John Coyle wrote:
On this topic, I had an interesting experience a week or so ago. Every Saturday, a market is held in a pedestrian mall about ten minutes from where I live, and Jan and I often go there for a browse and a coffee. The market is very popular, and has expanded to fill a couple of narrow alleys alongside the mall.
At the end of one alley, I turned around and saw what I thought would make an interesting contre-jour shot, looking back down towards the main market, so I switched on my *ist-D and framed the shot. As I did so, the nearest seller to me, a young woman, jumped up and started yelling something at me, waving her arms and walking towards me. So I waited until she was out of shot, and took the picture. Next moment, she said "Don't take pictures, that's my personal stuff", implying that she had some sort of right not to have a photograph taken of the items she had for sale in a public market in a public place.
My response was that, in Australia, there is no restriction on photography in a public place, that the photograph was for my own use, and that, in any case, neither she nor her goods were 'in frame'. She clearly did not understand that I had not in fact photographed either her or her goods, and continued to harass me, threatening at one stage to 'call security'. In the end I told her that I was not going to continue the discussion. She still hung around: then she asked me, in a fairly aggressive way, why I was still waiting in the spot from where I had taken the shot. I told her that I did not have to explain myself to her, but that I would tell her that I was waiting for my wife (which was quite true).
It will be a sad day when one cannot go about one's business without being questioned by paranoid people, or by security guards or police, when doing something as innocent as following a hobby such as photography.
Incidentally, recalling one PDML-er's experience being questioned when photographing the Brooklyn Bridge, has there ever been an incidence of an artist being questioned while creating a painting of a public building? If not, next time it happens to a photographer, we should sue under anti-discrimination laws!
John Coyle Brisbane, Australia ----- Original Message ----- From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Sunday, September 26, 2004 10:14 AM Subject: Re: No more photography in Europe?
Hi,
> I suspect the media may feel bitter because they have had their
wings
> clipped, but really, don't you think people should have the right
to
> freedom from harassment?
I do indeed, but I don't agree that this is the way to do it.
And what would be the way to do it?
they could make (or enforce) a law against harassment, instead of a law against photography.
-- Cheers, Bob
--
I can understand why mankind hasn't given up war. During a war you get to drive tanks through the sides of buildings and shoot foreigners - two things that are usually frowned on during peacetime.
--P.J. O'Rourke
