What would you have done if you were shooting film? Really though, that borders on unnecessary search and seizure.
This PDF (http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf) is very helpful to those of us in the US in terms of our rights. On Sun, 26 Sep 2004 11:08:37 -0400, Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I was shooting various street photos in Birmingham, Michigan a couple > of months ago. I shot a few people sitting on benches, some potted > flowers and other typical things. At one point I pointed my camera at > some Asian children who were playing near a statue of a dog as their > parents looked on. The frame didn't look good, so I never pressed the > shutter. Ten minutes later, a police squad car pulled up. The officer > go out and made me stand behind the car while he reviewed all the shots > that were on my card. It was a very frightening experience. Eventually, > he gave the camera back and said they had received a complaint that I > was shooting children. I have not aimed my camera at a child since then > and will probably never do so again. > Paul > > > On Sep 26, 2004, at 4:58 AM, Cotty wrote: > > > On 26/9/04, John Coyle, discombobulated, unleashed: > > > >> 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. > > > > Interesting. > > > > In a similar French market in the summer, my wife wanted to take shots > > of > > some colourful jewelry arranged on a stall, but was politely informed > > that 'it violated copyright'. After a short and good-natured discussion > > with the seller, I found out that certain individuals had in the past > > photographed such items and subsequently produced copies of said > > jewelry > > for sale elsewhere. The seller's reticence was genuine, and I agreed > > that > > we would not photograph the display. > > > > After that, whenever I found myself in a French market, I went into > > Cotty's Cloaked Photography mode - clandestine operations you see - > > and > > got some lovely pics of stall holders and their wares. Pity it has to > > be > > done that way, but discretion *can* lead to a less stressful life. > > > > I am very careful about photography out in the open. > > > > There are police snatch squads patrolling popular tourist venues like > > Trafalgar Square in London, on the lookout for - literally - dirty old > > men with cameras. They watch for men who photograph children, monitor > > their activities, and move in and arrest where necessary (to them). The > > photographer's camera is confiscated, he is detained at a police > > station > > and his home is visited and darkroom and/or computer gear gone through > > looking for evidence of paedophile activity. If no evidence is found, a > > warning is given and the photog released. > > > > A specific case of this was documented in AP the other week. > > > > The guy was retired, shooting film, and one of the subsequent published > > pics shows a child removing or replacing another child's nappy by a > > fountain (no genitalia visible). Personally that's getting a bit too > > close to the boundary - I'm not surprised he was nicked. Apparently a > > concerned member of the public tipped off police, and the snatch squad > > moved in while he was on his bus returning home. In fact he was later > > released without charge when the rest if the film was processed and > > found > > to contain genuine street shots etc. No indecent images were found when > > police barged past the photog's alarmed wife and went through his > > darkroom. > > > > If I go out photographing in Trafalgar Square (and I don't) I dress > > like > > the camera nut on the golf course we all saw recently, festooned with > > gear and basically looking like a photo geek. If a police officer is > > present, I go up and introduce myself and explain what I am doing and > > what I am up to. I'm not keen on this but it's less stressful. It's the > > quiet ones that look like HCB that the police take a shine to..... > > > > These are sad times when ownership of the photographic image seemingly > > lurches towards the subject and away from the photographer, but I can > > see > > both sides. I especially can see why the police are taking the steps > > that > > they are - apparently of the arrests these snatch squads make, further > > investigations reveal that a hefty percentage are found to have > > indecent > > images of children in their possession. These are locked up while the > > innocent street snappers are spat back out and told to avoid > > photographing children if they want to stay out of trouble. > > > > Personally I'm for the easy life and try and avoid situations likely to > > escalate tension. John Coyle was within his rights, but how to explain > > rational points to an irrational person? Retreat to fight another day > > ;-) > > > > > > > > > > Cheers, > > Cotty > > > > > > ___/\__ > > || (O) | People, Places, Pastiche > > ||=====| www.macads.co.uk/snaps > > _____________________________ > > > > > >
