Was asked to quit shooting

SteveinLouisville · Jan 16, 2022

Michael Fryd said:
SteveinLouisville said:

One morning, after I took my daughter to school, I stopped at our new soccer stadium to shoot some picture, mostly because the light was nice that morning. Security guy came out and told me photography of the stadium was prohibited and if I didn't stop he would call the police. I said, "Ok," and went home.

When I got there, I emailed the stadium's contact link on their website and asked why it was prohibited to take photos of a public soccer stadium that is visible from the interstate and every major road nearby.

The Vice President of Operations replied that whoever told me that was wrong, and that as long as I wasn't trespassing within the actual stadium, it was perfectly fine to take as many photos of the stadium as I wanted to. She said she would "retrain" her staff on this, and offered me free tickets to the next soccer game. We have a pretty good team: Louisville FC! Here is our new stadium.

Lynn Family Stadium, home of Louisville FC

Click to expand...

The Lynn Family Stadium is not public property. It is owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC.

The general rule, is that Soccer Holdings, LLC may prohibit those on their property from taking photos. However, they can't prevent those that are off their property from taking photos of the stadium.

If you were standing on stadium property (for instance their parking lot), then the security guard may not have been wrong when he told you that you could not take photos on stadium property.

The VP of Operations was also correct in that if you were not on their property, then you are free to take photos.

It's not clear from your post where you were standing. If you were standing on a city/county owned street/sidewalk, then you were likely within your rights. If you were in their parking lot, or on a road/sidewalk owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC, then they have a right to prohibit photos and to ask you to leave.

Of course, your use of any photos may be limited if the photos contain trademarks, copyrighted elements, or recognizable people. Being allowed to take a photo is not the same as being allowed to use the photo however your like.

A similar situation applies to private homes. I can take a photo of your home from a public street, but you can prohibit me from taking a photo from your driveway.

Louisville Metro Government owns the property. See attached.

JustUs7 · Jan 16, 2022

SteveinLouisville said:
Michael Fryd said:

SteveinLouisville said:

One morning, after I took my daughter to school, I stopped at our new soccer stadium to shoot some picture, mostly because the light was nice that morning. Security guy came out and told me photography of the stadium was prohibited and if I didn't stop he would call the police. I said, "Ok," and went home.

When I got there, I emailed the stadium's contact link on their website and asked why it was prohibited to take photos of a public soccer stadium that is visible from the interstate and every major road nearby.

The Vice President of Operations replied that whoever told me that was wrong, and that as long as I wasn't trespassing within the actual stadium, it was perfectly fine to take as many photos of the stadium as I wanted to. She said she would "retrain" her staff on this, and offered me free tickets to the next soccer game. We have a pretty good team: Louisville FC! Here is our new stadium.

Lynn Family Stadium, home of Louisville FC

Click to expand...

The Lynn Family Stadium is not public property. It is owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC.

The general rule, is that Soccer Holdings, LLC may prohibit those on their property from taking photos. However, they can't prevent those that are off their property from taking photos of the stadium.

If you were standing on stadium property (for instance their parking lot), then the security guard may not have been wrong when he told you that you could not take photos on stadium property.

The VP of Operations was also correct in that if you were not on their property, then you are free to take photos.

It's not clear from your post where you were standing. If you were standing on a city/county owned street/sidewalk, then you were likely within your rights. If you were in their parking lot, or on a road/sidewalk owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC, then they have a right to prohibit photos and to ask you to leave.

Of course, your use of any photos may be limited if the photos contain trademarks, copyrighted elements, or recognizable people. Being allowed to take a photo is not the same as being allowed to use the photo however your like.

A similar situation applies to private homes. I can take a photo of your home from a public street, but you can prohibit me from taking a photo from your driveway.

Click to expand...

Louisville Metro Government owns the property. See attached.

Likely a property lease with the private LLC owning the stadium. Not unusual with public/ private partnerships.

Akin to saying someone is free to enter your condo because you don’t own the building it’s in.

MarshallG · Jan 16, 2022

LeicaEye said:
Michael Fryd said:

Bernard Waxman said:

"Suppose someone snuck a camera into the girls locker room at your daughter's school, and posted nude photos of her on the Internet. Would you say that no harm is done by posting that photo on the Internet?"

Of course that is illegal. So you choose the most extreme examples to make a point. That is not the same as taking photos in a public place.

Click to expand...

The question here was not legality, but morality.

A useful tool in discussing these sorts of issues is to show the extremes. Most would agree that it is morally wrong to sneak photos in a locker room. Most would say that you don't need permission from every individual to shoot a scene that includes a crowd in the background.

Once we establish that there are situations where permission should be obtained, and there are situations where it isn't needed, then the discussion is reduced to "where do we draw the line".

Saying that one never should "always" or "never" be concerned about use of one's likeness is an extreme position, and not very realistic.

LeicaEye said:

Some people get mad when they see me wearing a mask. That is their problem, just as it is their problem if you take photos in a public place. Of course if they get violent, that becomes my problem too.

I agree of someone asks you to stop taking photos of them, you should agree even if you have the legal right.

What do you say to photographers who are taking photos for a news organization? Should they stop taking photos of a newsworthy event if someone asks them to stop?

Click to expand...

You are correct that it is not a trivial question to answer. Many photographers want to take street photography, and many people don't want their photo taken. Civilization is all about solving these sorts of conflicts.

Click to expand...

The question is a continual point of discussion, whether the photographer is in the right or not, overall I think it's best not to stir anyone by taking photos they don't want.. If a person says No to a photograph, I always say, I appreciate your thoughts HAGD.. Just down the road are many other scenes just waiting to be recorded.. L

I don’t see any reason to use your Constitutional rights as an excuse to upset people for no reason. If someone politely asked me to stop shooting, I would first clearly assert that it is my right, and then stop shooting out of respect.

SteveinLouisville · Jan 16, 2022

JustUs7 said:
SteveinLouisville said:

Michael Fryd said:

SteveinLouisville said:

One morning, after I took my daughter to school, I stopped at our new soccer stadium to shoot some picture, mostly because the light was nice that morning. Security guy came out and told me photography of the stadium was prohibited and if I didn't stop he would call the police. I said, "Ok," and went home.

When I got there, I emailed the stadium's contact link on their website and asked why it was prohibited to take photos of a public soccer stadium that is visible from the interstate and every major road nearby.

The Vice President of Operations replied that whoever told me that was wrong, and that as long as I wasn't trespassing within the actual stadium, it was perfectly fine to take as many photos of the stadium as I wanted to. She said she would "retrain" her staff on this, and offered me free tickets to the next soccer game. We have a pretty good team: Louisville FC! Here is our new stadium.

Lynn Family Stadium, home of Louisville FC

Click to expand...

The Lynn Family Stadium is not public property. It is owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC.

The general rule, is that Soccer Holdings, LLC may prohibit those on their property from taking photos. However, they can't prevent those that are off their property from taking photos of the stadium.

If you were standing on stadium property (for instance their parking lot), then the security guard may not have been wrong when he told you that you could not take photos on stadium property.

The VP of Operations was also correct in that if you were not on their property, then you are free to take photos.

It's not clear from your post where you were standing. If you were standing on a city/county owned street/sidewalk, then you were likely within your rights. If you were in their parking lot, or on a road/sidewalk owned by Soccer Holdings, LLC, then they have a right to prohibit photos and to ask you to leave.

Of course, your use of any photos may be limited if the photos contain trademarks, copyrighted elements, or recognizable people. Being allowed to take a photo is not the same as being allowed to use the photo however your like.

A similar situation applies to private homes. I can take a photo of your home from a public street, but you can prohibit me from taking a photo from your driveway.

Click to expand...

Louisville Metro Government owns the property. See attached.

Click to expand...

Likely a property lease with the private LLC owning the stadium. Not unusual with public/ private partnerships.

Akin to saying someone is free to enter your condo because you don’t own the building it’s in.

Yeah I hit Post before I finished. Went in to edit it, and you had already responded. Basically, you are correct. The property was an old salvage yard that required extensive environmental remediation. The city spend a lot (I am thinking 15 million) to to get the site ready. The private investors built the actual stadium and have long-term (99 years?) rights to it. This is similar to the way Slugger Field was built. It is an public-private agreement.

The lessee has the right to control access to the property, of course. I went down there to shoot a few photos one morning last spring. No one, of course, was there. No signage was posted prohibiting photography. No fences or barriers were present.

When I was asked to leave, I said OK. When I got home, I asked a question in an email, and the Vice President of Operations said that as long as I was not inside the actual stadium (past the gate, past the fence, and as long as I wasn't sticking my camera through the gate, I could take as many pictures as I wanted to. She said she would clarify this for her staff.

No problem. I sent her this picture and she offered my tickets to that night's game. That's it.

Notice the sky. That was the main reason I went down there in the first place. The sky was so pretty.

Bob · Jan 16, 2022

MarshallG said:
Rambow said:

They will call the police on you!

Click to expand...

It violates no laws! There’s nothing the police can do about it if you’re in public. You can choose to be polite and not shoot children, but it is legal to do.

Haha - there's plenty the police can do. They can't arrest the photographer, but they will arrest the argumentative jackass the photographer turns into.

57even · Jan 16, 2022

Graham Meale said:
I wonder what people in developing countries would think of this whole discussion. In many parts of the world photographing children is no more controversial than photographing animals. They don't assume that everyone with a camera is a creep. Of course, common courtesy dictates that one should refrain from photographing people who expressly desire that they not be, whatever their age.

In a decade's time we'll all have cameras built into our eyes and no one will even know what we're photographing.

That's already true for smartphones. No-one seems to object when I use that, probably because they have one too.

Teila Day · Jan 17, 2022

sybersitizen said:
Prior to the 1970s, nobody thought twice about people taking random photos of kids. Parents didn't monitor and control every moment of their kids' lives then, either. Among my friends, our parents sometimes had no idea what we were even doing all day long. It was great! So much of life is almost unrecognizable just 50 years later.

That was back before they started arresting grandmothers for taking photos of grandkids in the bath outfitted with snorkels and face masks splashing about in the tub.

You'd legitimately have to worry trying to get photos like that developed today (assuming digital cameras/phones didn't exist).

The "just be home before supper" and most of the kids at the movies, ballfields, or soda shop are days that are long gone. Now an eyebrow raising percentage of American kids are indoors getting fat - perfecting their whining abilities

--
Teila K. Day
http://teiladay.com

57even · Jan 17, 2022

Richard B99 said:
sybersitizen said:

Prior to the 1970s, nobody thought twice about people taking random photos of kids. Parents didn't monitor and control every moment of their kids' lives then, either. Among my friends, our parents sometimes had no idea what we were even doing all day long. It was great! So much of life is almost unrecognizable just 50 years later.

Click to expand...

You are right, “nobody thought twice”. That’s in its own way was a terrible oversight.

Agreed.

Richard B99 said:
It turns out 50 years later that we find out that those most like to be a danger to kids are those closest too them or those who spend time engaging and striking up a relationship in any manner to groom them. There are too many reports from 50 years ago of children being abused over many years without any intervention by anyone. It’s a real shame that we need to be more vigilant but that is the real lesson of the past, not that they were the good old days.

As anyone who works in social services will know, the vast majority of child abuse, physical, sexual and mental, is committed within the home, and not only by men.

The second highest incidence is institutional. Youth groups, schools, churches, etc.

So just because someone is a parent, or a close family friend, or a pillar of the local community, does not make them less likely to abuse children. It just means they have far more opportunity to do so and get away with it.

Compared to that, the number of people being groomed is relatively small, but has increased a lot with the advent of social media. This is where strangers are most dangerous to children, but we do next to nothing to prevent it. In fact, by giving our kids access to the internet, we are enabling it.

If someone was intent on grooming children, the last thing they would do is stand there in broad daylight with a camera and a telephoto lens.

--
"A designer knows he has achieved perfection not when there is nothing left to add, but when there is nothing left to take away." Antoine de Saint-Exupery

57even · Jan 17, 2022

cutterpup said:
A few years ago I was in Key West for Fantasy Fest. One evening my husband and I attended the "Red Party", As the title suggests, all attendees must be wearing red as the predominate color. Fantasy Fest being what it is, there were mobs of people, mostly guys, taking pictures everywhere.

Fast forward and I was at a coworkers house for an after work visit. I told her I had been in Key West and she started to laugh and said "wait until I show you a picture a friend of mine sent me." She then pulled up on her computer a picture from the Red Party and pointed out two women smiling for the camera and all in red including devil horn headbands. She pointed to her friend and seemed shocked that the woman was naked, except for the devil horns and wearing red body paint. She got even bigger shock when I pointed out that the second woman in the image was me, except I was wearing clothes.

I don't expect privacy in public places, especially not at a street party. So my rule has always been to act and dress as if my boss, my grand children, or even my deceased parents would be seeing me.

Where do I get tickets? ;-)

Snowfella · Jan 17, 2022

Regardless of right or wrong I wouldn't go up and shoot someone elses kids in anything but a scenario where it's implied that family members is likely to take photos, akin to sports matches, easterhat parades or graduations.

Bit over a year ago I had one of those "should I or shouldn't I" moments. Beach holiday and went out to shoot some adult surfers, while standing out on the sand with a honking big lens attached to my camera a local surf school came and set up a youth class right infront of me.
To start off I tried my best to frame the kids out but as things went along they were just having too much fun and I couldn't help it, kids having a blast learning how to surf ended up what I shot for the rest of the evening. Got some shots parents likely would of been happy to of had of their kids having fun!

In the aftermath I set up a flicker album and through social media clued the surf school in but sadly never heard anything back.

Had anyone told me on the beach that day to bugger off I would of in a heartbeat!

57even · Jan 17, 2022

TMG1961 said:
It depends on were you live. I live in the most southern part of The Netherlands and have never ever got any problems when shooting photos of people.

I think some countries people are a little too protective and maybe even a bit paranoid when it comes to certain things.

I think children in the Netherlands have a decent sex education and are far more likely to report anything weird to their parents, or social services.

In the UK and the US, we are still reluctant to make such things compulsory, or even half way relevant.

Twombly · Jan 17, 2022

Snowfella said:
Regardless of right or wrong I wouldn't go up and shoot someone elses kids in anything but a scenario where it's implied that family members is likely to take photos, akin to sports matches, easterhat parades or graduations.

Bit over a year ago I had one of those "should I or shouldn't I" moments. Beach holiday and went out to shoot some adult surfers, while standing out on the sand with a honking big lens attached to my camera a local surf school came and set up a youth class right infront of me.
To start off I tried my best to frame the kids out but as things went along they were just having too much fun and I couldn't help it, kids having a blast learning how to surf ended up what I shot for the rest of the evening. Got some shots parents likely would of been happy to of had of their kids having fun!

In the aftermath I set up a flicker album and through social media clued the surf school in but sadly never heard anything back.

Had anyone told me on the beach that day to bugger off I would of in a heartbeat!

I think this case illustrates one of the reason for the change very well: 50 years ago taking pictures of those kids would have been much less of a problem. Those pictures would have stayed in one (physcial) album. Nowadayas, as a parent, you have to be afraid that a picture of your kid is making its way all over the internet.

BackToNature1 · Jan 17, 2022

Neverlost99 said:
I went to a public area today were kids were being taught how to use the flying trapeze here in Florida. I took a couple of shots of the kids hitting the net but nothing provocative and they were actually from quite a distance but I was politely asked to leave. Sort of ticked me off since it was a public area but I did it anyway. Then I decided to drive to the rookery to look at the birds and there was a chain-link fence and the road was closed. Just not a good day for photography

Any day is an good day for photography because we can always test photo an almost endless array of subject matter. Not getting what we want comes with the territory. So I find it quite alarming at the large number of folks these days that taking pictures of other folks kids without asking.

Then there is some guy posting, well back in the day. Well Back in the Day, we didn't have the internet an all the social media sites where things can go very wrong. So the Back in the DAY Guy poster an those that liked that post don't get it at all.

Photography seems to be making new lows, daily.

Phil A Martin · Jan 17, 2022

msu79gt82 said:
sybersitizen said:

Prior to the 1970s, nobody thought twice about people taking random photos of kids. Parents didn't monitor and control every moment of their kids' lives then, either. Among my friends, our parents sometimes had no idea what we were even doing all day long. It was great! So much of life is almost unrecognizable just 50 years later.

Click to expand...

I thought twice about it.

Back in my day a 36 count roll of film wasn't cheap, nor was it cheap to send it out to develop/print. I always thought about the shot, especially if I was nearing the end of a roll. It never occurred to me to photo strangers.

In your specific example how would I even know that someone was taking random photos of kids [who I assume you meant was not theirs]. In the specific example the OP raised, unless it was a formal play group [where everyone knew everyone else and all their extended family] how did they know the OP wasn't taking photos of a grandchild?

Back in the day people thought Jimmy Saville was a lovable if eccentric entertainer. Same with Gary Glitter and Rolf Harris.

LDJS Photography · Jan 17, 2022

Stadiums, train stations, shopping malls and many other properties are not actually public and arw i fact privately owned

Phil A Martin · Jan 17, 2022

Twombly said:
Snowfella said:

Regardless of right or wrong I wouldn't go up and shoot someone elses kids in anything but a scenario where it's implied that family members is likely to take photos, akin to sports matches, easterhat parades or graduations.

Bit over a year ago I had one of those "should I or shouldn't I" moments. Beach holiday and went out to shoot some adult surfers, while standing out on the sand with a honking big lens attached to my camera a local surf school came and set up a youth class right infront of me.
To start off I tried my best to frame the kids out but as things went along they were just having too much fun and I couldn't help it, kids having a blast learning how to surf ended up what I shot for the rest of the evening. Got some shots parents likely would of been happy to of had of their kids having fun!

In the aftermath I set up a flicker album and through social media clued the surf school in but sadly never heard anything back.

Had anyone told me on the beach that day to bugger off I would of in a heartbeat!

Click to expand...

I think this case illustrates one of the reason for the change very well: 50 years ago taking pictures of those kids would have been much less of a problem. Those pictures would have stayed in one (physcial) album. Nowadayas, as a parent, you have to be afraid that a picture of your kid is making its way all over the internet.

And sometimes repurposed for nefarious effect.

Search

Was asked to quit shooting

SteveinLouisville

Senior Member

JustUs7

Veteran Member

MarshallG

Forum Pro

SteveinLouisville

Senior Member

Bob

Veteran Member

57even

Guest

Teila Day

Veteran Member

57even

Guest

57even

Guest

Snowfella

Senior Member

57even

Guest

Twombly

Forum Enthusiast

BackToNature1

Senior Member

Phil A Martin

Veteran Member

LDJS Photography

Leading Member

Phil A Martin

Veteran Member

Keyboard shortcuts