Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
Fundamentally I believe we should be allowed to document life around us and anything on a public street is fair game. But I do take issue with him using a telephoto lens. It does seem creepy to stand across the street and take photos of people. At least using a normal focal length you give people an option to say no, whether verbally or using body language.
 
The issue isn't the lens. It's expectation of privacy. You can't hang out on a public street and expect privacy. What will they ban next, looking at women on the street?
 
Pickett Wilson said:
The issue isn't the lens. It's expectation of privacy. You can't hang out on a public street and expect privacy. What will they ban next, looking at women on the street?
Click to expand...

He was "issued ... a one-year universal trespass order that bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested."

Not public property. He was rude to their customers. If you ask me, on their property, they can do what they want.
 
As I read it, he's banned from entering the stores, but there's nothing to stop him from taking photos on the street...not yet anyway.
I'm not surprised either. This society is getting out-of-control paranoid. Fear-mongering is all the rage.
 
The truth probably lies somewhere in the middle... he probably does come off as a creepy older man taking pictures of younger women, but I would imagine there is some paranoia on the other side of the lens as well. This is why I don't bother taking photos of people I don't know anymore. I feel creepy doing it and there is so much else to photograph that I don't feel I'm missing anything. There are plenty of pictures on this forum where photographers are just taking random shots of women on the streets (and no men). The photos aren't good, but the ladies are attractive. I feel there is a bit of creepiness in those photos.
 
It might be a matter of his style of photography. If he is just a friendly chap who take good picture interact with the subjects after the picture was taken and offer to send them if they so wish, smile a bit, say hi to the barista express why he takes picture I think its less of a problem.
I dont take pictures of any singular person so I might be less at risk.
In short a matter of social skill... Lack of it .
 
This is one of those situations where it sounds good to stand up for him on paper, but without knowing the whole story, I'm reluctant. He might be a great guy doing nothing wrong with every right to take photos. However, when I read in the article that they've had problems with him in the past being rude and belligerent, and without seeing what he's actually photographing, it's hard to say. I tried to find his photo stream on Flickr, but I didn't have any luck.

If this has become such an issue that he's there all the time and people don't want to go to a particular store because he's made them uncomfortable (maybe with his attitude too), what should the store do to protect it's customers? -- That's not rhetorical, I'm generally interested in opinions on it. Of course, I'm not saying he DID have attitude or he is making people uncomfortable... but what if?

In theory he should be allowed to shoot his photos... it's just one of those stories I read and wonder if there's more to it and he's not as innocent as he makes himself out to be. I don't suggest he's a pervert doing something illegal, I'm just curious if he's been ruder than he realizes and he's one of those photographers that the minute you ask him what he's doing he's defensive, arrogant and shouting "I have a RIGHT to take your photo, so shut the F up" -- maybe I'm exaggerating, but I'm trying to make the point that maybe it's HIM more than the photography that's the problem.

Maybe?

ps. I'm trying to word this correctly and temper my response so it doesn't seem like I'm on the side of the cops here. I repeat, in theory he SHOULD be able to take photos... I just can't help but wonder about what's NOT written in the article...
 
DRabbit said:
.....I repeat, in theory he SHOULD be able to take photos... I just can't help but wonder about what's NOT written in the article...
Click to expand...

I agree we may not know the entire story which has gotten me in trouble several times before. But when I read the other article about there not being any appeal process I think we have to stand up for the guy. I agree with not in a store, perhaps out in front too, but if one vendor says out it's out for the entire mall. Too much power with no checks and balances. They should not be able to ban photography as they are taking pictures of everyone all the time in stores and around the mall on security cameras. What's good for the goose and all.

He needs to give up the evil SLR and get an M9, perhaps that will solve his problems.

B2 (;->
 
It will be interesting to see where this goes once the lawyers get well into it. I wonder if they stores really have a valid right to bar him from their stores based on lawful activity outside their stores that isn't aimed at the stores. Also, I guess they are all one big happy family there, but I wonder about the authority of the local police to enter a federal building to conduct their business.

Even so, I haven't seen his actual behavior so it is difficult to know if his conduct does cross the line in any way. One must be wary of jumping to someone'd defense without knowing all the facts.
 
Ferider, I disagree with you. Those establishments are making an offer to the public. They can not withdraw the offer of service without a legal ground. He was taking the picture on the street. Not illegal. Part of the service is being allowed to stand in the store while purchasing the coffee.
And Amy, rudeness is not illegal. There are a lot of people, for instance, we could bar from driving because they are very rude drivers. And? The bottom line is, they have to respect the rules of the road.
We have to judge the case based on the facts available. Is photography alllowed in public places, or not? (BTW, I looked for the Flickr stream but couldn't find it.)
What next will the conservatives try to outlaw based on anti-terrorism laws? I'm forwarding the letter to the ACLU and asking for action to protect my 1st amendment rights.
JP
 
Last edited:
Rudeness isn't illegal, but it's bad PR and a sure way to avoid making allies. People who don't want their photo taken do not care about anyone's First Amendment rights. They think their right not to feel icky trumps our right to take pictures.

That said, I'm confused. The guy takes photos on a public street, but the trespass order bans him from entering private businesses on that street, where he doesn't appear to have been taking pictures. What's to prevent him from continuing to take photos on that public street?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

MP Guy
Big changes coming to the Gallery.
2
Replies
20
Views
2K
ddutchison2
ddutchison2
raydm6
VA reverses plan to ban iconic WWII kiss photo from medical sites
Replies
4
Views
2K
Rob-F
Rob-F
Wilderland
How to overcome apprehension
3 4 5
Replies
99
Views
9K
Harry the K
H
raydm6
Women Street Photographers
Replies
2
Views
1K
raydm6
raydm6
raydm6
Jerome Liebling - Photographer, Filmmaker and Teacher
Replies
1
Views
998
raydm6
raydm6
Back
Top Bottom