Getting Hassled by The Man . . .

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

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.

Ben Strasser · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
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.

Peter K Wagner · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
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.

Actually, you need to be taking the pictures FROM the public vantage point. If you are on someone's property and they tell you to stop taking pictures, then you will have to move back to the public sidewalk before resuming pictures.

There's at least one other caveot... don't try to take pictures of top-security government laboratories. I know of someone innocently taking pictures near one of the labs in Illinois where she was working as a summer intern; she was probably a mile away from any of the buildings and using a $50 point & shoot film camera. Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film, took the film, and had her fill out some information forms. On the plus side, the government did a nice job with the 5x7 prints and mailed them back to her a few weeks later... FREE!

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

That's a funny story, and you're right - the key is that you have to be standing on public property when you take the picture.

Peter K Wagner said:
Peter K Wagner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, you need to be taking the pictures FROM the public
vantage point. If you are on someone's property and they tell you
to stop taking pictures, then you will have to move back to the
public sidewalk before resuming pictures.

There's at least one other caveot... don't try to take pictures of
top-security government laboratories. I know of someone innocently
taking pictures near one of the labs in Illinois where she was
working as a summer intern; she was probably a mile away from any
of the buildings and using a $50 point & shoot film camera.
Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film,
took the film, and had her fill out some information forms. On
the plus side, the government did a nice job with the 5x7 prints
and mailed them back to her a few weeks later... FREE!

--

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.

Jim Radcliffe · Sep 5, 2003

Some terrorist cell pulls off another major attack and they discover lots of quality photos of the intended target in one of the cell member's home, apartment, hovel, tent or cave... That's all it would take to really have the authorities put the bite on photographers in a big way. Just one such incident.

It's a sad state of affairs but I can understand the logic and thinking behind such moves... flower picture, flower picture, flower picture, flower picture, service entrance, flower picture, flower picture, parking garage entrance, flower picture.. it could happen.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you use to take the shot.

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

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.

Peter K Wagner said:
Peter K Wagner said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, you need to be taking the pictures FROM the public
vantage point. If you are on someone's property and they tell you
to stop taking pictures, then you will have to move back to the
public sidewalk before resuming pictures.

There's at least one other caveot... don't try to take pictures of
top-security government laboratories. I know of someone innocently
taking pictures near one of the labs in Illinois where she was
working as a summer intern; she was probably a mile away from any
of the buildings and using a $50 point & shoot film camera.
Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film,
took the film, and had her fill out some information forms. On
the plus side, the government did a nice job with the 5x7 prints
and mailed them back to her a few weeks later... FREE!

--

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.

nick_eos168552 · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
Peter K Wagner said:

lawdog said:

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.

Click to expand...

Actually, you need to be taking the pictures FROM the public
vantage point. If you are on someone's property and they tell you
to stop taking pictures, then you will have to move back to the
public sidewalk before resuming pictures.

There's at least one other caveot... don't try to take pictures of
top-security government laboratories. I know of someone innocently
taking pictures near one of the labs in Illinois where she was
working as a summer intern; she was probably a mile away from any
of the buildings and using a $50 point & shoot film camera.
Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film,
took the film, and had her fill out some information forms. On
the plus side, the government did a nice job with the 5x7 prints
and mailed them back to her a few weeks later... FREE!

Click to expand...

--
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.

--
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/

nick_eos168552 · Sep 5, 2003

Im a terrorist casing a target do i

a) Use a giant white L lens attached to a large black body standing out like a sore thumb

or

b) walk about covertly with a mini 3mp+ camera concealed in my palm

hmmmmm

Jim Radcliffe said:
Some terrorist cell pulls off another major attack and they
discover lots of quality photos of the intended target in one of
the cell member's home, apartment, hovel, tent or cave... That's
all it would take to really have the authorities put the bite on
photographers in a big way. Just one such incident.

It's a sad state of affairs but I can understand the logic and
thinking behind such moves... flower picture, flower picture,
flower picture, flower picture, service entrance, flower picture,
flower picture, parking garage entrance, flower picture.. it could
happen.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you
use to take the shot.

--
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

I heard after 9/11 that Bin Laden and his pals actually managed to acquire copies of the bluprints for the WTC and used them to pinpoint the best place for impact. Now that's a scary thought for a guy like me sitting on the 30th floor of a very exposed building.

Jim Radcliffe said:
Some terrorist cell pulls off another major attack and they
discover lots of quality photos of the intended target in one of
the cell member's home, apartment, hovel, tent or cave... That's
all it would take to really have the authorities put the bite on
photographers in a big way. Just one such incident.

It's a sad state of affairs but I can understand the logic and
thinking behind such moves... flower picture, flower picture,
flower picture, flower picture, service entrance, flower picture,
flower picture, parking garage entrance, flower picture.. it could
happen.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you
use to take the shot.

--

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.

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

nick_eos said:
a) Use a giant white L lens attached to a large black body standing
out like a sore thumb

or

b) walk about covertly with a mini 3mp+ camera concealed in my palm

hmmmmm

Jim Radcliffe said:

Some terrorist cell pulls off another major attack and they
discover lots of quality photos of the intended target in one of
the cell member's home, apartment, hovel, tent or cave... That's
all it would take to really have the authorities put the bite on
photographers in a big way. Just one such incident.

It's a sad state of affairs but I can understand the logic and
thinking behind such moves... flower picture, flower picture,
flower picture, flower picture, service entrance, flower picture,
flower picture, parking garage entrance, flower picture.. it could
happen.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you
use to take the shot.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/

--

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.

Jim Radcliffe · Sep 5, 2003

nick_eos said:
Im a terrorist casing a target do i

a) Use a giant white L lens attached to a large black body standing
out like a sore thumb

With a giant white lens you can be a great distance away from the intended target and with IS on, your image will be quite clear.. this keeps building security from hassling you because .... they don't know you're there! But better yet... with the tiny super zoom video cameras you can have the best of both worlds.

nick_eos168552 said:
or

b) walk about covertly with a mini 3mp+ camera concealed in my palm

You could do that as well... bottom line is it will make no difference which method you use.. we will all suffer for it.

--
Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com

The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you use to take the shot.

KennyG · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
I heard after 9/11 that Bin Laden and his pals actually managed to
acquire copies of the bluprints for the WTC and used them to
pinpoint the best place for impact. Now that's a scary thought for
a guy like me sitting on the 30th floor of a very exposed building.

On one of my trips from the UK to NY last year I decided to do the obligatory trip to the statue of liberty. Well, the last time I went through such tight security was entering a government establishment that has something to do with weaponry.

Having removed belt, watch, coins and anything remotely metallic I still set off the over-sensitive alarm with the zipper of my jeans. The guards were not really interested in my cameras (three of them) but I was hauled off to one side to explain why I had three Zippo lighters. After pointing out that two were brand new, without fuel and were gifts, 15 minutes later I was allowed to board the ferry.

Living in a country that has been subject to terrorist attacks over many years I found it difficult to come to terms with the extremes that security in NY had moved to compared to how we handle it here in the UK.

I love NY and will still continue to go but no more Zippos and I'll stick with a P&S camera.

--
Kenny

If you really want to know what I shoot with - look under my profile.

lawdog · Sep 5, 2003

I seem to remember an article awhile back about some deranged guy trying to take out the Statue of Liberty with Zippo lighters. As I recall, he did not succeed because the crack security team foiled his evil plan ;-)

Kenny G said:
lawdog said:

I heard after 9/11 that Bin Laden and his pals actually managed to
acquire copies of the bluprints for the WTC and used them to
pinpoint the best place for impact. Now that's a scary thought for
a guy like me sitting on the 30th floor of a very exposed building.

Click to expand...

On one of my trips from the UK to NY last year I decided to do the
obligatory trip to the statue of liberty. Well, the last time I
went through such tight security was entering a government
establishment that has something to do with weaponry.

Having removed belt, watch, coins and anything remotely metallic I
still set off the over-sensitive alarm with the zipper of my jeans.
The guards were not really interested in my cameras (three of them)
but I was hauled off to one side to explain why I had three Zippo
lighters. After pointing out that two were brand new, without fuel
and were gifts, 15 minutes later I was allowed to board the ferry.

Living in a country that has been subject to terrorist attacks over
many years I found it difficult to come to terms with the extremes
that security in NY had moved to compared to how we handle it here
in the UK.

I love NY and will still continue to go but no more Zippos and I'll
stick with a P&S camera.

--
Kenny

If you really want to know what I shoot with - look under my profile.

--

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.

KennyG · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
I seem to remember an article awhile back about some deranged guy
trying to take out the Statue of Liberty with Zippo lighters. As I
recall, he did not succeed because the crack security team foiled
his evil plan ;-)

It happened to be a day of high winds and torrential rain and I don't care what Zippo claim, you can't set fire to a statue under those conditions.

What was funny (to me anyway) was that I was allowed to take some pictures in Tiffanys (did ask), where one ring on display was more than my life's income. Mind you, the security guards looked like they moonlighted for the CIA and I avoided eye contact.

--
Kenny

If you really want to know what I shoot with - look under my profile.

ksocool · Sep 5, 2003

lawdog said:
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.

Rodneyk · Sep 5, 2003

You think it is bad for photographers... I am a helicopter pilot who takes photographers up to take pictures of properties. After 9/11 it is a pain in the hind side just to get permission to fly and having a photographer aboard wakes up people's paranoia pretty quick.

I had a job scheduled for the owner of the Seattle Seahawks to take some photos of the stadium on a game day, we had permits issued before 9/11 which were revoked and re-issued then revoked again hours before the scheduled flight.

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

lawdog said:
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.

Vern Stevens · Sep 5, 2003

Well, using that thinking, I choose option A. I mean, after all, if I'm doing it in full view of everyone, I can't be a terrorist right? This is frequently referred to as "hiding in plain sight".

In my opinion, anyone speculating how a terrorist will accomplish their mission is doing just that...speculating. You don't really know. Terrorist are good at using the way we think against us. I think that was why we were so surprised about 9/11. The thought of "a terrorist would never do that" is a very dangerous thought.

VES

nick_eos said:
a) Use a giant white L lens attached to a large black body standing
out like a sore thumb

or

b) walk about covertly with a mini 3mp+ camera concealed in my palm

hmmmmm

Jim Radcliffe said:

Some terrorist cell pulls off another major attack and they
discover lots of quality photos of the intended target in one of
the cell member's home, apartment, hovel, tent or cave... That's
all it would take to really have the authorities put the bite on
photographers in a big way. Just one such incident.

It's a sad state of affairs but I can understand the logic and
thinking behind such moves... flower picture, flower picture,
flower picture, flower picture, service entrance, flower picture,
flower picture, parking garage entrance, flower picture.. it could
happen.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com
The ability to 'see' the shot is more important than the gear you
use to take the shot.

Click to expand...

--
http://www.pbase.com/nick_eos/

--

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 · Sep 5, 2003

Obviously, there is no easy solution for this problem. Our desire to satisfy our photographic expression can and will frequently butt heads with other peoples desire for security and privacy. And if it comes down to an issue of "common sense", it is often said that "common sense isn't as common as it used to be." Your irritated at being hassled, they're probably irritated at having to even be concerned with people photographing their property (or property which is in their care). And in some situtations, maybe they don't even care so much, but if someone makes a complaint, they may be obligated (by policy or by their boss) to check it out. And even though you may not be breaking the law, they aren't necessarily breaking any laws coming up to you and questioning you about your activities. It's just an ackward balance at this point, and may well continue to be for some time.

VES

lawdog said:
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

Ben Strasser · Sep 5, 2003

with designs on it like those throw-away cameras at weddings that was big enough for the 10D to fit in. Nobody would mess with a person taking a picture with a cardboard box.

Vern Stevens said:
VES

lawdog said:

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.

Click to expand...

--
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 · Sep 5, 2003

I am sick of all my personal freedoms being taken away in the name of proctecting us from terrorism. BS, it's just a way to control people and one by one take away all our fun pastimes.

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.

lawdog said:
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.

Getting Hassled by The Man . . .

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Jim Radcliffe

Guest

Senior Member

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Jim Radcliffe

Guest

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Rodneyk

Guest

Leading Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts