Photographer banned for creeping out folks

[5stringdeath]

Hey look, laws aside, as a street photographer for years if someone asks me to stop taking their photo or not to take their photo I simply comply because it's the right thing to do. Often if I talk to people they relax and don't mind. Most people never knew I ever photographed them. Sure, the law is the law, but respect should prevail. Paparazzi aside :-)

The guys photos aren't great. No craft in printing since they are all digital and on Flickr (maybe he makes inkjets I dunno). In the end I would stand up for his "rights" to photograph, but as a street photographer the whole thing puts a bad taste in my mouth.

[nolanr66]

The people at the coffee shop wanted him to stop, the customer's were complaining. That should be enough to move on but the photog stayed with it. Now he has a restraining order against him. That will not be fun living with that on his background check. The business is also taking heat in the community. It's a bad deal all around. If you want to take pictures in a manner that seems strange or inappropriate to people then you should plan on dealing with the Police. That is the way it is now.

[clayne]

The people at the coffee shop wanted him to stop, the customer's were complaining. That should be enough to move on but the photog stayed with it. Now he has a restraining order against him. That will not be fun living with that on his background check. The business is also taking heat in the community. It's a bad deal all around. If you want to take pictures in a manner that seems strange or inappropriate to people then you should plan on dealing with the Police. That is the way it is now.

Look at his photos and tell me if they're strange or inappropriate. It's standard street photography. The issue is people just plain flipping out over nothing and the ensuing unfounded demonisation.


Of course everything must be taken with a grain of salt, but here it is from his own mouth: RFF (http://www.rangefinderforum.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1279789&postcount=85). After looking at his photos and reading his account, it really doesn't sound like he was trying to be a dick about things. Also from one of the comments on the story, it sounds like he uses 28, 35, 50, and 135mm lenses.

Reading the comments of that story makes me sad.

Straight up! I wish people would just read this guy's side of the story and reconsider the situation in the grand scheme.


I'll post a link to the original source again:

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

And, here's some info that provides more details on the business on Church Street who are not part of the 67 businesses who are in the universal trespass group...

http://www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street

Yes seriously read the last article before you come to the defense of this region, district, or municipality.

[Worker 11811]

An example of this in Toronto is Yonge-Dundas Square. It looks public. It is actually managed and secured by Cadillac-Fairview properties. But if a user of the facility is pulled aside for doing something the PPP does not approve of (in Y-D Square's case, there was once the controversy of the nine-year-old kid banned because he was making chalk drawings on the ground), then the private ownership/management has that right.

Agreed in principle. The management of the property has the right to tell you what you are allowed to do but, up to the point where they tell you, they should not be able to prosecute you for something you did not know was an offense. Once you are informed, that is a different matter.

If somebody is taking photos and a security guard comes up to him and says that photography is not allowed, they can tell him that he must stop taking pictures and/or leave the property. If the person complies with the request then there should be no problem. If the person keeps taking photos or if he gets testy about it, then management can (and probably should) take action.

Maybe this is what happened. I get the feeling something went wrong.

I took a lot of pictures at the Christian Science Center in downtown Boston. They do have a photography policy. If you are a student of a photography class and promise that the photos are for personal use only they will allow it but they generally do not allow formal photography on their property.

("Formal Photography" where tripods or other equipment are set up as opposed to informal, tourist photos or snapshots where cameras are hand held and the photographer does not linger.)

I have been accosted by security guards on that property. I told them I was shooting for a class and promised the photos were for personal use and the guard left me alone. I do know some students in my class who were escorted off the property because they were rude.


A private space need not feature a gate or physical barrier to denote its function as a non-public space. Typically, unless a space is designated outright as a public park run by the municipality or other level of jurisdiction, then it is safe to assume that most sidewalks on public streets — and the public streets, too — are considered public space rights-of-way.

The Christian Science Center has brass plates embedded in the sidewalk at intervals around the property. They are marked with something like, "Property line of..." Many buildings and storefronts in Boston are marked with similar plates.

If one is standing on the street side of those markers, he is on public property. I have seen people stand with their toes one inch from the line and shout things at the people on the other side. (I worked at a store where people protested management's policies.) If the people are not making a public nuisance, shouting obscenities or committing other offenses, there isn't much the property owner can do. But, if they do break a law then the cops can grab them. (That's how the above mentioned protesters were handled.)


To display an exhaustive list would probably be unproductive and lead to complaints saying, "The list was too big for me to memorize or browse through."

In a state park near where I live there are signs which simply give a brief listing of the rules such as "No alcohol. No disturbing wildlife. etc." then there is a clause at the bottom of the sign which says, "Complete rules available at park office." That is enough to constitute "notice."


Hrm. I live in Canada. I'll have to take your word on that [firearms], I guess

Do you know what became of the suit? Was it settled out of court, or did it go to a test case?

A discussion of gun laws will have to wait for another day. I only gave it as an example.

I do not know the exact outcome of the case because it was in a shopping mall which housed one of the movie theaters I used to service. The mall had signs which displayed the "No Firearms" signage but the movie theater did not. There was a way for customers to enter the movie theater then exit to the mall, thus bypassing the mall's signage. The movie theater was required to put up signs by the mall management. I was only told that "some guy" came through the theater and got stopped by mall security.



With regard to this photographer, there are clearly details we all lack which would inform what happened. If he brings his case to suit and it goes to discovery, then a general idea of details should emerge.

I think you are right. There must be some details that are not known. Unless this case goes through "the system" we will probably never know very much.

[nolanr66]

Look at his photos and tell me if they're strange or inappropriate. It's standard street photography. The issue is people just plain flipping out over nothing and the ensuing unfounded demonisation.

People are not going to look at his photos. People do not even know what street photography is. What they (ordinary folks) see is a nut case taking pictures of strangers or children and figure a Police officer is needed to check the guy out for arrest or a psych hold. A buisness person is not going to lose customers because of some guy who is bothering and imtimidating his customers. He is going to do something about it as in this situation.

[clayne]

People are not going to look at his photos. People do not even know what street photography is. What they (ordinary folks) see is a nut case taking pictures of strangers or children and figure a Police officer is needed to check the guy out for arrest or a psych hold. A buisness person is not going to lose customers because of some guy who is bothering and imtimidating his customers. He is going to do something about it as in this situation.

Uhh so you agree or disagree with your observations? I'd think you wouldn't ant people being unfairly categorized and misinterpreted - especially another behind the lens, right?

[frdrx]

The guys photos aren't great.
They aren't bad either. In my opinion, he should certainly continue shooting, and no doubt he'll get better and better.


No craft in printing since they are all digital and on Flickr (maybe he makes inkjets I dunno).
Why should this matter? Anyway, it seems that he's using a Contax RTS II (1 (http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4341823161/),2 (http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street)), so at least he's a film consumer, which should earn him some sympathy here.

[accozzaglia]

Uhh so you agree or disagree with your observations? I'd think you wouldn't ant people being unfairly categorized and misinterpreted - especially another behind the lens, right?

I think it's reasonable to say that no one wants to be unfairly categorized and misrepresented in any circumstance. This leaves such an open-jaw conclusion to your argument so as to be a fait accompli. But whether we like it or not, every last one of us have at some point unfairly categorized and misrepresented others, just as we have also been unfairly done so by others. We do it, in fact, every time we candidly shoot someone we don't know. We see something in them that leads us to conclude there's a reason we shoot them, even if that observation could not be more off from one's actual reality.

I support your impetus for defending this photographer in Vermont. In this discussion, however, I have seen that you are hesitant to allow that we're dealing with an event that was indubitably more complicated than any of us presently know. It is foolhardy to assume and draw conclusions unless and before all discovery is on the table for all to see. This is a discussion among photographers, not a simple, two-sided dispute about philosophical fundamentals. And in realizing this, it becomes wiser to allow that other interpretations raised here are no less valid than your own, even when you may not disagree more. It just, having read this thread completely through twice, sounds like your argument with others here have foreclosed on this possibility of complexity and nuance regardless the facts we do and don't know.

If the incident were so simple, then there would be scant fodder for debate.

[perkeleellinen]

I read the guy's account on RFF and to me it seems mostly a case of misunderstanding. Of course only hearing one side of the story is always going to be partial. But I think this was completely avoidable.

I can quite easily see how this could have been blown out of proportion mostly though a breakdown in communication. The woman in the coffee shop may have seen the photographer at work on a number of occasions and assumed (wrongly) he was shooting her - her confrontation seems over the top to us in our calm setting but she may have felt genuinely harassed. The second encounter where she demands the image deleted seems to me to indicate that she thought this guy was shooting her (again). He couldn't delete the image because it was on film - but to her she probably saw that more as a refusal to delete. From her perspective she sees a guy hanging around taking her picture and she doesn't like it (I don't know her history, maybe someone stalked her in the past). I can see how all this could have been wrongly seen as being 'creepy'.

She doesn't know the guy and doesn't see his images. He doesn't see that she is getting agitated by his actions until it's too late.

Of course the law is probably on the side of the photographer but in any social situation people interact based on context not case law.

[Cliffy13]

I'm with the coffee shop this is stalking nor street photography

[Rick A]

I think the shop keepers are being a tad short-sighted. Having a street photographer could be a deterent to shoplifting, and be encouraged. The shop owners should actually pay this fellow to walk around and photograph anysuspicious acts, possibly catching a thief in the act, thus helping with convictions. Imagine, knowing that someone (other than CCV) could be right there capturing your larcenous act, would turn into a major deterant to crime. The owners quite possibly would be saving more money than the cost of keeping this oaf around at minimum wage, doing what he loves.

Rick

[Worker 11811]

Just some evil thoughts...

Y'know, this guy seems to photograph a lot of homeless people. If he frequents the location he probably knows a few of them by name.

Many homeless guys have their own subculture in places like outdoor malls. Having had conversations with the odd homeless guy from time to time, myself, I know that a lot of them get upset when they are harassed by "the man."

One of the theaters I worked at had a homeless guy who often slept out back behind the dumpster. His name was Lloyd. He was harmless. He just wanted a place to keep out of the wind when the weather got nasty. Theater management didn't care to have a homeless guy sleeping on the property so they would do various things to get him to move along.

The first theater manager who ran that location would call the city mission and they would send a van out to pick the guy up. As people are often creatures of habit, Lloyd would show up again a couple of months later. The theater got a new manager who didn't want this guy around and didn't care. He simply called the cops and got him thrown out for trespassing. (Or something.)

Well, that got Lloyd peeved off and word got around that this new theater manager was an A-hole. It wasn't long before things just started "happening" around the theater. Trash cans would get dumped. Poster cases would get broken. All the entrances started developing a distinct urine smell. It was clear that "somebody" was staging an underground retaliation against the theater. There wasn't much the manager could do about it because the only thing he could do was call the cops but after about the tenth call they got tired of coming around to take reports of vandalism by homeless people. The theater manager finally quit about a year later. Slowly but surely, word got around that there was a new manager and the problems tapered off and finally stopped.

Now, this is all strictly a Gedanken experiment... just something that I would never really do but is funny to think about.

What if this photographer got word around to all the homeless guys in the area that he was getting hassled by the cops because of the manager in that coffee shop? It would be funny if the place became the target of a round of homeless-vigilante justice. And, just to start things off on the right foot, the photographer might pass out a few $5.00 gift cards for that coffee shop to the homeless guys who hang out in that area.

Again, just an evil idea. I would never really do this but it's a funny thought.

[EKJellytoes]

Just some evil thoughts...

Y'know, this guy seems to photograph a lot of homeless people. If he frequents the location he probably knows a few of them by name.

Many homeless guys have their own subculture in places like outdoor malls. Having had conversations with the odd homeless guy from time to time, myself, I know that a lot of them get upset when they are harassed by "the man."

One of the theaters I worked at had a homeless guy who often slept out back behind the dumpster. His name was Lloyd. He was harmless. He just wanted a place to keep out of the wind when the weather got nasty. Theater management didn't care to have a homeless guy sleeping on the property so they would do various things to get him to move along.

The first theater manager who ran that location would call the city mission and they would send a van out to pick the guy up. As people are often creatures of habit, Lloyd would show up again a couple of months later. The theater got a new manager who didn't want this guy around and didn't care. He simply called the cops and got him thrown out for trespassing. (Or something.)

Well, that got Lloyd peeved off and word got around that this new theater manager was an A-hole. It wasn't long before things just started "happening" around the theater. Trash cans would get dumped. Poster cases would get broken. All the entrances started developing a distinct urine smell. It was clear that "somebody" was staging an underground retaliation against the theater. There wasn't much the manager could do about it because the only thing he could do was call the cops but after about the tenth call they got tired of coming around to take reports of vandalism by homeless people. The theater manager finally quit about a year later. Slowly but surely, word got around that there was a new manager and the problems tapered off and finally stopped.

Now, this is all strictly a Gedanken experiment... just something that I would never really do but is funny to think about.

What if this photographer got word around to all the homeless guys in the area that he was getting hassled by the cops because of the manager in that coffee shop? It would be funny if the place became the target of a round of homeless-vigilante justice. And, just to start things off on the right foot, the photographer might pass out a few $5.00 gift cards for that coffee shop to the homeless guys who hang out in that area.

Again, just an evil idea. I would never really do this but it's a funny thought.

I saw the "offending" photo - a girl bundled up in a snow-storm smoking a cig....veeeeery creeepy....look out Mama the terrorists are coming.

Now your idea...Gift Cards for the Homeless...I like it!

[jgcull]

I don't see anything so bad about his pictures, but I'd sure hate to be known as the photographer everyone hated to see coming! I don't see enough value to the images (pardon me) to make a hard case of rights, at the cost of showing respect. If it were me I'd drop the camera and move on. Or else work on relational skills.

[nolanr66]

Uhh so you agree or disagree with your observations? I'd think you wouldn't ant people being unfairly categorized and misinterpreted - especially another behind the lens, right?

I do not have an opinion really. People do stuff and others respond to it in some way. Street photographers are from time to time going to suffer consequences for taking photo liberties. Myself I have no interest in shooting street photography myself or even viewing it.

[Phil]

"F-Stop That!" More Fallout From Church Street Photography

http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/03/fstop-that-more-fallout-from-church-street-photography.html

[nolanr66]

"F-Stop That!" More Fallout From Church Street Photography

Reminds me of skateboarding. They have bumper stickers that say "Skateboarding is not a Crime". There is a community in my area where the skateboarders call each other "Daryl" short for "Derelick". Skateboards are forbidden everywhere except private property. I suppose photography is headed that way also. There are a lot of places I would go to if photography were not banned. Not that I particularly want to shoot there, but if they are against photography then I am against spending money there. It just struck me as kind of funny as last week I shot a concert that was held in a large coffee shop. Nobody cared that I was taking pictures of the band. I did know all of the musicians (my son is the basest) but I did not ask permission to shoot. I also bought coffee.

[Leighgion]

"F-Stop That!" More Fallout From Church Street Photography

http://7d.blogs.com/blurt/2010/03/fstop-that-more-fallout-from-church-street-photography.html

While maintaining the caveat that I have no first-hand knowledge of how things went down, I can't help but feel there's some justice at work here.

A lot has been made of how Dan Scott had a perfect legal right to take photographs, but had perhaps overstepped some social boundaries and thus made people uncomfortable who were not shy about expressing displeasure.

Well, Uncommon Grounds' management may have technically had the right to ask for the ban, but by actually calling for it they've made a lot of people uncomfortable, many not even local, and a certain percentage are not shy about expressing their displeasure.

I don't live anywhere near Vermont, but I know I'd sure be uncomfortable going the cafe in question now. I generally have a couple cameras at me at all times. Would I be rudely and suddenly interrupted by somebody yelling at me because they think I'm taking their picture? Would the barrista give me the evil eye just for having a camera on my shoulder?

I've no doubt that Mr. Scott could've done things to come off less intrusive, but the management and employees of the coffee shop also could have chosen to be a lot less self-righteous and the mess might've been worked out diplomatically. Way things stand, the management of Uncommon Grounds has probably done more damage to their business by calling for the ban than Dan Scott ever could have by being around taking pictures.

[clayne]

This is how it works in the USA and how it should work. An issue happens, people bring it up if they feel it's unfair, and if enough people agree with that, the issue becomes a larger one until something either changes or the issue dies off. I too agree with Leighgion in that this is to be expected and it is justice at work.

For the squad who disagree, try spending time in a place with little way of repercussion or retribution for wrong-doings and see how you feel.

[Rudeofus]

I too agree with Leighgion in that this is to be expected and it is justice at work.

For the squad who disagree, try spending time in a place with little way of repercussion or retribution for wrong-doings and see how you feel.
This has nothing to do with justice in any conceivable way.

First, look at the market place. One out of over 60 shop owners is unhappy with you and you are banned from all stores? A cop comes to your work place to tell you that? WTF ????? If a 2/3 or unanimous vote among the shop owners was required for such a ban I would understand such a measure much better. But just pi55ing of one shop owner, or having a dispute about your pay check and you're banned for one year? Give me a break.

Second, look at the reactions of some photography zealots! Making threatening or insulting phone calls is not what I consider justice, it sounds more like mafia practise to me. We happen to share a hobby where a good share of us is online, so such news spread very quickly. We frequently hear only one side and barely make an effort to research the whole story. I have to applaud to the affected photographer that he never called for such vigilante actions and we, too, as a forum comunity should condemn such actions with furor. We're not the mob after all!