View allAll Photos Tagged PhotographyIsNotACrime
I was sorry to see this, since I thought I was an outlaw. Guess I'll try skateboarding.....
Portland, Oregon. Down by the tracks. Autumn 2021.
Kodak Portra 400, Minolta SRT102. Processed and printed by Blue Moon Camera.
Cardinal on a branch February 29,2008 Leap Year I hope I don't have to waite 4 more years to see him again!
So one of the things in this bad economy that my wife and I try to do is to try and find lots of free things that we can do with our four children. While we have and have had family memberships at many museums and public estates (including Filoli Gardens in Woodside) over the years, we also try to take advantage of free days as well that many museums also make available. So we were pleased when we got an email this morning from Jackie@dunsmuir.org from the Historic Dunsmuir-Hellman Estate in Oakland reminding us that today was free admission Family First Sundays. You can see the email below which clearly indicates that admission today is free. They mention a tour of the estate as well (that we were not interested in) but it clearly states free admission. So after making the trek out to the estate we were disappointed when we were told at the gate that we would need to pay $18 if we wanted to get in.
Now I know what you're thinking, so what, it's only $18. But that's not the point. Money's tight right now for everyone and we'd just spent a bunch of gas money driving down there only to be told that we'd either have to pay an admission fee or be turned away. I told the woman at the gate that in their email it said that the first Sunday of the month was free but she wouldn't have it, insisting that we pay the $18. So reluctantly I shelled out the $18 and we headed into the estate. At least I'll be able to get some good photos out of it I thought. But then again, imagine my disappointment when we'd arrived at the estate and I saw a big "No Photography" sign in front of the estate.
Now, before heading out to see the estate I did a thorough review of their website and saw no photography prohibition anywhere on the site. What's more, I was not told about the "no photography" policy at the front gate before they took my money when I had a extra large Canon 5D Mark II hanging around my neck. No, it wasn't until they already had your money that they decided to inform you about this policy.
When I asked the docent Marla, why the no photo policy, she replied to me "oh, well it's a museum." When I told Marla that actually most museums allow photography she replied back to me, well, if we allowed photography it would slow the tour down. Now personally I think that's one of the lamest reasons I've ever heard for banning photography. I've had the opportunity to tour many different historic estates -- Hearst Castle, the Filoli Estate in Woodside, the Pittock Mansion in Portland -- and all of them have always allowed personal photography. So I was double bummed after being promised a free Sunday for my family to find that now my joy and past time of photography was also being denied.
Overall my experience touring the Dunsmuir-Hellman Estate was a terrible one. I would not recommend a visit. Especially if you are a photographer you'll be annoyed by their photography prohibition for no reasonable reason whatsoever.
You know what else bums me out? After I got home and pulled up their website to see if they had more on their admission policy there, it says that children 11 and under are free and adults are $5. So not only did they charge me when they shouldn't have. They even overchaged me the standard admission by charging a fee for my four children who I clearly told the person at the gate were 4, 6, 7 and 8. All four under 11. Now I know times are tough for non-profits, and for all I know maybe the ticket charger woman was simply scamming us and pocketing the money herself, but baiting and switching people promising them a free family day and then charging them $18 when they arrive is not right.
I've sent an email on this matter to their Executive Director Jim DeMersman and hopefully will be able to obtain a refund and also get them to reconsider their ban on photography.
If you'd like to see photos of mine from two estates with more reasonable photography policies, you can find my photos from the Filoli Estate here and from the Pittock Mansion here.
Darlington County Sheriff's Deputy who pulled me over after I was called in for the crime of train photography. The deputy ran my license then let me go. This was the second day in a row I had been pulled over for taking train photographs and both times, the railroad called me in.
Earlier in the week I got a phone call from my lawyer saying that my case against the police who assaulted me in 2007 had been thrown out of court due to lack of evidence. Yesterday I received the public prosecutor's (district attorney) decision, all 12 handwritten pages (the typewriter in one form or another has been round longer than the modern Greek state yet these guys still write everything by hand.).
It makes for fascinating reading as do all works of fiction. A mixture of half truths, spin and outright lies which makes a mockery of my attempts to get justice for an unprovoked attack during a peaceful demonstration which ended up with me in hospital with two hefty guys trying to shove my shoulder back into its socket (don't try that at home, kids).
I won't bore you with all the details, just some of the more ridiculous claims the DA made in their statement:
- Apparently I was trying to escape after being told repeatedly to stop and answer their questions (no one said anything prior to the attack). Strangely, while supposedly running away I managed to get several pictures on the officers who attacked me.
- My alleged injuries which were documented by a iatrodikastis (a doctor who specialises in police cases) were caused by me falling down and tripping over a police officer who was chasing me. Not a fully equipped riot cop who used his shield to slam me into a lamp post.
- I provided no proof that I had suffered anything more than a few scratches and bruises since I had not had any x-rays taken. Conveniently ignoring those I had from the Agios Pavlos hospital and testimony from the doctor on duty that night.
Reading the rest of the DA's report I seem to be a strange cross between Spiderman, "he (the plantiff) made quick suspicious moves, darting from one side of the street to another" and Che Guevara, "individuals from the anti-authoritarian groups counter attacked in order to free their comrade". Not that any of this is true but is does make for a fascinating insight into their mindset.
Nowhere in the 12 page scrawl is their any mention of the fact that several eyewitnesses testified on my behalf or the fact that I had photographs of the events leading up to the incident. However, it did give an excruciatingly detailed account of the police's side of the events.
Oh, I almost forgot I now have to pay the courts 40 euros in court fees for this piece of badly written fiction. Click for the story in the Guardian
Copyright © 2005 Tatiana Cardeal. All rights reserved.
Reprodução proibida. © Todos os direitos reservados.
for Anna.
And thanks to chomp(Diego) for remember me that :)
Blogged by iDan Simpson
A Reuters photographer being harassed by the NYPD. She grew tired of being pushed around by the cops (they establish "free speach zones" and seem to have fun ushering everyone around all over) and said something about it.
That's when the NYPD took her press credentials, camera and arrested her.
I was arrested yesterday by the Delaware River Port Authority Police for trespassing when I decided to climb out onto one of the bridge's catwalks to take this photograph. I was hand-cuffed, but eventually sent home and not to jail, partly due to being cooperative, but I have a court date in Camden later this month to look forward to. I hope you guys enjoy this shot! DEDICATED TO MY VERY SUPPORTIVE FRIEND, XOZ. Benjamin Franklin Bridge. Philly
© 2008 All rights reserved
Canary Wharf, London. March 2008.
Nice Jamaican lady security guard: "You can't take photographs of any of these buildings."
Me: "Not even if it's from a really abstract angle, like this?"
Nice Jamaican lady security guard: "I'm going to walk away very quickly so I can say I didn't see you."
[ Here's what it looked like a year later ].
Click here to see where this photo was taken. By courtesy of BeeLoop SL (the Mapware & Mobility Solutions Company).
This photo, which I snapped at Beijing's "Gate of Heavenly Peace" just as a soldier tried to stop me, clearly represents how the Chinese government is grasping to maintain its stranglehold on the Chinese people in this increasingly democratic and communal world.
For example, at the time when I took this photo, the "Great Firewall" was blocking people in China from viewing Flickr images, presumably because of user-uploaded images of the 1989 T-square incident. These blocks have extended and expanded ever since, limiting access to information while exposing the difficulty of maintaining absolute control.
You are not allowed to see this picture. AVERT YOUR EYES!
This is quaint little storefront in Old Town Pasadena. I have purchased things here. I have photographed here in front of the owner, while having a nice chat with him.
The full size:
flickr.com/photos/muzzlehatch/2319784063/sizes/o/
Have a good look around. The picture was taken from the public street. The window is in full view of the public passersby. All of them are carrying cameras, at least in their phones, and each and every one of them has a right to stop and snap a picture whenever they please. Sorry, fascists, you can't stop us. But, the important question is, why would you want to?
The rest of the story is here:
flickr.com/photos/muzzlehatch/2320597432/in/photostream/
By the way, if you find yourself visiting Old Town Pasadena, check out the Gold Bug. It's a fascinating little store, and though a little pricey, is full of one-of-kind objets d'art. Definitley worth checking out. I go there for all my Amazonian beetle displays. And the store owner has nothing to do with any of this. He's a nice guy.
Me and Digitalman1 got shouted at by a security guard for taking this shot, apparently we could have been terrorists!
Self portrait, tripod- self timer jobby.
OK, just a HUGE message of thanks to everyone who has commented on and favourited this photo. I have seriously NEVER had a responce like this to a photo before EVER. At the time of writing this message, I've had 91 favourites, 44 comments and 1400+ views! I really really appreciate this everyone, eispecially those of you who have also commented on other photos of mine after seeing this one!
So I know that I write a lot about being harassed for my photography on the streets of San Francisco and for some this story may be getting old. I shoot every day though and at least once or twice a month have a run in with a security guard or authority figure of some sort somewhere. Typically I can resolve these episodes on my own amicably with the individual involved, but sometimes things go over the line. In the past year I've blogged about three of these incidents that crossed the line. One was when a security guard at One Bush was following me around the sidewalk trying to put his hand in front of my camera and not allowing me to shoot the building. Another was when the Sheriff's Department detained me and ran what I consider an illegal background check on me merely for shooting near the train tracks in Oakland. Another was when a particular nasty altercation took place between me and a security guard who came out of 45 Fremont middle finger a'blazin' to insist that I not shoot that building.
But today's episode was the worst I've encountered so far. Ironically enough, it occurred once again outside of 45 Fremont Street. This was even after I spoke with a PR person from the Shorenstein owned property who apologized to me for my treatment and assured me that I would find a more tolerant atmosphere at that property in the future.
Today, aqui-ali (another local Flickr photographer), helveticaneue (in from out of town) and I went out to do a bit of shooting. Since Aqui had a meeting down on 2nd Street later this afternoon we decided to head that way and shoot the Transbay Terminal. 45 Fremont was in our path and we were shooting some photos of it as we were walking by. It was then that the security guard there told us that we could not shoot the building. When I explained that we were in a public area and had a right to shoot the building he insisted and called another security guard over on his radio who also tried to get us to stop taking pictures of the building. I still refused as it is my right to shoot buildings in San Francisco from a public area.
It was at this point that things went from bad to worse. At this point an individual came over who identified himself as a police officer and told us to get out of the plaza, off the sidewalk and to physically stand on the asphalt in the street where the cars were driving by. When I tried to object this individual (who was significantly larger than me) assaulted me and forcibly grabbed my arm quite hard and pulled me towards the street. When I freed myself from his grip I told him that I was going to take his photograph. He told me that I could not take his photograph and that if I did that I could "watch what would happen to my camera."
I took his photograph anyways and that is him up there at the top of the story. Once he had us physically on the asphalt in the traffic off the sidewalk I once again asked him for his identification and asked to see his badge. He refused to provide me his identification and refused to show me his badge. It is my understanding that when someone identifies themselves as a police officer that I have a right to see their identification proving this fact. This prevents anyone from falsely impersonating police officers and abusing a false authority. I asked him at least five times to see his badge and he refused. He continued to confer with the security guards at the building though.
click here to continue reading.
This picture is illegal.
Just after shooting this, I was stopped by a plainclothes agent of the Brighton railway police. Taking pictures in public places like stations in Britain is no more allowed, unless you obtain some special authorization. Security reasons they say. So watch this at your own risk.
I told my wife at about 2pm in the afternoon that we’re going to have a great sunset tonight based on the clouds. At 5pm I got my gear and just started driving, in hunt for something interesting to accompany the sunset.
I have a problem with authority. Well, it’s not all authority, it’s the authority of those who 1. have little but think they have a lot, and 2. have it and abuse it. Obtaining this photo I ran into someone with #3. someone who didn’t appear to have any authority, but layed it on pretty thick.
Just down the road is Pt. Mugu Naval Air Weapons Station. A Navy base. Via public road, they have this display of retired Naval military air power, F-14 Tomcat, F-4, some missles, etc. (photo courtesy of driko. So you can just drive up here from the highway, park in the parking spaces provided and look at these jets and weapons.
You better not try to photograph them..
Literally within SECONDS of me pulling out my tripod, a dark brown piece-of-crap car, all beat up and making faulty noises pulls up diagonal right next to me. I think nothing of it as the mid-20s Hispanic man wearing a white undershirt and some baggy jeans gets out. I’m still getting my camera ready on my tripod.
Whats you doin bro??
Just shooting these jets at sunset.
Can’t do that
Why not, I accessed this point via public property and those guys over there were just photographing them too. There’s no signs anywhere that says you can’t take pictures
You’re on govt. property can’t shoot the flight line
And just who the hell are you? (now I’m getting pissed – random dude telling me I can’t take pictures)
I work on base and you’re on govt. property and you’re not allowed to shoot them
Do you have any military ID on you or a badge or something?
I don’t have to show you any ID
Then you’re not going to stop me taking pictures. I have about 10 minutes of sunset left.
So, I walk around him and start clicking off exposures. He jumps on his cell phone and starts talking:
White male, beanie cap, mid 20s (which I should have thanked him for), driving a silver Honda accord, California plate “XTRAMED” (I wish), being very hostile, etc
So he’s calling someone on me. That’s fine. I’m not going to lose this sunset. There really wasn’t much else to shoot here, so I start putting my gear back in my trunk.
Where you going bro? How come you getting out of here so fast?
I only have about 10 more minutes of this good light left and then the sunset is over. I’m hoping to find a barn or abandoned tractor or something around here.
Well I just called the MPs (military police) and they’re going to be here in a couple minutes
That’s fine, I’ll be shooting something else by then.
At this point, he’s standing directly behind my car as I start it. I notice he’s not moving, so I get out, this time, a bit more pissed.
You going to run me over bro?
If you don’t move, I’ll move you. (now feeling what it’s like to have both German & Irish blood in me)
I don’t have to move, I can stand wherever I want bro, it’s a free country
I also have a problem with anger management
This is where I was just about to formulate my next statement which would in an ideal world would have been something thought-out, creative and recited with a 1960s Clint Eastwood voice, “You’re about to see what my knuckles taste like, punk!”, but I wasn’t given the chance as the base Military Police showed up.
So the police shows up and he narks on me that I was being uncooperative and still took the photos, etc. And I told him yes, I entered this spot via public road and took these photos that several people have photographed over the years. The officer describes to me that technically I’m on govt property and photographing these planes in this direction is also photographing the base’s air strip (flight line) and the base commanding officer does not allow it. I told him that there were no signs that said this and unless otherwise stated, I can take photos anywhere I want via public property (which was about 10ft behind me). He understood and was calm about it. I even showed him my photos and he said I could keep them since I wasn’t using a 400mm lens to try and photograph some top secret stuff. But that other dude got away without me getting his information.
I’m generally a nice guy. I’m 99% happy most of the time. But don’t piss me off, cause I will go Chuck Norris on you.
I just got back from shooting for a week in Los Angeles and have to say that the highlight of my trip was shooting industrial stuff down in Long Beach Harbor with Photographer David Sommars. David is an amazing photographer who regularly shoots industrial stuff around L.A. and he shared with me some of the most fantastic vantage points to shoot this sort of photography in Long Beach.
Unfortunately our photowalk around the Port of Long Beach was not without incident. Three times we were blinted while photographing. I've been stopped plenty of times while legally shooting in the past. Most of the times I've been able to be respectful but insistent on my legal rights to shoot wherever I'm shooting. Every so often though an incident turns into a more serious altercation.
The first two times Sommars and I were stopped we were stopped by private security agents working for Securitas on behalf of BP's Carson Refinery. They asked us not to shoot the refinery and suggested that it was a "double standard" that we'd insist on our constitutional rights to shoot in public while not honoring BP's request that we not shoot their facility from a public sidewalk. I couldn't quite get my arms around the "double standard" argument coming from BP. Ironically one of the shots that I took of their refinery was probably the largest United States flag I've ever shot. Let's hear it for Patriotism.
The hassle from BP's agents though didn't really bother me all that much. We were insistent on our rights to shoot the facility and they seemed to understand that in the end there was nothing that they could do about it. Their security guard snapped photos of both of us with his camera phone (and I returned the favor of course) and then they followed us when we left in my car in order to get my license plate, but they seemed to pretty clearly understand that while they were free to ask us not to shoot the plant, it was clearly within our rights to do so.
The more disturbing incident came later when we were atop a bridge, again on a public sidewalk, shooting another plant and long exposure bridge shots. Here we were stopped by real cops this time, rather than security guards. The cops in question were from the Long Beach Harbor Patrol. Their officer explained to us that it was his job to monitor the side of the bridge that we were on while L.A.P.D. had jurisdiction over the other side of the bridge.
Basically the conversation went something like this.
Long Beach Harbor Patrol Officer: "I'm going to have to ask you guys to leave."
Us: "But, why, were simply taking art photographs."
Long Beach Harbor Patrol Officer: "You're not allowed to photograph these plants."
Us: "But we're on a public sidewalk. What law doesn't allow us to photograph here?"
Long Beach Harbor Patrol Officer: "You'll need to come back tomorrow and get a permit if you want to shoot in the Harbor."
Me: "I'm only down in Long Beach for tonight and won't be able to do that."
2nd Long Beach Harbor Patrol Officer (shrugging her shoulders): Oh, well, you're just going to have to leave. Photography is not allowed here without a permit."
During this altercation both David and I were asked to present identification to the police. They used our IDs to run background checks on both of us.
Now personally I have no problem with the cops stopping to talk to us and check out what we were doing. I also had no problem with Securitas photographing me earlier or following me to get my license plate number. But I think that it went too far when the Long Beach Harbor Patrol ran background checks on us and I think it also went too far when they required us to leave our shoot location. As far as I'm aware there is no law which requires permits in order to shoot the Long Beach Harbor from a public sidewalk. And to kick us off of the bridge that we were legally on was not justified and violated our constitutional rights.
We repeatedly tried to argue for our right to shoot at this location for about a half an hour. The entire time the cops were insistent that we were not allowed to shoot there without a permit. David showed the cops in question photos of his on his iPhone in order to share the type of photography that we were after, but none of this seemed to matter. We were on their turf and they weren't going to stand for that. He just kept repeatedly bringing up 911 over and over telling us that we were going to need to leave.
What bothers me even more is that this is not the first time that David (who shoots in Long Beach Harbor more regularly than I do) has been harassed by the cops there. David has had lots of previous run ins there. David told me that he's been stopped about 10 times in the last six months while shooting in Long Beach Harbor. About half of those stops involved actual police in addition to security guards. On one occasion the cops actually handcuffed him and in another incident 4 police cars and a black SUV converged on him. He's also had FBI agents call on him over his photography. Personally I think it's wrong to handcuff peaceful photographers for the "crime" of photography while questioning and detaining.
I've contacted the media relations department at Long Beach Harbor regarding this incident but have yet to hear back from them. I'll post more from them once/if I do hear back.
What I am tired of though is the harassment that photographers face on a regular basis while out documenting our world. Photography is not a crime. 911 didn't suddenly magically turn photographers into criminals. And as long as photography is not a crime, I think that cops, security guards and other authority figures should be required to live within the legal system as it now stands. Maybe some day they will pass a law that shooting Long Beach Harbor is in fact a crime. Or maybe they'll actually pass a law that permits *are* actually required to shoot there. But until that day happens (and I'd be one vocally opposing any such rule like that) this sort of harassment ought not take place. And it's unfortunate when it does.
Update: Art Wong from the Port of Long Beach's Media Relations Department has contacted me and told me that he's asking their officers for information on this incident. I will post any update from the Port of Long Beach as it becomes available.
Update 2: On Digg here: digg.com/travel_places/Thomas_Hawk_s_Digital_Connection_L...
Update 3: The Port of Long Beach's Assistant Director of Communications Art Wong, responds to this incident here.
Officer: What you are taking pics of?
Me: The city and the helix.
Officer: You know its suspicious behavior to take pictures of this structure.
Me: Im within my rights.
Officer: Avoid this area and the area surrounding the Lincoln Tunnel helix.
Me: Photography of public structures such as bridges are allowed to be photographed as long as Im not blocking traffic, police activity or trespassing on private property. Goodnight.
The times we live in....With all due respect to the law, Im not trying to argue or even explain myself to authority but I feel we have lost some of our rights to Photograph the world. Id like to enjoy my passion for photography without feeling like Im involved in a criminal act.
Midtown Manhattan over looking the Lincoln Tunnel helix.
Photography is not a crime.
Not necessarily because I shot this particular image, but apparently wielding a long lens in a public place can result in a tap on the shoulder and a request to desist.
Perhaps I should just get myself a selfie stick and pout. Sad times.....
Photo by Jeremy Brooks.
My friend Jeremy Brooks blogged an altercation he had with some bozo (see photo above) on the street in San Francisco. He blogs about his experience here.
From Jeremy:
"However, Mr. Angry Overreaction Man decided that he now had a problem with me. He confronted me, demanding my camera. Of course, I refused. He got in my face and started threatening me, telling me that I cannot take his photo without his permission. I told him that yes, in fact, I can. He then walked up and bumped into me, trying to act tough. I told him that one more touch and I would call the police.
Of course, he didn’t like that very much, and at that point told me that if I put his picture on the internet, he would call his laywer. I assured him that his photo would be on the internet, and he then walked up and grabbed my camera lens. Well, that’s just not something that I will put up with, so I pulled the camera away from him and reached for my phone and started dialing. Once he saw that he turned away, still yelling threats, and continued on his way."
First off, Jeremy is absolutely within his rights to photograph anyone he wants to in public. There is no law that protects people from having their image taken or from you posting it on the internet. When someone goes out on a public street anyone can legally shoot them and publish their image within standard editorial context (i.e. news, fine art, etc.).
Now I've had my fair share of run ins with people who object to my taking their photograph in public. And my basic rule is this. If I shoot someone and they object and act civilly like a human being I'm more than happy to oblige their request not to publish their photograph. On the other hand if they are an asshole and are confrontational, chances are not only will I publish there photo on the internet, I very well may blog about my experience with them as well. And I might also use whatever social network I can (digg, reddit, flickr, etc.) to further share with the rest of the world what a prick they are.
It's easy. Someone's polite with me, I'll probably be polite back with them. Someone threatens me or tries to touch my camera or person or is unpolite, then I figure they have it coming.
I've had lots of people email me and ask me to remove photos of them that I have on the internet. And I've removed dozens of photos I've published on the internet. Be respectful and you'll get my respect. Be disrespectful and it won't get you anywhere.
If you have the inclination digg Jeremy's original blog post here. It would be nice to share with the rest of the world that being a jerk when someone takes your photo in public doesn't pay.
On reddit here: reddit.com/info/6ijt4/comments/
It was only when I reached the top of Paddington Basin that the nice security lady approached (straight along the axis of image) to tell me that photographers are not allowed to use tripods as the land is privately owned. No problem however with handheld photography.
Hence my expedition stopped.
I did ask her to raise the one point when next in a team meeting with her managers. People undertaking hostile reconnaisance are unlikely to walk in blatantly with a tripod and dSLR and if your people are watching for tripods, then they are likely to be missing the people undertaking hostile reconnaisance
After I had snapped 1or 2 shots here, the security guard came and ran me off! Good thing too, I was going to transform my D-80 into a bomb an blow the place up. Ha! lol.
"Every year I find my photos on random places on the web!"
Well Miss red-white-and-blue-bikini-wearing-finger-wagging angry woman, here you go! Your photo ended up on some random place on the web! On flickr!
Download. Laminate. Keep with your camera. Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer. Nothing in these files or on this card constitutes legal advice. By downloading this card you agree to not hold me liable for any negative results or damages that may occur during the course of using these cards. Always seek a lawyer’s advice BEFORE using this card.
Be courteous to law enforcement and security guards. Even though you may be within your rights to take photos at that location/time, reeducating people when they attempt to prevent you from taking photos may be a bad move.
Contemplate the following:
Is this photo REALLY worth it? (is it worth a broken nose/camera/ego?) www.flickr.com/photos/imthegerm/6793910271
Can I come at another time (when I am less likely to be stopped)?
Am I POSITIVE I have the right to take this photo?
Do I have enough photos to allow me to apologize and move on?
Is the security guard bigger than me? Much bigger?
Did I hide a empty/trashed memory card stuck to the bottom of my camera I can hand security/law in case giving up my memory card means the difference between freedom and incarceration?
Do I know about recovery tools for digital photos that allow me to recover deleted photos?
If you can, try and walk away WITHOUT confrontation. Security guards and law enforcement are paid to be paranoid. They are also paid to protect certain buildings, structures, the general public and their employer’s interests. Many times they’re just doing their job, it’s nothing personal. They are also misinformed. This still doesn’t mean you should confront them. Try and avoid incident at all cost, but also know your rights!
A big thanks to Brian Blackden www.flickr.com/photos/brianblackden/504580804/
Find me on Facebook
23/365. I tried stopping time tonight however I was met with a resounding failure. Colgate Clock and Goldman Sachs Tower in Jersey City, NJ. I had to go around the fence to take this shot - no one bothered me though which was nice.
View on black:
Mamiya C330 S and Sekor 55mm f/4.5
Fujichrome T64
...
Tim Castlen and I had a mildly dramatic experience with the Cumberland, Maryland police about a month ago while taking some long exposures at night. Luckily the incident was more of an aggravation than anything else (we weren't arrested or physically pushed around) but it does follow along the lines of the kind of senseless and overzealous response to "strange" behavior that I've read about from other photographers in our "post 9/11" world. I wrote a very long(winded) letter reporting the incident (see below) but the gist of the situation was that we were compelled to present our IDs for acting suspiciously (taking a photo of a barbershop about a block from where the photo above was taken).
My biggest problem with the police response was that we were compelled to show our IDs for a legal activity that was taking place on a public sidewalk. Maryland doesn't have a "stop and identify" law, that I am aware of, though "reasonable suspicion" along with other circumstances can allow police here to demand identification (I'm no legal expert, but that's what I've understood to be true). My second biggest problem was that they weren't concerned about the possibility that we might be barber supply thieves, barber shop vandals or shaving cream fetishists, but instead they focused on the possibility that our picture taking had some vague relationship to terrorism. During the whole situation they kept talking about 9/11 stuff.
I received a response to my letter from the chief of police who referred me to the officers' commander, who I eventually spoke with on the phone. The conversation wasn't very productive; kind of like talking to a company press secretary. He was nice enough but I couldn't get across the idea that there is a difference between unusual and suspicious activity (or at least that there should be). He said it's common practice for the Cumberland Police to compel IDs from people at any time. He said they do this so that they can collect potential future witnesses to crimes that might take place in the area (?!). Of course we weren't forced to present IDs under that premise but for our movie-terrorist-like behavior. He emphasized that there isn't a great deal of crime in his town, but that this was how they did things. He did say that he would investigate the incident and speak with the officers involved and that if further training was necessary, they would follow up with the officers. He did agree that the focus on terrorism seemed misguided and that more run-of-the-mill crime is what he'd be concerned with.
I hope that, at the very least, officers in Cumberland won't immediately draw the conclusion that photography equals terrorist activity, but if you find yourself inspired to get off the Interstate in Cumberland, just be aware that this is the reception you could receive. Other than one other daytime incident in Baltimore, this is the only bad experience I've had with the police while taking pictures. I've had cops try to scare me out of neighborhoods ("do you know where you are?") in Baltimore, but never have I been forced to present my ID under threat of arrest.
For all this trouble, the picture I took of the barber shop did not come out.
Here's the letter I wrote...
Dear Mr. Mayor, members of the Cumberland City Council, Cumberland Chamber of Commerce and Allegany County Board of Commissioners,
I want to report to you an incident that occurred on Friday evening, March 29, 2013 involving officers of the Cumberland Police Department, myself and my friend, Tim Castlen. First, let me give you some background. My friend and I are photographers and have often talked about how interesting Cumberland is as a destination to explore and photograph. Every time I have visited Cumberland in the past it has always been en route to somewhere else, with no time but for a quick stop. So we decided to make a special overnight trip to Cumberland to take pictures. We stayed at the Holiday Inn downtown, ate at a nice Mexican restaurant on Baltimore Street and otherwise enjoyed ourselves, taking pictures along the way.
Once it became dark we went out to do some night photography along the lines of what you can see on this page. I've been taking night photos for years in cities and towns throughout the United States and abroad. I typically take pictures with a large medium format film camera that requires the steadiness of a tripod for long exposures of several seconds to several minutes, depending on the light. I usually take pictures with other photographers. Naturally, people can sometimes be curious as to what we might be doing, and after explaining, most people understand or at least realize that we're up to no harm. On a few occasions a citizen or an overzealous security guard has given me and my friends a difficult time, but these occasions are luckily relatively rare. In such cases, I often advise these individuals to call the police if they are concerned about my activity as I'm well aware of my rights and know that most police are also aware of those rights. In fact, there have been dozens of occasions when police officers have asked, typically in a friendly manner, what we might be up to and, after explaining in a sentence or two, they might say something about being careful and then move on. For years, this has been my experience.
Unfortunately an aberration to this experience occurred on Friday night, when officers from the Cumberland Police claimed I was "suspicious" and that I would be arrested if I did not produce some identification for them to "run" through their system. The incident started off while I was taking a photograph of a barber shop on Baltimore Street, just east of the railroad tracks. My camera is attracted to classic signs, buildings, cars, etc, and Cumberland is rich with such material. While setting up the shot an Officer Vanskiver pulled up in her patrol car and asked "who are you with" and I explained that I was a tourist (not with anybody) just taking pictures for fun. I usually carry around business cards, but unfortunately I ran out that day, so I didn't have one to produce for her. I apologized for that, but reiterated that I was taking photographs for fun and that I wished to continue doing so. She was clearly agitated at this point. She demanded my name and told me to produce some ID. She stated that my behavior was suspicious but when I asked her what crime I was suspected to have committed, she couldn't say. She did say something about the September 11, 2001 attacks on Washington DC and New York. What this had to do with me taking pictures 12 years later in Cumberland, Maryland is beyond me. I explained that I knew my rights and that I didn't have to say anything or produce an ID. There was no "reasonable suspicion" and I wasn't being placed under arrest, so I finished taking my picture and then left the scene.
My friend and I were finishing up for the night at this point anyway, when this run-in occurred. Our hotel was just a couple blocks away, and we started walking back to the car after our discussion with the officer. As we were about to put our gear in the car two police cars and a police sport utility vehicle pulled up and boxed us in. At this point we mostly spoke with Officer D.F. Jenkins who demanded to see our IDs. During this conversation he stated that he would arrest us if we did not produce identification. I again asked what we were suspected of and in a nonplussed manner he, like the other officer, started to talk about the September 11, 2001 attacks, as if they had some connection with what we were doing. He could never cite a law or ordinance or anything tangible that we were supposed to have violated. Both officers seemed to be concerned with "movie-plot threats." I produced a copy of "The Photographer’s Right," (it's not a legal document, but it explains basic civil rights to those who are not aware) and explained how we were doing nothing illegal and asked again what illegal activity we were suspected of, but there was no response from Officer Jenkins except to talk amorphously about the threat of terrorism and the September 11, 2001 attacks. It would seem to me that theft, vandalism, littering (e.g. the littering in the tunnel below Baltimore Street that goes under the railroad tracks) or something else along those lines would be the bigger concern for the police in Cumberland, but that kind of activity was never mentioned. As far as I know, Maryland doesn’t have any “stop and identify” statutes but we eventually gave in and showed the officer our IDs and they "ran it" and then we all went on our way. At that point in the night, my friend and I were both too tired to make a point. We were on vacation after all.
The officers had a hard time understanding our reluctance to show ID. They clearly thought that if we had nothing to hide, there should be no hesitation to simply produce our papers on command, as might be done in Saudi Arabia, the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany. From my perspective, there was no basis for a "reasonable suspicion" that we were doing anything wrong, especially since they couldn't produce any evidence of such activity when asked.
I have kept up with incidents of law enforcement overstepping their bounds with photographers over the years, but as I stated earlier, this is the only time in all my years of taking pictures at night, that I have had a problem like this. I've photographed on public sidewalks in front of federal buildings, rail stations, etc. in Washington, D.C., New York City and my home city of Baltimore with no such problems. Since I am not violating any laws when taking my pictures, officers in these cities have not demanded my ID, detained me or threatened me with arrest. I've either just had good luck or most officers truly understand common sense and the law and don't waste their time on activity that is clearly not criminal. I tend to think that my experiences have less to do with luck and more to do with the competence and professionalism of the average police officer.
It boggles my mind why three police vehicles had to box us in and that we were threatened with arrest unless we produced our IDs. While my friend and I had a very enjoyable time in Cumberland up to that point, we were glad not to be spending a second night in your city. We left early the next morning. I'd love to go back to Cumberland again, at some point, but this incident makes it a much less attractive destination. If I do return, I'd like some assurance that this occurrence was an anomaly and won't happen again and that the officers will be educated about the rights of individuals in public spaces who are engaged in perfectly legal activities.
You have a great city in a beautiful location. I love the architecture. We met some very friendly people as well. It's a shame to have your police officers scare people away. As an aside, I'll point out that if the actual September 11, 2001 criminal attackers had somehow found themselves in Cumberland taking pictures, running their IDs would not have made a difference as they all had clean records. This kind of aggressive policing is not only unfriendly it’s also ineffective. I don't understand why any police officer should be citing the September 11, 2001 attacks as reason for stopping someone on the street. Just because a lot of people say it, doesn't mean it makes sense. I expect that kind of thing from under trained and underpaid security guards, not a police officer.
Thank you for listening to my concerns.
Sincerely,
Patrick Joust
More than once, my camera has caused me to be delayed or harassed by law enforcement, police, and security personnel. My love for photography is actually a byproduct of my love for trains. It is shocking how many police (and even more security guards) simply do not know the laws the protect a photographer’s rights to create an image. It’s not uncommon for me to be detained or questioned about my activity when photographing trains from public spaces or stations. When paired with recent “see something, say something campaigns” that paint photography as somehow suspicious, it results in a lot of overzealous folks.
Until this week, my hobby has only caused me the anxiety and trauma of the police. Unfortunately, this weekend, my family had to experience it too.
This past year has been tough for my family (like it has for far too many). After a few long weeks at work, Erin and I tried to schedule a quick weekend getaway to Northern Michigan. In October, we had driven to see Tahquamenon Falls during the fall color season, and I wanted to photograph them wrapped in ice and snow. After work on Friday, we drove north about 200 miles to Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan and checked into the Ramada. After ordering take out, we put Amelia to bed and started to get ready to sleep ourselves.
Just before 9:30 P.M. there was a loud pounding on our door. Looking through the peephole, I saw two men in police uniforms. They did not identify themselves. I opened the door – completely surprised and wearing only a t-shirt and boxer briefs. The two men entered the room (the did not ask if they could come in, nor did I invite them).
One of the officers was not wearing a mask. So I asked if he would either put on a mask or please wait in the hallway (the Michigan Department of Health and Human Services currently has a mandate for mask wearing in public, but there are exceptions for police, largely because that would be unenforceable). Their demeanor changed instantly. They became annoyed and aggressive.
They then asked if there was a child in the room. I said, “yes, my daughter is sleeping.” They said they had received a complaint, I asked if it was about noise, because Amelia had been asleep for over an hour at this point.
They replied that the call was about a nude child and a suspicious man with photo gear. I quickly told them Amelia had never been nude in any public area of the hotel (she had put a swim suit on before learning the pool was closed). When I asked about the nature of the complaint, they told me they couldn’t share that information. They then proceeded to try to come further into the room. I asked them to leave. They replied that they couldn’t because of the immediate threat to the child. I did show them the bed where Amelia was sleeping, and then asked them that unless they had a warrant to go. They refused, saying that “my behavior was suspicious,” and that “this is a border town, and right now I have reason to believe that child may be being trafficked.”
They proceeded to ask for my address, my employer, my phone number, and if they could see my camera. I replied no and asked them to leave. The refused. Finally, my wife provided them with the requested information.
My wife and I were unable to sleep until the early hours of the morning. The experience left us incredibly shaken and violated.
I’m also incredibly thankful for the privilege that I have. Right now, we live in a country where children in border towns often are taken from parents and put in cages. People of Color, especially Black Americans, are killed by police every week.
Update #2: The journalist in this case is named Carlos Miller. You can read an update on this case including more of his account here: thomashawk.com/2007/02/carlos-miller-arrested-for-crime-o...
Update: I have been in contact with a friend of the person arrested (RaginginMiami) in this case. I just left RaginginMiami a voicemail and will publish more details on this after I speak with him. In addition I have been in contact with the Miami Police and have a person in their department working to get me the police report on this incident. Once I have that report I will share more details.
Andrew Ferguson pointed me to a very troubling post today. I'm trying to research the story more, but here's what I've got so far.
A photojournalist who goes by the name RaginginMiami was on assignment shooting Biscayne Blvd in Miami and was shooting a police action from a public street. The police asked him not to photograph them and he continued, resulting in a forceful arrest and his being charged with multiple infractions over the incident. He ended up spending 16 hours in a Miami Dade jail.
"One of the cops told me to keep walking because this was a "private matter".
I said that I will not keep walking because this is a "public street".
Within seconds, the five officer left the first man alone and came after me. One cop escorted me across the road. As I stood on the sidewalk on the opposite side of the road, the cops began surrounding me, which was when I shot several more shots.
That was when they slammed me against the pavement even though I offered no resistance, causing a deep abrasion on my right knee. One officer grabbed me by the back of the head and repeatedly bashed my forehead against the sidewalk, causing abrasions and swelling to the right side of my forehead.
Another officer grabbed my right hand and bent it backwards in a 90 degree angle, causing me to scream out in pain and continuing to do so even after the handcuffs were placed on me. As I verbally protested, one officer threatened me with a taser gun if I did not stop talking.
The officers charged me with five counts of disobeying a police, one count of obstructing justice, one count of obstructing traffic, one count of disorderly conduct and one count of resisting arrest without violence."
The photo above is one that RaginginMiami says is of the cops who abused him.
When I hear things like this it makes my blood boil. All photographers have absolute rights to photograph the police. This is an important right. It is a check and a balance against police abuse and brutality. Without this right things like the Rodney King incident and others might never be recorded.
Apparently the abused journalist has contacted the ACLU and is working to fight back this week.
I'm trying to make contact with the journalist and will report more of the details on this as I learn them. I hope that these cops pay dearly for their decision to use force on someone for exercising their First Amendment rights.
A few years ago Flickr photographers Aqui-Ali, Ropeboy, Ranjit and myself were stopped by the Alameda Sheriff's department. They ran our IDs for background checks for doing nothing but taking photos. The Alameda cop asked me not to take his photo but I took it anyways when he wasn't looking.
In what I can only view as troubling and a move surely to invite more backlash against photographers, London's Metropolitan police has launched a new counter-terrorism PR campaign complete with anti-photography propaganda.
The campaign is meant to encourage people to turn in "odd" seeming people that they see taking photographs.
"Thousands of people take photos every day," reads their advertisement being run in London's major newspapers. "What if one of them seems odd?"
Having personally been harassed in the past by the U.S. police while out shooting, I worry that this kind of a campaign will result in even more harassment for photographers going forward. In addition to police harassment, I think that this campaign also sends the wrong message to people about photographers and photography. I think it encourages people to think suspiciously of photographers and to add to the climate of fear associated with photography.
Photography is not a crime. Taking photographs is part of a rich tradition of art, social commentary and historical documentation. I'm very disappointed seeing London's Metropolitan Police decide to take this course of action and worry that this sort of backward thinking will continue to spread the boogeyman myth that photographers and photography are the enemy when they very much are not.
Having people report "odd seeming" photographers will only take important police time away from ways that it could better be spent in really fighting crime and terrorism.
Thanks Nick for this important heads up.
On Digg here.
On boing boing here.
So I was walking around the Fremont neighborhood of Seattle on a warm summer Wednesday night. My girlfriend and I were walking down towards the canal when, across from the PCC (grocery store), we spotted a funny sign. So I pulled out my camera and took a quick shot of it.
Out from behind a planter (seemingly), a diminutive SecurityGuard(tm) rushed towards me, and sternly demanded to know who I was and what I thought I was doing. He made quick work out of my personal space bubble, with eyes locked on my camera, and a hand outstretched. As if by nothing more than the implied authority of his embroidered badge, I must now hand him my camera. I stuck it in my pocket.
He again asked what I thought I was doing, and if I had a permit to take pictures of "the building". I told him no, sorry, I didn't check with anyone. He nodded with widening eyes and a quiet "aha", as if he had just "broken" me into a confession.
My girlfriend thought we were being "punkd" or in the next "Borat" movie. He's just some crazy guy in a Harry Potter outfit pretending to be SecurityGuard, she said. Sadly, after reading of many similar encounters by Flickr photographers, I knew this was not an actual joke. She challenged SecurityGuard and told him we were on a public street, we could take a picture of anything we wanted. He rebutted that we were in fact, on the sidewalk, not the public street.
So I stepped down onto the street, about a meter back. And then I took his picture.
Pounding through the strong vein on his forehead, I think I heard his pulse. SecurityGuard, through gritted teeth, asked if he. had. not. just. finished. telling. me. that. I. could. not. take. pictures. of. the. building. I told him I was doing no such thing. I was in fact, taking a picture of him, who happened to be standing in front of the building. Then I asked him, out of curiosity, where I would go to obtain such a permit. Was it posted in public view, this mysterious permit requirement? (however in hindsight, I realized that any plaque or sign that said something like "permit required to take pictures" would likely be quite heavily photographed.)
SecurityGuard said "Come over here!" in as commanding a tone as he could muster. He pointed his finger at the ground in front of him. I just looked at him, really regarded him for the first time. I towered over him, even from almost two meters away. He was like a human version of a chihuahua; belligerent yet totally unaware of his comparative stature.
That's about when I started to laugh in his face. He asked if I refused to tell him who I was and what I was doing there. I very clearly said yes, I absolutely refused. I tried to explain to him, admittedly loudly, how he had failed to demonstrate any authority or proof of wrong on my part. His aggressive bullying just wasn't effective on anyone who had even a basic understanding of their rights as a citizen in a public space. Nor on anyone taller than 5'4". I had no reason to comply, and suggested that he call a police officer and we could discuss it with him.
Silence. Except for the pounding from his head-vein. Against his demands that we stay, we walked away.
Oh yes. One last thing. The building SecurityGuard was defending against the evils of public photography so staunchly? Even though it had some small street level shops, the primary tenant?
Getty Images.
I started to take a photo of the Bank of America which had been closed because of the protest and they told me I wasn't allowed to.
I explained I was on a public sidewalk. One of them gestured to an imaginary
line which they said was the Bank of America's property. Even if that was the case, I was a few feet beyond it.
I started taking some photos and they certainly didn't represent the Bank of America in a very favorable way (ie. like complete assholes). And now these photos are tagged Bank of America and will come up in searches.
I then noticed that red paint had been thrown high up on the window. Still, pretty mild compared to some of the Vietnam era protests against B of A.
"Moreover, to the extent that the troopers were restraining Robinson from making
any future videotapes and from publicizing or publishing what he
had filmed, the defendants' conduct clearly amounted to an
unlawful prior restraint upon his protected speech."..."Robinson was simply
recording the activities of Pennsylvania state troopers as they
went about their duties on a public highway and its adjoining
berm."..."The activities of the police, like those of other
public officials, are subject to public scrutiny. Indeed, 'the
First Amendment protects a significant amount of verbal criticism
and challenge directed at police officers.' " Robinson v. Fetterman
Blogged: technorati.com/photos/tag/Tyranny
Nine barbed wire kisses guard petroleum tank number six at a Brisbane oil refinery.
Just after I took this a rather laconic old Aussie security guard shuffled over to me to ask why I was taking pics. "We're a bit touchy about people outside taking pictures. Terrorism, you see?" I don't think he appreciated 'art' is not always 'pretty'. If I don't already have an ASIO file, I'm sure I've got one now! ;)
On 7 August 2021 the first-place Chicago White Sox defeated the reeling Cubs 4-0.
Leaving Wrigley on a Red Line train, I saw many White Sox fans amongst the usual red and blue worn by Cubs fans, including this man, whose black Sox hat stood out. I found it interesting and snapped photo.
He then exited the train, shouting “what’s your problem, what’s your f*cking problem?!.” I told him I though his Sox hat was cool in a sea of Cubs fans, and told him I would be happy to delete the image if he liked.
Instead, he took out his phone and snapped 10 or so quick photos of me and showered a few expletives.
Maybe a bad day? And, his team had won!
The top photo is exactly like one of the many photos an Air Force police officer made me delete from my camera last Thursday.
The reason he gave for making me delete the photo was that "It shows my perimeter fence and my flightline".
The lower half of the image above is the same area viewed in Google Earth with WAY more detail than I could ever hope to capture shooting from the racetrack. The Google Earth image is available to anyone on the planet earth with an internet connection and a computer. However my photo of the fence and the flightline is a security problem.
For the record, I was not on the air base. I was on private property (Las Vegas Raceway) across the street from the airbase and I was not taking photos of anything that was not clearly visible with the naked eye. Earlier in the day another Air Force police officer said it was perfectly legal to be there and to take photographs from there and asked us to "just stay on the racetrack side of the street" because the other side of the street is Air Force property.
I want to make it clear that the police officer that made me delete my photos was as nice as could be, acted in a very professional manner, never yelled or used foul language .... we even chatted about airshows and military airplanes ... but (in my opinion) he was clearly confused about photographer's rights and what constitutes a security risk to his air base. I could have challenged him and refused to delete the images and I'm sure I would have been 100% within my rights to do so ... but frankly I was not up for the fight at that moment ... after all this was the same day my truck was broken into and I was mentally, physically and emotionally exhausted... deleting the images seemed like the easiest way to avoid a problem. I'm not entirely sure but I would not be surprised if he was also out of his jurisdiction. It seems strange to me that Air Force police would have authority over a civilian that is not on Air Force property. ... but that's another issue entirely for another day.
Stories like this are becoming more and more common and it's very troubling to me as someone that loves to go out and take photos. Every incident that I've had like this and almost every incident that I've read about have one thing in common, the police/security people are convinced that they are doing the right thing and they are acting in good faith the protect (whatever they are meant to be protecting) and in most cases they are very nice and reasonable ... but they are still wrong in many cases and they are (with or without intent) often trampling on the constitutional rights of people just out having a good time with their hobby (or business), photography.
Something needs to be done to educate photographers and police/security personnel about what our rights and responsibilities are and what really constitutes a security risk.
I don't know what the answer to this problem is ... but I am sure that if we just let the problem keep getting worse there will come a day when we'll be afraid to leave your houses with our cameras. A writer from JPG magazine said it pretty well ""In a post 9/11 age of paranoia and suspicion, public photography is increasingly seen as threatening, or mistaken as criminal...Amateur photographers are the documentarians of real life. We capture our world to help us understand it. We are not a threat."
I'm always talking about this issue on my podcast, I think it's probably one of the more important issues concerning photographers today.
I started a website tonight dedicated to this issue ... I'm not sure what will become of the website but I'm hoping to use it as an educational tool for photographers and those people tasked with keeping us safe. For now I've just posted some basic information on the site and some resources for photographers. You can check it out at www.photographyisntacrime.com/
Update: 5/15/08:
Entire text (in audio format) of the letter to the Air Force is here
Update 5/22/08:
All emails to the Nellis Public Affairs Office since May 12th have gone unanswered.
Today I have I have written to an attorney that specializes in photography law to see if she is interested in pursuing this matter.
I will keep you posted.
Update 5/30/08:
Email from the 99 ABW/ PA Office
I have talked with several individuals regarding this matter and before I give you the official response I would like to ask you to remain patient for a couple more days. We will give you an official response next week.
Update 6/09/08:
I just got off the phone with the 99ABW Public Affairs Office.
It seems they are putting the finishing touches on the response letter to me at this moment and I can expect to see it possibly later today or tomorrow. The public affairs officer stated that he was not able to tell me what the response will say until it is actually finalized but that he thinks I "will be happy with the response".
Update 6/12/08:
Still nothing from the Air Force. I'm starting to fear that they are stalling and waiting for me to get tired of this game and go away. This is not a game, I think this is a very serious and important issue for all photographers and I will not let it go. Maybe they've discovered that what the SP did was a crime and a violation of my rights and they are afraid to admit fault? Maybe they are afraid of a lawsuit? Who knows. I'll keep you all posted as things progress.
Update 6/17/08:
I received this email today
Allen
I sent you an invitation to join us in July and August for Red Flag
media days. As I said in my earlier e-mail, you will have to pass a
routine background check. If you are interested in joining us, please
provide the requested information in my earlier e-mail.
While I agree with you that our security forces Airman should not have
forced you to erase your photos, I am not in a position to apologize for
the Air Force. An apology has been requested from the 99th Security
Forces Group and I hope that they will eventually send you a letter.
In the meantime, our media days offer photographers like you an
excellent location between the runways for a full daytime launch and
recovery. You will be as close as 150 feet to aircraft in full
afterburner as they rotate on takeoff.
Please let me know if you would like to join us.
Regards
Mike Estrada, YC-02
Deputy Director of Public Affairs
I have now officially grown tired of this B.S.
Today I have written to the Las Vegas Sun newspaper regarding this issue and I will be re-establishing contact with the lawyers that I contacted earlier. The continued stalling techniques are more than annoying. And now the offer of a media day pass for Red Flag is an obvious tactic to make me happy and go away.
Update 7/2/08:
I just got off the phone with Col Howard Belote's office (base commander). The nice lady (Janet) says that my letter has not arrived at the Colonel's office yet. So I emailed her the letters and she is going to forward the information to the Colonel and he should be calling me soon.
Update 7/7/08:
Janet Duenas-Resto just confirmed that the letters I sent to the commander were received.
Her email from today:
Received. Am working it and will get back to you shortly.
janet.
99 ABW/CCS
4430 Grissom Ave, Ste 101
Nellis AFB, NV 89191-6520
Tel: (702) 652-9900 / DSN 682-9900
Fax: (702) 652-9832 / DSN 682-9832
Update 7/14/08
Request to fellow photographers.
If you think that what happened to me at Nellis was wrong and you do not want the same thing happening to you some day, please help me by expressing your opinions to the Las Vegas media and the authorities at Nellis AFB.
This is a matter of protecting your rights as a photographer.
I think it's important for these people to realize that I am not just one lone wacko out here writing letters ... there are several of us wackos
What we need from Nellis (or the Air Force) is answers to the following 7 questions: (feel free to cut and paste these into your emails)
1. Do the Air Force police have jurisdiction over civilians outside of the air base?
2. Do the Air Force police have the authority (without a court order) to look at my photos? If so, under what authority?
3. Do the Air Force police have the authority (without a court order) to force me to delete my photos
(Seizure of my private property)? If so, under what authority?
4. Do the Air Force police have the authority to detain and question a civilian on public or private property that happens to be in the proximity of an Air Force base?
5. Do the Air Force police have the authority to force me to move from private or public land just because I can see the air base from where I am standing.
6. Does the Air Force in fact have regulations regarding photography of “less common” aircraft? I’m not referring to secret or classified aircraft, but rather aircraft in the USAF inventory (as the officer stated) “in lower numbers”.
7. Does the Air Force have regulations concerning civilians photographing aircraft from public or private land outside of air bases?
You may submit your opinions on this matter to and or all of the following:
Las Vegas Sun Newspaper
ellen.wager@lasvegassun.com
feedback@lasvegassun.com
KTNV ABC 13 Las Vegas
kmovesian@ktnv.com
desk@ktnv.com
KVBC NBC 3 Las Vegas
jkotnik@kvbc.com
mfirestone@kvbc.com
cholmes@kvbc.com
Nellis AFB Public Affairs Office
99abw.pa@nellis.af.mil
michael.estrada@nellis.af.mil
Col Howard Belote's office, Commander Nellis AFB
99abwccs@nellis.af.mil
janet.duenas-resto@nellis.af.mil
99abwds@nellis.af.mil
99abwccs@nellis.af.mil
Here is a link to a sample letter you may or may not want to use as a starting point for your letter to Nellis AFB
http://www.allensphotoblog.com/Sample.txt
Update 7/15/08
Letters written today to:
Senator Harry Reid (D-NV)
Senator John Ensign (R-NV)
Representative Shelley Berkley (D-NV)
I am so tired of being ignored by the people at Nellis. Maybe these people can get some answers.
I really want to go shoot pictures at RedFlag, but I just can't do it till I'm sure I know my rights and will not be harassed by the SPs like I was at JEFX. What's the point of going if some kid 1/2 my age with an M-16 is going to make me delete my photos.
Update 8/4/08
Contacting the base commander's office may have finally paid off for us. Today I received the following email from my contact at Col Belote's office:
Hi Mr Rockwell
I apologize for the lateness in my reply. Letter has been written, signed,
sealed in an envelope and on its way to your ..... address. I
can scan it in if you desire as well.
janet.
99 ABW/CCS
4430 Grissom Ave, Ste 101
Nellis AFB, NV 89191-6520
Tel: (702) 652-9900 / DSN 682-9900
Fax: (702) 652-9832 / DSN 682-9832
So, hopefully tomorrow I'll have an email copy of the letter that was sent.
On a trip to the Jaffa gate in Jerusalem I snapped this photo of a hasid walking by. Something about his look caught my eye.
After I snapped the photo he seemed extremly annoyed and said repeatedly "you HAVE to ask me permission to take my photo!" I said I didn't and he walked away.
I thought that was it. One more person annoyed at the fact that I took their photo in a public place.
I turned and continued my conversation and next thing I know the hasid is back, this time with a police officer.
PO: "This man says he asked you not to take his photo"
ME: "Ummmhmmm"
PO: "And you DID!"
ME: "Yes"
PO: "Erase it now!"
ME: "No!"
PO: "You HAVE to ask his permission!"
ME: "No I don't, he's in public and I know my rights!"
At this point and throughout the conversation the hasid is making off-handed remarks about "knowing my kind" and what "Chutzpah" I have for doing this, cussing and yelling too. I try my best not to respond.
PO: "You need to come with me!" (and marches me towards the central police station with the hasid in tow.)
At this point, when neither is looking I take the CF card out of my camera. Better be safe than sorry.
At the gates of the police station the whole entorage stops. while we were walking a couple of other police officers (I took their photo too) joined the procession so now there are five of us: Annoyed police officer (I didn't do what he wanted, didn't agree with him and didn't erase the photos), annoyed hasid (who claims I took his photo without permission) and two preterbed police officers (see above.) And me. Not happy, but standing my ground.
Police officer goes to get an "Investigator."
Investigator shows up and listens to the hasid.
First words out of his mouth: "Let me tell you what the law is: ANYTHING in public vies, anything he (me) sees, he can take a photo of!"
Whoa!
Then he turns to me. Still trying to diffuse the situation he states that he cannot "ask" me to erase the photos but asks that I do so anyway. I explain that "this is what I do" and that while I may understand that the hasid would like the photos erased I refuse to do so.
After a little bit of back and forth and explanations that yes, I am a tourist, yes, I am a professional, yes, I am a freelancer, yes I am a journalist and no, I won't erase the card (tucked away safely in my pocket) the Investigator asks if I don't mind exchanging information. Sure, I say.
Investigator: "And who do you work for?"
ME: (proudly proclaiming) Flickr!
Investigator: "F-l-i-c-k-r"
And with that I was let go.
Pfew! What a start of a day...
As seen in the www.flickr.com/photos/deltona2003/galleries/7215762566038... gallery
Find me on Facebook
The Olympic torch was carried through Paris on April 7th. Despite heavy security, the relay was seriously disrupted by numerous pro-Tibet protesters and human rights activists such as RSF, resulting in a partial cancellation of the event.
Here, near the Eiffel Tower, all hell broke loose: the torch bearer, Jin Jing (a young handicapped girl in a wheelchair), was holding on to the torch while one protester after another tried to get close. The police managed to get them all, sometimes less than 2 meters from the torch. In fact, in some instances, some protesters could have easily grabbed the torch but they were just happy to wave their Tibetan flag.
[edit]: when I wrote the caption above, I didn't have all the sources available, it was just based on what I saw directly. So I stand corrected: at least one man DID manage to grab the torch.
In many occasions, the photographers and cameramen were pushed aside without much caution, but for Bruno Girodon, a cameraman at France 2, things went further (and nastier): soon after this scene, he was again pushed back and then deliberately assaulted by some policemen as he was on the side of the road, next to a police van. He was left on the ground, injured and confused, and had to be hospitalized.
Merci de lire les explications en début d'album / Please read the explanations at the beginning of the set
Part of Paris torche les JO ! (Recommended as a slideshow)
(By Floor Area)
(When completed in 1929)
See bklyn.newspapers.com/image/57571287/
Guard: Did you get permission to shoot here?
Me: The website says the atrium is open to the public.*
Guard: This building is filled with businesses. You better hope you couldn't see anything secret through the windows. They can sue you.
Me: Thanks...
*Open to All
BAT's public spaces are open 365 days a year, sunrise to sunset. Whether you're coming to gaze at the atrium, take a historical tour, attend an event, or picnic or stroll on the waterfront, BAT is open for you.