Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
redjetta said:
Have a look for yourself. The link to my Flickr page is at the bottom of the post.

I'm the guy they banned. The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I'm more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.

Here is the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/

The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.

She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/

Also, I've since learned that the woman in the photo is the same manager who confronted me the previous time and is the manager quoted in the article. Mara, is her name. It was my error that I didn't recognize her the second time. For this I am deeply sorry. Had I realized it was the same gal I would have passed up on the shot.

The following Monday I was banned.

Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.

Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.

I've put my cameras away.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
Click to expand...

I'm sorry this has happened to you, I really hope that you and your family are not adversely damaged by this.
 
One thing that strikes me as crazy is that Church Street is the main drag in Burlington- many restaurants and bars, the (indoor) mall, music shops, banks, bookstore, clothiers. Banning him from Church Street is effectively banning him from participating in most of normal city life. For taking pictures? Sorry this is absolutely wrong.

When confronted by people who immediately start shouting or threatening it can be extremely difficult to put on a happy face and bend over backwards to please them. I always try to play nice, but one can only agree so much- especially when what one is doing is perfectly legal despite what the 'offended party' might "know". Deleting an image is admitting to the person offended that photographing in public wrong.

More power to you Dan. I'm in VT too- and am getting more sh1t from people when out shooting than ever before- and I avoid having people in my work. One day last month in St. J I had three separate people go out of their way to confront me while on the sidewalk.

chris00nj said:
Let's please leave partisan politics out of it. I doubt Bush had an impact on the mindset of cop in Vermont.
Click to expand...

You have no idea how wrong you are on this. Vermont has a very different image in the rest of the country than the reality. We are not all aging hippies and organic cheesemakers. There is a strong and vocal extreme right wing here too.
 
Last edited:
sepiareverb said:
One thing that strikes me as crazy is that Church Street is the main drag in Burlington- many restaurants and bars, the (indoor) mall, music shops, banks, bookstore, clothiers. Banning him from Church Street is effectively banning him from participating in most of normal city life. For taking pictures? Sorry this is absolutely wrong.



You have no idea how wrong you are on this. Vermont has a very different image in the rest of the country than the reality. We are not all aging hippies and organic cheesemakers. There is a strong and vocal extreme right wing here too.
Click to expand...

I totally agree with you, I am a resident of California which has also been maligned because of a few (well a growing few).
 
Last edited:
So we have Dan's side of the story, the reporter's side of the story and now we should try to get the store owner's side of the story.

The reporter states that Dan had been abusive/rude in the past. Who knows if this is true or not.

That's the thing with ANY story - there's three sides to it.

We've got two.. now we need the third (which may lay between the other two).

Cheers and thanks for stepping up to the plate Dan.
Dave
 
Last edited:
Redjetta:

Thank you for your response...The article read a little tilted after reading your explanations. (medias one sided fact sheet) I Apologize for any wrong assumptions I made because of the text of the article.
I hope you continue to take photos, but, your family is first.
Regards Peter
 
DRabbit said:
but I just don't think those rights give us carte blanche to do whatever the heck we like and treat people as furniture.
Click to expand...

That is a little harsh. I looked at Dan's portfolio and he seemed to treat his subjects with respect. There is nothing disrespectful about the woman's photo.

Now, I am not saying he should not have deleted it, but I would not let myself be intimidated into doing so. If someone bullied me, I would not give them any respect or dignity by publishing their photo--they would not deserve my time nor effort.
 
No problem. I told the reporter the same, but he didn't include some of it. I was disappointed but not surprised because these things can happen. Also, I was not aware of the store's allegations until the reporter told me after the story had been handed in on deadline. So, I was not able to rebut their statements.
 
Interesting the way this thread developed, with unsupported conclusions and assumptions not based in fact.

Either there is a right to photograph people in public, or there is not.

Strange to find so many "buts" -- and the word creepy coming in.

Would this have happened had the photographer been a young woman?

Would this be a different issue if the photographer was a recently published artist, or established journalist?

Does the photographer need to fall in to a certain demographic, or politically correct appearance?

If the lens is less than 90mm is it a less "creepy" lens?

There are certainly times when your obvious presence ruins the spontaneity in the image.

If the photo is lousy, then it gets tossed, if it is worthwhile, then is the photographer vindicated in shooting? I have shots taken a second apart in which one captures the essence of what I was trying to get, and the other is just another failed image.

I have had people demand my film when I was working in photojournalism, and the argument for turning it over was exactly the same, "why not", when is it a "why not" situation and a simple "no" situation? The easy solution for the police involved was to ask for my film.

The easy solution here was simply to ban this gentleman's presence.

Easy for whom?

John
 
My respect for posting here Dan/redjetta. Some nice photos on your flickr site.



I retract what I said in post #5. Regardless of photography, that universal Trespass is something else .... Have a look at another non-criminal, non-photography case here: http://www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street.

From http://www.mdf.org/documents/mdc_burlington.pdf:

Universal Trespass

Burlington Police Department is assisting the downtown businesses by collaborating in a universal trespass notice pursuant to state law. These businesses have discovered that it is good for their business and for businesses downtown in general if they keep out persons who disturb other customers or commit retail thefts. They’ve decided that when a person creates a problem at one downtown business then they don’t want that person at their business either. Here’s how it works. Participating businesses have agreed that when a person is given a notice of trespass by one business, then the notice will be effective for all of the participating businesses (“If another business issues a trespass notice to someone you wish to enter your business, you may let them enter.”). The participating businesses have agreed that the notice shall be valid for one year and that the business can rescind a particular notice for a particular person. Furthermore, if the issuing business rescinds the original notice, the notice will be rescinded for all the participating businesses. The Burlington Police Department has assisted this effort by delivering the notice of trespass to the appropriate problem person. If the person remains or returns to the premises he/she is cited to appear in Vermont District Court for trespassing.
Click to expand...

Apparently it requires a single, private person to issue the order via the police ...
 
Last edited:
Finder said:
That is a little harsh. I looked at Dan's portfolio and he seemed to treat his subjects with respect. There is nothing disrespectful about the woman's photo.

Now, I am not saying he should not have deleted it, but I would not let myself be intimidated into doing so. If someone bullied me, I would not give them any respect or dignity by publishing their photo--they would not deserve my time nor effort.
Click to expand...

I can appreciate that sentiment -- not being bullied into doing something -- but if we all believe Dan's story (and no reason not to), in the end he got MORE bullied, so it might have just been better to give in to it sooner and end up the "winner" (by not being banned).

I didn't mean my statement to sound harsh -- it's just that if someone asked me to delete a photo I took of them, I would. If their demeanor was nasty, more reason to avoid trouble later.

Dan - I'm glad you came and shared your story with us. If you were wronged, I hope it can all be worked out and you can enjoy photography again. If there were other complaints about you, I do stand by what I said which is that business owners have a right to protect their patrons too. Where the line should be drawn here is probably pretty murky and everyone feels they're right... but from what you say, it certainly sounds like the business owners jumped to conclusions they shouldn't have.

I wish you the best... I'm sure you didn't want to be the center of a news story!
 
I have been following this thread with very mixed feelings as an amateur photographer and as someone that does NOT feel impelled to post a photo of myself as an avatar. One thing Does puzzle me about forum members opinions. Some have no problem with the photographer not deleting a photo from the camera when asked (politely ?) But like many old coots here I am a film photographer. Do I have to surrender a whole roll of film? Is it enough to say I will not publish the image, do I have to destroy the negative or the whole roll? Have film users become a oppressed class?

Just curious; the sun is beginning to shine in Seattle and I cannot afford an M9. Oh, and does all this carry over to to someone that says: "Get lost, creep" to someone that annoys them in a public place"
 
Or you could say I have to have a 'model release to publish.' I have only given up a roll once and that was in Honduras in 1970+? During their long Soccer War with El Salvador. And I was glad to do it.
 
wgerrard said:
Speaking of paranoia...

And not at all true.

Besides, the House already passed their health care reform bill, weeks ago.
Click to expand...

I would assume that Ronald is referring to the late breaking talk of a rule change being prepared by the House Rules chairman Louise Slaughter which would actually bypass a House vote on the Senate bill. This would allow the House to avoid the usual process of approving the Senate bill without changes and then having to trust the Senate to follow through with agreed upon reconciliation changes. They would, if the leaks are accurate, declare the Senate bill passed by virtue of passing the reconciliation changes.

As far as I know, the details and seriousness of this scheme is debatable, so the public cannot know for sure where this is headed. But it has enough veracity that calling someone paranoid for mentioning it and declaring it untrue without making an effort to research it is not productive or fair to the original poster.

Also, you should know that the House passage of their bill months ago really has little bearing on the process as it stands now since the Senate approved a different bill. To follow the current rules, one of two things must happen:

- a joint conference committee must reconcile the two bills and then both houses must vote again on the combined bill, or
- the house can approve the Senate bill exactly as worded

Obviously the first option would be impossible to accomplish at this stage. The second will be extremely difficult as well, with the deep-rooted differences in the democrat party - they don't trust each other. Many house dems are afraid they will be left high and dry by the senate dems if they vote first. Thus changing the rules to include a third option seems to be under consideration.
 
I once deleted a photo I took of two boys on scooters. Their Mother screamed at me as I took the shot. I wasn't thinking--I was in that zone, you probably know the one. When I "came to" I realized her concern, apologized and showed her as I deleted it. I was glad to run into her later while I was still photographing and my wife was at my side, hoping it made me appear less the creep. I know better than to Photograph kids generally, but I live in a small town, a great community where I can photograph all ages freely and people know me or at least recognize the face and have naught to fear. This does not translate to say Cambridge, MA where the event occurred.
Had I been shooting film at the time, I would have offered to send the neg but no way would I give up a roll if I thought I might have something decent on it.

I don't know what I would have done had I been in Dan's shoes but I must say That shot of Mara is, IMO a really nice one, and I agree with what some have stated previously, the photos I saw on Dan's page were representative and respectful. Don't give up the camera, Just use the one in your flickr avatar. Everyone feels safer in silver.
 
Unfortunately, this police state attitude has become the norm since 9/11. It's a slippery slope as some have mentioned and I'm afraid street photography will become a thing of the past.

Dan, I had a chance to view your portfolio and I think your work is tasteful and a wonderful documentation of our times. There is certainly nothing "creepy" about it. And furthermore, I happen to really like your vision of the woman smoking in partial silhouette against the snow. I wish you the best.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom