I am petty too like that. Loved the article. They wouldn't be able to sue a photographer for licensing that photo, only if it was used for commercial purposes (Apple commercial for example). But you can freely publish it in any editorial publication.
Yes! I think perhaps people don't consider the fact that this sort of thing goes straight to the First Amendment and freedom of the press. (More on that next time.) Thanks for reading!
I have been similarly dealt with by security guards. One at a Wells Fargo bank plaza whispered to me, "Please, don't take that picture. We are being recorded. If I can't get you to listen to me, I will be called in by my manager and I could lose my job."
She explained I could be scoping the bank for future robbery.
I do want to throw something at you: if a stranger dude stood outside your house in the street all hours of the day with a telephoto lens shooting your property, wouldn't you want to know why?
I've found that the simple process of making myself known to the owner/employee before shooting makes all the difference. It won't help the corporate paranoia types, but with the smaller mom and pops and private businesses, it's the right thing to do IMO. Even if the letter of the law in on my side.
I actually think the Wells Fargo security guard's request is reasonable even if his bosses are not. And I'm sure I would have said no problem. (Because I’m not trying to hassle a guy doing his job, EVEN THOUGH THAT’S WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING TO ME. But I digress…)
When the person with you is a known tenant of the same building, in need of a simple snapshot for their website, you can see how a ban on such a thing is even more unreasonable. What harm could possibly come from a photograph of a building viewed from a public sidewalk? If the bank has such vulnerability I’d suggest they have much better places to spend their time and effort.
It’s the lack of logic that bothers me. If I'm skulking about after dark, sure, ask me what I'm up to. Like the DHS alert says, “photographing in a covert manner.”
As for the hypothetical about my house... It's a fair enough point, but there are some key differences. Context and scope, foremost. A 30-story downtown office building versus my private suburban residence. A public place versus a private one (broadly speaking). And I’m not talking about all hours of the day, just five minutes in the afternoon. So no, if a guy drove up, stepped out of his car, stayed on the street and snapped a few shots of my house, yes I might be intrigued, but no I would not be worried. (I recognize I am more tolerant than most, but that’s kind of the issue. What is he possibly doing that could cause me trouble? And if he was and I chased him off, wouldn’t he just come back later? This kind of hyper vigilance is simply too illogical for me. Like shoes off at the airport.) When he’s skulking around my lawn after dark, by all means he’s worthy of suspicion. In fact, I’d suggest maybe I would do more than just ask him what he’s doing. Silly.
You also bring up a good point about behaving professionally and letting a business owner know what I’m up to. When the context allows it (small business, for instance, or smaller property) of course it’s the right thing to do, even if not legally required. It’s what I do in those situations too. But that is a courtesy made more necessary precisely because of our elevated level of concern about photographers.
Hopefully my dissent does not read as dismissive. Quite the contrary. I really appreciate your comment and am quite pleased you’ve added to the conversation. I think broadly speaking what you say seems reasonable, but my point is that I think conventional wisdom is more suspicious than it needs to be. The guy snapping a shot of your house in the middle of the afternoon likes the color of your siding, or he sells driveway resurfacing, or this was his mother’s childhood home. It’s 400 different things before it’s nefarious.
Me thinks we should organize a photo club event all around that building. Cameras everywhere, on public property. It would be glorious to see the security guard's head pop not knowing how to control a dozen or more people freely photographing in public.
If they do not want photos taken of their publicly viewable building, they can erect a fence or screen around their property. What I can see from public property, I can photograph. Even people do not have an expectation of privacy when in public, and a building certainly has no expectation of privacy either.
The police commonly make threats that they know have no structure of law behind them, because they understand that the power (I did NOT say authority) of their position allows them to make your life uncomfortable, if not unreasonable, for short duration of time. Further, the law gives them the authority to treat any resistance on your part as, "Disobeying lawful orders". Can they make your life hell? Yes. Can they damage your gear? Yes. Will they be required to pay for that damage? No. After all, you were resisting the lawful orders of the police, your gear was damaged in the process.
I too have experienced this unlawful restriction on my right to take pictures of public things, in the public right-of-way. It rankles, as it should. I protest and resist, but I do not take it past the point of requiring the police to show me how butch they are, because I do not have the resources to (easily) replace my gear; I certainly do not have the resources to file suit. I feel like a collaborator, each time I acquiesce. One of my favorite lottery fantasies is, to challenge the powers that be when I am unjustly hassled, and take it through to the end. One of my favourite Winston Churchill quotes goes, "When someone offends you, step on their toes until they apologise". I want to do that someday, when my rights as a photographer(in public) are violated. Petty? perhaps, but it would be glorious!
I feel this deeply. It's such a tenuous situation to be in. Knowing what is right and feeling powerless to do it.
That Churchill quote is perfect. I'd never heard it before. Could have been written about first amendment auditors. My favorite Churchill quote is the one about haggling over price. I feel that one with every new assignment.
If you want an experience, try taking a photo of a US Consulate or Embassy. Even when across a busy street, the guards will come after you and tell you to stop. If you push it, they'll try to take your phone or camera. Ask me how I know...
I am petty too like that. Loved the article. They wouldn't be able to sue a photographer for licensing that photo, only if it was used for commercial purposes (Apple commercial for example). But you can freely publish it in any editorial publication.
Yes! I think perhaps people don't consider the fact that this sort of thing goes straight to the First Amendment and freedom of the press. (More on that next time.) Thanks for reading!
I have been similarly dealt with by security guards. One at a Wells Fargo bank plaza whispered to me, "Please, don't take that picture. We are being recorded. If I can't get you to listen to me, I will be called in by my manager and I could lose my job."
She explained I could be scoping the bank for future robbery.
I do want to throw something at you: if a stranger dude stood outside your house in the street all hours of the day with a telephoto lens shooting your property, wouldn't you want to know why?
I've found that the simple process of making myself known to the owner/employee before shooting makes all the difference. It won't help the corporate paranoia types, but with the smaller mom and pops and private businesses, it's the right thing to do IMO. Even if the letter of the law in on my side.
I actually think the Wells Fargo security guard's request is reasonable even if his bosses are not. And I'm sure I would have said no problem. (Because I’m not trying to hassle a guy doing his job, EVEN THOUGH THAT’S WHAT EVERYBODY ELSE IS DOING TO ME. But I digress…)
When the person with you is a known tenant of the same building, in need of a simple snapshot for their website, you can see how a ban on such a thing is even more unreasonable. What harm could possibly come from a photograph of a building viewed from a public sidewalk? If the bank has such vulnerability I’d suggest they have much better places to spend their time and effort.
It’s the lack of logic that bothers me. If I'm skulking about after dark, sure, ask me what I'm up to. Like the DHS alert says, “photographing in a covert manner.”
As for the hypothetical about my house... It's a fair enough point, but there are some key differences. Context and scope, foremost. A 30-story downtown office building versus my private suburban residence. A public place versus a private one (broadly speaking). And I’m not talking about all hours of the day, just five minutes in the afternoon. So no, if a guy drove up, stepped out of his car, stayed on the street and snapped a few shots of my house, yes I might be intrigued, but no I would not be worried. (I recognize I am more tolerant than most, but that’s kind of the issue. What is he possibly doing that could cause me trouble? And if he was and I chased him off, wouldn’t he just come back later? This kind of hyper vigilance is simply too illogical for me. Like shoes off at the airport.) When he’s skulking around my lawn after dark, by all means he’s worthy of suspicion. In fact, I’d suggest maybe I would do more than just ask him what he’s doing. Silly.
You also bring up a good point about behaving professionally and letting a business owner know what I’m up to. When the context allows it (small business, for instance, or smaller property) of course it’s the right thing to do, even if not legally required. It’s what I do in those situations too. But that is a courtesy made more necessary precisely because of our elevated level of concern about photographers.
Hopefully my dissent does not read as dismissive. Quite the contrary. I really appreciate your comment and am quite pleased you’ve added to the conversation. I think broadly speaking what you say seems reasonable, but my point is that I think conventional wisdom is more suspicious than it needs to be. The guy snapping a shot of your house in the middle of the afternoon likes the color of your siding, or he sells driveway resurfacing, or this was his mother’s childhood home. It’s 400 different things before it’s nefarious.
Thank you for reading!
I'll keep this conversation going over time. It's an important one that I think about often. Cheers.
Me thinks we should organize a photo club event all around that building. Cameras everywhere, on public property. It would be glorious to see the security guard's head pop not knowing how to control a dozen or more people freely photographing in public.
If they do not want photos taken of their publicly viewable building, they can erect a fence or screen around their property. What I can see from public property, I can photograph. Even people do not have an expectation of privacy when in public, and a building certainly has no expectation of privacy either.
Very petty. I love it!
The police commonly make threats that they know have no structure of law behind them, because they understand that the power (I did NOT say authority) of their position allows them to make your life uncomfortable, if not unreasonable, for short duration of time. Further, the law gives them the authority to treat any resistance on your part as, "Disobeying lawful orders". Can they make your life hell? Yes. Can they damage your gear? Yes. Will they be required to pay for that damage? No. After all, you were resisting the lawful orders of the police, your gear was damaged in the process.
I too have experienced this unlawful restriction on my right to take pictures of public things, in the public right-of-way. It rankles, as it should. I protest and resist, but I do not take it past the point of requiring the police to show me how butch they are, because I do not have the resources to (easily) replace my gear; I certainly do not have the resources to file suit. I feel like a collaborator, each time I acquiesce. One of my favorite lottery fantasies is, to challenge the powers that be when I am unjustly hassled, and take it through to the end. One of my favourite Winston Churchill quotes goes, "When someone offends you, step on their toes until they apologise". I want to do that someday, when my rights as a photographer(in public) are violated. Petty? perhaps, but it would be glorious!
I feel this deeply. It's such a tenuous situation to be in. Knowing what is right and feeling powerless to do it.
That Churchill quote is perfect. I'd never heard it before. Could have been written about first amendment auditors. My favorite Churchill quote is the one about haggling over price. I feel that one with every new assignment.
We've already established what you are...
If you want an experience, try taking a photo of a US Consulate or Embassy. Even when across a busy street, the guards will come after you and tell you to stop. If you push it, they'll try to take your phone or camera. Ask me how I know...
I have a feeling I know how you know!
At least that strikes me as a more reasonable unreasonable request. 😆