Another way to BAN photographers

Status
Not open for further replies.
gdi said:
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.
Click to expand...

The right-wing media machine is busy distorting the Slaughter proposal. Slaughter's measure would consider the bill already passed by the Senate to be accepted by the House if the House votes favorably on a corrections bill outlining the changes the House wants in the Senate bill. I.e., the corrections bill changes the Senate-passed legislation and the House votes on that.

None of this would be necessary if conservative media outlets and politicians weren't bought and paid for by the insurance corporations.
 
I've always thought that calling street photography "documentation of our times" is a bit high falutin'. People seem to be arguing that the right to take pictures in public absolves us of the need to be civil and to consider the feelings and wishes of other people. If someone is annoyed because a stranger took their photo, they do not care about the stranger's rights. I know my rights, and I take pictures in public, but if a stranger singles me out for a photo while I'm on a public street, odds are I will ask the photographer to cease and desist. Why? Because I want to decide when my picture is taken and on what platforms it is published. I.e., I don't want pictures of me showing up on Flickr or elsewhere without my consent.

Now, some will argue that by appearing in public i give up all rights to control when an image of me is captured and how it is distributed. That's true. But, I do not give up my right to ask the photographer to stop, nor my right to be annoyed when he responds rudely.

Being banned from a city street is obviously overkill. The entire notion seems smelly, a collaboration between town merchants and the police to boost store sales. However, even with the photographer's posts here, we still lack an objective report of the events surrounding his banning. For example, I'd like to know how many customers complained over the course of the last year. Did the mall or any individual store managers make any effort to speak with the photographer before they sought the banning and before the coffee shop manager chased him down the street? Was the photographer really as unobtrusive as he says?
 
Last edited:
I've been told several times not to take pictures in malls (complied). I witnessed a woman in a bookstore being confronted by a security guard and told to delete a photo she took of her kids with a point and shoot. Private property is private property and the owners can enforce any rules they want as inconsistently and as arbitrarily as they please, but at some point you would think it would be bad for business.

Meanwhile, Starbucks seems to be cool with gun-bearing rednecks creeping out their customers.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/02/28/starbucks-gun-policy-refu_n_480062.htm
 
wgerrard said:
The right-wing media machine is busy distorting the Slaughter proposal. Slaughter's measure would consider the bill already passed by the Senate to be accepted by the House if the House votes favorably on a corrections bill outlining the changes the House wants in the Senate bill. I.e., the corrections bill changes the Senate-passed legislation and the House votes on that.
Click to expand...

It's good you found info on it. Are you really saying that this "corrections" bill will change the Senate bill before the house votes on it? Where are you getting that info? I have searched and I only find partisan descriptions of hearsay, on the right and left. Evidently, any such new rule is not being put forth with any details.

This seems quite a stretch for any rule change by one house of congress - to hope Slaughter will be able to let the House vote to change the Senate-passed bill and the Senate has no vote? I seriously doubt this would get by the parliamentarian, it seems absurd.


wgerrard said:
None of this would be necessary if conservative media outlets and politicians weren't bought and paid for by the insurance corporations.
Click to expand...


LOL! I am not going make the obvious comparison of your comments here and your reply to Ronald's post! 🙄
 
Last edited:
Break his cameras and throw him in jail.

Okay got that off my chest now the real take. If he is harassing and intimidating those are illegal, take him to jail. If he makes people feel uncomfortable or "icky" that's a personal problem, get over it.

I personally would support the guy even if he were a total ass hole. He can be banned for taking pictures in the open yet the stores can take pictures of you from hidden cameras and that's okay? I think not.

I'm uncomfortable too with the police supporting private enterprise by issuing no trespass notices without so much as a courts approval let alone a legally binding reason.
 
I can understand their issue with their patron maybe not coming back due to his presence, but I also don't like censorship... If I was a store owner I know I would not want to be losing customers, especially the way the economy is right now. Maybe he should have just found a new spot so he was not always in the same area, mix it up.
 
I don't find one business banning a particular amateur photographer from the premises for whatever reason whether valid or not too disturbing since it is essentially a question of a private dispute. However the automatic extension of the ban to a major area of the city for a year, with state-backed police support, in the absence of due process seems questionable. That's the sort of thing that might not hold up in court -- assuming of course that a victim of this policy is willing to go to the considerable expense of a lawsuit.
 
Well these stores are private property.

If you have knowledge of criminals or potential criminals displaying odd behaviors on your private property, or harassing you or your tenants or customers, shouldn't you be able to share that information with your neighbors so they can keep an eye out their windows, and maybe have a phone handy to call 911 if necessary if the behavior or activity moves onto or in your property?

Question for Dan - just curious - what size lens do you use? Also, there's a photo in your stream of another guy with a long black lens, is that you, or another mall photographer?

Maybe there needs to be an iPhone app that alerts camera shy folks when a person with a camera is photographing strangers just outside private establishments, and it auto-tweets to all those in the area with the app enabled.

Is there an app for that?
 
Arenas that host sporting events, celebrity memorials, etc., often have their guidelines posted. For example, these are guidelines from LA Staples Center (assuming the event allows photography at all):

Not permitted:

Lenses greater than three-and-one-half inches in length
Telephoto or zoom lenses of any kind
Interchangeable lenses of any kind
Monopods or tripods
Flash equipment of any kind

The SJ Sharks allow lenses up to 6".

Maybe malls and retail stores need to state their rules and regulations on photography at their entrances. I was in a store with about 20 relatives once, it was a combination restaurant, connected to a department store. The security guy came down and had a very polite chat with me, he said he noticed me photographing a lot of the products and artwork, and the owners were uncomfortable when pro looking (ohh, that was a compliment) photographers did that, but that I was completely encouraged to take pictures of the family and relatives in any part of the store. I felt that was completely reasonable, as this store had a lot of unique artwork and products.

I'm not sure how you'd word the above, but it made sense to me. The only store I can think of with a big "No Photos Allowed" sign at the entrance that I can think of is Fry's Electronics.
 
Last edited:
It's a different world now

It's a different world now

Winogrand, Arbus, and Lange couldn't do what they did now, and shouldn't be able to. Do you think the "Migrant Worker" signed a model release for Lange? or appreciated becoming an unpaid model for a photo that some considered was used for political reasons?

Pickett Wilson said:
People in public places can say anything they like, but they don't have the right to not have their photo taken. That's the equivalent of "don't look at me." Besides, had he been using a cell phone camera they would have never known he took their photo. Have their rights been violated if they didn't know they were being photographed?

What if a famous street photographer had stuck a 21mm lens a few inches from their face and fired a big flash at them? Should they be able to demand he delete the photo?

What if Winogrand has shot them all sitting on a bench? Should that be banned?

There is an important precedent being set here, and a step down the slippery slope.
Click to expand...
 
charjohncarter said:
Completely correct, AND I didn't see you once in Mexico with a camera. I know it is your 'right' to not to do photos on vacation, cheers John.
Click to expand...

How hard were you looking. ;-)

WiFi is still a developing thing down here, plus I did not hook up with the people I was looking for, so I did little shooting, though, I put up some shots today and a few months ago.

I have improved my knees a bit with some exercise in the pool, but I have a few days to make some photos. ;-)

It is much easier for me to work with a friend down here, better yet a woman friend. I shot people and kids a lot in Uruapan on previous trips, and no one reacted with more than a smile.

I would be pretty brassed off with a reaction of the type in this thread, but especially for a single male, you are at risk of all kinds of labels.

I would think the businesses would simply put up signs by the door if they did not wish to permit photography within, much as I have a "No Trespassing" sign on my garage, makes things clear there.

J
 
Philly said:
Don't you just love all those Tibetans with shaved heads and orange robes?

Tashi dalek
...
Click to expand...

First of all, where and when did you last see any, outside Dharamsala? Second, they're monks or nuns, not lay people. They don't normally wear orange, either: maroon and yellow. You may be confusing them with someone else: Hare Krishnas, perhaps. Do I object to priests wearing funny clothes? Not particularly. But the vast majority of Tibetans dress much like anyone else, so this is a red herring.

Dressing up in religious attire is a way of drawing attention to yourself, and it's also worth adding that there's a bit of a difference between wearing monastic robes in Dharamsala and wearing them in (say) London or Philadelphia.

It is possible to be perfectly observant, as a lay person, without shoving your religion in anyone's face. My own feeling is that there is something deeply dysfunctional about not making a reasonable attempt to integrate with the society in which you live. My understanding is that the Prophet (peace be upon him) felt much the same way.

Tashi delek,

R.
 
Last edited:
wgerrard said:
But, I don't necessarily agree with this. Yes, fear levels are pathological in the U.S. and elsewhere since 9-11. Which is odd, since terrorists threaten individuals, while during the Cold War we faced the physical destruction of entire nations. In excess of 3000 deaths in New York is a terrible thing, but I grew up at a time when the U.S. and the USSR were 20 minutes away from rendering their respective continents uninhabitable.

That said, I'm not sure that distaste for being photographed without permission rises to the level of being "pathological". Yes, courts in the U.S. have established the right to take pictures on public property, but that does not change human nature.
Click to expand...

Dear Bill,

Sorry, I did not make myself clear. No, I do not regard distaste for being photographed without permission as "pathological" -- but I would suggest that is is often a (small) aspect of the climate of fear in which people live, and which is stoked by the media.

Cheers,

R.
 
Seriously, how much easier could the whole thing have been resolved if (say) Mara had have simply walked up to Dan and said "I'd prefer you didn't take my photo". Then Dan could have said "Of course - here, I'll delete it".

Not too much to ask is it?
 
^ that’s because common sense is actually quite uncommon …

P. S. on one point I’m a little unsure, could someone tell me is he banned completely or just from taking photos in the area?
 
Last edited:
Roger Hicks said:
My own feeling is that there is something deeply dysfunctional about not making a reasonable attempt to integrate with the society in which you live.

Tashi delek,

R.
Click to expand...

So you feel that a multi-cultural society is deeply dysfunctional. Then I would ask you to stop all of your "tashi daleks", your "take what you want and pay for it saieth the lord" and your frequent bible quoting as I don't want your religious views "shoved in my face" on a public forum.
 
phil.wright said:
Seriously, how much easier could the whole thing have been resolved if (say) Mara had have simply walked up to Dan and said "I'd prefer you didn't take my photo". Then Dan could have said "Of course - here, I'll delete it".
Click to expand...

Which has happened to me, though whenever it has (pretty seldom, and ot for a few years), I've explained politely that I can't delete pictures because I'm shooting on film, and everyone has calmed down.

But when someone comes at you yelling and screaming and telling you that you have no right to do something perfectly legal, it's sometimes hard not to respond by telling them that they're wrong, and to stand by your rights.

Members of society are, by definition, pretty much obliged to rub along together, or you don't have any society. But society is not obliged to submit, invariably, to the whims of the hysterically angry.

(This is not intended to be an analysis of the situation which was described at the beginning of the thread, but rather, a response to the post quoted here.)

Cheers,

R.
 
Philly said:
So you feel that a multi-cultural society is deeply dysfunctional. Then I would ask you to stop all of your "tashi daleks", your "take what you want and pay for it saieth the lord" and your frequent bible quoting as I don't want your religious views "shoved in my face" on a public forum.
Click to expand...

Philly, 'Tashi delek' isn't religious, it's just a standard greeting; 'take what you want, and pay for it, saieth the Lord' is a Spanish proverb, and perfectly comprehensible whether you are religious or not; and I impartially quote the Bible and Buddhist scriptures, as well as Richard Dawkins. For the last, let's try his assertion that religion is a form of child abuse. Mental, not sexual. I don't quote the Koran because I'm not as familiar with it, but I also quote Shakespeare and Marx. I am not quite sure what religious beliefs I am supposed to be shoving in your face.

As soon as someone attempts to define himself or herself one-dimensionally, e.g. by religion or intellect or race or nationality or political beliefs, he or she is indeed deeply dysfunctional.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom