Thrown Out of a Library for Taking Pictures. Help.

[Vertigo2020]

School regulations do not outweigh civil liberties. In fact, if they rub up against each other, civil liberties win.

I get that all the time from stores - they have a 'policy' you see, that requires they search bags when patrons exit the store. I tell 'em if they try to search my bag, I'm going walk out and they can try to tackle me. They're free to call the cops if they like, but they're not searching my bag. See, I don't work for them, and I don't care what their 'rules' are. They don't apply, even though they want me to think they do.

If the school has a 'regulation', well ain't that cute and good for them. If it runs contrary to civil liberties, they can roll it up and insert it gleefully up their collective jaxies.

Finally...someone who gets it! Just because the Head Librarian makes up a rule prohibiting photography doesn't make it legally authorized. Without a challenge to the intrusions on our civil liberties we wouldn't have Gideon, Korematsu, Miranda, etc.

 

[Al Patterson]

I'm still thinking about people having sex in the library. Hey, it was some of YOU who made me think about that.

And the mile high club too...

 

[Journeyman]

What about the rights of the other library users to study in peace? Whatever happened to good old-fashioned respect? The librarian asks someone to leave, for whatever reason, and people start suggesting his rights have been violated and he should take them to court. No wonder photographers are seen in such a poor light these days.

 

[Roger Hicks]

It's not a crime or sin to take pictures of people who are trying to study, it's just annoying. Librarians have the right to kick you out for annoying people.

Exactly.

The reaction seems to have been disproportionate in this case (possibly on both sides) but if I'd ever been asked not to take pictures in the library when I was at university (I doubt I took more than a dozen pics in the library in the whole time I was at university) I'd have thought, "Fair enough."

Cheers,

R.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Some public spaces, (open to the public for the use by the public as the public) may indeed be private property, regardless of who, or what actually owns the building. Even if the government, therefore the people, own the structure, the managers of it are expected to run it. They have the right and obligation to set rules of conduct. If a ban on photography is one of them you have no recourse.

I spend a lot of time in public libraries and I would personally resent the intrusion and interruption.

Considering the potential copyright issues I wouldn't be surprised if cameras were totally banned inside most libraries.

Copyright? are you joking? The library at the university I attend has 6 copy machines on EVERY floor. The public library in the city I live in has probably 50 of them in its main building downtown and 3 or 4 of them in each branch.

 

[Chriscrawfordphoto]

Here in Indiana the universities dont give a damn if students take pictures on campus. Hell, most of the state university campuses have photography programs as part of their fine art or visual communications or journalism programs. I've taken pictures of students many times in the library and other buildings on campus since I've been working on my masters degree at IU Fort Wayne and the only reactions I have gotten were some girls giggling when I snapped a photo of another girl who was sleeping on a bench at noon in one of the buildings.

 

[oftheherd]

I think the thing here is that the intended use of the street is not for photography. It is for transportation. That usually implies not being distracted by someone taking your photograph if you are uncomfortable about it .

Does your logical argument still hold water when I change just two words?

Not to make a big thing out of all this since we don't know what the particular school's rules are, but ...

I think it does. I think your logic has strayed. I can accept noise and distraction on a public street, as part of "transportation." I prefer not to have it in a library where I have gone to study.

 

[sepiareverb]

Exactly.

The reaction seems to have been disproportionate in this case (possibly on both sides) but if I'd ever been asked not to take pictures in the library when I was at university (I doubt I took more than a dozen pics in the library in the whole time I was at university) I'd have thought, "Fair enough."

Cheers,

R.

Being asked is one thing, the original post seems to say he wasn't simply asked not to.

...I was snapping some photos in the Library today, and I was harshly informed by a Library worker that I could not take pictures of people without their consent, and then even more harshly informed (yelled at) by the Dean of the Library that if I continued to do so, he would call public safety officers...

Public Safety may be different on your campus, but on mine they have much to learn when it comes to rules. Despite clear written policy on darkroom use in our facility (posted on the wall both in the lab and in the Public Safety office) every single semester I'm down in that office explaining it to them again.

 

[Andy Kibber]

Jeez louise, it's a library! People are (presumably) there to study. I can understand that the library admin doesn't want people wandering around snapping pictures.

As for all this foolishness about it being a public space, even if any old joe can wander in off the street, the folks in charge of the library have the right to make reasonable requirements for entering and remaining in the building. Not taking photographs, they've decided, is one of those requirements. If you don't comply, you're trespassing and can be asked to leave or removed with reasonable force.

As for the ACLU, the Constitution, and whatever else, best of luck with that.

 

[sepiareverb]

Jeez louise, it's a library! People are (presumably) there to study. I can understand that the library admin doesn't want people wandering around snapping pictures.

As for all this foolishness about it being a public space, even if any old joe can wander in off the street, the folks in charge of the library have the right to make reasonable requirements for entering and remaining in the building. Not taking photographs, they've decided, is one of those requirements. If you don't comply, you're trespassing and can be asked to leave or removed with reasonable force...

That has yet to be determined. There seems to be no published regulations about photography. Motor drive & a flash? Sure, I'd expect to be asked not to do that. Photographing people in the adjacent carrel or leaning over the carrel to photograph someone? Sure, again not ok. Climbing up on the stacks? Sure. But ANY photography in a State University Library which is open to the public by a registered student? No.

..Just because the Head Librarian makes up a rule prohibiting photography doesn't make it legally authorized...

 

[Benjamin]

Proof that the Leica shutter is far from silent.

Or that the user may be far from subtle?

 

[Andy Kibber]

Sepiareverb,

There doesn't need to be a written regulation about photography. I'm sure there's nothing on the books about bowling in library, but that doesn't mean you're allowed to do so.

Just because "Vertigo 2020" says something doesn't make it true. I refer you to The Photographer's Right (link). Specifically the second paragraph of "The General Rule": "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises ...".

Again, people in charge of property (even property open to the public, like shopping malls and libraries) can make the rules about entering and staying on the property (subject to human rights legislation, etc.). If you think not letting you take photographs in the library violates your Constitutional rights or some form of anti-discrimination law, best of luck with that.

As for the library admin's claim that they're protecting their patron's privacy, I agree, that's bunk.

 

[JSU]

You're on private property. They're within their rights.

A state university is not private property.

People in public have no right to privacy.

 

[squirrel$$$bandit]

Get a little perspective, guys. This is not a constitutional issue. When cops harrass you for photographing on the street, they are asserting false authority and should be rigorously challenged. But what you're demanding here is the "right" to disrupt people who are trying to mind their own business, in an environment where they have a reasonable expectation of calm, quiet, and solitude. You want to take it to a judge, go ahead, but this is the kind of thing that gives photographers a bad name.

I think photographers should assume a right to take pictures until challenged, and then regard the challenge on a case-by-case basis. Go ahead and snap until somebody asks you to stop, and then consider: is your "art" really more important than all the work the people around you are doing? Do you really want to go to the canvas over that? Ask for documentation if you must, but do it respectfully, because the situation is ambiguous and you may not know all the facts.

We must assert our rights if we want to keep them, but consider the consequences if other people's assertion of their rights requires a little peace and quiet. Chest-thumping in the face of any and all opposition is a sign of insecurity--even if you don't HAVE to listen to the librarian, it would be big of you to accede to his/her request, out of respect for the people around you.

 

[JSU]

Personally, I believe the people do have a right to privacy, even if it is not necessarily protected by law or governance. Street & candid photography is a gray area as far as rights go. If we, as photographers, push to far we may well find folks pushing back.

Jim Couch

You are welcome to impose on yourself such a restriction of a right to privacy. However, the Constitution of the USA does not.

If one submits themselves to public view then what is the difference between being seen and being photographed?

That's why private property is so described, because it implies privacy.

 

[wgerrard]

School regulations do not outweigh civil liberties. In fact, if they rub up against each other, civil liberties win.

Civil liberties win only if the OP takes successful legal action against the school, as I've said.

By enrolling at a university the OP agreed to abide by the school's regulations. That's the school's first line of defense, however misguided the regulation. A simple assertion that the rule violates his civil liberties won't change anything. The OP might just as easily assert his civil liberties were violated by not being able to sleep on the couch in the school president's publicly funded house.

The public or private nature of the school is not really relevant, I think. Do we have the right to enter dorms and locker rooms at public schools and take pictures? Do we have a 30 percent right to photograph inside a private corporation that receives 30 percent of its funding from public contracts?

The dean should have asked the OP to stop photographing, not claimed a violation of some ill-defined right. If the OP's action did, in fact, violate a regulation the OP is obligated to obey, the dean should have cited it.

 

[mhazzaa]

Appear innocent and they will not bother you much. Say that you are in a photography class or something..

I like the quote about the honey and wasps. good advice.

 

[SolaresLarrave]

In general terms, I agree with Mabelsound and nikonwebmaster and the fact that there are boundaries for all types of human activity. The OP believes it's his right to go and photograph a place just because he has a camera and an artistic agenda, and the place is part of a public institution.

Well... they too have their own agenda and beliefs, and also rely on the norms that REGULATE social behavior. It is childish to act against these norms, and act like a victim on top of it.

I am a prof myself... and wouldn't find it adecuate and proper that a perfect stranger came to my classroom and photographed me and my students in there. No, I'm not paranoid or afraid, it's simply that this type of activity tends to derail the teaching process, disturbs me and the students, and causes us to waste time. I'd accept something like that if the photographer has consulted with me ahead of time... and only after asking my students if there are objections to the matter. I myself have NEVER photographed students in class, and would never dream of doing it.

Want to photograph people hassle-free? Do it outside in the street, never under a roof.

 

[wgerrard]

If it becomes an 'issue' and is covered by news, therefore considered 'news worthy', the dean loses the civilian protection he would normally have due to being newsworthy.

Perhaps. But, I think the kid would be kicked out of school if he continues to assert his right to take pictures in the library long before any of that comes into play.

 

[Ken Ford]

it's also fun as a sideline to go in and randomly move and rearrange books - placing books anywhere - the hell with Dewey and his damned decimals

And if you get caught, tell them you're converting to the Dewey Hexadecimal System.