Alabama Town's Photography Permit Draws Fire

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"
 
"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
 
bmattock said:
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.
Click to expand...
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
 
Al Patterson said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
bmattock said:
...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...
Click to expand...

And they make up for it with a goodly dose of common sense.
 
But surely all states have unfair dismissal laws?
Click to expand...

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.
 
Last edited:
Steve Bellayr said:
"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
Click to expand...

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."
 
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.
 
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.
 
back alley said:
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.
Click to expand...

OK, you da boss.
 
back alley said:
i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.
Click to expand...

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
 
back alley said:
i'm not trying to shut this down.
i just wonder what good any of it does.
Click to expand...

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...
 
Steve Bellayr said:
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.
Click to expand...


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
 
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?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

peterm1
Poetry and Photography
Replies
1
Views
121
PaulDalex
PaulDalex
A
Burning Kodachrome slides and erasing history
2
Replies
26
Views
2K
boojum
boojum
Dogman
Trauma and photography as a dealing mechanism
2
Replies
31
Views
3K
former member
F
B
Those defining moments in our photographic lives
Replies
19
Views
2K
Ko.Fe.
Ko.Fe.
Miles.
I believe Henry Scherer has passed away
2 3
Replies
43
Views
6K
WJJ3
WJJ3
Back
Top Bottom