Getting Hassled by The Man . . .

[PMartin]

I agree. They complain because they blow up our buildings and then complain about people trying to make us safe from it happening again.
Can't figure people out sometimes.

Hey, I live in nyc and take the subways everyday. I feel this is the frontline and I accept that risk for living here. The city now recommends we prepare 'Go Bags' in case of emergency: http://www.ci.nyc.ny.us/html/oem/html/readynewyork/prep_gobag.html

Until we get these criminals I wouldn't mind if they search everybody everywhere.

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

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

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

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

 

[Chris Charlton]

If you were arrested for being a terrorist you would have no access to a lawyer or due process, and you could be held indefinately.

Welcome to Bushes new world order, with "homeland security" which I find has distinct reselmblance to "fatherland security".....

Chris

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.

 

[Love my kids]

It is a sign of our sensationalist - news grabbing times - that things can get blown so out of proportion.

I never thought it was an exceptional freedom that I was losing when I was inconvenienced by 40 seconds by having my shoes inspected - especially after that shoe bomber tried to bring down a plane!

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

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

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

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

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


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

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Paul Grupp]

Every tragedy is "awful, BUT."

Not "awful, BUT we're insensitive louts who just don't care." Rather, "awful, BUT life must go on, and if we give up the freedoms this country was built on in a reaction to horrible events, we let the terrorists win."

This is a REAL war, with real winners and losers. There are several million people out there who want to take away not just our freedom, but the air that we breathe. These are the same people who think it's perfectly OK to beat a woman in public for displaying an ankle, or even shoot her in the back of the head in a stadium in front of thousands of cheering people.

The awful BUT doesn't diminish the horror of 9/11, but rather, indicates a determination that we will continue to make this place be the America we love, in spite of the horror that others are willing to inflict upon us. This kind of reaction is a time-honored tradition, with numerous examples in history of people who have suffered far more than we have, yet went about their daily lives with courage and determination.

Let's get real -- any terrorist worthy of the name is going to be able to inconspicuously take pictures of a target building, as they have in the past, typically using video cameras, not still. The law is over-reacting -- reducing our rights with no results.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

VES

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

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

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

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

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


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

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[wtlloyd]

If you were arrested for being a terrorist you would have no access
to a lawyer or due process, and you could be held indefinately.

Welcome to Bushes new world order, with "homeland security" which I
find has distinct reselmblance to "fatherland security".....

Yes, I find it incredible, the acceptance of "Homeland"

Fatherland - **** Germany

Motherland - Communist Russia

It's revolting and un-American

 

[Paul Grupp]

I draw a clear distinction between security activities that make sense and are actually likely to stop a terrorist act, and security activities that have very little chance of stopping anything.

Searches of people going into airports and certain events = good. Stopping somebody from taking pictures of flowers = stupid.

I applaud the "good" security activities and happily submit to them -- I think we need to actively discourage the stupid ones.

That's the trick, isn't it?

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

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

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

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

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

That alone is ridiculously absurd statement.

VES

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


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

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

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

 

[Brian Mackey]

Let the bldg mgmt know what you want to do "before" you do it, then every one can stand down on the percieved state of emergency.

Security will know what your doing and you wont get hassled, unless of course they wanna bug you with "how to" questions

regards

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.

--
'You don't take a photograph, you make it'
(ansel adams)

http://mywebpages.comcast.net/mackey135/njdigitalservices.htm

 

[Ed Halley]

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

Conversely, if the security guard can't show the specific prohibition in the lease, on something you or your employer signed, then ask them to kindly back off and allow you and your employer the correct and proper "quiet enjoyment" (the legal term) of the leased property.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

 

[digicaman2]

Commercial (and residential leases) allow you to use the site FOR A SPECIFIC PURPOSE. "Quiet enjoyment" is not a concept that applies to commercial leases. Most leases specifically limit you to certainc activities, they do not attempt to exclude all "prohibited" activities since the list of prohibited activities could be considered infinite.

The employer has, most likely, leased the office space for use as, ahh, an office and can conduct all the generally accepted activities that conform with this use. Unfortunately for all of us, photographing the landscaping is most likely not a conformning use of a commercial office space lease.

It is unfortunate that the security guard did not cut this poster some slack but, it is the unfortunate truth that the landowner can make the rules. Sorry. But, while I think that it is stupid, the landowner is likely in the right here.

Dave

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

Conversely, if the security guard can't show the specific
prohibition in the lease, on something you or your employer signed,
then ask them to kindly back off and allow you and your employer
the correct and proper "quiet enjoyment" (the legal term) of the
leased property.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

Yes, I find it incredible, the acceptance of "Homeland"

Fatherland - **** Germany

Motherland - Communist Russia

It's revolting and un-American

I don't find it either frightening or revolting or un-American.. A lot has changed since our constitution was written.

Today it is possible for nuclear weapons to be carried in backpacks.

Today terrorist can communicate freely via the Internet anywhere, at anytime. Using encryption or in the open.

Today technology allows us to kill one another remotely and in greater numbers than ever before.

Today we have nut cases like Timothy McVeigh who load trucks with explosives and blow up federal buildings killing innocent people to make a polictical statement about "freedoms that are being violated".. Timothy James McVeigh was convinced he acted to defend the Constitution, for he saw himself as crusader, warrior avenger – and hero. Read more here.. http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial9/mcveigh/

Today we have religious fanatics who kill themselves and as many others as possible who they feel have in some way repressed them or defiled their religion. They don't care whether you are a noncombatant or not. Adult or child, everyone is fair game as long as you are on the "other side".

Today we have deadly biological weapons that can be disperesed via any International airport to any city in the world using a passenger as the vector.

And yet you wonder about the need for security for the U.S. because you may have to give up some small liberty in order to keep from having your life cut short by some nut case making a statement in the name of his religion or political beliefs?

I'd say it's time for a reality check.. it's a very different world today than it was when the constitution was written. Those that wrote it never invisioned the terrifying and deadly weapons and circumstances we face today at home and abroad.

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com

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

 

[Love my kids]

I am always amused that people feel they are losing even "some small liberty" - what exactly are they losing and is it a liberty or an entitlement they feel they should have?

I was also amused that Liberty, freedom, fighting corporate greed was what Napster was all about.

Yes, I find it incredible, the acceptance of "Homeland"

Fatherland - **** Germany

Motherland - Communist Russia

It's revolting and un-American

I don't find it either frightening or revolting or un-American.. A
lot has changed since our constitution was written.

Today it is possible for nuclear weapons to be carried in backpacks.

Today terrorist can communicate freely via the Internet anywhere,
at anytime. Using encryption or in the open.

Today technology allows us to kill one another remotely and in
greater numbers than ever before.

Today we have nut cases like Timothy McVeigh who load trucks with
explosives and blow up federal buildings killing innocent people to
make a polictical statement about "freedoms that are being
violated".. Timothy James McVeigh was convinced he acted to defend
the Constitution, for he saw himself as crusader, warrior avenger –
and hero. Read more here..
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial9/mcveigh/

Today we have religious fanatics who kill themselves and as many
others as possible who they feel have in some way repressed them or
defiled their religion. They don't care whether you are a
noncombatant or not. Adult or child, everyone is fair game as long
as you are on the "other side".

Today we have deadly biological weapons that can be disperesed via
any International airport to any city in the world using a
passenger as the vector.

And yet you wonder about the need for security for the U.S. because
you may have to give up some small liberty in order to keep from
having your life cut short by some nut case making a statement in
the name of his religion or political beliefs?

I'd say it's time for a reality check.. it's a very different world
today than it was when the constitution was written. Those that
wrote it never invisioned the terrifying and deadly weapons and
circumstances we face today at home and abroad.

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

 

[T. Charlton]

http://www.english.upenn.edu/~afilreis/50s/state-agenda.html
http://www-tech.mit.edu/V123/N24/long5_24.24w.html

It's either your with us or one of them attitude. It's no wonder why many countries see us as a frightened nation. We are becoming a nation of frightened whimpering little people. I hope and trust we have strong leaders that will not allow this to continue, but it must start with the people like you and I.

T. Charlton

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.

--
T. Charlton

 

[wtlloyd]

And yet you wonder about the need for security for the U.S. because
you may have to give up some small liberty in order to keep from
having your life cut short by some nut case making a statement in
the name of his religion or political beliefs?

I'd say it's time for a reality check.. it's a very different world
today than it was when the constitution was written. Those that
wrote it never invisioned the terrifying and deadly weapons and
circumstances we face today at home and abroad.

Ahhh...funny thing is that my comment was only regarding the use of the word "Homeland". I don't argue the points about security you've made.

Those that wrote the Constitution were able to experience their own version of terrifying and deadly weapons - remember, the U.S. didn't even have a Navy or standing Army, so let's not try to compare the horror of British-German mercenaries pursuing a scorched earth policy on the Eastern Seaboard to our times today - their fears were very real, they were not isolated from the war they were involved in, they lived it without benefit of medical technology or the distancing of modern media. And the population target centers were much fewer in number back then...

This isn't the place for a political discussion, I appolgise for starting something that is irrelevant to the forum. But I do think a healthy, balanced America is only to be had when each of us examines the issues, hopefully in some depth, and does not shrug off civic responsibility with a "Oh, I voted for this guy, so whatever he says is OK by me."

 

[wtlloyd]

I am always amused that people feel they are losing even "some
small liberty" - what exactly are they losing and is it a liberty
or an entitlement they feel they should have?

Uhh..maybe this is kinda more to the point?

If you were arrested for being a terrorist you would have no access to a > lawyer or due process, and you could be held indefinately.

(Sorry, didn't copy the poster's name for that quote, just see above somewhere)

 

[Vern Stevens]

Ahh, okay. Gestapo state? Naw, I don't think so.

VES

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

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

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

--

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

 

[joe mama]

I am always amused that people feel they are losing even "some
small liberty" - what exactly are they losing and is it a liberty
or an entitlement they feel they should have?

What we are losing is some of our freedom.

Yes, I find it incredible, the acceptance of "Homeland"

Fatherland - **** Germany

Motherland - Communist Russia

It's revolting and un-American

I agree that it's revolting, but not that it's un-American. Slavery was "un-American" but accepted by most at the time, "McCarthyism" was "un-American" but accepted once again, not letting gays and lesbians get married is (IMO) "un-American" but is the mainstream view at this time (although it may change soon).

I don't find it either frightening or revolting or un-American.. A
lot has changed since our constitution was written.

Possibly because the freedoms which are infringed do not affect you. Things become "frightening" only when you are now a member of the oppressed.

The "homeland" security act is just "another brick in the wall" and stands out only because of it's name. The number of freedoms lost because of the "drug war" are probably even greater. But then, they've never affected me, so I turn a blind eye, as do most.

Today it is possible for nuclear weapons to be carried in backpacks.

Sure. But it's been possible to poison water supplies for a long time and no one worried. Oh wait! American businesses have been doing that for a long time, so no worries! : )

Today terrorist can communicate freely via the Internet anywhere,
at anytime. Using encryption or in the open.

Well, the phone's been around for a while too, you know!

Today technology allows us to kill one another remotely and in
greater numbers than ever before.

McVeigh's attack was low-tech as was the 9-11 attack. I don't see the technology as the culprit.

Today we have nut cases like Timothy McVeigh who load trucks with
explosives and blow up federal buildings killing innocent people to
make a polictical statement about "freedoms that are being
violated".. Timothy James McVeigh was convinced he acted to defend
the Constitution, for he saw himself as crusader, warrior avenger –
and hero. Read more here..
http://www.crimelibrary.com/serial9/mcveigh/

Not much different from how the US sees itself in the fight against communism, Saddam Hussein, or many other theaters. The difference, of course, is that you [seem to] side with the US, and the US has always won, making you the victor. But, it doesn't take a lot of effort to see that the attitudes of both sides are very similar.

Today we have religious fanatics who kill themselves and as many
others as possible who they feel have in some way repressed them or
defiled their religion. They don't care whether you are a
noncombatant or not. Adult or child, everyone is fair game as long
as you are on the "other side".

The American Revolutionaries were also terrorists (Boston Tea Party, use of Indian tactics, snipers, etc). What made us "right" is that we won.

Today we have deadly biological weapons that can be disperesed via
any International airport to any city in the world using a
passenger as the vector.

Sure. I loved "12 Monkeys"!

And yet you wonder about the need for security for the U.S. because
you may have to give up some small liberty in order to keep from
having your life cut short by some nut case making a statement in
the name of his religion or political beliefs?

The point is that while yes, it is a "small liberty", these "small liberties" add up. Your argument is that this is necessary to preserve the other liberties we enjoy. Perhaps it is true. However, others feel that since the US created monsters such as Bin Laden and Hussein to fight its enemies, that perhaps it is the policies of the US that should be changed rather than giving up "small liberties" one at a time.

Ever see "The 5th Element"? I loved that movie. Anyway, even though it was just entertainment, I think it had a fairly accurate vision of the future (in terms of how the police and government work) despite the comical nature.

I'd say it's time for a reality check.. it's a very different world
today than it was when the constitution was written. Those that
wrote it never invisioned the terrifying and deadly weapons and
circumstances we face today at home and abroad.

Not really a good statement. We always live in a different world that the Constitution was written in. It is true today as it was 100 years ago. Even more true, is that we are a lot better off, freedom-wise, that we were a hundred years ago. It's just regrettable to see us slide backwards a little here and there.

Anyway, no worries -- I don't make enough money to matter one way or another!

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

Now here we agree completely! But, the gear does help a lot, you know!

--joe

Visit my rock store at http://www.saimport.com !

: )

 

[Vern Stevens]

Nicely and elegantly said up until...

Let's get real -- any terrorist worthy of the name is going to be
able to inconspicuously take pictures of a target building, as they
have in the past, typically using video cameras, not still. The law
is over-reacting -- reducing our rights with no results.

Regards,
Paul
http://www.pbase.com/pgrupp

You see, I never leave REAL in a discussion. People frequently use that phrase, let's get real, as though it adds some validity to their argument, which it does not inherently do.

My experience is, law enforcement is fine until it affects you. I get it all the time. "Why aren't you somewhere else arresting drug dealers instead of writing me a ticket?" , "I'm a hard working, tax paying citizen, I'm not a criminal" (they say after just having committed a crime) It's always about why are you messing with me instead of the other guy. When law enforcement affects you, suddenly it's a police state or cops are all a bunch of jack-boot thugs. That's REAL.

We are in a state of adjusting to a changed global situation. Change and adjustment is uncomfortable, and frequently swings like a pendulum back and forth, sometimes too rigid, sometimes too relaxed. Though some of you don't like these changes, there are just as many folks who do. As they say, you can't please all the people all the time.

It's nice that your perception that the new security measures have yielded no results, but in reality, I don't think you can support that notion. You don't know what it has or hasn't stopped outside of the microcosm of where you live. That's REAL.

Lastly, so many folks ALWAYS talks about their rights, but they hardly ever go on and on about their responsibilities. They go hand in hand.

VES

 

[scrane]

While traveling through the old Soviet Union in '75 I had the same problem. Situations like this are perfectly natural in an emerging police state. Its just something we have to get used to.
Sandy.

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]

To add to this, property rights represent one of the most fundamental freedoms we have. Of course, as you suggest, people want a long list of things in black and white to delineate what they can and can't do on someone else's private property with the assumption being, if they don't say I can't do it, then I can do it. It's someone else's property, the assumption should be the other way around. What should be assumed, is not what rights you have on someone else's property, but what permissions you should secure first.

Since the crux of this debate revolves around perceptions, I'm respectfully bowing out. Some feel the government is overracting, while I feel some of the folks on here are overreacting. I have attempted to state my position as best I can, and I don't feel I can further add to that.

I'm going to try to get back to the 10D forum concept, and though it probably doesn't need to be said, I have no animosity to anyone on here whose opinion I disagree with. Who knows, we may agree on something else in the next set of posts.

Thanks for considering my thoughts...

VES

The employer has, most likely, leased the office space for use as,
ahh, an office and can conduct all the generally accepted
activities that conform with this use. Unfortunately for all of
us, photographing the landscaping is most likely not a conformning
use of a commercial office space lease.

It is unfortunate that the security guard did not cut this poster
some slack but, it is the unfortunate truth that the landowner can
make the rules. Sorry. But, while I think that it is stupid, the
landowner is likely in the right here.

Dave

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

Conversely, if the security guard can't show the specific
prohibition in the lease, on something you or your employer signed,
then ask them to kindly back off and allow you and your employer
the correct and proper "quiet enjoyment" (the legal term) of the
leased property.

--
[ e d @ h a l l e y . c c ]

--

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

 

[rgojr]

a security guard asked you 1 question and you consider that getting hassled?

I get hassled 100 times a day then