What laws do you break to get the shots you want?

[AFSmithphoto]

An exception would be child endangerment. Many states have laws requiring knowledge of such to be reported (and morally I agree - that's not something I'd ever let slide.)

Good point Roger. There are probably a few other exceptions as well, and I can say that that's definitely I agree with from a moral standpoint.

[Vaughn]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

There are always a few photos like that passing thru the university darkroom every semester -- this is Humboldt County.

[Marko]

I keep hearing references to the Patriot Act. Can anyone clarify what the Act did that changed our rights to photograph?

I'm interested in this subject because of an event that happened to a friend of mine. He was photographing some petroleum storage tanks in 2002. The security guard detained him and his girl friend for over three hours. After lots of questions, a visit from the local police and what sounded like a background check, they were released and warned never to go around there again. He was told by the security guard that the Patriot Act gave him the right to detain him. My friend has despised the Act since then. The thing is, he never read it to see what gave the security guard the right to detain him. I have read through it and, while I can't say that I have a good understanding, I believe the security guard was bluffing.

I hate seeing a photographer denied his rights and mistreated but I hate even more the abuse of authority. As large format photographers, we attract attention and really ought to pay attention to this issue. Not because of political disagreement but because there may be a legitimate concern to watch out for. If a security guard has that kind of power then we need to be aware of it. In my friend's case, I believe he should've followed through with a law suit for false imprisonment.

The Patriot Act has narrowed down significantly the concept of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms under the guise of "fighting terrorism".

It provided a giant loophole for the authorities (various government agencies) to circumvent the very checks and balances that were placed on them in the first place.

It created a general climate of un-accountability for those agencies and the climate of fear for their "subjects".

It also created a climate of suspicion in which photography seems to figure prominently on the list of "suspicious behaviors".

If you search the web, you will find numerous examples of photographers being hassled, arrested or even prosecuted for a simple act of taking pictures in public. I remember clearly a case when two sherif's deputies hassled a LA-based photographers' rights activist for taking photos in the subway system (public place, unrestricted by any law on the books) and then threatened to "enter him into the terrorists database" simply because he insisted on his rights. He video-recorded the entire exchange and posted it on YouTube - that created quite a stir, but how many people would go to that length?

If you stop and think about both the details and the general climate that results from that unfortunate law, you should be able to clearly see the negative impact on photography in particular and our civil rights in general and in principle. Your friend's case is one of the more benign examples.

In general, any law enacted as a reaction to a particular crime - i.e. instance of breaking already existing laws - is typically both ineffective and unnecessarily restrictive. It is both a knee-jerk reaction designed to make a narrow slice of the population comfortable at the expense of everybody else and, worse, a way to promote certain political agendas that otherwise wouldn't pass a ballot. It is especially sinister when it singles out certain unpopular class of people (terrorists, pedophiles, photographers... ) as an excuse for its own existence.

[paulr]

There are always a few photos like that passing thru the university darkroom every semester -- this is Humboldt County.

Well, there are pictures like that have comprised major exhibitions and books (Nan Goldin, etc. etc...). I don't think anyone's tried to make the photographer complicit.

[Steve Smith]

Well, there are pictures like that have comprised major exhibitions and books (Nan Goldin, etc. etc...). I don't think anyone's tried to make the photographer complicit.

Not possible without real evidence.


Steve.

[jp]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

If you're doing it for the media, I'd make sure you have a good understanding of how exactly your sources will be kept confidential. The subjects would probably want that to avoid a potential investigation resulting from the media coverage.

If you're doing it for fun or stock use, I'd personally try to keep places/people less identifiable. You probably don't want to get subpoenaed if the subject gets investigated and is easily identified in your photos. Certainly not an issue shooting photos of the items, probably not an issue showing a normal pot consumer, but it would be an issue if they have some business (farming or dealing) or public/legal notoriety. Lawyers take longer and cost more compared to an ass-kicker who wants to get his point across.

[Jehu]

I remember something about a young, single mother who posted a picture of her toddler with a bong. She paid for that one.

http://www.palmbeachpost.com/news/mo...by-861714.html

[E. von Hoegh]

I plead guilty – I’m a scoff-law when it comes to LF photography.

Every year, I break laws to get shots. Many of them are pre-meditated. These “illegal” shots are only a small part of my portfolio, but they’re among the very best I’ve taken. And telling the story is always a lot of fun.

My worst crime – it must be common around here – is trespassing, mainly on closed public lands, but sometimes on private lands too. I’ve never been caught, but I feel it’s only a matter of time. Some day, I’ll get my come-uppance.

— What laws have you broken, and why? When is it justifiable?

— Does the “sense of risk” improve – or interfere – w/ your photography?

— Do good results help alleviate any subsequent remorse?

None.

No.

No.

No.

[Steve M Hostetter]

I'm kind of wondering about doing pictures of illegal activity, like pot-smoking, a picture of joints or a bong, or maybe a pot farm...? Besides the common sense aspect of not wanting to get your ass kicked for photographing something that incriminates someone, do you think there is any responsibility on the photographer's part?

Frank, you could always photograph legal use of the drug by using legal smokers that have been prescribed the drug..

There is a magazine called " hightimes" not sure but I think that's how they get around it..

[Jim Galli]

I've been told I break all the laws of composition