Getting Hassled by The Man . . .

[wtlloyd]

In August, I took a trip to Maui with my two teenaged sons.

We flew out of Santa Barbara, this is a pocket-sized commuter airport, one waiting room only. It was 6:30 in the monring, we had been up since 5:00. There were a couple other travelers there, and the everpresent security.

My boys are nice, clean cut, presentable - we look like typical middle-class white bread Americans. I started to take a picture of the two of them slumped together half asleep - "Ah, SIR! SIR! I look over and she crooks her finger at me, calling me over to her - "Due to the Security situation, no in-terminal photography is allowed"

We're not talkin' an International airport here folks, I mean, this is Podunk.
Sheesh.

 

[Vern Stevens]

While lots of people feel the way you do, lot do not as well. To some people, 9/11 was a tragedy, period. Not just "awful, awful, BUT".

VES

I live in a NY suburb, sure 9/11 was an awful, awful thing but now
there are signs on bridges saying you can't take pictures (as if
there are no existing photos of Manhattan from there). This and
most of what the govt is doing will really not prevent some other
attack. While they are making everyone from 4 year olds to grandmas
take off their shoes at the airport, the next terrorists are
watching all the stupid things laughing and looking for a real hole
in our security.

It sure is hard to be inconspicuous taking pictures with a D60 and
100-400L. I was just snapping some shots in the courtyard of my
office building in L.A. (It's a big tall building most of you have
probably seen on television without realizing I work there ;-). I
was taking pictures of some lovely flowers when the security guy
came up to me with the "do you have a permit to take pictures of
the building" routine. I explained that I was a tenant and that I
was not taking pictures of the building but rather of the blooming
flowers. He said that a couple of people had called to complain
that someone was taking pictures of the building. I invited him to
look at my digital pictures if he was concerned, but he declined.

I understand, especially with 9/11 just a few days away, that
people might be a little skiddish, but I can't help but be a little
irritated when I keep getting hassled for taking harmless pictures.
I also realize that it's possible that some not-so-harmless people
might be taking pictures, as well, but I doubt that those people
are doing so out in the open like I do. In any event, the bottom
line is that there is no way to legally prevent people from taking
pictures of anything that is visible from a public vantage point.
I mean, has anyone been to the White House? The Capitol? The
Washington Monument? Nobody hassles you for taking pictures of
those very sensitive buildings! I think the real reason building
owners in L.A. are so touchy about pictures is that they make quite
a bit of money from film makers, photographers, etc. buying the
right to take and publish pictures of their buildings. In fact, I
was once hassled across the street at another tall building because
"my lens was too long" and it maded me look like a pro. Of course,
I took that as a compliment ;-)

John
--
EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS,
100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 550EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the
trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Lisa O]

I didn't say 9/11 wasn't a tragedy, my point is - I don't want to see ALL my "freedom" taken away in the name of it.

VES

I live in a NY suburb, sure 9/11 was an awful, awful thing but now
there are signs on bridges saying you can't take pictures (as if
there are no existing photos of Manhattan from there). This and
most of what the govt is doing will really not prevent some other
attack. While they are making everyone from 4 year olds to grandmas
take off their shoes at the airport, the next terrorists are
watching all the stupid things laughing and looking for a real hole
in our security.

It sure is hard to be inconspicuous taking pictures with a D60 and
100-400L. I was just snapping some shots in the courtyard of my
office building in L.A. (It's a big tall building most of you have
probably seen on television without realizing I work there ;-). I
was taking pictures of some lovely flowers when the security guy
came up to me with the "do you have a permit to take pictures of
the building" routine. I explained that I was a tenant and that I
was not taking pictures of the building but rather of the blooming
flowers. He said that a couple of people had called to complain
that someone was taking pictures of the building. I invited him to
look at my digital pictures if he was concerned, but he declined.

I understand, especially with 9/11 just a few days away, that
people might be a little skiddish, but I can't help but be a little
irritated when I keep getting hassled for taking harmless pictures.
I also realize that it's possible that some not-so-harmless people
might be taking pictures, as well, but I doubt that those people
are doing so out in the open like I do. In any event, the bottom
line is that there is no way to legally prevent people from taking
pictures of anything that is visible from a public vantage point.
I mean, has anyone been to the White House? The Capitol? The
Washington Monument? Nobody hassles you for taking pictures of
those very sensitive buildings! I think the real reason building
owners in L.A. are so touchy about pictures is that they make quite
a bit of money from film makers, photographers, etc. buying the
right to take and publish pictures of their buildings. In fact, I
was once hassled across the street at another tall building because
"my lens was too long" and it maded me look like a pro. Of course,
I took that as a compliment ;-)

John
--
EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS,
100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 550EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the
trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[dnjake]

Perhaps the reason for the hassle was that someone was afraid that you were using the long lense to take pictures of activites inside the building. Presumably you could reduce your exposure to hassle by using a smaller lense to capture the flowers. Of course it sounds like the only problem was dealing with the complaint. It is somewhat sad when you can't take pictures of flowers without this extra pain. But there does seem to be something about photography that tends to agitate people. I do take most of my pictures of trees and flowers at a place that allows photography and where there are usually several photographers in action. But even so I will still sometimes get people who feel the need to tell me that they can't understand why anyone would want to take a picture in the direction that my camera happens to be pointing. I have also had some who were offended because I was not using a tripod or because I was using a digicam (pre 10D days). So I guess one just has to be prepared for some hassle.
David Jacobson

 

[Zidar162589]

It's no wonder the people of Iraq aren't welcoming the Americans with open arms. They know that this sort of silliness is what awaits them. First laws, then lawyers, then meddlesome security guards who would be cops if they could pass the psychological test.

On the other hand, being told not to photograph flowers is pretty low on the list of bad things that can happen to a photographer. Once at the dog track in Portland I saw a newspaper photographer killed when the mechanical rabbit the dogs chase hit him in the head. Then there's the guys in Somalia who were ripped apart by the crowd...dismembered alive.

If you are going to live in LA your are going to suffer the consequences. Work in a cubicle, wear clothes from the Gap, spend Saturday mornings at Starbucks, date women with fake tits.

Abu Mumia

--
'He's out there operating without any decent restraint, totally beyond
the pale of any acceptable human conduct.'

• Apocalypse Now

 

[Vern Stevens]

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost, which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[digicaman2]

At my building in Atlanta, one (early) sunday morning I was at the office. The entrance of the building has a lovely man-made stone waterfall built into a hill. Up drives a van and a brand new car behind it, out of the van pops 2 models, two assistants, a bunch of lights, and a photographer. They park the car in front of the waterfall and begin to set-up.

Building Security goes outside and tells them to leave. They "discuss it" a little, but, they leave.

OK, so, this was clearly a commercial shoot and not a couple of hobbiest shooting the waterfall. But, the principal is the same........ How would you feel if people came into the backyard of your house, without your permission, to shoot your pool? Would it matter to you if they were hobbists or pros? I don't think so. You would be concerned about them being there period.

Commercial buildings have another problem----- lawsuits. If they allow this to happen without the photographer getting a "permit" (read "waiver of liability") from the owners of the building, what happens if there is an accident? The building owner gets sued.

While it is true that your EMPLOYER (likely NOT YOU) is a tenant in the building, so, the security guard should have cut you some slack....... but, you are none-the-less on private property (your employers lease most likely does not allow employees to take pictures of the property) and if the building owner has a firm policy of "no pictures without a permit" (again largely a liability issue) then, you should not allowed to take pictures in the owners "backyard" any more than allowing him full access to your "backyard" anytime he wants.

Do all the shooting you want, just don't do it on private property unless you intend to follow the owners rules.

Dave

It sure is hard to be inconspicuous taking pictures with a D60 and
100-400L. I was just snapping some shots in the courtyard of my
office building in L.A. (It's a big tall building most of you have
probably seen on television without realizing I work there ;-). I
was taking pictures of some lovely flowers when the security guy
came up to me with the "do you have a permit to take pictures of
the building" routine. I explained that I was a tenant and that I
was not taking pictures of the building but rather of the blooming
flowers. He said that a couple of people had called to complain
that someone was taking pictures of the building. I invited him to
look at my digital pictures if he was concerned, but he declined.

I understand, especially with 9/11 just a few days away, that
people might be a little skiddish, but I can't help but be a little
irritated when I keep getting hassled for taking harmless pictures.
I also realize that it's possible that some not-so-harmless people
might be taking pictures, as well, but I doubt that those people
are doing so out in the open like I do. In any event, the bottom
line is that there is no way to legally prevent people from taking
pictures of anything that is visible from a public vantage point.
I mean, has anyone been to the White House? The Capitol? The
Washington Monument? Nobody hassles you for taking pictures of
those very sensitive buildings! I think the real reason building
owners in L.A. are so touchy about pictures is that they make quite
a bit of money from film makers, photographers, etc. buying the
right to take and publish pictures of their buildings. In fact, I
was once hassled across the street at another tall building because
"my lens was too long" and it maded me look like a pro. Of course,
I took that as a compliment ;-)

John
--
EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS,
100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 550EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the
trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

 

[Patrick F Martin]

Rock center and most other venues won't allow tripods without a permit. In fact, city ordinance forbids tripods on sidewalk too! This of course is 'never' enforced, reserved for pro film makers and people that may block pedestrians.

In general, I find NYC security professionals more courtous and knowledgable than most people give them credit for IMO.
Patricknyc
Here is the ulitmate camera in Rockefeller Center - and on a tripod too!

I was in NYC in March and was taking pictures of Rockefeller
Center. Security guards approached me and told me that I could not
take pictures because I was on private property. I thought I was
on a public sidewalk, but they explained that the front leg of my
tripod was actually about 8 inches over the property line. I
smiled, moved my tripod back 9 inches, and took some more pictures.

 

[Patrick F Martin]

I live in and shoot all over nyc; All I notice is more police and sometimes national guard. And Nassau street is now closed where it passes the NYSE.

The only instance I felt any different was once while shooting under the brooklyn bridge, the policeboat and fireboat on patrol waved hello and I noticed one of them take MY picture. I wasn't asked to stop or leave. It felt good to know we have these people on our side.

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Lisa O]

Well, I guess you have never been to NYC , to museums where they search everyone like criminals and don't let you take cameras to places a few years ago they had no problem with cameras.

It's not just the guy taking pictures of flowers in front of a building it's a pervasive problem and people need to start speaking out about it or eventually we will be treated like people in a communist country.

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[DavidP #28649]

I'd like to see'em try to shoot a civilian helicopter out of the sky.

Then again, they could easily cover it up. You'd be branded a terrorist in all the major media outlets.

So much for freedom of the press, huh?

The man in the sky shows up in little birds call F16s and they
don't mess arround.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[DavidP #28649]

Move to Iowa.

While lots of people feel the way you do, lot do not as well. To
some people, 9/11 was a tragedy, period. Not just "awful, awful,
BUT".

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[nitro115]

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

I don't know... have you ever lived in a communist country? I grew up in one and the control that the gov't is trying to push under the wings of Homeland Security looks darn familiar to me. I hate to say this, but America should start figuring out why this country gets terror attacks instead of pumping up the nation with these stupid yellow and orange alerts. She's right, the problems should be cured instead of turning the country into a fortress. You better open your eyes while you can . Lisa was right on the money with what she said. I came in this country in 1987 and walked around in Washington DC. Now, all you see is concrete barricades and fully armed weapons. If that's not a bad tendency to you, well, enjoy it.
Just my penny and and a half, because for 3 years I haven't seen a raise.


http://www.pbase.com/nitro115
http://www.unc.edu/~haraszti

 

[Vern Stevens]

Obviously we disagree. And I'd bet you weren't searched lilke a criminal. I search criminals everyday, and I have been through several airports. The searches are WAY different.

And you still haven't shown me how ALL your freedoms have been taken away.

You exaggerate too much.

VES

It's not just the guy taking pictures of flowers in front of a
building it's a pervasive problem and people need to start speaking
out about it or eventually we will be treated like people in a
communist country.

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Vern Stevens]

My eyes are wide open. That's why I can see she's exaggerating, and not dead on right.

VES

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

I don't know... have you ever lived in a communist country? I grew
up in one and the control that the gov't is trying to push under
the wings of Homeland Security looks darn familiar to me. I hate to
say this, but America should start figuring out why this country
gets terror attacks instead of pumping up the nation with these
stupid yellow and orange alerts. She's right, the problems should
be cured instead of turning the country into a fortress. You better
open your eyes while you can . Lisa was right on the money with
what she said. I came in this country in 1987 and walked around in
Washington DC. Now, all you see is concrete barricades and fully
armed weapons. If that's not a bad tendency to you, well, enjoy it.
Just my penny and and a half, because for 3 years I haven't seen a
raise.


http://www.pbase.com/nitro115
http://www.unc.edu/~haraszti

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Vern Stevens]

Hmm, I'm missing the reference... I can be dense sometimes.

VES

While lots of people feel the way you do, lot do not as well. To
some people, 9/11 was a tragedy, period. Not just "awful, awful,
BUT".

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and
tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Vern Stevens]

I have no problem with folks like Lisa who speak their concerns. My problem is that in my opinion her concerns and comments are drastically bent out of proportion, which also in my mind doesn't serve her communicating her ideas very well. Does she believe that if she went around Iraq snapping pictures that she would be more free to do so than any American city? I would have serious doubts, though I can't say with certainty or experience.

Freedom to a large degree is a perception. Some folks don't think they are free unless they can do whatever they want, regardless of who it affects, without fear of reprisal. Others think the government should be telling us what type of gum we can chew and on which days we can chew it. The most people fall somewhere in between. I consider myself to be somewhat in the middle, seeing the necessity of living a free life, and helping to try to make it a reasonable secure one for people too.

The problem with "freedoms" is that they sometimes overlap. While you exercise your "freedom" of, let's say playing your music as loud as you want at 3 in the morning, I may be trying to enjoy my "freedom" of trying to get a good nights sleep. Who's freedom has more weight? Are your "rights" to express your feelings in photographic form more important than other people's "rights" to feel safe and secure, not to mention somewhat private? Courts usually answer those types of questions when different people's rights or freedoms overlap and conflict.

From a law enforcement perspective, we are much more free from government intrusion than we were say 50-60 years ago. The rule then was if you crossed a cop, you got beat pretty badly. Today, it happens very occasionally (then gets highly sensationalized by the press), but it's far more the exception than the rule. (Yes, I realize I'm stating my perception on this issue)

Do I think there are some government intrusions that I would rather not see? Heck yea. I think law enforcement should stay out of the business of what folks put into their bodies, so long as those folks behave themselves while they are "chemically altered". Likewise, if you get strung out and can't handle the dope anymore, don't cry to the government or my tax money to bail your silly butt out. I"m an avid supporter of the 2nd Amendment, which frequently flies in the face of what most people expect of police officers.

Now the 1st amendment. I deal with that frequently in terms of the press at crime and fire scenes. As long as they don't interfere with the scene or the investigation, snap away as far as I'm concerned. But if an area is marked off, or they are otherwise told to stay away from an area, they should respect that or risk a trip to the Graybar. The legislative and judicial branches of government both agree that that is a legitmate limitation to an otherwise "free" press. Because their rights overlap with the rights of the victim, or the victim's family, and guess which is given precedence?

Yes folks, it is a reality that we can not do anything we want to without reprecussion. But we are certainly free (in America) to do a good bit more than many, if not most other places in the world.

VES

--

My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a Photographic English Composition course.

Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos, composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[DavidP #28649]

Well, what I meant was this. If people living in NYC (or other large towns) can't handle the thought of another terrorist act, and thus feel compelled to start moving towards a Gestapo State, then maybe they should consider moving somewhere where a terrorist threat it much less likely. Like, Iowa.

Hmm, I'm missing the reference... I can be dense sometimes.

--
The Lowest Paid Concert Photographer Around
http://www.neonlightsimaging.com/artshow/final.htm
Photography -- just another word for compromise

'Since we can't keep crime in check, why don't we legalize it and tax it out of business?' -- Will Rogers

 

[David Reichlein]

It sure is hard to be inconspicuous taking pictures with a D60 and
100-400L. I was just snapping some shots in the courtyard of my
office building in L.A. (It's a big tall building most of you have
probably seen on television without realizing I work there ;-). I
was taking pictures of some lovely flowers when the security guy
came up to me with the "do you have a permit to take pictures of
the building" routine. I explained that I was a tenant and that I
was not taking pictures of the building but rather of the blooming
flowers. He said that a couple of people had called to complain
that someone was taking pictures of the building. I invited him to
look at my digital pictures if he was concerned, but he declined.

I understand, especially with 9/11 just a few days away, that
people might be a little skiddish, but I can't help but be a little
irritated when I keep getting hassled for taking harmless pictures.
I also realize that it's possible that some not-so-harmless people
might be taking pictures, as well, but I doubt that those people
are doing so out in the open like I do. In any event, the bottom
line is that there is no way to legally prevent people from taking
pictures of anything that is visible from a public vantage point.
I mean, has anyone been to the White House? The Capitol? The
Washington Monument? Nobody hassles you for taking pictures of
those very sensitive buildings! I think the real reason building
owners in L.A. are so touchy about pictures is that they make quite
a bit of money from film makers, photographers, etc. buying the
right to take and publish pictures of their buildings. In fact, I
was once hassled across the street at another tall building because
"my lens was too long" and it maded me look like a pro. Of course,
I took that as a compliment ;-)

John
--
EOS D60, 50mm 1.8, 100mm 2.8 macro, Sigma 15-30, 28-135 IS,
100-400L IS, Bogen monopod, 550EX Speedlight, an old Pro90 in the
trunk of my car (just in case) and a very happy trigger finger.

 

[PMartin]

Come on Lisa,

I live in nyc too and I know its not like that. The world we live in has indeed changed, and we take precautions. Thats all there is to it.

I go to the Met and they check my camera bag. So What! I'm more annoyed I can't take pictures in the Special Exhibits.

Please don't feel like a criminal. They're just doing their job to make us safe. If they're rude to you, complain. Otherwise just smile and say thank you.

It's not just the guy taking pictures of flowers in front of a
building it's a pervasive problem and people need to start speaking
out about it or eventually we will be treated like people in a
communist country.

And you won't see ALL your freedom taken away. In my opinion you
are exaggerating how much freedom American citizens have lost,
which is really hardly any at all. Someone questions someone about
taking pictures near a building, and suddenly we live in Communist
China.

Quote: it's just a way to control people and one by one take away
all our fun pastimes

Yea, the government's purpose is to stripe you of all your fun.

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

--
My pictures may only be worth 500 words, but I'm taking a
Photographic English Composition course.


Grateful for any constructive criticism regarding my photos,
composition, lighting, technique, etc.

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

--
Patrick nyc
http://www.pbase.com/patricknyc