dazedgonebye
Veteran
Michiel said:
Thanks,
I read Lord of the Flies about 5 years before you were born...but nice to see it still being "discovered."
You are refering to formations. I'm refering to growth and perversion from orignial intent.
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Michiel said:
I wasn't insulted so much as amused. I'm at the age where I remember being at the age where I discovered many newold ideas.
In my cynical middle-aged opinion...after youth comes deterioration unto death. In between we get what we see now, a struggle to grow and continue, often at the expense of those around us.
Geeze, I'm depressing. Now I want to go shoot myself.
Sparrow
Veteran
You’re depressed; I read it five years before you!! Upstart
dazedgonebye
Veteran
Sparrow said:You’re depressed; I read it five years before you!! Upstart
See, there's always a bright spot...someone that'll likely die before me!
cfoto
Established
Mirror Face said:
I agree with most of what you are saying, Mirror Face. However, I don't suggest joining a journalist union if you're not a photojournalist. Authorities can spot whether you're a real photojournalist or not. A real photojournalist is going to be interacting with the subjects they're photographing (in most cases). They're working on a story. They don't take photos and run. Photojournalists are busy taking down names and interacting with the subjects for the story and cutline. Most editors aren't going to run a photo of a couple of kids or adults with no names (Again, in most circumstances).
I am a member of NPPA (for about 6 years), as well. They recommend not being combative. Combative and confrontational photographers ruin it for everyone. The situation described in the start of this thread was not of a photojournalist on an assignment. It was not about a war/combat zone. Authorities have many means available in restricting someone's photographic movements and/or making your shooting less than pleasant, if you're combative in nature with them. On the other side, they can be fantastic resources and aids when they know you respect them and you clear misunderstandings through proper channels.
(I'm certain I have totally jinxed myself now. And before this day is over, I'll be on an assignment or just shooting for the fun of it and find myself in a very ugly situation.)
Sparrow
Veteran
dazedgonebye said:See, there's always a bright spot...someone that'll likely die before me!
Glad to be of service……I may turn to drink tonight and speed up the process
underbyte
Established
Great thread!
I think polite professionalism combined the knowledge of your rights is the balance. My understanding of US law is that a court order is required to give up film or meda card. Private or public property, it doesn't matter. They can ask you to stop shooting on private property but they can't touch your gear. I would be hard pressed to give up anything without a court order or threat of violence. I have considered carrying a "dummy" memory card with me when shooting just in case. It just occured to me how funny it would be to give up an 8mb Smart Media card while using a film camera. I think most people would go for it.
Lastly, I'm only 40, am I "youth" or "deteriorating" ?
I think it depends on the day in question. Today, I'm in limbo, beats the alternative.
I think polite professionalism combined the knowledge of your rights is the balance. My understanding of US law is that a court order is required to give up film or meda card. Private or public property, it doesn't matter. They can ask you to stop shooting on private property but they can't touch your gear. I would be hard pressed to give up anything without a court order or threat of violence. I have considered carrying a "dummy" memory card with me when shooting just in case. It just occured to me how funny it would be to give up an 8mb Smart Media card while using a film camera. I think most people would go for it.
Lastly, I'm only 40, am I "youth" or "deteriorating" ?
I think it depends on the day in question. Today, I'm in limbo, beats the alternative.
Last edited:
cfoto
Established
underbyte said:
I'm 44. I was wondering the same thing.
Sparrow
Veteran
Defiantly youth if you’re still able to limbo…I’m taking a camera for a walk to the pub now, it’s been a depressing day
Good evening gentlemen.
cfoto
Established
Depends how low the stick goes. Have one for me, Sparrow.
underbyte
Established
I don't know how seriously to take your recommendations, your avatar is an armed, trademarked image, probably standing on a bridge in China. Certainly, both items made in China. What am I to think?
Steve Bellayr
Veteran
Australia is different in America. In the USA you are still allowed to take photographs in public places with certain restrictions, subways and museums are one. The current procedure is either to post a notice or a security guard will advise you of the regulations. (Subways are old news as Walker Evans knew in the 1950s.) As far as I recall an individual in the USA may be detained for a short period of time. Once the individual is moved from the place of initial contact (asgainst his or her will) he or she is under arrest whether or not handcuffs are used. Handcuffs in the USA may be applied to the individual during this short period of detention for public safety (US Supreme Court ruling.) Property can not be seized without a court order. Only contraband may be seized and that is with the arrest. 9-11 did not change the Constitution. (If you carry a small knife to an airport you are asked to surrender it or you may leave the airport.) My information may be dated and if anyone else has more current for USA please correct.
cfoto
Established
Love the rules, Mirror Face!
I agree that no one has the right to confiscate my gear(this includes film). I will offer to accompany the official, with my gear in tow, to their headquarters if need be in order to settle the dispute. (Most uniforms tend to be larger than I, and I'm afraid I wouldn't fare well in a down and out brawl.)
Also, having a good relationship with one or more officials can come in handy as they can be used to vouch for you should the need arise.
Very nice portfolio you have, Mirror Face.
I agree that no one has the right to confiscate my gear(this includes film). I will offer to accompany the official, with my gear in tow, to their headquarters if need be in order to settle the dispute. (Most uniforms tend to be larger than I, and I'm afraid I wouldn't fare well in a down and out brawl.)
Also, having a good relationship with one or more officials can come in handy as they can be used to vouch for you should the need arise.
Very nice portfolio you have, Mirror Face.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
Certain 'tourist attractions' are also off limits- USS Constitution comes to mind. I was detained for photographing a fence there- it is a US Navy base. However no-one else was bothered for making photographs of people and the fence, so I suppose I should have thrown one of the kids in the frame. My film was not taken, but my ID was held during the check. I cooperated, despite being pissed and tried to keep my good humor.
Had there been ANY interest in taking film I would have sat tight and waited to be arrested and formally charged- but being on a Navy base I suppose I'd have a chance at being labelled an 'enemy combatant' and been shipped to warmer climes.
I lived for a time as a kid on an army base, was in trouble with the MP's then too...
As the full story was in a Members Only thread:
This has been recounted elsewhere, but perhaps worth retelling.
I visited Boston with my wife & kids for a family gathering. Her father & stepmother, sister & our nephew. We went to the USS Constitution, a wooden warship from the early days of the US as my kids had just learned about it in school. This a one of the big tourist things to see in Boston, there is a museum, the ship etc. all on a Navy base. It is certainly a place where many people make pictures. There is a security checkpoint before one can get on the boat, with an x-ray machine as in the airport for all bags. I was carrying a variety of films, including some ISO 800 Fuji film I'd purchased used, right around expiration date if I'm recalling correctly. I was unsure of how it had been stored, the first rolls had come back fine, but to be safe I asked for a hand inspection. I was told no hand inspection of anything- it had to go through the x-ray. I declined. The rest of the group went on the boat tour (I'd seen it myself some 30+ years earlier in 'simpler' times) and I wandered around the large open area, looking at the old dry-dock, some cranes, and making some photographs. I spoke with some of the employees, made some more images. Then a jeep pulled up and I was asked to get in. I was questioned as to what I was doing- I explained. I was told it was against the law to make photographs of the fences on any military base, I'd need to wait while they ran my ID. My wallet was taken, something I would never allow again, and I was stood at the front of the jeep while my profile was run. I gave the officer the web address to the gallery I had recently shown in- there was a multi-page press release about the show with sample images- lines, which is what I'd seen in the fence in question. This all took about 20 minutes. Generally I was treated courteously, but having my ID vanish into the bowels of this place made me very nervous. I was also quite aware that if I was arrested I'd be gone when my family returned from the tour with no idea what had happened to me, so I didn't put up a big fuss. In the end I was given back my wallet, intact, and sent on my way. There was no notice anywhere about no photography, nor was the fact that this was a Navy Base clearly stated- not that knowing this would have stopped me from making pictures- at the time I did not know I could not. To top it off I saw a family have a group portrait made standing in front of the very fence I had photographed, all images made of the ship itself from shore if one didn't take the tour would include the same fence. The irrationally applied rules is what got me to look into this stuff.
I am just now wondering if this incident had any influence on my being detained at the Canadian border for an hours plus investigating/questioning while on a college department trip to Montreal that fall (I'm a photo/graphic design instructor). A whole busload of students and other faculty waited while I and one student were held. The student was turned away, I was allowed in.
Had there been ANY interest in taking film I would have sat tight and waited to be arrested and formally charged- but being on a Navy base I suppose I'd have a chance at being labelled an 'enemy combatant' and been shipped to warmer climes.
I lived for a time as a kid on an army base, was in trouble with the MP's then too...
As the full story was in a Members Only thread:
This has been recounted elsewhere, but perhaps worth retelling.
I visited Boston with my wife & kids for a family gathering. Her father & stepmother, sister & our nephew. We went to the USS Constitution, a wooden warship from the early days of the US as my kids had just learned about it in school. This a one of the big tourist things to see in Boston, there is a museum, the ship etc. all on a Navy base. It is certainly a place where many people make pictures. There is a security checkpoint before one can get on the boat, with an x-ray machine as in the airport for all bags. I was carrying a variety of films, including some ISO 800 Fuji film I'd purchased used, right around expiration date if I'm recalling correctly. I was unsure of how it had been stored, the first rolls had come back fine, but to be safe I asked for a hand inspection. I was told no hand inspection of anything- it had to go through the x-ray. I declined. The rest of the group went on the boat tour (I'd seen it myself some 30+ years earlier in 'simpler' times) and I wandered around the large open area, looking at the old dry-dock, some cranes, and making some photographs. I spoke with some of the employees, made some more images. Then a jeep pulled up and I was asked to get in. I was questioned as to what I was doing- I explained. I was told it was against the law to make photographs of the fences on any military base, I'd need to wait while they ran my ID. My wallet was taken, something I would never allow again, and I was stood at the front of the jeep while my profile was run. I gave the officer the web address to the gallery I had recently shown in- there was a multi-page press release about the show with sample images- lines, which is what I'd seen in the fence in question. This all took about 20 minutes. Generally I was treated courteously, but having my ID vanish into the bowels of this place made me very nervous. I was also quite aware that if I was arrested I'd be gone when my family returned from the tour with no idea what had happened to me, so I didn't put up a big fuss. In the end I was given back my wallet, intact, and sent on my way. There was no notice anywhere about no photography, nor was the fact that this was a Navy Base clearly stated- not that knowing this would have stopped me from making pictures- at the time I did not know I could not. To top it off I saw a family have a group portrait made standing in front of the very fence I had photographed, all images made of the ship itself from shore if one didn't take the tour would include the same fence. The irrationally applied rules is what got me to look into this stuff.
I am just now wondering if this incident had any influence on my being detained at the Canadian border for an hours plus investigating/questioning while on a college department trip to Montreal that fall (I'm a photo/graphic design instructor). A whole busload of students and other faculty waited while I and one student were held. The student was turned away, I was allowed in.
Last edited:
Ken V
Newbie
No ban on photography in NYC subways!
No ban on photography in NYC subways!
Hi all...
See here for restrictions to photography in/on subways in NYC, on NYC's own MTA site:
http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#restricted
Section 1050.9, sub letter c.
There was a point when they tried to establish a ban right after 9/11 but it was shot down. It's a bit of restriction, no flash, tripods, etc. - but it is perfectly legal. So get out your neopan 1600 and you'll be fine at about 1/60 at f4. As to museums, most in NY will allow photography, just not flash photography. Too much of that and paintings start fading - that's the only ban I know of.
Ken
No ban on photography in NYC subways!
Steve Bellayr said:
Hi all...
See here for restrictions to photography in/on subways in NYC, on NYC's own MTA site:
http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm#restricted
Section 1050.9, sub letter c.
There was a point when they tried to establish a ban right after 9/11 but it was shot down. It's a bit of restriction, no flash, tripods, etc. - but it is perfectly legal. So get out your neopan 1600 and you'll be fine at about 1/60 at f4.
As to museums, most in NY will allow photography, just not flash photography. Too much of that and paintings start fading - that's the only ban I know of.Ken
Last edited:
dmr
Registered Abuser
ducttape said:
An attorney friend of mine, when asked about this a while back, told me to the contrary. This was not on-the-clock legal advice, but he seemed to know what he was talking about.
It was essentially that film is your property and it can't be forfeited without due process.
Al Patterson
Ferroequinologist
Ducttape, dmr is correct. Please review this page regarding rights of photographers.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Someone I know from New Jersey had his Compact Flash card taken by the police. When the case came to trial, the judge read the cop the riot act for not knowing the law. They can ask you to move along, but cannot take your camera or film. Of course it may be cheaper to buy another CF card or roll of film than hire a lawyer, but I carry one of these printouts in my camera bag.
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Someone I know from New Jersey had his Compact Flash card taken by the police. When the case came to trial, the judge read the cop the riot act for not knowing the law. They can ask you to move along, but cannot take your camera or film. Of course it may be cheaper to buy another CF card or roll of film than hire a lawyer, but I carry one of these printouts in my camera bag.
dmr
Registered Abuser
Al Patterson said:
Actually that is a very interesting book. I picked it up at the local Barnes And Borders a while back.
I've been confronted a few times and asked not to shoot. Once was in a Chicago subway station by a maintenance worker. I didn't feel like arguing, so I apologized and capped the lens and moved on -- to another station and resumed shooting.
The amusing one is when I was most definitely being watched when shooting "The Bean" in Chicago. This was during the time when amateur photographers were occasionally confronted. I wrote it up here, with photos of Joe Mannix having me under surveillance:
http://omababe.blogspot.com/2007/01/forbidden-images-polishing-bean.html
Most recent was when I was getting some shots of the Westward Ho casino about a month before it closed. I raised the camera to my eye and a guard was on me like stink on doo-doo.
He was very nice, apologetic, actually, but he did ask me to not shoot inside the casino.I've never had anybody get nasty or demand film or threaten arrest or anything like that -- yet.
ChrisN
Striving
I've passed on this link before, and was expecting to see it appear already! For the Aussies, here's an article with decent information on the legal situation here : http://4020.net/words/photorights.shtml .
And a printable PDF summary that is handy to carry (to give to the cops to read!) http://4020.net/words/rightssummary/nswphotorights.pdf
Credits to Andrew Nemeth.
And a printable PDF summary that is handy to carry (to give to the cops to read!) http://4020.net/words/rightssummary/nswphotorights.pdf
Credits to Andrew Nemeth.
PaulEv
Newbie
Evad,
I live in Newcastle, and amaware of similar incidents occurring particularly in Sydney, but also on the Central Coast holiday spots. I believe the issue you had is not shooting in a public place, in Australia, this is not illegal. However, taking pictures of children in any public place in NSW can be contsrued if the officer decides, or someone complains as against child pornography laws. If so your equipment and film can be confiscated for this reason. High profile events and places, such as the Easter show, Bondi, etc are places where the police/officials react very quickly, on the pretence of keeping children safe in these locations due to the concern of sexual predators being attracted to these locations. This is probably the reason the officers/ security guard asked about you taking pictures of children not that you can't photograph in this location.
I live in Newcastle, and amaware of similar incidents occurring particularly in Sydney, but also on the Central Coast holiday spots. I believe the issue you had is not shooting in a public place, in Australia, this is not illegal. However, taking pictures of children in any public place in NSW can be contsrued if the officer decides, or someone complains as against child pornography laws. If so your equipment and film can be confiscated for this reason. High profile events and places, such as the Easter show, Bondi, etc are places where the police/officials react very quickly, on the pretence of keeping children safe in these locations due to the concern of sexual predators being attracted to these locations. This is probably the reason the officers/ security guard asked about you taking pictures of children not that you can't photograph in this location.