One Bush
So I've been hassled and harassed many time in the past for shooting photographs in privately owned public spaces (Starbucks, PF Chaings, Toys 'R Us, the new burger spot on Sacramento St. at Drumm, Tosca, Grand Central Terminal in New York, etc.) but yesterday was the first time I've actually been harassed on a public street over photography.Yesterday I was shooting some photos of One Bush St. (the building where Bush and Market Streets intersect) when their security guard came out of his little glass jewelbox lobby hut to ask me to stop taking photos of the building. He said it was illegal. I moved to the sidewalk and continued taking photos and he again asked me to stop. When I told him I was on a public street sidewalk he said that actually they owned the sidewalk and that I was going to have to stop taking photographs.
At this point I told the little guy to call the police and have me arrested which he said he did. He then proceeded to follow me around the building, from Bush St. to Battery St. to Market St. to Sansome St. and try to physically put his hand in front of the lens of my camera as I shot the building. Fortunately I was taller than he was so I was able to hold the camera out of his range. It was kind of comedic actually.
Although I've been harassed many, many times for taking photos (the camera goes with me virtually everywhere) this was the first time I was accosted by a security guard on a public sidewalk.
I was looking forward to the interchange between myself the security guard and a cop (who I doubt he could really get to show up even though he kept insisting they were coming to arrest me) but I had to get going and was done shooting the building. So after about 10 minutes I was on my way.
I'd encourage anyone with a camera to stop by One Bush if you're in the neighborhood and fire off a few more shots to annoy this guy.
I know I'll be back.
Update: Boing Boing picked up this story and of course from there the traffic goes nuts. There is now a photo contest to shoot photos of the building and a meet up planned on Saturday at noon to shoot the building. Also if you think it's stupid that a building's owners would try to prohibit you from taking photos of it from a public street feel free to drop them a line. I got a couple of bounce backs (apparently Jerry Speyer and Peter Berg are on vacation, go figure) but here's some contact info:
Alfred Palmer, apalmer@tishmanspeyer.com
Peter Berg, Managing Director, pberg@tishmanspeyer.com
Jerry Speyer, President and CEO, jspeyer@tishmanspeyer.com
Robert Tishman, Chairman, rtishman@tishmanspeyer.com
John Miller, Regional Director - West Coast, jmiller@tishmanspeyer.com
Theodore Schweitzer, Chief of Staff, Assistant to the President, tschweitzer@tishmanspeyer.com
Carl Shannon, Regional Director for Silicon Valley and San Francisco, cshannon@tishmanspeyer.com
posted by Thomas Hawk at 5:14 AM
141 Comments:
Don't forget to provide directions!
You should arrange a meetup for photographers there and have a shoot-out! Like a Flickr meetup or something.
That, of course, may have some legal ramifications that I'm not anticipating.
So long as you are on public property you are free to shoot (and the side walk is in fact public property). My understanding is that if you meet up, so long as you keep moving, stay on public property and don't harass or impede anyone then you are within your rights to peaceably assemble. (note: This is just what I've gleaned of the law as a citizen; I'm not a legal professional.) That said, give 'em hell!
Yeah I work at a law firm in Downtown and they don't even allow photos to be taken of the areas around our building. I see them stopping tourists every now and then but it's not heavily enforced like this SF building.
Actually, the building owners usually own the sidewalk right in front of the building; I've had this problem with other properties in the past. If you go across the street (or just into the street) they can't hassle you.
Sometimes I'm glad I live in little old "never had any loonies blow up stuff" Denmark.
But I would take every oppertunity to take photos of a building if there was any crazy sequrity guards telling me I couldn't.
The Flickr photoshoot sounds like a wonderful thing, maybe you could get the sequrity guard to pose for some of the photos :)
out of curiousity have you ever been mistaken for looking like a terrorist Perhaps the the hypervigilance was in due to fears of terrorism.
Actually it shouldn't matter if I look like a terrorist or not, but in fact I'm a 38 year old clean cut white guy. I was wearing a suit and tie no less. Not the typical terrorist fashion get up.
You might be interested in this guide to photographer's rights written by attorney Bert Krages. It's a pretty good plain-language summary of what your rights are.
Well, gee, that's not at all ridiculous. I wonder if they every go out and hassle cops as they drive by, since the cameras in cops' cars would undoubtedly record pieces of the building as they drive by it--heaven forbid! Or if, in panoramic shots of the city, they request that their building be blurred out.
Speaking of Flickr, mayhaps you could start a group of shots of this building, with the comments on each shot being about the shooters' experiences with twerp security guards...heh.
You are retarded. Respect these peoples jobs; I'm sure they don't want to do them just as much as you don't want to be retarded.
One Bush is a superb building - it is by far Architectuerally-speaking the very best modernist commercial office building ever constructed on the west coast of the United States, as every architect in san francisco, at least,, will tell you. i think every architect i know has a picture of this little builing. it is the Inland Steel (chicago) or Lever House (new york) of san francisco. SOM, the classic 50's-modern thin-tie-white-shirt firm who designed it, are right across the street at 444 market/1 front street. sad that it looks cleaner and more modern than anything around here built since, and it's almost 50 years old!
Could have a guy taking pictures of the building and another guy taking pictures of the security guard harrassing the first guy.
Have the security guy brought up on charges and his arrest published.
The only way to remind people this is not a police-state is to send some messages out that lead this sort of thing to stop.
Oh no... terrorists will see the pictures on your website now and realize the building is tall and made of glass. We are all screwed now. Well, at least our faithful security "forces" are out there at least trying to slow you infidel photographers down. Thank God we have this kind of protection while our new energy bill with billions of republican pork barrel money to oil companies goes forward with ease today.
Looks like this building is managed by Tishman Speyer. Contact information for One Bush Street is Allen Palmer:
Email: apalmer@tishmanspeyer.com
Phone: 415-344-6622
Wow.. I know this building well and will now make it a point to go take photos of it. Unbelievable.
And the reason for not being allowed to take a pic of the building is?? I can't believe it has anything to do with terrorists.
Ridiculous. And perhaps I should plan a little ride over there this weekend. :) Does security work on weekends??
Got a bit of this last year by the TransAmerica building.
The windows about 20 feet up give great reflections of Telegraph Hill. The guard asked politely what I was photographing: I politely mentioned the reflections and then showed him a thumbnail.
He, now more friendly, then said they don't want ground level shots of the lobby. I gently pointed out that that my G3 from the sidewalk can't capture nearly as much as a long-lens from way down the road.
But being a white chick obviously on her lunch break helped more than anything.
I'm all for a meetup/mass photo shoot.
Maybe we can get the rent-a-jerk to try to have us ALL arrested.
the security guard lifted his hand in your direction, that's an assault. File a police report and send a copy to the building management.
To b2's comment, I often see areas of sidewalk that are owned by the building marked with plaques in the concrete denoting the perimeter. These usually have some "Right to Pass is revokable" language, basically allowing them to enforce trespassing if they want to.
One place I know I've seen them is on the sidewalks through Infinite Loop.
I've never looked at the sidewalk at One Bush, but I'm guessing those plaques aren't there on the sidewalk proper, though they may be around an entry area.
I also don't know if those are actually required, but they can't be cheap, so some lawyer obviously thinks they're necessary.
a "Flickr meetup," would that be a Flick-up?
I've never been chased away or told not to photograph something. Ever. Apparently I'm not trying to photograph the right things.
Ya don't try it down the street in front of 101 Market (the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco), the gaurds in there have machine guns and will actually take your camera away.
So where's your picture of the guard? :-)
It doesn't matter if the land under the sidewalk is privately owned. It's the right of way which creates the public forum.
See Hotel Sidewalk Is Public Forum Under First Amendment—Court
and UNITED STATES v. GRACE, 461 U.S. 171 (1983)
c) The Court grounds are not transformed into "public forum" property merely because the public is permitted to freely enter and leave the grounds at practically all times and is admitted to the building during specified hours. But where the sidewalks forming the perimeter of the grounds are indistinguishable from any other sidewalks in Washington, [461 U.S. 171, 172] D.C., they should not be treated any differently and thus are public forums for First Amendment purposes. Pp. 178-180.
I love the idea of a photo meet-up! In fact, it could be turned into a photo tour of downtown, which could be fun on it's own *and* make a point.
How about high noon this Saturday, July 30th, at 1 Bush?
Anyone who's interested can email me at erik AT multipledigression DOT com.
I had a similar experience taking a picture of the WUSA building in Washington, DC. I was out at lunch taking pictures and walking back to my office I had one shot left, so took a reflection picture of "Broadcast House." I found it ironic that a broadcaster's employee would try to intimidate someone into not taking a photo from a public sidewalk.
In case you're not yet aware of it, Bert P. Krages II offers his "The Photographer's Right" brochure free for download here:
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
Thomas,
The same thing happened to me just a little while ago at a convention center no less.
I went down under the eastern span of the bridge on treasure island to take sunrise photos once and someone called and had a cop come out to remove me. There was one sign saying that the area was off limits that I didn't see because there were about 10 different ways to walk under the bridge. When I told her there was no way I could have been expected to know I was tresspassing with no fence or sign she pointed to a tiny concrete barrier covering 1 of the ways in, kindof, and said, copsyle 'there's a barrier'. I tried to point out the alternative routes that weren't marked and she pointed again and said 'there's a barrier.' I was in a good mood so it was funny. At least she didn't take my camera away.
Since people in public are allowed to be photographed, maybe you should create a Flickr photo set of Security Guards who oppose photography and their buildings.
Thomas:
Bravo! I'm headed past there in about an hour and can't wait to photograph the building. It's important to push back against these little violations of our rights before they snowball into much bigger crimes. This guy crossed well over the line. Tell me when the meetup is and if I'm in town I'll be there.
Thomas, remember that the most dangerous terrorists on the planet are clean cut guys in suits. But you're allowed to photograph buildings from public sidewalks even if you're dressed as a terrorist...
That's weird. I wonder if it's anything to do with the Australian Consulate being in that building.
(I used to work in the Shell Building, the building reflected in the shot. Now I work in the Mills Building diagonally across the street.)
I had a similiar experience shooting pictures of the exterior of the Woolworth building in New York City. A $6 an hour rent-a-cop came out the front door ranting and screaming. I explained to him that I was a resident and taxpayer in Manhattan and that I was on a public sidewalk so there was no reasonable expectation of privacy and I could shoot whatever I liked. He was unrelenting (as people of that social class and level of education are when given the chance to put on a uniform and step on the necks of anyone they can). When he threated to "knock me out" I called the NYPD and had them send two officers over. They refused to file a complaint but suggested I complain to the management company of the Woolworth Building. I did but two phone messages went unreturned. Building security in the current climate is a very serious matter and I am willing to be patient to a point. But art and the photographic recording of architecture and history simply cannot stop and wait.
"He was unrelenting (as people of that social class and level of education are when given the chance to put on a uniform and step on the necks of anyone they can)."
Eh. Was it really necessary to bash a whole class of people? The security guards I've encountered around my work neighborhood have been generally unfailingly nice. The guy you're talking about may just be a d*ck. If he was of a higher "social class and level of education", he'd probably just be a d*ck with money.
word to that. i'm right there with ya on your right to take a pic if you want, but some of the biggest assholes on the planet are also the richest.
This is not a result of the current security climate (though it might have been stepped up in accordance with some people's anxieties.) This sort of attitude has long been present.
As an example, when I was in college, one class assignment was to put together a short documentary. My group chose to document "things to do in this little town" as lack thereof was a common complaint. We filmed the outside of a mall for a few minutes from the farthest corner of the parking lot and got a talking to by a security guard. They are VERY protective of their image; we might have been across the street and still gotten a talk. (We'd already gotten the necessary footage but neglected to tell the guard that.)
In other words, I don't believe it is a security concern that is motivating the guard (though they might have little idea of what the reason is). It's mainly a blanket rule laid down by the owner of the building because they want to control all image rights, and the simplest way to enforce that is to discourage picture-taking.
I'd imagine that the recent explosion in digital picture-taking and blogging is causing such folks concern, if they're even aware of it.
I've posted a picture (click my name) I took of the building last August. Not the best picture, but who cares. I was well away from the building, so they would not have been able to hassle me. I also suggest any photographers go read Bert Krages site for an overview of our rights.
For the record, my use of the term "social class" has nothing at all to do with money. Money does not equal class. Are there assholes in all social classes? Yes. Did I have to bash the social class of this security guard in particular, um, yes, it was my comment and this is (almost) still a free country. If you choose not to bash then don't bash. Your choice. Don't choose my words, thank you very much.
chris puts the "ass" in "class" methinks. Nobody was telling him not to say what he thinks... he just may wish to reexamine his thoughts and the way he chooses to express them. But it is a free country and you're free to be as big a jerk as you like!
amen to that anon. Hey chris, the term "social class" is an expression that is directly derived from the ammount of money one is worth. Class, on it's own, means what I think you were trying to convey. As it is though, you came off as the arrogant pr*ck you probably are. NO one but YOU chose your words. on another note, why involve the police if the guy didn't even touch you? Don't you think they have more important things to do (i.e. catch REAL criminals not some self important security dork doing his JOB?) in the city where you live? People like you make me sick Your arrogance and evident lack of respect for anoyone who makes less money than you is a testament to what is a downward spiral of degridation in our country, and you sir (or madame) are no better than the arrogant a**holes that own the buildings WE, as artists,historians, or tourists wish to photograph for posterity. People like YOU run the companies that own the buildings we photograph. no wonder they are so anal about those with our perceived "social class" or "lack of education" photoging their buildings. They think of YOU like YOU seem to think of US, the "great unwasheded masses"; beneath contempt
And what "social class" would that be, Christopher? I suppose whatever it must be, it's far, far below your own that you feel so free to look down your nose at "them".
If there's one thing I've learned, it's that your social "class" and amount of education is irrelevant to being a boor. Christopher, of whichever far superior social class, has proved that point beautifully.
Given the sheer arrogance he displays, I wouldn't be in the least surprised to find out that he's a professor of economics at some ivy league school, probably Yale or Haaaaavaaaahd.
Dress doesn't matter, nor does the visibility of the building -- I was stopped once while wearing a suit and tie as well, and I was taking a picture (from about a block away) of a building that's not only visible from miles around (it's on a waterfront) but also has a web site full of photos with much greater information value.
Again, class has nothing to do with money but about taste and values. You should all go back and study your Sociology. Actually, there was a fairly interesting article in the Times lately about these definitions. You should find it. The anger and anxiety you all seem to be demonstrating your own social classes. You know nothing about me and are making presumtions of your own. I'm sorry if my comments offend you but I am simply not as comfortable as you seem to be at pretending we are all the same and that social classes in this country do not exist. Look how pissed off you all get when someone doesn't think the same way you do. Tocqueville put it aptly when he said that the greatest threat to Democracy comes not from government's abuse of power but by the tyranny of the majority. I think that applies in this case.
PS: The NYPD was involved because this "guard" threatened me with physical violence and was harrassing and intimidating me.
What about some "covert" operations here, guys? You've all got small, hidden camera's avaiable at Best Buy. Aiptek makes some great ones. You could photograph the "security" guards and deliver their pics to them, annon..that would really frost them.
I suppose video taping is also out of the question? Make em' the star of their own video and burn a CD! Distribute it on the web. Give em' the website address.
This is, of course, madness.
I went ahead and created a One Bush group on Flickr.
Christopher:
It's not a matter of pretending different social classes exist. It's YOUR ATTITUDE toward people you apparently believe are your inferiors.
I've known plenty of people from all of the social classes, and they have one thing in common: no matter how much money you have, whenever you put someone in a position of authority, that person gets arrogant. Hell, I've done it myself. It's a universal truth. To say that people of a lesser class are more prone to it is ludicrous. Indeed, I'd say the more money you have the more priviledged you behave and the more arrogant you become.
I work in a building in Los Angeles which is run by Equity Office Management (they're everywhere these days in LA, and other parts of the country too, I assume) and I asked a friend of mine who works security about this. He said as long as you have permission, photography indoors (and bear in mind this is taking pictures of the BUILDING itself, not just casual snaps of friends and coworkers) is permitted. Taking photographs from the sidewalk is fine too, since it's public property.
Without permission, however, they will ask you to stop. I didn't press to find out what would happen if you didn't, but I expect you would be ejected from the premises.
And you know what? I think that's perfectly reasonable. It's private property, and if they want to set those kinds of rules, well, why can't they?
I'm a little disturbed by this idea I'm seeing expressed here that anyone should be able to take a picture of whatever he wants whenever he wants to.
Ideally, you should divert a bus load of camera-toting Japanese tourists to this location, tell them a story about its historical significance (exercising a certain latitude with the truth) and watch the madness unfold.
Hmm. That's funny. I can't seem to find the place in my original comment in which I said the security guard was in a low class and I was in a high class. The mere mention of class and I'm getting flamed as being elitist. And for the last time, money has nothing to do with class. It is a mistake to think this is how the subject of class is defined. But anyway, I want to stop now because we're only eating up space and this really shouldn't be the forum for something like this. My final comment is this: Thomas Hawk's photography is incredibly beautiful and really inspiring.
I'm totally down for a group meetup. We should all meet down there tomorrow at like 2PM or something.
Or maybe next week so that we can get a BUNCH of people to go!
W00t!
dude, i'd be there if it weren't for the distance isssue (i live in PA) however, i'd love to know how the meetup goes - ect. if you'd be so kind to shoot me an e-mail or something i'd love that.
dann.is.no.killer@gmail.com
http://www.dann-online.info
I've had two encounters.
One morning in New York I'm shooting down near the Woolworth Bldg.. A guy in a real nice coat gives me a NYC good morning, "Don't you know taking photos down here is illegal asshole!" So, I walk over to one of the _many_ uniformed officers in the area and ask, "What's up?"
The officer was all right. He explained about the area being under terrorist surveillance. Said taking photos of key buildings was not illegal but was discouraged. He won my heart by noticing that I had a telephoto lens and observed that I could always shoot stuff from across the street. He advised me that the primary concern was people documenting entrances and security features.
Second time was Philly. BEAUTIFUL building called the Customs House. I had shot the heck out of it from the south (back) side (where the light was) one evening. Next morning I got asked to knock it off when I tried to shoot the front. Now I'll admit, the cool stuff was either around the doors or up on the walls where it was pretty hard not to get a camera in the shot. This guard made points with me by cracking a big smile when I asked, "Don't you think that people being unable to do this gives a small victory to the terrorists?"
I am all about rights and I am concerned about their erosion in "the land of the free". (I find the NYC subway searches chilling. I seem to be in the minority.)
BUT... These are troubled times and I am willing to offer some sympathy and cooperation.
Ian Spiers had a tougher time than we did.
http://69.93.170.43/
BTW. I love the idea of photographers photographing the photographers photographing. Wish I were on the left coast so I could come out. ..and play that is.
8o)
Art
The Federal Reserve has guards with machine guns? Funny, I walk by there nearly every weekday and I don't remember seeing anyone with machine guns before. Heck, the only guards that are visible are the ones in front of the entry gate to the loading dock in the back. Then again, unless they're waving it in my face, I probably wouldn't notice.
I have been living in San Francisco for about five years now and have had a few encounters with security officers while out shooting.
The first one was in the park next to the Metreon. In this case the guy was right. It is private property. While his approach could have been a little less rude, at least I was able to convince him to point out the location where I could obtain a permit to shoot on the grounds. (But of course that process takes far too long and I had a deadline, so I just busted out the telephoto lens.)
The most recent happened just a couple days ago. I was out getting reference photos for a project I am working on when I found this little alley way (near 5th Street and Mission I believe) that was perfect for one of the shots I needed. That is when the guard walked up to me and told me that I couldn't take pictures there. This guy was rather polite about it, but I still had to press the matter. When I stated that I was standing on a public street, he simply said that it was company policy. Policy? What obligation do I have to a company policy? Especially when I don't work for said company. (BTW- he wouldn't tell me the name of this company, so I have no idea what building he was "protecting".)
At this point I said something to the effect of it being a bull sh*t policy and walked past him down the alley. As I walked I could hear him behind me. Of course I wasn't detoured. I just ducked out of his site then shot the alley from the other end. Just as I was finishing I saw him heading my way again. I didn't stick around for another "chat".
I'd love to take part in the summon. But it's too far away. So I send you a supporters picture-link from an other continent.
http://mamasatworklog.twoday.net/stories/867387/
Oh, excuse me !!! The link failed: ... You can visit my Solidarity-Picture here
This appears to be happening more and more. I encountered to such instances (in the same night no less) in Niagara Falls. I wasn't even shooting the building the guard worked for, I was shooting detail shots of chains and cable, rebar etc, on a construction site next to the guards workplace. Unfortunately, they are charged with a mandate that they believe extends well beyond where their rights to serve stop and where our rights to shoot begin.
Details of my incident can be found at http://potd.chrisempey.com/archives/2005/07/13_rebar.html. I only wish I could get down there for the shoot...
Try to take a photograph of a greyhound at the Hinsdale, N.H. racetrack and see what happens...security guards will ask you to leave. Where are the PETA Photographers (PETAPs) when you need them?
I was walking around the B of A building a few weeks ago and saw a security guard come out and chat with a tourist family taking pictures of themselves in front of the building. When I started taking some pics he came up and chased me off. Only then did I realize what his chat with the tourists was about. I can't understand what this policy. They put a really nice building with beautiful architecture. Very nice artwork and sculpture and then a family of tourists want to take a picture of themselves in front of this great "American" building and they are chased off. Now rather than going back to France or wherever with pictures and memories of some of the nice artwork in San Francisco they'll go back with an interesting story to tell.
@Art:
Art, I understand what you're saying about sympathy and cooperation - why not just change the laws, then? That way, we'd all know what we're in for when we go out and take photos.
I think this would be the best solution, because if we start enforcing non-existent laws and not enforcing existing ones, the laws become meaningless, right?
I realize that we're talking mainly about security guards here, not the police, but there have been similar run-ins with the police, no?
Boris
You people are fucking rediculous...
This Saturday meetup sounds like a `neat' idea, but you're all setting yourself up for a bit of a fall. If 20-30 or so people show up and start taking photos of One Bush at the same time, and onlookers stop to ask you why, and everyone is generally lollygagging, you all can (legally) be asked to disperse as your assembly could create a public nuisance or impede traffic on the public sidewalk _ the same sidewalk you're trying to protect your rights to. If you want the meetup to be a protest, and stand up for your rights in face of arrest ... rock on and make your statement! But if you're just trying to be catty about it, you're going to effectively prove the security guard to be right. That said, the guard was wrong to harrass a single photog snapping shots. But your event creates a different legal environment.
I'm not even a photographer, but I am an American worried about the erosion of our civil rights. This kind of thing is becoming more and more common, and not just in San Francisco or the U.S.A.
I suppose it's to be expected. When people feel less than secure, those responsible for security have the opportunity to flex their muscles. It's up to the rest of us to politely tell them how much muscle they're allowed to flex. So if we do nothing because the security folks are "just doing their job" . . . .
Why not have "photo meets" in cities and towns all over the country, a kind of "Cameras Across America?" Photographers in all cities could get to gether to take pictures, have a good time, and, by the way, excercise their rights. Just remember to keep moving, keep it happy, and stay on public property.
I hate being anonymous, so sign me
Bill in Pittsburgh
I had something similar to me happen here in Charlotte. We have a building called the Hearst Tower and my daughter and I where next to it taking a walk. When I turned around to grab a picture of my daughter I was informed I could not take a picture since I was too close to the building. It was so riduclous since my daughter is just over 4 feet and I'm 6'2" and I was not even facing the building. So worst case is the terrorists would have a downward view of the sidewalk with my kid. Wish I could be in SF this weekend for the GTG.
TO: '8:43 a.m. Anonymous' -- Not to worry. At Noon on a Saturday, there's virtually no 'traffic on the public sidewalk' around 1 Bush to be impeded. That said, I'd love it if you could explain just how a gathering of citizens attempting to demonstrate how mindlessly stupid attempts at "enforcement" of a private company's policies impinge on people's constitutional rights will "prove the security guard to be right."? People need to start speaking up against insanity and this is as good a place as any to start.
http://www.quovadimus.org/sf/onebushstreet
The Nevada appellate opinion made a point of distinguishing the Venetian situation from those in two (unnamed) US Supreme Court cases, so I wouldn't rely completely on that. Fact is there are "private property" plaques on the sidewalks next to many downtown SF buildings. The reason they're there is to attempt to restrict labor pickets, as the Venetian tried to do. Are they constitutionally permitted? Good question; I don't know, and the answer is likely to be, "It depends on a lot of things, including how an appellate court interprets the law and the circumstances."
But one thing it depends on is public outrage. If enough people object to this appropriation of public space by private owners, and their enforcement of corporate policy over the rights of the people, they'll back off. In other words, they'll take what they can, and they'll concede what we make them concede--as ever.
First, one quick thought about this thread. Two issues have to be clearly separated. Photographing from public property vs. being on, or in, some one else's property.
Boris, re: other run ins. See the link in my previous post to the incident with Ian. Also, there was a guy who got in trouble for taking pictures of a west coast subway. His memory sticks were returned. I think I found his site through Ian's site.
Yes, I agree with you completely. Our leaders constantly preach to us and the rest of the world about “the rule of law.”
A land where people in uniforms arbitrarily tell “free” citizens what to do or not to do is not the land of the free; it is a police state. This is not an opinion; it is an objective look at the definitions of those terms.
Yes, if they don’t want us photographing public faces of buildings it should be dealt with via legislation that is the result of public discussion. Regrettably, our leaders understand that primates who are fearful are very willing to surrender their freedoms to someone they think will make them safe. There is a philosopher named Strauss that has influenced (created?) many of the neocons. Strauss believes that peasants are too ignorant to make correct decisions and should be manipulated, so as to allow ‘leaders’ to do what they want. That is not a representative democracy.
You no doubt saw the survey that said today’s students think the press has too many rights. A much more frightening one came out of Latin America. Down there over half of the people surveyed (IIRC) said they would go back to the dictators and scum who used to rule them if it raised their standard of living and brought 'security'.
I saw nothing to gain by being less than civil to the people I’ve dealt with. I have not yet been confronted with the level of ignorance and abusiveness others have described. Even if I should be, my goal will be to let THEM be the assholes/criminals. I plan/hope to remain calm and absolutely polite. Any of us will only hurt ourselves if we raise our voices, crowd personal space or become insulting.
Please understand that this does not mean that I will just arbitrarily comply with someone who is possibly egotistical, possibly ignorant, maybe just misinformed or poorly trained. I am not looking to just pick a fight. ...but I am willing to choose my battles.
Speaking of which: My best wishes to everyone at the Bush building this Saturday! Who is the official bail bondsman for the event? ,>)
I love the idea of having so many witnesses and cameras. A conga line of people 15 or 20 feet apart parading past would rock.
One small thought; even though it might be legal, why not avoid zooming in on any security features? Cameras, guard stations etc. It would make it even harder for anyone to claim that the photos offered _any_ public danger.
In any case I trust that everyone will keep the event lawful. Let the others be in the wrong. Keep it real and keep it legal.
The idea of other peaceful, lawful events is very interesting.
-Art (Who’s wife says he is verbose.)
it seems if a terrorist wants a photo, he could figure out how to get one, so ordinary art/architecture loving artists are being inconvenienced and threatened...i think this eems wrong, un-cultural, and narrow....i belive if the building managers feel this is necessary for protection, they should be quiet, and photograph the photographers..both being legal to do, and if you wish to photo inside, show a driver's license, and understand that it may be for terrorist protection, and we should be glad they are watching out..if that is what they are doing...i was in the bakery dept of the safeway in rockridge/oakland, and the cakes looked like diebenkorn( thibault?) and they told me not to take potos...i said, are you crazy, i am just photographing what i see, it is public, i am an older woman, what are you saying?..i said call the amager, i took the photo, and the manager affired that i was not allowed to take pictures in the store...i like to take photos of home oriented things like food....i said i was appalled....it was crazy and mean and stupid...he "let" me go...( it occurred to me that if he touhed my camera, a little digital olympus c-50...we were talking trouble....i was very scared, and angry...if i can't photograph it, than i shouldn't look at it, then i shouldn/t be in there, and i wouldn't buy any dinner products....whole earth foods also forbid from taking a photo of a big oozy , delicious wheel of chees on the counter top, right in front of my eyes as i was buying some cheese..i flipped!..are you nuts? this could not have anything to do with terrorist plots, so why tell me not to photograph the cheese....no reason, store policy...what are these people hiding?..i was not stealinga secret of window , or cheese display...just to be mean and bossy..i toook the photo i was so ad and told them to call whomeer they wished ..i could just see myself , and older lady going to prison for taking a picture of cheese..jeez....i don't buy there if that is their policy...i am happy to comply and be understanding in these times..id myself, just in case, more to protect myself from suspicion than provoke it, these are scary times, and i appreciate the vigilance..but let's get real, cheese. louise?..i think photographers should be thoughtful, comply with id requests, or know that they are being recorded, but ultimately taking a photo is an artist's job, and should be protected under the constitution..i think you sould file a formal complaint, and make this very public....we need to have a discussion about this, nd also let the authorities do what is helpful,too...it can be a win-win.
Ummmm... OK crazy cheese lady.
thats not a very nice thing to encourage, especially since it's the security guard's job to stop such a thing, i dont know why you would want to harrass him, and especially belittle him..i think its bullying....not very nice..
thats not a very nice thing to encourage, especially since it's the security guard's job to stop such a thing, i dont know why you would want to harrass him, and especially belittle him..i think its bullying....not very nice..
thats not a very nice thing to encourage, especially since it's the security guard's job to stop such a thing, i dont know why you would want to harrass him, and especially belittle him..i think its bullying....not very nice..
thats not a very nice thing to encourage, especially since it's the security guard's job to stop such a thing, i dont know why you would want to harrass him, and especially belittle him..i think its bullying....not very nice..
This also happened to me while I was visiting my son in prison.I was taking a picture for my scrapbook when a prison guard came out and told me I was not allowed to photograph the prison.
That's nuts - I take photos everyday all over the city!
it one thing to actually take pictures of security features like cameras, metal detectors, etc. but if your taking pictures of regular nice things then cops, or security guards shouldn't bother you.
Certainly if the security guard harrasses you or assault you, press charges don't let them think it ok for them to do that or else they might do it to others.
Another thing if they are just bothering you and won't leave you alone even though you are on public property have them bring they supervisor over to them, and if they don't want to just tell them to get lost until there supervisor talks to you.
Since the Australian Consulate General's office is in the building, it seems reasonable to assume that the whole point of this policy is to protect people's lives. Your being a clean-cut white guy is irrelevant. Would you suggest they enforce this policy based on race?
The point of this whole meet-up thing seems to be to harrass a guy who is just doing his job.
I'd like to see people getting together to harrass Thomas Hawk.
I had this happen to me in Los Angeles in front of the Libary Tower in Downtown LA (US BANK TOWER). I had gone 2 yrs prior to take photos there and I had no incident. I went in 2004 and some security guy told me I could not take pictures of the building. I just walked away disapointed. I live in San Diego so I can't go there often to get away with taking pictured but I incourage anyone to do the same at the US bank tower in downtown LA (its the round building).
~mario
"Just doing his job" seems to be the excuse for anything, and protesting an infringement on freedom is equated with "harassing" the enforcer. This is remarkable. Of course the security guard is doing his job; his job is to carry out an objectionable policy. Should we accept any and every abuse of power rather than inconvenience the people who do the work? The goons who attacked union pickets in the 30's, the cops who beat the Freedom Riders, were doing their jobs, too. Should they have been shielded from protest? This attitude of blind submission to authority--irrespective of the justice of what it enforces--is deeply disturbing.
We live in a world where there are some screwed up people called terrorists... we as a nation should be concerned about publicizing photos of well known buildings. I would not blame the guard for telling you not to take pictures. I know it is your right to take pictures but please also consider the world we are living in . Thanks.
One Bush street is actually owned TSOF, and Australian listed proerty trust linked to Tishman Speyer (www.tsof.com.au)
There are no property plaques in the sidewalks at One Bush. I circled the property before taking any pictures.
If a building's security measures are so trivial that they can be defeated merely by observation from the street, perhaps the property managers should re-examine their security measures?
Prohibiting photographs can only be admitting that the building has but "Blind Man's Bluff" security in place.
We live in a world where there are some screwed up people called terrorists... we as a nation should be concerned about publicizing photos of well known buildings. I would not blame the guard for telling you not to take pictures. I know it is your right to take pictures but please also consider the world we are living in .
Excuse me, well known buildings are already publicized in newspapers, post cards, advertisements, et. al.
A jihadist intent to murder people by setting off a bomb doesn't need to take photographs. He could just go down to the library and look up photos of possible targets.
I've dealt with this plenty of times here in San Francisco as well.
And I used to want to get all pissed about it, all outraged or whatever... but in the end it comes down to minimum wage earning security guards who honestly don't know laws, and are in most cases doing what they assume has to be done.
Doing one's job, if it is infringing on other people's rights - and in effect their own, is no excuse.
In addition, standing up to the small infringements may be more critical than standing up to the big ones.
----"Just doing his job" seems to be the excuse for anything, and protesting an infringement on freedom is equated with "harassing" the enforcer.----
Thomas Hawk said, "I'd encourage anyone with a camera to stop by One Bush if you're in the neighborhood and fire off a few more shots to annoy this guy." Hardly a noble protest for to protect one's freedoms. It's a call by Hawk for people to harass the guard because Hawk felt harassed himself. Note that Hawk says he's been "harassed" many times before. Yet still he has no respect for other people's property rights.
Why is it wrong to respect their desire not to be photographed? It's their private property. It would be no different if it were a picture of your home or a picture of you.
Just because they can't physically prevent you from taking pictures from across the street doesn't mean you have a right to take those pictures. Where you're standing isn't relevant.
As for the relevance of this policy on terrorism, note that dozens of photos of four buildings in the New York City area, including the Citicorp building, were found on an al Qaeda laptop along with detailed analysis of the sites - vulnerabilities, exits, traffic, building structure, security cameras, etc. This type of security policy doesn't *prevent* terrorism; it makes it less convenient and that may be enough.
What really bothers me is that Hawk (tom@thomashawk.com) publishes the email addresses of numerous managers and encourages people to harass them too. Joel Franusic (common_chaos@yahoo.com) adds the email address and phone number of another manager.
Don't shoot the messenger. It seems on