Photographer "Banned" form shooting in public

DeuceFour · March 12, 2010

Story here...

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

DonRicklin · March 12, 2010

DeuceFour wrote:

Story here...

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

If I was in Burlington, still (UVM '67 - '70) I would be shooting on Church Street, too. In fact a few years ago, passing through to Montreal with a stop at the Echo Museum on the waterfront of Burlington, I did do quite a few shots on Church street.

This is totally outrageous.

scratch

Don

kdog · March 12, 2010

DeuceFour wrote:

Story can be found here...

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer...-church-street

Fascinating. This will be an interesting one to watch. :lurk

Richard · March 12, 2010

Unless I'm misreading the article, he is banned from the private property of the stores, but I don't see anything that prevents him from shooting on the public thoroughfare. It's obnoxious, of course, and if he is further harassed then I hope he can get the ACLU or someone else to file suit against the city. But it is within the rights of a property holder to deny access, as long as it does not violate public accommodations laws. Come to think of it, if the trend continues we might be able to claim that photographers are the victims of discrimination and need protected class status.

ian408 · March 12, 2010

I get the impression the places he is banned from are in a private shopping mall. If so, they have every right to ask him not to shoot pictures and if he persists, to get a restraining order (which is what this sounds like) to prevent him from continuing.

I agree that this will be an interesting one to watch...

JSPhotography · March 12, 2010

This is probably not going to be a popular position here but it sounds to me like the guy is in the wrong. It says in the arcticle that there has been numerous complaints. When the woman asked him not to take pictures of her and to delete the ones he had taken he should have deleted them. Just becouse you have a camera in your hand you shouldn't invade somebody's space. If you do, and they call you on it, respect them. You treat people with respect nobody calls the police. IMO

WillCAD · March 13, 2010

JSPhotography wrote:

This is probably not going to be a popular position here but it sounds to me like the guy is in the wrong. It says in the arcticle that there has been numerous complaints. When the woman asked him not to take pictures of her and to delete the ones he had taken he should have deleted them. Just becouse you have a camera in your hand you shouldn't invade somebody's space. If you do, and they call you on it, respect them. You treat people with respect nobody calls the police. IMO

I got the same impression from the article, and I agree with you, up to a point.

I defend the right of a photographer to shoot in public places without censure (excluding those dirtbags who engage in upskirt crap), so long as the photos are not for publication. If a photo is published, then any people in it must sign releases granting the photog permission to publish their image. I'm no expert on the law, but I'm pretty sure that's a legal requirement as well as being the ethical way to go.

I agree with you that a photog should always treat people with respect. But there will always be someone who gets in your grill if they don't like what you're doing, no matter how respectful you are. I'm sure you've seen the type - the holier-than-thou crusader who gets his panties in a knot over something that someone else is doing and feels compelled to confront him about it. Then there are the scaredy-cats who assume that anyone with a camera in public is a pedophile or perv trying to shoot child porn to post on the internet, or a scout for terrorists who are planning to bomb the local WalMart or shopping mall. Some of the folks in the article who were "creeped out" or "unsettled" by the photog certainly sound like they fit those personality types.

As to the behavior of Mr. Scott, well, that's difficult to evaluate unless we've actually seen it. I can imagine it in two ways - either he's a totally innocent victim who is being persecuted for his harmless habit because of the unfounded fears and irrational predjudices of others, or he is an aggressive, intrusive shutter hound who constantly annoys people by sticking his camera in their faces and becomes angry and defensive when challenged.

As with all things in life, the truth is most likely somewhere in between. He may likely be an innocent victim who becomes angry and defensive when challenged. Or he could be an intrusive shutter hound who is sweet as molases when challenged and continually protests his innocense with smiles and candy. Or... the list of possibilities is endless.

So while I defend a photogs right to take non-published photos in public, I also defend peoples' right to go about their business in public unmolested, and support the ethical, and legal, requirement to get a subject's written permission before publishing their image.

rfreschner · March 13, 2010

ian408 wrote:

I get the impression the places he is banned from are in a private shopping mall. If so, they have every right to ask him not to shoot pictures and if he persists, to get a restraining order (which is what this sounds like) to prevent him from continuing.

Having spent a lot of time on Church Street (my wife and I go camping in Burlington just about every year), I can tell you that where he was shooting is a public street closed off to traffic, so I have to agree with the photographer that the store owners have no right to tell him to stop shooting on the street.

The legality of banning him from their stores for actions which are perfectly legal and did not take place within their stores ought to make for an interesting case. Universally banning him from all the stores, including those that might never have had an issue with him, seems to be a bit of overkill and would seem only to help him and the ACLU (should they decide to intervene) with their case.

Art Scott · March 13, 2010

If the ACLU takes his case they may very well send him back into the combat zone and advise him to stay on the street it self and not even set foot on the side walk with someone video taping the whole thing.........I still carry Bernie Krages downloadable Photographers Rights with me just in case and just last fall gave one to a crotchity old farmer demanding I not take a landscape of his field, horse and the dlouds (first really good clouds I have seen around ICT in over 20 yrs) and told him I would be parked on the road for at least 20 minutes if he decided to call the sherrif.....I left 45 minutes later........

What is an artist to do

dunno

Hope i don't run into anything like this when I hit Corpus Christi in the very near future....as I will be shooting for a publisher.....so people will be in a lot of shots around town the beach, islands.....everywhere .............

DeuceFour · March 16, 2010

The "banned" photographer tells his side of the story http://bit.ly/d6IbAz

It links to the Flickr forums, right on his post and has the pictures that he got in trouble for. Looks like he dosn't want to take photos anymore.

angevin1 · March 16, 2010

While the truths you all speak are, what they are..one thing is for certain..He stands to gain little by exercising his rights to the hilt here. "...oh, you remember so and so..He's that Creepy photog down there ..bla,bla,blah"

Where I live here in NC, there seems to be some unwritten law against photog's and taking photos and having a camera to take photos if it's anything other than a P&S..I have encountered problems everywhere. Slowly, very slowly I have figured out the unwritten rules. It is a cultures rules and though the law may be on my side, it is the culture (my potential clients) that will judge me.

Good Luck to that dood~

Art Scott · March 17, 2010

It is too bad that he put his camera(s) away and is not going to fight this........it is bad for all photogs not just street shooters..............but of course as he said he has a family and may have been talked to a t work by his boss or the company general manager...........

Art Scott · March 18, 2010

Did any one see the Today Show this morning.....Ann Curry (sp?) shooting right thru the window of a coffee shop....photographing a little girl.......now she did hve a camera crew.....but supposedly that is how she destresses........yes she is decent looking and female......wonder if she would have gotten a no trespass
order in the same location as this guy???????

vintagemxr · March 19, 2010

I looked through his photo gallery and he gets some nice shots. My rebellious side makes me think that the local photo groups ought to get together about fifty photographers and all wander around down there on the street shooting pictures of anything and everything at the same time just to prove that the First Amendment and freedom of assembly still means something (I hope). My more logical side says the guy has a job, a family, bills, and sometimes you just have to know when to walk away even if you're right.

Doug

DeuceFour · March 19, 2010

Yeah the whole thing is ridiculous... Hell look at California.. Paparazzi, they just take pictures of whoever whenever, publish the photos in hundreds of tabloids, and no one gets in trouble, yet this guy gets banned from stores for taking a sidewalk scene shot? So stupid. I agree they should get a Mob of photographers down there haha.

Photographer "Banned" form shooting in public

Comments