Thrown Out of a Library for Taking Pictures. Help.

[Bob Michaels]

I think the thing here is that the intended use of the library is not for photography. It is for study. That usually implies not being distracted by someone taking your photograph if you are uncomfortable about it <snip>

I think the thing here is that the intended use of the street is not for photography. It is for transportation. That usually implies not being distracted by someone taking your photograph if you are uncomfortable about it .

Does your logical argument still hold water when I change just two words?

 

[sepiareverb]

I'd say it is well within the rights of a registered student to ask to be shown the policy before cowing down to someone who just says it is so. I've come to know that just because it's a university doesn't mean that all the people who work there know what they're talking about.

 

[Journeyman]

Now extend that logic to copiers inside libraries.

... that usually have a poster warning about copyright issues nearby.

 

[oldoc]

It's OK for you Memphis...go for it...
But as for sex in the stacks: it's better than in the periodicals...and safer, too.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

but would it be ok to get a hummer from a fat jewish girl wearing a blue dress in the bill clinton presidential library?

I think it's part of the regular tour, in fact.

 

[Journeyman]

but would it be ok to get a hummer from a fat jewish girl wearing a blue dress in the bill clinton presidential library?

Not if she's sitting on the photocopier! 😛

 

[Al Kaplan]

Fat Jewish girls in blue dresses is discriminatory. I don't care what their religion is, or what color dress they wear or...hell, they can just come over to my place and go slow and easy. Give me time to make an incident reading or two, perhaps raise the shades or move some lamps around. Nothing is too good for Leica Photography!

 

[gb hill]

but would it be ok to get a hummer from a fat jewish girl wearing a blue dress in the bill clinton presidential library?

speaking of ol Bill I hear he's pretty pissed Obama got the Nobel Peace prize before him, but apparently Bill forgot it's spelled PEACE & not PIECE!😀

 

[Al Patterson]

but would it be ok to get a hummer from a fat jewish girl wearing a blue dress in the bill clinton presidential library?

Better than in a closet in the oval office...

Just don't leave any evidence. 😉

 

[Al Patterson]

speaking of ol Bill I hear he's pretty pissed Obama got the Nobel Peace prize before him, but apparently Bill forgot it's spelled PEACE & not PIECE!😀

Nah, Bill's just mad he hasn't had a piece lately...

 

[Al Kaplan]

If you get up there in political (or financial) circles the problem becomes one of avoiding all the women throwing themselves at you. Women are attracted to powerful and influential men. They're programmed to find good genes for their progeny, and men with the means to assure them of food, shelter, and clothing. I guess being good looking helps, and ideally both the man and the woman are.

 

[wgerrard]

While I doubt the dean's claim about right to privacy, I do suspect that, as a student at the school, you agreed to abide by the rules, one of which very likely says you can't take pictures in the library, in classrooms, labs, offices, or other similar locations.

By asking for documentation, you've done the right thing. If it doesn't exist, I'd bet it soon will. And, if it does, your only recourse may be to launch a legal challenge, which is a jump into a very large pond.

 

[Mephiloco]

I can almost with 100% certainty say they are wrong and/or mistaken. You can take pictures without a problem. I went to school in the Tennessee higher education system (or whatever they call it now) very recently, and my girlfriend is a graduate of UT's mass comm school. While I was in Knoxville I took mostly film classes and nearly everything I shot involved shooting on campus, or bringing around a Bolex or a dv camera and shooting people without consent, which is a bigger no no than still photography to most people. Anyways, I was on public property, in public, where no reasonable expectation of privacy could be expected. No one ever gave me problems, and if they had, if that had I doubt I would've had problems. The Dean of the Law School who I became friends with literally wrote the book on Mass Media Law, and was a correspondent for years for Time, The New Yorker, and several other big publications and also argued to the Tennessee Board of Higher Education to get me a scholarship to attend UT for another semester free of charge.

Anyways, they're mistaken and you should ask them to cite what law/ordinance/rule you're breaking specifically, so that you can see how to be 'compliant' in the future

 

[Mephiloco]

While I doubt the dean's claim about right to privacy, I do suspect that, as a student at the school, you agreed to abide by the rules, one of which very likely says you can't take pictures in the library, in classrooms, labs, offices, or other similar locations.

By asking for documentation, you've done the right thing. If it doesn't exist, I'd bet it soon will. And, if it does, your only recourse may be to launch a legal challenge, which is a jump into a very large pond.

It's funny because if it became a big issue, he could then take pictures of anyone involved (ie the Dean) to which the Dean would have no recourse. That's personally what I would do, but that's just how I get about things like this. I'd hound the dean and take pictures of him incessantly just to annoy him for being an idiot. I guess he could try to have the Supreme Court overturn it's previous ruling on the matter though.

 

[BillBingham2]

Middle Tennessee State University is a public university with rule that govern it that are more restrictive than public places near buy. They are for the safety of you and all the others going there and employed there. For a wide variety of reasons many of the more recent restrictions SUCK. Now the challenge for you is to find ways around it. It may not be the complete freedom you want, but it will be closer.

First is there a yearbook or newspaper you can become an official photographer for. This gives you cover for the B-Roll or back ground shots you want to do from time to time. If so, join it and get some assignments.

Second, ask to take the persons picture. Yeah they might say no, but give them a print as a thank you. Worst they can say is no. Be careful about interrupting too many people, might get the librarians coming down on you.

Third, talk with the campus security and become known to them.

Just some thoughts.

B2 (;->

 

[wgerrard]

... if it became a big issue, he could then take pictures of anyone involved (ie the Dean) to which the Dean would have no recourse.

How so? It's either an actual school regulation or it isn't. If the latter, he's free to shoot. If the former, it's still the rule no matter how big a stink he raises. If the dean is backed by a university reg, he and the school have clout, and the grad student doesn't.

 

[charjohncarter]

That's a good question. i think a public university is still private property. I mean, you can't barge into the clean room of the science lab, or strut around in the women's restroom (if you're a dude) or sit it on classes without permission from the instructor. These environments are bound by rules I think it's the photographer's responsibility to abide by. You could take it to court but honestly, the ACLU would roll their eyes.

That said, all bets are off on city streets. Throw the book at 'em there.

They try to act like they are private but no. UC Berkeley, in fact all the UC schools, had an affirmative action program in place (many years, too many) that was finally shut down because they are public and it was not in the Universities purview to be discriminatory (toward non minorities) while being funded by ALL taxpayers. If there is no defined policy, which there usually isn't, because of law suits and cell phones with cameras, then they have to act like a public entity.

 

[bmattock]

Personally, I believe the people do have a right to privacy, even if it is not necessarily protected by law or governance.

Rights that do not exist do not exist. If the right is not written down, it is not worth the paper it is not printed on. There is no such thing as a right which exists but is not a right.

"I hereby arrest you in the name of the state, and charge you with violating a law that doesn't exist."

Hmmm, guessing that won't fly.

I suspect what you might mean is that people ought to be more considerate of others. I don't mind that at all. But it's not the same as stating that they have a right when they haven't.

Street & candid photography is a gray area as far as rights go. If we, as photographers, push to far we may well find folks pushing back.

On the contrary. Rights are defined by the sharp edges of them. It is the Al Goldsteins and the Larry Flynts of the world that push the boundaries of what the First Amendment (in the US) happens to be, and it in this manner that we find out exactly what that territory is and where it ends.

Being kind, solicitous, and meek does not extend, protect, or defend civil liberties. On the contrary, rights that are not exercised soon cease to exist.

I do not know if it is legal to ban this type of photography or not, to be quite honest. But I think the O/P is well within his rights to find out, and if he's dissatisfied with the answer, to push it up the court system until an answer is found.

I suspect that you are right that a court will find that students in a university library do have a legal expectation of privacy that must be weighed against a First Amendment right to speech (public or street photography is speech), but we won't find out until and unless the situation is resolved at a level above that of pettifogging bureaucrat. Roll the dice.

But not kicking against the system because being naughty ends up getting rights taken away? Not hardly.

 

[bmattock]

How so? It's either an actual school regulation or it isn't. If the latter, he's free to shoot. If the former, it's still the rule no matter how big a stink he raises. If the dean is backed by a university reg, he and the school have clout, and the grad student doesn't.

School regulations do not outweigh civil liberties. In fact, if they rub up against each other, civil liberties win.

I get that all the time from stores - they have a 'policy' you see, that requires they search bags when patrons exit the store. I tell 'em if they try to search my bag, I'm going walk out and they can try to tackle me. They're free to call the cops if they like, but they're not searching my bag. See, I don't work for them, and I don't care what their 'rules' are. They don't apply, even though they want me to think they do.

If the school has a 'regulation', well ain't that cute and good for them. If it runs contrary to civil liberties, they can roll it up and insert it gleefully up their collective jaxies.

 

[Mephiloco]

How so? It's either an actual school regulation or it isn't. If the latter, he's free to shoot. If the former, it's still the rule no matter how big a stink he raises. If the dean is backed by a university reg, he and the school have clout, and the grad student doesn't.

If it becomes an 'issue' and is covered by news, therefore considered 'news worthy', the dean loses the civilian protection he would normally have due to being newsworthy. The landmark case was Sipple v Chronicle Publishing, which followed in the footsteps of Gertz v Welch, which also outlined protections a regular citizin has.

Oliver Sipple was a vietnam vet who saved the life of Gerald Ford by thwarting a would be assassin at a parade in San Francisco. Later, a Bay Area paper (San Francisco Chronicle) exposed Oliver Sipple as a homosexual, against his best wishes. Sipple was known in some circles to be gay, but his family didn't know, nor did those whom he had business dealings with. A result of the article outting him was rejection from his parents and the usual anti-homosexual things you could imagine, leading to him developing an alcohol problem and mental health problems.

He went to court against Chronicle, saying they had no right to publish the story and ruin his life. The courts sided with Chronicle citing that by saving Gerald Ford, Sipple became a hero, and was very much a public figure, and that the story was newsworthy, despite being unrelated to his heroic deeds.

This established the precedent that those involved in something newsworthy lose the protections a normal citizen would have, such as those outlined in Gertz V Welch, in which the courts decided that a civilian does not have to prove actual malice in libel cases to get punitive damages, whereas elected officials and public figures do have to establish actual malice.

Now the cases of this sort are deciding what is newsworthy, which is generally accepted as anything that is being written/talked about and merits coverage. In this case I don't think it would matter, since a Dean of a public university is a public figure to begin with.


I still say ask them to cite exactly what law/statute you're in violation of, as I doubt they know either because they're personally not aware of one (or were told by superiors not to allow pictures) or one doesn't exist. If there is something in regards to your taking pictures in the university library, depending on the scope of the statute you can get around it or fight it. You could always do as Bill said and join yearbook, or just tell them you're on yearbook.