dmr
Registered Abuser
A user of a local board had a conversation with an attorney this week regarding getting hassled by private security for photographing a building here in Omaha. I thought it would be of interest here. Here's a c-p:
nikon_sam
Shooter of Film...
The Right to Photograph (legally) is important to me and I'm willing to stand up for that right and pay whatever price I have to...whether it's a building in Omaha, New York City or here in So. California where I live...
I'll take that get well card...just nothing with Garfield...
I'll take that get well card...just nothing with Garfield...
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Jason Sprenger
Well-known
Amen Sam.
Fighting for freedom in Omaha is perhaps more important than a lot of places where Americans are fighting for it.
BTW, what's the name of this building in Omaha?
I might want create a study of it should I find myself over there.
Fighting for freedom in Omaha is perhaps more important than a lot of places where Americans are fighting for it.
BTW, what's the name of this building in Omaha?
I might want create a study of it should I find myself over there.
steverett
Anthopomorphized Camera
The easiest thing is meek compliance.
It seems that the American trend avoiding exercise is spreading from our bodies and minds to our rights.
dmr
Registered Abuser
It's the First National (bank) Tower. Here's a recent Kodachrome, GIII.
I should say that I have photographed this building several times, day and night, and never had anybody at all approach me. I have heard quite a few stories, however, of others getting hassled, with the excuses ranging from national security to copyright to trespass.
jody36
Well-known
i will tote a beating to stand up for myself. I for one will fight for my rights history has shown others will not fight for your rights. Remember Rosa Parks.
dmr
Registered Abuser
What kinda perplexes me is that FNB of Omaha, whose roots are entwined with the Greightons, et. al, most certainly has house counsel who are aware of the law, yet they insist on the draconian approach.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
From the security guard who has just hassled you for taking pictures on the sidewalk? I'd suppose there are no security guards who would decide to bring you inside and photograph the whole place after telling you that you cannot make a picture of the outside of the building after a few sweet words or even after a few sweet bills.
Security Guard: "You can't take pictures of this building."
Photographer: "Oh, sorry. It's just so hot out, and I thought you'd appreciate something to do."
Security Guard: "Thanks. You wanna come inside and get some pictures of the whole place instead? You should see the reactor from the catwalk- now that's a picture!"
It is easy to get permission to photograph in many places- this is about being told one cannot make pictures from the sidewalk.
Last edited:
Morris
-
I understand your point, but just can't see counter aggression as a feasible option.
An arrogant Hicks style of "I'm within my rights" argument will get you nowhere, especially where a-hole armed guards are concerned.
sepiareverb
genius and moron
What counter aggression? Calmly explaining to the guard that one is legally allowed to photograph from the sidewalk and offering to call the police to clear up any misunderstanding works for me. The notion that the photographer should just give in and slink away as if they are the criminal is simply unacceptable to me.
When one needs to ask permission to walk down a public sidewalk using a camera something is very wrong with our society.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Dear Morris,
Let's take the mirror image of that:
A snivelling submission won't get you anywhere much either.
I won't say 'A snivelling Morris-style submission' because I don't know how you behave, except that you seem to like being gratuitously rude. You don't know how I behave, either, so 'arrogant Hicks-style' is pure unfounded rudeness.
There's a difference between standing up for your rights -- it's always worked for me, even with armed guards -- and being arrogant or aggressive.
Cheers,
Roger
FrankS
Registered User
Sorry Fred, but I'm with Sepiareverb and the others on their side of the fence on this issue. By acquiescing to the security guard's illegal order to stop shooting pictures from the sidewalk, and later arranging with the PR department to take pictures from the roof, you do nothing to change the security guard's (mis-)understanding of the law.
Last edited:
ClaremontPhoto
Jon Claremont
How about you make a 'flash-mob' of photographers happen there?
Say a few dozen photographers arrive independently from all different directions at the same time and photograph the structure.
Then they disperse.
Say a few dozen photographers arrive independently from all different directions at the same time and photograph the structure.
Then they disperse.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Now that Morris is on ignore, as not being worth the effort of countering, I'll try to return to the topic.
There seems to be an extraordinary sub-text here, that the security guard will beat you senseless or gun you down as soon as you refuse to obey his every whim. How likely is this?
A smile and politeness can be very disarming. You can use quite clear language to state your position, as long as you are civil about it. This is not 'counter-aggression' (always a last resort) or 'making enemies'. I don't recall ever 'making enemies' with my attitude; but nor do I recall giving in to illegal demands.
If the smile and politeness fail, sure, go over his head. Get him fired, if it's worth it. But you'll very seldom need to do any of this.
As for the Salgado analogy, there is no parallel. I have on many occasions gone into quite a variety of places situations with authorization, having done a good deal of research and arranged things beforehand. This is not the same thing as casually taking a picture in a public place.
Cheers,
Roger
There seems to be an extraordinary sub-text here, that the security guard will beat you senseless or gun you down as soon as you refuse to obey his every whim. How likely is this?
A smile and politeness can be very disarming. You can use quite clear language to state your position, as long as you are civil about it. This is not 'counter-aggression' (always a last resort) or 'making enemies'. I don't recall ever 'making enemies' with my attitude; but nor do I recall giving in to illegal demands.
If the smile and politeness fail, sure, go over his head. Get him fired, if it's worth it. But you'll very seldom need to do any of this.
As for the Salgado analogy, there is no parallel. I have on many occasions gone into quite a variety of places situations with authorization, having done a good deal of research and arranged things beforehand. This is not the same thing as casually taking a picture in a public place.
Cheers,
Roger
FrankS
Registered User
I'm not sure what you are saying Fred. Did you mean that you would comply with the guard and then ask to see the supervisor or PR person then and there, or did you mean that you would comply with the guard, walk away, and phone the building management at a later time to arrange a tour?
If the former, then I would agree with your approach because the security guard would get straightened out in the process. If the latter, then the guard will simply continue to act illegally.
If the former, then I would agree with your approach because the security guard would get straightened out in the process. If the latter, then the guard will simply continue to act illegally.
Last edited:
Morris
-
There is. It's human interaction, man-management, social skills. There's nothing "snivelling" about being polite.
chippy
foo was here
i realise this discussion seems to have gone the path of behaviour and discussion or claiming ones rights between the security gaurd and photographer...
but from a different angle perhaps...
i dont know your laws of course , but it was mentioned in an earlier post that this was a bank. coincidently the other day on the news here, they happend to mention about some banks and/or a street in the US (i forget the exact details) where photography wasnt allowed, for bank security reasons no doubt. can this not be a feasable reason why the guard is instructed not to allow photography?
its been a while since i worked and sold photos as well but i remember that buildings do have copyright issues as well, more particulary landmark buildings. Just as you need a model release form signed, when photographing building a realease form is also required. obviously this is often ignored but i have always understood this to be true.
but from a different angle perhaps...
i dont know your laws of course , but it was mentioned in an earlier post that this was a bank. coincidently the other day on the news here, they happend to mention about some banks and/or a street in the US (i forget the exact details) where photography wasnt allowed, for bank security reasons no doubt. can this not be a feasable reason why the guard is instructed not to allow photography?
its been a while since i worked and sold photos as well but i remember that buildings do have copyright issues as well, more particulary landmark buildings. Just as you need a model release form signed, when photographing building a realease form is also required. obviously this is often ignored but i have always understood this to be true.
FrankS
Registered User
Hi Andrew. Yes you are correct, that it all revolves about what the law is. The best leagal opinion we have in this thread, is the attourney's advice to the original poster in post #1.
Roger Hicks
Veteran
Your approach and experience are substantially identical to mine. But some people seem to see an antithesis between being polite and civil, and standing up for your rights.
There is also the point that once he exceeds his authority, a security guard is no longer a security guard. He's a security danger.
Cheers,
Roger
- Status
- Not open for further replies.