If it's a hobby, that's one thing. If it's a profession, that could be another. Just doing my job, I have been literally attacked. It only happened once, but I thought I was going to get hurt. I was asked to leave a few places, but that's their business, if they really want to turn down mid five figures ($) in promotional value. I have a feeling that some of them regretted it when they told their boss what they had done, but they had to follow the rules, I guess.
Originally Posted by RalphLambrecht
re: the Sirius comment. The guy who attacked me was deleted. I punched him out -- of the negative. With a punch.
One aspect of this that has changed a lot is the demise of the consumer picture magazine. My job was to be unobtrusive, invisible if possible, so that the images would reflect real life. We could set up some shots, but generally didn't unless the subject was static. Now the magazines are so plasticized, there is not a lot of need for that kind of photography any more.
I suppose it might have become a hobby for me by now. Maybe I ought to just accept it. But for some who work out there in the world, there can be dangers.
Which ones? The only one I've used a tripod in lately though is Belle Isle in James River Park. No problems. And Hollywood Cemetery (private) is asking for Fall foliage uploads on their Facebook fan page.
Originally Posted by Jeff Kubach
Here in Paris we have been hassled for shooting in city parks for years, so tripod-leg-obstruction or terrorism wasn't the original motive for the restriction: money was. The logic is: "If he's (or she's) got a tripod, he must be a professional. If he's a professional, he must be making money. If he's making money ... WE WANT OUR CUT!" Thus, a special permit is required --available at city hall-- to photograph in a park. Or a monument. Or, certain buildings. Or ... the Eiffel Tour
Originally Posted by Jeff Kubach
OK, the last item on the list is a joke. However, what is true is that the night-lighting on the Eiffel Tour is supposed to be patented or registered or something like that, so that —if you photograph it at night— you (technically) cannot sell the resulting image without permission and payment. I know this because I photographed the tower a millisecond or so after 11:59:59 on Decemeber 31, 1999, just as the very first fireworks of the year 2000 exploded behind the structure. The photo turned out well and I tried to sell it as a postcard, but the publisher evoked this problem and —though he liked the image very much—, told me that, due to the licensing payment, it'd be too expensive to publish. Subsequently, I met with the fireworks company itself and tried to sell the image to them. They weren't interested because they'd of course hired their own photographers for the New Year's event. However.., I learned that —while the image could not be sold as a post card— they could not prevent it from being sold as an art print. Whew.
Back to the question of photographers being terrorist suspects: The terror-worries about the Eiffel Tour are no secret, however I can't imagine the French government preventing the millions of tourist per year from photographing it... they'd be shooting themselves in the foot. At the same time, don't forget that Paris has already suffered a couple of terrorist attacks (bombs in crowded trains), so I'm not completely against certain (reasonable!) safety measures. This doesn't seem to be a simple issue to solve.
Its not quite as bad as people have made out over here, at least not where I live (but I haven't had any trouble down in London either). I've had one run in with the police, but this was largely my fault as I was walking through the open car park of the police station and took a shot without thinking where I was. Policeman was ok, just asked me not to do it again...
The people I've had most trouble with are memebers of the public and private security firms. I was in the train station in Retford once and got stopped by some security guard and told that I'd have to delete my picture (the look on his face as he tried to find the screen on the back of my IIIf was priceless!). He then said he was going to confiscate my camera, I told him he had no legal right and he backed down.
Both those ocasions, I was technically on private property anyway, so I guess there a little off topic. All I get in the street are occasional comments about my cool old camera, and the odd person giving me a funny look for taking there photo.
Currently shooting: KMZ Horizont and Minox B
I have never been stopped from taking a picture, but I have read many posts of people that have. The funny thing about a lot of these is that while many are taken with a camera on a tripod, thousands are taken with cell phone cameras. So if you were a terrorist, would you set up a large format camera in the middle of a park, or use a cell phone or a Minox to take pictures? Also, people don't seem to realize that you can take a picture with a 500mm lense a thousand feet away from an object and get a picture as good if not better than the guy with a point and shoot who is standing next to it. As for the guy that shot the Alamo, that is no doubt a federal historic site and just as you might not be able to sell photos taken in a national park, you might be prohibited from taking pictures there. However, again what difference does it make if you were taking photos there instead of standing 100 feet away and taking them with a telephoto? Part of this is just stupidity on the part of people that know little about cameras. Some also suffer from Camera-phobia. Ric.
Sponsored Ad. (Subscribers to APUG have the option to remove this ad.)
Which remind me....
The company I work for has stopped us taking pictures with SLR type camera. We have been told, we can't even take pictures of the back yard portion of the business facing AWAY from building. One of us was required to get permission from security then from corporate for a permission to take photo outside - at the parking lot. Company name cannot be shown and door cannot be open. Few days later, I saw a bunch of people taking photos of our lobby area, with company name in the frame AND security guard was posing with them. These people were using regular point-and-shoot digital.
Obviously, there isn't much logic in this. If I want to violate the security of the company, I'd be covert and won't be pulling out SLR to make my presence and intentions known.
I think, there is a general phobia of SLR type cameras. I'm really tempted to show up with Large Format camera and set that up right in the lobby and see what happens... (not really but it could be fun - last day at work)
Last edited by tkamiya; 12-11-2009 at 09:26 PM. Click to view previous post history.
From the horse's mouth - Just to cover your backside, could also inform (not ask) the station manager of your intent. But then you probably know about Network Rail's rules on the subject.
Originally Posted by Blacknoise
If you ask, the answer will be 'NO', because that's the safe answer!
Originally Posted by paul_c5x4
I took a picture in Liverpool Station with a 4x5 on a tripod. By the time security became aware of me, I was done.
Britian must be populated with many pedophiles, perverts, and terrorists...judging by all the legislation against all the photographers with their phallus on the front of their dSLRs ;-)
"What's that you have?"
Originally Posted by tkamiya
"Oh, its a surveying instrument"