FW: Columnist writes about Federal guards stopping photographer

[Leonard Evens]

I would be tempted to state my rights and ask which law I was violating. As they arrested me, I would threaten them with a suit for false arrest. And of course I would be very sorry afterwards because of all the trouble I was put through. I guess in these matters discretion is the better part of valor, but it would be nice if someone actually stood up for his rights., just to remind the idiots that are running things that we are still supposed to have those rights.

The most annoying aspect of all this is that there is no evidence whatsoever that preventing people from taking pictures of federal buildings from a public location is at all helpful in preventing terrorism. A terrorist casing such a facility could either use a small hidden camera or just observe and remember. Presumably the important things for the terrorist to find out would be traffic flow and how the building was used over time, not architectural details which are in plain sight. It makes as much sense to arrest people for looking at a building as for photographing it.

[Chad Jarvis]

But what ARE your rights? The 1st Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America makes no guarantee regarding your right to photograph anything. It guarantees your right to publish a photo, not to take it.

[tim_3863]

yes, it is a sad state of affairs these days. to add fuel to the fire, the real terrorists are indeed in the big white house. I have been stopped and questioned for photographing TREES near a state resevoir and told that if I was caught photographing "any structure" that they would confiscate not only my film, but all of my equipment!!!! I would have thought that that would be illegal, but we never know anymore, do we? Meanwhile, if I was plotting to destroy the resevoir, I would just drive by, stick a point and shoot out the window and snap, snap, snap instead of calling attention to myself. Not to mention the fact that you can sit there and sketch out diagrams and attack plans and it would be perfectly legal. figure that one out. I was looking at View Camera Magazine and admiring the photos of the dams project (sorry, I forget the photographer) but ended up just getting sad thinking that the tradition of shooting dams, bridges, and other structures is now DEAD in america. Are we really free here? I alwas thought the point was to protect those very freedoms, not take them away from you. Stay in your studios, shoot flowers and develop it yourself. the rest is off limits.

[jnantz]

bob:

the funny thing is they were taking your film from you, but there was a person working at the shipyard who was photographing his family infront of the building he works - and the security didn't both to look twice

i have seen that before at a sub-base where it is impossible to use a camera without a badge & the proper documentation, where film isn't allowed to leave the base without being processed proofed, reviewed &C.

then as you leave the base with your head spinning from all the hoops you had to jump through, wondering if you will hear back from the reviewers in the next few days --- there is a guy photographing his kids on a sub-turret in plain view of the restricted area & the " stuff' " you were told not to have in your field of view.

not a courthouse ... but ...

[tim atherton]

"That I guess is the point. There are obvious ways to photograph things and there are suspicious ways. today I would try to be as obvious as possible and gather permission prior to shooting it."

Agreed, however there is a fine line between notifying a location that you will be taking photogrpahs and seeking permission to do so. We need to be careful of seeking permission where none is required. One case was an editorial/dopcumenatry photographer photogorpahing a chemical plant from a public location who was approached first by the security guards and then by the sherrifs dept that were then called by the guards. In each case they told him he couldn't photogorpah (not that he was blocking the hihgway or any catchall thing like that) - basically citing Homeland Security as the reason. They also tried to seize his film.

Now, because the chemical plant was controversial, accussed of causing pollution etc., chances are if this photogorpaher had called and asked for permssion to photograph (permission he didn't need) they would have just said no.

So it may be prudent to notify people you will be photogorpahing, but not neccesarily so to ask their permission.

[chris jordan]

Well so much for the f**king land of the free!! It's amazing, I have been photographing in Seattle's industrial area (the Port of Seattle) for several months, and I have been stopped and questioned by police every single time I have photographed down there. Most recently, I was on a public road shooting over a fence with my tall tripod, and they pulled over and in very macho tones of voices demanded my drivers license, searched my car and told me that I "wasn't authorized" to be doing what I was doing, and before I took any pictures I had to go "obtain clearance" from the Port Authority. Taking a photo from a public freaking road!!! So I went to the Port and talked to the guy who runs the place, and he kind of sheepishly said that's not quite what the law is, and it's fine to photograph from public right of ways. Having done a lot of travelling abroad, I must say that I've never felt less free anywhere than I do in my own "free" country right now.

Seems like our country has the mentality of those types of guys who turn their suburban houses into compounds with barbed wire and attack dogs and humvees parked in the driveway. They become prisoners in their own homes. So whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty?" Seems like we're suspected terrorists until we can demonstrate otherwise. Amazing.

~cj

[James Venis]

I think the phrase we're looking for is "prior restraint."

I just checked...ACLU membership is only $20.

See: www.aclu.org

[tim atherton]

Bert's little "Photographers Rights sheet" is a useful thing to have:

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

as is his bigger book

http://www.krages.com/lhp.htm

[kallitype]

If you voted for Bush/Cheney, you have no right to complain. They talk about preserving freedom--in reality, they hate freedom. Sorry to respond to politics into a photo forum, but your second amendment rights are history...

"Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the peacemakers for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country."--- Hermann Goering

[chris jordan]

That's another incredibly stupid thing about all the times we LF photog's get stopped and questioned. If we were terrorists, or theives, or bad dudes or whatever, would we be lugging around a big-ass camera, huge tripod, and a whole bag of old-fashioned film holders, getting under a dark cloth and taking twenty minutes for a single photograph? Well freakin' DUH!!! How stupid are these people? Any terrorist worth his salt would rent a chopper and fly by with a Nikon bulk-loader on motor-drive, or shoot from the back of a motorcycle at 40 mph. Fifteen seconds, 400 photographs, and they're gone.

And by the way, because of a recent run-in with a turd-stupid security guard who threatened to take my film (for photographing a pile of garbage from a public street-- "possible homeland security issue here" she said on her radio) I bring two extra rolls of 35mm with me. If someone says "gotta give me your film," then I'll hand over the 35mm rolls and say "dang, I hate this, but I understand your reasoning, so here is my film." Then it's off to the darkroom to process my new round of 8x10's for 50" wide prints.

I'm going to expose the two rolls of 35mm film, too, in case they want to go so far as processing it to find out what I shot. Can you guess? 36 exposures of the full moon, my narrah white booty, up close with the 24mm at f/22. HA!!!

~cj