Vermont Photographer "Banned"

[draymorton]

I thought this was interesting - on many levels.

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer...-church-street

[chaman]

Scott shot some pictures of a woman smoking a cigarette outside Uncommon Grounds on Church Street. Scott claims he was about 50 feet away when the woman, an employee of the coffeehouse, noticed his camera and asked him not to take her picture. Scott claims he backed off. But the woman also asked Scott to delete the pictures he’d already taken of her. He refused.

Busted. He shouldnt have refused that and he crossed the line. To me the potential for serious problems about this type of photography is just too much and Im against it.

[draymorton]

Thomas Hawk (street photographer extraordinaire and high profile flickr guy) recounted a similar predicament to this one on his blog awhile back. He snapped some woman on the street. She noticed, had a hissy, and asked him to delete. He refused. She threatened to go to the police. He said go ahead and took off. She followed him for several blocks, ranting and gesticulating. She notified a nearby police officer and demanded an arrest be made. The police officer turned out to be a photographer, told the woman to get over herself, and proceeded to talk shop with TH for the next fifteen minutes. :lol:

From all I've read and heard, it seems that there are no laws barring anyone from taking pictures of anyone else on the street. The guy clearly got shafted.

[Photo-John]

Busted. He shouldnt have refused that and he crossed the line. To me the potential for serious problems about this type of photography is just too much and Im against it.

In the US, what he did is not illegal. He can take pictures of anything and anyone he wants as long as he's on public property when he does it. I wouldn't have deleted the photos either.

[Speed]

In the US, what he did is not illegal. He can take pictures of anything and anyone he wants as long as he's on public property when he does it. I wouldn't have deleted the photos either.

EXACTLY!

In the US, it's known as "public domain". If you are out in public, you are fair game for the cameras. Walk the streets, go to the mall, lay out on the beach, you are fair game for anyone with a camera. You may not like it, but that's the way it is.

Most people have no idea how many times their picture is taken in a day. Banks, ATMs, malls, a lot of stores, they all have camera's and take pictures or video of us every day.

Unfortunately, since 9/11/01, some in the US have gone off the deep end and think anyone with a camera is a terrorist. They need to be heavily medicated and sent to a class that teaches common sense! They are also why I carry a copy of Photographers Rights in my camera bag. For those who aren't familar with this, go to this link:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

[CaraRose]

Unfortunately, since 9/11/01, some in the US have gone off the deep end and think anyone with a camera is a terrorist. They need to be heavily medicated and sent to a class that teaches common sense! They are also why I carry a copy of Photographers Rights in my camera bag. For those who aren't familar with this, go to this link:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

In general, people seem to think you're strange if you're walking around with a camera and not in some sort of standard 'everyone takes pictures here' spot or situation. I spent a lot of August taking macro shots in a weedy strand along an empty lot that used to be a corporate building complex that was torn down. The lot's fenced off but the strand of unmaintained grass between the curb and the fence was just a haven of wildflowers and weeds and bugs and bees. The opposite side of the street is residential houses, and I had people come out and demand to know what I was doing more than once. I'm hunched aiming my camera at a thistle plant, I don't what was so threatening about that.

[chaman]

In the US, what he did is not illegal. He can take pictures of anything and anyone he wants as long as he's on public property when he does it. I wouldn't have deleted the photos either.

Rude. What he did was rude and the article shows this guy is a liar. First he said he always asked permission but later denied deleting the pics of the woman which were taken without her approval.

Also it could be illegal even if they were taken in a public domain if the pics are used for personal gain. It may become illegal in the US too.

I'm sure that if everyone went the polite way, explained his or her intentions problems would be minimal. Insisting on you "right" only fuels the fire and sorry but it could be fertile ground to put in doubt your professionalism as to what your intentions are. What is wrong with asking first?? Again what would anyone of you do if an obnoxious guy started taking pics of your wife and family?? NO ONE has answered that....

[CaraRose]

Also it could be illegal even if they were taken in a public domain if the pics are used for personal gain. It may become illegal in the US too.

But he wasn't using the picture for personal gain. That's the point. TAKING and KEEPING the shot are not illegal. Being an a-hole is not illegal either. If it was, half of the USA would be in jail (I know, really conservative estimate).

If he continued to shoot someone after they asked him to desist, I would have more issue. But he did desist, he just refused to delete the shot. He was well within his rights to do that.

Like I said, I'd have deleted it and just recovered it later, just to avoid the conflict.You don't even need to pay money for software that does that. Actually this reminded me of a story a co-worker told me of some friends of his taking photos in walmart and the guard forcing them to erase their memory card (which actually I find overkill, but not unacceptable, if the shots were taken in a private business). My co-worker said if it had been him, he would have recovered all the shots and e-mailed them to the store explaining how stupidly useless that policy was.

[chaman]

But he wasn't using the picture for personal gain. That's the point. TAKING and KEEPING the shot are not illegal. Being an a-hole is not illegal either. If it was, half of the USA would be in jail (I know, really conservative estimate).

If he continued to shoot someone after they asked him to desist, I would have more issue. But he did desist, he just refused to delete the shot. He was well within his rights to do that.

Like I said, I'd have deleted it and just recovered it later, just to avoid the conflict.You don't even need to pay money for software that does that. Actually this reminded me of a story a co-worker told me of some friends of his taking photos in walmart and the guard forcing them to erase their memory card (which actually I find overkill, but not unacceptable, if the shots were taken in a private business). My co-worker said if it had been him, he would have recovered all the shots and e-mailed them to the store explaining how stupidly useless that policy was.

I wouldnt be too sure. This guy has no credibility whatsoever. How can you believe him when he first said he always asked permission when later it showed was false?? Not buying it.

[EOSThree]

I wouldnt be too sure. This guy has no credibility whatsoever. How can you believe him when he first said he always asked permission when later it showed was false?? Not buying it.

The whole point is, the guy doesn't need permission. Public place. If you don't want to be photographed, don't go out in public.

[CaraRose]

I wouldnt be too sure. This guy has no credibility whatsoever. How can you believe him when he first said he always asked permission when later it showed was false?? Not buying it.

I don't need to believe him. There's no proof provided that he's using these shots for personal gain. Until there is proof privded, any "I don't trust him" is completely irrelevant. There is no evidence that he's doing anything illegal.

[Photo-John]

What is wrong with asking first??

Here's a scenario for you:

I'm shooting at an event - maybe a bike race or a parade. I'm trying to get a lot of photos to give a good overall picture of the event (for the newspaper, maybe). If I try to get permission from everyone, I won't get my job done. I'll spend all day asking for permission. I don't have time to ask for permission.

As for whether it may become illegal in the US - that's always a possibility. But I think it's pretty unlikely as taking pictures falls under free speech, which is heavily protected in the US constitution.

To answer your question about my wife or daughter being harassed - I'm not really worried about it. Someone with a camera isn't very threatening to me and I don't think anyone should feel threatened by a photographer taking pictures of them doing anything legal in public. If there really is some sort of problem, then we have restraining orders. And I think that's essentially what happened in the article we're discussing. I'm not sure I agree with the restraining order and I think the photographer may actually have strong grounds for a lawsuit in this case.

[draymorton]

.................................................. .........

[chaman]

Here's a scenario for you:

I'm shooting at an event - maybe a bike race or a parade. I'm trying to get a lot of photos to give a good overall picture of the event (for the newspaper, maybe). If I try to get permission from everyone, I won't get my job done. I'll spend all day asking for permission. I don't have time to ask for permission.

As for whether it may become illegal in the US - that's always a possibility. But I think it's pretty unlikely as taking pictures falls under free speech, which is heavily protected in the US constitution.

To answer your question about my wife or daughter being harassed - I'm not really worried about it. Someone with a camera isn't very threatening to me and I don't think anyone should feel threatened by a photographer taking pictures of them doing anything legal in public. If there really is some sort of problem, then we have restraining orders. And I think that's essentially what happened in the article we're discussing. I'm not sure I agree with the restraining order and I think the photographer may actually have strong grounds for a lawsuit in this case.

That scenario is comparing apple to oranges and don't make any sense. We are discussing shooting individual people. There is no excuse for not asking first, sorry.

Also what about the people which business started to become affected due to this guy snooping around?? Dont these have rights too?? This guy was creeping everyone out. Try and put yourself in their shoes.

[OldClicker]

Rude. What he did was rude and the article shows this guy is a liar. First he said he always asked permission but later denied deleting the pics of the woman which were taken without her approval.

Also it could be illegal even if they were taken in a public domain if the pics are used for personal gain. It may become illegal in the US too.

I'm sure that if everyone went the polite way, explained his or her intentions problems would be minimal. Insisting on you "right" only fuels the fire and sorry but it could be fertile ground to put in doubt your professionalism as to what your intentions are. What is wrong with asking first?? Again what would anyone of you do if an obnoxious guy started taking pics of your wife and family?? NO ONE has answered that....

I'll answer - a photographer has every right to photograph my wife on a public street. There is nothing sinister about this. He's not stealing her soul, just taking her picture.

TF

[chaman]

I'll answer - a photographer has every right to photograph my wife on a public street. There is nothing sinister about this. He's not stealing her soul, just taking her picture.

TF

Nothing sinister?? Well I guess my views of protecting and looking for my family well being are quite different from some here. I would never let an obnoxious guy molesting and making uncomfortable any of my family members just because of his "right"...it just wont happen.

[OldClicker]

Nothing sinister?? Well I guess my views of protecting and looking for my family well being are quite different from some here. I would never let an obnoxious guy molesting and making uncomfortable any of my family members just because of his "right"...it just wont happen.

I don't understand. Who's molesting anyone? What are you afraid that he is going to do with a picture? I'm not trying to give you a hard time here, I'm just trying to understand the difference in culture as it relates to photography only. - TF

[EOSThree]

Nothing sinister?? Well I guess my views of protecting and looking for my family well being are quite different from some here. I would never let an obnoxious guy molesting and making uncomfortable any of my family members just because of his "right"...it just wont happen.

Molesting?? Holy cow, what a huge jump.
Pronunciation: \mə-ˈlest\
Function: transitive verb
Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French molester, from Latin molestare, from molestus burdensome, annoying; akin to Latin moles mass
Date: 14th century

1 : to annoy, disturb, or persecute especially with hostile intent or injurious effect
2 : to make annoying sexual advances to; especially : to force physical and usually sexual contact on

There is no persecution here, he's just taking photographs, and like I said above, it's maybe creepy, but unless you have something to hide, what is he really doing to you?

[Sebastian]

Nothing sinister?? Well I guess my views of protecting and looking for my family well being are quite different from some here. I would never let an obnoxious guy molesting and making uncomfortable any of my family members just because of his "right"...it just wont happen.

You wouldn't let an obnoxious guy molest your family? That's the first thing you've said that I agree with.

[EOSThree]

Rude. What he did was rude and the article shows this guy is a liar. First he said he always asked permission but later denied deleting the pics of the woman which were taken without her approval.

Also it could be illegal even if they were taken in a public domain if the pics are used for personal gain. It may become illegal in the US too.

I'm sure that if everyone went the polite way, explained his or her intentions problems would be minimal. Insisting on you "right" only fuels the fire and sorry but it could be fertile ground to put in doubt your professionalism as to what your intentions are. What is wrong with asking first?? Again what would anyone of you do if an obnoxious guy started taking pics of your wife and family?? NO ONE has answered that....

I may wonder why someone is taking photos of me or my family, maybe feel a little creepy, but I would not feel a need to stop him/her. A camera is not a weapon, what are they going to do with said photos? What will said photos do to me or my family? That's right, absolutely nothing.

[chaman]

I may wonder why someone is taking photos of me or my family, maybe feel a little creepy, but I would not feel a need to stop him/her. A camera is not a weapon, what are they going to do with said photos? What will said photos do to me or my family? That's right, absolutely nothing.

Any multimedia material can potentially become a "weapon", more during these times were they can so easily be obtained and manipulated. Hell, even words can become a "weapon' so to speak...

[EOSThree]

Any multimedia material can potentially become a "weapon", more during these times were they can so easily be obtained and manipulated. Hell, even words can become a "weapon' so to speak...

Explain to me how they are going to do something with this photo that's going to become a weapon. If I have nothing to hide what damage will/can it have?
Oh, yeah, I thought your last word on this was a couple of days ago?

[CaraRose]

Again what would anyone of you do if an obnoxious guy started taking pics of your wife and family?? NO ONE has answered that....

Ask him to please stop. If he fails to stop, leave. If he follows me, or stalks me or my family after I have made my intention known, it's grounds for me to claim harassment, and can report an actual violation of my rights. However the burden of proof falls on ME to prove that such acts are harassment.

Taking a picture without my permission is not harassment, nor an act of aggression, nor any sort of violation of my rights. However harassing him for doing so is a violation of HIS rights.

[OldClicker]

There are several issues here. IMO the main three being:

- Does a photographer in Burlington, VT USA have the right to take pictures on public streets where there is no prohibition by law? I would say that it absolutely protected 'freedom of expression'.

- Does someone have the right to a 'normal expectation of privacy' when viewed on that public street? I would say the law clearly says, "No".

- Do businesses have the right to issue a ‘universal trespass order’ barring someone from entering their places of business because he/she is “…really creeping us out.” I really don’t know, but I don’t like it.

TF

[chaman]

I dont see why a business can not have a say about something like that. I mean...people were complaining!! Thats bad for ANYONES business and they have the right to protect that. Would you like an obnoxious guy around your wife or daughter taking pictures of them? I wouldnt...

There is a difference between a public place and being a public figure, which not anyone of us, at least the majority, is. Does this guy have the right to take a pic of you, against your desire and get away with it? Your rights end where mine start.

This guy said he always asked permission for these pics, but when a woman asks for her pics to be deleted then he refuses?? This guy has no credibility whatsoever.....