|
Forums >
Photography Talk >
Supreme court response to photographing police...
Nov 27 12 09:22 pm Link moving pictures wrote: I think the ruling is actually about recording audio or audio with video. The statute had nothing to do with still photography. That having been said, I think there may be some applicability. Nov 27 12 09:35 pm Link Yes it is more about recording with audio... but there is a theme through this all that is important. That is the determination of police to arrest people for photographing/videoing their activities even though they know we have the legal right to do so... and overall growing restrictions of what we can or can't photograph. Want to know what it feels like to be body slammed against a building by security? Just step onto the sidewalk of the EPA building in Downtown Denver with a nice DSLR in your hand. You don't even have to point it at the building (no joke here, this really happened to me). Combine that with the rapid growth of street cameras in most cities that feed the images they are taking 24/7 into databases with image recognition software that cross reference the images captured with drivers licence photos and a whole new picture is starting to emerge here. Even though the citizens are now photographed far more often by the government than government officials are by private citizens, the complaints all seem to come from the government. Perhaps they have something to hide.... Nov 27 12 09:59 pm Link ei Total Productions wrote: You might be surprised. I get most of my news from non-main stream sources, and while most of the police brutality, harassment, threats, and false arrests are towards video, have seen the same heard/applied to Iphone and camera photography as well Nov 28 12 08:19 am Link I freelance for newspapers.. Any way to make a buck with my camera. Most of the time they leave me alone after a few questions. But often I encounter LEOs and security guards I categorize as "Barney Fifes" or worse yet "BULLIES WITH A BADGE". I carry four things with me at all times. My NPPA card, my ACLU membership card, a certified copy of the "Glikk vs City of Boston" decision verifying my right to record police in the performance of their duties. All of them go in a passport holder hung around my neck.. Where I stick my cell phone while It's recording. If they try and overstep their authority.. I show the video to their superiors or to the DA. You tell them that if they don't educate or restrain those yoyos that It's going on YouTube or to the local tv station. That's been a plan that's kept me from being arrested. (I also have my another recording device as well to keep them from destroying evidence. Nov 28 12 08:58 am Link James Morgan aka Maddog wrote: Around here, you can get credentialed by the police. They they won't bother you. Nov 28 12 09:13 am Link I agree. This was a case about eavesdropping statutes, not photography, but ... it does stand for the principle that the police have no expectation of privacy when on the job in public. Nov 28 12 09:26 am Link ArtisticPhotography wrote: Police credentials Are Not or Ever been Required. Cities and police depts have for decades have tried to Muzzle press photographers by saying they require them and often threaten to revoke those credentials if you take photos that are "unflattering, embarrassing, not in their best interest, showing them doing something they don't want to admit, or clearly illegal but true". The Glikk vs Boston decision states that concerned citizens have the same rights as credentialed press to photograph events of public and newsworthy interest on public property. Even going so far as to say cell phone footage from citizens have often been more newsworthy than those from film crews. My National Press Photographers Membership card should be enough.. News happens everywhere... Not just where you have credentials. Nov 28 12 09:43 am Link Gotta love the "HUFF & PUFF" Nov 28 12 09:53 am Link If you're old enough to Remember the Rodney King incident. While the five other officers were kicking in his teeth.. What was the sixth officer doing... He was watching for the silhouette of a news van (they all had a big satellite antennae on top back then) or a news helicopter. A simple citizen with an ancient (by today's standards) vhs recorder shook the blue line of silence to it's very foundation. Police and businesses use video more and more.. But those who are a disgrace to the badge will do anything to keep video being taken of them. Nov 28 12 10:23 am Link James Morgan aka Maddog wrote: Unless the ones who are NOT a disgrace step forward in favor of citizens filming police law enforcement officers, then they are admitting that they're just as bad. Dec 03 12 04:48 pm Link |
