Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Photographers Face Ejection Over Lenses

Posted by kdawson on from the control-freaks-dining-out dept.

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."

35 of 743 comments (clear)

  1. Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by suso · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by suso · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    4. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by lena_10326 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

      --
      Camping on quad since 1996.
    5. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by celardore · · Score: 5, Funny

      A flash photography mob no less.

    6. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      Palm trees and 8
    7. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Bandman · · Score: 5, Informative

      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

      --
      Check out my sysadmin blog!
    8. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by corbettw · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      God invented whiskey so the Irish would not rule the world.
    9. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by corsec67 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      If I have nothing to hide, don't search me
    10. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Oligonicella · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    11. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by kalirion · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    12. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Thaelon · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --

      Question everything

    13. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by swillden · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
    14. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Zatar · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    15. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by Miseph · · Score: 5, Informative

      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).

      --
      Try not to take me more seriously than I take myself.
    16. Re:Freedom to take pictures in public spaces by sjames · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

  2. America's really getting stupid by Reality+Master+201 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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?

    1. Re:America's really getting stupid by tgd · · Score: 5, Funny

      I think he's running for president?

      *waves bye to karma*

    2. Re:America's really getting stupid by Nimey · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

      --
      Hail Eris, full of mischief...

      E pluribus sanguinem
  3. If having a good camera makes you a terrorist... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Then only terrorists will have nice photos.

  4. like they can't get the info by yagu · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:like they can't get the info by QuantumG · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      How we know is more important than what we know.
    2. Re:like they can't get the info by Fri13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

    3. Re:like they can't get the info by Waffle+Iron · · Score: 5, Funny

      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?

    4. Re:like they can't get the info by Midnight+Thunder · · Score: 5, Interesting

      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.

      --
      Jumpstart the tartan drive.
    5. Re:like they can't get the info by Skagit · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      Why does my coffee mug smell like trout?
    6. Re:like they can't get the info by Raumkraut · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

    7. Re:like they can't get the info by darkmeridian · · Score: 5, Funny

      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.

      --
      A NYC lawyer blogs. http://www.chuangblog.com/
  5. You dont need dSLR by Fri13 · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

  6. This reminds me of the former Soviet Union by mbone · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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 ?

    1. Re:This reminds me of the former Soviet Union by base3 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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.

      --
      One CPU cycle wasted on digital restrictions management is ONE TOO MANY.
  7. policy by TheLink · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    --
    1. Re:policy by elrous0 · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

      --
      SJW: Someone who has run out of real oppression, and has to fake it.
  8. Pyschology of being photographed by DoofusOfDeath · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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?