Tom K.182709
Senior Member
Wooo, you made my day. You were close enough to smell their breath! Great stuff. I'm humming Johnny Hit & Run now.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Are you getting harrassed taking shots?
- Thread starter guswitte
- Start date
You don't need a model release to take pictures of people, only if you intend to use the photo for commercial gain. However, some people will feel that their privacy is being invaded if you take pictures of them or their kids, and some people will assume you are a pedophile if you walk around taking pictures of children you don't know. As a father I don't think I would feel comfortable about a stranger taking pics of my kids.
I would tend to respect other people's feelings on this matter. If they tell me they don't want to be photograpghed, I won't do it even if I have a right to (although I may ask them to take a few steps to get out of the frame).
Buildings, however, do not have privacy rights.
Please view my galleries at http://www.pbase.com/mpov
I would tend to respect other people's feelings on this matter. If they tell me they don't want to be photograpghed, I won't do it even if I have a right to (although I may ask them to take a few steps to get out of the frame).
Buildings, however, do not have privacy rights.
--
Please view my galleries at http://www.pbase.com/mpov
Fredy Ross
Veteran Member
-- Try living in Israel and you will know why I bought a SD500 as so many times I have been stopped by security guards. Disappointed in the camera but hope another will come out which is good for low light without a flash. I respect their fear of terrorism but they have become paranoid. Yet bombs have been set off by mobiles phones not cameras as yet so I don't understand it.
fredyr
fredyr
William Griffith
Leading Member
Interesting.
Not long ago, I was in our local mall, in the arcade. My 6 year old daughter was on my 16 year old son's lap sitting inside one of those driving games. I was taking a picture of them using my Sony DSC-U10 - 1.3MP, crappy lens. The only thing in the picture was my son, daughter and the inside of the game. This surly manager came over and angrily snapped at me, "you can't take pictures in here". I asked why not. She said it's against company policy. I asked her for a copy of the written policy immediately. She said she didn't have a copy, but. that the mall also had such restrictions. I asked her for the name and address of her corporate office so I could obtain a copy (I was (pixxed of), and she complied. We promptly put our quarters in our pockets and went somewhere else.
I went back a few minutes later (my wife had the kids at this point) and I told the woman that I wouldn't have really had a huge problem with not taking pictures, had she asked me politely and not been such a surly b _ _ c h. She attempted to justify her response, and again I left. I lazily did not follow up with the corporate office (I should have, because she doesn't deserve to work with people). Since the mall (she claims) has a policy about pics, I figured I'd just drop it anyway.
Just thought I'd share.
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
Not long ago, I was in our local mall, in the arcade. My 6 year old daughter was on my 16 year old son's lap sitting inside one of those driving games. I was taking a picture of them using my Sony DSC-U10 - 1.3MP, crappy lens. The only thing in the picture was my son, daughter and the inside of the game. This surly manager came over and angrily snapped at me, "you can't take pictures in here". I asked why not. She said it's against company policy. I asked her for a copy of the written policy immediately. She said she didn't have a copy, but. that the mall also had such restrictions. I asked her for the name and address of her corporate office so I could obtain a copy (I was (pixxed of), and she complied. We promptly put our quarters in our pockets and went somewhere else.
I went back a few minutes later (my wife had the kids at this point) and I told the woman that I wouldn't have really had a huge problem with not taking pictures, had she asked me politely and not been such a surly b _ _ c h. She attempted to justify her response, and again I left. I lazily did not follow up with the corporate office (I should have, because she doesn't deserve to work with people). Since the mall (she claims) has a policy about pics, I figured I'd just drop it anyway.
Just thought I'd share.
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
William Griffith
Leading Member
William Griffith
Leading Member
I was shooting a short independent film in Hollywood (shameless plug for a movie that will never make me a dime http://www.tekreview.com/thechase ), and we were trying to figure out a good location for the final fight scene. We decided on a park that overlooked Hollywood and had a good view of the Hollywood sign. Problem is, that same park is on the side of a reservoir and the guards stopped us (very politely) and told us 'no', then, offered an alternate location, also with a view of the sign. I thought that was cool. They took the time to listen to us, and even helped out. Not bad, overall.
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
While shooting at a lake on national forest land in Washington (Goose Lake, Gifford-Pinchot National Forest). The Freddie (USFS employee) actually told me I needed a commercial photography permit to shoot photos there! This was not a commissioned assignment, I was shooting for fun, and was on public land that is accessible to anyone. I had no intent of selling those photos-- and the guy pulls over and tells me I needed a permit to shoot photos.
A commercial photography permit to shoot in a national forest? Amazing. Sometimes I think jerks like that forget who owns public land.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
A commercial photography permit to shoot in a national forest? Amazing. Sometimes I think jerks like that forget who owns public land.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
ShudderBug
Veteran Member
How much would a commercial permit cost? That would make it prohibitive for most amateurs on a budget who can't write it off as a business expense. You'd also have to check the local rules for every park you wanted to take picture in to be on the safe side. Of course, you also run the risk of a crabby bear policing some places. You just have to charge on in and take your chances or accept the reality more limited photographic opportunities and attendant hassles. Reading all the problems people are having is depressing, but is a sign of the times.
Nobody ever stopped me until these last few years when I wanted to photograph ANYTHING just about ANYWHERE you could get at. Even birthday party pictures today could be objected to by some paranoid parent. Good thing my kid birthday party pictures weren't ruined by some old crab.
I have some slides of inside and outside the White House. The inside ones didn't turn out so well because my camera and skills at the time were too limited. Just some light trails from one of the chandeliers. Maybe I'll get one of those things for reproducing slides and post a couple for old time's sake.
You are kidding? Access to public land is getting more and more restrictive. We don't own diddley, even our own homes really, even after they're paid for. Couple of slips and somebody buys it up at a local tax sale and now with the new eminent domain decision, everything technically is up for grabs to the highest bidder. I can appreciate some of the reasons why access to some public lands is restricted to the ATV crowd, human predators (they have a right to be there, too), and anyone who would destroy it for all like chipping off a souvenir of Washington's chin on Mt. Rushmore. There is talk on the net that the UN has taken it over but that could be just the conspiracy theorists talking.
I did think it highly symbolic when the Old Man in the Mountain crumbled and fell and felt and still feel that we have lost another treasure even though I've never seen it. Good thing you can't sue Mother Nature and her natural tendency towards decay and eventual destruction.
Phileas Fogg
Senior Member
IMO, even if you were going to shoot it to sell images later, it is PUBLIC LAND, there would be no need for any permit. I can understand getting permission or paying a fee if you were to shoot on private land but this stuff you tell here about more govt. officers abusing their power is just proving how crazy things can get.
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
I havent had a chance to read all the posts in here but I must say I am glad it has been aired at last. They have a go at you for taking pictures and yet here in London they appeal for people to come forward with photographs to catch terrorists all the time. I am gradually coming to the conclusion that it is easier to get away with it if you have a small camera.
I will read all the posts tommorrow and add a more expansive comment.
DAVID
I will read all the posts tommorrow and add a more expansive comment.
DAVID
William Griffith
Leading Member
Here's the only 'photograpjy permit' I can find on the Gifford Pinchot National Forest web site, and clearly, it pertains to commercial photography.
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_aySvy1ZKWIJ:www.fs.fed.us/r5/lospadres/documents/filming_photography.pdf+site:www.fs.fed.us+permit&hl=en
Sounds like that ranger was either trying to bust your chops, or, needs a serious lesson on what is and isn't allowed.
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
http://64.233.161.104/search?q=cache:_aySvy1ZKWIJ:www.fs.fed.us/r5/lospadres/documents/filming_photography.pdf+site:www.fs.fed.us+permit&hl=en
Sounds like that ranger was either trying to bust your chops, or, needs a serious lesson on what is and isn't allowed.
--
Bill
:-=>
http://www.pbase.com/bigpaws
Greensteak
Well-known member
I just spent 4 days in NYC, saw the Stones in the Meadowlands and took 1605 pictures to boot. I took 'em in the subway, took 'em in Time Square.
Took 'em on the Brooklyn Bridge, took 'em on Wall Street. Inside and from on top of the Empire State Building (except at the checkpoint), at Ground Zero, all over Chinatown, inside Grand Central station.
But, I took them fast, and tried to remain unnoticed for various reasons. I also took alot of them by just pressing the shutter button as I walked and held the camera by my side. That's how I got my inside the subway car shots.
As far at the terrorist threat and how it relates to photography, it's the times we live in, man. What are you gonna do? I got detained last year because I was taking long exposures of aircraft landing and taking off, from the public highway right of way hundreds of feet from the fence. One sherrif out of the 4 or 5 present from the 3 cars that came to a screeching halt 10 feet behind me told me to simply make my presence known to security next time. It's a royal pain, but it's the times we live in. Get used to it and good luck.
GS
Took 'em on the Brooklyn Bridge, took 'em on Wall Street. Inside and from on top of the Empire State Building (except at the checkpoint), at Ground Zero, all over Chinatown, inside Grand Central station.
But, I took them fast, and tried to remain unnoticed for various reasons. I also took alot of them by just pressing the shutter button as I walked and held the camera by my side. That's how I got my inside the subway car shots.
As far at the terrorist threat and how it relates to photography, it's the times we live in, man. What are you gonna do? I got detained last year because I was taking long exposures of aircraft landing and taking off, from the public highway right of way hundreds of feet from the fence. One sherrif out of the 4 or 5 present from the 3 cars that came to a screeching halt 10 feet behind me told me to simply make my presence known to security next time. It's a royal pain, but it's the times we live in. Get used to it and good luck.
GS
Retired Jerry
Active member
Actually, it's the apathy and the complete "herd mentality" of the public that is allowing all the goons to run over our rights in the name of security. It is now a national catch all for what used to be called stupidity.
Good security is one thing, a rent a cop or local sheriff enforcing unwritten rules is quite another.
Just another opinion. As a retired airline pilot I saw a lot of knee jerk reaction that did nothing but make the politicians believe they were doing something.
Jerry
Good security is one thing, a rent a cop or local sheriff enforcing unwritten rules is quite another.
Just another opinion. As a retired airline pilot I saw a lot of knee jerk reaction that did nothing but make the politicians believe they were doing something.
Jerry
Greensteak
Well-known member
Well, even though I accept the fact that this is going to be happening quite often from now on, and we can't really put a stop to it, it doesn't mean that I'm resigned to not being able to take pictures where I want to.
Most often, I get what I'm after one way or the other when it comes to photographs.
It's kind of like walking up the street- it's perfectly legal, but you may have to put up with some barking or loose dogs now and then. I don't like that either, but that's life.
By the way, the airport ordeal happened during the rash of pilots getting lasered by who or whatever. That was the reason, according to the deputies.
Back to the topic, the picture fiasco is not unlike my occupation. As a land surveyor, I have the legal right (state statue, it's in the books) to go over and upon any lands deemed necessary for the execution of my job duties, public or private, as long as no harm or injury is done to person or property. Regardless of the fact that I have that right, it's supported by written law and recognized by all courts of law in my state, I'm constantly being asked "What are you doing?" and being told "You can't go there". As in the original post, I just keep doing what I'm doing and tell them to call the police if it's a problem. It's a nuisance and I'm used to it, yet I still resent the lost time and aggravation it causes.
The fact that a written law won't even stop people from hampering my progress at work tells me that if such a law existed pertaining to photography (actually only on public property in this case unlike surveying), the inconveniences would continue. And, as we know, there are no such laws, so we don't have any legal ground tailored to our hobby or profession, whichever the case may be, and we're at the mercy of the property owners, managers, security and government who make up the rules as they go along in many cases. Sure, we go to court and eventually win because we're not breaking laws in the overwhelming majority of the instances, but that takes time and money also. I can't see any way around this.
So I guess I'm saying, like it or not, this is what the photographers in the USA (and abroad) will be putting up with for a long, long time.
GS
Most often, I get what I'm after one way or the other when it comes to photographs.
It's kind of like walking up the street- it's perfectly legal, but you may have to put up with some barking or loose dogs now and then. I don't like that either, but that's life.
By the way, the airport ordeal happened during the rash of pilots getting lasered by who or whatever. That was the reason, according to the deputies.
Back to the topic, the picture fiasco is not unlike my occupation. As a land surveyor, I have the legal right (state statue, it's in the books) to go over and upon any lands deemed necessary for the execution of my job duties, public or private, as long as no harm or injury is done to person or property. Regardless of the fact that I have that right, it's supported by written law and recognized by all courts of law in my state, I'm constantly being asked "What are you doing?" and being told "You can't go there". As in the original post, I just keep doing what I'm doing and tell them to call the police if it's a problem. It's a nuisance and I'm used to it, yet I still resent the lost time and aggravation it causes.
The fact that a written law won't even stop people from hampering my progress at work tells me that if such a law existed pertaining to photography (actually only on public property in this case unlike surveying), the inconveniences would continue. And, as we know, there are no such laws, so we don't have any legal ground tailored to our hobby or profession, whichever the case may be, and we're at the mercy of the property owners, managers, security and government who make up the rules as they go along in many cases. Sure, we go to court and eventually win because we're not breaking laws in the overwhelming majority of the instances, but that takes time and money also. I can't see any way around this.
So I guess I'm saying, like it or not, this is what the photographers in the USA (and abroad) will be putting up with for a long, long time.
GS
I work around Rockefeller Center, and often it is the subject of my photographs.
I am of latino descent, but sometimes might be taken for someone of middle-eastern origins.
I haven't been officially stopped by any security guards, though I never take them seriously, since my previous experiences with them while skateboarding has made them a joke in my eyes.
It's kinda ridiculous, but everyone from rent-a-cops to even real cops.. I swear.. they LOVE this High-Security thing... They absolutely are into this whole security alert schtick.. like kids playing 'Spy' or something. I guess it's part of the "Look at Us with our ridiculous cheeseball Oakley sunglasses" culture.
In fact, I have been shooting photos of these G.I.Joe cops in their Robotech armor and the Security Clowns as part of a project to show just how ridiculous these 'security measures' really are.
If any of you guys have seen the Rock Ctr guards... they look under the vehicles with a mirror, then ask for papers, then take a quick peek at the back of the truck..
I guess they're looking for a box with Skull & Crossbones/TNT/Jihad logos on it or something?
What kind of absurd 'security' is that? It's completely lame security, and I can't believe we stand for it.
I was often nervous about shooting photos in the subway.. and for a hot minute, I actually thought the ban wen through... NOW, I'm going on a photo shooting frenzy with my brand spanking new Canon 20D, and look forward to whipping out my Photographer's Rights document to the wise-a$$ citizens that have deputized themselves as some sort of Anti-Terrorism Team America Cops...
I also want to photograph these completely absurd bag checks going on in our subways...
You know.. the High Tech Security measures to stop terrorists that can be defeated by.....
...ummm....
walking away!!!! and going to the next unguarded station!!
Or walking in groups of at least two terrorists, since it's "random".. they can't possibly coincidentally check both, eh?
I too got fed up with feeling self-conscious and worried about shooting photographs. And it so happens that shooting the subways is one of my favorite things to do. After reading these posts and seeing the comments from many of you guys.. it's really encouraged me to go out there and 'expose' the absurdity of this current state of fear.
And looking forward to the cheeseball "Security CItizen" that dares come up to me to 'warn me'... and taking a nice big fat portrait of his ignorant...umm... buttock head.
Guys, our rights are being violated... they are trying to find more and more was to restrict the freedoms they looove to sell to others as why we're such a great country to begin with.
It's time we fight back.
Most of the time, our photography is for the sake of Art.
But many times, it can be for the sake of fighting back, exposing fraud, and countering abuse.
My new zoom lens should come in handy to photograph the cops beating on my friends at the anti-war rallies..
Peace!
I am of latino descent, but sometimes might be taken for someone of middle-eastern origins.
I haven't been officially stopped by any security guards, though I never take them seriously, since my previous experiences with them while skateboarding has made them a joke in my eyes.
It's kinda ridiculous, but everyone from rent-a-cops to even real cops.. I swear.. they LOVE this High-Security thing... They absolutely are into this whole security alert schtick.. like kids playing 'Spy' or something. I guess it's part of the "Look at Us with our ridiculous cheeseball Oakley sunglasses" culture.
In fact, I have been shooting photos of these G.I.Joe cops in their Robotech armor and the Security Clowns as part of a project to show just how ridiculous these 'security measures' really are.
If any of you guys have seen the Rock Ctr guards... they look under the vehicles with a mirror, then ask for papers, then take a quick peek at the back of the truck..
I guess they're looking for a box with Skull & Crossbones/TNT/Jihad logos on it or something?
What kind of absurd 'security' is that? It's completely lame security, and I can't believe we stand for it.
I was often nervous about shooting photos in the subway.. and for a hot minute, I actually thought the ban wen through... NOW, I'm going on a photo shooting frenzy with my brand spanking new Canon 20D, and look forward to whipping out my Photographer's Rights document to the wise-a$$ citizens that have deputized themselves as some sort of Anti-Terrorism Team America Cops...
I also want to photograph these completely absurd bag checks going on in our subways...
You know.. the High Tech Security measures to stop terrorists that can be defeated by.....
...ummm....
walking away!!!! and going to the next unguarded station!!
Or walking in groups of at least two terrorists, since it's "random".. they can't possibly coincidentally check both, eh?
I too got fed up with feeling self-conscious and worried about shooting photographs. And it so happens that shooting the subways is one of my favorite things to do. After reading these posts and seeing the comments from many of you guys.. it's really encouraged me to go out there and 'expose' the absurdity of this current state of fear.
And looking forward to the cheeseball "Security CItizen" that dares come up to me to 'warn me'... and taking a nice big fat portrait of his ignorant...umm... buttock head.
Guys, our rights are being violated... they are trying to find more and more was to restrict the freedoms they looove to sell to others as why we're such a great country to begin with.
It's time we fight back.
Most of the time, our photography is for the sake of Art.
But many times, it can be for the sake of fighting back, exposing fraud, and countering abuse.
My new zoom lens should come in handy to photograph the cops beating on my friends at the anti-war rallies..
Peace!
Oh, by the way.. here's the official rules from the MTA:
Section 1050.9
Restricted areas and activities.
3. Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provision of these Rules.
here's the link:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/rules.htm
Section 1050.9
Restricted areas and activities.
3. Photography, filming or video recording in any facility or conveyance is permitted except that ancillary equipment such as lights, reflectors or tripods may not be used. Members of the press holding valid identification issued by the New York City Police Department are hereby authorized to use necessary ancillary equipment. All photographic activity must be conducted in accordance with the provision of these Rules.
here's the link:
http://www.mta.nyc.ny.us/nyct/rules/rules.htm
Ronny Mills
Active member
Photographers Questioned Amid Security Concerns
By Elizabeth M. Gillespie, Associated Press Writer
Published: July 16, 2004
SEATTLE (AP) Ian Spiers had just hours to finish an assignment for his photography class. He was taking shots of a railroad bridge near the Ballard Locks when an officer with a German shepherd approached him, asked him what he was doing and requested some ID.
Later, he was questioned and photographed by a Homeland Security agent.
It was the second time in less than two months that Spiers had been questioned about taking pictures of a landmark that attracts hundreds of tourists a day, many of whom snap photos of the ships passing between Lake Union and Elliott Bay.
A growing number of photographers around the country have been similarly rousted in recent years as they've tried to take pictures of federal buildings and other major public works, said Donald Winslow, editor of the National Press Photographers Association's magazine.
"We've seen the constant erosion of our civil liberties amid this cry for homeland security by doing things that have an appearance of making us safe, but in reality it's a sham," Winslow said. "No one showed up at the World Trade Center and took photographs from nine different angles before they flew planes into it."
The morning of May 26, Spiers explained he was a photography student at a community college, showed a copy of his assignment, then asked the officer if he was legally obligated to show his ID.
The officer said no and walked away. But soon after, several armed officers approached him, including three from the Seattle Police Department and three from the federal Homeland Security Department.
"I was trying to be calm, but the truth was I was scared out of my mind," Spiers said.
This time, Spiers said, a Seattle police officer told him he had no choice but to show his ID. A Homeland Security agent who flashed his badge told him he had broken a law by taking pictures of a federal facility.
"We've never seen such a law," said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Seattle.
Spiers said he complied, spent half an hour answering questions and let a Homeland Security agent photograph him -- after being told he had no choice.
The ACLU has written the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns and runs the locks, asking for the agency's assurance that Spiers will not be arrested if he returns there.
Corps spokeswoman Patricia Graesser said her agency had no involvement in the incident and questioned an order Spiers said a homeland security agent gave him -- that he could not return to the locks with his camera without getting permission in advance.
"Everyone -- all members of the public -- are welcome on the locks property, and photographs are allowed, and there's no need to get prior permission," she said.
Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb said the department has a duty to respond to reports of suspicious activity.
Calls to the Homeland Security Department were not immediately returned.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Spiers kept his distance from the spot where he was questioned, and wore a button on his camera bag that said: "Annoying but harmless photography student. Do not bend." He made it in early April, after two police officers showed up at his door, saying they were responding to a report about a suspicious man taking pictures at the locks.
Spiers said he'd like to hear one of the officers who questioned him say if they hassled him because his mocha-colored skin and short black hair made him look like a terrorist.
"I'm trying to figure out how not to attract attention," said Spiers, 36. "So far the only thing I can think of is that I can never ever pick up a camera."
In early June, about 100 photographers crowded onto New York City subway trains and snapped pictures of each other in protest of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed ban on photography in subways and other public transit.
And Brian Fitzgerald, the chief photographer at the Yakima (Wash.) Herald-Republic, said a uniformed security officer tried to prevent him from taking a picture of an immigration office, citing a "law," then calling it a "directive" that gave the officer the right to confiscate any film with pictures of a federal facility.
An officer in charge eventually let him take his photos, and he's since been told there's no reason he can't take them.
"It's frustrating mostly," Fitzgerald said. "I'm not outraged because I didn't get to the point where I didn't get my photos. It just reminds me again how much disinformation there is, even in these agencies that are supposed to know."
By Elizabeth M. Gillespie, Associated Press Writer
Published: July 16, 2004
SEATTLE (AP) Ian Spiers had just hours to finish an assignment for his photography class. He was taking shots of a railroad bridge near the Ballard Locks when an officer with a German shepherd approached him, asked him what he was doing and requested some ID.
Later, he was questioned and photographed by a Homeland Security agent.
It was the second time in less than two months that Spiers had been questioned about taking pictures of a landmark that attracts hundreds of tourists a day, many of whom snap photos of the ships passing between Lake Union and Elliott Bay.
A growing number of photographers around the country have been similarly rousted in recent years as they've tried to take pictures of federal buildings and other major public works, said Donald Winslow, editor of the National Press Photographers Association's magazine.
"We've seen the constant erosion of our civil liberties amid this cry for homeland security by doing things that have an appearance of making us safe, but in reality it's a sham," Winslow said. "No one showed up at the World Trade Center and took photographs from nine different angles before they flew planes into it."
The morning of May 26, Spiers explained he was a photography student at a community college, showed a copy of his assignment, then asked the officer if he was legally obligated to show his ID.
The officer said no and walked away. But soon after, several armed officers approached him, including three from the Seattle Police Department and three from the federal Homeland Security Department.
"I was trying to be calm, but the truth was I was scared out of my mind," Spiers said.
This time, Spiers said, a Seattle police officer told him he had no choice but to show his ID. A Homeland Security agent who flashed his badge told him he had broken a law by taking pictures of a federal facility.
"We've never seen such a law," said Doug Honig, a spokesman for the American Civil Liberties Union in Seattle.
Spiers said he complied, spent half an hour answering questions and let a Homeland Security agent photograph him -- after being told he had no choice.
The ACLU has written the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, which owns and runs the locks, asking for the agency's assurance that Spiers will not be arrested if he returns there.
Corps spokeswoman Patricia Graesser said her agency had no involvement in the incident and questioned an order Spiers said a homeland security agent gave him -- that he could not return to the locks with his camera without getting permission in advance.
"Everyone -- all members of the public -- are welcome on the locks property, and photographs are allowed, and there's no need to get prior permission," she said.
Seattle police spokesman Sean Whitcomb said the department has a duty to respond to reports of suspicious activity.
Calls to the Homeland Security Department were not immediately returned.
In an interview with The Associated Press, Spiers kept his distance from the spot where he was questioned, and wore a button on his camera bag that said: "Annoying but harmless photography student. Do not bend." He made it in early April, after two police officers showed up at his door, saying they were responding to a report about a suspicious man taking pictures at the locks.
Spiers said he'd like to hear one of the officers who questioned him say if they hassled him because his mocha-colored skin and short black hair made him look like a terrorist.
"I'm trying to figure out how not to attract attention," said Spiers, 36. "So far the only thing I can think of is that I can never ever pick up a camera."
In early June, about 100 photographers crowded onto New York City subway trains and snapped pictures of each other in protest of the Metropolitan Transportation Authority's proposed ban on photography in subways and other public transit.
And Brian Fitzgerald, the chief photographer at the Yakima (Wash.) Herald-Republic, said a uniformed security officer tried to prevent him from taking a picture of an immigration office, citing a "law," then calling it a "directive" that gave the officer the right to confiscate any film with pictures of a federal facility.
An officer in charge eventually let him take his photos, and he's since been told there's no reason he can't take them.
"It's frustrating mostly," Fitzgerald said. "I'm not outraged because I didn't get to the point where I didn't get my photos. It just reminds me again how much disinformation there is, even in these agencies that are supposed to know."
Phileas Fogg
Senior Member
Ronny MIls,
Your post makes my blood boil.
I would have recorded the ID numbers and asked for the names of those GOOSE STEPPING THUGS in badges and when I had evidence that they abused powers, violated my rights etc. I'd have tried to charge them for assault and sued them for causing such grief to me.
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Your post makes my blood boil.
I would have recorded the ID numbers and asked for the names of those GOOSE STEPPING THUGS in badges and when I had evidence that they abused powers, violated my rights etc. I'd have tried to charge them for assault and sued them for causing such grief to me.
--
visit my photo gallary of images from my 10D
http://phileas.fotopic.net/c258181.html
Which, of course, means I'll never have to get a photography permit! Oh yeah, let me put my money where my mouth is-- I've also worked for reforestation companies and literally planted thousands upon thousands of trees in clearcuts.
Plus, I actually worked for the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and even the Corps of Engineers for years. As a wildland firefighter, I used to shoot photos ALL the time-- and I've since sold some of those photos including a whole series to the fire management unit of the Park Service in Yosemite. I never had a permit then-- but what's funny is the Park Service bought my photos 'cause they documented a big backcountry wildfire and no one else had the foresight to shoot photos while the fire ripped up and down the drainage. Anyway, let's just say I was a much better photographer than I was a firefighter!
Back to my original post, the guy who told me I needed a commercial photography permit was not a law enforcement officer-- he was a maintenance guy who had grown too big for his green jeans.
A good question to ask any Forest Service worker in this situation is, "Are you a law enforcement officer?" They'll say, "All Forest Service employees are forest officers" which translates to, "No, I'm just a regular worker and I can't stop you from shooting photos."
In this situation, the person is just like you and me and can't even issue a citation. Don't threaten them, but feel free to ignore them. They can't do anything other than call for an actual law enforcement officer-- and those guys (and some gals) are usually an hour or more away. And as long as you're shooting for yourself, they can't legally stop you from shooting photos.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
Plus, I actually worked for the U.S. Forest Service, the National Park Service, and even the Corps of Engineers for years. As a wildland firefighter, I used to shoot photos ALL the time-- and I've since sold some of those photos including a whole series to the fire management unit of the Park Service in Yosemite. I never had a permit then-- but what's funny is the Park Service bought my photos 'cause they documented a big backcountry wildfire and no one else had the foresight to shoot photos while the fire ripped up and down the drainage. Anyway, let's just say I was a much better photographer than I was a firefighter!
Back to my original post, the guy who told me I needed a commercial photography permit was not a law enforcement officer-- he was a maintenance guy who had grown too big for his green jeans.
A good question to ask any Forest Service worker in this situation is, "Are you a law enforcement officer?" They'll say, "All Forest Service employees are forest officers" which translates to, "No, I'm just a regular worker and I can't stop you from shooting photos."
In this situation, the person is just like you and me and can't even issue a citation. Don't threaten them, but feel free to ignore them. They can't do anything other than call for an actual law enforcement officer-- and those guys (and some gals) are usually an hour or more away. And as long as you're shooting for yourself, they can't legally stop you from shooting photos.
--
Pete Springer
http://www.dogwooddigital.net
Jared-5
Senior Member
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum