Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[eckinator]

2009/12/20 William Robb :
>
> It sounds like quite often, the authorities themselves have no idea what the
> laws are, and so decide on the spot what they think the laws should be and
> then try to enforce their fantasies.

since they consider themselves above the law, it appears to them a
perfectly sensible thing to do...

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Christine Aguila"

Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall





Moreover, there's a difference between arguing what "the laws *should be*" 
and what "existing laws *are*."


It sounds like quite often, the authorities themselves have no idea what the 
laws are, and so decide on the spot what they think the laws should be and 
then try to enforce their fantasies.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Christine Aguila]

- Original Message - 
From: "John Sessoms" 

To: 
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 11:30 AM
Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall



From: "Christine  Aguila"
In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals' Approach" 
6th edition, Kobre provides on page 393 a chart titled, "Where and When a 
Photojournalist Can Shoot"


[...]

I see that Mr. Kobre is a devotee of the "If we don't exercise our rights, 
they can't take them away from us" school of photojournalism.




Nice handiwork, John.  That's a sweepingly silly and uninformed response. 
Well done you!



P.S.  I'm not getting embroiled in a defense of Kobre's credibility or 
expertise on the subject.  If you think his views are cod's-wallop, fine. 
Frankly, I don't.  Moreover, there's a difference between arguing what "the 
laws *should be*" and what "existing laws *are*."



And I'd like to suggest another book by George Chernoff & Hershel Sarbin 
entitled Photography and the Law.  There are a few others that look 
interesting, but I don't have the titles handy.


Consider me done for this thread. 




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: "Christine  Aguila"
In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals' Approach"  6th 
edition, Kobre provides on page 393 a chart titled, "Where and When a 
Photojournalist Can Shoot"


[...]

I see that Mr. Kobre is a devotee of the "If we don't exercise our 
rights, they can't take them away from us" school of photojournalism.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Christine Aguila]

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" 

To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'" 
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 4:26 AM
Subject: RE: Photographer arrested at mall



In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals'
Approach"  6th edition, [...]


I have an earlier edition of that book - it's superb. Recommended reading
for all photographers.



Agreed:  500 pages of smart & comprehensive knowledge with numerous 
outstanding photographs and photo essays throughout--& I mean numerous! 
Best money I've spent on a photography book.  Cheers, Christine 




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Photographer arrested at mall

[Bob W]

> In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals' 
> Approach"  6th edition, [...]

I have an earlier edition of that book - it's superb. Recommended reading
for all photographers.

> 
> "Do whatever a police officer orders you to do, even if it seems 
> unreasonable or ridiculous or interfers with your job, unless 
> you're willing 
> to live with the consequences of being arrested."
> 
> "Do not call the arresting officer names or get into a shoving match."

Some people sure know how to spoil all the fun...

Bob


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Christine Aguila]

That is:2 of the 9 tips are

a boo-boo because I originally typed *1 of the 9 tips is*  and when I made 
the change to 2, I didn't make my subject and verb agree.




- Original Message - 
From: "Christine Aguila" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Sunday, December 20, 2009 2:20 AM
Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall


In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals' Approach" 
6th edition, Kobre provides on page 393 a chart titled, "Where and When a 
Photojournalist Can Shoot"


Listed in the category "Private But Open to the Public":

Shopping Mall and Store in Mall:  a photojournalist can shoot "only with 
permission"

Movie Theater Lobby: a photojournalist can shoot "If no one objects"
Business Office Hotel Lobby:  a photojournalist can shoot "If no one 
objects"

Restaurant:  a photojournalist can shoot "If no one objects"
Casino:  a photojournalist can shoot "only with permission"
Museum:  a photojournalist can shoot "with restrictions"


Photographing Children:

According to Kobre there are no legal restrictions that prohibit 
photographing children in public places.


You need the school principal's permission to photograph kids at school. 
Interestingly, legally, the principal does not need to get parent 
permission for kids to be photographed at school, though school principals 
often say they do, but according to Kobre, "the courts do not require 
parental permission to take pictures of children in schools."


Kobre does caution about suspicious parents etc when photographing kids. 
His advice is always to be courteous and forthright in explaining who you 
are and what you are trying to do.



On page 401, Kobre gives "Tips for Avoiding Jail" offered by Lucy A. 
Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the 
Press, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting journalists' First 
Amendment rights:


2 of the 9 tips is as follows:

"Do whatever a police officer orders you to do, even if it seems 
unreasonable or ridiculous or interfers with your job, unless you're 
willing to live with the consequences of being arrested."


"Do not call the arresting officer names or get into a shoving match."

Just an FYI.
Cheers, Christine







--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Christine Aguila]

In Kenneth Kobre's book "Photojournalism:  The Professionals' Approach"  6th 
edition, Kobre provides on page 393 a chart titled, "Where and When a 
Photojournalist Can Shoot"


Listed in the category "Private But Open to the Public":

Shopping Mall and Store in Mall:  a photojournalist can shoot "only with 
permission"

Movie Theater Lobby: a photojournalist can shoot "If no one objects"
Business Office Hotel Lobby:  a photojournalist can shoot "If no one 
objects"

Restaurant:  a photojournalist can shoot "If no one objects"
Casino:  a photojournalist can shoot "only with permission"
Museum:  a photojournalist can shoot "with restrictions"


Photographing Children:

According to Kobre there are no legal restrictions that prohibit 
photographing children in public places.


You need the school principal's permission to photograph kids at school. 
Interestingly, legally, the principal does not need to get parent permission 
for kids to be photographed at school, though school principals often say 
they do, but according to Kobre, "the courts do not require parental 
permission to take pictures of children in schools."


Kobre does caution about suspicious parents etc when photographing kids. 
His advice is always to be courteous and forthright in explaining who you 
are and what you are trying to do.



On page 401, Kobre gives "Tips for Avoiding Jail" offered by Lucy A. 
Dalglish, executive director of the Reporters Committee for Freedom of the 
Press, a nonprofit organization dedicated to protecting journalists' First 
Amendment rights:


2 of the 9 tips is as follows:

"Do whatever a police officer orders you to do, even if it seems 
unreasonable or ridiculous or interfers with your job, unless you're willing 
to live with the consequences of being arrested."


"Do not call the arresting officer names or get into a shoving match."

Just an FYI.
Cheers, Christine





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: frank theriault
On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Stan Halpin 
 wrote:


On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote:


I'm sure the photographer WAS being an "arsehole", or
actually an asshole, since it happened in the US. In the
United States, being an asshole is a right protected by the
First Amendment.



Many would suggest that it is a right protected by the 2nd
amendment...


Good plan, Stan.  Get us started on guns!


My take on that is if we ever get to the point we NEED the Second 
Amendment to enforce the First, it's already too late. They'll already 
be gone.


And they'll have taken the Third, Fourth, Fifth and Sixth with them.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: John Graves
I have to add that most policeman are great people and doing things that 
at times are scary as hell. They are well trained and will give you the 
shirt off their backs if the circumstances call for it.  Mall cops are 
not policemen, although they could be wannabes.  The really scary thing 
is that they are licensed to carry a firearm.  They have little of the 
training, very little of the experience and at Holiday time are probably 
overworked as well.  That is not to excuse the paranoia that a lot of 
people have or the exaggerated sense of their rights.  Pushing back in 
either case is not going to win anything.  A coupla deep breaths and a 
calm explanation probably gets you more, regardless of who is doing the 
stopping.


My two and a half cents.


Based on my experience when we were in the airports after 9/11, most 
private security guards are either wannabe police, who can't meet the 
requirements


OR

... former police officers who for one reason or another can no longer 
be employed as sworn officers.


The latter scares me more.

Another unfortunate trend is a move toward "private police" forces in 
shopping malls or other commercial properties. That is, that mall cops 
who can't meet the requirements to become a REAL cop, are yet granted 
all the POWER of a real police, but are not answerable to the citizenry 
through any government.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 5:52 PM, Stan Halpin
 wrote:
>
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
>>
>> I'm sure the photographer WAS being an "arsehole", or actually an asshole, 
>> since it happened in the US. In the United States, being an asshole is a a 
>> right protected by the First Amendment.
>>
>
> Many would suggest that it is a right protected by the 2nd amendment...

Good plan, Stan.  Get us started on guns!

;-)

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Stan Halpin]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 9:41 PM, John Sessoms wrote:
> 
> I'm sure the photographer WAS being an "arsehole", or actually an asshole, 
> since it happened in the US. In the United States, being an asshole is a a 
> right protected by the First Amendment.
> 

Many would suggest that it is a right protected by the 2nd amendment...

stan
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Mark Roberts]

frank theriault wrote:

>On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:
>> The Weather channel last nite had a piece on Boone, N.C. - close to GFM -
>> stating it had gotten somethimg like a foot of snow & was expecting more.
>
>Hope Greywolf is all battened down...

My friends in NC tell me that part of the state was pretty much shut
down today: They just don't have the snow removal equipment necessary
for dealing with it. The storm's making its way up the coast and
expected to hit Boston around midnight.
 We had a pretty nice day today - not *quite* as cold and windy as it
has been for the past few days. I got in a 13 mile run this morning
and managed a 7:20/mile pace so I must be getting some of my fitness
back. I'm already training for GFM 2010. Beware!

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 4:13 PM, Ken Waller  wrote:
> The Weather channel last nite had a piece on Boone, N.C. - close to GFM -
> stating it had gotten somethimg like a foot of snow & was expecting more.

Hope Greywolf is all battened down...

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Ken Waller]

The Weather channel last nite had a piece on Boone, N.C. - close to GFM - 
stating it had gotten somethimg like a foot of snow & was expecting more.


Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob Sullivan" 

To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
Sent: Saturday, December 19, 2009 11:20 AM
Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall


Cool and light snow in Chicago, but the East Coast is getting hit with
a big storm.
Chicago's football team had a mechanical delay on their flight to
Baltimore yesterday.
The airport closed them out.  They are going to try again today for
Sunday's game.

Here's a shot from this morning's outing...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn09#5416979935099232594

Regards,  Bob S.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:37 AM, frank theriault
 wrote:

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Cotty  wrote:


Saturday morning, cold and bright outside, coffee sinking in, just a few
thoughts.


The weather is the same here. I'm going to take a walk with my
camera, have a coffee at my favorite cafe, do some Christmas shopping
and shoot some pictures.

;-)

cheers,
frank

--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and 
follow the directions. 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Cotty]

On 19/12/09, frank theriault, discombobulated, unleashed:

>The weather is the same here.  I'm going to take a walk with my
>camera, have a coffee at my favorite cafe, do some Christmas shopping
>and shoot some pictures.
>
>;-)

Hope you had a good morning out mate. We're due snow tonight so am
saying by the fire. Been burning DVDs and organising files on the Mac
all afternoon. My turn to cook tonight :-)

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Graves]

I have to add that most policeman are great people and doing things that 
at times are scary as hell. They are well trained and will give you the 
shirt off their backs if the circumstances call for it.  Mall cops are 
not policemen, although they could be wannabes.  The really scary thing 
is that they are licensed to carry a firearm.  They have little of the 
training, very little of the experience and at Holiday time are probably 
overworked as well.  That is not to excuse the paranoia that a lot of 
people have or the exaggerated sense of their rights.  Pushing back in 
either case is not going to win anything.  A coupla deep breaths and a 
calm explanation probably gets you more, regardless of who is doing the 
stopping.


My two and a half cents.

John Graves
WA1JG
jh.gra...@verizon.net

Bob Sullivan wrote:

Cool and light snow in Chicago, but the East Coast is getting hit with
a big storm.
Chicago's football team had a mechanical delay on their flight to
Baltimore yesterday.
The airport closed them out.  They are going to try again today for
Sunday's game.

Here's a shot from this morning's outing...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn09#5416979935099232594

Regards,  Bob S.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:37 AM, frank theriault
 wrote:

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Cotty  wrote:


Saturday morning, cold and bright outside, coffee sinking in, just a few
thoughts.

The weather is the same here.  I'm going to take a walk with my
camera, have a coffee at my favorite cafe, do some Christmas shopping
and shoot some pictures.

;-)

cheers,
frank

--
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Bob Sullivan]

Cool and light snow in Chicago, but the East Coast is getting hit with
a big storm.
Chicago's football team had a mechanical delay on their flight to
Baltimore yesterday.
The airport closed them out.  They are going to try again today for
Sunday's game.

Here's a shot from this morning's outing...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/Autumn09#5416979935099232594

Regards,  Bob S.

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 9:37 AM, frank theriault
 wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Cotty  wrote:
> 
>> Saturday morning, cold and bright outside, coffee sinking in, just a few
>> thoughts.
>
> The weather is the same here.  I'm going to take a walk with my
> camera, have a coffee at my favorite cafe, do some Christmas shopping
> and shoot some pictures.
>
> ;-)
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
> --
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
> the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Sat, Dec 19, 2009 at 6:16 AM, Cotty  wrote:

> Saturday morning, cold and bright outside, coffee sinking in, just a few
> thoughts.

The weather is the same here.  I'm going to take a walk with my
camera, have a coffee at my favorite cafe, do some Christmas shopping
and shoot some pictures.

;-)

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Cotty]

>In Oz unless otherwise sing posted all publicly accessible places are
>photo-zones

I think we're on the same hymn sheet.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Rob Studdert]

On 19/12/2009, Cotty  wrote:

> Single males carrying cameras with long lenses pointing at children will
> raise concerns anywhere, especially in malls. What you must remember is
> that shopping malls - although some say are 'public spaces' - are in
> fact privately owned and operated and guess what - the owners make the
> rules. If they say no photography of any kind, you're out of luck.
> Expect curt treatment from burly security guards and over-zealous
> policemen. Even if you are just snapping your kid on a carousel with a
> point-n-shoot. The world is a different place now.

In Oz unless otherwise sing posted all publicly accessible places are
photo-zones however if you are advised by officials that manage the
space that photography is not allowed (though not signposted) then
it's advisable to stop taking shots. Officials can not demand the
deletion of any shots that you made prior to the advisory either,
though many think it's their right.

-- 
Rob Studdert (Digital  Image Studio)
Tel: +61-418-166-870 UTC +10 Hours
Gmail, eBay, Skype, Twitter, Facebook, Picasa: distudio

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[eckinator]

Having just reread the entire thread, instead of reiterating opinion
(most absolutely anything I'd have to say has been said either in this
thread or another either by others or by myself) I want to leave it at
saying how sad I think it is that we've taken our society (yes it was
ourselves, we have noone else to blame) to a point where law,
perceived rights and paranoia have all but driven out common sense and
neighborly coexistence in urban / suburban spaces. Oh, and one for the
NSA: ammonium nitrate & allahu akbar ]=)

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Cotty]

On 19/12/09, Cotty, discombobulated, unleashed:

>What you must remember is
>that shopping malls - although some say are 'public spaces' - are in
>fact privately owned and operated and guess what - the owners make the
>rules. If they say no photography of any kind, you're out of luck.

I will just amend this by saying that in the UK this is the case. In the
USA and elsewhere, this might not be the case.

--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Cotty]

I think this whole thread shows that the world is a different place it
was just 10 or 15 years ago.

For my part, when I'm not working (and if I'm carrying a stills camera)
I would not go into a shopping mall with the intention of taking
photographs - unless (let's say) I was maybe doing project or something,
and then I would have contacted the mall owners beforehand and arranged
with them and their security.

You could argue that it's a public space and that surely anyone going in
there with a camera should be able to snap (say) their kid on a carousel
and so on. I would tend to lean towards that argument as well, but again
- the world is a different place now. Some people are nervous, and they
have their reasons.

Single males carrying cameras with long lenses pointing at children will
raise concerns anywhere, especially in malls. What you must remember is
that shopping malls - although some say are 'public spaces' - are in
fact privately owned and operated and guess what - the owners make the
rules. If they say no photography of any kind, you're out of luck.
Expect curt treatment from burly security guards and over-zealous
policemen. Even if you are just snapping your kid on a carousel with a
point-n-shoot. The world is a different place now.

Life is all about choices. I very rarely go into a shopping mall when
I'm not working, that's my choice because I don't like to be herded and
controlled - although oddly enough when I am working, I am herded and
controlled ad nauseum. Well, it's a living...

In a sense, we are responsible for creating this atmosphere of anxiety -
because we have voted into power people who have carried our mandate to
make our world a safer place to live in. That includes the usual
extremes like power-hungry policemen with no social skills. What's the
alternative? How about browsing the internet and stumbling across a
peadophile's homepage of little girl shots - and surprise surprise,
there's several shots of your daughter with her skirt blowing up on a
carousel. How would that make you feel? For any parent, sickening.

Of course there's a balance to be struck, but you'll always get extremes
to aid that balance: policemen who think they are Christ almighty and
photographers who think they have a right to photograph anything
anywhere anytime. Both are wrong.

Saturday morning, cold and bright outside, coffee sinking in, just a few
thoughts.



--


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)  | People, Places, Pastiche
--  http://www.cottysnaps.com
_



-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:10 PM, Doug Franklin
 wrote:
> On 2009-12-18 20:46, frank theriault wrote:
>
>> That being said a small majority [...]
>
>                          ^^^
>
> Typo or subversive/cynical commentary!? :-)  Did the NSA record your IP
> address on that one? :->

That was a typo.  I meant "a small minority".  Just to re-iterate,
most police officers that I've met and gotten to know (both
professionally and personally) are terrific people.  They take their
job very seriously, and they really do want to see that "justice is
done" (although their view of justice and mine may be somewhat
different at times).  Their jobs are difficult, dangerous and
thankless.

I'm grateful that they're out there doing what they do.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Doug Franklin]

On 2009-12-18 23:04, John Sessoms wrote:


[...] be prepared to fight dirty.


There's no such thing.  You can fight to win, or you can decide not to. 
 Those are the only choices. :-)


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Doug Franklin]

On 2009-12-18 20:46, frank theriault wrote:


That being said a small majority [...]

  ^^^

Typo or subversive/cynical commentary!? :-)  Did the NSA record your IP 
address on that one? :->


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Doug Franklin]

On 2009-12-18 20:10, Anthony Farr wrote:

I would have thought the cop had to actually be arresting you before
you were able to resist arrest.


Before they arrest you, it's "obstructing justice" or "interfering with 
a duly appointed official in the legal and legitimate pursuit of his 
lawful duties" or something like that.  Basically, if you're not the 
cop, you're f***ed.



But it comes back to the photographer who, I feel, taunted the cop
when discussing the situation.  Not smart.


Entirely possible, and not a good idea.  But the bottom line is that 
when you're dealing with an actual Law Enforcement Officer of the 
Government, the deck is stacked against you in the short term.  It may 
or may not be in the medium term, that's debatable.  But you're /going/ 
to spend the night in the clink if you piss him off enough.


--
Thanks,
DougF (KG4LMZ)

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: Graydon

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:33:14AM -0500, frank theriault scripsit:

> It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.


The degree of pedeophile paranoia is such that there have been a few
successful prosecutions of parents for having completely innocuous naked
or semi-naked pictures of their infant children.




I know there are a few horror stories to that effect, and I know a 
combination of self-righteous prosecutorial over-zealousness, stupid 
judges and gullible jurors resulted in some convictions.


Certainly, I've known people who were stupid enough.

But I don't know of any that wasn't subsequently overturned on appeal.

No consolation if your name has been dragged through the mud, your 
reputation sullied and your bank account emptied defending yourself.



So anyone taking pictures of children is automatically suspect.



The best defense is a good offense.

Demand the questioner PROVE he/she is NOT attempting to cover up 
unlawful conduct with the children. If the police become involved, 
demand they take the children into child welfare custody until the 
child's safety can be assured.


Hey! If they're not guilty, what have they got to hide?

Fight fire with fire, and be prepared to fight dirty.


Throw in an advertising-driven commercial culture -- advertising is all
about identifying/exacerbating/creating insecurity so you'll
be looking for the solution they want to sell you -- and the general
cultural level of insecurity trends worse.


I'm not immune to advertising, but I'm finding it increasingly less 
effective. I think that's mostly because I'm not quite as inundated by 
it since I don't have a TV.


Makes it easier to resist the rest of the flood.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: Anthony Farr





Right.

And ~then~ they charge you with resist arrest...

cheers, frank




I would have thought the cop had to actually be arresting you before
 you were able to resist arrest.  If he simply lays hands on you or 
even takes hold of you it's still not arrest if the cop hasn't 
pronounced it or read any rights.  Of course the cop could claim you
 assaulted him but if he physically accosted the "suspect" without 
formally making an arrest, then his legal ground would be shaky. OTOH

if it came to court, the cop's testimony would be the one respected
by a judge or jury.



You're making the common mistake of expecting justice instead of THE
LAW. They're not the same thing.

Am I the only one here who thinks this photographer was being a bit 
of an arsehole?  Being a professional, he must have known that 
shopping malls are a legal grey area regarding rights to photograph, 
being not public property but "privately owned public space".  The 
Santa's Palace or whatever it was called was a commercial operation 
whose operators would be wary of having their income potential eroded
 by parents/relatives/friends poaching a sly photo on the side.  The 
Dad's were arseholes because they took the photographer's apology, 
saw him delete every shot of their kids, and THEN went bleating to 
the mall cops.  Pricks!  The cop was an arsehole because he made up 
the law according to him, ignored the photographers rights and didn't

 follow a proper formal procedure of arrest.

But it comes back to the photographer who, I feel, taunted the cop 
when discussing the situation.  Not smart.


regards, Anthony


I'm sure the photographer WAS being an "arsehole", or actually an 
asshole, since it happened in the US. In the United States, being an 
asshole is a a right protected by the First Amendment.


There is no "legal grey area regarding the right to photograph", unless
YOU are willing to give up your First Amendment rights.

Maybe not your First Amendment rights, if you're not located in the U.S. 
you probably don't have the protection of the Constitution. But we are 
supposed to have them here in the U.S. and those rights are protected 
whether the location is owned by the government or not.


See U.S. Constitution, Article 6.

There is no "privately owned public space". It is either a public space
or it is not a public space. It cannot be halfway in between. Opening
the space to the public for commercial purposes opens it to all lawful
purposes protected under the Constitution. Including photography.


The law in the United States of America is pretty simple. You are 
allowed to photograph anything with the following exceptions:


• Certain military installations or operations.

• People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy. That is, 
people who are some place that's not easily visible to the general 
public, e.g., if you shoot through someone's window with a telephoto 
lens.




You can shoot pictures of children; your rights don't change because
of their age or where they are, as long as they're visible from a
place that's open to the public. (So no sneaking into schools or
climbing fences.)




And yes, you can shoot on private property if it's open to the
public. That includes malls, retails stores, Starbucks, banks, and
office-building lobbies. If you're asked to stop and refuse, you run
the risk of being charged with trespassing, but your pictures are
yours. No one can legally take your camera or your memory card
without a court order.

You can also shoot in subways and at airports. Check your local laws
about the subway, but in New York, Washington, and San Francisco it's
perfectly legal. Airport security is regulated by the Transportation
Security Administration, and it's quite clear: Photography is A-OK at
any commercial airport in the U.S. as long as you're in an area open
to the public.

Don't let anyone tell you otherwise.


If you're in the United States, there are two articles worth reading, so
you understand what you can and cannot do, and what a mall owner, shop
owner, mall cop or any other officious asshole (American spelling) can do.

http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

http://www.andrewkantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

The one SURE WAY for you to lose your rights is to fail to stand up for the.

Again, if you're not in the U.S., you may not have protected rights to 
lose. You're on your own.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Joseph McAllister]

Well said, G.


On Dec 18, 2009, at 18:23 , Graydon wrote:


On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:33:14AM -0500, frank theriault scripsit:

It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.


The degree of pedeophile paranoia is such that there have been a few
successful prosecutions of parents for having completely innocuous  
naked

or semi-naked pictures of their infant children.

So anyone taking pictures of children is automatically suspect.

Throw in an advertising-driven commercial culture -- advertising is  
all

about identifying/exacerbating/creating insecurity so you'll
be looking for the solution they want to sell you -- and the general
cultural level of insecurity trends worse.


Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com

“ The early bird gets the worm, but the second mouse gets the cheese.”
— Kevan Olesen


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Joseph McAllister]

Cops are people just like you and me. The difference is that we go  
through life pretty much living the rules of common sense, with a  
little bit of knowledge about the laws in our area of the world.


Cops are taught the laws they are expected to enforce, and all the  
tricks their teachers, buddies, and their bosses pass on to them along  
the way should they have to bend them. Their compatriots, and the  
judges, and the prosecutors, know the language of the court. And they  
will take advantage of the poor schmucks that in some way cross them  
at some point in the process of discussion and arrest.


This is why, on a program I was pointed to by others on this list  
recently, the final word to us poor schmucks is: "Do not say a word to  
anyone, ever, between "Excuse me sir" or "Hey you!"" and the chance  
you get to ask for a lawyer. Then nothing more until you are alone  
with your lawyer. Only tell your lawyer the truth, and only what  
relates to this particular situation. Write everything down when you  
get a chance. Everything. Do not give that to anyone except your  
lawyer. Ask that a copy be kept for you.



On Dec 18, 2009, at 17:46 , frank theriault wrote:

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Anthony Farr  
 wrote:




I would have thought the cop had to actually be arresting you before
you were able to resist arrest.  If he simply lays hands on you or
even takes hold of you it's still not arrest if the cop hasn't
pronounced it or read any rights.


You're arrested when the cop says, "you're under arrest".  He then
tells you what the charges are and only then has to inform the accused
what his rights are..


Of course the cop could claim you
assaulted him but if he physically accosted the "suspect" without
formally making an arrest, then his legal ground would be shaky.   
OTOH
if it came to court, the cop's testimony would be the one respected  
by

a judge or jury.


Exactly!  Cops, who as close to professional witnesses as there are,
know that they'll be believed in court, and know what they need to say
to a judge to make sure a charge sticks.  Now, before someone accuses
me of saying that police are all liars, that's not what I'm saying.
The vast majority of cops are great guys and ladies, doing a very
difficult, thankless job.  That being said a small majority are
assholes and will play the system to secure wrongful convictions.
Doesn't happen all that much, but it does happen.


Am I the only one here who thinks this photographer was being a bit  
of

an arsehole?  Being a professional, he must have known that shopping
malls are a legal grey area regarding rights to photograph, being not
public property but "privately owned public space".  The Santa's
Palace or whatever it was called was a commercial operation whose
operators would be wary of having their income potential eroded by
parents/relatives/friends poaching a sly photo on the side.  The  
Dad's

were arseholes because they took the photographer's apology, saw him
delete every shot of their kids, and THEN went bleating to the mall
cops.  Pricks!  The cop was an arsehole because he made up the law
according to him, ignored the photographers rights and didn't  
follow a

proper formal procedure of arrest.


I thought the photog was most reasonable, showing the mall cops and
the concerned dad his photos and deleting them in front of them.  The
cop had no reason to talk to him.  I don't blame the photographer for
being pissed of at that point.  Pointing the camera at the cop wasn't
the brightest thing to do, and maybe he was being something of an
arsehole at that point, but I kind of don't blame him.



But it comes back to the photographer who, I feel, taunted the cop
when discussing the situation.  Not smart.


Agreed








--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Graydon]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:33:14AM -0500, frank theriault scripsit:
> It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.

The degree of pedeophile paranoia is such that there have been a few
successful prosecutions of parents for having completely innocuous naked
or semi-naked pictures of their infant children.

So anyone taking pictures of children is automatically suspect.

Throw in an advertising-driven commercial culture -- advertising is all
about identifying/exacerbating/creating insecurity so you'll
be looking for the solution they want to sell you -- and the general
cultural level of insecurity trends worse.

-- Graydon

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:10 PM, Anthony Farr  wrote:


> I would have thought the cop had to actually be arresting you before
> you were able to resist arrest.  If he simply lays hands on you or
> even takes hold of you it's still not arrest if the cop hasn't
> pronounced it or read any rights.

You're arrested when the cop says, "you're under arrest".  He then
tells you what the charges are and only then has to inform the accused
what his rights are..

>Of course the cop could claim you
> assaulted him but if he physically accosted the "suspect" without
> formally making an arrest, then his legal ground would be shaky.  OTOH
> if it came to court, the cop's testimony would be the one respected by
> a judge or jury.

Exactly!  Cops, who as close to professional witnesses as there are,
know that they'll be believed in court, and know what they need to say
to a judge to make sure a charge sticks.  Now, before someone accuses
me of saying that police are all liars, that's not what I'm saying.
The vast majority of cops are great guys and ladies, doing a very
difficult, thankless job.  That being said a small majority are
assholes and will play the system to secure wrongful convictions.
Doesn't happen all that much, but it does happen.
>
> Am I the only one here who thinks this photographer was being a bit of
> an arsehole?  Being a professional, he must have known that shopping
> malls are a legal grey area regarding rights to photograph, being not
> public property but "privately owned public space".  The Santa's
> Palace or whatever it was called was a commercial operation whose
> operators would be wary of having their income potential eroded by
> parents/relatives/friends poaching a sly photo on the side.  The Dad's
> were arseholes because they took the photographer's apology, saw him
> delete every shot of their kids, and THEN went bleating to the mall
> cops.  Pricks!  The cop was an arsehole because he made up the law
> according to him, ignored the photographers rights and didn't follow a
> proper formal procedure of arrest.

 I thought the photog was most reasonable, showing the mall cops and
the concerned dad his photos and deleting them in front of them.  The
cop had no reason to talk to him.  I don't blame the photographer for
being pissed of at that point.  Pointing the camera at the cop wasn't
the brightest thing to do, and maybe he was being something of an
arsehole at that point, but I kind of don't blame him.

>
> But it comes back to the photographer who, I feel, taunted the cop
> when discussing the situation.  Not smart.

Agreed!

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Anthony Farr]

2009/12/19 frank theriault :

 
>
>
> Right.
>
> And ~then~ they charge you with resist arrest...
>
> cheers,
> frank
>
>

I would have thought the cop had to actually be arresting you before
you were able to resist arrest.  If he simply lays hands on you or
even takes hold of you it's still not arrest if the cop hasn't
pronounced it or read any rights.  Of course the cop could claim you
assaulted him but if he physically accosted the "suspect" without
formally making an arrest, then his legal ground would be shaky.  OTOH
if it came to court, the cop's testimony would be the one respected by
a judge or jury.

Am I the only one here who thinks this photographer was being a bit of
an arsehole?  Being a professional, he must have known that shopping
malls are a legal grey area regarding rights to photograph, being not
public property but "privately owned public space".  The Santa's
Palace or whatever it was called was a commercial operation whose
operators would be wary of having their income potential eroded by
parents/relatives/friends poaching a sly photo on the side.  The Dad's
were arseholes because they took the photographer's apology, saw him
delete every shot of their kids, and THEN went bleating to the mall
cops.  Pricks!  The cop was an arsehole because he made up the law
according to him, ignored the photographers rights and didn't follow a
proper formal procedure of arrest.

But it comes back to the photographer who, I feel, taunted the cop
when discussing the situation.  Not smart.

regards, Anthony

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 11:55 AM, John Sessoms  wrote:

> When they're just bullying and you refuse to be bullied, they charge you
> with "obstructing justice", "interfering with an officer" or "assaulting an
> officer", since they weren't actually "arresting" you.
>
> Until they did.


Right.

And ~then~ they charge you with resist arrest...

cheers,
frank



-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: David Mann

On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:17 AM, frank theriault wrote:


I don't blame you for leaving and not confronting the Mall Cop.
The downside of being arrested (even if no charges are laid) kind
of sucks.  And, as we've heard earlier in this thread (and in
other stories), even if the "real" police realize that taking pix
of kiddies is quite legal, if you argue with them, some police
are quick to lay the ubiquitous "obstruct justice", "assault
officer" or "resist arrest" charges.


How can you be charged with resisting arrest if they weren't already
arresting you for something else?


They tack on the "resisting" charge, if they have a "valid" violation to 
arrest your for. If the original charge gets thrown out or dropped by 
the DA, the "resisting" charge gets thrown out too. Although sometimes, 
not.


It's just one of the f*&^*% up parts of U.S. law that you can be guilty 
of resisting even if the arrest is unlawful. You have no constitutional 
right to resist unlawful acts by the police. It's the entire basis of 
National Security law in the U.S.


When they're just bullying and you refuse to be bullied, they charge you 
with "obstructing justice", "interfering with an officer" or "assaulting 
an officer", since they weren't actually "arresting" you.


Until they did.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Bob Sullivan]

Just remember Galloway, we know what your IP address is.

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 8:26 AM, Morris Galloway
 wrote:
> De Lurking for a moment.
>
> Perhaps a good way to stop this kind of petty-foggery  is a nice little
> Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit.  Requesting a nice little pile of that
> Greenback Ointment we all enjoy putting on our open wounds.
>
> There are, come to think of it, a group of mad-dog trial attorneys out there
> who enjoy this kind of thing.
>
> One group, to which I belong, has a OCDLA t-shirt that says
>
> Never Has So Much Been  Done For So Many By So Few For So Little.
>
> When this happens again, contact your local Bar Ass'n for some recs.  You'll
> find some of these moon-bats are as dedicated to their dream of actual Civil
> Rights protections as some Pentaxians are to a dream of capturing the
> perfect image with Pentax equipment.
>
> Galloway, Small Town Observer, Pentaxian since Honeywell
>
> Back to Cloaking Mode.
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Morris Galloway]

De Lurking for a moment.

Perhaps a good way to stop this kind of petty-foggery  is a nice little 
Federal Civil Rights Lawsuit.  Requesting a nice little pile of that 
Greenback Ointment we all enjoy putting on our open wounds.


There are, come to think of it, a group of mad-dog trial attorneys out 
there who enjoy this kind of thing.


One group, to which I belong, has a OCDLA t-shirt that says

Never Has So Much Been  Done For So Many By So Few For So Little.

When this happens again, contact your local Bar Ass'n for some recs.  
You'll find some of these moon-bats are as dedicated to their dream of 
actual Civil Rights protections as some Pentaxians are to a dream of 
capturing the perfect image with Pentax equipment.


Galloway, Small Town Observer, Pentaxian since Honeywell

Back to Cloaking Mode.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[P. J. Alling]

On 12/18/2009 2:01 AM, David Mann wrote:

On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:17 AM, frank theriault wrote:



I don't blame you for leaving and not confronting the Mall Cop.  The
downside of being arrested (even if no charges are laid) kind of
sucks.  And, as we've heard earlier in this thread (and in other
stories), even if the "real" police realize that taking pix of kiddies
is quite legal, if you argue with them, some police are quick to lay
the ubiquitous "obstruct justice", "assault officer" or "resist
arrest" charges.


How can you be charged with resisting arrest if they weren't already arresting 
you for something else?

Dave


If there were logic to it, then it wouldn't be the law.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Francis]

On Fri, Dec 18, 2009 at 08:01:48PM +1300, David Mann wrote:
> On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:17 AM, frank theriault wrote:
> 
> > I don't blame you for leaving and not confronting the Mall Cop.  The
> > downside of being arrested (even if no charges are laid) kind of
> > sucks.  And, as we've heard earlier in this thread (and in other
> > stories), even if the "real" police realize that taking pix of kiddies
> > is quite legal, if you argue with them, some police are quick to lay
> > the ubiquitous "obstruct justice", "assault officer" or "resist
> > arrest" charges.
> 
> How can you be charged with resisting arrest if they weren't already 
> arresting you for something else?

That would, I agree, be sensible.
But that's not how US law works.


-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[David Mann]

On Dec 18, 2009, at 2:17 AM, frank theriault wrote:

> I don't blame you for leaving and not confronting the Mall Cop.  The
> downside of being arrested (even if no charges are laid) kind of
> sucks.  And, as we've heard earlier in this thread (and in other
> stories), even if the "real" police realize that taking pix of kiddies
> is quite legal, if you argue with them, some police are quick to lay
> the ubiquitous "obstruct justice", "assault officer" or "resist
> arrest" charges.

How can you be charged with resisting arrest if they weren't already arresting 
you for something else?

Dave
-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Sandra Hermann]

I would gladly do all that but the incident was over a year ago.  I bet that 
mall cop isn't even there anymore.  Maybe I will go back and see if I can stir 
up any trouble again.  
Wanna Come?

 Help me support Autism research!  Join my 
team!  http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/blubiconsbuddies
 http://stampmine.blogspot.com/http://samsphotopage.blogspot.com/ 


--- On Thu, 12/17/09, John Sessoms  wrote:

> From: John Sessoms 
> Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Date: Thursday, December 17, 2009, 11:33 AM
> From: Sandra Hermann
> > The mall cop said because other children were on the
> Carousel it was
> > illegal. I didn't believe him, but didn't wanna take a
> chance either.
> 
> The mall cop is, as my grandmother was wont to say, "full
> of sawdust and slough water." I won't say what I think he's
> full of.
> 
> It's another of those power trips. "You can't do that
> because I said so."
> 
> Little, by little our freedoms are eroded. First they take
> away our right to photograph our own families in a public
> space ... then what?
> 
> Is there a local chapter of the ACLU? I'd suggest
> contacting them and asking if they'd be willing to write a
> letter of complaint to the mall's management.
> 
> Might not hurt to contact whatever local TV/Radio yellow
> journalists you can find in your area, and see if they'd be
> interested in asking the mall management "Why are your
> security guards threatening to arrest a mother for
> photographing her own child on the mall carousel?" I'm sure
> there's some station that has a "troubleshooter".
> 
> Good theater if they can set up an ON AIR interview in
> front of the carousel. Better theater if they interview YOU
> in front of the carousel and then ask the mall management to
> explain just what kind of idiots they are.
> 
> I realize this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and
> you'd probably rather just get on with your life, but you
> keep piling one molehills on top of one another and
> eventually you do have a mountain.
> 
> Besides, I'm a born troublemaker. It's my god given right
> to be an asshole for the First Amendment.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> -- PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> 

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:33 PM, John Sessoms  wrote:

 It's my god given right to be an asshole
> for the First Amendment.

MARK!!

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

-- 
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: Sandra Hermann

The mall cop said because other children were on the Carousel it was
illegal. I didn't believe him, but didn't wanna take a chance either.


The mall cop is, as my grandmother was wont to say, "full of sawdust and 
slough water." I won't say what I think he's full of.


It's another of those power trips. "You can't do that because I said so."

Little, by little our freedoms are eroded. First they take away our 
right to photograph our own families in a public space ... then what?


Is there a local chapter of the ACLU? I'd suggest contacting them and 
asking if they'd be willing to write a letter of complaint to the mall's 
management.


Might not hurt to contact whatever local TV/Radio yellow journalists you 
can find in your area, and see if they'd be interested in asking the 
mall management "Why are your security guards threatening to arrest a 
mother for photographing her own child on the mall carousel?" I'm sure 
there's some station that has a "troubleshooter".


Good theater if they can set up an ON AIR interview in front of the 
carousel. Better theater if they interview YOU in front of the carousel 
and then ask the mall management to explain just what kind of idiots 
they are.


I realize this is making a mountain out of a molehill, and you'd 
probably rather just get on with your life, but you keep piling one 
molehills on top of one another and eventually you do have a mountain.


Besides, I'm a born troublemaker. It's my god given right to be an 
asshole for the First Amendment.





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: frank theriault
On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Sandra Hermann 
 wrote:

I was taking picture of Sami on a Mall carousel around town and
the security guard told me I needed to get out of there they had
called the police. ?He gave me enough warning I could get away
Mom stayed with Sami while I walked away and the cops did show
up.


Why did the police show up?

What was being done wrong?

It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.

If the owners (through their agents, the mall cops) don't want you to
 take photos, they have the right to ask you to leave.  If you don't 
leave, you can be charged with trespass.


But you can't be charged with taking photographs.  As far as I know, 
that's not yet against the law.


And taking photos of your own kid at that. What the hell is this country 
coming to?


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:40 AM, Sandra Hermann
 wrote:
> The mall cop said because other children were on the Carousel it was illegal. 
> I didn't believe him, but didn't wanna take a chance either.
>  Help me support Autism research!  Join my 
> team!  http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/blubiconsbuddies
>  http://stampmine.blogspot.com/http://samsphotopage.blogspot.com/

I don't blame you for leaving and not confronting the Mall Cop.  The
downside of being arrested (even if no charges are laid) kind of
sucks.  And, as we've heard earlier in this thread (and in other
stories), even if the "real" police realize that taking pix of kiddies
is quite legal, if you argue with them, some police are quick to lay
the ubiquitous "obstruct justice", "assault officer" or "resist
arrest" charges.

Those are an officers best friend.

Still, taking photos of children is quite legal, even if those
children aren't yours.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Sandra Hermann]

The mall cop said because other children were on the Carousel it was illegal. I 
didn't believe him, but didn't wanna take a chance either. 
 Help me support Autism research!  Join my 
team!  http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/blubiconsbuddies
 http://stampmine.blogspot.com/http://samsphotopage.blogspot.com/ 


--- On Wed, 12/16/09, frank theriault  wrote:

> From: frank theriault 
> Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List" 
> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 11:33 PM
> On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM,
> Sandra Hermann
> 
> wrote:
> > I was taking picture of Sami on a Mall carousel around
> town and the security guard told me I needed to get out of
> there they had called the police.  He gave me enough
> warning I could get away Mom stayed with Sami while I walked
> away and the cops did show up.
> 
> Why did the police show up?
> 
> What was being done wrong?
> 
> It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.
> 
> If the owners (through their agents, the mall cops) don't
> want you to
> take photos, they have the right to ask you to leave. 
> If you don't
> leave, you can be charged with trespass.
> 
> But you can't be charged with taking photographs.  As
> far as I know,
> that's not yet against the law.
> 
> cheers,
> frank
> 
> -- 
> "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri
> Cartier-Bresson
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> 

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Boris Liberman]

On 12/16/2009 8:24 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote:


Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794


In Israel, in principle, it is not allowed to take pictures in the 
malls. Bigger ones will have their security kindly ask you not to take 
pictures. Smaller ones don't really care. But taking a pic of Santa and 
getting arrested for that is plain paranoid.


Boris

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Thu, Dec 17, 2009 at 12:05 AM, Sandra Hermann
 wrote:
> I was taking picture of Sami on a Mall carousel around town and the security 
> guard told me I needed to get out of there they had called the police.  He 
> gave me enough warning I could get away Mom stayed with Sami while I walked 
> away and the cops did show up.

Why did the police show up?

What was being done wrong?

It's not against the law to take photos in a mall.

If the owners (through their agents, the mall cops) don't want you to
take photos, they have the right to ask you to leave.  If you don't
leave, you can be charged with trespass.

But you can't be charged with taking photographs.  As far as I know,
that's not yet against the law.

cheers,
frank

-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Sandra Hermann]

I was taking picture of Sami on a Mall carousel around town and the security 
guard told me I needed to get out of there they had called the police.  He gave 
me enough warning I could get away Mom stayed with Sami while I walked away and 
the cops did show up. 
JG
 Help me support Autism research!  Join my 
team!  http://www.walknowforautism.org/stlouis/blubiconsbuddies
 http://stampmine.blogspot.com/http://samsphotopage.blogspot.com/ 


--- On Wed, 12/16/09, John Sessoms  wrote:

> From: John Sessoms 
> Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Date: Wednesday, December 16, 2009, 10:37 PM
> From: Keith Whaley
> > Drew wrote:
> >> > Igor Roshchin wrote:
> >>> >> Ouch...
> >>> >>
> >>> >> http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794
> > 
> > 
> >> > Hmm...  I was stopped with a colleague
> by a Mall Cop in a mall in Austin > TX, we had set out
> with cameras to wander round downtown but decided to > go
> to a mall to find a watch repair shop to get a battery for
> my > colleagues watch.  She asked us why two guys
> were wandering round a  > mall carrying DSLR with
> 'big' lenses. We explained the situation and she > just
> asked us to make sure we did not take pictures in the mall
> and then > told us where we could get a good view across
> the city.  Actually she > was a very nice lady...
> >> > > Andy.
> > 
> > I simply cannot uderstand why folks get freaked out by
> cameras of ANY kind!
> > I grew up with cameras around, and having them shoved
> in my face by relatives...
> > What the H... are they so paranoid about?
> > Where's the law that says you can never take photos of
> 'this or that'? Or, him or her?
> 
> It's mostly a power trip. "I'm a cop, and you have to do
> what I tell you." If you refuse to obey you're resisting
> arrest.
> 
> Anything that is not compulsory is forbidden.
> 
> Partly it's because the courts adopted a policy that it's
> ok for cops to break the law as long as they have good
> intentions. Then that policy gets expanded to private cops.
> 
> Then to private armies.
> 
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
> directly above and follow the directions.
> 

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Francis]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 11:37:36PM -0500, John Sessoms wrote:
>
> It's mostly a power trip. "I'm a cop, and you have to do what I tell  
> you." If you refuse to obey you're resisting arrest.

Yep.  And that's what you can get charged with, even if you had done
nothing to warrant being arrested in the first place.

Just ask the San Jose police force - they use this to clear the
downtown streets of undesirables late on Friday and Saturday nights.
Something around half of those charged (around two to three times as
many as in other comparably-sized cities) have "resisting arrest" as
the only thing on the charge sheet.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: Keith Whaley

Drew wrote:

> Igor Roshchin wrote:

>> Ouch...
>>
>> http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794



> Hmm...  I was stopped with a colleague by a Mall Cop in a mall in Austin 
> TX, we had set out with cameras to wander round downtown but decided to 
> go to a mall to find a watch repair shop to get a battery for my 
> colleagues watch.  She asked us why two guys were wandering round a  
> mall carrying DSLR with 'big' lenses. We explained the situation and she 
> just asked us to make sure we did not take pictures in the mall and then 
> told us where we could get a good view across the city.  Actually she 
> was a very nice lady...
> 
> Andy.


I simply cannot uderstand why folks get freaked out by cameras of ANY kind!
I grew up with cameras around, and having them shoved in my face by relatives...
What the H... are they so paranoid about?
Where's the law that says you can never take photos of 'this or that'? Or, him 
or her?


It's mostly a power trip. "I'm a cop, and you have to do what I tell 
you." If you refuse to obey you're resisting arrest.


Anything that is not compulsory is forbidden.

Partly it's because the courts adopted a policy that it's ok for cops to 
break the law as long as they have good intentions. Then that policy 
gets expanded to private cops.


Then to private armies.

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Keith Whaley]

Drew wrote:

Igor Roshchin wrote:

Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794



Hmm...  I was stopped with a colleague by a Mall Cop in a mall in Austin 
TX, we had set out with cameras to wander round downtown but decided to 
go to a mall to find a watch repair shop to get a battery for my 
colleagues watch.  She asked us why two guys were wandering round a  
mall carrying DSLR with 'big' lenses. We explained the situation and she 
just asked us to make sure we did not take pictures in the mall and then 
told us where we could get a good view across the city.  Actually she 
was a very nice lady...


Andy.


I simply cannot uderstand why folks get freaked out by cameras of ANY kind!
I grew up with cameras around, and having them shoved in my face by relatives...
What the H... are they so paranoid about?
Where's the law that says you can never take photos of 'this or that'? Or, him 
or her?


Weird!

keith

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Drew]

Igor Roshchin wrote:

Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

  
Hmm...  I was stopped with a colleague by a Mall Cop in a mall in Austin 
TX, we had set out with cameras to wander round downtown but decided to 
go to a mall to find a watch repair shop to get a battery for my 
colleagues watch.  She asked us why two guys were wandering round a  
mall carrying DSLR with 'big' lenses. We explained the situation and she 
just asked us to make sure we did not take pictures in the mall and then 
told us where we could get a good view across the city.  Actually she 
was a very nice lady...


Andy.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: frank theriault

n Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Igor Roshchin  wrote:

>
> Ouch...
>
> http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794


Like many on this list, and like the photog in the article, I take my
camera everywhere, including the mall (which thankfully I don't go to
very often).

Sounds like an over-zealous officer.  My guess is that Rensburger will
be successful in defending the charges (if they even come to court -
wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutor withdraws them before any trial
happens).

One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
camera down.


Doesn't look like he's holding a "real" camera in the photo accompanying 
the article. It's one of those point 'n shoot digitals that doesn't even 
have a viewfinder.


At about this point I'd be talking to a lawyer about suing not only the 
officer, but the mall and the two assholes.


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Photographer arrested at mall

[John Sessoms]

From: Igor Roshchin

Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794


SUE THE BASTARDS!

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[P. J. Alling]

The problem is, that while most child abuse is perpetrated by family and 
close friends, most of the press goes to the odd stranger child abduction. 


Luka Knezevic-Strika wrote:

i think the people with small cameras, and phones and everything might
become part of the solution. the thing is, the more people want to
make photos and go about it without being harrased, the sooner will
someone find that the populous pleasing thing is to lift the moronic
bans. and i don't care if the reasons are wrong :)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM, William Robb  wrote:
  

- Original Message - From: "frank theriault"
Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall




One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
camera down.
  

This is because photography isn't the problem. The problem is paranoia, the
camera is the target, and for people at the shallow end of the gene pool, a
larger target is easier to hit than a smaller one.

William Robb

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
follow the directions.




--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

  



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[P. J. Alling]

Igor Roshchin wrote:

Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794

  
Ah yes, he's not really under arrest for taking photographs, he's under 
arrest for resisting arrest. 


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Photographer arrested at mall

[Malcolm Smith]

frank theriault wrote:

> One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
> with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
> themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
> about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
> in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
> camera down.

Absolutely. Anyone deciding - for whatever reason - to photograph something
without drawing attention will use a cellphone or other daily object with a
hidden camera.

Over the years, when various incidents have happened, there is often an
official request for tourists/photographers to come forward with pictures
they took at the time, that might help. If people feel that carrying a
camera to certain places is pointless, any future request will be pointless
too.

Malcolm   


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Igor Roshchin]

On a related subject:
"Don't talk to ... " no, it is not just a stranger:
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=8167533318153586646&hl=en#

I've seen this video earlier, it might have even been mentioned
here, on PDML, - in that case I apologize for the repetition.
I was reminded of it in relation to that story.

Igor

> Date: Wed, 16 Dec 2009 01:24:11 -0500 (EST)
> From: Igor Roshchin 
>
> Ouch...
>
> http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794
>
>


--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[Luka Knezevic-Strika]

i think the people with small cameras, and phones and everything might
become part of the solution. the thing is, the more people want to
make photos and go about it without being harrased, the sooner will
someone find that the populous pleasing thing is to lift the moronic
bans. and i don't care if the reasons are wrong :)

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 2:35 PM, William Robb  wrote:
>
> - Original Message - From: "frank theriault"
> Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall
>
>
>>
>> One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
>> with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
>> themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
>> about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
>> in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
>> camera down.
>
> This is because photography isn't the problem. The problem is paranoia, the
> camera is the target, and for people at the shallow end of the gene pool, a
> larger target is easier to hit than a smaller one.
>
> William Robb
>
> --
> PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> PDML@pdml.net
> http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
> to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and
> follow the directions.
>

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "frank theriault"

Subject: Re: Photographer arrested at mall




One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
camera down.


This is because photography isn't the problem. The problem is paranoia, the 
camera is the target, and for people at the shallow end of the gene pool, a 
larger target is easier to hit than a smaller one.


William Robb 



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[frank theriault]

On Wed, Dec 16, 2009 at 1:24 AM, Igor Roshchin  wrote:
>
> Ouch...
>
> http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794

Like many on this list, and like the photog in the article, I take my
camera everywhere, including the mall (which thankfully I don't go to
very often).

Sounds like an over-zealous officer.  My guess is that Rensburger will
be successful in defending the charges (if they even come to court -
wouldn't surprise me if the prosecutor withdraws them before any trial
happens).

One of the many things that pisses me off about this is that those
with "real" cameras aren't what security and cops should concern
themselves with - it's cellphone cameras that they ought to worry
about.  They're everywhere, and I see people using them all the time
in places where I know that I with my Pentax would be asked to put the
camera down.

cheers,
frank



-- 
"Sharpness is a bourgeois concept."  -Henri Cartier-Bresson

--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

RE: Photographer arrested at mall

[Bob W]

> 
> >Ouch...
> >
> >http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794
> >  
> >
> wow thats creepy
> 
> ann
> 

People are getting stupidly paranoid



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Photographer arrested at mall

[ann sanfedele]

Igor Roshchin wrote:


Ouch...

http://www.wvgazette.com/News/200912090794
 


wow thats creepy

ann



--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

 





--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link directly above and follow 
the directions.

Re: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Steve Jolly]

Rob Brigham wrote:
The Brits went higher last year though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/2971339.stm
Yeah, they're the ones who broke our record :-)  We still held the 
record for the highest ironed summit, but even that's gone now.  The 
current record's 6,959m and is unlikely to be broken (by mountaineers, 
at least) in the foreseeable future...

http://www.extremeironing.com/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=97

Hopefully someone'll smuggle an iron on board a manned Mars mission - 
now that *would* be Extreme!! ;-)

S

Re: photographer arrested

[Jim Apilado]

Perhaps they see Pentax and think its a toy camera.

Jim A.

> From: "Steve Desjardins" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Reply-To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Date: Mon, 09 Feb 2004 11:34:44 -0500
> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Subject: Re: photographer arrested
> Resent-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Resent-Date: Mon, 9 Feb 2004 11:34:57 -0500
> 
> I've recently taken pictures in the Museum of American History and the
> new Air&Space Annex out near Dulles. I had my MZ-s and one extra lens.
> I was also wondering around during a march in DC but I suppose the
> police had more to worry about than a stray guy with a camera.  I wonder
> if the smaller size of the Pentax bodies actually helps in this regard.
> I certainly try to travel light. . .
> 
> 
> Steven Desjardins
> Department of Chemistry
> Washington and Lee University
> Lexington, VA 24450
> (540) 458-8873
> FAX: (540) 458-8878
> [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> 

Re: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Mark Roberts]

"Rob Brigham" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:

>The Brits went higher last year though:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/2971339.stm
>
>And you gotta see what some people get up to:
>
>http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2176024.stm

OK. Now I have two more items to add to my packing list for Grandfather
Mountain!

-- 
Mark Roberts
Photography and writing
www.robertstech.com

RE: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Rob Brigham]

The Brits went higher last year though:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/gloucestershire/2971339.stm

And you gotta see what some people get up to:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/2176024.stm

I found this fascinating when I first came across it a year or more ago!

And wow - a list member famous for it - we are not worthy...



> -Original Message-
> From: Steve Jolly [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> Sent: 08 February 2004 18:04
> To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Subject: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)
> 
> 
> Cotty wrote:
> > BTW Steve, did I mention that you are clinically insane??
> > 
> > <http://www.elvum.net/ironing/index.php>
> > 
> > My kinda guy!
> 
> It needs mentioning? ;-)
> 
> We claimed the first World Extreme Ironing Altitude Record on 
> the basis 
> of those photos, sadly not taken with Pentax equipment of any 
> description, or I might have mentioned them before...
> 
> By *far* the best Extreme Ironing photo I have is 
> http://www.elvum.net/gallery/ironing/extreme_ironing - even 
> the angle is 
> "Extreme!!"  (Olympus Trip 35, for those who care.)
> 
> S
> 
> 

Re: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Steve Jolly]

Tanya Mayer Photography wrote:
Omigosh!  That is hilarious Steve!  You are, as Cotty made note of, one
CRAZY fellow! lol...
I LOVE this bit "performing a black-body radiation analysis: we are within
accepted norms for the commencement of thermal de-creasing "!
My mum taught me how to do that... I blame the physics degree for the 
language though :-)

How funny you are!  Seeing that you love it so much, wanna come and do some
"non-record breaking" ironing at my house?  You can't CLIMB a mountain to do
it though, as the "mountain" that I am referring to is that of the ironing
itself!  And I even have power points with electricity in my house (go
figure?!?), so that no-one has to stand there and "utilise the high-altitude
solar radiation flux to activate the photothermic sole-plate"!  You'd better
hurry though, school starts in two hours and there are 2 school uniforms
that need your attentions...!
Well, it's a generous offer... I'm not sure even my Extreme!! powers 
could handle the challenge of getting to Australia before an hour ago 
though.  Looks like I'll have to turn you down this time. ;-)

S

Re: The world we live in ( Re: photographer arrested

[Cotty]

On 8/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>>
>> Sure, why not? If you choose to live in the UK or the
>USA, then you have
>> to play by their rules, or try and change them through
>fair means or foul.
>
>I think the concern was that the people entrusted to
>making and enforcing the rules are not really following
>the rules themselves.
>
>William Robb



Point taken.



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Tanya Mayer Photography]

Omigosh!  That is hilarious Steve!  You are, as Cotty made note of, one
CRAZY fellow! lol...

I LOVE this bit "performing a black-body radiation analysis: we are within
accepted norms for the commencement of thermal de-creasing "!

How funny you are!  Seeing that you love it so much, wanna come and do some
"non-record breaking" ironing at my house?  You can't CLIMB a mountain to do
it though, as the "mountain" that I am referring to is that of the ironing
itself!  And I even have power points with electricity in my house (go
figure?!?), so that no-one has to stand there and "utilise the high-altitude
solar radiation flux to activate the photothermic sole-plate"!  You'd better
hurry though, school starts in two hours and there are 2 school uniforms
that need your attentions...!



tan.


> Cotty wrote:
> > BTW Steve, did I mention that you are clinically insane??
> >
> > 
> >
> > My kinda guy!
>
> It needs mentioning? ;-)
>
> We claimed the first World Extreme Ironing Altitude Record on the basis
> of those photos, sadly not taken with Pentax equipment of any
> description, or I might have mentioned them before...
>
> By *far* the best Extreme Ironing photo I have is
> http://www.elvum.net/gallery/ironing/extreme_ironing - even the angle is
> "Extreme!!"  (Olympus Trip 35, for those who care.)
>
> S
>

Mostly OT: Extreme Ironing (was Re: photographer arrested)

[Steve Jolly]

Cotty wrote:
BTW Steve, did I mention that you are clinically insane??



My kinda guy!
It needs mentioning? ;-)

We claimed the first World Extreme Ironing Altitude Record on the basis 
of those photos, sadly not taken with Pentax equipment of any 
description, or I might have mentioned them before...

By *far* the best Extreme Ironing photo I have is 
http://www.elvum.net/gallery/ironing/extreme_ironing - even the angle is 
"Extreme!!"  (Olympus Trip 35, for those who care.)

S

Re: OT: The world we live in ( Re: photographer arrested

[Bob W]

Hi,

> Actually Bob, this has all the hallmarks of slipping into a very long and
> very turgid thread ending up in a tangle of politics, guns, maybe even
> Macs, LOL.

I was expecting someone to reply "well, you can always choose the next
world..."

Then we could have thown religion into the pot, too!

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: photographer arrested

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty"
Subject: Re: photographer arrested



>
> BTW Steve, did I mention that you are clinically
insane??
>
> <http://www.elvum.net/ironing/index.php>

I heard on the radio the other day (CBC) an interview with
a fellow that had extreme ironed while hang gliding fairly
recently.

William Robb

Re: The world we live in ( Re: photographer arrested

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "Cotty"
Subject: OT: The world we live in ( Re: photographer
arrested



>
> Sure, why not? If you choose to live in the UK or the
USA, then you have
> to play by their rules, or try and change them through
fair means or foul.

I think the concern was that the people entrusted to
making and enforcing the rules are not really following
the rules themselves.

William Robb

Re: photographer arrested

[Cotty]

On 8/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Bob W wrote:
>> Nevertheless, Erwitt-like I managed to sneak this one when I was there
>> a couple of years ago:
>> http://www.web-options.com/Water.jpg
>
>The Tate Modern too - I did manage to get one shot a couple of weeks ago 
>before they complained:
>
>http://www.elvum.net/gallery/tate_modern/tate5

BTW Steve, did I mention that you are clinically insane??



My kinda guy!




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: photographer arrested

[Bob W]

Hi,

> In the case of the free museums and galleries, they wouldn't *really*
> mind losing the small fraction of visitors who find their photography 
> policy annoying, and they probably make useful money from the extra 
> postcard sales, so it's not really surprising.

but they're not all like that. The V&A, the BM and the Natural History Museum
don't seem to mind at all. There are rich pickings to be had in all 3.

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: photographer arrested

[Steve Jolly]

Bob W wrote:
Nevertheless, Erwitt-like I managed to sneak this one when I was there
a couple of years ago:
http://www.web-options.com/Water.jpg
The Tate Modern too - I did manage to get one shot a couple of weeks ago 
before they complained:

http://www.elvum.net/gallery/tate_modern/tate5

They let you take photos in the Turbine Hall, at least, and that *is* 
the most impressive part of the building... :-)

In the case of the free museums and galleries, they wouldn't *really* 
mind losing the small fraction of visitors who find their photography 
policy annoying, and they probably make useful money from the extra 
postcard sales, so it's not really surprising.

S

RE: photographer arrested

[Kevin Thornsberry]

>
> BTW, NPS permits are free, generally.
>

I find it irritating that I may not be free to enjoy my hobby on public land but
decided that the thing to do is just make sure I have a permit before I
go--problem solved.

I checked to NPS website to see what the requirements, costs and procedures are
for permits.  I found that at least some of the parks require you to have
commercial liability insurance in order to get the permit for commercial
photography.  Suddenly, the difference between commercial and not got a lot more
signicant.

RE: photographer arrested

[Cotty]

On 8/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>London and how many cameras wave about there all year round - including
>MI5 etc etc), GCHQ in Cheltenham  >, the SAS hq based near Hereford specfor/SAS.htm>, and most RAF bases, Royal Army bases, and Royal Navy
>bases and stations.

apologies for that mess, re-worded below:

There are several types of place where waving a camera - any camera -
about will not only attract the attention of police/military police, but
they will be very swift about it. These places are high profile
government buildings (although that said, most if these are in central
London and how many cameras wave about there all year round - including
MI5 etc etc), GCHQ in Cheltenham 



 the SAS hq based near Hereford



 and most RAF bases, Royal Army bases, and Royal Navy bases and stations.




Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

OT: The world we live in ( Re: photographer arrested

[Bob W]

Hi,

Cotty wrote:
> Tough one though. This is the world we choose to live in,

We have a choice of worlds? Why wasn't I informed?

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

RE: photographer arrested

[Cotty]

On 7/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>> As far as still photography goes, I don't usually shoot (for 
>> pleasure) in places that might be contentious. 
>
>Hehe...you'd be surprised at what places might be contentious. At least
>this woman was:
>http://www.staceygeorge.com/blog/archives/2003/12/23.php

I take your point entirely, Amita. I think it's pretty understandable
given the current security situation in the USA. Things are very
different for the most part here in the UK. Sure if there is a report of
something suspicious going on in a dark corner, police can be called, and
turn up to have a look (sometimes!) but nothing as drastic as that.

There are several types of place where waving a camera - any camera -
about will not only attract the attention of police/military police, but
they will be very swift about it. These places are high profile
government buildings (although that said, most if these are in central
London and how many cameras wave about there all year round - including
MI5 etc etc), GCHQ in Cheltenham  , the SAS hq based near Hereford , and most RAF bases, Royal Army bases, and Royal Navy
bases and stations.

All these things are pretty straightforward it would seem to me. If I am
working and we need some shots 'of the front door' the protocols are very
simple: we telephone their press office, and explain that a cameraman
will be dropping by at some point and spend 15 minutes (less if it's
raining :-) on the public highway outside to get some shots of the big
sign indicating 'RAF Brize Norton' and general views of activity
thereabouts (cars going in and out, buildings, fencelines etc). As a
final courtesy, i would turn up and pop into the security office and
mention that I was there (often the message doesn't get passed on down
the line to the grunts on the gate) and what I was doing.

I have been accosted, stopped, questioned, but generally as soon as I
explain my motives, show my police-issued press card, there is never a
problem. All these people live in our patch and watch our programme :-)

We have a crown court in the area and the security are first rate  - the
gear can get stashed behind their desks and I go get some breakfast in
the cafe upstairs. One guy even comes out and lets me know which door the
accused will be exiting from, etc. It's all about being friendly and
letting these people know what's going on.

Depending on what I was doing, like Graywolf said, I would tip the wink
to the scrambled egg (police/security/etc) on the ground just so they
know that there's a shady character about moving weirdly, looking for
good vantage points. They love to know what's going on - they spend all
of their time doing that, and if you help them, they leave you alone.

As for shooting stills, well, I guess my honest reply to an 'accoster'
would be that I am out trying to better my photography and build up my
confidence (which I am).

Tough one though. This is the world we choose to live in, and the passion
we choose to follow.


Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

RE: photographer arrested

[Malcolm Smith]

Cotty wrote:

> As far as still photography goes, I don't usually shoot (for 
> pleasure) in places that might be contentious. I don't do 
> buildings etc. Shopping precincts (malls) are a specialty for 
> shit-hot security guards ready to pounce etc etc over here 
> also.

Photography outdoors is nowhere near the fun it used to be, and you can be
approached and challenged for taking pictures of everyday life, for a
variety of reasons. Frank's picture in a bus station would be a no-no in
London, due to someone failing to take notice that you will always come off
second if hit by a large vehicle. So that ban was put in place. Taking
pictures in some country houses either requires a payment, or is not allowed
at all. A number of country houses owners put an injunction in to stop
publication of aerial shots, fearing that they could be used as an aid to
burglary.

Recently, I was asked by a Police Officer, why I was taking a picture of a
shop (it was having a sign replaced, revealing a sign unseen since the 50s).
A sarcastic answer is not on anymore. Not that long ago, the only
conversation that would have taken place, would have been about the
camera.

Malcolm

Re: photographer arrested

[John Francis]

> 
> > it was found out that there is nothing illegal about taking a 
> > picture of a government building.  It's the jitters of 9/11 
> > that is clouding everything.
> 
> Yep, that's why I got stopped and questioned by the cops one day while
> taking pictures of the UN (with a shortish lens of course) from across
> the river a couple of years ago.

I've had a shopkeeper come out frothing at the mouth because I was
taking a photograph of her store front (from a public parking lot).

The one shot I decided not to try for (on a different occasion)
was Air Force One landing at Moffett Field (Bill Clinton visiting
Chelsea at Stanford);  I felt that the chance of the secret service
mistaking a long lens for a missile launcher wasn't something I was
prepared to risk - the downside considerably outweighed the upside.

RE: photographer arrested

[David Miers]

Get your children babysitted and taken to an educational museum at the same
time, not to mention a lesson in observing photo technique.heh
heh.only $2/hr.
--
The only place I was told to give up my cameras was at the Corcoran
(private) gallery.  They wouldn't let me past the front desk with them.
Most of the time I'm with my kids, so maybe the "authorities" think of me as
just taking family snaps.

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]

Re: photographer arrested

[Treena]

That last sentence was a joke. Sort of. ;)

- Original Message - 
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 4:09 PM
Subject: RE: photographer arrested


> 
> > I 
> > probably should have been arrested over my obsessive 
> > photography of the Hope diamond at the Smithsonian, though.
> 
> The Smithsonian is private. Sort of.
> 
> tv
> 
> 

Re: photographer arrested

[Christian Skofteland]

I've lugged tripods and multiple cameras around the National Mall, inside
the Smithsonian and the National Zoo without anyone even blinking.  When I'm
at the zoo I do my best to not get in anyone's way, especially kids trying
to see the animals.

The only place I was told to give up my cameras was at the Corcoran
(private) gallery.  They wouldn't let me past the front desk with them.
Most of the time I'm with my kids, so maybe the "authorities" think of me as
just taking family snaps.

Christian Skofteland
[EMAIL PROTECTED]


- Original Message - 
From: "tom" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 5:09 PM
Subject: RE: photographer arrested


> > -Original Message-
> > From: Treena [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >
> > This must have been since 9/11 because in early 2001, we went
> > to DC, and I was all over the place with a couple of cameras
> > and some nice, long lenses and no one ever said a word.
>
> The don't generally bust tourists, you guys pay the rent. :)
>
> Permits were needed before 9/11. The only difference now is there's more
> cops around to notice you. Many of them now ride helicopters instead of
> horses.
>
> > I
> > probably should have been arrested over my obsessive
> > photography of the Hope diamond at the Smithsonian, though.
>
> The Smithsonian is private. Sort of.
>
> tv
>
>

Re: photographer arrested

[graywolf]

Most of these types of museum rules were intended to ban flash. Which could 
possibly damage something (think flashbulbs here), or annoy other visitors. It 
is another one of those rules that has been expanded unthinkingly. Of course, at 
museum's that want to sell you their post cards and books, it is simple 
self-interest.

--

Bob W wrote:
Hi,


Already done in the case of the National Trust.  No photography at all
allowed inside Trust buildings,


the same thing here in the National Maritime Museum - a complete ban
on photography - but no reasons given.
I've been stopped several times, and sometimes just 'reminded' even
though I wasn't trying to take pictures. I'm a Friend of the museum,
and it's only my £20- a year that keeps it going, so they daren't get
stroppy with me :o)
Nevertheless, Erwitt-like I managed to sneak this one when I was there
a couple of years ago:
http://www.web-options.com/Water.jpg

--
graywolf
http://graywolfphoto.com
"You might as well accept people as they are,
you are not going to be able to change them anyway."

Re: photographer arrested

[Bob W]

Hi,

> Already done in the case of the National Trust.  No photography at all
> allowed inside Trust buildings,

the same thing here in the National Maritime Museum - a complete ban
on photography - but no reasons given.

I've been stopped several times, and sometimes just 'reminded' even
though I wasn't trying to take pictures. I'm a Friend of the museum,
and it's only my £20- a year that keeps it going, so they daren't get
stroppy with me :o)

Nevertheless, Erwitt-like I managed to sneak this one when I was there
a couple of years ago:
http://www.web-options.com/Water.jpg


-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

RE: photographer arrested

[ernreed2]

> > -Original Message-
> > From: Bruce Dayton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] 
> > 
> > 
> > t> The first question I'm always asked down at the monuments 
> > is "Is that 
> > t> a professional camera?" The next question is "Do you have 
> > a permit?"
> > 
> > 
> > No, sir, it is not a professional camera, see, it is a Pentax...
> 
> I've actually used that one...
> 
> tv
> 
> 

I bet it worked, too (unfortunately)

ERN

Re: photographer arrested

[Treena]

This must have been since 9/11 because in early 2001, we went to DC, and I
was all over the place with a couple of cameras and some nice, long lenses
and no one ever said a word. The only place no cameras were permitted,
inside or out, was our tour of the White House. However, my husband did get
pulled out of the line since he set off the metal detector and they escorted
him away. I told the kids, "Guess we won't be seeing Daddy for a couple of
years." But they gave him back. I probably should have been arrested over my
obsessive photography of the Hope diamond at the Smithsonian, though.

- Original Message - 
From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Saturday, February 07, 2004 1:55 PM
Subject: Re: photographer arrested


> Hi,
>
>
> >>i have been told that in DC it is easy to get a permit. you just go to
some
> >>place in the morning and pay a nominal fee and you had a permit for the
day.
>
> > What are these permits for, really? To me it sounds very ironic that
> > you need a permit for photography in public places in "the land of
> > the free."
>
> and you have to pay for them!
>
> -- 
> Cheers,
>  Bob
>
>

Re: photographer arrested

[Norm Baugher]

"freedom" is open to interpretation
Norm
Anders Hultman wrote:

Herb Chong:

i have been told that in DC it is easy to get a permit. you just go 
to some
place in the morning and pay a nominal fee and you had a permit for 
the day.


What are these permits for, really? To me it sounds very ironic that 
you need a permit for photography in public places in "the land of the 
free."

Re: photographer arrested

[Paul Stenquist]

I work in an ad agency. We sometimes shoot in public parks. We might 
have three grip trucks, a camera truck, and a crew of 30 or so. It kind 
of spoils the park for everyone else. That's why you have to have a 
permit to shoot commercial photography in a public park. (For a big 
shoot like that, we have to settle for a low traffic time and day.) Of 
course you could say that some commercial photographers have no more 
than a case of cameras and a tripod. But if you're going to regulate 
some commercial photography, you have to regulate all of it.

On Feb 7, 2004, at 2:55 PM, Bob W wrote:

Hi,


i have been told that in DC it is easy to get a permit. you just go 
to some
place in the morning and pay a nominal fee and you had a permit for 
the day.

What are these permits for, really? To me it sounds very ironic that
you need a permit for photography in public places in "the land of
the free."
and you have to pay for them!

--
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: photographer arrested

[William Robb]

- Original Message - 
From: "graywolf"
Subject: Re: photographer arrested


> Commercial photography which rightly should require a
permit is easy to id.
>
> First clue, there is an equipment van. Second clue,
there are 2 to 30 people
> involved. Third clue is huge relectors and light
blocking panals. 4th.. Props
> and prop wranglers. Then there are all the talent
hanging about. Etc, etc, etc.
>
> In other words major disruption of normal activites in
the area.

Well, no. Commercial photography could be one photographer
out shooting some sort of stock work, or for wall art.
You don't have to be on a scale of MGM to be commercial.

I have always asked at the park station if I am allowed to
use my 4x5 camera in the park.
Generally, after I assure them that I really am just a
casual snapshooter with a larger than normal camera, they
let me go as hard as I want. Sometimes they even tell me
of some lesser known parts that are quite scenic.
It pays to be a pro-active communicator.

William Robb

Re: photographer arrested

[Bob W]

Hi,


>>i have been told that in DC it is easy to get a permit. you just go to some
>>place in the morning and pay a nominal fee and you had a permit for the day.

> What are these permits for, really? To me it sounds very ironic that 
> you need a permit for photography in public places in "the land of 
> the free."

and you have to pay for them!

-- 
Cheers,
 Bob

Re: photographer arrested

[Bill D. Casselberry]

Anders Hultman wrote:
 
> To me it sounds very ironic that you need a permit for photography 
> in public places in "the land of the free."

another   HAR!  is in order here .

" ... freedom's just another word for nothing left to lose"

Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-

RE: photographer arrested

[Cotty]

On 7/2/04, [EMAIL PROTECTED] disgorged:

>Hey, who's side are you one here! LOL :)
>-
>Anyone loitering at the DZ is likely to be
>at least informed of this interesting if illegal activity, if not part of
>it, and if I were a cop, I'd nick 'em!

Yeah but if I were a cop I'd nick a lot of people. Nick first, ask
questions later ;-)



Cheers,
  Cotty


___/\__
||   (O)   |  People, Places, Pastiche
||=|  www.macads.co.uk/snaps
_
Free UK Mac Ads www.macads.co.uk

Re: photographer arrested

[Bill D. Casselberry]

  TV , on National Parks & Cameras, wrote:

> The hearsay was basically that it was defined as commercial 
> photography if you were using a "professional" camera.
 
HAR!  ... just point to the Pentax on the prism, then!
*everyone* knows that only Canon & Nikon are professional
cameras!

Bill

-
Bill D. Casselberry ; Photography on the Oregon Coast

http://www.orednet.org/~bcasselb
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-