Getting Hassled by The Man . . .

[Alexey]

Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film,
took the film,

They are never ever ever ever allowed to take your film, NEVER. Not
in the USA anyways, dont know about other countries. I am in
college right now as a photography student and I had a class on
laws and stuff and how it affects photography. The law is they are
never under any circumstances whatsoever allowed to take your
camera or film no matter what youre taking pictures of unless they
have a warrant or a court order. So dont let them take it, if they
want to arrest you, let them, call your attorney and you will be
free in a few hours and then you can sue them for unnecessary
arrest.

Justin, I hope you didn't take that advice seriously. The previous poster is right -- your professor sounds like more of an idealistic photographer than a lawyer. And you would always want to consult a real lawyer before you find yourself locked up, and a Big Joe's girlfriend. Did he say he was a lawyer? I am just curious.

 

[Jim Radcliffe]

I just got back from shooting a six hour concert/event and I'm
whipped, have over 400 pictures to go through, I'm half deaf
because I left my earplugs at home,

You need to get several pairs, and carry them all, so you'll always
have at least one. You're gonna go deaf!

I know.. stupidity.... I wanted to take both the 24-70 and 70-200 to this event.. problem was I have no bag that will hold both... So I had to use the case that came with the 70-200 and attach it to the shoulder strap on my Lowepro TLZ AW. I was sitting on the edge of the mixing board platform changing lenses and this drunk trys to pull himself up on the platform to take a seat like I was doing.. in the process his foot just barely nudges the 70-200 which was waiting to be mounted on the 10D. Luckily, one of my police buddies, saw what was happening and hauled the guy off. I guess he didn't realize you need a media pass to be on that stage and on top of that he got a little difficult with the cop... he ended up being ejected from the concert.

I bought the 70-200 on Thursday... Since you wouldn't let me try yours at the Hank Jr concert I had no choice... plus I was tired of not having a white lens.. :^)... Love it.. it is very sharp and the IS is an absolute must have for concerts.

Here's a link to a shot I did with the 24-70.. you'll appreciate this situation.
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1019&message=6035042

Jim Radcliffe
http://www.image36.com

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

 

[Lisa O]

Well Vern, now I understand your point of view since your a cop.

But since I am just a citizen, your cop views fails to see my points as a citizen.

I am not exageratiing, I don't want my freedoms taken away as they have been in the last two years.

I don't want to go to Iraq and take pictures there. I was using that line as a way to get my point across that WE AMERICANS are losing our freedom in the name of security and protecting ourselves from another terrorist attack.

While the NTSB is making everyone take off their shoes at the airport, next time it will be a hat bomber or a something totally different. We are spending too much time reacting instead of thinking it all out clearly.

Now I'm going to look at my photos innocent I took this weekend....

I was just to be able to take pictures without disturbing anyone as it was before 9/11

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VES

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


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

http://www.pbase.com/vsteven

 

[Job Genders]

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.

--
S10 -> F707 -> 10D -> ?

 

[Gener]

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.

True...although if it is a famous private home, I guess the owner can file a civil suit.

Ken Adelman's California Coastal Project, a series of aerial photos taken of the California Coastline just caught a lawsuit from Barbara Streisand because her home is on one of the pictures. http://www.californiacoastline.org

Look at the lawsuit link, and also check out "rants" on that same page.

Of course his picts are fantastic

Gene--

 

[Justin115256]

perhaps i did not make myself clear enough, sorry...but you both are right, he did say that if you have done anything illegal such as the examples given such as a peeping tom or child porn then yes....thats illegal and your camera or film will probably be the last thing you will be worrying about. this is always the way i have understood it as well, but taking pictures of buildings, bridges, ect. is NOT illegal as long as you're on public property...and they cannot come out and say, "give me your film youre not allowed to take pictures of that". my teacher is a photojournalist for the tribune review in pittsburgh, not a lawyer. I was just talking about normal circumstances in my original post, where you're on the street taking a picture of a building and some high school drop out security guard asks you to give him your film.....he's just not allowed to do that.

Anyway, the security made her finish up her whole roll of film,
took the film,

They are never ever ever ever allowed to take your film, NEVER. Not
in the USA anyways, dont know about other countries. I am in
college right now as a photography student and I had a class on
laws and stuff and how it affects photography. The law is they are
never under any circumstances whatsoever allowed to take your
camera or film no matter what youre taking pictures of unless they
have a warrant or a court order. So dont let them take it, if they
want to arrest you, let them, call your attorney and you will be
free in a few hours and then you can sue them for unnecessary
arrest.

Justin, I hope you didn't take that advice seriously. The previous
poster is right -- your professor sounds like more of an idealistic
photographer than a lawyer. And you would always want to consult a
real lawyer before you find yourself locked up, and a Big Joe's
girlfriend. Did he say he was a lawyer? I am just curious.

 

[Alexey]

Justin Herrold wrote:
my teacher is a

photojournalist for the tribune review in pittsburgh, not a lawyer.

I guess that his view is shaped by his affiliation with a major newspaper. I bet they have a whole legal department with kick-grass connections there to protect their journalists. It may tougher to argue one's rights for a hobbyist or a free-lancer IMHO.

I have to say, that I am surprised that someone without a legal education teaches a class like that in college.