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.
posted by Thomas Hawk at 9:38 PM
143 Comments:
An all too common story these days, but well told.
I liked the picture of the building a lot. Nice shot of the moron with the finger, too. But I would have *really* liked to be there with you, arguing with those clowns. I regularly get into these "discussions" too. Once I had a pastor running out of a church telling me I was not allowed to take photographs of "his" church. When I started laughing so much that I had to sit down on the ground, he silently went back in and that was the end of it...
Yep, this old chestnut. I've had the same thing several times here in the UK. This whole paranoia / climate of fear thing is simply tedious and counterproductive.
If this business really has a problem then they should set up shop underground, with a camouflaged entrance. Besides, their premises will already be clearly visible on Google Earth and if you had a telephoto lens you could photograph all the details from a ‘safe’ distance anyway.
bitblue – being told you’re not allowed to photograph a church? Now that’s just rediculous...
Increasingly, people seem to treat photography as an assault.
I do freelance scouting for movie and TV productions. And one of the things I do is take digital snaps (I use a tripod and other photographic equipment) of buildings to pass onto directors and production companies to consider using in their productions (which they will later contact the management in charge of said buildings they choose to use).
You wouldn't believe the amount of hassling I get these days, and I always make it a point to take the pictures while standing on a public street. The people who bother me the most aren't security with the building in the question but people on the street. 911 changed everything, and every punk is out thinking they can be a "hero". Originally, I was quite patient and explaining what I was doing legitimately, but most of the time the response is that I'm b-s'ing them. Really, I'm quite tired of what has become of our country.
I used to work in that building years ago. I wonder if Bechtel is still a tenent? (They took up almost all of 45 Fremont and 50 Beale at one point.)
I'm a security guard and bouncer, and there's a number of reasons why I personally don't like people taking photos with me in them. I've been told while doing the training for the job to do everything I can to stop photos being taken. One reason is that you don't know where the photos will end up and whether you or your venue will be misrepresented with yourself involved. Another is that occasionally when you throw people out of a venue they may want revenge for being humiliated, and they may use the photo of you like this. There are more... In any case, the man you dealt with there was being an asshole, especially if its the building that he's objecting to being the subject of the photo. In my experience, photographers will accommodate my wishes if I just explain to them why.
It would be fun to print screen that photo, drop by and see if I can get it autographed.
You're very brave for snapping a photo of that guy. Someone needs to infiltrate the security cop world and find out what kind of propaganda they're feeding those stuffed suits.
Great story! I've been harassed taking photos too.
Once, before 911, I was in front of the Pete Domenici Courthouse with a camera and the guard ran all the way across the lawn telling me I couldn't take a picture of his building. I insisted that I was on the sidewalk taking a picture of the sidewalk plaque, and he backed off. Then he volunteered that I could go ten feet across the street and take all the pictures I wanted to of his building.
Last year I had the same problem in the Washington DC subway. The lady in the booth told me I couldn't take pictures, I asked her name, and she responded by calling the the Metro police. The Metro police told me it wasn't illegal to take pictures, and then directed to a website, and told me about a book, with all the pictures of the Metro I needed if I wanted to do any damage (his words were a little more explicit).
It just doesn't make any sense. The attitude against taking photos is extreme enough these days; but the extraneous advice of both the security people goes beyond bizarre.
fear climate, enough said.
I dont understand what is wrong in photographing the architecture? I mean first they spent millions to make a good building that can be appreciated well. Now if someone likes it, then only he/she will would wish to take a picture.this way the building is actually being appreciated. this is total nonsense to stop someone from taking picutre!!!
Harjeet singh
Outsource Architectural renderings and vitrual tours from india
That guy looks like an extra from The Sopranos.
Good on you for taking the photographs and don't let the cnuts grind you down!
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.
D
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.
D
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.
D
Question:
What about public infrastructure? Could you go into a subway station and take photos? How about photos of a police station? How about from inside the police station lobby?
I know you can photograph private structures from public space, but what about public structures? What if the public space isn't open to all people 24/7 (such as inside structures like subway stops or police stations)?
Rock on!
someone needs to organise another flickr party down there... and bring along some shots from google for when they starting whining 9/11. course terrorist dont use google do they?
I wouldn't mind so much if these terror-noiac photo-phobes could tell us when a photograph of a building assisted a terrorist attack.
I guess this is the sort of thing you can expect more of when you elect a leader who relies on generating fear and terror as a counter to his anti-terrorism agenda...
Man, when did Vince Vaughan get a job as a security guard???
I used to take photos for liability cases - I'd have to sneak my camera into buildings to document the broken staircase etc. - and security guards were SO much fun. Sometimes in NYC they'd get pretty physical; those guys would get the blank roll of cheap Konica film I palmed =)
Definitely seems like people react as if everything in front of them is their fiefdom. The same would happen in India regardless of 9/11 or not. Be safe...and better keep some company while you take on these building gurkhas :)
If u like computer problem cartoons, do come by sometime to http://spaces.msn.com/sillygloop
Keep up the good work. Fuck the NAZIS
Ahhh...The level of professionalism in the security sector astounds me. As an architecture student, all structures and public spaces are fair game. I tend to have more problems when unavoidably getting passerby in the shots who, for whatever reason, think that they are important enough for me to be specifically photographing them. All I can say is 'Look, don't flatter yourself and get the f*ck out of the way' (only to the angry ones that bother to approach me)
If I were really "studying" a building, I would be sketching, not simply taking snapshots for trace fodder. The security guards should fear the sketchbooks and pencils!
^Ohh - Triple post FTW!^
Nice Photos! Being employed in television I've had to deal with my fair share of over zealous security guards.
However, one thing to think about... Alot of times the sidewalk may actually be private property especially the part right next to the building. The dividing line between public and private may not be well marked. I'm thinking specifically of a building in Boston that I was shooting once from the sidewalk. A security guard approached me and told me that I was on private property and directed my attention to a small brass marker set into the sidewalk showing where the public way ended and the private property started. the marker even said Public/Private. I had to move my tripod about three feet and I continued my shooting. The security guard got to exercise his authority, I still got my shots and nobody was a dick. Sorry to hear about your experience.
It seems like a little thing you have done, but it is not. It is a big step toward not letting our rights be trampled. Each and every person who says "I am just doing my job" when stomping on anothers rights, needs to stand up to these stupid policies as well.
I am very tired of "post 9ll" being an excuse for ridding the USA of our rights.
Do you ever get tired of intentionally provoking low-paid security guards, then whining about it online? I know I get tired of reading about it...
In terms of photographers' rights, there's also this gem:
http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf
msn, I shoot photos. It's what I do. As long as they keep hasseling I suppose I'll keep posting. Perhaps at some point they'll get the message.
It's actually been a while since I've posted on this but these guys were particularly assholish about the whole thing.
Hey this don’t-photo-my-building thing is older than 9/11. I used to be a real estate and hobbyist and professional photog in Memphis, and it happened pretty frequently. This was in the late 80s-early 90s. It’s generally somebody with a burr up their butt or who wants to show-out for his friends.
Mr. Tank has a good point, and that’s why we should photograph cops and bouncers as much as possible. Certainly photos have been used where I live now to put a bouncer in jail who beat a college student to death outside a bar. Glad those photos were taken. New York is installing a London-style “Ring of Steel” as I type this--cameras all over downtown watching us. It’s only fair that we get to watch back.
BTW - Thomas, like you, when I grew up we referred to this expression of anger as "flipping the bird". I've noticed that my kids call it "chucking the finger". However, it's possible that it's just an East Coast phenomena. :-)
Thanks for blogging about sticking up for your rights. Hopefully it will inspire others to do the same.
I think you are an idiot, personally. I wouldn't go around inciting people and causing shit just because Its legal. Yeah, thats right, go piss off the security guards for fun. What are you, 16?
Grow up. Theres no reason to do this.
Thomas, good on you for keeping a steady hand and getting that shot—that guy was close if you were shooting @ 24mm!
FWIW, I've noticed here in DC it's a tripod that often sets off alarm bells. I think Nikon and Canon give kickbacks to security guards to encourage their VR/IS technology. (joking here).
Zaun, I think that maybe you missed something. Since when is taking photos from a public sidewalk "inciting people and causing shit just because Its legal". I think that maybe it is you that needs to 'grow up' and see what is happening to people's rights in this country. What are they going to complain about next? That we are breathing their air? That we are thinking impure thoughts?
Thomas,
I waas almost pummeled by some jackass who was pissed that I took a photo of his car (without him in it). He damanded "his picture" since it was a Polaroid. I informed him that it was, in fact, my picture. He said he would call the police so I did it for him. I dialed 911 and told them that I was being threatened. He left a few minutes later and the police were very understanding. Don't let them push you around! They are all buliles!
Notable buildings are a main element of a cities gestalt. One may have the desire to photograph them the same way that rural dwellers would want to photograph mountains or forests or rivers.
Besides, just take a look at all the historical building and street scene photgraphy books in your local Borders or Barnes & Nobles and youll find that people in cities have always had great pride, respect and desire in having pictures of the great architecture that surrounds them day to day.
WHAT HAPPENED? He went into call the cops, and then.... entry ends. TALK ABOUT CLIFF HANGER KTHXBYE!
It’s funny how the knee-jerk reactionaries who have posted negative comments didn’t actually bother to read your article.
Anyone who RTFA would clearly see that you were photographing architecture, not people.
Tangram triple poster: this photographer was in no way trying to be controversial or provocative. RTFA. He was taking pictures of a cool looking building & essentially minding his own business. He was in no way trespassing or trying to provoke the building or any of its contents. It was the over-zealous low-minded security person that engaged in controversial and provocative behaviour (i.e. verbal and gesticular assault). The situation only proceeded to this point entirely due to the actions of the security person and the faux owner. If we went by Tangram triple-poster’s rules, no one would be allowed to take pictures of anything. Any photograph that anyone takes contains 1000’s of elements that the photographer does not own. Should we need to get signed release forms from every blade of grass?
But I guess you can’t be too careful in this post-1933 world.
peace,
magpie
This happened to me at a ritzy suburban Chicago shopping mall. At least the security man was nice about it. When I said OK when he asked me to stop, he was almost shocked. Almost as if he expected me to have a fit. LOL
I recently went on vacation to New York City. while taking a photograph within the Coney Island MTA subway station, I was approached by thisgroup of MTA police goons. They confronted me with the following; " Hey, don't you know that its illegal to take pictures in the subway?" I said I did not, to which he replied that "ignorance is no excuse".He then demanded to see my I.D. The officer threatend me "I'm gonna write you a 60 dollar summons and confiscate your camera".
I went back and read the rules, and it turns out that there is no law against photography in the subway. I was threatened by a "professional" policeman with fines and confiscation of my camera based on a law he made up on the spot! What heck? Is this Chicago?
Are these police people professional or volunteer? Is ignorance an excuse for harrassing tourists? Is there any recourse?
http://danbennett.blogspot.com/2005/09/i-recently-went-on-vacation-to-new.html
Thomas. I remember the last time this happened to you, and you organized the Flickr party and got your 15 seconds of BoingBoing-linked fame and all. You have every right to photograph buildings in our city. (Yep, I'm in EssEff too.) But dear God, you must have the most boring collection of photos on the planet. Methinks this is for the purpose of re-educating pissy security guards rather than making good pictures. Lemme guess, one of these guys shoved you in front of your girlfriend once and made you feel small. Now you're getting them all back through the power of snapshots. Sigh... If you really want to `man up' and own your right to shoot photos of buildings, do this: Don't explain anything about your rights to the next pesky security. Just tell him "Shut the fuck up you low-paid inbred. I do what I fucking please." That's how real men excercise their rights. If you want to have THAT type of impromptu flashmob photo session, I'll be there and I've got your back. If you're going to bring along a hardback edition California Civil Code and get all pinheaded about it, I'm taking your camera, your flash cards _ an your wallet!
It is all to common these days.
The Security paranoia will reach new heights as the goverment and corporations utilize the fear of a populous to make a profit.
Does anyone find it wierd that citizens are no longer allowed to photograph buildings, bridges, etc. but the goverment is putting up more and more cameras because it will make us safer. There seems to be something wrong with that. Take into consideration that 9/11 involved the utilization of something as common as an airplane and a boxcutter. They used our own transportation system against us. Could this network of Cameras not also be exploited? Ohh my...
The sky is falling the sky is falling...
I personally would love to find more on the net about legal vs. illegal photography. I recently went to NYC and while crossing the GW Bridge, there were signs posted "No cameras allowed". Is that legal? I just don't want to get sued by some idiot I took a photo of, even if he does look like a moron. :D
You are an antagonist, who the hell wants to take pictures of buildings? However, I don't know the legality behind this, you may have a right to take pictures of anything you like from a public place, I think the guard has the right, not to be photographed (or for the photo to be used) if he doesn’t want it (unless he is included as a by product of life). Maybe the guard has as much right to do what he wishes in the public place. I'd probably give you the finger too, if I wasn't laffing so hard!
I'm a security guard and bouncer, and there's a number of reasons why I personally don't like people taking photos with me in them. I've been told while doing the training for the job to do everything I can to stop photos being taken. One reason is that you don't know where the photos will end up and whether you or your venue will be misrepresented with yourself involved. Another is that occasionally when you throw people out of a venue they may want revenge for being humiliated, and they may use the photo of you like this. There are more...
This moron would dirty his pants with glee if his employer decided to put security cameras all over the building so he wouldn;t have to do as much "work."
I enjoyed your story and think you did well to keep your nerve. I take photographs of listed buildings (archtichtural merit) in the UK and must have been very lucky to have had a positive response from most people. I'm sure the bad reaction you got was caused by an underlying insecurity sometimes documents and identity cards can make all the difference.
Since you posted this (I use the term loosely) person's picture I assume you got a standard photographers release. Otherwise he can sue you for posting his picture on the net. Publishing people's photographs is always a tricky proposition.
more misinformation above. One does not need a release to take a photo, or post it on the net. Only commercial use of a photo requires a release. Furthermore,if the photo is for journalism, then you don't even need a release for commercial purposes. Its protected speach. In france one needs permission to photograph a private residence. But we dont live in france.
There really are 10 people in the world, those who understand binary, and those who don't.
There are also a lot of law and order type idiots commenting on your article. I really can't see how anyone could be offended by your describing what happened to you while you were taking your pics. These are the same assholes who would have reported you to the SS in nazi germany though, so be careful, cause they are dangerous to the freedoms espoused by your constipated American consitution.
A friend.
Anonymous, I did not get a model release and he's welcome to try and sue me all he wants. You don't need model releases for either editorial use / news reporting or artistic endeavers. I'm a published editorial photographer and am practicing citizen journalism.
Despite my being legally able to publish his photo. I do feel a certain sense of ethics surround the issue of publishing someone's photo who clearly does not want it published. But then again this guy was a prick so I'm not so inclined not to print his photo. He can feel free to sue me. I look forward to that one and the resulting additional publicity his graceful portrait will provide.
As a general rule of thumb I'd recommend not approaching people with cameras with your middle finger extended before having a conversation with them. They just might take your photo. I'm not sure either that this would be the way that The Shorenstein company would best like itself represented.
I've been hasseled and shot many security guards and not published their photos. This guy and his partner were just especially pricks about it all.
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.
peace,
magpie
I work in the building, and I can offer some insight into the security company:
they are super hard-ass about 'policy', but their enforcement isn't so great. Example: you can't take a box out of the building without a signed form from an authorized signer on your floor. However, if you just walk out the back entrance they'll most likely not notice that you have a box.
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.
And yet the building security people have no problem taking pictures of **you**...
It is an amazing bit of irony that security guards will rush out of buildings bristling with security cameras pointed all around the building to hassle people taking pictures. For some reason they assume they have a legal right to take your picture but not the other way around.
I work in this building. I took pictures of this building with floors 14 and up lost in a thick fog (stunning!), I got yelled at too. I quietly said "No problem", walked away and took 5 more fantastic shots of the building, from the PUBLIC property. Now I get to look at those shots and enjoy them untarnished by some negative energy surrounding them. Many years from now, you may look at these pics and probably regret wasting your breath arguing with someone who was doing his job (poorly, mind you). It was not even a windmill
Your work is very nice, please spend your time wisely, making the world a better place. On the other hand, it is your time...
P.S. You were technically ON the private property, you know, just look down on the ground, you will see those little copper signs, which remind you "this ain't your land, this anin't my land".
I was visiting New York recently as a tourist (from the UK). I took a picture of the Tweed Courthouse from behind a security gate on the road, the guard then very aggressively told me to delete the image because it featured some of the security gate in it. I didn't bother to argue, but did he have the right to do this?
The last time I was given a hard time about taking photos was in Bangkok Thailand. I was near the US embassy and figured that as I've never seen a US embassy before I'd take a photo of it. Heck, I'm a US citizen and I might need to get back there one day. So I snapped a photo with my tele lens on my D70 (I was taking some photos of other buildings in the area at the time so it's what was on the body at the time). No problem, I move to another location just down the street and take a few more shots of buildings and then one more of the embassy entrance. As i was waiting at the bus stop that is across the street a man walks up to me and demands that I not take photos of the embassy. My wife was rattling off Thai faster than I could keep up with, saying that I was a US citizen and that he was a jerk, etc... She wasn't helping the situation out much. The guy was pretty miffed that I had taken a photo of what my tax dollars had built so to let him feel that he had done his jack booting for the day I showed him the last image I had taken and then deleted it in front of his face. I think he was expecting me to surrender my 'film' and not have a digital camera but he was satisfied that I didn't have any secret embassy photos in my camera. As he left I snapped a few more shots of him and the embassy. He looked to be a hired Thai citizen so I'm sure his boss drilled into his head that he had the utmost authority with matters like this. I'd guess that the typical Thai citizen would be more than happy to surrender their film to an authority figure if asked for it.
I'd love to drop by and get that autographed by him, what time does he work?
I had a similar experience photographing buildings in London's Docklands for a slide-film project on 'the surveilance society'.
The project obviously required some examples of CCTV cameras mounted on buildings so I set out with a friend to photograph a few. Within minutes of taking the first shot we were surrounded by plain suited security personnel who sternly warned us that Docklands , an area that's home and workplace to some 100,000 plus people, was 'private property' and that we required permission to photograph in the area.
This issue isnt just about photography and art , its about our right to capture and document the changing environment we live in and question the relentless corporatisation of public space.
For those of you who say that I'm not allowed to take shots because of that little placque on the sidewalk I would take issue.
The California code with regards to those little signs is not exactly clear. You can read the code for yourself here: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cacodes/civ/1006-1009.html
Those plaques are largely about retaining ownership of property that is generally considered public and in technically not allowing these areas to become easements by public domain.
The California code while citing the mechanism of the plaque to retain the ownership of the land also recognizes that the fact that it is public space affords the general public certain rights with regards to this space.
More specifically, the code states that after putting up the plaque to maintain ownership that: "After taking any of the actions set forth in paragraph (1), (2),
or (3), and during the time such action is effective, the owner shall
not prevent any public use which is appropriate under the permission
granted pursuant to such paragraphs by physical obstruction, notice,
or otherwise."
I would argue that my my photography constituted public use. But they can feel free to sue me if they want. Irrespective of those little plaques it still is public space and the code would seem to imply that ownership issues aside that the public has certain rights within this space.
A very similar thing happened to me last year in Pittsburgh at the PPG complex. Initially the security claimed I wasn't allowed to photograph their buildings for security purposes, but later when I contacted their management I was told it was due to copyright restrictions. They claim to own the copyright on the appearance of their buildings, and even if you're standing on public property when you snap the photos, they claim that you're not allowed to take any pictures. It's ridiculous how companies think they can rewrite the law!
I'm a photojournalist. As you are obviously aware you can photograph anything (that can be reasonably seen... i.e. you can't shoot through a tiny gap in someones closed curtains even if you are standing on public property. That violates one's right to a "reasonable expectation" of privacy) you like from a public space. You should always fight for your right to do this. Just be aware that the other party can also go apeshit and attack you. Not legal, of course, but if they bash you over the head with a pipe and you don't have hard evidence that they did this, you WILL lose in court.
I was attacked by a crazed redneck while shooting an assignment about zoning violations and property inspection officers. We fought, I was injured after landing on a broken bottle, I filed charges, the charges were thrown out. Why? I had photos of the guy charging at me but nothing of me actually getting hit. The police report (which I got through our police reporter) said that I had slipped and fallen all by my lonesome(argh! Damn cops... and nothing you can do about this). Remember, cops generally don't like photographers. Even the property inspection officer I had been photographing claimed he hadn't seen anything (which was not true. He acted all embarrased about it in front of me but still insisted that, for the 5 minutes the fight carried on, his back was turned and he heard nothing).
The upshot, I had to spend a day in the hospital, my clothes were ruined, I had to suffer the indignity of a drug test (as I was on the clock) and I had no recourse other than to be even more suspicious of cops and to despise knuckle dragging, mouth breathing, inbred rednecks for the rest of my life.
Rob says:
i think that flying cars are the way of the future.
With a certain amount of courteous respect to Tank for being an early example of a security guard who can read and write, why do you think these guys are security guards? It's pretty low on the employment chain. Yes, I'm sure there are some readers who worked as a security guard once whilst they were students, but be honest, it's a career that attracts the intellectually challenged. Like Tangram. Can you check a badge? Yup. Can you act thuggish and leer at women? Yup. You're hired. Really, if you think they are going to know law and respect your rights, you're expecting too much. You want the moon on a stick.
all i can say is respect. nice post haha
stupid security guards
RE: Intellectually challenged security guards.
Hold up there, the man with the highest IQ in North America works as a bouncer.
peace,
magpie
This reminds me of two incidents in my own life.
When returning from a Gay Pride parade in Toronto on the subway, I saw a man assaulted for supposedly taking pictures of some other man and his girlfriend. (He was taking pictures of the subway as he was a tourist from Russia.) His camera was seized and the film torn out by the offended party. The friend of the man who was accosted begged for this not to happen as it was this man's only pictures of the Pride parade.
Another time when I was in Texas, I pointed out some interseting wall decorations in a cafe to a friend. A man who was with his wife or girlfriend demanded to know what we were taking pictures of and demanded proof that he was not in the pictures. My friend demonstrated his pictures were free of this person and was allowed to continue to take pictures.
What are people so afraid of? Cameras do not steal your soul, and not everyone is a private eye out to catch uou doing something illicit.
IskiE
Is that Vince Vaughn?
I just read jpc's reply:
Mr. Tank has a good point, and that’s why we should photograph cops and bouncers as much as possible. Certainly photos have been used where I live now to put a bouncer in jail who beat a college student to death outside a bar. Glad those photos were taken.
This perhaps highlights a bit of a problem with the security industry as a whole, namely its image. I have heard a number of stories about crackheads who will headbutt a wall just to put the blame on the bouncer. In a justice system which often rules against the bouncer, you can see that a concern might be how that photo is going to be used. And yes, I know a lot of bouncers are violent thugs, but thankfully we in the UK now have a licencing system which may help get around that. But this is a whole new can of worms and beyond the scope of what you're trying to discuss here.
I just ask people to think about it from my point of view. I'm just there on the door, trying to keep the place safe. If someone comes to take my photo, it concerns me how that photo is going to be used. People generally don't take photos of us for artistic reasons, in my experience.
In response to these carefully-considered thoughts:
This moron would dirty his pants with glee if his employer decided to put security cameras all over the building so he wouldn;t have to do as much "work."
You have just demonstrated that you have absolutely no idea what my job entails. I'm also concerned about the level of CCTV in city centres, too.
And in response to a number of comments on here, we're not all violent thugs who want to be cops, and we're not all thick as pigshit either.
I had a similar incident happen to me on MUNI in San Francisco one day (and most of us have heard about the big variety of MUNI idiocy regarding this issue).
But... it wasn't a MUNI employee. It was a passenger.
Anyway, here's the LiveJournal post about it from September 2005.
That's an unhelpful and misleading generalisation as the security guys who asked me to stop taking photographs in London's Docklands, a vast district not a small commercial complex, because it was private property were anything but low brow. Had they been morons I would not have minded, they were not, they argued their case very well , albeit from a position of power, and gave me a straight choice, stop taking photographs or leave the area.
You can be sure that my friend and I naturally argued with the security people, who were polite and anal not aggressive, about the right of their employers to covertly film us without our permission. Needless to say, they intellectually subscribed to the idea that there is a hierarchy of rights with those backed by the most money being paramount and did so not because they were stupid but because it paid them too.
I agree with an earlier poster , we have to discriminate between property rights and what can be seen without invading other people's privacy and captured on film.
For example, I was looking at pics of the devastating aftermath of the 1906 San Fransisco quake earlier today and now wonder what insight we'd have into that disaster or indeed the history of America or anywhere else if everytime we pointed a camera at something security personnel rushed out to prevent us taking pictures.
Perhaps buildings designed to be seen and dominate the skyline have a right to privacy?
Perhaps Corporate America or Europe or Asia for that matter fear that if we capture pictures of our changing urban and rural environment we will somehow ensnare and imprison their souls?
What do I know?, perhaps we need a new Law to prevent outsiders looking in.
Of course, the odd thing is this: Camera Phones.
All you need to do is even slightly know how to use your camera while you have it next to your ear and act like you are talking.
Take all the pictures you want. No one will ever know.
Will they do this to someone slowly walking by acting like they are having a conversation? Probably not. More ironic is the fact that a secretive activity done like this to specifically take pictures without their knowledge would, mostly likely, go unacknowledge and unnoticed.
What is the photographe were an attractive, fliratious female?
The security guy looked like a terrorist
Thomas,
For what it's worth,I think you handled it quite correctly. This paranoia has gotten totally out of hand.
This blanket obsession against photographers is utter bullshit.
Keep shooting,Amigo.
Huh? Whats the point of having camera phones if you are not allowed to use them?
See other blogs for more on this issue.
Lets get back on track here, the whole point of photography , not the science the social aim, is the ability to capture how things really are ? If we cant do this lets revert back to high priests interpreting everything.
Can I be one of them please.
Mr. Hawk;
Odd how the one thing everyone online associates your name with is "causing hilarious trouble by taking pictures of buildings from public spaces". I suppose that's all part of the Vast Anti-Thomas Hawk Conspiracy, though, as, if you say it's been a while since you posted this dupe story, then who else do we have to believe? Ourselves?
I have to give it to you, though; you're an expert at drawing out the Indymedia Tin Foil idiots. Congratulations, the people who are most supportive of your cause are nutjobs. Keep fightin' the good fight, and making sure we all have the liberty to take photos of buildings. If we can't take pictures of things, then the terrorists have *already won*.
I presume it's you that sends these links to BoingBoing, though, quite honestly, it could be that they read your RSS feed looking for the next time you're wandering around some industrial area taking pictures and security guards come to Oppress Your Right To Free Speech.
Yeah, I hate it when people exercise their freedom too. Freedom is so unamerican.
peace,
magpie
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."
That's a pretty dumb thing to say, considering that by entering the facility, you agree to be photographed. Quite a different story entirely. Read the back of a ticket sometime, mmkay?
Dearest Turkey:
Sorry, never attended a sporting event in my entire life, mmkay?
How ‘bout I say:
It must really be a bitch getting every person walking by behind “on the street” news reporters to sign a standard photographers release. Or what about those glass walls that some morning shows have that let you see people walking by on the sidewalk? Each and every pedestrian seen on the Today show obviously needs to sign a release form. Same with all those folks zipping about in ‘Koyaanisqatsi’. There is no other way.
In America you can only take pictures of your own body - no clothes though, you can be sued by clothing companies for copyright issues. Every other thing in the universe belongs to someone else, so it is illegal for you to photograph it.
peace,
magpie
One guard will tell you yes, another will tell you no, they are security gaurds for god sake, goon nature.
You should try and take a few pictures of oil installations and blog about that.
Sorry, your story doesn't add up. You state that the incident begins with the security guard flipping you off; you argue, then you go around to the back of the building, where you argue some more. But look closely at the photo; the door sign reads "exit only" - that's because when you took the photo, you were obviously on the back side of the building, not the Fremont Street side. I know that building well. So your account does not seem fully accurate; the incident did not begin with him flipping you off. Certainly the guard should not treat you that way, but I rather wonder if you provoked him more than you let on.
Lowlevel fascist cocksuckers eat shit and die.
Photograph whatever you want.
Nazi shit heads are unAmerican I say.
The shorensteins can go FUCK themselves...they are a pack of vampires sucking this city dry of blood...the sooner they go FUCK THEMSELVES the better.
Someone needs to take them out, and when they do I will piss on them good. and as for that SHIT that flipped you off for taking pics in public, well he's a traitor and i hope to GOD he dies soon of cancer, leukemia, or best of all AIDS, and dies soon...faggoty cocksucking queen!
I hope the Shorensteins die and I hope Feinstein their patron saint of bullshit dies too....it's time for the wealthy landowning class to suffer for the sins they have committed...and oh yeah their lackeys suck all the balls ever!
They're not Nazis...they are all Jews....and the JEWS love being the victims...too bad the JEWS in this town OWN EVERYTHING. THEY CAN GO FUCK THEMSELVS IN THE MENORAH YOU BASTARDS FUCKS! YOU KILLED CHRIST AND NOW YOU WILL DIE FOR BEING THE MURDERERS PIGS! I HOPE YOU BURN IN HELL
Seems people don't understand that there is no privacy when your in a PUBLIC place. Security Guards really don't know what they're talking about. Thanks for the fun read!
The irony is the authorities arent employing thousands of Thomas Hawkes to photographically invade the privacy of well known buildings , they are installing thousands of CCTV cameras on the sides of buildings in public and private spaces to keep an eye on you.