| Author | Thread |
|
|
07/21/2011 11:49:11 PM · #1 |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 12:07:23 AM · #2 |
| Thanks for the post. Pretty interesting. I give the police an A for their response. security guards? c- |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 12:46:27 AM · #3 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Thanks for the post. Pretty interesting. I give the police an A for their response. security guards? c- |
Your welcome :) If I was in England. I think the best response for the security guards. Would be to just ask them to call the police. Or call the police myself. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 01:01:44 AM · #4 |
| wow, very interesting. thanks! |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 01:04:09 AM · #5 |
Thanks for sharing.
I think staying calm and being reasonable is important.
I also think there might be different laws in different countries, so it might be worth checking before going. There are also different rules about where you can use tripods, for various reasons.
I've had quite positive experiences shooting all over the US, including in airports. I don't hide, either.
One time on the subway, a worker did ask me what I was shooting. I told him quite plainly, showed him my shots, and that was that. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 02:54:27 AM · #6 |
That was very interesting. I would be keen to find out if that is the norm in Australia as well.
|
|
|
|
07/22/2011 03:22:09 AM · #7 |
Excellent - and quite different from many other UK videos. It looks like the police in London have been very well briefed now. I'm sure we can thank the Olympics for this progress.
I do have some sympathy for the security guys - the argument of 'but he had a camera' probably wouldn't be welcomed if something went down. Coming out and having a conversation is probably the right thing to do. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 03:36:28 AM · #8 |
Yeah, that one guy got harrased 'cause of his pink sweater!!!!
But yeah. If you are respectful, and stay on public property, you have a legal right to take pictures of buildings. Just not inside or on the property, if they are in that paranoid mindset. In downtown LA, it's a hassle. Our GTG last year experienced several guards coming up to us and asking us to stop photographing. In every case, just taking a step back over the property line onto the sidewalk solved the problem. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 01:43:43 PM · #9 |
Its always a good idea to know what your rights of photography are:
You might want to download this small document, print it and keep a copy in your camera bag:
Bert P. Krages - Attorney at Law - The Photographer's Rights
|
|
|
|
07/22/2011 02:38:37 PM · #10 |
The key fact to remember in dealing with private security is to remember that they are caught in a bind. Their jobs require them to do whatever their bosses tell them to. The fact that they are told to prevent a perfectly legal activity puts them in a no win situation.
I was taking picture of a bio-science building which had been bombed a few months ago. Two blazer wearing security guards crossed the street to stop me from taking photographs of their building. They explained it was building policy to stop photography of the building, as it could be used to plan further attacks. I told them that if I wanted to plan an attack I would have used the images floor plans and elevations that had been published in various architectural publications when the building was built. Or I would have gone down to the hall of records in the city and looked over the construction plans, which are public record. Their response was that this was their job. That they had been told that because the building design was copyrighted, no images of the building could legally be taken. They had a few other bogus reasons why photography was not allowed.
Simply standing my ground, reminding them that on public land, we were both simply private citizens, and they had no ownership rights of the light bouncing off any particular building, was enough to make them go away. They had done their job of delivering veiled threats regarding non existent laws. After a while they went inside. I spent another quarter hour shooting from a location I had realized wasn't really a very good angle, just to show that I could.
These guys aren't legal scholars, and they aren't the police, they have a lousy job to do, but they only have the rights that we are willing to give them. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 03:39:54 PM · #11 |
Watched that video. It would be much more interesting, don't you think, if Security came out of the building with a camera. Took the photog's picture, & asked for ID. They could phone it in or whatever, run it through their data base, & contact the appropriate authorities if it's called for. They seem to be trying to bluff & bully the photog away. Which only makes them look silly. That being said, I know some people really do not want their picture taken, like it's a phobia. Some photogs are phobic about being a focal point. If you're serious about not wanting an uninvited photog on or near the premises, approach w/the video camera rolling. "D
Message edited by author 2011-07-22 15:57:16. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 08:59:28 PM · #12 |
Thanks for giving us the opportunity to print this. I realize that this is only a guide and not a legal document, but it is somewhat comforting to have this information to fall back on. This was dated 2006. Is there any update available? |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 10:35:10 PM · #13 |
| lols, i went to the USA last summer, well tried. At the border they asked could I prove I was going to make no money off images i shot in the USA. I said, ummm, no, i submit to stock sites. They said see you later, after searching my car and detaining me for 7 hours. They ahad to search my iphone for any potential USA photos I may have took at the customs office. |
|
|
|
07/22/2011 10:48:12 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
07/23/2011 12:57:51 AM · #15 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, i went to the USA last summer, well tried. At the border they asked could I prove I was going to make no money off images i shot in the USA. I said, ummm, no, i submit to stock sites. They said see you later, after searching my car and detaining me for 7 hours. They ahad to search my iphone for any potential USA photos I may have took at the customs office. |
People travel to the United States all the time and take photos. Tell me why they would stop you.
Dave |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 01:37:11 PM · #16 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, i went to the USA last summer, well tried. At the border they asked could I prove I was going to make no money off images i shot in the USA. I said, ummm, no, i submit to stock sites. They said see you later, after searching my car and detaining me for 7 hours. They ahad to search my iphone for any potential USA photos I may have took at the customs office. |
Thats interesting and puzzling. So If on my visit to the US, I took some pictures of say a sidewalk. I couldn't submit that to a stock site? |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 02:15:05 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by TheDruid:
lols, i went to the USA last summer, well tried. At the border they asked could I prove I was going to make no money off images i shot in the USA. I said, ummm, no, i submit to stock sites. They said see you later, after searching my car and detaining me for 7 hours. They ahad to search my iphone for any potential USA photos I may have took at the customs office. |
What? This makes no sense. We're not getting the whole story here. |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 02:37:50 PM · #18 |
| Someone missed the point of the tourist visa. As a tourist you are not allowed to earn money on your travels. You could not for instance set up a booth and sell images you have taken in the past. The notion that you can not take images that you will later sell is a misapplication of the law. The commerce would come later when you sold the images, not when you took them. |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 03:09:11 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Someone missed the point of the tourist visa. As a tourist you are not allowed to earn money on your travels. You could not for instance set up a booth and sell images you have taken in the past. The notion that you can not take images that you will later sell is a misapplication of the law. The commerce would come later when you sold the images, not when you took them. |
I think the point is to show the question is stupid. How would one go about proving the aren't going to make money on a picture? And since literally millions upon millions of people enter this country with their passport, why wouldn't they be questioning everybody?
Perhaps Mr. Druid had lots and lots of professional looking equipment and that triggered the response. Still a stupid line of questioning. |
|
|
|
07/29/2011 03:11:30 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
Someone missed the point of the tourist visa. As a tourist you are not allowed to earn money on your travels. You could not for instance set up a booth and sell images you have taken in the past. The notion that you can not take images that you will later sell is a misapplication of the law. The commerce would come later when you sold the images, not when you took them. |
I think the point is to show the question is stupid. How would one go about proving the aren't going to make money on a picture? And since literally millions upon millions of people enter this country with their passport, why wouldn't they be questioning everybody?
Perhaps Mr. Druid had lots and lots of professional looking equipment and that triggered the response. Still a stupid line of questioning. |
I bet it was the pink sweater he was wearing...;-) |
|
|
|
11/13/2011 04:26:08 AM · #21 |
Although this thread took a bit of a detour, the original post was about this specific video Stand Your Ground.
As a result of the work this team of photographers did in raising awareness some new guidelines have been issued. Good to see someone took notice.
British Journal of Photography - Photography in Public Places Update
Link to the newly issued guidelines
ETA: I particularly liked this one:
Originally posted by British Security Industry Association "Photography and Hostile Reconaissance":
The size and type of cameras are not, in themselves, indications of suspicious behaviour. Large cameras,
lenses and tripods should therefore not be viewed as being more suspicious than other types of equipment. |
Message edited by author 2011-11-13 04:30:08. |
|
|
|
11/13/2011 09:34:02 AM · #22 |
Originally posted by BrennanOB:
That they had been told that because the building design was copyrighted, no images of the building could legally be taken. |
For clarification, copyright law only prevents you from making commercial reproductins of your images, not from taking the pictures in the first place. |
|
|
|
11/13/2011 09:50:43 AM · #23 |
Oh if only I would count the times of interactions i've had with the police and other officials.
I always carry a copy of the constitution & bill of rights in my back pocket ;) |
|
|
|
11/13/2011 10:37:13 AM · #24 |
I actually carry a copy of the ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers) guidance regarding photography around with me in my camera bag, to produce to any cops that might care to ask. Never had to show it so far.
I also loved the way the security guard in the video talks about "covert" survelliance whilst the guy is standing there with a massive camera and tripod. Obviously some use of the word covert that I was previously unaware of! |
|
|
|
11/13/2011 01:03:15 PM · #25 |
It was nice to see cooler heads prevail, the guards are just doing what they have been asked to do so for the most part I can not blame them for trying to get photographers to move on and I am sure most people probably do move on rather than confront them. Funny thing is from a homeland security perspective if someone wanted photos they would not need to stand right in front of the building and or would use much more discreet equipment like a phone camera.
Only time I have been approached is when I took this image from the top of a parking structure for our local public transportation system, I was stopped and questioned and told me they do not like people taking photos but I was never told I needed to stop, delete, or show them photos. The guard mainly wanted to get an idea of why I was there. Being it was their parking structure I knew it may be an issue even though it is a public transportation system so I was fully prepared to move on if asked but was pleasantly surprised when he said I did not have to but they would prefer I not take photos. The guard did make sure I knew they were watching me on camera which I already knew but found that pretty amusing and a little ironic. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 03:44:53 PM EDT.
