Thrown Out of a Library for Taking Pictures. Help.

Status
Not open for further replies.
So much for Leica M's being quiet!:D As for the OP, It wouldn't be so much shooting in a library but I would be mad as H on how he was treated. Like a pervert with a camera? Come on guys! we're neglecting the main point, He should not have been treated that a way. It's a pity we live in such a society of fear, trust no one, & people wish to live in mental state of recluse.
 
gb hill said:
So much for Leica M's being quiet!:D As for the OP, It wouldn't be so much shooting in a library but I would be mad as H on how he was treated. Like a pervert with a camera? Come on guys! we're neglecting the main point, He should not have been treated that a way. It's a pity we live in such a society of fear, trust no one, & people wish to live in mental state of recluse.
Click to expand...

Absolutely, but we have only his side of the story. Was this a polite request that escalated into a shouting match, or did they get heavy straight off? EDIT: If the latter, I fully sympathize with his unhappiness.

Cheers,

R.
 
Last edited:
Thanks for all the comments guys. I recieved an email from the Judicial affairs Dean requesting Federal Legislation that "permits" photography in public places. I wrote back (nicely) that there may be some confusion, as there is no legislation that restricts photography in public places--important distinction--( I cited the website of the National Press Photographer's Association for more info) , with the exception of spaces where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"--and cited Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which defines the phrase. Basically the case says everything we already know--everywhere in public but bathrooms, changing rooms, phone booths, etc. During our meeting he read from the student handbook, which basically gives the same definition, but with a college twist (dorm halls, showers, public restrooms)--all of which I have no interest in photographing. However, the dean also stated that anywhere on campus--lawns, lobbys, food courts--individuals also retain a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is important because, the student handbook states that in situations where an individual has "reasonable expectation of privacy," they cannot be photographed without consent. Thus, by my interpretation of the language of the handbook, following from Federal Legislation, I had been wrongfully reprimanded because their is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the main lobby of the library (it's an open atrium that goes up four stories--huge space), or in any other open space on campus for that matter. Also, during our meeting, he stated that the campus property is public, but with limitations, although he did not explain exactly what these limitations are, even though I asked for specifics. Also, the library is also a public library--TN residents are free to get library cards and check out books. Also, there is a photography department on campus--dark room facilites and the whole lot--so I don't understand how that works--are they not allowed to take pictures on campus that include people? Anyway, I tried to be nice and courteous in my email, and even included a link to my flickr page. The point I really tried to make, overall, was that I wanted to know the exact limitations of privacy on campus--nothing more. That was late Friday afternoon, and I haven't heard back yet.
 
I was the guy who shot the photos for public relations and brochures at Barry University in Miami Shores, FL for about 25 years. A good percentage of those casual "candid" around-the-campus photos were as set up as the shots of students studying in the library! When they're cramming for finals isn't the proper time to be shooting in the library. They're not paying tuition to be your subjects, and anything you do that distracts them is really "stealing" that tuition money from them.

There are a few Barry shots on my blog http://thepriceofsilver.blogspot.com including a set-up shot of students in front of the library that I posted October 17, 2007. Someplace there's a photo of a "student" at a personal computer. PC's were a new thing and the school had set up a computer lab and needed photos. It was early August and NOBODY on campus knew how to hook one up and use it. I brought my own "computer specialist", my ten year old daughter Elena. She got one of them hooked up and running. By shooting from behind at the right angle you could see the screen full of type, her hands on the keyboard, the back of her head and upper body, but not her "little girl" face. They used the shot in their brochures and newspaper advertising for several years. Yes, Elena got paid for modeling.
 
wilonstott said:
Thanks for all the comments guys. I recieved an email from the Judicial affairs Dean requesting Federal Legislation that "permits" photography in public places. I wrote back (nicely) that there may be some confusion, as there is no legislation that restricts photography in public places--important distinction--( I cited the website of the National Press Photographer's Association for more info) , with the exception of spaces where there is a "reasonable expectation of privacy"--and cited Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), which defines the phrase. Basically the case says everything we already know--everywhere in public but bathrooms, changing rooms, phone booths, etc. During our meeting he read from the student handbook, which basically gives the same definition, but with a college twist (dorm halls, showers, public restrooms)--all of which I have no interest in photographing. However, the dean also stated that anywhere on campus--lawns, lobbys, food courts--individuals also retain a "reasonable expectation of privacy." This is important because, the student handbook states that in situations where an individual has "reasonable expectation of privacy," they cannot be photographed without consent. Thus, by my interpretation of the language of the handbook, following from Federal Legislation, I had been wrongfully reprimanded because their is no "reasonable expectation of privacy" in the main lobby of the library (it's an open atrium that goes up four stories--huge space), or in any other open space on campus for that matter. Also, during our meeting, he stated that the campus property is public, but with limitations, although he did not explain exactly what these limitations are, even though I asked for specifics. Also, the library is also a public library--TN residents are free to get library cards and check out books. Also, there is a photography department on campus--dark room facilites and the whole lot--so I don't understand how that works--are they not allowed to take pictures on campus that include people? Anyway, I tried to be nice and courteous in my email, and even included a link to my flickr page. The point I really tried to make, overall, was that I wanted to know the exact limitations of privacy on campus--nothing more. That was late Friday afternoon, and I haven't heard back yet.
Click to expand...

I think you handled yourself much better than I would have. I would have told him he will have a chance to present his position to a Federal Judge.
 
Develop a thicker skin and realize there are some real a -holes everywhere. Know when to fight certain battles and know when you've been punked.
 
Wil's second post indicates to me that he took an appropriate stance. I.e., that the school should provide him with evidence that photography in the library is banned, not that he should provide evidence that it is permitted.

Suggestions that he should threaten to take the dean before a judge amount to pointless bluster. The cost in money and time in litigating a case like this against a state institution -- if, in fact, that's possible in Tennessee -- is significant. Neither are resources a grad student is likely to have in abundance.

The questions that need to be answered are these: Does the school have the authority to ban photography in the library? If so, did it do so? Was the library dean authorized to assert that authority? (The dean could be wrong about the privacy aspect but still right about the ban.)

Universities typically have procedures to resolve all but the first question internally. Wil might want to elevate his question within those procedures, and also go to the faculty member responsible for the photography department for advice. As he says, if photography is banned in certain otherwise public campus locations, that person ought to know about it. Ditto the editor of the school paper, who tasks photographers. (OTOH, students on the paper's staff may have been exempted from such bans.)

If the ban is on the books, and Wil believes the school lacks the authority to do that, then I suspect the only recourse is to take it to the courts.
 
Vertigo2020 said:
If that's a reference to my comment, I can assure you there's at least two US District Courts and one State Supreme Court that might disagree with you.
Click to expand...

It is a reference to your comments, and others, and it means to suggest those comments underestimate the cost the OP would pay to litigate the question. One doesn't just invite the dean to walk down to the local courthouse.

When faced with someone whose mind you want to change, threatening to sue them as a first tactic is usually counter-productive.
 
I have neither the means or desire to sue the university. In actuality I despise confrontation and try to avoid it.

Also, Nikonwebmaster, could you supply a link to your university's photography policy so I might reference it?
 
wgerrard said:
It is a reference to your comments, and others, and it means to suggest those comments underestimate the cost the OP would pay to litigate the question. One doesn't just invite the dean to walk down to the local courthouse.

When faced with someone whose mind you want to change, threatening to sue them as a first tactic is usually counter-productive.
Click to expand...

My comment indicated what "I" would do, not a suggestion what the OP should do. I'm not facing the same hurdles as the OP. It'd take me about 2 hours to write the 1983 complaint and that's stopping to eat lunch and watch an episode of the Flintstones. Oh...my bad more pointless bluster.
 
Last edited:
Bob Michaels said:
Fred: I see the key issue here is that this is a building financed by taxpayers dollars and owned by an agency of the State of TN. Requiring a student ID does not make it "private". It seems that term relates to private ownership. Maybe your school is privately owned. If so, then those private property caveats, like a shopping center, would apply.

Your comments about "commercial use" are valid. I am just not sure they are germane to this discussion.

We agree 100% on the basic concept of just not being a socially irresponsible person even though we may have some differences of opinion as to the definition.
Click to expand...

FWIW, Ohio has ruled that libraries at state tax supported universities are open to public use.

The private undergrad university I graduated from will not even let me take a book out, but they do call several times a year asking for donations. ;-)

I took thousands of photos on campus there, and a number at other schools, but I was photo editor of the paper, though I do not know if anyone recognized that, and it was a long time ago.

J
 
Vertigo2020 said:
My comment indicated what "I" would do, not a suggestion what the OP should do. I'm not facing the same hurdles as the OP. It'd take me about 2 hours to write the 1983 complaint and that's stopping to eat lunch and watch an episode of the Flintstones. Oh...my bad more pointless bluster.
Click to expand...

Not trying to start a fuss, but what would be your point? Do you have the resources to compete against a state university in the courts? Is the right to take pictures in one school library so important to you that you would risk your financial stability to assert it?
 
I know I'm repeating myself here, but just because a building is open to public use doesn't mean that you can do whatever you want there. Talking, eating, photographing, running, not wearing shoes, etc. can all be forbidden. If you engage in forbidden activities, you can be asked to leave. Simple as that. All the chatter about civil liberties, lawsuits, Constitutional rights and the like is irrelevant.
 
Most countries and communities provide for much freer individual expression through photographic activities than personal firearms ownership and bearing. Yet in the US there's a constitutional amendment that (supposedly, depending on who you talk to) protects individuals' rights of firearms ownership. Even so, real personal liberty of firearms ownership permitted by state and local ordinance vary widely from state to state.

So, even with a "right" supposedly "protected" through national constitutional law there's still plenty of wiggle room for restrictions at the local level. The same is true with photographic activities, whose protection as freedom of speech through the 1st Amendment is questionable.

I think we've got to use common sense in each specific situation, and try not to be too much of an ass as we balance our need to preserve and express our liberties while at the same time not restricting the liberties of those around us.

~Joe
 
JoeV said:
Most countries and communities provide for much freer individual expression through photographic activities than personal firearms ownership and bearing. Yet in the US there's a constitutional amendment that (supposedly, depending on who you talk to) protects individuals' rights of firearms ownership. Even so, real personal liberty of firearms ownership permitted by state and local ordinance vary widely from state to state.

So, even with a "right" supposedly "protected" through national constitutional law there's still plenty of wiggle room for restrictions at the local level. The same is true with photographic activities, whose protection as freedom of speech through the 1st Amendment is questionable.

I think we've got to use common sense in each specific situation, and try not to be too much of an ass as we balance our need to preserve and express our liberties while at the same time not restricting the liberties of those around us.

~Joe
Click to expand...

Dear Joe,

What intrigues me about the right to keep and bear arms is the bit that's often forgotten, about a well regulated militia.

Now, if it's a militia, well regulated or not, this necessarily implies to me that we are talking about the sort of serious military firearms that can be kept, maintained and provisioned at home. At the moment, this includes switchable auto/semi auto long guns such as the AK-47, and possibly LMGs as well.

And which guns are most commonly banned by the several states?

Not that it matters. I once asked HH Dalai Lama about the right to keep and bear arms, and whether it made much difference to the Chinese invasion of in Tibet (where arms control was limited to what you could afford). He replied that it didn't really matter all that much, because there's nothing you can keep at home that's much use against tanks and aircraft.

Cheers,

R.
 
Roger Hicks said:
Not that it matters. I once asked HH Dalai Lama about the right to keep and bear arms, and whether it made much difference to the Chinese invasion of in Tibet (where arms control was limited to what you could afford). He replied that it didn't really matter all that much, because there's nothing you can keep at home that's much use against tanks and aircraft.
Click to expand...

This is getting quite far from the real discussion, but didn't PM Churchill say something very similar?
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top Bottom