Harrassed while using camera?

[threadhanger]

Anyone have any stories of being harrassed by the police or private citizens while using their camera? I haven't but after reading this site, http://nycphotorights.com/wordpress/, I'm concerned that it could happen eventually.

[dvdrip]

Anyone have any stories of being harrassed by the police or private citizens while using their camera? I haven't but after reading this site, http://nycphotorights.com/wordpress/, I'm concerned that it could happen eventually.

Wow.

If I was taking a pic, and suddenly someone accused me of being
a pedophile. All what I could do is say "How did you know??? Now
I'll have to KILL you!"
:hv20-smilie87:

[zephyrnoid]

Things have changed here in the USA. In pre 911 broohaha, if you were standing on public land, you could photograph anything you wanted, even if your lens reached well in to private property.
Post 911 broohaha it's all different. Mass transportation, infrastructure, hospitals, military installations etc etc. are poor photo subjects as they a will send up red flags. I avoid casually shooting anything like that without either a script in hand or prior written consent. I used to shoot transit stuff all the time for my work without incident- now I get hassled from time to time.

[Worley]

If someone calls you a paedophile, call the police. That is slander, and in these times of unfounded insecurity, it can have profound effects upon a person's liberty.

Might I suggest that if the buildings are so sensitive, that they be removed? we have a right to take photos of anything in a public place. If you don't want it photographed, don't put it on public display.

"Believe me, mate, if I were a paedophile, I wouldn't want to take photos of your ugly bitch of a daughter."

I notice that the police form for the British man who had his film confiscated states "Obtaining photographs..." I do not believe 'obtain' means the same as 'take' as far as photography is concerned. The police are clearly incapable of using stock phrases. He could have obtained pictures through deception, but he could not obtain photos through a camera. Could he?

[VideJo]

Read the articles with ever rising ashtonishment! America, the land of the free! I am planning to make another trip to the US next year, but is the situation on the Westcoast the same?
Another thing that cought my eye was the fact, that without permission you are not allowed to use a tripod . . . now why is that??? As a prosumer I want to use one . . .

[zephyrnoid]

Tripod! That caught my attention. I tried to use one to shoot a portrait of my daughter and I a month ago- albeit, it looked like I was a pro, even though all my gear was amateur. 5 minutes into the set up, we got tossed out at gunpoint. The irony? That establishment , a private estate, was a client of mine 20 years ago. No matter, I ended up reshooting it with less hassle and indeed- prior permission elsewhere. I'm glad I don't shoot pro anymore.

[VideJo]

Now let me try again . . . Why is that?? Does a tripod look like a gun to them?
I can understand that using a tripod in a museum could threaten income on sales of merchandise, but what when filming in a townhall?? Because they are afraid you are producing footage for terroristic purposes??

[zephyrnoid]

Well, not to alarm any of you- some of us are on watch lists- it's easy to tell how too. In this case it was a a semi reasonable issue. Unknown to me at the time that I set up this particular shoot, some dignitaries attending the 'Annapolis Conference' were convening quiet negotiations at the same estate I was shooting at. The big give away was the litter of SS persons all over the grounds. Pitty me for choosing a poor week. When my name came up on the radar, bingo, security was all over us. The "No Tripods" rubbish was a ruse in fact (there was no basis in any of their literature on the matter). My poor daughter hadn't a clue what was going on and in fact, threw a protest on the spot- that's what precipitated the forced ejection.
Where I live, the Washington DC area, two entities are persona non grata con 'Trepiede' : Terrorists casing geography and Wedding Photographers.
I guess I fit into the latter category + with my standing that's two strikes in one day.
Nothing a round of scotch didn't smooth out :hv20-smilie70:
BTW- I reported the creep that threatened the gun on us and he's since been fired:hv20-smilie77:


Now let me try again . . . Why is that?? Does a tripod look like a gun to them?
I can understand that using a tripod in a museum could threaten income on sales of merchandise, but what when filming in a townhall?? Because they are afraid you are producing footage for terroristic purposes??

[Bobonli]

LAst year I was ejected from a local fishing pier where I was taking pix with my Nikon D200 and 80-200 zoom. The park attendant told me "No commercial photography." She made the assumption I was commercial based on the appearance of my gear. Mind you I was photographing gulls....a big commercial shoot!!! I tried to discuss the matter with the attendant to no avail and left.

Realizing I'd had my rights trampled a bit, I went to the park office and spoke with the commissioner, who described the attendant as "Crazy" and apologized.

The general rule is that you're allowed to photograph in public unless restrictions are posted so long as you are not breaking other laws, such as trespassing or obstructing traffic for example. Stand up for your rights as much as you can but recognize that if you start arguing with the police the argument itself could be grounds for arrest.

[africanmarty]

"Believe me, mate, if I were a paedophile, I wouldn't want to take photos of your ugly bitch of a daughter"

ahahahahahahah you made my day !! :hv20-smilie79::hv20-smilie84::hv20-smilie87:

[DaFireMedic]

Read the articles with ever rising ashtonishment! America, the land of the free! I am planning to make another trip to the US next year, but is the situation on the Westcoast the same?
Another thing that cought my eye was the fact, that without permission you are not allowed to use a tripod . . . now why is that??? As a prosumer I want to use one . . .

Most of the incidents listed in this thread are indeed violations of individual rights, however in the original posters link, I found that many of the stories posted there would definitely have thrown up red flags for the police or anyone else in the US with terrorism awareness training.

There are chilling video clips of the 911 terrorists out videotaping targets in a tourist like manner prior to the attack. Items being found in the trunks of most terrorism suspects that turn out to be legit include bomb making materials, maps, blueprints, and small cameras/camcorders. The vast majority of the public is ignorant to this, and cannot understand why they draw the attention of the police when walking around the White House, Washington Monument, Lincoln Memorial, and other target hazards casually shooting video with a small camcorder.

Unfortunately, it is virtually impossible to tell the vacation tourist apart from the terrorist intent on killing as many innocent people as possible, so the people responsible for security have to set rules so that all visitors are treated equally. Security personnel at the Statue of Liberty cannot tell the elderly woman that she is allowed to take pictures, yet tell the young middle eastern man that he cannot shoot video. Right or wrong, that’s just not considered acceptable in our society, and we all have to work within these parameters. That’s just the post 911 world we now live in.

Regardless of these points, there is no excuse for police/security/employees to be threatening or detaining anyone simply for video/photography, unless there’s a real reason to do so (i.e. you are wearing a trench coat and have an electric switch in your hand). And there’s certainly no excuse to accuse someone of being a pedophile in the situation described. I would have considered a lawsuit over something like that. But you can very well expect to be told not to shoot video around buildings that are considered potential terrorist targets.

But regarding here on the West Coast, I have never had any problems. I just try to use common sense as to what kinds of things would draw the attention of police. I don't know what you are planning on filming, but I doubt that you will have any problems at all.

[threadhanger]

I'm usually more concerned that someone may mug me and take my camera. Having said that, what you look like, what gender you are, what race you, how clean shaven you are, how you dress, etc. ....all plays a part in whether you are on the verge of getting tazed. A clean cut guy with camcorder with wife and kids is acceptable. Single guy with camera raises flags. That's bullshit.

It'd be wise to carry a spare donut with you in case of police harassment.

[DaFireMedic]

I'm usually more concerned that someone may mug me and take my camera. Having said that, what you look like, what gender you are, what race you, how clean shaven you are, how you dress, etc. ....all plays a part in whether you are on the verge of getting tazed. A clean cut guy with camcorder with wife and kids is acceptable. Single guy with camera raises flags. That's bullshit.

It'd be wise to carry a spare donut with you in case of police harassment.


You forgot to include how one behaves, because I guarantee that suspicious behavior will top everything on this list. Most cops will do nothing more than ask a few questions to determine your intentions, so long as you don't do any bonehead things to set him off. I see people all the time repeatedly ignoring police warnings to get their hands away from their pockets, and end up getting taken down to the ground and cuffed, regardless of race, appearance, etc. They may eventually get released, but would have saved themselves a lot of trouble and pain by avoiding putting the police into a tense situation in the first place.

Also, I guarantee that a donut will not help you if you scare a cop. Its better to obey what he says and answer a few questions about what you are doing that in the vast majority of cases he has every right to ask. Asking questions is part of their job, threatening and harassing is not (I was on the receiving end numerous times as a teenager), and when the line is crossed action needs to be taken. But we need to recognize the difference.

[Worley]

I guess we'd better not try to board a plane wearing shoes...

[VideJo]

I am very pleased with the latest explanations. In Europe we have been watching US movies from childhood times and we learned from that, that it is wise to always take on a low profile, when addressed by a policeman. And the Highway Patrol footage from tv made us understand, that you should move very slowly, when a policeman asks for your driver licence. And never quickly grasp for something in the glove compartment!
I am planning to make a trip along the Northernmost end of Highway 1 and there will be not so many critical buildings there, mainly trees. But I understand, that I should be careful in Seattle, with the airplane factory there . . . Furthermore I can say, that the presence of my wife may be of great help. She looks so trustworthy . . .

[threadhanger]

Actually I've worked along side police officers and have had various interactions with them. So I know the basic "do's and don'ts".

It's good to say "Yes sir" or "Yes ma'am". Don't raise your voice. Don't have anything threatening in your hand. Don't make sudden moves. Scratch your head and look puzzled when they ask you something like "do you know how fast you were going?". Don't be a smartass.

Most of all be non-chalant and have a sense of humor.

There's still no guarantee that you won't be harassed. All the leverage is on their side....unless you videotape it. And then they could possible confiscate it and make it "malfunction".

It'd be nice to be able to send a satellite feed with our camera to our computers at home for evidence. Maybe someday that will be possible.

[bluegrass]

Read the articles with ever rising ashtonishment! America, the land of the free! I am planning to make another trip to the US next year, but is the situation on the Westcoast the same?
Another thing that cought my eye was the fact, that without permission you are not allowed to use a tripod . . . now why is that??? As a prosumer I want to use one . . .

I can relate to the tripod incident. I was attending the "Tall Stacks" festival in Cincinnati last year and when I was going through the gate, they told me I couldn't bring a tripod into the festival. I said I have a website on the Internet & I want to put some of the video I shoot here on my site. They told me I could go to a media trailer and if I could show them I had a website, they would give me a pass to allow my tripod. I showed them one of my selfmade business cards I had with me for the website and they issued me a pass like I was a reporter. Go figure.

[DaFireMedic]

I guess we'd better not try to board a plane wearing shoes...


Lol, this brings up another point. There is a difference between using good common sense and being paranoid. One should not completely change their lifestyle for fear of being harassed while exercising individual freedoms. In the western world, we enjoy freedoms that others in the world only dream about (and often risk their own lives to obtain). But one should also know that our freedoms are not unlimited nor absolute. Obviously wearing shoes on an airplane is not going to raise anyones suspicions, but sitting on the plane and reaching down with a lighted match to a fuse coming out of the shoe is likely to cause a plane full of frightened passengers to dogpile on you (ala Richard Reid)




There's still no guarantee that you won't be harassed. All the leverage is on their side....unless you videotape it. And then they could possible confiscate it and make it "malfunction".


Absolutely correct, and usually the videotapes that make any difference are only found after the incident. The leverage is indeed on their side, and always will be by nature of the job. Hopefully training and good hiring practices will render such incidents extremely rare. I have worked alongside police for 16+ years now, and I can honestly say that I have not once seen our cops get out of line, even when confronted with beligerent, threatening individuals. Oh, they've used force, but only when immediately threatened, and only enough to subdue the individual. Other times I've seen them exercise tremendous patience in situations that I have to think that I might not have shown the same patience. And believe me, I would report it if I saw one use harassment or force that went beyond the protection of themselves or the public.




I am planning to make a trip along the Northernmost end of Highway 1 and there will be not so many critical buildings there, mainly trees. But I understand, that I should be careful in Seattle, with the airplane factory there . . . Furthermore I can say, that the presence of my wife may be of great help. She looks so trustworthy . . .

You should not have any problems, even if you do decide that you wanted to video the Boeing plant from the outside (inside would likely be another matter). The most that you are likely to encounter would be someone telling you that you cannot shoot video there, but even that is extremely unlikely (especially with your wife there).

Enjoy yourself, I just took a drive up Highway 1 from Southern California back in May and shot video of everything from the Redwoods all the way up to Mt. St. Helens in Washington. You will be hard pressed to find more beautiful scenery, and no one will tell you that you can't shoot video.

I envy you......

[funkg]

on the west coast, be a good boy in orange county. The last thing you want to do is be detained at the local jail. The deputies are known for sending the plunger up the ass for shits and giggles.

http://www.homelandstupidity.us/2005/10/12/orange-county-calif-sheriffs-deputies-continue-assaults-battery/