Alabama Town's Photography Permit Draws Fire

[bmattock]

http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003729465

Read the entire story by clicking on the link...

Alabama Town's Photography Permit Draws Fire
Published: March 24, 2008 10:45 AM ET

MOORESVILLE, Ala. The city of Mooresville is charging commercial photographers $500 for a permit to take pictures of its historic buildings, a practice some are questioning as discriminatory and unlawful.

Huntsville photographer Don Broome sent a letter to the editor of The Huntsville Times after he was served with a violation notice two weeks ago and told to leave town because he didn’t buy the permit before taking pictures.

Since Mooresville also charges $30 for a business privilege license, it costs commercial photographers $530 a year to take pictures in the north Alabama town, which is listed in the National Register of Historic Places and has about 60 residents.

“To me if I’m on a public street, whatever view I have is mine to photograph,” Broome said. “If I go on somebody’s private property to take pictures, then I’d be stealing it.”

And here we go again.

Friend of mine told me his father had his memory card CONFISCATED by police this past weekend while he was taking photos of a train station in Texas, where he retired to. He was on public property - he's like 80 years old, a retired engineer, and as loyal an American as there ever was - very 'law and order'. Local cop walked up, told him he was breaking the law, and demanded the memory card from his digicam. Put it in his pocket and told my friend's dad to get lost before he got arrested and turned over to Homeland Security.

Somebody tell me when this crap is going to end? Never mind, rhetorical question - this is never going to end.

[Rick Waldroup]

I don't know Bill, maybe it will take a bunch of photographers getting arrested to shine some light on the matter. Maybe that will make a difference in some of these whacked out laws and whacky behaviour from law enforcement officers and agencies.

I have come close to being arrested twice since 9/11 for street shooting. Both times I was in downtown Dallas. I stood my ground, even after being told I may be arrested, and both times I was let go with a warning.

This crap is really, really starting to get old. Maybe that is what it will take- arresting 80 year old men for taking photos, to bring attention to this problem. I don't know.

[like2fiddle]

I was recently reprimanded for photographing my family walking out to a plane - that I guess I can understand to a certain extent, but photographing buildings in any-town, USA ???:confused:

[SolaresLarrave]

Tell your father the retired engineer that it's high time to go to a lawyer. The cop infringed the constitution by confiscating his card.

As for the other examples... I find it peculiar that none occurred in the midwest. Thank goodness! :)

[bmattock]

Tell your father the retired engineer that it's high time to go to a lawyer. The cop infringed the constitution by confiscating his card.

As for the other examples... I find it peculiar that none occurred in the midwest. Thank goodness! :)

Not my father - he is deceased. It was the father of a friend of mine, and I have made the suggestion, but to no avail. His father is of the belief that whatever cops do must be for a reason or they would not do it. Like I said, a real 'law and order' type. Even supports the cops when they infringe on his own rights. Well, his choice.

[Roger Hicks]

It's going to have to be the Home of the Brave, if the Land of the Free is to have any chance of surviving.

In the Texas story, the cop simply stole the card. That's all there is to it.

Everyone I have heard of who has said, "Go ahead, arrest me," has either had the cops back down, or (in due course) a written apology. Anyone heard contrary stories? (I'm not saying I know it all, just that this is all I've heard).

Cheers,

R.

[bmattock]

I was recently reprimanded for photographing my family walking out to a plane - that I guess I can understand to a certain extent, but photographing buildings in any-town, USA ???:confused:

I wonder how they feel about airshows? There I was, at the AIR FORCE BASE, taking photos of ACTUAL MILITARY PLANES and so were THOUSANDS of others! And since I'm in the Detroit area, which has a huge Muslim population, there were HUNDREDS of Muslim women in traditional garb taking photos WHILE WEARING Burkas! Oh, the horror! I'm surprised we were not all machine-gunned on the spot, for our own protection, of course.

And then you take a photo of a civilian plane from an airport terminal and some brain-stem gives you grief about it. Good Lord.

[bmattock]

It's going to have to be the Home of the Brave, if the Land of the Free is to have any chance of surviving.

In the Texas story, the cop simply stole the card. That's all there is to it.

Everyone I have heard of who has said, "Go ahead, arrest me," has either had the cops back down, or (in due course) a written apology. Anyone heard contrary stories? (I'm not saying I know it all, just that this is all I've heard).

Cheers,

R.

All true - but we must also remember that those who choose to defend liberty by risking arrest still pay a price. No one gives them their jobs back, which they may have lost due to being in the clink for awhile. No one gives them back the respect of their community, who shuns them when they learn their neighbor has 'been arrested' by the police. And the legal expenses can be back-breaking and home-threatening.

I am willing to risk much - but less now that I have a wife, a mortgage, and my wife's elderly mother living with us. I could not bear to see them without a roof over their heads because I chose to stand on principle.

[SolaresLarrave]

Oops, sorry, Bill, misread your post.

It's still pretty infuriating... At least the one and only time they wanted to place a ban on photography in Chicago, it faced such a ridicule they had to back out. It happened when they decided to prohibit all photographs of the Cloud Gate (aka the Bean, a sculpture made of shiny metal, and placed in Millenium Park), arguing copyright issues. I don't recall the exact reaction but they ended up saying that while the whole world could photograph it, commercial photographers (aka tripod users) would need a permit.

I don't think anybody enforces that silly rule. I don't even think the artist cares about the copyright.

Still the Alabama and Texas story are disturbing... to say the least.

[Roger Hicks]

All true - but we must also remember that those who choose to defend liberty by risking arrest still pay a price. No one gives them their jobs back, which they may have lost due to being in the clink for awhile. No one gives them back the respect of their community, who shuns them when they learn their neighbor has 'been arrested' by the police. And the legal expenses can be back-breaking and home-threatening.

I am willing to risk much - but less now that I have a wife, a mortgage, and my wife's elderly mother living with us. I could not bear to see them without a roof over their heads because I chose to stand on principle.

Dear Bill,

I fully take your point. I find it hard to believe that people would lose jobs or win the opprobrium of half-sane neighbours over taking such a stand, but I accept that it must be possible, or you would not suggest it.

But that wasn't really my point. Does anyone know of such a thing actually happening? Or is everyone trading on fear? What is the real risk?

I suspect that it is even less than the risk of being murdered or injured by terrorists.

Cheers,

R.

[bmattock]

At least the one and only time they wanted to place a ban on photography in Chicago, it faced such a ridicule they had to back out. It happened when they decided to prohibit all photographs of the Cloud Gate (aka the Bean, a sculpture made of shiny metal, and placed in Millenium Park), arguing copyright issues. I don't recall the exact reaction but they ended up saying that while the whole world could photograph it, commercial photographers (aka tripod users) would need a permit.

I went and took photos of it a year or so ago. It was being photographed by so many people, I think it would have taken an army of cops to stop them all.

And while I was there, not one but TWO wedding photographers came by, complete with their entire wedding entourage, taking photos in and around the Cloud Gate, with it in the background.

The controversy in that case, as I recall, was not that it was 'illegal' to photograph the sculpture - as in a 'crime' but rather that it was a private tort - civil law. The owner of the copyright, which was either the sculptor or the owner of it, I can't recall which, wanted copyright strictly enforced, which to them meant 'no professional copies' to include no commercial photographs. The City of Chicago tried for awhile to go along with the ban to avoid being sued themselves for allowing copyright infringement.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cloud_Gate

When I was there, it was clearly no longer being enforced.

Copyright law is interesting - some have claimed copyright over their buildings, to include photographs made of the building itself. Not criminal law, per se, but civil law is involved. And to some extent, the rights of artists versus artists - the right of the creator of a work to deny another artist to make a commercial derivative of it. Some similarities to popular music 'samples' of other songs where the riff is recognizable, but incorporated in a new way. I have no idea where all this will end up.

[sepiareverb]

I wonder how they feel about airshows? There I was, at the AIR FORCE BASE, taking photos of ACTUAL MILITARY PLANES and so were THOUSANDS of others!...

This is absolutely against the law as it was read to me on a Navy Base in Boston which also happens to be a tourist attraction.

Frightening when 'Red White & Blue' Americans happily allow their civil liberties trampled on without a whimper, as if everything America stands for in so many minds goes out the window because a terrorist attack happened. It is just this sort of thing that makes it more and more likely to get worse.

As to the commercial photography fee- NYC had in the late 80's (may still have) a similar law- if a tripod is in use one must have a permit and liability insurance at minimum. A passed law is a passed law. Not much to do except work to overturn it.

[Steve Bellayr]

IT IS COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY. There is an amendment to the constitution ref. "search and seizure". A Public official must have a warant to take that property. The only property that a public official may take without a warrant is contraband...narcotics, weapons, alcohol or evidence of a crime but that official must submit a report. Normally, an arrest takes place. How do you know that that public official did NOT keep and use that card without notifying his supervisor or submitting a report. I'd recommend that the elderly gentleman who had his card "stolen" by a public official contact the Internal Affairs office of that police department and inquire if that card was lawfully turned in. Federal law supercedes all state and local laws in this area. This means if the Federal Government may not take your property without due process then the States & Locales may not either.

As for the Alabama case. That is different. In the first four years of the GW Bush Admin. his officials at the Department of Interior and other agencies decided that all public monuments were "copyrighted" and they no longer belonged to the public but the Federal Government. (I don't understand the reasoning either.) Professional photograhers have always been required to obtain a permit to photograph Federal monuments. This permit was free and required notification to ascertain if it would be disruptive to the public and the site. For example, a movie crew with 100 members would require additional security and that security would be government employees who would be paid by the Photo Crew (through government channels). All very legal and normally no problem. But, as I stated The Bush Administration copyrighted the historical sites, etc. & now it is more complicated. In Alabama I assume that the town has copywritten the historical sites and does not want anyone to sell the photographs of them without their permission.

"Notify Homeland Security" is a meaningless threat. A counter threat is "May I have your name and badge number, please? What law am I violating?"

[Gabriel M.A.]

Friend of mine told me his father had his memory card CONFISCATED by police this past weekend while he was taking photos of a train station in Texas, where he retired to.
Well, I shouldn't be surprised this happens in a retro area where "rights" are thought of as sissy communist (heh -- the irony) ideas.

It reminds me of a Simpsons episode where the town passes tax laws to nickle-and-dime the film industry.

As long as they don't start charging permits to speak the regional dialect (isn't that their "historical property", too?), I think they won't be the butt of jokes. Yet.

The question now is: do you need to pay for a permit to use the town's name on a public forum? :rolleyes:

[bmattock]

Dear Bill,

I fully take your point. I find it hard to believe that people would lose jobs of win the opprobrium of half-sane neighbours over taking such a stand, but I accept that it must be possible, or you would not suggest it.


People are being fired from their jobs in the US for saying things on blogs that others find objectionable and report them to their employers. Most states in the US acknowledge an employer's right to terminate any employee for any reason, or no reason at all - just as an employee is free to leave anytime they wish, for no reason at all.


But that wasn't really my point. Does anyone know of such a thing actually happening? Or is everyone trading on fear? What is the real risk?


Sure, their are numerous cases - recent ones - of photographers actually being arrested.

Here in Royal Oak, Michigan, we have the case of local photographer Jeffrey Sauger. He traveled to Toledo, Ohio, to photograph a Nazi rally. He was arrested by the police for failing to disperse when told to, along with two other photographers. He was convicted, and sent to prison for 8 to 14 months. Before his sentencing, he reported he had lost about $6,000 to lost bookings and revenue from his main business (wedding photography). He had been voted National Press Photographer's Photographer of the Year in the past, and had served as a photojournalist in Iraq with distinction.

So it happens.


I suspect that it is even less than the risk of being murdered or injured by terrorists.


True.

However, I have been approached by authority figures on more than one occasion, and several of them have asked me to do things that they did not have the authority to do (not take their photo, show them my camera, give them my memory card, erase the photos I had taken, etc). I complied with some requests and not with others. I have not yet been arrested. But it is a risk.

In Detroit, apparently it is a 'local' problem with the Renaissance building - if you take photographs of it from the public 'River Walk' area and are seen, you'll be approached by either RenCen security guards or Detroit PD and told to stop taking photos. But walk across the street into Detroit and take the same photo - apparently no one cares. And I took my photos of the RenCen from across the river in Windsor, Ontario (better skyline view). Lots of such photos floating around - I fail to see the terrorist threat of such a photo.

[Pherdinand]

LOL
What an arrogant little town.
imagine now a city like Rome doing it. Or Paris. Or any other major tourist attraction.

[bmattock]

IT IS COMPLETELY UNLAWFUL FOR ANY PUBLIC OFFICIAL TO TAKE YOUR PROPERTY. There is an amendment to the constitution ref. "search and seizure". A Public official must have a warant to take that property. The only property that a public official may take without a warrant is contraband...narcotics, weapons, alcohol or evidence of a crime but that official must submit a report. Normally, an arrest takes place. How do you know that that public official did NOT keep and use that card without notifying his supervisor or submitting a report. I'd recommend that the elderly gentleman who had his card "stolen" by a public official contact the Internal Affairs office of that police department and inquire if that card was lawfully turned in. Federal law supercedes all state and local laws in this area. This means if the Federal Government may not take your property without due process then the States & Locales may not either.

I'm fully familiar with the 4th Amendment, but your point is well-taken.

In this case, the 'elderly gentleman' has been asked, and has declined to take action, so that's the end of it, I'm afraid.


As for the Alabama case. That is different. In the first four years of the GW Bush Admin. his officials at the Department of Interior and other agencies decided that all public monuments were "copyrighted" and they no longer belonged to the public but the Federal Government. (I don't understand the reasoning either.) Professional photograhers have always been required to obtain a permit to photograph Federal monuments. This permit was free and required notification to ascertain if it would be disruptive to the public and the site. For example, a movie crew with 100 members would require additional security and that security would be government employees who would be paid by the Photo Crew (through government channels). All very legal and normally no problem. But, as I stated The Bush Administration copyrighted the historical sites, etc. & now it is more complicated. In Alabama I assume that the town has copywritten the historical sites and does not want anyone to sell the photographs of them without their permission.


Most US Forests and Parks and National Monuments require fees to be paid and a permit obtained for 'commercial photography'. I'm not sure how they determine what is 'commercial photography' or not. If I post a photo I took on Flickr, is that commercial? What if I put it in a book, or submit it to a newspaper or magazine and it gets published? What if I have it made into t-shirts?

And what do they do about Google Earth? I can zoom in to CloudGate on Google Earth easily enough. See it from space. Is that commercial use? Does Google have to pay fees to see it?


"Notify Homeland Security" is a meaningless threat. A counter threat is "May I have your name and badge number, please? What law am I violating?"

I agree. But apparently, many do not.

[bmattock]

LOL
What an arrogant little town.
imagine now a city like Rome doing it. Or Paris. Or any other major tourist attraction.

Most people aren't going to catch your irony - you might want to explain it a tad. But I get you.

One of the main differences between, say, being denied permission to photograph the Eiffel Tower and being denied permission to photograph a building in the town square of a US town is the Bill of Rights. They ain't got one - we do. It really does come down to that, sometimes.

[ClaremontPhoto]

I believe that Italy has copyrighted Tuscany, and London has strict restrictions on the underground, and Egypt has copyrighted the pyramids. For professional photography.

You or I can still go to those places with a camera. No problem.

But a professional cinema film crew or the like needs a permit.

Sounds like this picturesque little town in the original post is saying the same.

I once lived in a pretty English village. Day to day photography was fine of course. But when twenty tv film trucks turned up unannounced once a week or so... Completely different.

[Al Patterson]

It's going to have to be the Home of the Brave, if the Land of the Free is to have any chance of surviving.

In the Texas story, the cop simply stole the card. That's all there is to it.

Everyone I have heard of who has said, "Go ahead, arrest me," has either had the cops back down, or (in due course) a written apology. Anyone heard contrary stories? (I'm not saying I know it all, just that this is all I've heard).

Cheers,

R.

Well, the story I am aware of consisted of about $3,000 in lawyers fees to get back a $100 CF card. And the judge read the cops the riot act in court.

Sometimes, standing on principal can be expensive.

I have enough money to hire a lawyer, but many folks do not.

[ibcrewin]

I was taking pictures on the subway platform once and some guy says to me.. "Hey buddy. I'd be careful if I were you.. You could get into a lot of trouble for that!"

The cititzen of our country live in fear.. more so of the "author-ay-tays" than the "evil doers"

[Steve Bellayr]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

from the US Constitution

[Roger Hicks]

People are being fired from their jobs in the US for saying things on blogs that others find objectionable and report them to their employers. Most states in the US acknowledge an employer's right to terminate any employee for any reason, or no reason at all - just as an employee is free to leave anytime they wish, for no reason at all.

Dear Bill,

Thanks for the examples. But surely all states have unfair dismissal laws? And some may even allow trades union? Anyone who doesn't join a union is asking for trouble...

Cheers,

Roger

[Roger Hicks]

Well, the story I am aware of consisted of about $3,000 in lawyers fees to get back a $100 CF card. And the judge read the cops the riot act in court.

Sometimes, standing on principal can be expensive.

I have enough money to hire a lawyer, but many folks do not.

Dear Al,

What puzzles me is why one would need to hire a lawyer. It is true that the lawyer who represents himself in court has a fool for a client, but equally, I'd be willing to back my modest legal skills against flat illegallity, i.e. against even bigger fools, the more so in view of your remarks about reading the riot act.

And there's always the ACLU...

Of course, under English law, the losing side pays all the costs (at the discretion of the taxing master). In some areas, without question, US law is superior to English (libel law, for example) but alas legal costs are not among those areas of superiority.

Cheers,

R.

[sepiareverb]

...One of the main differences between, say, being denied permission to photograph the Eiffel Tower and being denied permission to photograph a building in the town square of a US town is the Bill of Rights. They ain't got one - we do...

And they make up for it with a goodly dose of common sense.

[kevin m]

But surely all states have unfair dismissal laws?

Bwah hah! This is 'murca you're talking about. Many states, particularly in the south, have comically titled "right to work" laws, which basically mean the worker has NO rights whatsoever. Tough to exercise your constitutional freedoms when your "right" to make a living can be yanked out from under you on any pretext at all.

And unions? "Union" ranks just below "commie" and "homo" as the most hateful epithet you can hurl at another person. It's been a wildly successful campaign to get workers to demonize the one mechanism that gives them any power at all in the workplace.

[sepiareverb]

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

from the US Constitution

Seems more and more like some of our leaders think it reads:

"The right of the government to sieze all persons, houses, papers, and effects, through unreasonable searches, shall not be questioned, and no resistance shall issue, but upon secretive cause, supported by heresay or less, any persons or things shall be seized."

[nikonhswebmaster]

Life is not simple... the police behave badly sometimes.

NYC has always charged for commercial work on the street. You get a permit, and you pay for the police, if needed, to direct traffic and pedestrians around your shoot. If you want to shoot commercially (setting up a tripod on the sidewalk) you can just take a chance, usually they will just ask you to move along. Personally I just use a monopod, and have never had any issues. I do it all the time.

[bmattock]

I think one of the problems that people may not be aware of (until it happens to them) is the ease by which one can be identified as a 'commercial' or 'professional' photographer. In some places, it is down to individual discretion to determine if you are or are not a 'pro'; and that can turn on things like having a 'long lens' or a 'zoom' or a 'tripod'.

One may certainly protest being wrongly categorized, but many people in positions of authority do not like to reverse themselves having rendered their decision already.

On photopermit.org, I was reading the case of a man thrown out of a California park for the crime of having a 'professional-looking' camera without a permit. Had the officer decided he was not a 'pro' then he'd have been fine. As it was - vacation ruined, go home or be arrested, etc, etc.

If there are 'different rules' for commercial and private photographers, then there should be some objective set of rules to decide who is which.

[back alley]

does rehashing this same old post (or one almost like it) make you guys really feel any better?

40% of americans and canadians vote...we get what we deserve.

[bmattock]

does rehashing this same old post (or one almost like it) make you guys really feel any better?

40% of americans and canadians vote...we get what we deserve.

You're right, Joe. We should be spending our time talking about Noks versus Crons - things that really matter.

;)

[back alley]

i'm not citicizing or judging (well, maybe a little) but it seems like an endless thread with only the names of the innocent being changed...at least 'noks and crons' fit into a photo site. this more politics than images or gear talk.
i can go to a moveaway.org if i want to bash the right or takeaway.org if i want to bash the left but i doubt i could find a decent discussion of 1.4 vs 2.8 on either of those sites.

[bmattock]

i'm not citicizing or judging (well, maybe a little) but it seems like an endless thread with only the names of the innocent being changed...at least 'noks and crons' fit into a photo site. this more politics than images or gear talk.
i can go to a moveaway.org if i want to bash the right or takeaway.org if i want to bash the left but i doubt i could find a decent discussion of 1.4 vs 2.8 on either of those sites.

OK, you da boss.

[back alley]

i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.

[BillP]

i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.

Should we not discuss something that impacts upon our ability to pursue our pastime without let or hindrance?

Should we not be aware, or made aware, of the difficulties others face when out taking photographs?

Should we not care if another photographer is criminalised for his legitimate and legal actions?

Should we just turn away because, after all, we can always just stay indoors and fondle our equipment?

Should we not be aware of our rights?

Should we not make a stand?

Regards,

Bill

[bmattock]

i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.

Very philosophical. I wonder, too. Just remember the immortal words of The Grass Roots with their hit song, "Live for Today." That keeps me going.

[Al Patterson]

i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.

That is quite true Joe. I tend to post mostly when I'm on the road and in the hotel, so even a rehashing of this thread beats what's on TV most of the time.

And I'm already reading 3 or 4 books a week.

I need to shoot more I guess. I should see if I can schedule an early morning shot in Queens some time...

[sepiareverb]

The more we ignore these illegal actions by the state the more they'll creep in everywhere.

[Keith]

I think the moderator just flamed this thread ... :angel:

Now it will get ugly! :p

[jl-lb.ms]

As for the Alabama case. That is different. In the first four years of the GW Bush Admin. his officials at the Department of Interior and other agencies decided that all public monuments were "copyrighted" and they no longer belonged to the public but the Federal Government.


This is intriguing - and I don't understand it. The U.S. Government does not own copyrights. Any work of the Government is by default, in the public domain.

???

John

[Disaster_Area]

Its actually very informative as a Canadian to have this stuff brought to my attention. Maybe I'm just lucky Canada hasnt adopted such a strict policy against photography. I can still take pictures in airports... in fact I was in Ottawa airport last night picking up my girlfriend. I had some time to kill and I had my camera on me (I usually have at least one stashed somewhere on me) so I figured I take some shots. I wasn't sure exactly what the rules where concerning taking photo's in airports so I asked a security guard, he actually looked at me as if I was weird for asking, he said as long as I don't try taking pictures of whats behind doors labled "Do Not Enter" of course it was fine. I can walk directly into the Parliament buildings and take shots of any of the public areas. The only place I've encountered any resistance is at the Canadian War Museum.. but I can understand why.. I was fully geared up from a day of shooting and just stopped in cuz I was passing on my way home, full vest on, backpack, tripod and two bodies around my neck. They said I had to get permission if I was on assignment or this was for commercial work. I said I wasnt but I could see why they didnt beleive me ;) So I had to go through the tedious process of getting permission.. they called a guy.. said there was a guy with a lot of gear that wanted to take pictures inside.. guy on the other end said "ok". They didnt even ask my name or ask me to fill anything out. The only think I havent had the nerve to do is photograph the American Embassy... which is a pity because its a gorgeous building, but I think I might encounter trouble trying that.

Without posts like this I wouldnt be prepared for what to expect when I leave the country. Just out of curiosity would the American Constitution protect me as a visitor.. ie if I took a trip to NYC and a cop asked me to hand over my memory card for whatever reason.. would I be protected against illegal search and seizure?

[back alley]

That is quite true Joe. I tend to post mostly when I'm on the road and in the hotel, so even a rehashing of this thread beats what's on TV most of the time.

And I'm already reading 3 or 4 books a week.

I need to shoot more I guess. I should see if I can schedule an early morning shot in Queens some time...

in queens, nyc?

[sepiareverb]

...Just out of curiosity would the American Constitution protect me as a visitor.. ie if I took a trip to NYC and a cop asked me to hand over my memory card for whatever reason.. would I be protected against illegal search and seizure?

Technically yes. Reality says it would entirely depend on what you look like. And I'd suspect you'd have less toruble in NYC than in most places in the US. NYC is one place where common sense still seems to have a good hold (or it has always seemed that way to me- I moved out 18 years ago but visit regularly).

[Al Patterson]

in queens, nyc?

That's the one. I'm working in Jamaica Queens on a contract gig, so I'm up there 4 or 5 days a week.

Unfortunately, I'm more familiar with Midtown Manhattan, but that's a bit tougher to fit into the schedule.

[back alley]

i grew up in richmond hill, queens, very different now, can't say i'd know the place much.

there was a street in forest hills, i think, called austin street, had a lot of cool shops there.

[dexdog]

Bwah hah! This is 'murca you're talking about. Many states, particularly in the south, have comically titled "right to work" laws, which basically mean the worker has NO rights whatsoever. Tough to exercise your constitutional freedoms when your "right" to make a living can be yanked out from under you on any pretext at all.

And unions? "Union" ranks just below "commie" and "homo" as the most hateful epithet you can hurl at another person. It's been a wildly successful campaign to get workers to demonize the one mechanism that gives them any power at all in the workplace.

In Virginia, the "right to work" means that you cannot be required to join a union in order to do a job. No laws against joining a union if you want to.

[bmattock]

In Virginia, the "right to work" means that you cannot be required to join a union in order to do a job. No laws against joining a union if you want to.

I actually think you're correct. The term I think we're looking for here is "at will." NC is an "at will" state, meaning that an employee may leave with or without giving notice to his employer - or any reason for doing so. Likewise, an employer may terminate an employee with or without notice, with cause or without cause, and without explaining themselves.

Most US states are "at will" employment states.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/At-will

Unions seek to put collective bargaining agreements in place between worker and employer, which ends the 'at will' nature of the employment.

However, unlike most EU nations, in the USA, one cannot simply 'join the union.' First, your job classification must be covered by an existing union (unless you wish to start your own or petition an existing union to cover your SIC code). Second, one must serve public notice of an organization attempt. Third, there must be a vote among employees of the same job code. If it succeeds, they join the union - all of them - or are terminated. If it fails, then the attempt is defeated, the organizing employee is let go, and that's that.

Some US states have 'right to work' laws that require an open shop - meaning that people can choose whether or not to belong to the union and be represented by union collective bargaining. Not that common. Most unions in the USA are also labor unions. Some efforts have been made to unionize IT workers, but most efforts have failed to date.

That's what little I know about it - could be faulty, so correct me if I'm wrong.

[myoptic3]

A few years ago I was sleeping on a train to Portland when I was awakened at 3 am by 2 suits that identified themselves as DEA. Said they were looking for drugs and weapons. Told 'em fine, I didn't have anything like that. Asked if they could search my backpack. What was I going to do, say no? They also asked for my ticket and I.D and asked a lot of questions. The I.D. surprised them, as I have a long Italian name and I am sure they thought I was Mexican. I put up w/ it for a while, then when one of them asked for my help w/ a pocket of the backpack they couldn't seem to open I lost my temper and said ,"No, you want in there, you figure it out"! They quickly backed off, zipped it all up, were all nicey nicey and left.

Later I was sitting there (I was the only one "profiled" in my car) and getting madder and madder. The conductor came by and I collared him and he said, "It happens all the time". I said it didn't feel right. It felt un American. He said, "I totally agree with you. This isn't America anymore".

He was and is right, and this ain't America anymore, so do not expect anything to drastically change any time soon. When a country moves toward a totalitarian state it does not move the other way unless forced to do so by drastic measures, and I just do not see people w/ the sort of intestinal fortitude to do anything about it .

[bmattock]

A few years ago I was sleeping on a train to Portland when I was awakened at 3 am by 2 suits that identified themselves as DEA. Said they were looking for drugs and weapons. Told 'em fine, I didn't have anything like that. Asked if they could search my backpack. What was I going to do, say no? They also asked for my ticket and I.D and asked a lot of questions. The I.D. surprised them, as I have a long Italian name and I am sure they thought I was Mexican. I put up w/ it for a while, then when one of them asked for my help w/ a pocket of the backpack they couldn't seem to open I lost my temper and said ,"No, you want in there, you figure it out"! They quickly backed off, zipped it all up, were all nicey nicey and left.

Later I was sitting there (I was the only one "profiled" in my car) and getting madder and madder. The conductor came by and I collared him and he said, "It happens all the time". I said it didn't feel right. It felt un American. He said, "I totally agree with you. This isn't America anymore".

He was and is right, and this ain't America anymore, so do not expect anything to drastically change any time soon. When a country moves toward a totalitarian state it does not move the other way unless forced to do so by drastic measures, and I just do not see people w/ the sort of intestinal fortitude to do anything about it .

I'm sorry it happened to you. I assume an Amtrak train?

I have been taking Amtrak a lot lately instead of flying - or I drive. I used to fly for a living - I quit in 2004. I just could not take the illegal searches and bully boy tactics used in the airports under the guise of 'protecting me'.

I only read in the last month of so that the Department of Homeland Security is going to start putting undercover operatives, uniformed *armed* agents on trains with drug and bomb-sniffing dogs, and so on. This after many years of Congress being afraid of a general revolt if the TSA started interfering with NE corridor commuter-rail travel. Guess they don't care anymore...

However, I must also say this - and it hurts to admit it - but you and I don't have the same rights inside a government-owned train as we do in 'public'. It sucks, because when I make long trips, I really *like* the train.

[kevin m]

In Virginia, the "right to work" means that you cannot be required to join a union in order to do a job. No laws against joining a union if you want to.

Which, in southern parlance, means that unions have been very effectively, legally expelled from the workplace. That you see this as some sort of "choice" just illustrates how effectively big business interests have skewed the discussion.

We are all free to be wage slaves. Rejoice! ;)

[xayraa33]

So far only swarthy people are hassled it seems, it will include more skin colour groups as time goes by.

[tripod]

I'm hoping more and more posts like this get photographers motivated enough to do something about it. Come on people, who'll join the Patriotic Street Photographers group? If I were retired and had the time to invest, I'd run it. Issue membership cards, T-shirts, and caps. Of course criminal background checks would have to submitted by potential members to lend some credibility to the group. Then some phone calls, letters and emails to various news media and agencies to stir up a buzz about it. We could do this.

[Al Patterson]

So far only swarthy people are hassled it seems, it will include more skin colour groups as time goes by.

I'm a 6'2" white guy, and back before my I shaved of most of my beard, I was profiled something like 5 out of 8 airline segments. Since the change, hardly ever. So much for "random" searches...

[Pitxu]

I'm hoping more and more posts like this get photographers motivated enough to do something about it. Come on people, who'll join the Patriotic Street Photographers group? If I were retired and had the time to invest, I'd run it. Issue membership cards, T-shirts, and caps. Of course criminal background checks would have to submitted by potential members to lend some credibility to the group. Then some phone calls, letters and emails to various news media and agencies to stir up a buzz about it. We could do this.

"Fotographers Against Fascism"

I'll join.

[sepiareverb]

... This isn't America anymore...

This is why these threads are necessary Joe. It's a slippery slope we're on down here, and getting steeper every day.

[tripod]

"Fotographers Against Fascism"

I'll join.


Your title is more accurate, but I think the positive patriotic spin would be more sellable and acceptable. We want to be part of the solution, not another adversary for the government to fight. You know, catching more flies with honey than with vinegar... :)

[tripod]

What we really need is a person with letters, or a celebrity to spear head this, or at least to endorse it publically. Some famous photographer would work. Anyone know anyone?

[Pitxu]

What we really need is a person with letters, or a celebrity to spear head this, or at least to endorse it publically. Some famous photographer would work. Anyone know anyone?

I don't know about on your side of the pond, but I seem to remember a British MP who always carried a camera everywhere.

Any Brits remember his name?

[back alley]

What we really need is a person with letters, or a celebrity to spear head this, or at least to endorse it publically. Some famous photographer would work. Anyone know anyone?

how about seal?

[bmattock]

how about seal?

I was going to say Leonard Nimoy, but like Seal, I don't think either are US citizens. Then I thought of Dennis Hopper...uh...maybe not.

EDIT: Or Goldwater, but he's taking a dirt-nap.

Hmmm...

[tripod]

Seal certainly has the celebrity status and is interested in photography, I've heard.

[xayraa33]

I don't know about on your side of the pond, but I seem to remember a British MP who always carried a camera everywhere.

Any Brits remember his name?

this Brit MP thinks like most of us.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Labour_MP_Austin_Mitchell_launches_photo_petition_ in_Parliament_news_197555.html

[tripod]

Bryan (Brian?) Adams in Canada.

[tripod]

Bono already has a good cause.

[Pitxu]

this Brit MP thinks like most of us.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/Labour_MP_Austin_Mitchell_launches_photo_petition_ in_Parliament_news_197555.html



Thanks, thats the guy I was thinking of.

[jan normandale]

Photographers don't have a chance when Barney Fife's on the job.

[patrickjames]

These situations just p@@@ me off. I am not a lawyer so don't take my advice here, but you are the one that has all of the rights in a confrontation with a cop. Do the research. Don't be a fool. I would tell you what I do, but someone would probably end up suing me. I would frankly rather be arrested than suffer the alternative. That is not some macho talk either. I really mean that.

Patrick

[Pitxu]

Something like the cyclists do with "Critical Mass" might get some attention.

[Al Patterson]

Something like the cyclists do with "Critical Mass" might get some attention.

Great idea, but it does require that you have some bail money available.

[bmattock]

Something like the upcoming "Day of Silence" for homosexuals would get some attention, but the pro photographers and national agencies would have to cooperate - pick a day and NO PHOTOS. No video for TV, no stills for newspapers, nada, nothing. Try a day without photographs and then when the photos come back, say "And here is why we did this."

Just a pipe dream.

http://www.dayofsilence.org/

[back alley]

spock isn't american?

[bmattock]

spock isn't american?

I beg your pardon - my mistake! It was Bill Shatner I was thinking of. Nimoy was apparently born in Boston, MA. Who knew? Mea culpa to all - and to Leonard as well!

[Pitxu]

spock isn't american?

Vulcan.....;)

[nikonhswebmaster]

Can you say "look away?" NYC undercover cops... nice jackets, there must have been a sale.

[bmattock]

I took a photo of a DHS-licensed vehicle when I was in DC, as we passed it on the highway. They saw me, scowled. I waved.

[Disaster_Area]

What about Richard Gere... he's actually a fairly well known photographer in his own right and is a fan of causes of all kinds :)

[xayraa33]

What about Richard Gere... he's actually a fairly well known photographer in his own right and is a fan of causes of all kinds :)

He is more infamous for publicly kissing indian actress Shilpa Shetty and gerbils. :D

[CorreCaminos]

How about the ACLU? That's exactly what its name refers to.

[Pitxu]

"The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and laws of the United States."

It would seem the ACLU wouldn't be much use if the US government is dismantling the constitution.

(I am not america bashing.)

[Pitxu]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reporters_Without_Borders

"Reporters Without Borders states that it draws its inspiration from Article 19 of the 1948 Universal Declaration of Human Rights (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universal_Declaration_of_Human_Rights), according to which everyone has "the right to freedom of opinion and expression" and also the right to "seek, receive and impart" information and ideas "regardless of frontiers."

I posted this in another thread, but it's just as relevant here.

The "universal declaration of human rights" would be a more powerful tool I think.

[kevin m]

How about the ACLU?

That's another group that's been rather successfully demonized by the right wing in this country. It's another epithet in the homo/union/commie group...:(

[CorreCaminos]

"The ACLU's stated mission is "to defend and preserve the individual rights and liberties guaranteed to every person in this country by the Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Constitution) and laws of the United States."

It would seem the ACLU wouldn't be much use if the US government is dismantling the constitution.

(I am not america bashing.)

I didn't take it that way. In my view it's the US government that has been doing a lot of the America-bashing lately. And the ACLU is the only organization that has consistently continued (with some measure of success I might add) to stand up for the Constitution; certainly we can not count on the Congress nor the pathetic press.

[Gabriel M.A.]

Photographers don't have a chance when Barney Fife's on the job.

Or Gumble. Or the Purple Dinosaur. :bang:

What is it with the name "Barney"?

[Michael P.]

Have any of you seen this Flickr! group: "You can't take pictures here!" Places, situations where you have been told not to take pictures, after of course, you already have a few in your camera. Examples are military, government, scientific... http://flickr.com/groups/canttakepictureshere/