Admin
Model Mayhem Edu
Posts: 1327
Los Angeles, California, US
Interesting conversation with Mickey Osterreicher, general counsel for the National Press Photographers Association, on the very disturbing rise in the "number of incidents where photographers are being interfered with and arrested for doing nothing other than taking pictures or recording video in public places." http://lens.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/08/1 … otography/
Photographer
Frank Lewis Photography
Posts: 14492
Winter Park, Florida, US
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII.
Photographer
SoCo n Lime
Posts: 3283
Glasgow, Scotland, United Kingdom
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. In an amazing number of ways, America is LESS conservative than it has ever been. Whether that is good, bad, or some combination isn't the point.
It seems that photographers and photography are frequently a focal point of restrictions.
Photographer
Art of the nude
Posts: 12067
Grand Rapids, Michigan, US
SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation. In general, if you do exactly what the police say, even when they are wrong, that might help in the short run, yes.
Photographer
J I M
Posts: 524
New York, New York, US
While I certainly believe in a photographer's rights (I was trained and worked as a photojournalist), I do wonder how often these days 'photographers' are hassled and arrested when they aren't 'real' photographers and just some assclown with a camera or cell phone taking a picture with no regard to decency - just looking to get a pic sold or uploaded to some 'gotcha website.'
Photographer
Olde Man River
Posts: 17
Cleveland, Ohio, US
It is easier & more respected to have a "C & C" than to have a camera in public. The Bill of Rights allows you to bear arms BUT not a camera!
Photographer
Shot By Adam
Posts: 8095
Las Vegas, Nevada, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative liberal, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. There, fixed that for you.
Photographer
Signature Studios LLC
Posts: 139
Minneapolis, Minnesota, US
We had a similar situation in St. Paul during the 2008 Republican convention. There were protests (mostly peaceful) and rather than arresting a few troublemakers, police cordoned off an entire area and arrested everybody, including journalists. Even the reporter & cameraman for the local NBC affiliate were arrested, despite huge NBC logos on their shirts and press credentials. Sure, they were later released without charges (as were most of those arrested), but they were prevented from doing their jobs.
If you saw the footage of the NBC reporter, he was simply filing a report and the cameraman was simply recording the reporter and the events taking place. They were standing off to the side, not in the middle of the protest. What the police did was a blatant violation of the First Amendment.
Photographer
MC Photo
Posts: 4144
New York, New York, US
The power of photography is its effectiveness at propaganda. We associate that word with politics and sinister agendas, but it's got a broader meaning.
What's changed in recent history has really nothing to do with photography or cameras it has to do with communication technology.
Before the internet, you could photograph something that other people might not want seen and there wasn't much risk of many people seeing it unless your were a journalist or knew how to get a photo in a large publication.
The difference now is that we can all broadcast the photos we make wordwide, and there's an amazing "telephone" chain through social media. So in the past, there were far fewer people who could do damage with a photo, now it's anyone with a camera.
Really, cops are foolish to go after people with DSLRs, it's the cellphone cameras that are the real risk since they can upload them.
If we hit the point where cameras stop using cards and shoot to a remote server, there won't be much point in arresting people anymore since the damage will be done.
In a world of social media and reputation/brand being the current value, a camera is a genuine weapon - think character assassination. Someday we may see signs posted saying no cameras allowed in the same way there are businesses that post signs prohibiting guns in various parts of this country.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. My father fought in that same war. I believe the US is MUCH more liberal than it was in the 1940s. I could give a long list of examples, but I dont think they are required, do you?
My first thought on reading the article had little to do with professional photography and more to do with the mindset of police officers regarding being photographed or filmed.
If you think you have the right to record a cop in the process of his duties, pull out your cell phone the next time you have a traffic stop and tell the officer you are just going to record this for your legal defense. Dont be surprised if that is met with a "less than cooperative" attitude from the officer.
One of the things Obama promised was a more transparent government.
I wish he had kept his word. It might have set a precedent for the rest of the government, including the police.
My opinion,
YMMV
Photographer
Herman Surkis
Posts: 10856
Victoria, British Columbia, Canada
Art of the nude wrote:
In general, if you do exactly what the police say, even when they are wrong, that might help in the short run, yes. Is that not a major part of a police state? Do exactly what the police want you to do, no matter what.
Democrats are not allowed to assemble in this park.
Blacks are not allowed to vote.
Hippies must remain invisible. Those wearing the proper uniform can go anywhere they want, and do anything they want.
Photographer
studio36uk
Posts: 22898
Tavai, Sigave, Wallis and Futuna
Art of the nude wrote:
In general, if you do exactly what the police say, even when they are wrong, that might help in the short run, yes. But it sets precedent and only encourages them to do it again... and again... and again to other photographers.
Studio36
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Taking your title at face value.. (and out of context) Some photography SHOULD be criminalized! 
Photographer
P O T T S
Posts: 5471
Lake City, Florida, US
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
Daeda1us wrote:
My father fought in that same war. I believe the US is MUCH more liberal than it was in the 1940s. I could give a long list of examples, but I dont think they are required, do you?
My first thought on reading the article had little to do with professional photography and more to do with the mindset of police officers regarding being photographed or filmed.
If you think you have the right to record a cop in the process of his duties, pull out your cell phone the next time you have a traffic stop and tell the officer you are just going to record this for your legal defense. Dont be surprised if that is met with a "less than cooperative" attitude from the officer.
One of the things Obama promised was a more transparent government.
I wish he had kept his word. It might have set a precedent for the rest of the government, including the police.
My opinion,
YMMV Are you suggesting that the individual policemen are making the call as to who gets arrested for shooting photos? Like they aren't given their marching orders from their superiors? And that those superiors aren't in contact with the mayors, and the city and county attorney's, and the city administrators, and the county commissioners, who are pulling the strings behind the scenes?
And that, mysteriously, all of these folks are liberals?
Here's what actually happens. A photographer shows up, and somebody calls in a complaint, and usually it's whomever owns the property, or whomever is running the event, and the officer is simply responding to the complaint as directed by his superiors, who are required to address the complaint.
In the case of a larger public event, they anticipate the problems and formulate a strategy to deal with it, but they do it after consulting their attorney's, and with the approval of the city administrators and county commissioners.
Freedom of the press is the freedom of communication and expression through vehicles including papers, TV, various electronic media, and published materials. In other words, the government can't restrict or control, or censor regarding politics or ideology.
It does not mean the press is free to divulge national security secrets, or the private lives of individuals, events on private property, etc. For instance, a Mall is private property, and security guards and policemen are within their purview to remove or arrest anyone who violates the rules on that property, and the same goes for casinos, or farms, USP & FedEx, and a myriad of other businesses.
In the case of the Occupy Wall St, they were within their mandate to remove people who were preventing other citizens from conducting business, by loitering in the way, and again, that was by way of a complaint by those affected businesses, not some political agenda.
Photographer
Rp-photo
Posts: 42711
Houston, Texas, US
Art of the nude wrote:
In an amazing number of ways, America is LESS conservative than it has ever been. Whether that is good, bad, or some combination isn't the point. Except for two important exceptions: Nudity and Marijuana.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Daeda1us wrote:
My father fought in that same war. I believe the US is MUCH more liberal than it was in the 1940s. I could give a long list of examples, but I dont think they are required, do you?
My first thought on reading the article had little to do with professional photography and more to do with the mindset of police officers regarding being photographed or filmed.
If you think you have the right to record a cop in the process of his duties, pull out your cell phone the next time you have a traffic stop and tell the officer you are just going to record this for your legal defense. Dont be surprised if that is met with a "less than cooperative" attitude from the officer.
One of the things Obama promised was a more transparent government.
I wish he had kept his word. It might have set a precedent for the rest of the government, including the police.
My opinion,
YMMV Smedley Whiplash wrote:
Are you suggesting that the individual policemen are making the call as to who gets arrested for shooting photos? Like they aren't given their marching orders from their superiors? And that those superiors aren't in contact with the mayors, and the city and county attorney's, and the city administrators, and the county commissioners, who are pulling the strings behind the scenes?
And that, mysteriously, all of these folks are liberals? Nope. I did not suggest that at all. I said the US is more Liberal than it was in the 1940s. I dont believe that point can be rationally contested. Do you?
Smedley Whiplash wrote:
Here's what actually happens. A photographer shows up, and somebody calls in a complaint, and usually it's whomever owns the property, or whomever is running the event, and the officer is simply responding to the complaint as directed by his superiors, who are required to address the complaint.
In the case of a larger public event, they anticipate the problems and formulate a strategy to deal with it, but they do it after consulting their attorney's, and with the approval of the city administrators and county commissioners. Sounds good, but doesnt address why I am not allowed in most jurisdictions to record the police during a traffic stop where they are stopping ME. I assume my lawyer could subpoena the tape of the interaction from the patrol car, but what if the officer "accidentally" turns it off?
If the officer is performing his duties within the letter of the Law, then he should have no issue with being recorded while doing so IN PUBLIC.
That of course assumes the officer is performing his duties in accordance with the Law.
Photographer
KMP
Posts: 4834
Houston, Texas, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative liberal, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. That whole liberal/conservative thing depends on what time in history you're thinking of and where you live in the US...
A conservative in say Boston..will be pretty much as disgusted with things as a liberal in Texas..
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
KevinMcGowanPhotography wrote:
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative liberal, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. That whole liberal/conservative thing depends on what time in history you're thinking of and where you live in the US...
A conservative in say Boston..will be pretty much as disgusted with things as a liberal in Texas.. +1
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1862
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative liberal insanely reactionary, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. Shot By Adam wrote:
There, fixed that for you. No additional charge for fixing your ill-conceived and badly executed "repair" above.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation. Art of the nude wrote:
In general, if you do exactly what the police say, even when they are wrong, that might help in the short run, yes. "Join the line on the left - it's for the delousing showers.."
Hmmmmm - no thanks.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
MN camera wrote:
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative liberal insanely reactionary, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. No additional charge for fixing your ill-conceived and badly executed "repair" above. "Insanely reactionary"? Hmmm.. will have to consider that "repair".
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Virtual Studio wrote:
SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation. "Join the line on the left - it's for the delousing showers.."
Hmmmmm - no thanks. There are way too many people today that would not understand that reference...
Photographer
Kelvin Hammond
Posts: 17397
Billings, Montana, US
Daeda1us wrote:
Nope. I did not suggest that at all. I said the US is more Liberal than it was in the 1940s. I dont believe that point can be rationally contested. Do you? Depends on how you define it. Socially, it's more liberal, but in terms of security and 'control', it's probably more conservative.
My guess is that in 1940 you probably could have taken pictures of the equivalent of a nuclear power plant, and today, there are many things that are off-limits: refineries, power plants, sometimes even government offices... I've been questioned at the US Marshall's office, who employ security people to check your ID and intentions.
Much of that is probably due to the Patriot Act, which gets interpreted as or as an excuse to shut photography down in the interest of security, and I believe that's the context that the police are operating on (that they can shut down anything they deem as a threat to security).
See USA PATRIOT Act, Title X, which is about the protection of critical infrastructures, but includes language that could be interpreted to mean anything construed as a threat, including the telemarketed scamming of charitable Americans.
The principal architect of the Patriot Act was Viet Dinh.
---
Viet D. Dinh (Vietnamese: Đinh Đồng Phụng Việt; born February 22, 1968) is a lawyer who served as the Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under the presidency of George W. Bush. Born in Saigon, South Vietnam, he was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Joe Biden had been drafting a forerunner to the Patriot Act called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which was preceded by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 drafted by G. Robert Blakey, an attorney and law professor, overseen by Sen. John Little McClellan (Dem. AR), who, though he was a democrat, was far more conservative then today's so-called conservatives.
In any case, the original intent of these laws and bills was about counter-terrorism and mafia type crime, but has been modified to include domestic surveillance and prevention of "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government".
There's nothing in the history of it that indicates a political leaning right or left, but rather a mandate to remove any and all threats to national security. (which I think the nation in general has informally adopted as applicable to their own security for any reason)
Photographer
Photographe
Posts: 2351
Bristol, England, United Kingdom
Police here just sent letters to 80 drivers who used their phones to film a crash. Meanwhile people are getting raped, stabbed, chopped up, beaten, sexually and domestically abused, a wave of drug-related robberies and violence, but the police want to talk to 80 drivers who filmed a crash.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Smedley Whiplash wrote:
Depends on how you define it. Socially, it's more liberal, but in terms of security and 'control', it's probably more conservative.
My guess is that in 1940 you probably could have taken pictures of the equivalent of a nuclear power plant, and today, there are many things that are off-limits: refineries, power plants, sometimes even government offices... I've been questioned at the US Marshall's office, who employ security people to check your ID and intentions.
Much of that is probably due to the Patriot Act, which gets interpreted as or as an excuse to shut photography down in the interest of security, and I believe that's the context that the police are operating on (that they can shut down anything they deem as a threat to security).
See USA PATRIOT Act, Title X, which is about the protection of critical infrastructures, but includes language that could be interpreted to mean anything construed as a threat, including the telemarketed scamming of charitable Americans.
The principal architect of the Patriot Act was Viet Dinh.
---
Viet D. Dinh (Vietnamese: Đinh Đồng Phụng Việt; born February 22, 1968) is a lawyer who served as the Assistant Attorney General of the United States from 2001 to 2003, under the presidency of George W. Bush. Born in Saigon, South Vietnam, he was the chief architect of the USA PATRIOT Act.
Joe Biden had been drafting a forerunner to the Patriot Act called the Omnibus Counterterrorism Act of 1995, which was preceded by the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 drafted by G. Robert Blakey, an attorney and law professor, overseen by Sen. John Little McClellan (Dem. AR), who, though he was a democrat, was far more conservative then today's so-called conservatives.
In any case, the original intent of these laws and bills was about counter-terrorism and mafia type crime, but has been modified to include domestic surveillance and prevention of "any other clear and present danger to the structure or existence of the Government".
There's nothing in the history of it that indicates a political leaning right or left, but rather a mandate to remove any and all threats to national security. (which I think the nation in general has informally adopted as applicable to their own security for any reason) Interesting. Thank you for the history lesson. (seriously! No sarcasm!)
Cant help but remember the often quoted, "A government big enough to give you everything you need, is a government big enough to take away everything that you have...."
I love my country. But there are times (Patriot Act included) when I fear my government.
Photographer
Joe Wilson Illustration
Posts: 25
New Haven, Connecticut, US
SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation. Well, the LAW doesn't require them to be diplomatic. It does require the guys in uniforms to uphold the law though.
I'm all for cooperating with law enforcement, but the day we have to ask them nicely for our rights, is the day we have lost.
Photographer
ForeverFotos
Posts: 6662
Indianapolis, Indiana, US
Daeda1us wrote:
"Join the line on the left - it's for the delousing showers.."
Hmmmmm - no thanks.
There are way too many people today that would not understand that reference...
That in itself is a very dangerous trend.....
"Those who cannot remember history are doomed to repeat it."
Just be sure to vote VERY CAREFULLY in November
Photographer
I M N Photography
Posts: 2350
Boston, Massachusetts, US
SoCo n Lime wrote:
maybe they're being arrested because they start to argue with the guys in the uniform rather than being diplomatic about the situation. Police: Sir, please put the camera away. You are not allowed to take photos of me doing my job out in public.
Photographer: Sorry, but you're wrong.
Police: Sir, I am not going to ask you again.
Photographer: [ignores officer and gets arrested]
I guess the photographer deserved that for not "obeying the law" (aka not doing what he was told).
I agree with the police state fears. It only takes enough people to ignore such situations, for them to be eventually accepted. Papers please!
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
Joe Wilson Illustration wrote:
Well, the LAW doesn't require them to be diplomatic. It does require the guys in uniforms to uphold the law though.
I'm all for cooperating with law enforcement, but the day we have to ask them nicely for our rights, is the day we have lost. I'm really really confused now.
The self same people telling you that you need to kow-tow to the police are the ones who shout loudest about the Second Amendment and the Right to Bear Arms - precisely to stop you from being subject to the tyranny of petty uniformed officials.
Sorry - really there is a disconnect there somewhere.
Photographer
Virtual Studio
Posts: 6725
Toronto, Ontario, Canada
MnPhoto wrote:
Police: Sir, please put the camera away. You are not allowed to take photos of me doing my job out in public.
Photographer: Sorry, but you're wrong.
Police: Sir, I am not going to ask you again.
Photographer: [ignores officer and gets arrested]
I guess the photographer deserved that for not "obeying the law" (aka not doing what he was told).
I agree with the police state fears. It only takes enough people to ignore situations such as the one described, for those situations to be seen as acceptable. See my post above - he should draw his .44 magnum and waste the mofo!
Photographer
Model Mentor Studio
Posts: 1359
Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada
I used to think that it was a problem relegated to the States, but I saw a recorded video from my home town of a uniformed officer telling someone that cameras were considered weapons. The guy said no they are not and kept filming.
A few weeks later the police beat and arrested another photographer and destroyed his camera. They released him the next morning and he took himself to the hospital were he was found to have a broken orbital bone and other facial fractures.
The offending officer has been placed under 'investigative suspension' but I am not holding my breath,
Photographer
Uncommon Allure
Posts: 399
Kansas City, Missouri, US
Frank Lewis Photography wrote:
Great topic.
Unfortunately, as America becomes more conservative, our nation is becoming the police state my father fought so bravely to defeat during WWII. I should point out that Nazi was short for National Socialist party, technically a left wing group advocating strong governmental control of the economy including health care.
Photographer
Model Mentor Studio
Posts: 1359
Saint Catharines-Niagara, Ontario, Canada
Uncommon Allure wrote:
I should point out that Nazi was short for National Socialist party, technically a left wing group advocating strong governmental control of the economy including health care. They were a Nationalist Fascist party that evolved from the far right Volkisch and Freicorps movements...not left at all.
Photographer
Black Swan
Posts: 1080
Prescott, Arizona, US
Photographer
MN camera
Posts: 1862
Saint Paul, Minnesota, US
Uncommon Allure wrote:
I should point out that Nazi was short for National Socialist party, technically a left wing group advocating strong governmental control of the economy including health care. Rick OBanion wrote:
They were a Nationalist Fascist party that evolved from the far right Volkisch and Freicorps movements...not left at all. The reactionary right wing continually seeks to misrepresent fascism that way. It's one of their many ongoing lies.
Photographer
Daeda1us
Posts: 1067
Little Rock, Arkansas, US
Rick OBanion wrote:
Here is our local police saying cameras are weapons...right around the 2:19 mark
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XPWlx2X8esc So sad.
Guess someone should remind them that rocks are weapons too. So are cars. And bricks. and the list goes on.
Very sad, but I am having a small smile imagining the RCMP trying to confiscate all the rocks in Canada!
|
