Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Similarities with the old USSR.
Dum Spiro Spero ^

Posted on 07/21/2010 6:50:12 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker

Advice regarding the war against photography:

So what should you do if you’re taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop?

(Excerpt) Read more at dillonhillas.com ...


TOPICS: Arts/Photography; History; Society
KEYWORDS: camera; communism; photography; ussr

1 posted on 07/21/2010 6:50:15 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

I’m seldom taking photos where those things are likely to happen but I wouldn’t be happy about it.


2 posted on 07/21/2010 6:54:05 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

Tell them you are from the New York Times. :)


3 posted on 07/21/2010 6:54:28 PM PDT by La Lydia
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

>>So what should you do if you’re taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop?

You better stop because the cop will beat you or even kill you and the propoganda media will portray you as either a terrorist (for taking photos of things) or a pedophile (for taking photos of people). Freedom is what people had last century. Now you have (the illusion of) SECURITY.


4 posted on 07/21/2010 6:55:00 PM PDT by Bryanw92 (Obama is like a rocket scientist....who's trying to do brain surgery with a hammer.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

... security guard or police officer ...

Big difference ya know.

A security guard can’t violate your 1st ammendment rights as well as a cop can.


5 posted on 07/21/2010 7:02:36 PM PDT by Responsibility2nd (PALIN/MCCAIN IN 2012 - barf alert? sarc tag? -- can't decide)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

See http://www.legalandrew.com/2007/10/11/photo-law-your-right-to-take-pictures-in-public/


6 posted on 07/21/2010 7:04:01 PM PDT by ThunderSleeps (obama out now! I'll keep my money, my guns, and my freedom - you can keep the change.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

I find this whole episode weird. On the one hand, terrorism issues trump. On the other hand, it is creepy to have the authorities in the US try to suppress regular citizens.


7 posted on 07/21/2010 7:04:08 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker
The linked blog quotes a piece by Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) published in Popular Mechanics:

http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/how-to/computer-security/taking-photos-in-public-places-is-not-a-crime?click=main_sr

From that piece:

Police and prosecutors in Maryland have been taking a particularly hard line. In one case, motorcycle rider Anthony Graber left his helmet cam on while he was pulled over by a state trooper. A grand jury indicted him on several violations of the state's wiretapping laws. If convicted on all charges, Graber could face up to 16 years in prison. In alleging that the GoPro video camera on Graber's helmet constituted a "surreptitious" wiretapping device, prosecutors are making the claim that a person recording his own arrest is violating the police officer's right to privacy.

Sounds just like Maryland.

8 posted on 07/21/2010 7:05:56 PM PDT by TChad
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Many cell phones can take still photos, video clips and can even record sound. If you are careful no one should know that you are taking a picture.


9 posted on 07/21/2010 7:08:09 PM PDT by ExtremeUnction
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker
Similarities with the old USSR [?]

None. Don't diminish it.

10 posted on 07/21/2010 7:08:35 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

I think the first thing I would do is ask permission and save myself the trouble of starting things off on the wrong foot. It doesn’t make it right but there’s no rational point in making the situation worse.

The problem as I see it is the fact that our nation isn’t secure at the perimeter so we try to make up for it in the interior.

I’ve worked in factories that didn’t allow cameras and would fire anyone caught with one.


11 posted on 07/21/2010 7:10:31 PM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd
Nor anymore, you take a photo of a refinery in a public area, your information will be turned over to private security.

Watch: Police Video Shows ProPublica Photographer Detained in Texas

12 posted on 07/21/2010 7:10:39 PM PDT by Palter (Kilroy was here.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: Palter; All

Interesting how taking pictures of a refinery, or proprietary secrets in a factory are being compared to taking pictures of police.


13 posted on 07/21/2010 7:22:54 PM PDT by driftdiver (I could eat it raw, but why do that when I have a fire.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Well, I wish I agreed with your re that there are no similarities here (if I understand you correctly). There’s something peculiarly sinister with the government not wanting regular citizens photographing occurrences affecting the average citizen. As to photographing water dams, nuclear facilities, etc., I can accept that public safety overcomes personal desires to snap photos.


14 posted on 07/21/2010 7:25:12 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 10 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

I agree with the “sinister” part, but we are not at the stage where owning a camera is a crime against the state.


15 posted on 07/21/2010 7:29:27 PM PDT by 1rudeboy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 14 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

A way around such problems is non-impersonation deception.

For example, say “I need to take pictures for the insurance company”, or act like they were sent there to work for you, and doing something rather frivolous and dull, like ‘smelling around’ for natural gas fumes that they should report immediately if they smell them.

You can try puzzling them. “Glad you’re here. My assistant should be by anytime with the money. Now we won’t have to worry about those robbers.”


16 posted on 07/21/2010 7:29:51 PM PDT by yefragetuwrabrumuy
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

True. But, don’t you think this is a slippery slope?


17 posted on 07/21/2010 7:33:54 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: Responsibility2nd

True, but a security guard can still violate your constitutional rights if his or her actions can be construed as actions of the state. For example, in NYC certain private security guards can be commissioned - for lack of a better term - as so-called public safety officers, which effectively gives them some very minor police powers to exercise when they are in the course of performing their duties for their private employer. I do not know if the matter has ever been litigated, but I would most definitely take the position that, by the very fact of the commission, that security guard’s actions were prospectively adopted by the City as its actions, and that therefore there would be the requisite “state action” sufficient to create a violation of one’s constitutional rights.


18 posted on 07/21/2010 7:35:36 PM PDT by Oceander (The Price of Freedom is Eternal Vigilance -- Thos. Jefferson)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: 1rudeboy

Owning a camera wasn’t a crime against the state in the Soviet Union. I used to have a colleague—who since moved to another university—who is the only person anyone has ever heard of who successfully collected on a Soviet consumer warranty—a warranty on a camera. He actually traveled something like six hours out of Moscow to confront the manager of the plant that made the camera, and, for his trouble, got a new one to replace the defective.


19 posted on 07/21/2010 8:45:57 PM PDT by The_Reader_David (And when they behead your own people in the wars which are to come, then you will know. . .)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 15 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek

Getting permission - in writing - is required if you ever hope to sell the photos. And you should have it for private use as well.

Buildings/property are now protected by copyright law - for sale or not.

http://www.copyright.gov/help/faq/faq-protect.html

Dumb law? I dunno - I do know its the law.


20 posted on 07/21/2010 8:51:13 PM PDT by ASOC (Alpha India Alpha Three Tango Alpha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: The_Reader_David

Wow. Talk about determination!!! And you’re right. Owning a camera in the USSR was not a crime. But taking photos of “prohibited” areas, as determined by the state, was.


21 posted on 07/21/2010 8:54:52 PM PDT by Argentine-Firecracker
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 19 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker
So what should you do if you’re taking photos and a security guard or police officer approaches you and tells you to stop?

If I'm on private property I do as the security guard asks. If I'm in a public area taking photos of people I know or the exteriors of buildings, etc. I tell him to mind his own business.

If a police officer tells me to stop, I comply no matter what - not because he's right, but because a malicious police officer can make a law-abiding citizen's life pure hell. The letter to the police department and public officials pointing out that police have no right to make such demands comes later.
22 posted on 07/21/2010 9:07:49 PM PDT by AnotherUnixGeek
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Argentine-Firecracker

If approached throw your camera to the ground, stomp on it and say to the nice security person, “this damn piece of crap never did work!”


23 posted on 07/21/2010 10:23:13 PM PDT by pankot
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: ASOC
Getting permission - in writing - is required if you ever hope to sell the photos. And you should have it for private use as well.

Buildings/property are now protected by copyright law - for sale or not.


That's exactly why I stick to scenic and floral photography.
24 posted on 07/22/2010 3:56:26 AM PDT by cripplecreek (Remember the River Raisin! (look it up))
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 20 | View Replies]

To: cripplecreek
Oddly, I have never had any problems - I carry a standard release form in my camera bag (a stack actually) and all that is required is a signature.

Private home owners are a crap shoot. I do my best to hide the address if film, blur the address if digital.

Most folks are happy that thier business will wind up in a Nationally published magazine.
I make a point shooting several frames with the business sign as an obvious part of the photo. Rarely does the editor choose to use those, but I cannot help that.

If I am going to be back in the area I will drop a copy of the magazine to the outfit. Sometimes the publisher will send a copy or two for me.

Other times, businesses will send you good quality photos/images/slides with a release for use in an article. Commercial photography can be pretty cool at times - I once got a personal tour of Hoover Dam into areas the public is normally not allowed for a photo shoot - another, the AKRR let me shoot thier maintenance areas, normally off limits. I love 'big machines' so it was both fun and profit. You might see if there are opporunities in your area.

25 posted on 07/22/2010 9:43:11 AM PDT by ASOC (Alpha India Alpha Three Tango Alpha)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 24 | View Replies]

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
Bloggers & Personal
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson