Update on Another Banning of Photographers

BillBingham2

BillBingham2

Registered User
Staff member
Local time
2:08 PM
Joined
Jun 23, 2005
Messages
6,291
Location
Nave Sha'anan, Haifa, Israel & Fairfield, Iowa, US
View My Gallery
As others have said in the original thread, the broader worry in this incident is the local police department's apparent collusion with merchants resulting in a significant restriction of the rights of a local citizen based on the complaint of one of those merchants. In this case, a photographer's right to walk on a public street has been restricted. Unless I am mistaken, no police investigation occurred, instead they simply complied with the merchant's wishes, as if he had called in a pizza order.

In essence, the merchants are arguing that the sole purpose of the street and the sidewalk is to funnel traffic into their businesses, and, if they feel someone's behavior may interfere with that traffic, they will direct the police to restrict that person's movements.

[EDIT: The ban restricts the photographer from entering businesses, not from the street in front of this businesses, as I said above.]
 
Last edited:
All is not doom and gloom. Manchester Central Library is a listed building and about to undergo a three year revamp during which time it will be closed. However before that happens they have thrown open their doors to photogs to record the current interior.
They have opened a Flikcr site awarding a prize for best pics.
I have just posted on the site and have rec a pm from them inviting me to behind the scenes access days.
Clearly Manchester City Council value photographers.
 
found at
http://www.flickr.com/groups/manchesteruk/


Michael Markey said:
All is not doom and gloom. Manchester Central Library is a listed building and about to undergo a three year revamp during which time it will be closed. However before that happens they have thrown open their doors to photogs to record the current interior.
They have opened a Flikcr site awarding a prize for best pics.
I have just posted on the site and have rec a pm from them inviting me to behind the scenes access days.
Clearly Manchester City Council value photographers.
Click to expand...
 
Dan should enter this

Dan should enter this

Would be awesome if his photo of the girl smoking was chosen ...

Michael Markey said:
All is not doom and gloom. Manchester Central Library is a listed building and about to undergo a three year revamp during which time it will be closed. However before that happens they have thrown open their doors to photogs to record the current interior.
They have opened a Flikcr site awarding a prize for best pics.
I have just posted on the site and have rec a pm from them inviting me to behind the scenes access days.
Clearly Manchester City Council value photographers.
Click to expand...
 
I did not see the original thread but I had heard about this. So forgive me if this question was already asked, I just wonder if female photographer would face the same scrutiny?

I also have a question about his right to post pics of people on his flickr account? I was under the impression that you need a model release of any person in a photo, even property sometimes? I do a lot of magazine work and always need to get releases even from willing subjects.

After reading the article I also have to question this guys tactics, intentions and approach. Are you really an artist, just because you say you are? Also knowing there are a lot of people out there using cameras as tools for voyeurism I can understand why this guy's motives came into question. I do believe that this is a fine line... I certainly do not think an artist or journalist should be hampered from pursuing their art or work. Still we all have a personal right to some degree of privacy...
 
Last edited:
Piewacket said:
I did not see the original thread but I had heard about this. So forgive me if this question was already asked, I just wonder if female photographer would face the same scrutiny?
Click to expand...

Good question.

One would "hope" that people (regardless of race, creed, sex, etc.) are treated equally but who knows.

Maybe a female photographer would have been given more leeway.

Only way to find out is to put a female photographer in the same area, doing the same thing and see if anyone yells out for the cops.

Cheers,
Dave
 
dcsang said:
Maybe a female photographer would have been given more leeway.
Click to expand...

I've speculated on this topic and I think the statement does have a certain degree of truth to it. My best example is that I was not confronted on two sessions of obviously photographing a local building at which security guards are notorious for (illegally) confronting. OTOH, the guards may not have been looking my way at the time. 🙂

To overgeneralize, I think women are less likely to be perceived as threatening, and are less likely to be "in your face" with technique. I also think that women are less likely to push back or escalate the situation. ("G_ddammit, I'm on public property, you moron!) 🙂

But in reading this story, I can see two sides. The guy was on public property, but apparently he was very intrusive in his style and technique, which is probably why so many complaints were made.
 
Piewacket said:
I did not see the original thread but I had heard about this. So forgive me if this question was already asked, I just wonder if female photographer would face the same scrutiny?
Click to expand...

From my small experience women or kids do not have such problems.
My wife can take whatever pics she want, my kid even with my DSLR's (with a mid-size lens 80-400) is not even looked at.
If I try do bring the camera do my face even with P&S... always got that look. And in Portugal we are not that paranoid.. Yet!
Got to get the Wifi interface and use them as a remote Tripod!!
 
Piewacket said:
I also have a question about his right to post pics of people on his flickr account? I was under the impression that you need a model release of any person in a photo, even property sometimes? I do a lot of magazine work and always need to get releases even from willing subjects.
Click to expand...

In North America at least you only need a model release if the photo is going to be used for commercial purposes (posters, commercials, billboards, merchandising, magazines etc). If the intended use is journalistic/editorial or for personal use or art you don't need a model release, so posting on flickr is perfectly legal... although there might be a stipulation for defamation of character if the photo, out of context, implies something negative about the person.

That being said I don't post photos that I don't feel are flattering, or that if they where of me, I wouldn't want posted... but I don't feel weird about taking pictures in public of the public. I think that this guy seems to be pushing the boundary of "just because I can do something I will". I agree that nothing he did is or should be made illegal, but it sounds like he was being much too pushy about the fact that he was in the right. Should he be legally punished for being a bit of a prick about it... no... if individual businesses have a specific problem with him affecting sales or bother patrons I completely support their right to ban him from the premises, they need to be able to protect their lively hoods, and they are private places of business... it's the blanket ban that makes me worried.
 
Thanks disaster for answering that question. I think some of the lines can be fussy though when it comes to what is "commercial" but your explantation makes sense.
 
Anyone who sides with the "creepy" crowd...a non-specific, NOT illegal, vague condemnation of someone because they are different color, or religion or any other non-illegal entity are themselves "creepy"....this woman was probably trying to quit smoking and didn't like a photo made of her smoking...since she couldn't claim rape or molestation due to the physical distance she decided on the vague "creepy" claim....just who raised this child and taught her about American Freedoms ?

And those people will soon turn on the rest of us because we have big feet, or blue-eyes ......or use a RangeFinder instead of a "digital reflex" ...like normal, decent folks.
 
EKJellytoes said:
Anyone who sides with the "creepy" crowd...a non-specific, NOT illegal, vague condemnation of someone because they are different color, or religion or any other non-illegal entity are themselves "creepy"....this woman was probably trying to quit smoking and didn't like a photo made of her smoking...since she couldn't claim rape or molestation due to the physical distance she decided on the vague "creepy" claim....just who raised this child and taught her about American Freedoms ?

And those people will soon turn on the rest of us because we have big feet, or blue-eyes ......or use a RangeFinder instead of a "digital reflex" ...like normal, decent folks.
Click to expand...

I think that reaction is a bit extreme. If you want to frame the incident correctly, it as an infringement of the photographer's rights by merchants, the Burlington police, and the Burlington council because they acted to make the banning order possible, not the shoppers who were annoyed.

Waving the flag and the Constitution at people who do not want their picture taken is a waste of time. You're trying to buck human nature.
 
Yeah - tempest in a teapot. The guy was exercising his rights, photographing people in a public place. Some customers of the local businesses got ticked off and the guy got banned from those businesses. The businesses were exercising their rights as property owners. The net result is the guy can go on exercising his rights taking pictures in the public place, but he can't spend any money while he does it. Perhaps the business owners were overreacting, perhaps the guy was rude and/or obnoxious.

I support the rights of both parties in this case. I know we, as photographers, tend to sympathize with the photographer, but I would be wary of making a hero of him (and villains of the business owners, or police, or any combination thereof).

If I have any of the major points wrong I'd love to know about it. I've tried to read everything I could about this case because it's caused such a firestorm among photographers. Perhaps you disagree with the rights, laws, or statutes as applied, but they seem to have been applied correctly, perhaps even fairly.

To restate the main point - the photographer does not seem to be restricted in any way from exercising his right to make photographs in a public place.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom