pancakes

MicrostockGroup Sponsors


Author Topic: Photographers Rights [again] - sitting in jail for taking photos?!  (Read 9128 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

« on: May 12, 2009, 02:11 »
0
Here is an interesting story and a little overview of what your rights are (in the USofA anyhow).... crazy.

http://consumerist.com/5249853/loomis-rent+a+cops-have-shopper-cuffed-hauled-away-over-atm-photo


hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #1 on: May 12, 2009, 05:38 »
0
People need to know their rights! Say nothing, get a solicitor. Ask them if you are arrested, what charge you are arrested for, then say absolutely nothing, except that if you are arrested, you refuse to speak until a solicitor is present..

Of course all of that is pretty hard to do if they scare you.. which they must have with this guy, I'd imagine he just wanted to go home!

« Reply #2 on: May 12, 2009, 07:36 »
0
 photographers have to understand the local laws . they cannot send you to jail for taking photographs, nor can they confiscate your equipment. innocent until proven guilty, remember.
but they do have every right to eject you off their property. malls,  restaurants, underground, buses, etc.. because you are trespassing . they can also banned you from those places .

they could, if you started being violent and hit the security guard,etc.. which in some places that's what they try to instigate you to do, so they can call the cops on you.  the offense  NOT because you were photographing, but A&B.

having worked journalism, i can understand why some places abhor photographers. they don't know your intent. you could be trying to publish an article of how stale their food or fish  is, or how dirty their kitchen . easier to eject you there on the spot, then have to see you in court . retaining a lawyer cost time and money.

in some places, such as Madame Tussard Waxworks , and other musuems, there are signs not permitting flashes, or even photography. Other musuems around the world even sell permits to take photos. As a photographer you have to be aware.

But usually, if you are presentable and is legitimate a professional photographer, it is not uncommon to have the owner or manager allow you to take photos. it's how you approach them that makes the difference.



« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 09:45 by Perseus »

« Reply #3 on: May 12, 2009, 14:32 »
0
Reminds me of when I took some family snaps of my daughter in a casino.  Security was all over me.  They explained that the casino floor was off-limits to photography, because of high security issues.  Makes sense.  The place is filled with money!  The last thing they want is for someone to obtain a bunch of photos and figure out how to break into their slot machines.  They were just protecting their property and assets.  They told me to remove all the images from my camera depicting the casino floor.  I didn't have a problem with their request, but I did ask if I could at least keep a couple of shots of my daughter.  And because I cooperated, they didn't have a problem with my request.  Case closed with a happy ending.

This guy?  Good grief.  He was asking for trouble!  He's on private property shooting an opened ATM and immediately gives the Loomis security guards attitude instead of friendly cooperation (who have every right to protect their property from unwanted intruders, namely the camera and its owner in this instance) .  He refuses to comply with the security guard's request to come over when he is finished in the customer service line.  He refuses to identify himself.  He was belligerent with the Seattle police officer after she provided a reasonable explanation about why he was being asked for his ID, using her own personal experience as the example.  And now what is he doing?  Broadcasting his identity all over the internet by posting his story screaming about how "rent-a-cops" violated his rights.   ::)  Why didn't he just provide his ID to the Loomis security guards and Seattle police officers in the first place?  Dumb a$$ wannabe.  Makes it harder for those who are legitimate photojournalists.       

We as photographers may have rights, but we also have a responsibility to not escalate a situation when asked to stop photographing something, like this guy did.   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 14:35 by Karimala »

« Reply #4 on: May 12, 2009, 14:39 »
0

This guy?  Good grief.  He was asking for trouble!  He's on private property shooting an opened ATM

.................

  Dumb a$$ wannabe.  Makes it harder for those who are legitimate photojournalists.       

We as photographers may have rights, but we also have a responsibility to not escalate a situation when asked to stop photographing something, like this guy did.   

rofl, right on. just because you carry a camera doesn't make you a pro. publishing your stupidity on www only confirms you are not a pro photog and  more a real twit.

« Reply #5 on: May 12, 2009, 14:55 »
0

This guy?  Good grief.  He was asking for trouble!  He's on private property shooting an opened ATM

.................

  Dumb a$$ wannabe.  Makes it harder for those who are legitimate photojournalists.       

We as photographers may have rights, but we also have a responsibility to not escalate a situation when asked to stop photographing something, like this guy did.   

rofl, right on. just because you carry a camera doesn't make you a pro. publishing your stupidity on www only confirms you are not a pro photog and  more a real twit.

Amen, Brother!  And you know what's really bad???  This idiot now has an internet following.   ::)

« Reply #6 on: May 12, 2009, 14:56 »
0
Disagree.  Someone snapping a pic on an iPhone is hardly a threat to national security.  I contacted REI and informed them we won't be shopping there until an apology is issued.

« Reply #7 on: May 12, 2009, 14:59 »
0
On a side note:
Leaf; I hope you are aware that you have broken the Norwegian law many times, and the proof is in your portfolio? There is a sleeping law here that says you are not permitted to take photos where it is possible to recognize the place it is from. It was made to prevent espionage before or during some war, and has never been removed. So theoretically, the police could arrest any and all tourists walking around with cameras.  :)

The guy in the link sounds like an *.

« Reply #8 on: May 12, 2009, 15:03 »
0
Disagree.  Someone snapping a pic on an iPhone is hardly a threat to national security.  I contacted REI and informed them we won't be shopping there until an apology is issued.

So criminals doing research before they rob ATMs don't use Iphones. Good to know. What do they use? Those cool pens with mini cameras you used to get for free if you subscribed to some cartoon magazine? DSRLs? Nikon, but not Canon?

« Reply #9 on: May 12, 2009, 15:09 »
0
I'm sorry.  Tell me how a snap from an iPhone would assist in robbing the store?  You couldn't just say "pssst... the atm is by the door!"  An iPhone snap is hardly going to give you the technical know how to do a Terminator 2 style key code theft or something.

« Reply #10 on: May 12, 2009, 15:19 »
0
Disagree.  Someone snapping a pic on an iPhone is hardly a threat to national security.  I contacted REI and informed them we won't be shopping there until an apology is issued.

Normally I would agree with you.  But in this instance, the guy escalated the situation to where I believe the only recourse was to physically remove him from the property.  All he had to do was act responsibly and cooperate from the start, which he refused to do...making a bad situation much much worse.  The law may have been on his side when he shot the photo, but the second he refused to cooperate, he chose to became a combatant...and that is a treat.  Maybe not to national security, but he definitely became a threat to the security guards, the police officers, and anyone else inside the REI store where this incident occurred.  The officers at that point had no other choice, but to remove him from the premises. 

There are plenty of other stories around about photographers on public property (aka not private property) who acted responsibly when confronted who nevertheless ended up in jail.  It's those photographers who deserve our support.   
« Last Edit: May 12, 2009, 15:21 by Karimala »

« Reply #11 on: May 12, 2009, 16:28 »
0
"But in this instance, the guy escalated the situation to where I believe the only recourse was to physically remove him from the property."

How did he escalate the situation, aside from questioning how they were going to illegally attack him?

« Reply #12 on: May 12, 2009, 16:59 »
0
"But in this instance, the guy escalated the situation to where I believe the only recourse was to physically remove him from the property."

How did he escalate the situation, aside from questioning how they were going to illegally attack him?

Here...before the guard says he'll tackle him.

Quote
Him
    When youre done over here, come talk to me.
Me
    No, thanks.

All the guy had to do was be respectful, even if the security guard is wrong that taking the photo is illegal.  That's it.  How hard can that be?  But instead, as his own story goes, he copped an attitude with the very first words that came out of his mouth.  How else did he expect the security guards to respond?  Did he think the security guards were going to back off?  Plain and simple, the guy did not handle this situation well from the very start, and that is what landed him in jail...not the fact that he took a photo on private property. 

If he had cooperated from the start, and the security guard still threatened him despite his cooperation, then yeh...I'd agree with you.  Instead, the guy crossed the line first, according to his own depiction of the story, by smarting off to the security guard...not the other way around.   

« Reply #13 on: May 12, 2009, 18:31 »
0
'no thanks' is a fine response.  Not having fine anything or been accused if anything, no reason to go over there.

« Reply #14 on: May 12, 2009, 18:34 »
0
I'm sorry.  Tell me how a snap from an iPhone would assist in robbing the store?  You couldn't just say "pssst... the atm is by the door!"  An iPhone snap is hardly going to give you the technical know how to do a Terminator 2 style key code theft or something.

He took a picture of how the security people had opened the ATM, and the insides of the machine. That gives a lot more information than a pic of the exterior. I also think a lot of these guys prefer to not have their faces all over the internet, again for security reasons.

"No thanks" is a typical reply from a snotty teenager who knows he has done something wrong. The guard was polite, there is no reason to refuse to talk to them unless you think you have done something wrong.



« Reply #15 on: May 12, 2009, 19:28 »
0
I'm sorry.  Tell me how a snap from an iPhone would assist in robbing the store?  You couldn't just say "pssst... the atm is by the door!"  An iPhone snap is hardly going to give you the technical know how to do a Terminator 2 style key code theft or something.

He took a picture of how the security people had opened the ATM, and the insides of the machine. That gives a lot more information than a pic of the exterior. I also think a lot of these guys prefer to not have their faces all over the internet, again for security reasons.

"No thanks" is a typical reply from a snotty teenager who knows he has done something wrong. The guard was polite, there is no reason to refuse to talk to them unless you think you have done something wrong.


My sentiments exactly...only I called him a "spoiled brat." 

The security guards didn't know if the guy just took one lousy picture, or if he was filming the entire sequence of the opening of the ATM.  They had every right to ask him what he's doing.  And the guy had every right to not self-incriminate.  However, the guy does not have the right to be a dick to the authorities, guilty or innocent.  Anyone who watches "Cops" knows how that turns out.

« Reply #16 on: May 12, 2009, 22:48 »
0
I don't see he did anything wrong.

He is a blogger and was going to use the photo for maybe a satire story.

The security and police neither asked to see the pic or ask for it to be deleted. Basically we are talking about tossers who are using 9/11 to stay on their little power trip.

« Reply #17 on: May 18, 2009, 12:52 »
0
Since he did nothing wrong and legally they cant do anything.. I think if I were he.. I would go back and take more images. LOL

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #18 on: May 18, 2009, 13:48 »
0
If it's that important, that the atm refiller's faces not be seen, then why are they refilling the machines while the shop is open. If they don't want to get seen or photographed, do it out of hours when the shop is closed! As far as I'm concerned, if you can see it, you can photograph it, same thing.. it's in public view, they aren't putting blindfolds around people's eyes when they enter the shop, or what, a 'terrorist'/criminal isn't capable of walking into the shop and looking for his/herself, if you want it to be hidden, THEN HIDE IT!!

/rant
« Last Edit: May 18, 2009, 13:51 by hqimages »

« Reply #19 on: May 18, 2009, 13:55 »
0
I got a response to my complaint email to REI:
Quote
Thank you for your email and the opportunity to explain the incident that occurred between one of our customers and a security company servicing an ATM in our Seattle store. It is unfortunate that the situation escalated to the point that the police were called by the ATM security officers and the customer was detained by the police. At no time did REI detain the individual and we did not request a trespass to be invoked. We do not intend to enforce the trespass issued by police, and the customer is free to visit our store in the future.

We appreciate people sharing their varied points of view about what should or should not have happened at the store. We regret that the matter couldnt be defused before the police became involved. One step we are taking is to discuss with the ATM security company ways to prevent the circumstances that led to this problem.

hqimages

  • www.draiochtwebdesign.com
« Reply #20 on: May 18, 2009, 13:58 »
0
Quote
One step we are taking is to discuss with the ATM security company ways to prevent the circumstances that led to this problem.

ie. If you want it hidden, hide it.. store was 100% at fault, I'm guessing they'll be refilling those machines after hours now, what a storm in a teacup!

« Reply #21 on: May 20, 2009, 07:31 »
0
He was asked to stop taking photos and refused. Mistake #1! When the police arrived he refused to provide identification. Mistake #2!  That is what put him jail.

Photographers rule # 1 shoot fast! Stop when asked ... you already have the images. Rule #2! Don't be a stupid fool. Rule #3! Know the law and the law can help if the situation gets sticky. To get a better photo may be a simple tresspas, but breaking the lock it criminal tresspas! One could be a simple fine $25-50, the other is jail time. Rule #4! You maybe right and still can be given trip downtown, worse you equipment confiscated. Getting your equipment is a real pain because the law my claim it as evidents.

If confronted and be civil and cooperate.... the police have more important job than putting photographers in jail. Now if you are stupid, the police like putting stupid criminals and photographers in jail.

I sure wish I was the judge in this case. 


« Reply #22 on: May 20, 2009, 13:46 »
0
He was asked to stop taking photos and refused. Mistake #1! When the police arrived he refused to provide identification. Mistake #2!  That is what put him jail.

Doing "risky" photography often, I can only agree. Look totally stupid and ignorant, quickly survey the terrain, be fast to take all your shots, then revert to you stupid role again. Never object, always comply, act ignorant, and make sure you keep the bait  (your CSF card) :D

I have a nice collection of "news" shots here, but I play the game always fair. If I feel there could be a security breach or sensitive issue, I always ask the advice of the brass afterwards. On the spot, just comply. FYI, I'm doing some war photography at the moment. Same rules as for stock apply. It's a market and the medium is the message.


 

Related Topics

  Subject / Started by Replies Last post
12 Replies
5376 Views
Last post December 27, 2007, 18:13
by rimglow
21 Replies
6230 Views
Last post February 06, 2008, 08:47
by photojay
41 Replies
17248 Views
Last post February 11, 2009, 12:59
by null
36 Replies
12021 Views
Last post May 15, 2010, 23:00
by ap
4 Replies
3522 Views
Last post January 18, 2015, 20:44
by SME

Sponsors

Mega Bundle of 5,900+ Professional Lightroom Presets

Microstock Poll Results

Sponsors

3100 Posing Cards Bundle