ACLU publishes guide to photographers' (and videographers') rights

[Guest Photounit]

I think this has been an issue that has needed clarification.........

Link to article and guide.....

[SRS131EMTFF 471]

Thanks for the link. I am going to distribute this to my buff and non-buff friends.

Are there any officers here that can comment? I am curious to know what your opinion is after read this statement by the ACLU?

[x635 4,066]

Very good and important link!

I am printing it out and putting it in my camera bags. Although I've never had an issue with PD (knock on wood), I've had issues with janitors, etc in NY. They are making photography illegal, and it's sad you can't even take a photo of a train on a platform at Grand Central.

Thankfully, everyone is really welcoming down here whenever I go anywhere for photos. Just have to be respectful, and I've made many friends through my photos.

[abaduck 123]

Very good and important link!

I am printing it out and putting it in my camera bags. Although I've never had an issue with PD (knock on wood), I've had issues with janitors, etc in NY. They are making photography illegal, and it's sad you can't even take a photo of a train on a platform at Grand Central.

You absolutely can take photos at GC, and I have:

http://www.mta.info/nyct/rules/rules.htm

Section 1050.9-3

The only organization around here who has an issue with photography is PATH, and their restrictions are so out of line as to be almost certainly unenforceable.

Mike

[Just a guy 493]

This article means nothing just like everything else the aclu puts out, it's all garbage. If I stop someone as a suspicous person and they hand me this article I am going to laugh at them and hand it right back to them and continue my investigation into their conduct.

This is another example of people who have no clue about law enforcement trying to tell us how we should act and how we should do our jobs.

Notice how the author of this piece of leftist garbage takes a swipe at the police, "Police officers may legitimately order citizens to cease activities that are truly interfering with legitimate law enforcement operations. Professional officers, however, realize that such operations are subject to public scrutiny, including by citizens photographing them."

So the way I take it is that if I back somebody away from a scene then I am not professional ?

If you feel the need to go to scenes and take pictures, just use your head and stay away and take pictures and if you are challenged by a cop, just don't act like a tool and you will be ok ... and for the love of God don't go quoting the aclu article !!!!!

[ex-commish 490]

"Unfortunately, there is a widespread, continuing pattern of law enforcement officers ordering people to stop taking photographs from public places, and harassing, detaining and arresting those who fail to comply".

I wonder what supporting evidence the ACLU has regarding this statement. They tend to exagerate claims especially when it comes to law enforcement and them doing thier jobs. I don't see anything wrong with taking pictures but be responsible.

And on a side note this is an organization that is suing Florida because they are drug testing welfare reciepents.

Edited September 10, 2011 by HFD219

[Guest Photounit]

Firstly, let me say that I'm not a big fan of the ACLU...... However, occasionally, they do serve a useful purpose for the average law abiding US citizen. And this IMO, this is one of those times..... I can tell you from first-hand experience that some Law Enforcement Officers get a little carried away when enforcing the laws, one being the ability to photograph in public. I had just been laid off from my hi-tech job after 30 yrs and needed to clear my head and decided to do something to make me relax which to me, is taking scenic photos.... I was going to try to take a unique photo of the Mid-Hudson Bridge from a park in Highland. It was going to be a full moon and I had intended to get a shot of the bridge with the moon rising over it. In case you don't know, the moon rises rapidly as it breaks the horizon so I had my camera on my tripod with my remote shutter release in my hand, waiting for the moon to appear. At the instant the moon started to crest, I was illuminated from behind. I then heard a muffled "Excuse me" from a PA speaker..... Without looking around, I knew exactly what the lights were and what was next. I was asked to step to the car which I did, and then was told by a NYS Trooper " You should know better" To which I replied "Excuse me? He then went on to tell me it's illegal to photograph bridges and that I of all people (I had a FD shirt on) should know better. He then went on to tell me that there were signs on the bridge all-over forbidding photography and that I needed permission to do what I was doing....... At this point I said that I'm not doing anything wrong and I'm NOT going to argue with him. I told him that the only signs on the bridge were the signs that asked if you were going to jump, call this number first. That really pissed me off because now, he is making things up and lost all his credibility. I was never ID'd but just told that I had to break down my equipment and leave the park I was in (legally I might add). So, what did I do? What were my choices? I knew that I was DOING NOTHING WRONG, and had every right to do what I was doing where I was doing it. BUT, I also knew that he could arrest me for no valid reason and that the onus would be on me later to prove my innocence. I think you call that "intimidation"..... Should I push it and end up spending the night with the Bro's and Ho's in the Ulster County Jail? And then have my wife pissed off at me because she has to defend me in court. Or do I walk away? At the time, I was so pissed I just packed up my equipment and left which IMO, was the WRONG thing to do. Later that night while I was still fuming, I ran into a friend who is a Trooper, I explained to him what happened and his response was " So, go back tomorrow night..... It's a different tour and he won't be working" So, I did, and took the photo below.......

Crime Cop and HFD219 - I did not post this to create a conflict. I have to say that If you were a photographer like me who photographs a lot, and kept up on what other photographers do and are going through, and didn't have a tin to flash, you would have a different view...... There are numerous cases like what happened to me where individuals are harassed for no legitimate reason. If the person is truly suspicious, presenting a hazard, or breaking the law, then fine ......If not, leave them be and move on to finding someone who is....... If this keeps going on, you might as well poke my F#$%*& eyes out because there will be nothing legal for me to photograph and I as well of the rest of the world might as well be blind.... The terrorists are still winning.....

and BTW, I'm in favor of drug testing welfare recipients....... Why should I pay for their drug habit?

Edited September 10, 2011 by Photounit

[abaduck 123]

Good (but very different) responses from Photounit and Crime Cop.

Guys, as someone who is both a first responder and a semi-pro photographer/cinematographer, I can see both side.

Yes, the ACLU are bent to the left and I'm not a fan of them. But that doesn't mean they're always or entirely wrong, and for you to dismiss that as 'leftist garbage', Crime Cop, doesn't address a very real issue.

I'm less concerned with incident scenes and photographing LEOs at work (which have their own special issues; adrenalin is in, scene safety is the first priority, and if I'm close enough to a incident an LEO has to tell me to step back *I* would be one being unprofessional) as I am with the kind of situation Photounit described, where the photographer IS the 'incident'.

There's a lot of misunderstanding in this area, and I really don't know how it got started. You can dismiss the ACLU, but there are plenty of other organizations, including professional photographers societies and unions (such as the one I'm a member of) who are highlighting this as a very real issue. Maybe you would prefer to hear it from them?

http://www.nppa.org/member_services/advocacy/

There IS a serious problem with LEOs, security guards, and all kinds of people, who have someone got the idea it's not OK to photograph bridges... or tunnels or trains or courthouses or federal buildings or factories or airports or... you name it. I have NO idea how this got started, there hasn't been ANY such restriction in this country since at least the second world war, if even then. Yet the 'urban legend' persists and has taken on a life of its own. Hell in this thread, right here, yesterday, we had our own X635 saying it was forbidden to photograph trains in Grand Central, which is *utter BS*.

There have been a very significant number of stories of bad encounters between photographers and LEOs and security guards and property owners etc. etc. Now I'm not ascribing malice to any of this and I'm NOT (take note) bashing cops. Cops have better things to do than hassle photographers to no purpose whatever, so they're doing it with good intentions, but as I said this wrong-headed urban legend about 'you can't photograph that!' has grown up and seems firmly implanted in many people's minds (see Photounit's story and about 5,000 similar stories!) and seems almost impossible to root out, and I'm frankly unsure of the best way to proceed.

Mike

[helicopper 1,050]

There's a lot of misunderstanding in this area, and I really don't know how it got started. You can dismiss the ACLU, but there are plenty of other organizations, including professional photographers societies and unions (such as the one I'm a member of) who are highlighting this as a very real issue. Maybe you would prefer to hear it from them?

http://www.nppa.org/...vices/advocacy/

There IS a serious problem with LEOs, security guards, and all kinds of people, who have someone got the idea it's not OK to photograph bridges... or tunnels or trains or courthouses or federal buildings or factories or airports or... you name it. I have NO idea how this got started, there hasn't been ANY such restriction in this country since at least the second world war, if even then. Yet the 'urban legend' persists and has taken on a life of its own. Hell in this thread, right here, yesterday, we had our own X635 saying it was forbidden to photograph trains in Grand Central, which is *utter BS*.

There have been a very significant number of stories of bad encounters between photographers and LEOs and security guards and property owners etc. etc. Now I'm not ascribing malice to any of this and I'm NOT (take note) bashing cops. Cops have better things to do than hassle photographers to no purpose whatever, so they're doing it with good intentions, but as I said this wrong-headed urban legend about 'you can't photograph that!' has grown up and seems firmly implanted in many people's minds (see Photounit's story and about 5,000 similar stories!) and seems almost impossible to root out, and I'm frankly unsure of the best way to proceed.

So the documented instances of surveillance by criminals and terrorists against government facilities and infrastructure aren't something that law enforcement should be involved with and we're merely hassling photographers?

There are regulations at military installations, airports, and area bridges and tunnels restricting photography so it is not just urban legend. Is it perhaps misunderstood? Yes, but it is misunderstood by both sides. There are cops who think the blanket prohibition is correct and there are photographers without an ounce of common sense.

I'll take this one step further. You assert your right to photograph whatever you want and you post your photos of the XYZ bridge or entrances and security measures at the 123 building on your website. Now the bad guys don't even have to do the work, they copy your photos from your website and bingo, they've done their recon.

Property owners, too, have a right to restrict what you do on their property so security guards and the owners or their agents absolutely have a right to tell you to get lost if you're on their property.

The link you posted doesn't provide anything more substantive on the subject either.

[Guest Photounit]

The following week after I took the photo above, a Girl Scout came to my door selling one of those Entertainment Guides. Guess what was on the cover. A photo taken of the MHB from the same spot I took mine and at night too..... Hmmm, I wondered at the time if the person that took it had permission or better yet, did they get their balls busted taking it?

To quote Hellecopper - "I'll take this one step further. You assert your right to photograph whatever you want and you post your photos of the XYZ bridge or entrances and security measures at the 123 building on your website. Now the bad guys don't even have to do the work, they copy your photos from your website and bingo, they've done their recon."

Take my eyes out - now! Take down the net too...... Who's taking photos of security measures at the 123 Bldg? We're talking scenic photos of a bridge....If someone is hell bent on doing something, they're going to do it...... Have you ever used Google maps? OMG, what a treasure trove of information for these clowns..... Better get that taken down ASAP! Better ban the sale of maps, GPS's, etc. as they too may be used by the bad guys...The list goes on and on..... Sorry Chris, but your reasoning is flawed and is the exact reason why so many photographers have issues with LEO's...... or should I say LEO's have issues with photographers......Like I said prior, if someone(or me)appears suspicious then fine, ID them (or me) and if they're not doing anything wrong, then leave them alone..... But telling somebody that they can't take photos without a legitimate reason is just wrong.... Thank God the National Park Rangers don't suffer from this phobia..... I'd really be screwed.......

FYI: I edited my prior post on 9/10/11 @ 19:32 as I left out a few key words.....

Edited September 10, 2011 by Photounit

[helicopper 1,050]

To quote Hellecopper - "I'll take this one step further. You assert your right to photograph whatever you want and you post your photos of the XYZ bridge or entrances and security measures at the 123 building on your website. Now the bad guys don't even have to do the work, they copy your photos from your website and bingo, they've done their recon."

Take my eyes out - now! Take down the net too...... Who's taking photos of security measures at the 123 Bldg? We're talking scenic photos of a bridge....If someone is hell bent on doing something, they're going to do it...... Have you ever used Google maps? OMG, what a treasure trove of information for these clowns..... Better get that taken down ASAP! Better ban the sale of maps, GPS's, etc. as they too may be used by the bad guys...The list goes on and on..... Sorry Chris, but your reasoning is flawed and is the exact reason why so many photographers have issues with LEO's...... or should I say LEO's have issues with photographers......Like I said prior, if someone(or me)appears suspicious then fine, ID them (or me) and if they're not doing anything wrong, the leave them alone..... But telling somebody that they can't take photos without a legitimate reason is just wrong.... Thank God the National Park Rangers don't suffer from this phobia..... I'd really be screwed.......

The following week after I took the photo above, a Girl Scout came to my door selling one of those Entertainment Guides. Guess what was on the cover. A photo taken of the MHB from the same spot I took mine and at night too..... Hmmm, I wondered at the time if the person that took it had permission or better yet, did they get their balls busted taking it?

For a long time Google Earth and other sites had critical infrastructure pixelated so it couldn't be used by our enemies. You're right, though, they can/do use such things to their advantage. I'm not advocating 1984-esque controls on information but I've seen people attempting to take photos of security features at critical infrastructure. There is an issue with that. I would argue that from your vantage point 1/2 a mile from the bridge (and at night) you can't see the security features but that would simply be my opinion.

I guess I'm not stating my point well so I'll try one last time. There has to be a balance between security and the right to take photos. I wasn't specifically referring to your incident when I responded and some of the interactions that people are all fired up about are within airports, at bridges or dams, etc. There are security concerns at those locations.

[abaduck 123]

So the documented instances of surveillance by criminals and terrorists against government facilities and infrastructure aren't something that law enforcement should be involved with and we're merely hassling photographers?

There are regulations at military installations, airports, and area bridges and tunnels restricting photography so it is not just urban legend. Is it perhaps misunderstood? Yes, but it is misunderstood by both sides. There are cops who think the blanket prohibition is correct and there are photographers without an ounce of common sense.

I'll take this one step further. You assert your right to photograph whatever you want and you post your photos of the XYZ bridge or entrances and security measures at the 123 building on your website. Now the bad guys don't even have to do the work, they copy your photos from your website and bingo, they've done their recon.

Property owners, too, have a right to restrict what you do on their property so security guards and the owners or their agents absolutely have a right to tell you to get lost if you're on their property.

The link you posted doesn't provide anything more substantive on the subject either.

Helicopper,

A few thoughts on this:

1. You're a law enforcement professional, so I give your comments considerable respect. Please understand that. Having said that...

2. Surveillance. Does it *never* happen? Only a fool would say 'never'. But I'd be prepared to wager there are damn few documented instances of it, and as far as I know photographic surveillance played no part in ANY of the major international terrorist outrages of recent years. This offers a UK perspective, from the point of view of a senior security professional who also happens to be a photographer: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism

3. Military installations. That's one of the few, perhaps the only, exceptions: there ARE laws concerning the photographing OF military installations, from both private and public property. This is pretty well known.

4. Bridges, tunnels, malls, and other private property: the owners can set rules for people who come on their property. These rules can prohibit photography. Breaking such rules isn't a criminal matter, the most the property owner can do is ask you desist from breaking the rules, and/or leave their property. If you don't comply, then you break the law - it becomes trespass or possibly defiant trespass. But note that it's still a somewhat grey area of the law as to how enforceable such restrictions are, especially on 'public' private property, such as bridges and tunnels; that may well be unconstitutional, I don't believe it's been settled.

5. Remember, even where property owners restrict photography ON their property, they can NOT restrict photography OF their property, from other locations. I can go along near or under the Whitestone and photograph it as much as I like. A misunderstanding of this point MAY be behind some of the 'urban legend' I alluded to, since many, perhaps most, of the incidents I've heard about concern security and/or LEOs trying to tell people 'you can't photograph xyz, it's against the law' when the photographer is working in the public street.

6. I don't have a problem with any LEO dealing with suspicious behaviour, that's exactly what they should be doing. But see point 5. above. I can understand someone being approached and spoken too if they are, or appear to be, photographing the details of security cameras, for instance (something I've actually done in the past, by the way, for an essay on the 'surveillance society'!). But all too often, from what I've heard, similar approaches are being made to photographers who are doing nothing to arouse suspicions - composing a general artistic shot which includes the subject. They then get the 'you can't photograph that!' treatment. Again, see Photounit. I've heard a LOT of similar stories.

7. Perhaps I should have phrased it differently, but I did NOT say cops were 'merely hassling photographers' as you put. I said, very carefully, that they had better things to do than hassle photographers, and that they were proceeding with good intentions - which to me clearly adds up to the opposite of 'hassling', which I would define as making things difficult for no reason other than a dislike of the person being hassled. I amplify and clarify this in 6. above. It's not investigation of suspicious behaviour I object to, it's miscategorizing perfectly innocent behaviour as suspicious I dislike, and most especially the 'urban legend' mis-stating of the law.

8. Me not being an LEO, I'd be the first to admit I'm not going to be familiar with all the MOs of terrorists, and the threats of the moment. You, not being a pro photographer, likewise probably aren't aware of the scale of this issue, the extent of the problem. It's become a serious issue. Mutual respect and education are called for :-)

The above is a fair and accurate summary of the situation as I understand it; if anyone feels I'm wrong in any respect, please correct me.

Mike

[Just a guy 493]

The bottom line is this is the post 9/11 world and you guys have to deal with it. If you are so bent out of shape with how some cops deal with you, instead of complaining about it, place blame where it really belongs... with the hajis who take pictures with the ill intent of using them against our country.

Most jurisdictions have ordinances about being in a park after dark... did it ever strike you that this is why the trooper asked you to leave ?

In the post 9/11 world you have to use your head... you will be challenged by the police more often than not and your attitude will more than likely mean the difference between being allowed to stay and being being made to leave.

[x129K 1,393]

Bill - you are always welcome on the other side of that bridge - regardless of time.

[Guest Photounit]

The bottom line is this is the post 9/11 world and you guys have to deal with it. If you are so bent out of shape with how some cops deal with you, instead of complaining about it, place blame where it really belongs... with the hajis who take pictures with the ill intent of using them against our country.

Most jurisdictions have ordinances about being in a park after dark... did it ever strike you that this is why the trooper asked you to leave ?

In the post 9/11 world you have to use your head... you will be challenged by the police more often than not and your attitude will more than likely mean the difference between being allowed to stay and being being made to leave.

Sorry, but I'm not buying your attitude....I guess you think I'm stupid..... Is this the way you treat all your citizens where you work? It also appears that it's hard for you to fathom I did nothing wrong.... I was in the park legally and the park was open to the public at the time. When the park closes, there are gates that are locked to prevent the public from entering. I was nothing short of polite to the officer but it seemed to me he had his mind made up before we even spoke. He needed something to do and I was it..... In the post 9-11 era this crap has to stop... I'm done ..... You all know how I feel and their are plenty more people who feel the same way....

and Thanks Dan!

[khas143 13]

Sorry, but I'm not buying your attitude....I guess you think I'm stupid..... Is this the way you treat all your citizens where you work? It also appears that it's hard for you to fathom I did nothing wrong.... I was in the park legally and the park was open to the public at the time. When the park closes, there are gates that are locked to prevent the public from entering. I was nothing short of polite to the officer but it seemed to me he had his mind made up before we even spoke. He needed something to do and I was it..... In the post 9-11 era this crap has to stop... I'm done ..... You all know how I feel and their are plenty more people who feel the same way....

and Thanks Dan!

Not to turn this into a pissing match (lol) but for your information, all parks that are run by the Town of Highland, Town of Lloyd, or New York State close at dusk by either state law or town ordinance. There are exceptions to this but special permits and/or permissions must be granted. (If you need the actual town codes, please PM me and I will send them to you, it took me about 5 minutes to look up once my curiosity was peaked)

So, your very presence in a park would be a violation of either state or local law. I wasn't there and you are correct (IMHO) that it is not illegal to photograph bridges or other buildings, however, you were in violation of the law and should probably consider yourself lucky not to have gotten a summonses.

[helicopper 1,050]

Sorry, but I'm not buying your attitude....I guess you think I'm stupid..... Is this the way you treat all your citizens where you work? It also appears that it's hard for you to fathom I did nothing wrong.... I was in the park legally and the park was open to the public at the time. When the park closes, there are gates that are locked to prevent the public from entering. I was nothing short of polite to the officer but it seemed to me he had his mind made up before we even spoke. He needed something to do and I was it..... In the post 9-11 era this crap has to stop... I'm done ..... You all know how I feel and their are plenty more people who feel the same way....

and Thanks Dan!

Dan, it may be that this hits a little too close to home for your to be objective but I think every law enforcement officer on here will tell you that almost every contact with a violator - from a traffic violator to a mass murderer states that "they did nothing wrong". I'm not suggesting that photographers are in the same category as violent felons so let's not misinterpret taht.

The public perception that law enforcement officers "need someting to do" is probably as old and frustrating and photographers being asked what they're doing. He was doing his job; that is what he's out there to do. Whether a photographer or a "couple" or a group just hanging out, he probably would have contacted any of you to find out what you were doing there.

I'll be the first one to say that photographers have the right to ply their trade but not with impunity. They should be responsible and employ some discretion and a little bit of understanding about what the "other side" is doing.

[Just a guy 493]

Sorry, but I'm not buying your attitude....I guess you think I'm stupid..... Is this the way you treat all your citizens where you work? It also appears that it's hard for you to fathom I did nothing wrong.... I was in the park legally and the park was open to the public at the time. When the park closes, there are gates that are locked to prevent the public from entering. I was nothing short of polite to the officer but it seemed to me he had his mind made up before we even spoke. He needed something to do and I was it..... In the post 9-11 era this crap has to stop... I'm done ..... You all know how I feel and their are plenty more people who feel the same way....

and Thanks Dan!

There is it, the time and time again anti cop attitude..... " he needed something to do and I was it." Some of you guys have such a skewed view of law enforcement it's pathetic.

I don't even know you to think you are stupid, I think you are taking all this too seriously and are not looking a this from both sides. As far as how I treat the people in Yonkers when I work....I treat them the way they deserve to be treated based on their attitude and the circumstances surrounding what they did. My experience in the PD has also given me the ability to see through peoples stories and realize that everyone will embellish their side to make themselves seem more right.

Whatever it is the bottom line is still the fact that this is the post 9/11 world ( in case you haven't watched the news lately and realize that we are still a target and still under a constant threat) and all of our lives had to change. You taking pictures and being challenged by the cops is another way that life has changed... we all have to deal with it and in the grand scheme of thing, it's not that big of a deal.

[abaduck 123]

The bottom line is this is the post 9/11 world and you guys have to deal with it....

In the post 9/11 world you have to use your head... you will be challenged by the police more often than not and your attitude will more than likely mean the difference between being allowed to stay and being being made to leave.

Crime Cop, I'm tempted to make some comments about giving up liberty in exchange for security, but I think we all know someone already used that line a long time ago :-)

I'd like you to read this, it's measured and thoughtful, no ranting, it pretty much encapsulates a lot of what I personally feel about the post-9/11 world:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/war_and_peace/every_day_diplomacy.php

Note that it all starts with an employee (not an LEO) with a totally wrongheaded idea about the law.

I'm a bit of a naysayer; I don't consent. I push back against the 'post 9/11 world'. Threats are real, but it's all gone a bit too far.

On the issue of 'attitude' you're totally correct of course, but with respect that goes both both ways. The vast vast vast majority of photographers will be perfectly innocent remember. So be gentle with us, ok? :-) - if a cop approaches me and is friendly but professional they'll get respect and complete co-operation in return. If they come out swinging, giving me the BS 'you can't photograph that!' attitude, then obviously my own attitude will be different.

Dan, it may be that this hits a little too close to home for your to be objective but I think every law enforcement officer on here will tell you that almost every contact with a violator - from a traffic violator to a mass murderer states that "they did nothing wrong". I'm not suggesting that photographers are in the same category as violent felons so let's not misinterpret taht.

The public perception that law enforcement officers "need someting to do" is probably as old and frustrating and photographers being asked what they're doing. He was doing his job; that is what he's out there to do. Whether a photographer or a "couple" or a group just hanging out, he probably would have contacted any of you to find out what you were doing there.

Helicopper, I wouldn't have a problem with being contacted as you describe, and I 100% agree with you on the 'need something to do' point - I think Photounit was wrong there. Photography is NOT normally a suspicious activity, but a friendly contact, just keeping an eye on what's going on in his jurisdiction, whilst at the same time keeping a professional mind open for any signs that this may after all be suspicious, that's great, that's exactly what a cop should be doing. But that is NOT what happened according to the account by Photounit:

"...and then was told by a NYS Trooper " You should know better" To which I replied "Excuse me? He then went on to tell me it's illegal to photograph bridges and that I of all people (I had a FD shirt on) should know better. He then went on to tell me that there were signs on the bridge all-over forbidding photography and that I needed permission to do what I was doing..."

That's NOT checking him out to see what he's up to. That's where it all went wrong, and I've heard stories of it going wrong that same way so many times it's depressing.

Mike

[Just a guy 493]

Crime Cop, I'm tempted to make some comments about giving up liberty in exchange for security, but I think we all know someone already used that line a long time ago :-)

I'd like you to read this, it's measured and thoughtful, no ranting, it pretty much encapsulates a lot of what I personally feel about the post-9/11 world:

http://www.episcopalcafe.com/daily/war_and_peace/every_day_diplomacy.php

Note that it all starts with an employee (not an LEO) with a totally wrongheaded idea about the law.

I'm a bit of a naysayer; I don't consent. I push back against the 'post 9/11 world'. Threats are real, but it's all gone a bit too far.

On the issue of 'attitude' you're totally correct of course, but with respect that goes both both ways. The vast vast vast majority of photographers will be perfectly innocent remember. So be gentle with us, ok? :-) - if a cop approaches me and is friendly but professional they'll get respect and complete co-operation in return. If they come out swinging, giving me the BS 'you can't photograph that!' attitude, then obviously my own attitude will be different.

Helicopper, I wouldn't have a problem with being contacted as you describe, and I 100% agree with you on the 'need something to do' point - I think Photounit was wrong there. Photography is NOT normally a suspicious activity, but a friendly contact, just keeping an eye on what's going on in his jurisdiction, whilst at the same time keeping a professional mind open for any signs that this may after all be suspicious, that's great, that's exactly what a cop should be doing. But that is NOT what happened according to the account by Photounit:

"...and then was told by a NYS Trooper " You should know better" To which I replied "Excuse me? He then went on to tell me it's illegal to photograph bridges and that I of all people (I had a FD shirt on) should know better. He then went on to tell me that there were signs on the bridge all-over forbidding photography and that I needed permission to do what I was doing..."

That's NOT checking him out to see what he's up to. That's where it all went wrong, and I've heard stories of it going wrong that same way so many times it's depressing.

Mike

mike,

I read that article and it is written by someone who has no clue about law enforcement or how it works but has no problem telling us how we should do our jobs. There are also many people that post here that feel free to do the same thing.

I understand what the author was saying but there are many times when the police have no choice in what we do.

I will give you an example...

When the pope came to dunwoodie a few years ago the concessions were up the hill from the main viewing area. When the secret service ordered it, we had to close off the main viewing area and not let anyone back in, NO MATTER WHAT. As a result of this many people who were at the concessions at the time of the closing got seperated from their groups. Did I necessarily agree with this, No, but it didnt matter because my job was not to agree, it was to enforce the security procedures that were put in place by the lead agency.

It's easy to make the cops the bad guys, the fall guy for societys troubles is a role we know well, but as I said before, place blame where it actually belongs - with the animals who attacked us.

[JetPhoto 626]

Had to come out from my rock for this one...

I have been in a variety of situations mostly good some ugly while taking photographs. a couple that comes to mind is the day I went to take pictures of an MVA on Main St in Beacon, just so happens a LEO was involved. It was very clear this officer was at fault being time of day his 90 foot long skid marks and numerous witness's. So I'm taking pictures of the wreck and a cop comes over to me and orders me to stop taking pictures or I will be arrested and cameras taken. I complied only because I did not want to deal with the xxxx.

I've also been on fatal mva's where cops have allowed me to take all the pictures I wanted with the exception not to capture the deceased which I also complied.

There have also been times when I photographed trains and was asked not to by MTA officers and when I explained I lived across the street all my life they were like oh OK have fun.

I've also been at building fires where I have been asked to step back behind the police line in which I did and ones where LEO's have said hey come with me I'll bring you over here so you can get some good shots.

If you were not allowed to take photos of bridges why don't they have LEO's on the walkway bridge in Poughkeepsie stopping the THOUSANDS of people taking pictures of the Mid Hudson bridge.

I have to laugh at Dutchess County, when they got their last batch of Ariel photography of the county they had "sensitive areas" like prisons, power plants, oil storage tanks etc. blurred out. stating security purposes. Um hello go onto the Internet go to Bing bring up an area and view birds eye view. Awesome 360 degree color photographs of all those areas are available.

Bottom line is yes there needs to be some checks and balances but some LEO's and the stubborn public need to get off their high horse and use COMMON SENSE! Let them ask the questions and give them answers without the attitudes.

[abaduck 123]

mike,

I read that article and it is written by someone who has no clue about law enforcement or how it works but has no problem telling us how we should do our jobs. There are also many people that post here that feel free to do the same thing.

I understand what the author was saying but there are many times when the police have no choice in what we do.

I agree, and I carefully chose this example because it was precisely that kind of situation; the cops had been given a report by the conductor (how accurate or not the report was we don't know, since the conductor clearly had no clue about the law, or even her own Amtrak company rules) and the cops pretty much HAD to act on the basis of that report. Even the writer of the article wasn't especially critical of the cops; it was more about the whole situation and post-9/11 mindset that allowed this kind of event to happen. When you look at the totality of the event - an obviously-innocent tourist being taken off a train and investigated for the non-crime of taking photos from a train - that's what I was wanting people to think about.

One of the comments on the article DID say, in effect, 'the cops should have told the conductor that there's no law against photography, and don't waste our time with BS reports of non-crimes like this'. Well I'm sorry, one, as I said we don't know exactly what the conductor reported, it may have been exaggerated, and two, whatever was said they had a report from a credible source and would have been going out on a limb if they had decided NOT to investigate.

I'm trying to be fair here and see things from an LEO point of view; is that a reasonable way to think about the position of the cops in that kind of situation?

I will give you an example...

When the pope came to dunwoodie a few years ago the concessions were up the hill from the main viewing area. When the secret service ordered it, we had to close off the main viewing area and not let anyone back in, NO MATTER WHAT. As a result of this many people who were at the concessions at the time of the closing got seperated from their groups. Did I necessarily agree with this, No, but it didnt matter because my job was not to agree, it was to enforce the security procedures that were put in place by the lead agency.

It's easy to make the cops the bad guys, the fall guy for societys troubles is a role we know well, but as I said before, place blame where it actually belongs - with the animals who attacked us.

That's slightly different because you weren't investigating or dealing with specific individuals, you were taking actions - enforcing general security procedures in this case - as a result of direct and specific orders that came down your chain of command. I do the same all the time. Anyone who isn't comfortable with THAT shouldn't be part of any of the paramilitary uniformed services!

The cops are NOT the bad guys here, I've been careful to point that out more than once. It's not just cops. I don't believe it's even mostly cops. Building owners, private security guards, railroad employees, hell even bus drivers - all seem to have some percentage infected with these ridiculous wrongheaded ideas about what it's legal to photograph - ideas which simply didn't exist ten years ago. Those ideas have come from somewhere. Again, to repeat, where cops have been involved in this kind of situation I'm sure that in 99.9% of cases they're doing it with the best of motives, doing their job, believing they're protecting society, and enforcing what they believe the law to be. And that is the *problem*.

As for the animals, I hate them as much as I did ten years ago. But I'm coming to believe that we may have thrown the baby out with the bathwater, and surrendered too much in our attempts to combat them. When I read that Amtrak story, my first thought wasn't "bad cops". It wasn't even "bad conductor". It was "If this kind of thing can happen in AMERICA now, in some important ways, they WON...".

I refuse to concede that kind of defeat.

Thanks everyone for keeping this civil and giving considered replies.

Mike

Edited September 11, 2011 by abaduck

[abaduck 123]

Just a wee follow-up (I know, I know, I never know when to keep my mouth shut)

Now this video is from the UK, produced by the leading UK photography magazine. but it illustrates perfectly quite a lot of what I was saying above. In it, six photographers go out simply photographing buildings, very openly, from the public street in London. In every single case, they get hassle (and I do mean hassle this time!) of various levels from private security guards, who preposterously mis-state the law, or downright lie about it, on more occasions than I can count. Three of them ended up with security calling the police; in each case the cops were friendly, professional, knew the law, and were quite clear - there was nothing wrong going on, nothing of interest to them, one of them phrased it perfectly: 'you can photograph anything you like from the public street'.

http://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/news/photographers_stopped_in_street_pictures_experiment_news_308762.html?aff=rss

Some good models there for photographer-cop interactions, and some good examples of the kind of crap we far too often receive from security, property owners, and other officious busybodies who claim laws that don't exist, and powers they don't have.

Mike