Photographing Architecture is Not a Crime, Thomas Hawk vs. Building Security Episode 118
So today there I was minding my own business shooting 45 Fremont in downtown San Francisco when all of a sudden a Shorenstein Company employee security guard decides to give me the finger in my photographs of the building. Next thing you know I get the typical hassle. Except normally when the guards come out all polite like and all this guy instead comes out middle finger a blazing and telling me that I’m not allowed to photograph the building from the public space.
He goes on to tell me how he doesn’t like to have his photograph taken, etc. (hint, if you don’t like your photograph taken, probably best not to come swaggering out of a public building middle finger a blazin’, remember any old asshole can have a blog these days). And insists on telling me how if I want to photograph the building I’m going to need to get approval from building management. blah, blah, blah.
Well, this guy got off on the wrong foot with me in the first place so I politely inform him that despite his objections that I’m on public property and as such have every right to photograph whatever I want and if he’d like he can feel free to call the police and the three of us can have a conversation. Of course he asks me why I need to be such an asshole and I remind him that he was the one giving me the bird, etc. etc. All I am is a lowly photography hobbyist but that since he was being so nice and all that he could look forward to his photo being on the internet.
He asks me if I *really* want him to call the police. Again, I answer nicely, yes. At this point he goes back inside. I go around to shoot the other side of the building and his boss comes out and he’s pissed. You’re not allowed to photograph this building he says. “Says who,” I say. “Says me, I’m the owner,” he says, you’re on my property.”
Now I’ve seen Walter Shorenstein, San Francisco’s real estate mogul, before and this guy definitely ain’t Shorenstein. So I object. I remind Mr. fake Shorenstein that I’m on public property and that I have every right ot shoot the building. He asks me why I’m shooting the building and (only because I’m pissed at this point) I tell him that this is none of his business. Now with this he flips it. Some third party seems it’s his business to chime in and sides with the security guard and tells me, you know he’s right, your not allowed to take photos of this building (um. ok Chet).
The security guard then seems fit to chime in, post 9/11 you know. They don’t want photos of the building.
So I politely tell this 2nd security guy, the fake Walter Shorenstein, that I’m actually allowed to take photos of the building and suggest that he call the SFPD if he’d like and he gives me one of these straight on looks and asks me if that’s *really* what I want him to do because I’ll be arrested and all that and I say yes, please. He then asks me if I’m going to be there when they arrive and I say, certainly of course, and with that he pouts off and heads back into his building.
I then finish my shots and when I’m done go about my way.
Now. First off, this happens to me all the time. I’m not sure why I feel so inclined to post about it today. Perhaps it’s because my blog traffic’s down. But probably the fact that the first security guard decided that his initial approach to me was the finger thing and that the second one was such a prick that I figure what the hell, may as well blog it. Can’t hurt after all and I did tell the finger security guard guy that I would post his photo to the internet so a deal’s a deal and all.
But. What the hell? Post 9/11? What’s that supposed to mean? Let’s see, ok, so I’ve got photos of a building. Yep, there’s the door, yep, guess what, it’s got glass windows. Wouldn’t want those top secret photos of the building’s revolving doors to get out there now. Just imagine the strategic advantage that that door shot would give a terrorist! He could, well, he’d know how to get into the building for pete’s sake.
It’s just stupid. I’m tired of dealing with security at almost every single building that I shoot. News Flash! Photographing architecture is NOT a crime. It’s not illegal! And while 98% of photographers probably just let these fake Walter Shorenstein type cops push them around it shouldn’t happen. And I think that from now on I’m going to start a collection of these mugs and hopefully, at least in San Francisco, after a while the harrasment stops.
In the meantime, I got my shots today which you can see in this Flickr set and do plan actually on going back in the next few days and especially at night to try and get more shots of this building. Oh and the other good thing that came out of this is that about two weeks ago lovely figment on Flickr invited me to the flickr group GFY. You might be able to figure out what it stands for but it’s basically a flickr group devoted to people flipping the bird. Since I haven’t got a shot of myself flipping the bird yet I guess I finally got myself an official submission today. Thanks dude.
Oh, and by the way, I’d definitely recommend the latest issue of JPG Magazine, #5, Photography is Not a Crime. Not only is it a great collection of issues (disclaimer, I’ve got a shot in there of another of my run ins with building security at One Bush St.) but it’s got a great photographer’s rights pull out card by Portland attorney Bert Krages which does a great job of spelling out what your rights are as a photography enthusiast.
Update: I just spoke with Andrew Neilly who handles media relations for The Shorenstein Group with Gallen.Neilly & Associates. According to Neilly, the individual photographed here is not a Shorenstein employee and he advised me that Shorenstein outsources their security guards — while admiting that the action on behalf of the security guard was inappropriate. He said that hopefully my experiences with Shorenstein properties would be better in the future and said that while he could not guarantee that I would not be approached by guards in the future that by explaining who I am and showing them a card that he felt I should not have this type of problem shooting their buildings in the future.
He also referenced an advisory by the Department of Homeland Security sent to real estate firms regarding photographers shooting buildings but was unable to site or reference the specific advisory.
btw – I think 9/11 has opened up a whole new chance for employment and false importance for thousands of former hall monitors.
I sent a link to this webpage to the property owners (and their PR firm) last night saying their employees had behaved badly, I suspect that’s what got the response.
It’s true that photography is not illegal, and exercising our right to photograph in public places is our obligation.
Be as nice about it as possible, and be aware that misinformation is everywhere. The security guards and other officials think they know, though many times they do not. So it’s your responsibilty, know your rights. Carry a copy with you if possible. Be professional in your approach, stay calm, know the facts.
Educate your friends and family. Persuade them it’s the very fabric of our country that’s being ripped here. It may seem small, but we must form a rip stop. The snowball effect could make it huge in no time at all. Public is STILL public, for the time being. Let’s keep it that way.
Here’s a story from the National Press Photographer’s web site on the subject.
This is an interesting 2004 Seattle Times story about a photo student who was harassed.
I read some disturbing comments here, and though I realize at the moment keeping our right to take photos in public places may seem less important to some. It’s just one way that our rights in this country are being threatened.
Just remembered this quote … slightly appropriate I thought.
“Each time someone stands up for an ideal, or acts to improve the lot of others, or strikes out against injustice, he sends forth a tiny ripple of hope.” ~ Robert F. Kennedy
Kudos to you for standing up for yourself and taking pictures! It’s too bad you’ve had some real jerks leave comments, but I suppose you could delete them.
What is it with people and cameras anymore? Being commissioned to perform some wedding ceremonies in recent years, I’ve noticed a growing trend. Guests, usually female types, keep complaining and asking the photographers to quit taking pictures?! “I’m not comfortable with the camera. Could you not photograph?”
What the hell, no, I can’t stop taking pictures you dumb azzes, I’m the photographer. If you’re so ashamed of your body, why don’t you go stick a bag over you head.
Also, the strangeness of our current social climate has forced me to only use ultra small hidden cameras in public places; people are plain nuts!
As for where and what you can photograph, I believe anyone or anything that is in public view is fair game. Photography should be added to the constitution. It is the only way to document a lot of criminal and political corruption. It should be a god given right to photograph anywhere at any time.
Here in the US, I really think this is indicative of a growing social decline. People seem to have psychologically deteriorated in recent years.
Personally, I’d just like to back-hand a couple of these people. Usually I just make a remark about how they probably would have damaged my lens anyhow.
Anonymous said…
Dear Smartass photographer. People like you who use your camera to try and be controversial or provocative seem to suffer mental retardation. Do you think you have some sort of artistic license that allows you to go around and photograph every building you see? be realistic, you might look back at the photos once. thats it. but photography for you idiots is basically masturbation of technology, utterly useless to everyone but yourself. Moreover it is motivated entirely by a desire to be noticed and get attention in your blog.
Stop filling the world with you rubbish please. This goes for anyone reading who disagrees with me.
Dear prick:
Get over yourself, and your imposing paranoia.
Is it happen in THE STATE?
Then you said: ‘See you in the court’
I used to be a movie location scout, many years ago, and NEVER encountered this sort of crap. I had actually forgotten about that until the anonymous comment above. Might have to make a PhotoPermit.org posting about it, because it seems a natural way to answer such bozos who demand an explanation: “I’m scouting real estate properties” or “I’m scouting locations to potentially rent short-term for TV commercials” meaning to Mr Gurad: “$$ for the company if you will get out of my way” or “you will get in trouble if you chase away my $$$ my harassing me”
Heck, the guard might even offer to help you out.
You can always honstly say you’re THINKING about buying.
I’m sorry, what planet do you people live on? I live on a planet where security guards have a high school diploma at best and are trying to get through the day without having some snarky camera toter make them suspicious. The idea that you’re going to get into some sort of rational debate over citizen’s rights with said security guard is laughable. Notice how Thomas never really wants to talk to someone of his seeming equal at the building, i.e. a high-rung property manager or a Shorenstein executive. Why, because they’d dress him down and make him feel small. Thomas enjoys small victories over people he feels are small. He’s sold about three photos in his life, which by the way makes him a hobbyist with his little full-frame-Canon-with-the-oooh-it’s-”L”-series-glass. Thomas, what exactly do you do for a living? I’m really betting it’s not in the following fields a.) photography b.) law or c.) property management. I’ll bet you’re a techie snark still sapping away at pappy Hawk’s trust fund trying to find you’re calling. Normal people simply don’t invest this type of personal time beefing with secruity guards. Please leave them alone and go get a real job. But that would require giving an employer your real name and God knows what the big bad guvernment would do then! This site is a nerd fest and that’s 5 minutes of my life I’ll never get back, but all of you needed it. You may now resume MMOPRG-ing.
Anonymous above:
To you: ‘One thing you can’t hide is when you’re cripled inside!’ John Lennon
I read the majority of the comments, and what appears to be missing is good old common sense. I’ve been taking photos for 50 years and I’ve experienced this problem just once, at a public school playground — and I can understand why. People are very protective of children.
When I take pictures in public, many people are just curious. If I take time to explain what I’m doing, it’s usually OK. But if somebody doesn’t want his or her picture taken, I respect their wishes. There are many other people who will not mind.
Most private security officers are doing what they have been taught to do. They are trying to make a living in a difficult, low-paying job. Some of them are assholes. But then, some photographers are assholes, too.
There are many buildings and people in the city. Move on to the next one. Life is too short.
Bill Rogers
it was asked earlier that someone wanted to see photos of buildings that terrorists have attacked, we I happen to know for sure taht every embassy or train station or building that has been attack have had pictures taken by terrorists. maybe you photo guys should open your eyes to what is happening around the world. I do not agree with the guard, but they have a job to do just like you. They want to keep everyone safe and that includes you, just my 2 cents
.
Ahhh … Eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Welcome to the U.S. – where photography is FREE SPEECH!
Public or private, your photographs are your own. None of this “is’t okay to photograph in public but NOT in private”. BS. Your photographs are your own immediate copyright intellectual property regardless of where or when you make ‘em – on public OR private property, of public OR private property, even of so-called “trademark” or copyright properties, or of people with or without recognizable “identities”.
PUBLISHING is a different matter, but still, there’s NO PRIOR RESTRAINT – they have to sue afterwards! Prior restraint would be “censorship” – oooo, that sounds like Communist China, Saudi Arabia, North Korea, Iran, and so on – you know, the Evil Empires! Is THAT where these people think they live?
But takin’ a photograph is totally unrelated to PUBLISHING a photograph, which I think many people are afraid of and want to control – they cannot, except after the fact by a lawsuit. Welcome to the U. S. Of A.!
If you’re on private property, the owner (they CAN identify themselves as such, can’t they?) can ask you to stop or leave, but they have no right to take YOUR pictures away from you, and no one has any right to take your camera, ever – especially the police! Also, even if they ARE the owners, they can’t treat you any differently than everyone else if there’s public access to their property, like in a restaurant – otherwise, it’s akin to restraint of trade, especially if OTHER photographers have EVER been “allowed” to photograph there (“allowed” really equals “not prohibited” – are there pictures on the wall taken from inside the place – see?!?) – like news photo journalists on the subway, where trying to ban other photographers would be restraint of trade, monopoly practices, and so on, and the state has NO COMPELLING INTEREST to do any such thing, and actually CAN’T, considering that PHOTOGRAPHY is FREE SPEECH!
Taking a photographer’s pictures away from them is copyright and intellectual property infringement – THEFT! No one has any right to your pictures unless you consent, and that is usually accomplished by a negotiated, WRITTEN legal contract AND an exchange of monies, otherwise, especially without MONEY, most judges throw out a so-called contract and return the property to the original owner, by the way.
Also, though it may be a social ploy to explain to any curious onlooker what you’re doing with your camera, even to police or so-called security guards, no one takin’ pictures has ANY obligation to explain or even TALK to anyone who accosts us for taking pictures. IT’S NONE OF THEIR BUSINESS what we’re doin’ with our cameras.
Geesh – don’t get me started!
Doesn’t anybody READ the U.S. Declaration of Independence (“… unalienable rights … life, liberty, pursuit of happiness …”), the U.S. Constitution (especially the COPYRIGHT section!), the U.S. Bill of Rights, the Gettysburg Address (“… of the people, by the people, for the people …”), U.S. Supreme Court decisions from way back in the 1800’s from when photography first became argued over, and so on?!? There’s NOTHING NEW HERE – photography is FREE SPEECH!
No one can even MAKE a law prohibiting photography since it’s a FREE SPEECH RIGHT – unalienable.
And remember – laws do not GIVE us rights – we already have them (“… endowed by our creator with …”) – laws can only prohibit. We already HAVE all the rights, and all the power (supposedly).
Ahhh … eternal vigilance is the price of freedom.
Welcome to the U.S. – where photography is FREE SPEECH!
=====
Counter:
Try this response so someone who ask us what we are doing with our cameras, and saying we can’t photograph here:
“- Oh, are you interested in photography?
- Do you collect photographs?
- Would you like to buy some of my photography?
- Are you a photographer?
- Have you published or sold any photographs that I can see?
- Perhaps we can meet someday and share stories and look at each other’s pictures – how about meeting at the Starbucks on the corner next Thursday noon and swapping photo stories and showing our portfolios?
- Oh, and about prohibiting taking photographs – you’re not trying to restrain free trade, OR free speech, are you?
- Since photography is a free speech right protected in the U.S. Constitution, especially under copyright law, you’re not trying to prevent Americans from making a living, are you?
- THAT would be sheer terror if I felt anyone was trying to prohibit me from an opportunity to make a living, let alone to exercise my free speech rights.
- You’re NOT trying to do anything illegal or un-American in trying to restrain my legal rights as a U.S. citizen, are you?
- Can I see your identification, please? I may want to document this incident to make sure nothing illegal is going on here – do you have a government-issued photo I.D. with you, or do you need time to go and get it – I’ll wait. Let me take your picture in the meantime.
- SMILE!
- Click!
- Thank you”
==========
Hey, we have to get PROACTIVE here.
Photography is FREE SPEECH – so, c’m'on everyone, please carry your cameras with you everywhere, and photograph EVERYTHING, ALL THE TIME!
Click!
Love and hugs,
Peter Blaise
Peterblaise@yahoo.com
Photographer (English is my SECOND language – AFTER photography – actually THIRD language after photography and music!)
http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/
We live in interesting times – a time of Corporate Paranoia – if any terrorist organisation intends to blow something up ,it will do irregardless of taking photos. It can plant ‘moles’ with completely clean records and pasts to survey the premises from within.
This is all about the Corporate Power Trip of “Listen Little Man…”.
I was once taking photos of the BBC Broadcasting House in London – a fabulous art deco confection, only to be told by a security guard that if I continue to take photos of the building he would smash my camera. I said that I could do what I like as I was in a public space, I carried on snapping. He did not do anything.
All well and good if security came up to you and politely told you that you can’t snap the building because “…”, but this corporate rudeness is a load of bollocks.
Loved the photo of the berk that tried to have a go at you, the accompanying commentary was also very funny.
Remember Adolf Hitler’s dad, he was employed in a similar job!
thanks for sharing this. as a photographer, i’m really bothered by this.
here’s a situation i would like some feedback on…
i was at a rodeo the other day and got what i thought was a fabulous shot. i inquired with the rodeo about selling the photo to the contestant. to my surprise, the rodeo officials claim they have shared copyright to MY photograph and i cannot sell them if i’m not part of the PRCA (professional rodeo cowboy association).
WHAAA??? i said. i never heard of this. does anyone else know anything about this? they claimed that it’s no different than say getting a great shot at an NFL game. apparently you can’t sell those either.
so i asked how do you get into the PRCA. well, you know… it’s an exclusive club, they replied in so many words. and if you’re freelance? tough shit. and oh by the way, you’ve got to pay $$dues. of course.
is there a restraint of trade issue here? anybody know?
thanks.
UIn theuNited States you can take pictures of biukdings outsidacross the street. If a security guard said “No photos” I will tell them. “I willburn your fucking building down?
I was with a friend who was taking pictures of buildings due to the way the light and reflection can make the buildings appear. He has some very cook pictures. Same kind of thing happened but here, “You can’t take pictures blah-blah-blah, you must give me that camera now blah-blah – - Illegal – blah-blah- now erase those pictures or else – the guard got huffy and tried to take the camera away from the photographer.
Queue Seattle PD. The cop responded that there is no law against taking pictures, especially from a public street; and asked us if would like to press assault charges against the rent-a-guard for trying to take the camera away and for menacing.
For the guy taking pictures of the rodeo. Uh, no. You do not share the copyright with them. You took the photo, its your photo. They are either misinformed or lying to you. The rodeo officials do not have shared copyright to your photograph. I’d go ahead and sell the photo as you see fit.
Mr. Bentor above is right. There is so much misinformation in the comments above his. To address,whether Thomas Hawk was on technically on private property doesn’t make an iota of difference in whether he was allowed to take the photos or not. It only makes a difference in whether they can ask him to leave the property. He can take as many pictures as he wants even as he’s leaving, and any security guard trying to confiscate the film or take the camera could be criminally prosecuted for assault and/or menacing. Any question of fair use of the pictures would be a civil matter, as Thomas has tried to explain, requiring them to file suit in a civil court afterward. This is what makes threatening to call the police such ridiculous action on the part of the guards. The people excusing the outrageous actions of the guards by citing the low pay are doing a disservice to the legions of low-paid service workers who don’t flip off everyone they disagree with every day. I’ve worked as a security guard before, and most of my co-workers developed a superiority complex (a la the “I own this building” guy in the story) from the small amount of power the badge gave them. Rock on, Thomas Hawk.
If you shoot JPEG rather than RAW, and use a Mac, the free tool EXIF Untrasher can save you even if you are forced to delete your pictures.
That’s how I now have pictures of an Air Marshal on duty. *wicked grin*
I had a security chap manhandle me last year too for taking a photo of Tower Bridge, London, in the reflection of his building.
One of his lines was ‘i have the power to call the police’, which was fairly remarkable since i was able to get my cell phone out and offer the same.
All the way through the security guy wanted to know what I knew about the building (nothing, except a nice reflection) and he wouldn’t tell me what it was.
So my interest was piqued and as soon as i got home I googled the address, images and found out that the building was the office of national UK newspaper, the Daily Express (one that would think nothing of photographing anyone or anything they please, whenever they want)…
keep up the good work.
To Peter Blaise
Extremely well said !
My hat is off to you, I only wish more people would educate themselves about the laws and freedoms that are supposed to be available to us as U.S. citizens and that they would have the fortitude to stand up fight when they see them trounced on.
R Walker
If you are out in public, you have no expectation to privacy, and can’t expect people not to take your photograph.
If you take your car and put it on a public street, you can’t ask someone not to photograph it.
If you have your house or building in full view from a public street, you can’t expect it to be considered private.
Inside building, cars, etc. is a different story. But frankly, people are all concerned about these imaginary rights getting violated.
I love this blog… it is so funny and soo true!!
I remember when I used to work at a theater… We used to get on people who took photos during the show and also of the stage before and after… because of copyright issues…
But I believe that being in a public place and taking a picture of a building is nothing to get worked up over.. you know?
It is disapointing to me that you’re unable to put yourself in the owners/securety gaurds shoes.
Last week a man took a picture of my car/licence plate right infront of me. From his point of view this was a harmless act of photography, but this made me feel very uncomfortable threatened so I immediately confronted him and ask him delete the picture from his digital camera. He explained the he meant no harm, however he respected my wishes and deleted the picture since it was of my property. He did not try to exercise his right to take pictures even though legally he did nothing wrong, however as I said he respected my wishes because of common courtesy.
If you acted more like this man did then I bet you will come across less disputes with security gaurds and owners.
The future is now………..
Everyone will be walking down the street with their miniature, Bluetooth camera lens embedded in their clothing (front and rear), which streams everything it/you see to your WiFi cell phone.
Your WiFi cell phone will store everything on its 1 terabyte hard drive while at the same time streaming this video you see via WiFi to a “tracker network”. The tracker network is a social group of similar people ( by geographical area,interest..etc),numbering from 2 or 3 to tens of thousands in size. All of these tracker networks will include retail facial recognition software that will be 10 times more powerful than anything currently available.
The TrackerNetwork facial software works by taking every face that is inputted into its database and giving it a unique number.
Then the face is identified in two ways.
1. The TrackerNetwork facial software has so many thousands of “hits” on any face over a period of day/weeks it identifies where this person starts his/her day, works, shops etc. It does this all automatically without knowing who the person is.
2. People who belong to the TrackerNetwork input faces and identify them by name.
With the above two, anyone belonging to the TrackerNetwork can track just about anyone by belonging to a network from that city. Just input the name ( or unique ID the TrackerNetwork software assigns to an individual) and the software will either allow you to watch them live or can show you history from as far back as recorded on that individual.
The upside:
Modern Neighbor Hood Watch: Hit and run? captured on numerous cell phones, instantly uploaded to a tracker network and within seconds the car and driver are identified and sent to the police.
You are walking down the street, a drug addict asks you for money and when you refuse, he starts to get violent. Picked up by someone watching from a store, driving by in a car and from the person waiting for the bus ½ a block away. Instantly sent to a tracker network.
The downside:
Anyone can track anyone all the time! You can track: politicians, celebrities, neighbors, spouse……etc.
hey Tank, why do you hate the first amendment, why do you hate america?
I got the sh*t scared out of me when I was photographing a park in Cairo and a military guard pointed his rifle at me and started screaming. I came to find out that a portion of a bridge over the Nile was in the park, and bridges are considered military installations in Egypt.
On the plus side, an escort from the government allowed me to take my camera into King Tut’s tomb, which is ordinarily prohibited (so not all Egyptians are a**holes). I took a no-flash picture and was really happy.
I’m a police officer at an airport. People stand outside the airport all of the time to legally take pictures and video of planes landing and taking off. I don’t see any harm in this at all, especially since it’s legal. The Department of Homeland Security along with TSA are a total joke. The U.S. Constitution does not seem to apply to them. I think they create this fear of photography just so they have something to do, to justify their existence. They literally are out of control, and operate above the Constitution.
Mr. Bentor said…
For the guy taking pictures of the rodeo. Uh, no. You do not share the copyright with them. You took the photo, its your photo. They are either misinformed or lying to you. The rodeo officials do not have shared copyright to your photograph. I’d go ahead and sell the photo as you see fit.
Apologies for previous post – cut/paste mistake.
magpie said
Getting each and every fan at the Superbowl to sign a standard photographers release must be a real bitch for sports journalists and the TV netwerks.
Back of ticket. I’ll guarantee it says somehting about photos. It’s a binding legalk contract.
VolleyJosh said
Now, I can tell from the pictures that you were most definitely on private property, as the little brass placques mentoined previously are outside the pillars and the overhang that you were under. Of course, the no-pictures policy is stupid. Even if someone was trying to sneak or break in, they could just go into the lobby and mill around for hours.
Irrelevant. The building has no “reasonable expectation of privacy”. Even if you’re trespassing (which, until being told to leave the property, he wasn’t), the legal standard is “reasonable expectation of privacy”.
Mr. Bentor
For the guy taking pictures of the rodeo. Uh, no. You do not share the copyright with them. You took the photo, its your photo. They are either misinformed or lying to you. The rodeo officials do not have shared copyright to your photograph. I’d go ahead and sell the photo as you see fit.
I’d take a look at the back of the ticket before i said that/did that. it may say exactly what the rodeo officials said, and by buying and using the ticket you have entered a contract that is probably legally binding.
that middle finger shot is awesome, dude. Yesterday I was taking a shot of the PRADA flgaship store here in Hong Kong and all I got was a mean looking security with a waving hand wearing an expensive watch lol. But I think that’s when I fire the shutter though.
When I first started taking street I get pissed off when they’re mean to me. Now, I am calm and fires the shutter exactly at the middle finger moment to capture the goodness
)
this is such a good example of what fear mechanics have done to this country. the security guard is thinking; “if i dont go get rid of this fucker he is gonna blow up the building some day and it’s going to be all my fault.” I guess in a sense he IS just doing his job, but he had to be a dick about it, even though part of him knew you had no intentions of committing an act of terrorism agains the place.
dude u should send this pic to his boss! ask him is this the type of employees you hire? great story!
Hi, just happened on your blog and flickr account. Great stuff. I love it when I invite the rent a badge guys to call the cops so that we can all have a talk. I had a similar run in shooting Radio City Music Hall. see here,
http://www.flickr.com/photos/solostandfound/1711664047/in/set-72157602640646718/
I have to say, great post! When I was in DC this last week, nare a soul said a thing. But in NY, LA, SF I hear it about half the time. Great Photography! Great Blog.
I’ve been to Seattle a few times and have taken a few shots of various buildings (albeit from afar). I’ve also wandered around most of Vancouver shooting most of the interesting buildings from inside and out. Never had any trouble at all. Particularly in Canada where I’ve probably been filmed on security camera more than a few times shooting buildings. It seems pretty unfortunate that you’ve had these experiences. I’m returning back to the UK in a month and by all reports photographers are getting into all kinds of trouble, being accused of taking photos of kids (their own or otherwise), trouble from security staff for shooting buildings so I’ve got that to look forward to. All I can say is get yourself up to Vancouver if you want stress free and fantastic photo opportunities.
I figured I’d point out one camera friendly place in SF that you wouldn’t normally realize—inside the 9th Circuit Courthouse. Of course, you have to ask the courthouse manager for permission to bring your camera in, but she was really nice and had no problems with it. The architecture in there is amazing and the intricate marble carvings in some of the courtrooms are beautiful.
BUT, don’t try to take your camera in to other federal courthouses, most won’t allow it for any reason.
“explaining who I am and showing them a card”
A card!? What card? What does that even mean? You don’t need to “show them” anything.
I’m just glad there are people like this guy in the photo stopping terrorism. Someone should give him a Superman cape to wear around while he fights crime.
On a side note I’m going to start using “Post 9/11″ for everything ridiculous I do. Next time I run down a puppy in a cross-walk “well, it’s post-9/11 now you know…”
what a load of crap.
Thomas, by doing this you are only exercising your democratic rights in a public place.
We have a stink here in Australia over Gogle StreetView – people are demanding that their properties are blanked out. Sorry, public street, you have no expectation of privacy.
By building “owners”, security guards and the Department of Homeland Absurdity getting all shitty about this, then the terrorists have won. We are expending more time and energy “defending” from these hypothetical attacks that we are probably giving Osama and his pals a good laugh.
What are we leaving unguarded while we run around like headless chooks ?
By the way loved the color balance of the photo
I had this happen to me in Prague. It was the most beautiful building. It was also a bank! Who knew,I had a KBG’ish person come out of no where and rip the film from the camera.I’m a petite girl who was just a tad scared. It was clearly a bit “1984″ in feeling. Hate to see it happen here but the camera’s are everywhere. Not yours or mine,it’s THEM!
[...] out and instruct you to stop shooting. While I don’t have any really crazy stories (though Thomas Hawk does), we did get scolded for taking this photo. We didn’t put up much of an argument because [...]
I was at a friends 30th birthday party, enjoying the great weather and shooting the bull on the deck while we waited for a couple more friends to show up.
While we were waiting, the guest of honor’s (who also owned the house) neighbor showed up. GOH’s neighbor happened to be a cop. In full uniform. So they were chatting, and the officer was eating a brat and drinking a pepsi. No big deal.
I got a text message from another friend who asked if there was gonna be food there or if he should grab something to eat on the way. I looked over and saw that GOH had the grill opened and was flipping the burgers. Officer Friendly immediately piped up, “You don’t have permission to take my picture!”
“Really? I wasn’t aware I needed ‘permission’, first of all; and second of all, I was only taking a picture of the food on the grill.”
“Yeah, you need permission. The Minnesota Peace Officers Bill of Rights says that you can’t take a picture of a police officer without their permission.”
Now, as an invited guest in someone elses house, I wasn’t gonna pick a fight with another invited guest, but:
The officer was wrong and I knew it. The “Peace Officers Bill of Rights” is actually referred to as the “Peace Officers Disciplinary Procedures Act”. This act doesn’t prohibit the photographing of police officers by an average joe on the street; it does prohibit a department or government agency to release or publish photos or other information as a result of misconduct or a dispute.
Furthermore, several Courts have ruled that an officer, as an officer and a public servant, in performance of his duty has no expectation of privacy up to and including that they can be subject to video recording against their wishes.
Whatever the case, I took the non-confrontational route.
[...] PHOTOGRAPHING ARCHITECTURE IS NOT A CRIME, THOMAS HAWK VS. BUILDING SECURITY EPISODE 118 [...]
Well, never happend to me. Not that i take good pictures, but i attempt
.
Any case here in NYC guess everyone is used to a guy with a camera.
I do get the looks when I take the pictures for my investigative work outside of NYC, but never a confrontation.
Good for you! Don’t give in to people who think they can make up and enforce laws on the spot.
My brother was in Rome last fall and when he tried to take a tourist picture of the American Embassy from across the street, a guard came over and told him not to…
The place is on Google and Live Maps and who knows where else? This is symptomatic of our paranoia.
Think of the hundreds of times you have heard or read the phrase ‘for security purposes’…it means nothing without defining the purpose. It’s mindless secure-speak. We give up like babies when someone cites that ‘reason’and we simply back off…
[...] of us. And to the extent that we are able, we need to take a stand. We need to know our rights, document the fact that we’ve been wronged, and work for change. And if we fail to enact change, the [...]