"I don't think so." Well, I think so....

[Hjortsberg]

Was taking some pictures tonight in my home town. Having had my Lecia M3 for about 2 months, I decided to start messing around with night photoraphy and the 1 second shutter speed.

Was walking down the street and saw I regional greasy spoon called The Hat. It was harshly lit with lots of floresant tubes with one lone couple eating in it. It reminded me of Edward Hopper's "The Nighthawks" so I decided to take a photo. Walked inside to get a light meter reading and saw some old photos on the wall of The Hat that someone had taken in the 50's -60's, kinda in the style I was doing tonight: Pictures at night from the outside of people eating inside. They were good photos. Double checked my meter reading and went back outside to the sidewalk and clicked a photo.

And suddenly a rent-a-cop guard and someone from the kitchen staff coming rushing outside. "Oh, no," I thought.

"You can't take pictures"

"Why not?"

"Because you can't"

"Yes I can. I'm on a public sidewalk. I can stand on a public sidewalk and point my camera wherever I want to."

"I don't think so."

"Well, I think so."

And I left. Hopefully with a good photo. What would you guys do in such a circumstance?

[nex100]

i will just ignore them

[filmfan]

Just laugh at them, or show them a print-out of the photographer's rights if you wish to keep one in your camera bag.

[Keith]

Exactly what you did. No point in hanging around arguing with people who obviously don't know the law ... it achieves nothing!

[Hjortsberg]

It irked me that they had photos JUST LIKE THE ONE I WAS GOING TO TAKE (abet, taken 50 years ago) hanging on the inside of their business as, ostensibly, ads for how long their business has been around for.

What was the difference in the photo I was taking and the one's inside the store? Did someone tell those photographers 50 years ago "You can't take pictures?"

[Keith]

It irked me that they had photos JUST LIKE THE ONE I WAS GOING TO TAKE (abet, taken 50 years ago) hanging on the inside of their business as, ostensibly, ads for how long their business has been around for.

What was the difference in the photo I was taking and the one's inside the store? Did someone tell those photographers 50 years ago "You can't take pictures?"


There was no internet back then ... people didn't really give a crap.

[Hjortsberg]

There was no internet back then ... people didn't really give a crap.

yeah, i guess that makes sense...

[loquax ludens]

The restaurant owner may have commissioned those old photos, taken them himself, or solicited others to donate pictures. So that may be the difference. Not that it makes any difference. You certainly have a right to photograph the restaurant from public property.

I've been told numerous times that I can't photograph some building or other. I respond like you did, then walk away. There's really no point in arguing with the ignorant buffoons.

[DanP]

Keith said it right about the internet, people are a lot more paranoid now (some rightly).

And I think you did the right thing, let's keep the fights in the underground dungeons and UFC stadiums. :D

[efix]

I think you acted just the right way.

On the other hand, you never know if the might not beat you up ...

[Pirate]

I might have told them to look on the wall inside.

[jsrockit]

It has nothing to do with the pics on the wall. You don't know the circumstances behind those. My take is the rent-a-cop was just trying to exercise the little bit of authority that he thought he had. Typical really.

[degruyl]

It's funny, the only time I was ever told to stop taking a picture was when I was using an 8x10, taking pictures of piles of trash in an empty lot in trashadelphia.... By an apparently homeless person. I actually explained what was going on and continued shooting.

I was not on public property.

I've also never had a problem whipping out a camera (often a huge camera) in a bar or restaurant. I sometimes wonder about what the perceived difference is, that you got harassed but a person with a camera phone would have been ignored.

[umcelinho]

the only time I was told I couldn't photograph was in a park here in São Paulo with a Mamiya c330. a security guard came and politely told me that to take photos inside the park i should first get an authorization from the management. I'ts a public park. I said ok, put the camea in the bag, walked 100m and started shooting again.

Another time I was at a shopping gallery downtown where rockers hang out, it's a pretty interesting place. I was at the entrance with a friend for other reasons, but had my M3, so I took a couple snaps of her. Then a security guard came and asked me if I was the guy that would be taking photos there that day. I said that I wasn't (but come ON, how can the guy ask that this way?), so he told me I couldn't photograph there. Since it's a private place, fine, camera back to bag, no stress.

but it's important indeed to know your rights.

[JoeV]

I disagree with the idea of "show them a print-out of the photographer's rights." By definition, a "right" is something one doesn't have to prove. A right just is; it's something you exercise because it's intrinsic.

In fact, I'm probably contributing to the erosion of the right to public photography merely by contributing to the discussion, as if it were something out-of-the-ordinary that requires discussion. By contributing to the controversy, it reinforces the notion that there just might be some merit in restricting photographic activity.

Instead of talking about it, we should simply DO IT. Like breathing; one doesn't have to start a discussion forum thread on the merits of respiration, one simply breathes because the urge to do so is involuntary.

~Joe

[sanmich]

Porbably just the same, and because the "yes I do, no you don't " thing can be a bit annoying, I would have suggested the guy to call the police, while I simply continue shooting.

[Roger Hicks]

I disagree with the idea of "show them a print-out of the photographer's rights." By definition, a "right" is something one doesn't have to prove. A right just is; it's something you exercise because it's intrinsic.

In fact, I'm probably contributing to the erosion of the right to public photography merely by contributing to the discussion, as if it were something out-of-the-ordinary that requires discussion. By contributing to the controversy, it reinforces the notion that there just might be some merit in restricting photographic activity.

Instead of talking about it, we should simply DO IT. Like breathing; one doesn't have to start a discussion forum thread on the merits of respiration, one simply breathes because the urge to do so is involuntary.

~Joe
Dear Joe,

Not legally. As the old Latin tag has it, ubi remedium, ibi jus: where there is a remedy, there is a right. Many rights have to be protected or remedied in law. Otherwise, hitting people (which many do naturally, like breathing) could be defined as a right. Then again, as my old chum Padre Julio Roman pointed out, "Man has a right to sin, or sin could not exist."

Personally, in the case described, I'd not have gone into the café to take a light reading, at least, not without buying something. Then it'd have been quite easy to say, "Wow, those are great pictures, I think I'll try something similar," and ten to one the whole hassle would have been avoided.

Cheers,

R.

[Pherdinand]

i would also take a photo of them and say "see? i can!'

no probably i wouldn't. i am too chicken.

[oftheherd]

I agree with Mr. Hicks that you put yourself on less stable ground by going in the establishment only for a light reading. Even so, as long as you were taking the photo from public property, you would be within you rights in any jurisdiction I am familiar with in the USA.

But I am curious. What kind of place and neighborhood were you in? A security guard inside the eating establishment? Were you on a public street or perhaps in a park or strip mall of some sort?

[MC JC86]

But I am curious. What kind of place and neighborhood were you in? A security guard inside the eating establishment? Were you on a public street or perhaps in a park or strip mall of some sort?


Pretty much 100% (I can't think of a 24 hr establishment that doesn't) of the diners where I live have armed guards in them after the sun goes down. There's a lot of cash, and we all know the criminal element only comes out at night.



The OP DID do the correct thing by walking away. Trying to show people printouts of this and that is not usually effective, and will frequently escalate the situation to the point that you HAVE broken some kind of law. Depending on how the "guard" - "rentacop" is certified, where you are, in the USA it could even escalate to the point where you are arrested... wrongly.

The ability to legally photograph a building from the outside public area is almost universal.

Walking inside with your meter may have been interpreted as photographing inside as well. Since it is private property, perhaps that's what made the guard believe it was part of his purview.

Having worked as a bouncer for a few years, I know that giving people a little bit of authority will inevitably lead to them abusing it to the fullest extent. (Not me of course, no never :D)

[Paul Luscher]

I'll go with jsrockit here. This is a combination of ignorance with what I call the "Barney Fife" mentality.

[Hjortsberg]

I agree with Mr. Hicks that you put yourself on less stable ground by going in the establishment only for a light reading. Even so, as long as you were taking the photo from public property, you would be within you rights in any jurisdiction I am familiar with in the USA.

But I am curious. What kind of place and neighborhood were you in? A security guard inside the eating establishment? Were you on a public street or perhaps in a park or strip mall of some sort?

it was a nice part of town. i was on a public sidewalk on the main street thru town. it wasn't a strip mall.

yes, a spot meter would have been better. buy hey, I'm just into this two months now.

[filmfan]

I mentioned the print-out because, sadly, many people in charge of protecting law and order do not actually know the laws they are keeping which results in a lack of order (Cops). This print-out has kept a few of my friends from getting into escalated arguments and having police hold them while they call their superiors for clarification on the law. I am speaking from the experience of friends, while critics of this tactic merely speculate. One of these people is a very well respected photojournalist whom a few of you probably have taken workshops with.
To each, their own I guess...

(edit: sorry for the Ad Verecundiam argument, but I thought it was better to include it than to not)

[crawdiddy]

My response to "you can't take photographs" is to say "I'm pretty sure I can." And then I do.

[oftheherd]

A spot meter is nice. A telephoto lens with in camera that has an in camera meter is nice as well (I see your camera at the time didn't). Experience at that type of photography will help. I don't see where you did anything illegal. I don't know the area so I don't know if it would be wise, but it you got a decent photo, you might want to consider giving them an 8x10 print. Also be careful of how they use it, since the patrons might object if it is hung up in public view.

In the long run, I think you did the correct thing defending your rights, and then leaving. No harm, no foul.

[willie_901]

In your specific case I would have calmly told them to call the police or leave me alone. Private security guards rely heavily on intimidation and in your case intimidation was the only method available to make you go away.

Law enforcement officers are aware of the appropriate laws... and they really don't want to do all the paper work required to book you based on a guess (I guess the restaurant can prohibit photography from a public place?)

That said, even if a law enforcement officer is wrong, you should follow their orders. Later you can file a formal complaint that your constitutional rights were violated.

[kkdanamatt]

Exercising one's civil rights is similar to excercising one's muscles. If you don't excercise them, they tend to weaken.
Ergo, keep shooting, even after you've gotten all your pictures.

[crawdiddy]

Exercising one's civil rights is similar to excercising one's muscles. If you don't excercise them, they tend to weaken.
Ergo, keep shooting, even after you've gotten all your pictures.

I agree. Many things inspire me to photograph. One of them is a person in a public place telling me I can't photograph. At that point I consider it my duty to keep shooting. Even if I'm out of film.

[MC JC86]

I mentioned the print-out because, sadly, many people in charge of protecting law and order do not actually know the laws they are keeping which results in a lack of order (Cops). This print-out has kept a few of my friends from getting into escalated arguments and having police hold them while they call their superiors for clarification on the law. I am speaking from the experience of friends, while critics of this tactic merely speculate. One of these people is a very well respected photojournalist whom a few of you probably have taken workshops with.
To each, their own I guess...

(edit: sorry for the Ad Verecundiam argument, but I thought it was better to include it than to not)



Not for a second would I doubt your experiences or those of your friends.

I am not, as you say, merely speculating. I HAVE used this tactic before and found it to be problematic. Having the codified law, in print, on your side can go either way.


To each their own is a good point though, as I believe a lot of people that tend to come into these situations wouldn't be able to diffuse any tense situation regardless of what moral or legal high ground they held.

Like anything, everything involved will vary case by case.

EDIT: I take you have probably never been beaten or roughed up by the police... it's quite a hopeless situation, while it's happening ;)

[filmfan]

Exercising one's civil rights is similar to excercising one's muscles. If you don't excercise them, they tend to weaken.
Ergo, keep shooting, even after you've gotten all your pictures.

I agree. Except we are discussing the defense of civil rights and not the exercise of them...