bmattock
Veteran
http://www.mediainfo.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003729465
Read the entire story by clicking on the link...
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.
Read the entire story by clicking on the link...
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
Well-known
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.
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
Curious
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 ???
SolaresLarrave
My M5s need red dots!
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!
As for the other examples... I find it peculiar that none occurred in the midwest. Thank goodness!
bmattock
Veteran
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
Veteran
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.
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
Veteran
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 ???
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
Veteran
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
My M5s need red dots!
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.
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
Veteran
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.
Last edited:
bmattock
Veteran
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
genius and moron
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
Veteran
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?"
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.
My Red Dot Glows For You
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?
bmattock
Veteran
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.
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.
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
the snow must go on
LOL
What an arrogant little town.
imagine now a city like Rome doing it. Or Paris. Or any other major tourist attraction.
What an arrogant little town.
imagine now a city like Rome doing it. Or Paris. Or any other major tourist attraction.
bmattock
Veteran
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.
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?
I agree. But apparently, many do not.
bmattock
Veteran
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
Jon Claremont
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.
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
Ferroequinologist
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.