I can't see how it is Fascist, they own the property hence they have the rights to govern what is done on that property...
Not saying I agree or disagree, but if you don't own it, which in this case we don't, then you can't dictate what goes on...far from being fascist when a company decides what can and can not be done on their private property!
I happen to disagree, a private corperation that owns the property has the rights to do what they want when they deny access to the property, short of killing someone or maiming them, this is not a government situation, this from what I have read was a private corp dening access to photographers to their property...
I do know one thing, running around calling companies fascist, does not further our cause to have access to the areas we want to photograph, this is not even a 1st amendment thing, from the articles I have read, 100% in whole this is private property..
And I have worked for many corperations, and I agree that many are very militant in their thinking, I also spent 26 years in the military, so am very familier with the terms and definitions, but I can tell you this, if someone showed up on my personal private property and started taking photographs with out permission, they run a good chance of getting a butt full of rock salt from the 12 gauge..and here in Montana, I would win in court...personal private property rights are held in the highest reguards where I live.
I can't see how it is Fascist, they own the property hence they have the rights to govern what is done on that property...
Not saying I agree or disagree, but if you don't own it, which in this case we don't, then you can't dictate what goes on...far from being fascist when a company decides what can and can not be done on their private property!
Dave
To me - attempting to control public behaviour beyond what is considered 'appropriate' (okay - that's a real loaded word, but I'm talking about spitting, defacing property, attacking people, etc. etc.. just acting reasonably...) is fascist to some degree. Something like banning photography just really smacks of paranoia, self-importance (possible implied wrongdoings) and just seems absurd.
But we're not even talking about private property here - are we? I thought it was the adjacent public spaces we're talking about - they didn't want pictures being taken OF their property/equipment - and that's just plain against the law to try to enforce...! And - let's get real here...! do you think any self-respecting 'terrorist' (if any actually exist) are going to attack a form of transportation after 9/11?? No way. You'd have to be a real imbecile.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG
have the option to remove this ad.)
I happen to disagree, a private corperation that owns the property has the rights to do what they want when they deny access to the property, short of killing someone or maiming them, this is not a government situation, this from what I have read was a private corp dening access to photographers to their property...
I do know one thing, running around calling companies fascist, does not further our cause to have access to the areas we want to photograph, this is not even a 1st amendment thing, from the articles I have read, 100% in whole this is private property..
And I have worked for many corperations, and I agree that many are very militant in their thinking, I also spent 26 years in the military, so am very familier with the terms and definitions, but I can tell you this, if someone showed up on my personal private property and started taking photographs with out permission, they run a good chance of getting a butt full of rock salt from the 12 gauge..and here in Montana, I would win in court...personal private property rights are held in the highest reguards where I live.
Well, perhaps then, by the policies that are being instituted in this godforsaken country now - perhaps you ought to be preemptively locked up...! Seriously - you would want to KILL a person because they thought your house looked good enough to take a snapshot of?? Are you effing SERIOUS??
No landlord (corporation or otherwise) has any right to prevent someone standing on public property of taking pictures or video/film, what have you. Besides - why would they ever object unless they're doing something visibly illegal - which would be something of a telling sign, I'd think.
But usually - if one WANTS to take pictures while standing ON private property - it seems reasonable to me to request permission to do so. I think that is fine. A public transportation system, however - is far more of a grey zone.
Yes, I am effing serious, I don't live where their is any Ajacent public property, I am over 2 miles beyond the public road, there is no public property where I currently reside, besides shooting somebody with rock salt in the butt is not going to kill them..the whole point of my posts was, ASK and most likly you will receive, try to dictate and your most likely to piss someone off, the articles I have read on this situation state this IS private property and the company that owns it decided they didn't want to take a risk, some people and some companies, as has been outline in another thread today, JUST DON"T WANT THEIR PICTURES TAKEN and if they own the property, they have the right to say so, there is no public railway property in this country, every single rail line is owned by private companies, and hence when you enter the property they own, unless you have permission, you are in fact tresspassing, they have the right to have you cited and they have the right to deny you access, depending on what their agreements state, heck if you get out of line at an airport, they have the right to have you ejected...it seems to me this situation could be very well solved if photographers, would just talk to the management at the particular property, I know I always secure permission when I want to photograph and I secure the permits that are required, that includes National Parks, and such, and hell I own part of them..
I can appreciate that position Dave. Sorry to be getting all up in arms about it. I was mostly referring to the larger phenomena of security guards bullying people who are actually ON public property - if you've been following the threads on this and other related forums lately. However - I really don't like the trends happening in this country, at all. It seems there used to be this concept called 'liberty' which has been replaced by a concept called 'freedom' which means that you are surveilled at every corner - your internet activity tracked, your credit cards tracked. It's disgusting, IMO. It wouldn't take much imagination to see that previously 'public' property, owned by the 'city corporation' will now become 'private property'. I think it's something we really need to keep tabs on. In the interest of 'liberty'.
I can appreciate that position Dave. Sorry to be getting all up in arms about it. I was mostly referring to the larger phenomena of security guards bullying people who are actually ON public property - if you've been following the threads on this and other related forums lately. However - I really don't like the trends happening in this country, at all. It seems there used to be this concept called 'liberty' which has been replaced by a concept called 'freedom' which means that you are surveilled at every corner - your internet activity tracked, your credit cards tracked. It's disgusting, IMO. It wouldn't take much imagination to see that previously 'public' property, owned by the 'city corporation' will now become 'private property'. I think it's something we really need to keep tabs on. In the interest of 'liberty'.
Sparky,
I agree wtih you, I see alot of things I don't like when it comes to what we can and cannot photograph and as I stated, I don't agree or disagree with what they did and to the joy of photographers who work in that area, they have recinded their choice, but after many years of being a photographer, I just don't see how calling them names and bulling up to the bar, does anything to further our cause, I am old enough now to understand, you get more by offering honey than you do vineger, it sounds as if the public was able to get their point across in this situation and it will continue to be these little victories that allow us to continue to do what we do and love to do...as I said, ask me and I will most likely give, tell me and I will most likely tell you to go to hell, hell bent for election is not always the best policy and with some restraint and cooth, we can win the world back over again..
I agree wtih you, I see alot of things I don't like when it comes to what we can and cannot photograph and as I stated, I don't agree or disagree with what they did and to the joy of photographers who work in that area, they have recinded their choice, but after many years of being a photographer, I just don't see how calling them names and bulling up to the bar, does anything to further our cause, I am old enough now to understand, you get more by offering honey than you do vineger, it sounds as if the public was able to get their point across in this situation and it will continue to be these little victories that allow us to continue to do what we do and love to do...as I said, ask me and I will most likely give, tell me and I will most likely tell you to go to hell, hell bent for election is not always the best policy and with some restraint and cooth, we can win the world back over again..
Have a great day..
Dave
Fully agree with everything you said there. I think, instead of arguing about all these things in the abstract - what would be a good use of our time is to put together a little kit that we can all carry with us - spelling out the letter of the law - that we might show to those who give us a hard time when we're on public property. Kind of like a Miranda - but in reverse. "I have the right to..." etc. etc... Nothing cocky or confrontational - just a transcript of the regulations that allow us our freedoms - because the cops and security guards sure don't seem to know them.
Linear Mode
