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."

Comments

Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[suso]

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.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Have similar things happen to me while trying to get picture even outside of few building in and around NYC.

Have also seen security guards running after somebody whenever they notice them taking pictures of the buildings.

I am all the more concerned about this because on top of carrying a dSLR, I am also an immigrant and my skin color differs from the locals. That's one of the mains reasons I never got into public photography.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[suso]

I am all the more concerned about this because on top of carrying a dSLR, I am also an immigrant and my skin color differs from the locals. That's one of the mains reasons I never got into public photography.

I'm so sorry about that. One shouldn't have to sacrifice their dreams for this shit.

Maybe there should be flash mobs of people going into public areas and taking a bunch of pictures to raise awareness about the change in policy due to 9/11.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[QuantumG]

Security guards on private property only have you the power to leave and, if you refuse, escort you from the premises. So, if they fuck with you, that's what you should say... "are you asking me to leave?".. as soon as they say no, you just say oh ok, thanks for the advice on your corporate policy. And hey, getting ejected from some random private property because you refuse to conform with their corporate policy is hardly something to be shameful about.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

Just print out a real looking press badge, and put it in a plastic protector on a lanyard an put that around your neck. They'll let you take all the pictures you want. People like that are suckers for anything looks like authority. They'll only harass people that they think have none.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[jonnythan]

Shopping malls aren't public places. They can absolutely kick you out for any reason they feel necessary. They can't demand that you hand over your film or prevent you from publishing the pictures that you've taken, but they can demand that you not take pictures or kick you out.

Sorry, you are dead wrong here. Review this summary of photographer's rights.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[lena_10326]

As far as I understand in USA, a mall is private property, so the owners can informally prohibit picture taking inside the mall but cannot if you're taking pictures from a public place adjacent to the mall. Had you refused the guard and ignored his request for you to leave, you'd be trespassing and he could detain you for trespass, but not photography. There is no law saying you cannot shoot photos inside a public building, but they can certainly ask you to leave if they don't like it. I don't believe he can confiscate your camera. That would be theft and threats of such is typical of badge bullies who twist the law hoping to invoke fear in you.

There are two types of law. The law on the books. And, whatever the guy with the gun says is the law. The security guy follows the latter so even though he may be violating your rights, it's best to comply and sue later.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[celardore]

A flash photography mob no less.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[sm62704]

raise awareness about the change in policy due to 9/11.

Indeed. Back when I was young I was heavily into photography, and often carried an SLR with a 135mm lens. Back then nobody cared. Ironically, these days they don't want you photographing, yet there are Big Brother cameras (including government cameras) everywhere.

It's too late to change awareness; the terrorists have won.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[suso]

Shopping malls aren't public places. They can absolutely kick you out for any reason they feel necessary. They can't demand that you hand over your film or prevent you from publishing the pictures that you've taken, but they can demand that you not take pictures or kick you out.

Sorry, you are dead wrong here. Review this summary of photographer's rights.

Did you read the statement I made at the end of my comment? Read it again. But when it comes down to it, I bet if you did a survey, the majority of people would say that they think that a shopping mall is public property because it gives that impression. From what I read in the photographer's rights document that I read, it came down to being able to get into the facility without a key, special permission or some credential.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[funwithBSD]

*shrug*

Maybe they are Swedish?

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Ariven]

Actually at one mall here in AZ that I have worked for, having a press badge would get you evicted even faster than just taking pictures (Though taking pictures was enough)...

They had issues with people taking pictures due to a stabbing that had occured some time prior, as well as not wanting to make it easier for insurance or lawyer related photography...

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[betterunixthanunix]

The law is clear, in a public place, you are free to photograph anything you want, even other people without their permission. While most police officers are aware of that law, security guards usually are not, and so it is likely that they will give you a hard time about photographing the public facade of a building. Also keep in mind that the law is not clear on photographs where the subject of the picture is on private property but the photographer was standing on public ground.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Bandman]

From the first paragraph of the document you quoted, in bold,

  there are no laws prohibiting the taking of photographs on public or private property. If you can be there, you can take pictures there: streets, malls, parking lots, office buildings. You do not need permission to do so, even on private property.

I don't know how much more obvious it could be

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Firehed]

Yes, that's quite true. But from a privacy standpoint (specifically regarding photography), malls are considered public places. If they have a problem with photographers, they're certainly entitled to ask you to leave (and you'd be trespassing if you don't comply) but that's about the extent of it.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[KingSkippus]

From what I read in the photographer's rights document that I read, it came down to being able to get into the facility without a key, special permission or some credential.

Not having to use a key or credential does not make it public property.

Assuming you have a yard, if I went to your house, walked through your yard, and started taking pictures through the windows of your house, is it okay because I'm on public property? After all, you don't have your yard secured by a key or other credential. If you're having a party and it looks like a public place, does that make a difference?

The other posters are right. The mall is private property, you have no "right" to be there, and they can ask you to leave at any time. I agree that it's pretty sucky to ask you to do so because you're taking pictures, but there's no law against them being sucky. (There is a law, however, against you staying there after they've asked you to leave. It's called trespassing.)

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[digitalhermit]

Man, the same thing happened to me the other day.

I was on a public beach in South Florida, just looking around after attending a showing of "Pineapple Express" at Aventura Mall. I saw a girl that I knew I would love to have a picture of and took a picture of her with my Canon 40D DSLR. Her boyfriend came over and told me to bugger off. At first I thought he was wrong, but decided to challenge him since I'd already taken the picture and I didn't want to get my ass kicked. So I ran away with my Boots of Escaping. Later that day I checked my computer and found other pictures so it didn't matter.

(I kid, I kid)

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[0100010001010011]

There was a security guard yelling at people at 1 Wall Street when I visited NYC 2 weeks ago. If people took pictures he'd walk across the street "No pictures" and then harass them into leaving.

If my aunts would have walked slower I would have pushed the "Public place" policy. Hell If you were shooting down the street at the church you'd get a good portion of the building in the shot. Not to mention it's up in google street views (What idiot decided shooting street views at night was a good idea).

If he's only a security guard as soon as he leaves that buildings property he's "out of his jurisdiction"

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[aliquis]

But is it so hard to find pictures of an airport? Or just travel there and plan it in advance? Or get a general overview from airport maps / google earth / whatever?

Also the terrorist to tourist ratio are probably quite low ..

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[corbettw]

That's not entirely accurate, at least not in the US. The Supreme Court has ruled that shopping malls fulfill the traditional "public square" function, and you are free to conduct political activities on their property, as long as you don't block entrance or exit and don't pollute the area with excessive noise or trash. That's why you can set up a table outside of a grocery store to get people to sign a petition, and when the manager tells you to leave you can tell him to call the cops and have you arrested. Which he won't do, because the police won't arrest you.

I know, I've done this many many times in my younger, more active days, when I tried to get pro-marijuana laws put on the ballot in California.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[corsec67]

That's not entirely true. I know that in New York you are NOT allowed to take pictures of other people without their consent.

If that was true, then you couldn't set up any meaningful kind of CCTV security system.

That is NOT true at all, see Arrington v New York Times Co., 434 N.E.2d 1319 (N.Y. 1982). There isn't an expectation of privacy in public. Shopping malls and other private areas can have restrictions, but they can't restrict taking pictures of the building from a public area. You only need permission and a model release if the photograph is going to be used commercially, which excludes news and "fine art" usage. That means that you can even photograph children in public and sell the picture to a newspaper without anyones permission. If a cop stops you, they can't require that you either show them your pictures, or to delete pictures. Don't trust me, ask a lawyer.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Oligonicella]

This stuff is nothing new at all. I got security people telling me that in the days before digital, much less 9/11. Security guards make every attempt to feel self-important. That is all.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[rufus t firefly]

You should probably print a copy of The Photographer's Right and carry it with you. It should help out in situations like that.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

*Businesses* allow *customers* access to *their* property on *their* terms. Don't agree? Try pitching a tent in the food court.

Funny, I was just at my local food court,and I don't recall having any problem pitching a tent in front of the Hooters.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[kalirion]

Personally, I wonder how exactly people think photography was used by terrorists in the 9/11 incident. Did one of them photograph the World Trade Center so that they could find it from a plane?

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[91degrees]

Indeed. There's a difference between a public space, and public property. A mall is a public space but private property because it is owned by a private company but there is a general right of access to the public. A military base is public property but not a public space because it is owned by the public (via the government) but you can't just wander in there.

So it's really just about whether there's a general invitation to the public to be there. And by extending this general invitation, the Mall owners should be aware that the place will be treated as a public space (because it is one) and people will assume the same rules apply as in a park.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[MachineShedFred]

This is absolutely awful.

However, it's not limited to people of darker pigmentation of skin. I had some douche security guard accost me for having a camera at Mt. Tabor Park here in Portland, and I'm as white as they come.

I can't imagine why anyone would want to take a camera here...

Needless to say, I gave him the standard "am I under arrest? No? Then you don't get to see my camera, and you don't get to stop be from being in this publicly owned park unless you like Title 42 lawsuits."

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Thaelon]

It's too late to change awareness; the terrorists have won.

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.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[poetmatt]

If I could mod you to +1000, I'd do so.

For folks who don't realize how much so Quantum is dead on:

If you watch the improv everywhere group when they did the best buy stunt (linked), they explicitly ask the officers this when they try to threaten people. They say "are you asking me to leave" and "do you have the authority to ask me to leave?" after every time they are threatened with "this is illegal/not allowed".

From the link (the important part when people threaten about legality):

Agent Shafer confidently informed the cops that it was not, in fact, "illegal" to film in Best Buy and that they couldnâ(TM)t accuse him of trespassing until he had been asked to leave the store. He pointed out that he was perfectly willing to leave. A manger told Agent Shafer, "I don't come to your house and film you," to which he replied, "Who lives here?" The cops argued for a bit, but finally realized there was nothing they could do. They let the cameramen go and informed the manager, "The worst you can do is ask them to leave."

Also, the second rule of anything legal but people bullshit that it's not:never do something alone and never respond to any question an officer asks you at all. All things are "I don't know/I don't have an answer". Providing any answers = incriminating yourself and waiving your 5th amendment rights.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Anonymous Coward]

I had a similar problem in one of the top ten universities in U.S. I wanted to take my DSLR camera to a baseball game to take close up pictures. The Police (there is no security guard, but police at the entrance), said I can not take the camera with me. I understand they do not let video cameras. The police also kind of threatened me to not to ask questions. ( I asked the reason for not being able use SLR's, and he replied "because I say so"). I did not want to jeopardize the situation because I am from a "dangerous" country. I am sure an American guy would screw that man in that second. So even the police can do these things.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Angostura]

One of these things is not like the other.

*Businesses* allow *customers* access to *their* property on *their* terms. Don't agree? Try pitching a tent in the food court.

Now try pitching a tent on a Manhattan sidewalk.

Your point?

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[74nova]

I know a photographer that had someone try to collect money over their HORSE being in the picture. wow. just wow.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[davolfman]

That's how terrorism is supposed to work, duh.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[corsec67]

There actually are property releases, so you can't use the picture of a famous animal/new building without the appropriate release, if it is going to be used commercially.

But, if it is going to be used in a newspaper or fine art print, again there isn't much that the owner of the horse can legally do there to get money.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[swillden]

It's too late to change awareness; the terrorists have won.

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.

Exactly (and I made the same statement on /. on 9/12), but you're just supporting the GP's point: The terrorists have won. We let them.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Zatar]

Uh, yeah, that's how terrorism works - they create terror which leads the victims to act in ways that are in the interests of the terrorists rather than the victims.

9/11 was the most successful terrorist attack ever not because they took down the towers but because America is turning itself into a police state and starting wars and destroying our economy because of the attacks. Hence "the terrorists have won" in the sense that we are voluntarily doing their wishes.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[goosman]

Could you produce a link to these laws? Or define in what countries this might be illegal? I've taken lots of photos at many large airports, MSP, DTW, MEM to name a few. Plus several small airports. Never have I been told this was illegal, nor have I been stopped by guard, police, etc. for doing this.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[swillden]

Security guards on private property only have you the power to leave and, if you refuse, escort you from the premises.

Not even that. They have no power to MAKE you leave. They can ask you to, and can walk out with you, but if you refuse, they can't physically restrain you. They can call the police and have you cited for trespassing, and the police can make you leave. Whether or not you actually are trespassing depends on the details of local law, and what exactly you're doing.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[fishbowl]

>Security guards on private property only have you the power to leave and, if you refuse, escort you from the premises.

They have all the rights of any other citizen, which does in some instances, include the right to use force (e.g., self-defense,
stopping a violent crime). Depends on the locale. I wouldn't push my luck in Arizona. Regardless of them being mere "security guards",
simply as citizens they are allowed to carry firearms. And if they want to make a case that something like shoplifting includes "aggravated
trespass" they can actually shoot and would probably get away with it.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[jedidiah]

Our economy is/was built on a house of cards. That part didn't need any help from terrorism.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[jedidiah]

You probably wouldn't even notice.

If they are actually harrassing you or otherwise engaging
in behavior that can be characterized as "stalking" then
there are laws that handle that.

2 ships passing in the night (er mall)?...

Get a grip.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[betterunixthanunix]

What if you are an artist, and you are trying to get a photograph of someone who is completely unaware that they are in a picture? People often behave differently when they know there is a camera pointed at them, and some artists might want to capture their "natural" behavior. It might seem creepy at first glance, but really there isn't anything specifically wrong with it.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[jkerman]

And dont ever forget it. 5th amendment rights are designed to protect the /innocent/ from bullshit like this.

People always assume its only for guilty people, when it was in fact designed for innocent people from day 1.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[internetcommie]

There is no evidence that photography has EVER been used by terrorists in planning an attack. Not even once in the history of terrorism.

And believe it or not, of all the ridiculous laws passed using 9/11 as an excuse, not even one mentions photography. So the security guards/incompetent cops who use 9/11 as an excuse for telling people they aren't allowed to take photos are out to lunch. And they ought not come back on duty till they have learned the law.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Miseph]

Um, no, it's not. That's just one of those things that everyone THINKS is illegal, including cops etc. Airports, at least the big ones, are public property, and as such it is explicitly NOT illegal to take photographs in them, because even if a law saying otherwise was passed tomorrow, it would absolutely fail on the basis of unconstitutionality.

What IS illegal is taking photographs of essentially anything in order to commit a crime of any sort. In fact, there are very few things that one can do to plan a crime that isn't illegal because we have laws against conspiring to commit a crime. If the security guard legitimately believes you are planning a crime, he is welcome to file a police report so that it can be properly investigated. After the 8th or 9th time the cops have to deal with nothing reports, they'll probably just tell him to chill.

Remember, if you actually aren't breaking any laws, it is your civic duty to require all government agents to comply with the laws they are supposed to uphold. If cops are stopping every car on a stretch of road and requesting to search cars, make them get a signed warrant from a sitting judge before they get so much as a glance at the glove compartment. The authorities violate our rights for just two reasons, the first is that they think they can, and the second is that the people giving the orders don't realize how much work it would be if they actually had to do their jobs. Make every cop get a warrant for every search, and I guarantee you'll see a lot less searches (which is the whole point, in case anybody missed it).

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Duradin]

Yes, we must use "think of the children (and women)!" as the primary rational for our laws.

Wait, emotional response as a foundation for a rational law, does not compute.

Personally, I'd find it normal for someone to be taking a picture of a woman. Cultural definition of beauty and all that. Children are sorta in the same boat. Society has been deluded into think those vile disease spreading proto-humans are "cute".

Now someone taking a picture of me, an ugly lug of a male? That's not normal. That'd mean there was a black helicopter or obsequious white van coming to take me away to a vacation in some unidentifiable basement.

And really, when your argument relies on "but think of the [children|women]!" your argument is nothing but pandering to emotion.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Charcharodon]

Also keep in mind that the law is not clear on photographs where the subject of the picture is on private property but the photographer was standing on public ground.

Wrong! You take pictures of anything you want, of anyone you want, as long as their is no expectation of privacy. Bedrooms, bathrooms, etc have an expectation of privacy, while on the other hand your backyard, garage, front door, tree house, etc do not.

The are other laws that can come into play such as anti-loitering, obstruction of traffic, etc that can prevent some methods of photography, but not all.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[tenton]

Of course, the really stupid thing is, if there was some sort of reason why a terrorist is taking pictures of a mall (for some plan), they wouldn't be using a DSLR, as it draws too much attention in the first place. They'd be using a cell phone camera or a small point and shoot, because it's inconspicuous. You don't want to draw attention to yourself if you're planning something. The lone dude with a DSLR is going to be the most harmless person, because he's already attracting so much attention on his own (because he sticks out from the crowd).

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[kvezach]

You're not supposed to think about that. You're supposed to just hear "terrorist" and then say "okay, I'll acquiesce", no thought required.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[poetmatt]

Man, people really know nothing about Israel.

Most people in Israel carry firearms, security personnel or not. Oh I don't know, maybe because it's mandatory for 2 years for women and 3 years for me to serve in the military?

Anyway, in Israel, people do have first amendment equivalent rights (even Israeli citizens). They cannot and will not shoot at you unless it is absolutely necessary. If you want to see the country explode into a big political situation then wait for the first time you hear of a security guard shooting people for taking pictures. Guess how often that will happen? I can give you the number of times right now, and with certainty: zero. It will never happen.

I have taken pictures inside military bases that I have been to in Israel, and not only that but with the commanding officers smiling and in the pictures. I could have taken pictures of instrument panels inside APCs and missile defense vehicles (I forgot the accurate term/name) and it would likely have gotten the officers jailed themselves for allowing it, but it would not have affected me in any way. In fact, I didn't do it as a matter of politeness to them but there was nothing stopping me as I had been allowed to enter the base in the first place.

Just because people have guns, doesn't mean they're stupid. That's just a common redneck/southerner thing in the United States alone.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[commodoresloat]

As a Swede myself I have to say: bork bork bork!!

Fixed that for you.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[Slashdot Parent]

Under the law I would have no "right" to stop this person from taking this picture or others like it, I would have no right to force the destruction of this picture--the best I could do would be to prevent future pictures by blocking the shots or by leaving.

Actually, in many jurisdictions upskirt photography is specifically illegal without permission. In other jurisdictions, it would depend on whether a court of law decides that a person has a reasonable expectation of privacy up her (or his, I suppose) skirt. In the case of your daughter, local laws might even deem such photos to be child pornography since the photos are probably intended to arouse.

Though I'm curious at exactly what punishment I would receive by a jury if I assaulted a person who was doing this, would they dismiss the charge against me because they believed that it was justified?

It would depend on state/local laws, the extent to which you assaulted the photographer, and of course, the individual jury.

When you observe a crime being committed, it is almost always preferable to summon the police rather than to apply vigilante-style "justice". Even if you could rely upon a "think of the children" jury finding you not guilty of this assault, and I'm not saying you can rely upon that, you would still go through considerable monetary and emotional expense mounting a defense.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[lastchance_000]

Well, if it was for, say, a chamber of commerce brochure (i.e., used to generate commercial business), then the horse's owner was correct in asking for some compensation for the use of his horse's likeness. For a newspaper, no.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[element-o.p.]

Yes you can publish the photos without a model release. IANAL, etc., so don't quote what I say below if you end up in court, but I have researched this for my own personal knowledge.

The law isn't black and white -- there are certainly grey areas between what is clearly allowed and what is clearly not allowed. However, as I understand, taking photographs in public is allowed, even without a model release, even if the person photographed asks you to stop (although I suppose there is the possibility of harassment or stalking that you might want to consider). Taking photographs where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy" is *not* allowed, although you can bet there is some wiggle room with the vague term "reasonable expectation of privacy". The less identifiable a person is in the photo (part of a group, face turned so that they cannot be identified, etc.), the less likely the photographer is to get in trouble for taking the photo. If, however, you intend to use a photo for commercial purposes, the person in the photograph is clearly identifiable (for example, a portrait), and/or the photograph would likely cause embarrassment or harm to the person photographed, then you'd better get a model release before publishing the photo. Also note that the term "commercial purposes" is a bit vague, too. As I understand, if you own a web site that is not primarily for the purpose of publishing photographs, then posting photos on the web site is not considered a commercial purpose. If you are selling photos on your web site, or if...ahem...photos of people are the whole reason for your web site's existence, then you should probably have a model release.

Even if there is doubt about whether or not you should have a model release before publishing a particular photo, there is also the whole risk-management thing to consider -- what are the odds that the subject would actually sue you for taking the photo? First, they have to see the photo published somewhere. Second, they have to identify the photographer who took the photo. Third, they have to find a lawyer willing to represent them (and face it, if you are a starving artist, a lawyer probably won't be interested in taking the case, because you don't have any/many assets worth taking, so it won't be worth the lawyer's time to sue you). Fourth, even if the first three conditions can be met, the judge and/or jury still have to find in the plaintiffs favor, which is not a given.

If you want to know more about the law covering model releases, just Google "photography model release". There are some really good resources on-line. If you are really serious and have something to lose if you, well, lose in court, then hire a lawyer to tell you what the law says.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[AncientPC]

There may be some exceptions to this rule. For example, a Houston tourist was arrested in Austin for photographing two topless women in public. However that arrest is being fought using the logic that "being in a public place implicitly gives consent to being photographed."

Under state law, "improper photography" is defined as taking a photograph of someone or visually recording them without the person's consent and with the intent to arouse or gratify the sexual desire of any person. If convicted, Nguyen could face up to two years in a state jail.

The state's indecent exposure law does not bar women from being topless in public.

James Hemphill, a First Amendment lawyer in Austin whose clients include the American-Statesman, said that under a broad interpretation of privacy laws, a person implicitly gives consent to be photographed by being in a public place.

"As a matter of constitutional law, given that a person is in public and given that a photographer is in a public place and given no extraordinary technology is used, the Constitution must require that photography be allowed and not punished," Hemphill said.

"The lines start to blur when a person is in a private place but is visible from a public place, or with the using of technology to capture an image not visible with the unaided eye," he said.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[clone53421]

But it's so simple! All I have to do is divine from what I know of you. Are you the sort of man who would draw attention to himself, or appear to look inconspicuous? Now, a clever man would draw attention to himself, because he would know that only a great fool would want to be noticed. I'm not a great fool, so I can clearly not draw attention to myself. But you must have known I was not a great fool; you would have counted on it, so I can clearly draw attention to myself.

You've made your decision then?

Not remotely. Because this camera comes from Australia, as everyone knows. And Australia is entirely peopled with criminals. And criminals are used to having people not trust them, as you are not trusted by me. So I can clearly not draw attention to myself.

Truly you have a dizzying intellect.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[sjames]

More than that. Congress and the president actively took up the terrorist's cause, complete with a color coded chart telling people how terrified to be!

If terrorism is the creation of fear amongst a civilian population in order to achieve a political goal, then DHS, DOJ, Congress, and the executive office are all terrorists.

Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces

[MacDork]

Funny, I don't remember taking any of my rights away.

But do you remember giving any of your rights away?

Rights can't be given away. They are rights and infringement is never justified because the violated are unwilling/unable to resist. Take slavery for example... Forcing people into slavery is always wrong. Period. If you're enslaving them, the moral responsibility is on you, the slaver. To say that people brought it on themselves because they didn't resist enough is blaming the victim. Doing that is as morally reprehensible as the actual act of taking the rights, because it indicates you are accepting those morally reprehensible actions as justice.

There are times when civil disobedience ought to be an obligation, not just a right.

The right to civil disobedience? A right is an established claim on something. Your right to speak, live free, or defend yourself is not granted, given, or bestowed upon you. You simply have them. The Bill of Rights does not grant these things. It simply enumerates and acknowledges them by explicitly forbidding government infringement of them. Should the government void that social contract and infringe on your rights, it's still your right to decide what to do about it. You've totally misunderstood the whole point of rights. Obligating someone to resist and be punished under unjust law would itself be an infringement of your rights, and that isn't just my opinion. I know of at least one other guy who would disagree with your assertion:

"If you love wealth more than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, depart from us in peace. We ask not your counsel nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hand that feeds you. May your chains rest lightly upon you and may posterity forget that you were our countrymen." —Samuel Adams

America's really getting stupid

[Reality Master 201]

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?

Re:America's really getting stupid

[Kjella]

Yes, that part of it is just US paranoia. The rest of the world just has OMG paranoia if there happen to be any minors nearby.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[tgd]

I think he's running for president?

*waves bye to karma*

Re:America's really getting stupid

[hal9000(jr)]

No, it is not fall out from 9/11. This has been the case for years and years. I was working for a video company back in the 80's. We had kiosks on food stores. I went in to take pictures of our kiosk and spent a rather fun 30 minutes placating some really freaked out managers.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[Ihlosi]

I mean why go out and spend a fortune on an SLR,

If you're a criminal in the first place, there are other ways to get an SLR than spending a fortune.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[Nimey]

As has been observed, "terrorism" and "pedophilia" are the root passwords to the Constitution.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[Mr Foobar]

What's so interesting to me about OBL and his terrorism is that even before 9/11, we had our current president Bush telling us that terrorism is bad because their actions make us change the way we live our lives, to live in fear, and not be free to act American. If these things happen, then the terrorists win.

And since 9/11, we Americans have had our lives changed, to live in fear, and not act as Americans. But OBL didn't do this, Bush and his cohorts did in so many changes in our root American culture.

And so OBL has won.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[VdG]

It's not just the US: there have been reports of photographers here in the UK getting hassled by people - including the police - for taking pictures in public places.

I think it's because a lot of people have bought into the security theatre, including police officers who should know better. Govt says so-and-so has all this dangerous information in his home, including photos of potential targets and eventually everyone starts thinking that photos are in some way dangerous.

With the number of cameras around it is a bit ridiculous. CCTVs in nearly every town centre; digital cameras in everybody's pockets; Google's lovely camera cars. Some enthusiast with an SLR really isn't a threat: someone who wanted pictures for nefarious purposes could get them quite simply with no-one the wiser.

Re:America's really getting stupid

[VdG]

Oh, and one other thing. Some of it may be deliberate on the part of security services to discourage protesters and other citizens from taking pictures of potentially illegal, unethical or just unflattering activity by police and others. That fear goes back to Rodney King.

If having a good camera makes you a terrorist...

[Anonymous Coward]

Then only terrorists will have nice photos.

Next up on the banned tech list?

[Apple Acolyte]

The evil telephoto lens. . . .

Re:Next up on the banned tech list?

[LordKronos]

No problem. All you need is a standard lens, a really high resolution scanning back, and the crop tool.

like they can't get the info

[yagu]

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.

Re:like they can't get the info

[QuantumG]

Grow a spin. When Mr Security says "I'll take your camera" you say "just fucking try" and if they don't go off to get their superior then you call your lawyer. And that's the problem with authority, people are not willing to stand up to it so people overstepping their position become the norm and then the norm becomes unspeakable and then the unspeakable becomes unquestionable. So take your pictures and when they ask you to stop, say no.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Fri13]

This is not victory for "terrorists" what are called as terrorists.

This is just a victory for real terrorist what is always the people who is leading the country and who are protecting their power by making these anti-terrorist bills. Those just gives them more power to do what ever they want and no one can stop them.

It is not about bombing, suicide bombigs or car bombs, those are not reasons or as usually, not even true who is doing them. It is always about the power and who is in control of country, it's like london metro bombings, it just "happend" to happend same time when there was going police trainings, on same stations, on same time and with exactly same scenarios.

Now the normal people is suffering of the terrorism, what the goverment is doing for people. It is the real terrorism and they use that to control us.

We cant take photos on holidays from our girl/boyfriends because you can be a terrorist, at least you are threat to national security.

We cant take photos of our childs to our family albums because it is tought you are taking them for childporn.

We cant speak freely and express our opinions of our goverments because it is same as supporting terrorism.

Soon you cant do anything in your own country if your leaders dont like it, they can just throw you to jail with anykind anti-terrorism bill.

Re:like they can't get the info

[gsslay]

If something is publicly visible, and yet sensitive enough to have people worried about it being photographed, I'd suggest that who ever owns it either starts hiding it from sight, changes what makes it so sensitive, or simply gets used to the idea.

We are not far from the time where it will be technologically possible to take as many photographs you wish, of whatever you can see, at what ever resolution you wish. And Mr Security drone will be none the wiser or be able to stop you.

Authorities need to face up to the fact that soon it will be a case if you can see it; you can film it. And they'll never know.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Waffle Iron]

I hit the same wall in Oakbrook Mall in the spring. I was taking a picture of the fountain through the mist being sprayed in the breeze. The security guard, very politely, asked me to desist for security purposes. WTF?

Do you not realize what could happen if control of that fountain fell into the wrong hands?

Re:like they can't get the info

[whisper_jeff]

"...then you call your lawyer."

Because everyone has a lawyer on retainer for just such a situation...

Re:like they can't get the info

[Midnight Thunder]

So take your pictures and when they ask you to stop, say no.

The problem is most people don't know what their rights are in such a situation and instead cease and desist, just to be safe. If in doubt I suppose you could ask the security guard why you should stop taking photos, but that is probably asking too much. In reality we need to find out what our rights are and use them to educate those who would make out lives difficult.

Maybe what we need is to organise a spontaneous crowd of photographers going from building to building taking photos. Such an event would certainly get noticed and maybe draw attention to the rights of photographers.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Skagit]

But, it's probably not even necessary, as blueprints and photos exist on the internet for any target one might find interesting.

You are absolutely correct.

Our project manager was doing a site visit to the George Washington Bridge in New York City. The Port Authority people told him he couldn't take any pictures of the bridge, for security reasons. Never mind that dozens of highway contractors, painting contractors, steel contractors, scaffold contractors and scads of engineering firms, architectural firms, government agencies of all forms and engineering schools have structural drawings in whole or part. Never mind one MILLION hits on Google images. Never mind the Historic American Buildings Survey in the Library of Congress http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/collections/habs_haer/index.html has wonderful high-definition scans of large and medium format film photos. This one is my favorite. You can check the rivet patterns: http://memory.loc.gov/pnp/habshaer/ny/ny1200/ny1264/photos/119063pv.jpg

It has nothing to do with security. It has everything to do with control. Problem is, when I point out the idiocy of the situation, the contradictory rules and the artificial restrictions this security places on good practice, they tell my boss I'm harassing the (Port Authority|ConEd|MTA) employees. I feel it is my duty as a professional engineer to point out the incredibly poor results (both in construction and in intention) of these rules that a layman may not be able or interested to do. It doesn't help that the (PA|CE|MTA) usually guys start with a nasty attytood, no construction background and no project preparation.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Ford Prefect]

When Mr Security says "I'll take your camera" you say "just fucking try" and if they don't go off to get their superior then you call your lawyer.

Or, don't. Many of these photographer-versus-security-guard altercations appear to involve photographers immediately acting up with shrill "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!1" tirades against said guards. Okay, you may well be correct, but you're only going to escalate the situation.

I've found that apologising, immediately moving to put the camera away and politely providing a brief explanation of what I was doing can work wonders - the other week, I ended up being given a potted history and miniature tour of some old industrial architecture by the people working there, and was provided with recommendations of where else to look at.

Actually engaging with your subject (or inhabitants thereof) and not acting like a total nob is great. And even if the person telling you continues to be unpleasant, defusing the situation, going somewhere else and getting the camera out again works okay...

(Mr. Hawk is a complete pansy, anyway - was he shouted at by Polish military personnel for taking photos of their security arrangements? Okay, it was their ridiculously fluffy, damp and grumpy-looking guard dog I'd taken a photo of, and taking pictures of such stuff in Poland is now legal anyway, but the politely-apologise, put-camera-into-bag-and-walk-away route worked just fine...)

Re:like they can't get the info

[computational super]

the security officer was not amused and said he would have to take my camera and arrest me

In what the hell jurisdiction does a security guard have the right to arrest somebody? Or confiscate their property? If they can do it, anybody can... I think I'm going to go arrest somebody right now.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Ihlosi]

In what the hell jurisdiction does a security guard have the right to arrest somebody?

In any jurisdiction that has something similar to a citizens arrest clause. However, you'd have to be committing an actual crime for this to be applicable.

Or confiscate their property?

That's a "nowhere". If anything, they can hand you over to the police.

Re:like they can't get the info

[Raumkraut]

Everyone over 30 has a family lawyer.. otherwise you're just a smuck.

Number 37 on the list of indicators that your society is heading for, or is already located in the vicinity of, the shitter.

Re:like they can't get the info

[pz]

My understanding, albeit a little hazy, is that building plans must be filed with local governmental offices, and that they are available for anyone to peruse. Of course, the building plans may or may not accurately match what was actually built, and it may be difficult to chase through all filed modifications and updates, but they should be available.

Re:like they can't get the info

[russotto]

Or, don't. Many of these photographer-versus-security-guard altercations appear to involve photographers immediately acting up with shrill "I KNOW MY RIGHTS!!!!1" tirades against said guards. Okay, you may well be correct, but you're only going to escalate the situation.

You can escalate, or you can surrender. Which is worse? I suppose it depends whether or not you already have the shot.

Re:like they can't get the info

[darkmeridian]

I took a photo of an outside Christmas display once and a security guard asked me to hand over the camera so he could delete the images. I dropped the camera into my pants and said, go and get it. He told me to "get the fuck out" of their property but I was on the sidewalk outside his boundary, which I pointed out to him. At that point, he walked away cursing at me. I took a photo of him walking away, and then I ran the heck away from there.

I'm kind of an asshole.

Re:like they can't get the info

[urcreepyneighbor]

Okay, you may well be correct, but you're only going to escalate the situation.

Be nice to Master and he won't beat you so hard, eh?

Re:like they can't get the info

[idontgno]

I haven't seen this pointed out anywhere else in these discussions, so I'll point it out now.

Many "private" security guards are off-duty police. Sworn peace officers with the power of arrest and confiscation. Not at that moment in their official uniform, but nevertheless empowered and obligated to stop the commission of a crime and apprehend suspects, even when off-duty.

So, if there is a law on the books restricting photography in the jurisdiction of the place you are at the moment you click the shutter, and the guard threatens to arrest you and confiscate the camera, he may not be blowin' smoke up your butt. And even if it's just "private-public" property like a mall, and he goes no further than asking you to leave or face trespassing charges, if you decline you may not have to wait for the cops to arrive and bust you.

Inside, outside, different places

[apathy maybe]

(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.

Re:Inside, outside, different places

[ceoyoyo]

But if it looks like someone is going to beat the shit out of you... maybe safer just to delete the photos.)

No way! Let them hit you. Then fall down and don't move. The guy hitting you is an agent of someone who owns a mall! Hello early retirement to a sailboat!

The Photographer's Right

[Fez]

I need to stuff a copy of The Photographer's Right in my camera bag in case something like this ever happens...

Re:The Photographer's Right

[ambystoma]

The UK version of Photographers' Rights

Not Just US, same in the UK

[gsslay]

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

Re:Amusing

[Rogerborg]

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.

There goes my plans

[halcyon1234]

represents a 'security threat.'... he was told he couldn't even photograph the lobby of a Hyatt Hotel."

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?

Re:Amusing

[IceCreamGuy]

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.

Re:Amusing

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

You dont need dSLR

[Fri13]

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.

Re:You dont need dSLR

[speedtux]

Sorry, but even ignoring the fact that your stats are an order of magnitude off that's pretty inaccurate.

Actually, the stats are accurate: there's been a lot happening in the compact market place.

those cameras have sensors a fraction of the size of SLRs, meaning lower sensitivity, less information per pixel, and more noise and distortion.

That matters to landscape and portrait photographers, it doesn't matter much to news photographers.

If you want to take any kind of professional or artistic photograph, you will need a more capable tool.

Funny, that's what photographers used to say about 35mm, which was an absolutely ridiculously low quality format when it came out.

Re:You dont need dSLR

[Fri13]

Check out Casio Exilim pro EX-F1. It's shutter speed is 1/40 000 and it takes 60 frames per second (FPS). Bad thing is, the sensor is only a 6Mpix but good news is, all photos are 6Mpix, even that you shoot with full speed. Other problem is, it transfer 180Mbytes per second when taking 60FPS. You can set camera to start storing photos before you have actually pressed button, so you dont miss a situation. Other bad things are it does not have good wide lens, only a 36-435mm lens (12x).

The normal point-and-shoot pocket cameras has great lag, some even when half-pressed. But many compact cameras are fine for street shooting and dSLR is not always needed. I would not shoot sports or other situations with 2.5FPS, even the 5FPS can be a slow today for such thing if I would only use continues shooting, usually I just relay by own timing and I'm fine with one shot. I had a Nikon D2X few months and I really liked it 8FPS but because it was cropped, it was very annoing, on film time I had motorback on every camera and it was nice on that time. Usually shooting can happend on low light conditions, that continues shooting is impossible.

The lens and sensor quality is never on same level than on dSLR but the quality on pocket/compact cameras can be enough to get great prints even for big sizes like 75x50cm.

This reminds me of the former Soviet Union

[mbone]

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 ?

Re:This reminds me of the former Soviet Union

[base3]

Yup, lots of things they told us about the U.S.S.R. as evidence of their totalitarian lack of freedom seem to be common place here in the U.S.A.: de facto internal passports for air and rail travel, obligation to produce papers on demand, cultivation of informants, mass surveillance, and (as you pointed out) restrictions on photography.

Re:This reminds me of the former Soviet Union

[QuantumRiff]

Don't forget my favoritte from growing up. My elementry school teachers taught us that the difference between us and them, was that living in East Germany or Russia, you could hear a knock on your door in the middle of the night, and be sent off to a prison camp in the middle of no-where for no reason and nobody (family included) would know where you were!

Now its US Law! Your family can be arrested for mentioning that you were taken away by authorities. They can be arrested for calling a lawyer, telling your employer, etc.

no photography policy

[Mr. Slippery]

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.

Re:no photography policy

[CrackedButter]

Some museums will let you take pictures if you don't use flash and they will give you a photographers badge anyway on the condition you are a student and you won't use flash. So it isn't a big deal for me, maybe other people want to look into this?

Re:no photography policy

[SignOfZeta]

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 true. I fully respect the rules about no flash photography. That doesn't stop me from pitching a tripod and taking a shot with a slow shutter, though.

Re:no photography policy

[Ihlosi]

This is true. I fully respect the rules about no flash photography.

Unfortunately, for everyone of you there's a hundred dumb tourists who don't even know that they can turn off the flash of their compact camera.

Re:no photography policy

[cei]

Actually, if you RTFA, the museum had explicitly made a big deal about how they were opening up more to photographers. Both the museum's website and a senior museum employee had confirmed such with the photographer. But one power-mad guy in charge of visitor relations, or somesuch, got on his high horse and shut the photographer down.

Keep in mind, this was photography in the open atrium of the museum lobby... not pictures of individual pieces in the museum's collection.

Re:no photography policy

[speedtux]

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.

That's a lame excuse; they could simply have a no-flash policy. If they're busy, they could also have a no-tripod policy. But there is no reason to restrict photography itself.

No, the real reason museums have a "no photographs" policy is because they want to control publication of the art in order to make money from it, and that is not OK. The copyright on the art has, in most cases, expired long ago, and it should be available to the public.

"No photography" restrictions are reprehensible for an organization whose purpose is to make art accessible to the public.

I had to deal with some of this crap in the past

[silentcoder]

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.

Nothing to see here

[pridkett]

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:

I was at the museum on Friday and saw this whole thing go down. Thomas Hawk's account of what happened is unabashedly one-sided. What he neglects to mention is that he was standing on a balcony with his camera pointed down, aiming directly into the shirt/cleavage of one of the female employees working at the museum. Simon Blint asked Thomas Hawk to stop taking photos in order to protect his staff from a creepy perv, not because he was using a dSLR or for whatever BS reason Thomas Hawk claims.

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.

Re:Nothing to see here

[silentcoder]

>but uncomfortable because he's being kinda creepy.

Sorry, let me get this straight ? Being 'creepy' should be against the law according to you ? You do realize that to most of the rest of the planet the average slashdotter's entire LIFE is 'kinda creepy' don't you ? Living in a basement. Watches porn but doesn't have the spherical appendages to talk to actual females... on the rare occasions he tries he looks/sounds/acts in way that makes their 'stalker alert' neurons fire (however true or false it may be of the specific slashdotter)...

On the other hand... I find cheerleaders and commerialist drones to be 'kinda creepy'. I find absolutely ANYBODY who wears a pair of sketchers shoes with a picture of Che to be SERIOUSLY creepy (do they not REALIZE that their outfit is simultaneously promoting two ideals that are directly contradictory ?) ... I would love to be able to ban that, but I know I SHOULDN'T be able to ban it, because if I can ban what I find creepy, then everyone can... and then anything except the utmost of conformist behavior will very soon be banned.
I grew up in a country and culture that was like that, it took us just short of a civil war to change it - trust me, you do NOT want to live in a world where being different is considered illegal, or grounds to have less rights.
I say it again: taking a picture (no matter what off) is an artform, artforms are expression, and expression is legally protected free speech.
You may not like his methods, or what he took pictures of, or where - but none of that changes that he was stopped from creating a piece of art for absolutely no good reason. Being 'creepy' is NOT a good reason, it's not even a bad reason - it's no reason at all. If he was a bit eccentric, well he's an artist - most of them are a bit eccentric, it's part of what makes them good at it.

Re:Nothing to see here

[jjohnson]

What your quick analysis (and the witness's comment) miss is that the lens in question was a 14mm prime, a super-wide-angle lens. It's about two inches long and wide--meaning it looks like the furthest thing from a zoom lens, or a long lens meant for getting close up shots.

An intelligent guard would have 1) known this, or 2) looked at the photographs on the camera, and seen that these were wide-angle crowd shots, not cleavage-stalking nn pr0n. Had an intelligent guard handled the situation, a publicity seeking ZOMGOppression! dick like Thomas Hart wouldn't have had an excuse for another round of "the man is keeping me down!"

It's odd going around with a SLR

[Zakabog]

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.

Re:It's odd going around with a SLR

[lena_10326]

They see the huge camera and think "I hope he's not taking pictures of MY kid!"

You have a point. There's no logical difference between a big camera and a small commodity camera. They complain about you but not about other parents with crappy little automatic cameras. That's illogical. However, if the camera has a high quality zoom lense, people do wonder if you're using it to shoot crotch shots or to peek down shirts from 50 feet away. It's only natural to wonder when your kids are playing on the soccer field and there you are with a high-powered lense capable of reading the text of a newspaper left on the moon.

The only issue I have with photographers photographing me or my family is that I don't know where that photo ends up. If it ends up in someone's personal album, fine. I don't care. If it ends up on their little personal website, I'm not worried about the 100 visitors a year who may see it. But what if it's used for a magazine cover? Or a billboard? Or posted on a high volume website where 10's of millions of users will see it? There I am, possibly caught in a bad angle, poor lighting, messy hair, ice-cream stained shirt, sweating profusely because it's mid-summer and 105F and a high resolution picture of it is plastered up there for everyone to see and more importantly will see. Sure, if it's used in that way they're supposed to acquire modeling rights to the pic but how do I know if they won't just publish anyway? Maybe it'll be posted to non-profit page that suddenly becomes uber-popular: "mock the sweaty ice-cream eaters website". I'll probably never find out. Either way, the odds are pretty low, but still the mind wonders where the photo ends up and that causes unease.

Photographers will always make people feel uneasy. For the reason above, but also for the reason that everything you are doing is being recorded. Careful not to itch your nose... it'll look like you're picking it. Careful not to bend over, otherwise he'll shoot an embarrassing pic of your ass sticking out. Careful not to eat that chili dog, he'll snap a shot with sauce all over your lips and you'll look like an idiot. It's like standing in a room where someone stares from 6 inches away non-stop. It's unnerving isn't it? I think too many photographers aren't considerate about these feelings they cause and cop an attitude of "I'll take any damned pic I like and there's nothing you can do about it so screw off" attitude. People just don't want pictures out there used to mock them.

policy

[TheLink]

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.

Re:policy

[elrous0]

I worked as a security guard all through my undergrad years (worked dorm security for the university I went to). For the most part it was a great job (quiet and great for study time), but the downside was that you were a total fall guy for your boss's stupidity. They would come up with some inane policy (or just tell you in private "Don't let people do such-and-such") and you were expected to enforce it, or get fired. But you could also get fired if you did enforce it and someone complained about the stupid policy. Most of the security guards I worked with had been "fired" at least once (and, almost always, promptly rehired 2 months later). The worst part was that we got blamed by the public for enforcing the stupid policies (as if we came up with them). I had people yell at me, get in my face, even had a few guys take a swing at me (watch out for the little guys, especially when they're drunk).

So before people blast the guards, they should realize that guards often get conflicting messages and stupid directives from the top. They're just trying to keep their jobs.

Re:policy

[RMH101]

So what you're saying is their defence is http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/I_was_only_following_orders "I was only following orders"?

Re:policy

[Anonymous Coward]

While I can understand sympathy for the position some security guards may be placed in, they are a few individuals and are, therefore, less important than the rights of the overall group of citizens as a whole. When you fail to assert your rights, you confirm to the people setting policy that they can trample on your rights freely without resistance. Before long, you lose your rights, either officially or by the fact that noone recognizes and stands up for them any longer.

You don't need to swing your fists about arbitrarily. But, if you choose to do so, are doing so within your legal rights and yet are challenged by a guard, then you really do need to tell them to go take a hike. Otherwise, that right is gone and it's on to the next fruit just a little bit higher on the vine.

Re:policy

[IronChef]

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?

That attitude is just strengthening the "chilling effect" that results when things which are not laws are enforced as if they were.

We will all be better off if, in that position, we wielded our rights under the law and took the picture.

Be decent to the guard, even if he is being a jerk, of course. But don't sacrifice your rights for the sake of his job.

Pyschology of being photographed

[DoofusOfDeath]

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?

Re:Funny. . . . .

[Arimus]

And if I use a nice fast (say f2.8) lens or a stabilized lens (such as the Cannon IS or Nikon VR ranges) I don't need to use flash ergo less damage than someone using a small compact camera.

If museums didn't get shirty with people using monopods as well as 'good' lenses then there would be even less need for flash.

 

Don't bring your camera to the UK

[petes_PoV]

The UK is rapidly labelling photographers as either perverts or terrorists.

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.

It's against the law.

[www.sorehands.com]

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.

Re:Amusing

[krazytekn0]

I think he's talking about google street view, in which case your frame of references are wrong.

Re:Amusing

[Dog-Cow]

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.

Then there's the OTHER irony...

[swordgeek]

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.

Maybe I just met the one sane security guard

[Zcar]

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.

Not being an idiot.

[Carik]

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.

Wrong choice of lens?

[hack slash]

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.

Security guard != law officer

[Rastl]

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,

Re:Security guard != law officer

[elsilver]

* 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.

Ask, and you shall receive:

My understanding is that there is no prohibition on taking photographs of copyrighted works -- whether that's architecture or sculpture -- however in order to use that image in a commercial manner, you need a release from the copyright owner. So, I can take a picture of the scupture for my scrapbook, but not for the calendar I'm selling.

Actually, the issue is slightly complicated by the fact that the item need to be more than merely incidental to the photo -- if I recall, commercial use of a photo of the Seattle Space Needle requires permission, however commercial use of a photo of the Seattle skyline (which includes the Space Needle) doesn't.

With respect to a post elsewhere in this discussion, the general rule about being free to take a picture of anyone/anything from a public place doesn't extend to Quebec (or to France) where a person's privacy right trumps your right to take a picture. Apparently, the recent court decision in Quebec which said this has put the provinces newspaper photographers into a bit of a bind.

E.

Re:MOMA

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you were in the bathroom.

Re:Amusing

[steelfood]

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?

Don't forget "drugs"....

[Ellis D. Tripp]

, 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.

Terrorists winning

[knarfling]

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.

Re:Terrorists winning

[David_W]

I only saw DS9 after 9/11. I remember that part and thought it was surprisingly prophetic given the events that had happened between when it originally was filmed and when I got to set it.

Re:Terrorists winning

[bigpat]

careful observation and critiques of human nature always seem somewhat prophetic. Turns out that being human is pretty predictable.

Re:Rights and Wrongs

[jjohnson]

Two problems with your analysis:

1. Hart was using a 14mm prime lens, an ultra-wide lens incapable of zooming in on anything. In order to photograph a woman's cleavage, the camera would have to be right in front of her chin, looking down (and then, the 14mm lens would still make her décolletage look like a hilly landscape).

2. The museum that tossed Hart out had one month previously rescinded their policy on disallowing cameras in the gallery. Hart spoke to a member of the museum staff by phone prior to his visit to verify that it wouldn't cause any trouble for him to photograph wide-angle crowd shots.

So, in this case, the guard (actually, director of guest services backed up by two guards) was pretty much completely in the wrong, both technically with regards to what Hart was doing and was capable of doing, and administratively, insofar as Hart was well within the museum's policies.

Trivial

[DesScorp]

It's too late to change awareness; the terrorists have won.

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.

Re:Trivial

[ChromaticDragon]

You cannot compare Pearl Harbor to the destruction of the Twin Towers unless you are so one-dimensional that body count is the only thing you think matters. I'll grant you it indeed may be the only thing for the purposes of cute statistics about your probabilistic chance of committing suicide. (That's a random thing? Better get some suicide insurance).

However, the point that the direct impact of terrorism is trivial should not be so easily dismissed. Pearl Harbor wasn't terrorism. It was one part of a much larger scheme of the Japanese which was almost perfectly executed to grant Japan nearly complete control of the entire Pacific Ocean in just a day or two. This was not trivial. The impact on many levels was profound and direct yes even to those in the heartland.

Although it may be crass to call 9/11 "trivial", it was much more so than Pearl Harbor unless you lived in greater NYC. Who were these attackers who swore to strive towards forced compliance to Islam and the removal of free press? I seem to have missed that part. I seem to recall it being rather dubious who actually did it, why and what their intentions were. Furthermore, who cares what they want to do! Do they (whoever they may be) have the power to do anything? They cannot do that by knocking down buildings. That's why we need intelligent responses rather than goofy things like worrying about everyone with a camera.

However, sadly one could make another comparison regarding our internment of Japanese-Americans that would suggest our incredibly foolish, irrational, slavishly fearful and horribly impotent responses to 9/11 are indeed rather "normal" given human history.

Usually these are just "phases" and given a few years we'll get over it. I fear our politicians love for fear mongering and the never-ending use of the terminology of "War on Terror" is seriously delaying that. And in that regard your comments regarding Orwell do indeed seem chillingly apropos.

Re:Trivial

[Duradin]

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]".

Real state actors with the resources to launch and sustain military actions on foreign territory.

9/11 only has the surprise factor in similarity to Pearl Harbor. Well and the fact it woke the sleeping giant. Though we were still pretty groggy this time around.

9/11 happened once. *poof* done. There's no sustained offensive. We aren't fighting to take back Manhattan.

Really, and this is what "they" don't want you to realize, is that OBL and crew just aren't relevant here.

Re:Trivial

[bigpat]

They want us out of Saudi Arabia.

And for the most part we got out of Saudi Arabia after 9/11 and the Iraq invasion... yet somehow that withdrawal wasn't seen as giving in to terrorism.

Re:Trivial

[WNight]

No they don't (just), stop perpetuating THAT lie.

Their religious people are as crazy as ours. Our crazies (Cat-licks, etc) want everyone in the world to join their religion. That's why our (Western) past has so many religious wars - as everyone fought for and achieved some piece (even if only an armed stand-off) between the sky-fairy factions. When one of these groups arms itself, it has generally gone to war in the name of establishing its religious dominion. Ditto Mohamadanians.

Militant muslims *are* trying to convert everyone in the world - or kill them trying. Like many other religions have been trying since their inception.

Once you believe in a magical man in space who brings us all back to life (the good ones anyways) it's not a big stretch to believe he needs the souls of the unbelievers. And that it's not a (real) crime to do it.

If nobody was religious and I produced a Koran, or Bible, and professed to believe in it more than life itself, I would be called crazy. But with this nonsense floating around everywhere nobody sees it for what it is: A batshit insane persons manifesto for controlling the world through violence and brainwashing.

Osama BL's a self-declared devout follower of this "cleanse the unbeliever nonsense". His stated goal might be the USA out of SA, and that may even honestly be the biggest thing on his radar, but that doesn't mean that his religion hasn't taught him (and 50% of the co-religious populations who support him) to use violence to keep going that extra step and just deal with us unbelievers once and for all.

Admit it, if OBL won a military victory over anyone, they'd be under space-ghost law the next day, having heads lopped off for talking to women. Taliban style. (Which is Chinese style, with more sex-crime craziness and no organ harvesting.)

The fact that a religious murderer desires a certain political outcome does not imply that his violence will stop if he gets it. In fact, winning has a way of encouraging people. Today it's the USA out of SA, tomorrow what, Jews out of the world?

Cameras steal souls, remember??

[ankhank]

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

I've been there, took pictures, wasn't thrown out

[TheMCP]

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.

This has been an issue for Photogs for sometime

[Jackie_Chan_Fan]

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.

Re:stop it!

[quacking duck]

Please stop with this "the terrorists have won" crap. Once we say the terrorists have won, the terrorists have won.

I remember a large banner unfurled on the island of an aircraft carrier saying "Mission Accomplished."

Saying so didn't make that true, either.

Re:stop it!

[jc42]

Please stop with this "the terrorists have won" crap.

Indeed. It isn't the terrorists that have won. The winners are the local authoritarian thug politicians. They've used the traditional approach of invoking scary foreigners to justify "security" measures that are mostly aimed at controlling their own population. It's an old story. How many actual terrorists have the current measures actually convicted? There was the one guy who was hired by al Qaeda as a chauffeur, with no evidence that he ever did anything but drive people and their luggage around. Anyone else?

And it actually isn't anything new in the US. Look at the 1950s for a lot of good examples. That's when the "Red Scare" was used to justify the HUAC and other measures that were ostensibly aimed at Communists, but were actually aimed at anyone that the authoritarian types didn't like. We actually haven't gotten quite as far into a police state as we were back then. It took a lot of passive resistance, but we (sorta) won that one. We'll see how the current iteration turns out ...

Re:You -do- need a DSLR!

[Fri13]

Did I say that compact and pocket cameras image quality is same or better than dSLR? No, I did not say. But on most situations, it does not matter is your photo taken with 12Mpix dSRL + 5000$ objective or is it just snapped with 300$ 12Mpix compact camera when it is printed to news paper. You can fix all lens distortions with one button, fix colors and all kind stuff, but it still looks same if printer to news paper or normal paper (If takes with small ISO) without cropping too much etc. The difference comes when we start taking photos in extreme situations or we want to control the whole workflow and in the end, print 3x2 meter prints or release photos on magazine paper, with bigger cropping etc.

The photographing is bretty much "device sport", people thinks that what more expensive devices you buy, the better quality you always get. Photographing is art, skill and what most, it is science about light. You need to know how to "control" light and how to express yourself in photo. If you shoot people, you need to have good skills to control people, to get them express them self as you want them to look on photos.

Pro photographer can do all kind stuff with even cheap camera, it does not mean that he could do better job than with expensive gear, but it does not mean either that you would get better photographs than with cheap gear automatically. It's just all about skills and gear comes as second.

So when someone ask from me about what camera to buy, I never suggest them "Buy the most expensive what you can" or "Check this new model, it has 300Mpix"... It is always about the user where and how it is going to use that gear.

And when you know the limits of gear what you use, you get much more out of it, than user who does not know what the gear actually can handle.
This is now very typical thing when people is now bying camera, they look automatically those 1000$ dSLR cameras and they just keep them on Auto or P mode and then they think they get -far- superior photos with them than small pocket camera.
It is just like giving a ferrari or Humvee for 80 year old grandmom who would drive with it 20mph 1mile to church and back, with just made asfalt road.

Re:stop it!

[oneTheory]

This is interesting to me because on my drive to work today I saw 2 guys sitting on a sidewalk downtown with a video camera set up on a tripod next to them which I guessed was for a film project or something, but the thought crossed my mind "I wonder if they're planning something Evil(tm)?"

Now as a semi-thinking human being I immediately sent that stupid thought packing, but the fact that it crossed my mind is indicative of the level of bombardment we have been dished with by our media and government about how we should live in fear (and I barely watch TV news or read mainstream papers).

I wouldn't say the terr'wrists have won, but once enough of society gets to the point where we won't fight the powers that be as they slowly whittle away at our freedoms, it's pretty fair to say that they are winning thus far. There's always hope though.

So... People taking photos GOOD Google.. Bad?

[im_thatoneguy]

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?

Pearl Harbor vs. The Twin Towers

[DesScorp]

"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."