Thu, July 28th, 2005 by Thomas Hawk
So I've been hassled and harassed many time in the past for shooting
photographs in privately owned public spaces (Starbucks, PF Chaings,
Toys 'R Us, the new burger spot on Sacramento St. at Drumm, Tosca,
Grand Central Terminal in New York, etc.) but yesterday was the first
time I've actually been harassed on a public street over photography.
Yesterday
I was shooting some photos of One Bush St. (the building where Bush and
Market Streets intersect in San Francisco) when their security guard came out of his
little glass jewelbox lobby hut to ask me to stop taking photos of the
building. He said it was illegal. I moved to the sidwalk and continued
taking photos and he again asked me to stop. When I told him I was on a
public street sidewalk he said that actually they owned the sidewalk
and that I was going to have to stop taking photographs.
At this
point I told the little guy to call the police and have me arrested
which he said he did. He then proceeded to follow me around the
building, from Bush St. to Battery St. to Market St. to Sansome St. and
try to physically put his hand in front of the lens of my camera as I
shot the building. Fortunately I was taller than he was so I was able
to hold the camera out of his range. It was kind of comedic actually.
Although
I've been harassed many, many times for taking photos (the camera goes
with me virtually everywhere) this was the first time I was accosted by
a security guard on a public sidewalk.
I was looking forward to
the interchange between myself the security guard and a cop (who I
doubt he could really get to show up even though he kept insisting they
were coming to arrest me) but I had to get going and was done shooting
the building. So after about 10 minutes I was on my way.
I'd
encourage anyone with a camera to stop by One Bush if you're in the
neighborhood and fire off a few more shots to annoy this guy.
I know I'll be back.
New server!
July 28th, 2005 at 12:15 pm
If you had more time to spend, it sounds like a good opportunity to turn the tables and call the cops on him. He can't put his hands on you on a public sidewalk to stop you from taking pictures.
(Though I would say Starbucks, PF Changs, et. al. are within their rights to restrict photography within their establishments.)
July 28th, 2005 at 12:38 pm
Man oh man oh man oh man.
I'd be laughing a lot harder at that story if it weren't so infuriating. There have been posts on a couple of blogs related to this either directly or tangentially. It's happened to me and I've written about it myself at least once.
In one case, someone related that it's actually illegal in some places to photography bridges and other similar structures. I have a hard time believing that, but what do I know?
I think it would be great if someone could find out definitively what the law is with regard to such things. I will endeavor to do so myself, but I don't know how far I'll get.
If there are any photobloggers out there who happen to be lawyers as well, perhaps you might have better luck?
It can be very intimidating in certain circumstances to be confronted in such a way. I would hope that with some authoritative legal facts at our disposal, it might make it a lot easier to confront situations as confidently as Thomas did.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:45 pm
It's the PATRIOT act stupid.
In some cases you're not allowed to take pictures of buildings because you might be a terrorist casing the joint. I'm pretty sure the guards would get upset if I started taking pictures inside the Bank of America headquarters in Charlotte, NC. Maybe even if I took too many pictures of the outside of the building.
July 28th, 2005 at 12:46 pm
Photographer's rights - worth carrying with you even if just to remind yourself: http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
July 28th, 2005 at 12:53 pm
You can download a document outlining your rights from this lawyer's web site.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
It's great. You can print out this PDF and give it to security guards or whoever bothers you. It saves a lot of explaining.
For a few months afte 9/11 I was questioned absolutely everywhere. I find it less of a problem these days but still you get hassled sometimes.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:19 pm
Thanks to Martin and Rick for that AWESOME resource. It sure saved me a lot of time. Maybe to the old hands at this (I'm new to it) this is well known. It wasn't to me, and I plan to put a permanent link to it on my site.
Excellent.
July 28th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
Although the links provided are great resources, I wonder if any Canadian photographers can provide links to the Canadian alternative? Or even tell me if the downloadable flyer applies to Canadians as well?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:18 pm
Here is an interesting article about public photography in Australia. It also refers to a significant court case in Canada from 1998, where a photographer "had to pay damages to a subject in one of his candid pictures ... for 'invading her privacy'. "
http://4020.net/unposed/privacy.shtml
Also interesting, a similar thread ran here last year:
http://blog.photoblogs.org/2004/06/photographers_r.html
July 28th, 2005 at 3:25 pm
I wonder if photographing structures like skyscrapers (which I would do all the time if I lived in NYC and the lot) has become rather touchy because of 9/11? And perhaps the recent London bombings will have an effect on public transportation photography?
Maybe they think that all humans armed with cameras taking pictures that are "not people" are therefore odd up to no good, because "who takes pictures of things that aren't people?". Non photogs can be so ignorant sometimes.
I say, as long as you're armed with the Photographer's Rights and explain that your photos are for Fine Art alone, it should be a good defense.
It's really unfortunate what happened to you man, as a young woman I haven't been harassed yet, but I'm curious as to find out the contrast between how women photogs are dealt with versus men? I'd be willing to bet my equipment that there's a HUGE difference.
July 28th, 2005 at 3:27 pm
I just realized that I sound very confusing in my second paragraph, 1st sentence. Should be interpreted as "Maybe they think that all photographers who are taking pictures of inanimate objects are weird, and therefore up to no good." Sorry for the mental drool there folks.
July 28th, 2005 at 3:39 pm
Here in London, alot of the big corporate buildings are copyrighted so in theory you are not allowed to photograph them. In practise I dont see how its enforcible, except if you display the image publicly or sell it, and even then you'd have to be unlucky. It would be good to know more about this if anyone knows?
July 28th, 2005 at 3:58 pm
Jason: Kind of an immature comment within an immature (and malinformed) statement. Patriot Act has nothing to do with what has been mentioned. If you're on public land, you can take photos of private figures (be it a building or someone's house). It may be odd and some take advantage of it, but he shouldn't have been pushed around. That in itself is the illegal act.
July 28th, 2005 at 4:37 pm
Simon, you can still photograph copyrighted material, whether it's a building or a statue, it's how you use those photographs that may be subject to law. There should be nothing stopping you, in most countries, photographing a building, copyrighted or not, from public space.
There are exemptions already mentioned, such as some McCarthy style law that says it's a protected installation like a military base.
July 28th, 2005 at 6:23 pm
Here is another resource for people who want to read up. Photo Permit.org (which doesn't give out permits, but is a resource for photographers rights) has a page of informational links including a UK Photographers Rights PDF much like the Krages USA version.
http://www.photopermit.org/?page_id=67
July 28th, 2005 at 9:52 pm
You're being talked about in our You can't take pictures here group on Flickr. There's a solidarity group shoot / Flickrmeet there on Saturday, if you can make it.
Good luck!
July 28th, 2005 at 10:24 pm
Thanks for pointing that out, brendadada. Here's the link for those interested:
http://www.flickr.com/groups/canttakepictureshere/
July 29th, 2005 at 8:55 pm
http://igargoyle.com/archives/000423.html
Click the above link, know your rights as a photographer.
No one can take your images, being on film or disk from your camera or person.
If your on, or in a public place shooting private property they can't touch you.
You won this one, and that little punk ass (also the cops) need to learn the law.
If I lived out there I'd be there shooting the hell outta that building.
July 30th, 2005 at 12:24 am
I can't remember the last time I went out for photos in my own neighborhood (downtown Manhattan) without being harrased. It's ten times worse at night, which is a shame because I used to love making night photos of NYC. Even armed with the facts about the laws, it's not easy being a 25-yr old Indian male photographer in NYC. I wonder if there's some way I could just get myself a press pass.
July 30th, 2005 at 2:14 am
to the person who asked about photo rights in canada, our charter of rights and freedoms says we all have a fundamental right to:
freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication
(paragraph 2 subsection b)
public space is public interest. you don't have to ask permission to photograph anyone or anything.
August 13th, 2005 at 4:05 am
i had something similar happen to me a few months ago.
i was taking a picture of a vw bug belonging to a person that i know which i just happened to see parked outside a shop on the main street of my suburb.
the lady that owned the shop came busting out... arms waving telling me no pictures no pictures... she then basically got to calling me a paedophile because i had a camera.
ummm... i was taking a picture of my friends car... i dont see how she had any legal rights to tell me to stop taking the picture...
i left, pictureless, because i was so angry at being slandered and i didnt want to cause a scene.
i have now informed all my friends and colleagues not to go to her shop (even though it is a very popular shop) so i hope word gets around.
August 15th, 2005 at 10:08 am
Mr Hawk,
It's still a great photo!
Here are a couple of tips that may minimize conflicts like the one you encountered:
Always look professional when taking photos in urban settings where post 9/11 concerns are high. Wear a photgraphers vest with some of your peripheral equipment in the pockets. Dress business casual.
Wear a picture ID with your name and company name visible. This sounds a little overboard but it makes a big difference. I frequently photograph aircraft at airports where law enforcement officers always stop to see what I'm doing. My press pass is the first thing they notice. They usually let me stay while others must leave. The only exception was when Air Force One was inbound.
Sounds like you maintained a cool head with the guy that gave you a rash outside the building. Always be courteous to those types.
Also, leave the police out of it if you can. Even though you were not breaking any laws you just don't know what can happen in these situations. Times are pretty crazy.
Hope you find this helpful.
BTW - You can legally make your own press pass if you meet the state criteria.
Regards,
Rick Melnick
February 23rd, 2006 at 12:03 pm
Hi,
what an interesting article!
I just want to leave a word to the wise about laws on terrorism (or protection form "terrorism".
I was vacationing in a certain state, and happened upon a hilarious situation, which I immediately wanted to photograph. This was a "photos of this building areprohibited" sign, which ahd fallen, and was obscured by grasses and weeds.
The building was a munitions firm, and the US was at war. It looked delapidated, but I got the hint, and it is from living in an area where almost Japanese-lke politesse seems to be encouraged, although rarely employed.
I understood that weapons technology, at times, has relied upon very sensitive heavy metals. Ina n older structure, it is quite possible that heavy-metals rich insects and animals could pattern upon thoughts and internet views (via cabling or lineswork underground), since they operate in tribal patterning on tiny things we don't think about, like an eyelash or sweat left behind from the shoot.
So, to be on the safe side, any land or structured site, which could possibly be rigged as a potentially resonant feature which could aggrandize as threatening vibration elsewhere, becoming a realized health hazard, has to be guarded.
They will not publish much about possible problems (including the source of computer viridiae) because they seem (all) to feel that any knowledge in the wrong hands could set off some attack.
What they need to do, seriously, is to keep commercial photographers posted on serious problems. Most people would stick to guideleines, or lose their license.
I am not a fascist, by the way- just safety oriented.
Cheers-your photo is beautifu, but have you thought of at what price?
April 18th, 2006 at 11:50 pm
[...] I’ve only seen various blogs and discussion groups such as here, here, here, here, here, and here (which currently seems to be Quebec-specific). [...]
May 8th, 2006 at 10:57 am
It's a pity. But they have't right to do it!
December 4th, 2006 at 8:28 am
It's ten times worse at night, which is a shame because I used to love making night photos of NYC. Even armed with the facts about the laws, it's not easy being a 25-yr old Indian male photographer in NYC.