably be using a camera phone or some hidden camera.
Never in the history of photography has a small, cheap, "consumer" grade point-and-shoot camera been so capable.
A good P&S can approach the quality of an SLR for the majority of cases, and can be just as effective as a terrorist tool (i.e. not at all). In decent lighting, a camera with 10x optical zoom is going to get fairly similar results to an SLR for normal sized pictures. Alternatively, there are some serious pro cameras that _look_ like consumer stuff, if you don't know your cameras (Leica M series anyone?)
So basically it boils down to rent-a-cops who don't feel comfortable around certain cameras, for no good reason.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
If you think the constitution was intended to protect the state from its citizens the choice must be difficult.
For the rest of us there really is no problem.
So Google Street View is a state trying to monitor the acts of citizens?
From the OP:
Privacy, Police State!
The OP was the one who brought up the idea of a state. I think it's pretty clear he's not talking about people's reactions to Google Street View.
Shortly after 9/11 (Oct. 2001) a security guard at the Metropolitan Museum of Art in NYC issued me a pass to carry all of my photography equipment (ok, no tripod or lights, just an SLR body and about 5 lenses in a Lowepro) throughout the museum. And I didn't need to ask for it: he just signed off on it when he saw I had the equipment.
I once tried to take a picture at Liverpool station in London with my entry-level professional looking camera... Guess what: forbidden!!! :'(
Recall that while the 9/11 plot likely being planed while our government was embroiled in the investigation of blowjob. Recall that the state and federal government were falling over each other to who was going to prosecute John Allen Muhammad and hopefully execute them for the murder of 10 people, each target by the killers, but were besides themselves to cut a plea agreement Eric Robert Rudolph(arrested 2003), who planted bombs around the country, so he would only receive life sentences. One has to wonder how much of this is based on the rule of law, and how much is based on faith based enforcement.
Pictures certainly pose some minimal level of security threat for some high risk locations. The issue to me is that if someone is going to get photos of a location, there are many ways to do so without being noticed. Camera phones spring to mind. Therefore, such restrictions, like the limiting on liquid on flights, is simply making people feel like you are doing something without actually having to do anything.
OTOH, owners of private property do have right to control their property.It is the security theater of the government that concerns me, as they are really doing very little than the acquisition and concentration of power, and with every emergency that they allow to happen, the power becomes more centralized.
"She's a scientist and a lesbian. She's not going to let it slide." Orphan Black
When I went there, there was nothing I wanted to take a picture of. Exhibits include:
I'm pretty sure whatever pictures this guy was taking, they have more artistic value than that museum's collection does.
As a side note, while the guy in charge of the museum sounds like an idiot, at least he correctly identified the lens as a "telephoto" instead of mis-substituting "zoom" like most non-photographers do.
I drove down the west coast from Portland to Los Angeles. I had a Fuji 4900 - not quite SLR, but pretty big fancy and expensive/exotic looking for the time. I stopped in the park north of the Golden Gate bridge, put the camera on a profesional tripod and took several pics. Many others were doing the same. We repeated that performance on the wharf just south-east of the bridge, well into nightfall. Nobody said a word - this was early 2002. Never got a hassle about my camera.
OTOH, the Israelis just cleared a tank crew that blew up a reporter in Gaza,(and a bunch of kids) because they was a mile away putting "a big black tube thing" on a tripod, while wearing body armour. Sometimes some things look suspicious.
Such policy has no reason. The only policy that they should be able to come up with is NO FLASH. You should not be able to prevent people from taking pictures in a museum for private use.
So, first of all, Thomas Hawk is clearly an idiot. He spends a lot of time bragging (on-line) about breaking the law. Why has he not been arrested -- or at least fined -- yet? I mean, yes, fine, break what laws you find necessary. But honestly... bragging about it on the internet?
Ok, enough of that. The point here is that Mr. Hawk appears to be making a career out of being an obnoxious, loudmouthed nuisance who refuses to follow lawful directions on private property. Once he's pissed people off enough that they throw him out, he makes himself look good by posting the story online, where crowds of idiots show up to agree with him that he's super-cool for standing up to the man. Ego gratification at its finest.
I bet that, in the case of the museum, if he had responded calmly and quietly, and agreed not to take pictures in that location, they would have let him stay, and take all the other pictures he had wanted. Of course, in some of the other cases he was completely within his rights, but from the sounds of it he didn't handle those any better. Probably because if he did, he wouldn't get to puff himself up online, where his crowds of adoring fans could tell him what a stud he is.
Carry a copy of the "Photographer's Rights" pamphlet, speak quietly and politely to security guards, and don't waste your time arguing with people who don't have the authority to let you do what you want. It wastes your time, and annoys the guards.
But one attraction I visited was the Mark Twain House in Hartford. They stopped allowing tourists to photograph after some yahoo was backing up to get a shot and knocked over a valuable antique lamp, destroying it.
So, not just the flash can cause problems.
I was in Mexico years ago, and some security guard comes running up and yells no flash at me. I said ok, and he watched me do the rest of my shooting with natural light. The difference was that I was careful not to back over anything.
I remember being ejected from Aberdeen Art Gallery a quarter-century ago for having a "professional-looking" camera. The gallery assistant said that they were told to keep "cameras with interchangeable lenses" off the gallery floor.
This wasn't to protect privacy, though. It was so that you couldn't take a decent photograph of any of the exhibits and thus possibly cut into their sales of photos and post-cards in the gallery shop.
Damn. What about nice photos of kids? Terrorist pedophiles? Pedophile terrorists?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
This kind of stupidity and confusion is the goal of terrorism.
Think Deeply.
I was talking to a friend of mine about Google Maps a couple days ago. During the conversation she mentioned to me that if she ever gets a house she doesn't want it on Google Maps street view. I pressed her about this and I was stunned when she actually told me she was worried that someday she might have kids and she didn't want pedophiles looking at their pictures on street view. I couldn't believe it. Are we as a nation that paranoid now? Do we really think there are armies of pedophiles out there searching for blurry glimpses of kids in low res photos taken at 35 mph? If I had kids I'd be far more worried about some weird guy sitting in his car across from the playground with a camera.
As a nature sound recording geek I find myself in the position of being suspected of _________ by anyone that happens to see me with a big fuzzy microphone. For some reason people are more suspicious of recordists than photographers. It's more of a problem with the urban recordists (phonography). Many of us have to resort to concert taper type stealth techniques to record in public areas.
On the other hand, I think he's talking about his hero, Hitler, kicking your granny's door down and taking pictures of her in the bath in order to pass them round the SS for masturbation purposes. Since neither of us has any evidence to back up our beliefs about What He Meant To Say But Didn't, I win by default.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
Could this perhaps be the worst camera lens to own in this day and age?
http://www.binocularsmart.com/cameras/photosniper.shtml
A friend gave me one of those a few years ago because it fitted on my night vision monocular, the apature wasn't large enough to give a very bright picture, but you could see pretty far.
To do something right, you often have to roll up your sleeves and get busy.
I'm not sure exactly how this guy got into the problem in the first place, and can only think that he must've been a dick with security to begin with. I own a Nikon D50 dSLR with a moderately-sized lens, and have NEVER been harassed taking photos in a public place. And I take a lot of photos, of lots of things, buildings included. And living in Pittsburgh, it's not hard to take a few shots of bridges, too. Maybe it's just me, and maybe I just don't look all that threatening. But I've not once been harassed. A couple of times, people have mistaken me for a newspaper photographer, but usually they just want me to take their picture so that they can appear in print,... ;-)
1. SFMOMA has a no-photography policy.
2. This guy has gotten away with taking photos in the past.
3. He now feels cheated that he got caught by a guard who was doing his job.
Nothing to see here. Cause and effect.
The last time I was at the SFMOMA the security staff had their hands full with people chatting loudly on cellphones. I can see why shutterbugs are on a lower priority.
Also I can't believe this guy is spouting nonsense about some kind of social activism in taking pictures despite the museum policy. Don't create some baloney story so you can excuse your behavior.
My husband was taking pictures of some industrial building (as reference for use in his model train layout in the future) when a security guard came puffing over the hill and demanded that he hand over the camera. Wisely, my husband said no.
The security guard was shocked and then demanded that my husband hand over the film. This was a digital camera. So he said no.
Once the guard realized it was digital he demanded that my husband delete ALL the pictures in the camera.
At this point my husband just walked away, leaving the guard standing there looking very upset that he couldn't do anything.
I will elaborate that my husband was on a public road, not on the private property, so trespassing would not apply. He was taking a picture of a building clearly visible to the public.
Even if the security guard had been a law officer (which they're not, no matter how much they want to be treated as such) there is nothing that will prevent you from taking pictures in public. There is no guarantee of privacy when you're in a public place. If he had planned on publishing the photos then there might be issues with people in the pictures but a picture of a building isn't protected.*
* I know there were some lawsuits in Chicago about people taking pictures of the sculptures displayed in Millenium Park and the artists were getting up in arms about their 'copyrighted works' being misued. I believe that went nowhere but this being Slashdot someone will come along with more information. If there is more information,
It is sad hear that there is such a culture of paranoia in the United States. In free countries, people would be very surprised to experience such obviously irrational behaviour.
Whenever I have been to America, I have always been shocked by the unquestioning and brainwashed state of ordinary Americans (particularly regarding their own abysmal standard of governance, their ruthless and brutal foreign policy, their abysmal human rights record, and the large number of people afflicted by a shocking brand of unquestioning fundamentalist religiosity). Do most Americans really lack the ability to think critically, or is there some kind of program of doping of the masses?
Why do Americans always over-react the the most minor situations. I have seen American police commit violent attacks that would be considered headline news in my own country.
Having seen the standard of US television, and their complete lack of any free/independent media, is hardly comes as a surprise that they have a paranoid, delusional, and totally insular world view. I don't know what education is like over there for ordinary people, but I fear it must be in a very sorry state if we have people running around that will actually assist in enforcing backward policies if petty totalitarians in this unthinking way.
OK, freedom vs. (perceived) security, photography, etc. are all good things to discuss. However, Thomas Hawk is a complete asshole. By his own admission:
For years San Francisco's Museum of Modern Art has maintained a "no photographs" policy for their permanent collection, according to Hawk's popular blog -- but he's been taking photographs there anyways.
Also, him cheerfully getting a guard fired in 2006 adds to his dossier. Someone should shove Hawk's cameras up his ass, and let him take all the pictures he wants of blood vessels being ruptured.
"People who do stupid things with hazardous materials often die." -- Jim Davidson on alt.folklore.urban
It is indeed a troll. And so is your straw man, punctuated with your own false dichotomy.
As prior posters have said better than I, GP presents a false dichotomy, a.k.a. FUD. If the government takes pictures to monitor citizens, then it is a police state. If individuals are forbidden to take pictures, then it is a violation of civil rights. The government is not an individual; its powers are far more limited than the powers that individuals wield.
To address your whine about Google, GP's second point is not complaining about private entities taking pictures. GP specifically says "Police State" which refers to government. Furthermore, it has already been established that Google can take whatever pictures from the public streets that they want to. Nobody disputes that. But if a person walks around taking the same pictures on private time, that person immediately becomes a "person of interest." That is the general complaint.
Freedom and privacy are one and the same. You cannot have freedom without privacy. Both freedom and privacy refer to the limits of what the government can do to its citizens. This is fairly obvious, and I completely fail to see how any intelligent person could think that freedom and privacy are in opposition in any way.
Are the intelligent mods all on vacation or something?
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
A lot of museums with "no photography" policies will also allow you to come in during off-hours, set up a tripod, and take photos with no flash. You just have to call ahead and ask.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
The guy was within his rights; but I think it was Robert Heinlein (one of his characters?) who said "it is a foolish man that always insists on his rights".
When I read about this incident, it looks like a childish trick by a guy who's looking for a confrontation and picked the easiest way (tele-photograph cleavage like a perv) to generate one. Once confronted, he deliberately escalates. I have limited sympathy for him.
In a situation like this, being confrontational is of limited value unless you have a brother-in-law who is a lawyer and will defend you for free. Ultimately, if you argue too vigorously, they can charge you with creating a disturbance; then, no matter who's right or wrong, you are on the hook for a big long legal hassle. Maybe this is the sort of thing Mr. Hawk enjoys. It seems he does.
As is the case, real or not, the law can always find anything to pound you down if you bring yourself to their attention too forcefully. Obstruction of justice, creating a disturbance, resisting arrest, trespassing. You may think you have rights, but if an agent of the management asks you to leave a private place (i.e. even a museum, not the public street) then you resist at your peril. Argue politely, do what you want in court later, but follow their request. Being argumentative or rude only bolsters their case.
As for pushy security guards - previous posters are right. A pocket camera is as powerful as most SLR's in most situations. They have another advantage over SLR's - they can record video and sound. When something interesting happens, you can record the confrontation without the guard being aware; switch to "movie" mode with a thumb, start recording while holding casually without being obvious.
You're holding it in front of you at chest level like you just finished taking a picture, gesture with the other hand and say "this camera is harmless" - it'll never occur to him it's recording if you hand is nowhere near the sutter button. Even if he's not in the picture all the time, you could probably record up to 10 minutes with today's cards. Ideal for confrontations with belligerent know-it-all guards...
An alternative is to turn on the camera "one moment please...now its filming" and film an "interview". "OK, you're telling me to what, based on what law? Sorry, state your full name for the camera. This is going to my lawyer." Be polite, even if he isn't. Be sure to do this only if you're sure he can't physically take your camera or card.
Technically, erasing the film at that point by him is obstruction of justice - because if he physically takes the camera, it's assault, and destroying evidence of a crime is obstruction. What are the odds that if you did this to a police officer and got arrested, the evidence against that officer would be missing when the camera was turned back over to your lawyer? They're not stupid - I mean, they're not that stupid.
I was working in Kuwait City for a couple weeks and while staying at the Hilton Hotel Compound took a few pictures of the beach and the Persian Gulf.
The security guards were under orders to not allow any scenic pictures anywhere in the resort. Nice, kindly 3rd world gentlemen from Nepal who would be deported if they did not follow orders.
Blaming the guards for the paranoia of the Kuwaiti leadership was silly, and the same may be true for the US.
, which was being used for root access to the constitution long before "terrorism" or "pedophilia".
For example, the 4th amendment pretty much ceased to exist once people needed to piss in a cup to get a job.
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
I remember a couple of episodes of Star Trek DS9 that are relevant. (not sure how many DS9 fans there are left, so bear with me.) During the Dominion War a couple of shape shifters were found on Earth. Everyone started panicking, and even Sisko was afraid his father had been replaced by a Changeling. In order to "protect" Earth, a high StarFleet official arranged for a group of cadets to "attack" Earth in order to "raise awareness" of the Changeling threat. It turns out that there were only a couple of Changelings on Earth, and they were sitting back watching what Earth was doing to itself.
One of the things that struck me was that Sisko's father refused to give in to fear. Yes, there was a threat, but there was little he could do, and he refused to live in fear.
I didn't like all of DS9, and there were a few episodes with crappy writing (I will leave it to you to figure out the number), but I was impressed with these episodes. Shortly after 9/11 I thought, and still do think, that many people, especially in government, should have a look at these couple of episodes before panicking and imposing some of the security restrictions we have had to, and will continue to endure.
Great civilizations have lived and died on false theories. Don't mess up mine with a few facts.
What about copyright restrictions?? I should think that there is no longer any fair use exception for the photography of buildings or people or artwork. They can always claim copyright enforcement.
If you project confidence, people will not harass you. At least that's what I've found when I'm photographing my kids at events, parks, whatever (most pools have no photo policies, I've found... but I'm also pretty sure that dSLRs and water don't mix well).
A few times, I've had people ask me to email them some shots, which I'm happy to do.
Event photographers, on the other hand, seem to harass anyone with a dSLR (who might be taking away their business). Ahhh well.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
Then your frames of reference would still be wrong, so I win!
Not all life is cyber. Extra Income
Taking vengence against immigrants working as security guards is not about FREEDOM, it is about the arrogrance of ZOOMR CEO Thomas Hawk and his fancy digital camera.
Why doesn't he pick on someone in his own INCOME BRACKET?
Sensor size and quality and the quality of the lenses are -far- superior with DSLRs than with point-and-shoots. This is well-known. And I've had it proven to me with my own pictures from my high-zoom DSLR. Megapixels alone do not determine image quality. A large and quality sensor, quality lens, and no lossy compression determine image quality.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3aGyOrpw1aM
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
When is the last time you met a criminal buy a £3000 dSLR + lens kit to case out a place? At least the photographer was not accused by irrational mothers of photographing their children. Will they ban the sale of ALL cameras "for the sake of the children"?
Society, or rather, the moronic Western countries have got seriously warped, whilst everyone else looks on in laughter at what we've done TO OURSELVES in less than 10 years.
As someone that's looking to replace their ageing "cheap" film SLR to a dSLR, the thought that someone thinks that you're somehow a greater threat because you have an SLR rather than a pocket / easily concealable camera astounds me. We've allowed the politicians to twist the minds of the simpletons, and the simpletons to hold power over us in their jobs as "security" guards.
Take Nobody's Word For It.
Thomas Hawk (a pseudonym, by the way, when was the last time you heard of a CEO going by a fake name?), pulls these stunts to get his name out there, and also that of the company he is now associated with.
He has specifically found a couple of places that have photography restrictions (museums, for example) and then gone in with this prior knowledge to cause a confrontation that he can blog about. It is infantile behavior. He could call a museum, tell them he is a professional photographer and try to work something out, but he does not.
He then presents it as some sort of championing of free speech rights, when he has actually spoken against other photographers who are involved in real rights issues.
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety."
http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Benjamin_Franklin
The terrorists have little to do with it. We did this to ourselves in an overreaction to the trivial terrorist threat. Yes it's trivial. You're more likely to commit suicide than die from a terrorist attack. Even lumped together with all other forms of violence it's trivial.
Just because it's rare compared to, say, dying in a car accident doesn't make it trivial, anymore than Pearl Harbor was trivial. How many people in Nebraska or Kentucky were in danger from the Japanese fleet?
I'll agree we've overreacted some domestically, but we were attacked, and the attackers swore to keep going until they got what they wanted... which basically includes things like compulsory kneeling to Mecca five times a day, and taking away your right to post asshat comments on Slashdot.
And you can't blame it all on the war. Some of this stuff was inevitable in any case. If Osama Bind Laden had never ordered an attack on New York, we'd still have domestic bad guys doing everything from blowing up Federal buildings, to ever sophisticated robbery schemes. The increasingly cheap and advanced technologies available to everyone... including nutbags and criminals... only enhances our natural fear of them. And the era of Big Brother was coming long before the Twin Towers were brought down. After all, Orwell saw this back in the late 40's. Technology itself also guaranteed that. Cities were talking about things like red light cameras long before 2001.
Much of this stuff was coming anyway. It's just convenient to blame it on 9/11.
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
The museum had a policy of no photographs. This is hardly uncommon: not only do many people find it annoying to stumble over photographers and deal with flashes while they're trying to look at art, but repeated exposure to light flashes can damage art.
This is completely wrong--the museum lifted its ban prior to Hawk's visit (still no flash though). I've been following Hawk's blog for a while now, and he had made a point of becoming a member of the museum after they had liberalized their photography policy. As best as I can tell, they kicked him out because they thought he was taking pictures of a female member of the staff from the second floor of the atrium. However, this is pretty ridiculous since he seems to have been using a 14mm lens. For you non-photographers out there, using a super wide angle lens like this means you pretty much have to be right on top of a person in order for them to not look like an ant. Hawk has a picture of Simon Blint, the guy who kicked him out of the museum, taken from the second floor of the atrium in the museum that's clearly taken with a super wide angle lens. Allegedly Hawk offered to show Blint his photos but Blint refused to look.
in direct sunlight
That is the only way that a P&S will ever compare with a dSLR. Anything other than "in direct sunlight" is when your Nikon Coolpix will fall down on the floor.
And even in situations with ample light, you can still tell the difference between a P&S and a dSLR in many scenarios such as:
Well, now I'm tired of typing. Point being: yes, you can tell the difference between a P&S and a dSLR.
They don't grade fathers, but if your daughter's a stripper, you fucked up. --Chris Rock
...i'd obbey anti-photo regulations in private property (museums, corporate buildings...whatever). Even if i know than most times it's not an issue of "flashes destroy artwork" What about flashless photo?, it's more an economic concern because they need to sell items in their shops. But anyway if it's private it's up to them.
What i can't stand is the paranoia about photographs in public places, excuse me sir, i'm on a public street and i'll take whichever pic i want. Carrying a dslr these days seems worse than carrying a damn weapon, a friend of mine while on the states was told to leave his cam before entering a building because it was considered "deadly weapon" god...a 70/200 is only deadly if you stick it up your arse. I'm not surprised bush thought there were WMDs in iraq knowing what's considered "deadly".
Anyway don't think it's just an US thing, i'm spanish and it also happens here, and it's worse with security guards going "out of their jurisdiction".
They are afraid you are stealing their soul with the camera.
Look at what happened with all the primitive tribes after the anthropologists found and photographed them!
The museums are full of photographs.
The tribes have mostly disappeared.
The implications for terrorist use of cameras should be obvious.
Check the pirate trading sites, there's probably a market for photographers to sell these captured souls, particularly of security guards, comparable to that for stolen credit card numbers
OK, you can be King of the Retards. Long live the King!
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I was at that same museum in San Francisco in May, and I was walking around with an SLR with a huge lens on it, and worse, I'd lost the lens cap on that trip so my SLR had no lens cap on, so while I was not in fact taking pictures, it probably looked like I was ready to do so any moment. I didn't get thrown out.
Upon my arrival in the museum, the first thing I did was ask about their photography policy, which I was told was that I could take pictures in the lobby only. I then obeyed it, because while I didn't like the policy, I didn't care enough to want to protest. I did take one or two pictures in the lobby.
If I remember correctly, once during my visit to the museum a guard approached me unnecessarily to tell me I could not take pictures. I replied "yes I know thank you", and that was the end of it.
I'm curious whether the museum has changed its policy since May, or if I was erroneously not thrown out, or if Mr. Hawk did something else he's not mentioning that got him thrown out.
then we DESERVE to die, as a nation or as a society.
maybe this is darwinism at play. if humans are too stupid to use their common sense and are OVERLY ruled by fear, then maybe this race isn't 'supposed' to survive, long-term.
we got past the 'its steals my soul!' fear but we can't seem to get beyond the 'your eyes can see it, your brain can remember it, but don't DARE save it to flash or film or paper!'.
absurd.
george carlin didn't think much of the human race, as a whole; and I'm starting to agree with him. if we are so afraid of our shadows, maybe we don't deserve to 'inherit the earth'.
its time to evolve beyond being scared of boogeymen. and of enthusiasts who take their art in the form of photography.
ob disc: I'm a semi-pro photog.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Taking a casual picture requires about thirty seconds' of time.
If the owners of a building can raise that price to spending an hour of your time trying to locate someone with authority to talk about their policy, then they win.
I honestly don't know the answer to this sort of question. I don't like to make a hobby out of being a jerk, but we can lose our effective rights quickly and with surprising speed if nobody is ever willing to risk social discomfort for The Principal Of The Thing.
By the way, I don't know how it is with private security, but I once read some very serious and knowledgeable advice to the effect the most inflammatory thing you can say to a cop... the thing that carries the highest risk of your experiencing personal bodily injury... is "I know my rights."
"How to Do Nothing," kids activities, back in print!
Yes. As I said in an earlier post in this thread, a goodly portion of the American public has been convinced by network television that pedophiles lurk behind every rock, tree, and corner. It's the Satanism of the 00's.
However, your friend seems kind of dumb. Does she really think that Google has some sort of magic device that has real-time pictures of street-level views across the entire country?
Please stop with this "the terrorists have won" crap. Once we say the terrorists have won, the terrorists have won.
Only because the freedom loving Democrats haven;t been in power long enough.
Just wait...
I used to work in a grocery store in the midwest, and a Spanish teacher was taking picture of produce and dairy and such to use them as teaching aids.
The store manager promptly escorted her off the premises cause he assumed she was going around to all the grocery stores taking pictures and comparing prices or something.
You don't understand; the security issue with photography goes back to the Alamo, when Mexicans began taking pictures of drunk Americans. That's right, folks, we live in a post-3/6/1836 world now, you better get used to having fewer civil liberties.
most of the douchebags who think Israelis are so badass just because they know how to fire weapons have never been there. They're a hell of a lot more level headed than most people toting guns in the states.
Zooomr CEO Thomas Hawk was ejected from a San Francisco art museum because the security guard apparently thought his expensive camera could be used to spy on female employees. Another photographer notes that 'many people consider a professional-looking camera a threat,'
I've been taking some pictures out of our bathroom window here using a Kodak EasyShare P850. It's not the greatest camera ever (5 megapixels, rather noisy sensor, bad in low light conditions) but it does look sort of like an SLR camera (I've had people mistake me for a professional photographer on at least two occasions), and it has a 12x zoom lens. So after a while of this, I heard something along the lines of "It's the pervert again" and later that night, the fucking police arrive! They seemed to be rather unconcerned about the whole thing, but I was shocked and a bit angry. Why didn't the person just come and ask me to stop taking pictures if they were so bothered about it? It would probably give their call to the police a little more legitimacy if they at least uttered the words "Could you stop taking pictures please?" at some point during the proceedings.
I later went around to where I suspect the phone call was made, and found a rather mouthy woman who talked about being worried about a pervert taking pictures of them getting changed. With my experience with this camera, that's ridiculous. With a high-quality tripod, massive zoom lens, and 20 megapixel digital SLR (at least £2500 worth of kit by my reckoning, a far cry from the £100 my camera cost) then maybe I could get something. But an obstruction as flimsy as net curtains would render even that setup meaningless, and taking a picture of someone on the other side of the street through their window while never leaving your own window is a bit like trying to watch a striptease through two keyholes that are a whole room apart.
Really, this paranoia about picture taking is getting to be more than a joke. I had a bit of a laugh at the ridiculous stories around photo paranoia, but it really takes the fun out of things when you end up talking to police about it. Being that I live in Britain, it find it somewhat ironic that people will complain about me taking pictures of them with my camera while we're both being filmed at all times by various CCTV cameras. At least they can ask me to stop, and I will. Try asking the same of the operators of those damn things.
17mm on a FF sensor will give you a view so wide that you will have your feet in the shot when you point the camera only couple of degrees down.
So, the common technique street photographers use is to point an ultra wide angle lens in a different direction from subjects they wish to photograph.
The subjects then continue about their business thinking this guy is photographing something in the sky or the car passing by.
As the island of our knowledge grows, so does the shore of our ignorance.
More evidence that Microsoft was behind it.
No sig today...
Because the Republicans voted against the Patriot Act 100%, didn't start the War in Iraq, didn't extend immunity to telecom companies as part of FISA, authorized the torture of foreign nationals and their suspected American sympathizers, and haven't systematically mortgaged our country to the Chinese for pork barrel projects.
Get it through your skull. It's not D versus R but the citizens against the politicians. You can label yourself with any party label: Democrat, Republican, Voted-for-Kodos, Hypnotoad, Sith, Jedi, Independent, or non-aligned and a bad idea is still a bad idea and a good idead is still a good idea.
Formerly "democratic" nations are steadily taking on the characteristics of police states.
I'm a photographer. I own $2000 telephoto lenses, lots of gear etc etc... There is a discrimination against photographers. I shoot studio photography mainly but i always fear that if i take good gear somewhere, that i wont be let in.
The common example is any sport event. Baseball, Football, Tennis etc. They all tend to have a lense length rule. If your camera looks professional, then you must be a processional. So they cant risk you snapping off pictures of their sport without authorization. I kind of understand this... but at the same time, anyone bringing a point and shoot $300 camera to baseball game, isnt going to get a picture of anything.
Its quite unfair that these camera companies are producing very nice digital SLRS... even entry level models for people to learn with, and they cant use them anywhere.
The irony is that Canon advertises after every dam football game that "Canon is the official camera of the NFL", while the people they're advertising to cant bring those same canon cameras and lenses to a game if they sit in the stands.
Photographers are a threat to freedom, as we're denied freedom.
I tend to side against the "fleas" who snap celeb pictures in private settings. I find it distasteful and insulting. I would be furious if i were being stalked by photographers all day. But in public... fair is fair. And then theres the otherside of it that is complete bullshit, staged publicity... And its usually the photogs are the ones who are still blaimed, despite it being a staged pr stunt.
A publicly funded museum should be fair grounds to shoot. Cameras are not a threat to security. The museum is just concerned that you will photograph their art and post it on a website. They're afraid of losing patronage.
This whole terrorism shit has to stop. Its just so bad for the health of our country. It almost makes me think the government planned 9/11t, just to get more power over us. I know thats silly but... it sure does seem like the government loves to take away our freedoms.
But by distilling things down to their common generic core you can imply any manner of false equivalency ...
1. How dare some-people do-stuff? Oh noes!
2. How dare some-people do-stuff? Not oh noes!
Choose one, hypocrites! I mean these are so obviously the same.
You wouldn't be so lucky in San Juan Chamula. Taking pictures inside of the main church is grouds for being chained to a pole just outside and stoned for as long as they like. 100% legal, too.
And taking photos of the locals might lead, not to violence, but to a quick money settlement.
Though, truth be told, stepping back from the viewfinder and enjoying the place is not that bad, after all.
"Not Allowed" is not the same as "illegal"
Let's assume that it's legal to photograph in the mall because it's a fairly public space, which is probably true. (This is an assumption in the sense that you're in whatever jurisdiction)
That does NOT guarantee you that the mall or store will "allow" it. They can disallow and discriminate against anything they want, except for a few specific protected classes (e.g. race) Plenty of places of commerce have a no shirt, no shoes policy, even though it's legal to walk around without either (well, for a guy) Except for those protected classes, they can ask you to leave for any or no reason.
So it's completely legitimate and accurate for a security guard to tell you that taking pictures of their property is not "allowed" (Telling you it's illegal would generally be lying or inaccurate, but I have a hard time getting too upset with them over what is to most people a relatively small semantic difference, and most people aren't all OCD about what words they use.)
If what you did WAS illegal, they could call the police, get you ticketed/arrested, potentially get your camera impounded and/or an injunction for your photos, etc. - and in your situation they didn't suggest anything like that.
Now, what can they do to enforce THEIR rules and legal things that you aren't "allowed" to do? Not bloody much. They can ask you to leave, hypothetically ban/bar you from coming back (ask you to leave forever) - and that's it. If you DON'T leave when they ask, THAT'S illegal. But that's their only hook for pretty much all of their rules.
This lack of illegality is basically why renegade photography works out - because they can keep your from standing around taking pictures, but once you TAKE the picture you're basically home free - they can't do anything to do for having the picture, or probably even putting it on your blog (noncommercially... but commercial releases are a whole separate issue)
Looking for freelance Actionscript (Flash/Flex) or ColdFusion work and/or freelance developers. Email me, put Slashdot
Abe Simpson: Hey! You stole my soul!
Sure I'm paranoid, but am I paranoid enough?
Here are some legal guidelines anyone can follow. Save the "I think you can..." for yourselves and stay away from the IANAL comments.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
And here's a direct link to the 1 page PDF: http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
Print it out and keep it in your photography bag. There's a 4 page Photographer's Rights booklet I have at home that's more comprehensive and includes some common scenarios. I can't think of the name of it though. If someone can, please post it.
Thank you :). I watched myself get modded troll and then a bunch of bullshit about how its all about the government. Like that has shit to do with the argument anyways. Nevermind that almost all of the stories related to this battle have been PRIVATE like Google taking pictures of the public.
You are in public...the government...the private sector...the neighbors can all watch you and photograph you as much as they want. Deal with it. For all the idiots that bitch "no the government can't" Yes they can so long as you let them! Surprise! Publically elected officials doing things that make you uncomfortable, kick em out, elect new ones, but so long as you elected public officials that take pictures of anyone and everyone in public places...nothing illegal there...all you can do is elect people that won't do it.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
fisting involves shoving your arm up another dude's asshole, or vice versa.
What, shoving your asshole up another dude's arm?
How dare [private citizen1] stop [private citizens] from taking photographs of copyrighted works owned by [private citizen1's employer]. How dare they respect copyright laws!
There, now it's been fixed again. Taking a camera inside a museum is just a big mistake. I'm sorry that this guy got kicked out for photographing an employee, but get real. This guy wants to whine that he got asked to leave? That's the right of private property! They can ask you to leave just because they don't like you. Sure, you can go back later and prove harassment or prejudice, but you do that afterward. I'm surprised that, after being asked to leave and failing to, that he wasn't simply arrested. Trespassing is a real b****.
Yes, the museum is a public treasure, that does not make it public property. Yes, the guard is just an employee, but they still have the right and responsibility to ask you to leave. This photographer, in this story alone cause the rest of his blog he seems pretty reasonable, sounds like the reason that so many people do clam up when they see a SLR camera. Seriously, a professional photographer who it seems is smart enough to deal with model releases and use their photos commercially, should know the legal lines of taking pictures around other copyrighted works.
When I first saw this title, I thought it said "Photographers Face Ejaculation Over Lenses"
It's been a long day...
"Computers are useless. They can only give you answers." - Pablo Picasso
Recall, Bruce Schneier calls this "The War on the Unexepcted".
http://www.schneier.com/blog/archives/2007/11/the_war_on_the.html
Americans weren't previously this bad, but 9/11 and the government's call to report anything out of the ordinary caused us to lose rationality. The fact that this continues to happen isn't really a surprise.
Actually to clarify the things at the ends of those lines were not how *I* was trying to frame it. It is the sentiment that shows up on slashdot every time one of these stories get posted. Be it government or private.
Second...when in public you have no privacy from citizens, government, or private industry. It is moronic to think so at best. There is nothing illegal or unconstitutional about the government throwing up thousands of cameras to watch every inch of public land. It is creepy, and excessive, and the solution is to just vote the assholes that would do that out. In the end it is no different then them hiring thousands of police officers to do the same. Do you expect police officers to walk, drive, and ride around with blindfolds on because they are the government and you deserve privacy from them when you are in public?
Privacy has its limits. It is the reactionary wackjobs that demand that privacy means "anytime and anywhere that I don't want someone looking at me". I'm sorry, it doesn't work that way. Privacy...based on Private...not Public...that would be Publicity. How anyone confuses the two is beyond me. Thankfully the creepy people get to use these wackaloons to say "SEE! This is what they mean by privacy! We can't allow THAT". And then they procede to implement all kinds of crazy privacy invading stuff. You know...like that whole wiretap business...THAT is a privacy issue.
The only change I can believe in is what I find in my couch cushions.
Actually, no shirt/no shoes policies are due to a federal law against shirtless/shoeless people being in places where food is served. I know this because I worked at a camp where we served food, and it was made clear: this isn't our policy, it's federal law, so don't even think about complaining to us.
Alexander Peter Kristopeit bought his basement from his mommy for one dollar.
While those with a little power tend to abuse them greatly (check out the custom employees). A good fraction of these 'security theater' behavior is simply good ol' CYA.
Imagine that after a subway gas attack, the police finds photos of the train station in the hideout. The subway authority could be lynched for NOT having a policy to prevent photography. Would it have made any difference? Hard to say, but the bureaucrats certainly don't want to take a chance (of losing their jobs).
Huh? Score 0 "Redundant"? --Sorry, but I didn't see these links over-provided, and I found them useful. This is why I read Slashdot without filtering.
-FL
Juiche means "Political Self Reliance" in North Korea... but 42 is close enough :-)
I want a camera that can upload to my laptop, via Bluetooth, in realtime. That plus a Wi-Fi AP gives a camera that transmits directly to your home server. Let an overly-aggressive guard try to delete that.
Dewey, what part of this looks like authorities should be involved?
My understanding, albeit a little hazy, is that building plans must be filed with local governmental offices
*crash*
And mind those stairs...
[UID-HeinzIntel]
I'm guessing you routinely make stuff up without any real understanding of the applicable laws.
Sounds like you're eligible to run airport security. Congrats!
So what happened to all the people bitching about Google driving around taking pictures of THEIR buildings?
Take a picture of my house and OMFG invasion of privacy! Big Brother!
Take a picture of someone's office and it's suddenly censorship?
Make up your minds or are the Tin Foil Hats interfering with your brain waves?
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/
http://www.kantor.com/blog/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
These links have probably been posted elsewhere in this thread, but just in case...
"The law is fine, BUT..."
Whenever anyone adds a "but" to the end of their statement, what they're really saying is they disagree, but realize that they have no rational basis for their belief.
You're all for free speech, BUT, not if it's used in a way that you don't think is right. I'll bet you've said "Well, I'm all for free speech, but they're abusing that privilege". As if people are only allowed to use freedoms as long as everybody agrees with it.
"As a parent, or as a female, how would you feel if from 50+ feet away someone was standing with a telephoto lens taking shots of you, or your children?"
Um. Glad that they're 50 feet away? Glad that I have the freedom to either (a) ask that they stop or (b) more likely move away?
"It may be LEGAL, but that doesn't make it RIGHT. "
Nope, you're wrong in this regard. Folks like you just don't get it. Freedom *is* uncomfortable. It does things you wish it doesn't. It gives you power and gives everybody else power.
"If you want to take a picture of a PERSON [...]in public you ought to have the decency and courtesy to ASK THEM if possible"
That's your opinion. And yet *freedom* says that I simply do it. And you're free to not like it. Freedom is uncomfortable. It's supposed to be. Get over it. Get over yourself.
You're actually an odd duck. You're okay with Wal-Mart and the local government filming your every move. You have no idea why, but I supposed you trust corporations and governments to do the right thing. But a random guy on the street with a DLSR makes you nuts. You're really a very odd person. Ill considered. Not well thought out. You live in fear of what you don't know, and are fine with corporations and governments knowingly trampling your rights because you imagine they are guardians of your safety, and more importantly, they keep your children safe.
Really, you don't like freedom if you think about it. You value safety and tranquility far more than freedom.
I really don't think they should allow you to photograph the lobby of a Hyatt. You might threaten to show them to people unless they paid you money.
Squirrel!
Make it a habit to live your life based on your own terms, not those of someone long dead.
Some museums have prohibitions against flash photography in some areas due to the damage that the bright lights have on the pigments, etc. of the items but they allow non-flash pictures. Others might simply find it easier to say "no photography" instead of something like "no flash photography in halls 1, 3 and 6 but non-flash is OK there and flash photography is OK in halls 2, 4 and 5 except for exhibits #345 and 287..." So there ARE legit reasons, at times, for such policies.
Our leaders chastise China for limiting freedom of expression.
They have a longer and more consistent reputation for lack of free expression. They're insisting on keeping it that way, too.
Twitter supports and protects racists - by smearing their critics with the "Hate Speech" label.
I have shot in the atrium of the SFMOMA without consequence in full view of staff. Others were also.
I'm inclined to ponder the political confrontation this photographer appears to be looking for. He seems adolescent in his behavior.
I strongly suggest that there's another point of view to this "story", that the facts are hardly well known, and that SF MOMA as a private organization has the right to limit photography inside it's facility.
I think they're being tarred with a very broad brush.
"Pearl Harbor was an act of war by an actual official country. It was part of continued efforts by Japan to wage war on our country. Real war. Not this diluted down "war on [drugs|terror|crime]"."
If you don't think what Al Qaeda is doing is "real war", then you're a fool, simply stated. If you want to really hurt the United States, this is how you conduct war against us.
No, Al Qaeda isn't a country with a flag and a uniformed army. But that's the whole point. After WW II and Korea, it became bleedingly obvious to even the most obtuse minds that you couldn't beat the United States in a traditional army-on-army nation/state fight. America's will, riches, and industrial base were just too hard to overcome. That's why our hardest openents haven't been countries since then, but guerilla organizations. And not just against the US, but the West in general. If Libya declares a line of death and sends fighters against the 6th fleet, we shoot them down and bomb their air force bases. But Hamas/Islamic Jihad/Al Qaeda... they blow up bus stations, hijack airplanes, mow down pedestrians... and then flee behind some other country's borders. Hamas has taken this to a high art (or low, if you will), by perfecting the technique of hitting Israelis and then running and hiding in family homes, schools, hospitals, etc... and then daring Israel to strike them.
Not a uniformed army? Damn right. The bad guys got smart, and realized uniformed armies don't stand a chance against us. But that doesn't make bringing the towers down, or blowing up Khobar Towers, or making a great big hole in the USS Cole any less an act of war, because I promise you that Al Qaeda certainly believes they're at war against us. They've simply minimized their vulnerabilities. They sure act like they're at war.
"9/11 happened once. *poof* done. There's no sustained offensive. We aren't fighting to take back Manhattan."
Again, they've learned not to do things like "sustained offensives"... they've learned that it is much more effective for them overall to hit big targets, terrify the population, and then move on to planning the next big act of terror. People like you seem to think that because the Towers operation wasn't done by a uniformed force, and wasn't designed to take out a military objective that it wasn't war, that it wasn't strategic thinking. But Bin Laden wanted to bring down our most important symbols... the Pentagon, probably the White House, and the two buildings that most represented American financial power. Symbols matter, sir. Reference Jimmy Doolittle's tactically useless but strategically brilliant B-25 raid from carriers against Japan. It caused a few fires, destroyed a few buildings, but raised American spirits immensely. After months of taking a licking in the Pacific, we were ready to carry on after Jimmy's flight.
Every time a World Trade Center or a Khobar Towers happnes, our enemies re-dedicate themselves to their fight. They're inspired.
By bringing down the Towers, Bin Laden was in essence telling us that "I can't take out an aircraft carrier or smash an armored division, but I can shake your (and the world's) confidence in your true weapons... your financial dominance">.
The Towers operations were, frankly, as brilliant a strategic operation as any conventional military battle. We couldn't immediately fight back on this front at all. And how did we lose Vietnam? Simply put, we lost the will to fight. We won military. The Tet Offensive was an absolute disaster. We crippled the NVA and Viet Cong so badly they couldn't mount a major offensive for another 12 months. But Walter Cronkite goes on TV and says we can't win, and LBJ realizes its over, our will to win is gone. Will to win is essential. And Al Qaeda targeting two things they could wound... our financial sector and our will to win.
"Really, and this is what "they" don't want you to realize, is that OBL and crew just aren't relevant here."
Life is hard, and the world is cruel
likewise:
It isn't a "security" threat, it's a threat to "authority".
Capturing evidence ( of potential authority-abuse ) is a mortal threat to assumed authority,
and will be put-down, at any cost.
If accommodated, then the rest of your human "rights" are going to go, too,
because there won't be any "proof" you were murdered/beaten/disappeared/whatever.
Check something called "history",
and see what we are repeating...
( I wonder what our "night of broken glass" is going to be? )
he was told he couldn't even photograph the lobby of a Hyatt Hotel."
SciFi convention last month. Had a guy who shoots extras for DVDs like actor interviews talking about small time film making. I think it is widely known that the rights to every street scene in Manhattan are reserved but he told the story of shooting an actor interview in London and getting a release from the hotel to allow the _suite_ as a background. It isn't just people you have to get releases from and it can be crazy. If Budweiser doesn't approve of your movie, that Bud sign in a bar scene could be a bitch to reshoot around.
"The only thing between them and ownership of Saudi Arabia is the loyalty of King Fahd's military forces."
A minor nit: King Fahd's been dead for a while. It's King Abdullah now.
But that's no big change, Abdullah was effectively doing King's job for years as Crown Prince.
When Abdullah dies, however, it's a whole new ballgame. There are no more able-bodied sons of Abdul-Aziz left, so a new generation will have to take over. (All Saudi Kings since Abdul-Aziz's death in 1953 have been his sons.)
Not really.
This post is vital to national security.
The SF MOMA told me that their policy was because the artworks are copyrighted and they haven't obtained permission from all of the artists to have their works photographed. I think it's ridiculous, I've never seen another museum with that policy, and I despise taking copyright to an extreme. Nevertheless, I just didn't care enough to protest. There were only one or two things in the museum I would have liked to photograph anyway.
... ejaculation over lenses!
Government officials don't panic. They use every opportunity they can go seize more control. Fear and panic on the *public's* part is one of their best opportunities.
I have noticed I get a lot of attention when I use my pro glass (Nikon 17-55 f/2.8, 70-200 f/2.8) in public. Frankly, that's huge glass and quite understandable when I have two very large cameras.
I've had security guards approach me. But I've never had any problem, because I always try to strike a friendly conversation with them. I ask for details about the policy. I point out that I understand that they are following the policy set by their boss, and have to in order to keep their job. If it is private property, I usually turn off my camera and comply (it is their property).
But, if it is public property, I point out that their boss is unaware of the law, that I can indeed photograph, and the boss could get in trouble if they try to stop me. But I don't want to cause problems for the guard. I then offer to stop taking photographs until the guard has left. That way he has done his job and his boss doesn't get into trouble. Works nearly every time.
But when it doesn't, here's the trick:
1 - display the image on the camera.
2 - place your finger on the 'delete' button.
3 - at the same time, have your finger on the "off" switch.
4 - give the camera a slight shake, as if you just hit the delete button (but don't delete).
5 - at the same time, hit the off switch.
6 - say "there you go".
The screen goes blank, and he thinks you deleted the pictures. He's happy. We're all happy.
Notice I did NOT say I would delete the picture.
Practice this a few times and you'll be able to get out of a jam easily. If they ask about other pictures, mash the "play" button, and ask "do you see any other pictures?" Since the camera is off, they won't see any.
If they get to me before I get to shoot, I ask who is in charge of press relations. Most people are generally very easy to deal with as long as YOU are easy to deal with, and very friendly.
Place nail here >+