Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch Photographer in the Face and Break His F****ing Camera

Posted on October 23, 2009, 10:26 am, by Thomas Hawk, under Bay Area News, Photography is Not a Crime.

On digg here.

I was disappointed today to read a report by my friend Troy Holden, who works on the Caliber blog over a run in that he and another photographer had with a group of security guards at 555 California Street. I’ve known Troy for a while and we’ve been out shooting a lot together. According to Troy, security guards there objected to him and a friend photographing the building based on “safety” issues. When challenged on the photography ban, according to Troy, one of the security guards asked him if he’d like to be punched in the face and threatened to break his f***ing camera.

I’m very disappointed to read about this terrible reaction by these guards at 555 California Street. Photography is not a crime, nor should be taking exterior photographs of buildings and architecture. Furthermore the reaction by this guard was totally uncalled for and extremeley unprofessional. I hope that he is disciplined for his behavior in this case.

Personally I’ve never had a problem with 555 California Street. Here is a set of images, in fact, that I’ve personally made of the property. Perhaps this is something new there or perhaps Troy just stumbled on the unfortunate day when a security guard decided to go on a power trip.

Voronado Realty manages the building. You can find some of their representatives to contact here in order to express your disappointment in how their guards handled this incident.

Comment (RSS)  |  Trackback
View this post on FriendFeed
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:36 pm Thomas Hawk
    I was disappointed today to read a report by my friend Troy Holden, who works on the Caliber blog over a run in that he and another photographer had with a group of security guards at 555 California Street. I’ve known Troy for a while and we’ve been out shooting alot together. According to Troy, security guards there objected to him and a friend photographing the building based on “safety” issues. When challenged on the photography ban, according to Troy, one of the security guards asked him if he’d like to be punched in the face and threatened to break his f***ing camera. I’m very disappointed to read about this terrible reaction by these guards at 555 California Street. Photography is not a crime, nor should be taking exterior photographs of buildings and architecture. Furthermore the reaction by this guard was totally uncalled for and extremeley unprofessional. I hope that he is disciplined for his behavior in this case.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:40 pm Jeremy Brooks
    Time for a walk over to 555 California. It's just about lunch time now....
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:41 pm johnpiercy
    I sure wished I lived in California ,,,
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:42 pm CW™
    You would think they would rethink these things, knowing that not only do some of these cameras take just one shot pictures but they can take videos too.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:43 pm CW™
    Maybe its time to start recording video and sound while out photo-walking.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:48 pm Jeremy Brooks
    I'm considering a lanyard iPhone case so that I can just hang it around my neck and fire up video recording when I meet idiots like this.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:49 pm Adrian
    Printing out and showing someone the "photographer's rights under the law" on a card would probably help more in a confrontational situation than shooting video of them. Security guards are unlikely to be even aware of the law as it regards photography, they're just reacting to perceived encroachment and watching their asses.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:52 pm Adam Jackson
    Agreed. recording video of these incidents would help tremendously.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:54 pm Adrian
    Protect yourself by knowing your rights: http://www.urban75.org/photos/photographers-rights-and-the-law.html#police
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:58 pm CW™
    Adrian, if they are of this mindset then they won't care what your rights are much less what is on a card.
  • October 23, 2009 at 6:59 pm Melanie Reed
    I have noticed that there has been a "shut down" of sorts on taking pictures especially where public places are concerned, Oddly, Burger King in my town has a notice posted on the drive up that you can not take a photo of the building within a certain parameter. As I analyzed this strange sign three things came to mind: 1) people in the shot who find themselves posted on social media and don't want to be and feel their rights infringed upon. 2) advertising media rights pertinent to business logos etc. 3) Security issues: Ex: The Japanese knew exactly where to strike on Pearl Harbor because of the photos taken by a Japanese tourist
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:00 pm Melanie Reed
    Social Media has changed the playing field for a lot of things we used to take for granted
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:06 pm CW™
    Melanie, What makes you think that I can't just go about oh say 100 yards away from the building and still take a photo with a larger lens, which will give me the same effect as if I'm up close? Not allowing it is wrong. If this continues you won't be allowed to take pictures in Disneyland for fear of copyright infringements or worried that some mentally deranged person will fly a airplane into the Matterhorn.
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:11 pm Melanie Reed
    CW- I'm only reporting what I saw in my own town, not making a judgment on how effective postings like this are. I am using some deductive reasoning on why such signs (and behaviors) might be popping up more often. It portends to me, taking into account some other tangential issues raised by the Internet, that there are going to be more not less of these kind of things in the offing.
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:14 pm Adrian
    CW, I understand, but my point is that when someone tries to bully you out of your rights, the first thing they need to be made aware of is that you are in fact aware of your rights and that they are now breaking the law. You flip the script and if that doesn't work, proceed to step B... videotaping the act, confrontation, so on.
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:18 pm Melanie Reed
    And as long as you bring up your technology and skill, I believe this is what many celebrities have been arguing over for quite some time, is it not? The right to privacy has become a rather strange and illogical fight. On the one hand, there are some in society who argue "what's done in Taiwan, Bangkok, or other remote location, stays in that location" On the other hand, we now have technology that can hear a conversation behind closed doors clear across the street...and as you point out distance is not as safe a place for those desiring normal privacy as it used to be. Are we looking at a world, too, that does not guarantee that I can take a walk on my own without being surveillanced by the ordinary photographer?
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:44 pm Melanie Reed
    I also want to say that I am awed by the skill of photographers and I admire much of what you create (with the exception of those who create pornography). I understand that taking a picture for many its about creating art. But then on that floor, I think of painters. Most cannot paint a portrait without being asked or seeking permission. Sketching by a remote location usually was not viewed as invasive. Even so, artists, would look to see if anyone was there and then ask. What would be wrong with just asking?
  • October 23, 2009 at 7:56 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Adrian, If you have ever been involved in one of the confrontations with a security guard, you will know that about 90% of the time the SG has no idea what the law is and doesn't care. No amount of reasoning will get them to change their mind. Many are on a power trip, they are always right and you are always wrong, in their mind.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:03 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Melanie, the problem here is that in the US you have a perfect right to take photographs of just about anything you want in a public place. So long as you are not taking photos in a place the people would reasonably expect to have privacy, such as a public rest room or a dressing area, or though a window into a private space. Yes it is good practice to ask people if you can photograph them in public, but legally you do not have to. On the other hand, shooting photos from public spaces of buildings, architecture, statues, roads, etc. is perfectly legal and almost never requires permission. The Burger King example is totally ridiculous because BK does not have ANY jurisdiction over what happens off of their property. You can stand on the sidewalk out side of BK and take photos of their building all day and legally there is nothing they can do about it regardless of what their ridiculous sign says.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:05 pm Thomas Hawk
    on digg here: http://digg.com/odd_stuff/SF_Security_Guard_I_Will_Break_Your_F_ing_Camera
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Here is a great resource which summarizes photographers rights in the US. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:12 pm Jeremy Brooks
    Dugg. Maybe Calibersf will be getting slammed for a second day in a row. :-)
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:14 pm Adrian
    Jeff, I've been taking photos of future wireless telecom facility locations for a living for the past 15 years. I've shot thousands of locations and been there many many times, but taking these photos is my job, and part of that is to diffuse a situation in a professional manner.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:16 pm Melanie Reed
    Jeff, thank you for the explanation. So you're saying that if someone does not want to be photographed, they really have no rights if it is a public space? What should be their response? What are my choices? It seems I don't have the right anymore to refuse to be photographed.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:23 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Melanie, I think most photographers, when asked not to take someone's photo, will honor the request so the problem for the most part is self correcting, but as I said you still can take their photo if you really want to. Most people will avoid confrontation. This is how paparazzi get away with harassing celebrities in public, the celebs have very little recourse. I am hesitant to shoot closeups of people in public, but some photographers do this on a daily basis.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:27 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Adrian, yes acting professional will usually help. I also have seen that if you are a professional doing your job, you are less likely to be harassed or thought of as some sort of threat as opposed to a couple of guys wandering around the streets shooting photos. Cops and security guards seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that people actually go out and shoot photos of buildings and inanimate objects for art's sake or just for the fun of it.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm Thomas Hawk
    Melanie, in the U.S. at least people have no rights not to be photographed in public settings. See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nussenzweig_v._DiCorcia
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:31 pm Melanie Reed
    Jeff, so as I understand what you have said, if I really want to protect myself from the invasion of an unwanted photograph, I must either stay away from all public places or wear some kind of protection that totally disguises myself. Strange as it may seem, lots of people consider this an invasion. They do remember a time when they could walk about freely without being harassed or the possibility of being harassed. In a way, I suppose it is on the one hand just desserts for those who purchased magazines and newspapers who as you say harassed celebrities with unwanted photographs. Now it seems the tables are turning and everyone is now at risk for being photographed with or without their consent. Do you think that this will lead to the installation of public cameras on almost all streets and public accommodations? I know some places all ready do this but not everywhere. If that happens, what will happen to many jobs photographers now take for granted? They will then be automated.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:35 pm Melanie Reed
    Thank you Thomas. That's good to know. Now I have a question. Would any of you like to photographed all the time in the manner that you are describing that you have made clear we have no rights. in? You are usually on the other side of the lens. How do you think you would feel? would it bother you?
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:39 pm Jeremy Brooks
    We *are* photographed constantly, all day, every day. There are surveillance cameras all over the place now. If somebody wants to photograph me in a public place, whatever. It doesn't bother me. I know that the same rights that apply to me apply to them. If I don't want to have my photo taken, I have the right to turn around, walk away, wear a hat and sunglasses. Rights are more important than our individual preferences.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:40 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Malanie, I shoot photos in public places all of the time such as fairs, the beach, amusement parks etc. which contain people in them and have rarely had anyone object. Mind you I'm not shooting close ups of people, generally my photos are of a large scene that happens to contain people. I don't think this is really that big of an issue for most people. People often do notice my rather large camera and sometimes ask questions about it or make playful comments about it's size, but rarely have I had someone ask not to be photographed. I try to be discrete when shooting in public so that people don't think I'm targeting them, i.e. I don't point my camera at groups of people for long periods of time.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:41 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Good summary Jeremy.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:42 pm Jeremy Brooks
    Jeff, that's a good point. We are very likely in the background (or possibly the subject of) lots of different photographs that we have no idea were taken. Visited any major cities tourist traps? Click click, welcome to somebody's family album.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:44 pm Melanie Reed
    Jeremy and Jeff, with respect, I disagree. It is the right of people not to be photographed if they don't want to be. I had a social studies teacher who introduced me to a concept:"Your rights end where another's begin" Photography like many other things is an activity, but it is not a right.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Melanie, I agree with you from a common sense and civility stand point, but according to the law you are incorrect.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:46 pm CW™
    As much as anyone wants to say you don't have the right to something, doesn't make it illegal. You can harass them to stop but you can't do anything short of getting a restraining order to limit their activities around you.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:47 pm CW™
    Decent people with cameras will respect others. The key here is to ask. If they don't do it, then you at least tried.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:48 pm Jeremy Brooks
    You can disagree, and I understand your sentiment, but in fact you are incorrect. People do NOT have the right to privacy in the United States when they are in a public location. That's the way it is. There are many things that may be irritating to us, but people have the guaranteed right to participate in those activities, and I'll say it again: Rights are more important than our individual preferences.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:51 pm Melanie Reed
    Jeremy thank you for your response. It is isn't irritating to me at all. With respect to you, It offends my very being. You invade another when you take something that does not belong to you. My image is my own. It was given to me. Indeed, there are some Indian tribes who also consider this sacred and to take a picture is to steal a little of their soul.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:54 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Melanie, are you offended when you walk into a shopping mall or into a bank, driving down the street? You are being photographed constantly in these locations and many others.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm Jeremy Brooks
    Melanie, then how to you handle having your photograph taken dozens of times a day? Sorry, your image is not yours exclusively; we were given eyes.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:56 pm Thomas Hawk
    Melanie, have you ever looked at the amazing photography of Robert Frank? Or Garry Winogrand? Or Lee Friedlander? Or even crazy old Bruce Gilden for that matter. Much of their work is street photography. Random and amazing art. Imagery taken of people without their permission. I think that we are richer as a society having work like this in our lives. Have you seen the videos of the Rodney King beating? How about the video of an unarmed Oscar Grant being shot in the back. I think the greater good of allowing photography of all outweighs the whims of those who prefer not to be photographed in public.
  • October 23, 2009 at 8:58 pm Melanie Reed
    Gentlemen, the key point here is permission. I have the right to me. And you have the right to you.
  • October 23, 2009 at 9:00 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    Yes, but no one asked mine or your permission to take our photos at the bank or mall. How do you account for that?
  • October 23, 2009 at 9:01 pm Thomas Hawk
    except Melanie that according the U.S. constitution as interpreted by the courts, the first amendment right to free speech trumps your right to not have your image captured. The greater good of having a free and open press/speech trumps the desire by people not to be in photographs.
  • October 23, 2009 at 9:05 pm Kenton
    I think this discussion is getting off track. The incident being described here has nothing to do with people being photographed, it is a building. I suspect these guards could care less if you stood there and took pictures of people all day. They just won't let you take a picture of a building.
  • October 23, 2009 at 9:07 pm Jeff P. Henderson
    The fact that this issue is over photographing an inanimate object makes it all the more ridiculous.
  • October 23, 2009 at 9:16 pm Kenton
    Jeff, that's exactly my point. We could argue all day with Melanie over people's rights vs wants, but I think if any of us was approached by Melanie and asked not to photograph her we'd all agree and not take the picture. The fact that these security guards act like this when protecting a building from having its picture taken is just ridiculous.
  • October 24, 2009 at 7:34 am Morgan Haley
    Here's the reality today: I am the guy standing in the middle of the sidewalk, wearing my orange baseball cap, taking pictures of all sorts of things, in all directions. You see ME. Everybody sees ME and where my lens is pointed. But Melanie, do you see the perverts behind/below/above you, shooting with long lenses, cell phones, minicams hidden in a baby stroller or other seemingly harmless item? The shutterbugs you can see? We aren't the ones you should be worrying about.
  • October 24, 2009 at 2:20 pm ronin
    We know you're just the decoy Morgan. That's why we need to get you out of the way first cause you're making it hard for us to keep an eye out for the pervs. :p

18 Comments

  1. Brandon Tucker says:
    October 23, 2009 at 10:49 am

    I love that they are upset at a Photographer taking pics of the building when you can go to Google maps and see everything you would need to do bad things to the building:
    http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&source=hp&ie=UTF8&q=555+california+street+san+francisco&fb=1&gl=us&hq=555+California+Street&hnear=555+California+Street&cid=0,0,5551828974541931282&ei=0fjhSu2KGNPVlAfOt9mKBw&ved=0CAwQnwIwAA&ll=37.791924,-122.404266&spn=0,359.99691&t=h&z=19&layer=c&cbll=37.791884,-122.404262&panoid=rCLfa0I6FwX5jKb7Y92×1g&cbp=12,43.69,,0,-5.78

    Also maybe he found a secret CIA office….

  2. Ryan Nathaniel Holloway says:
    October 23, 2009 at 11:02 am

    Shit, if people cant shoot buildings or statues whatever are they to do with their camera?

  3. Gary Denness says:
    October 23, 2009 at 11:24 am

    A few weeks ago you blogged about a bunch of skateboarders who gave a cop some grief, and got some back. I called it a ‘non event’. Right or wrong, it’s just life, and a pretty minor bit of life at that.

    These are the stories I like to see blogged. Where photographers are just going about their day, taking perfectly legal snaps, and getting threatened and hassled by a bunch of prats who’ve watched too much Miami Vice.

    This is where you really make a difference, with these sorts of incidents getting the sort of publicity companies don’t like. The sort of publicity that makes companies react, and makes photographers lives easier in the future.

  4. troy says:
    October 23, 2009 at 11:51 am

    a staff member from the security department of this property mgmt firm emailed me and said he “was investigating” the issue. thomas, if/when i hear back i will update via a comment on your blog.

    thanks for picking this up, i hope that security guard considers another approach the next time someone points their camera in his direction.

  5. Jake says:
    October 23, 2009 at 1:23 pm

    The photographer is clearly on their private property. Look at the photo. You have to climb a ton of their stairs just to get up plaza area in which the photo is being shot.

    If the photographer was on the sidewalk, he would be photographing nothing but stairs.

  6. Mike Frisco says:
    October 23, 2009 at 1:54 pm

    “A lot” is two words.

  7. Thomas Hawk says:
    October 23, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Jake, the property issue is not relevant.

    First, whether the photographer has the right to shoot there or not the behavior and threats by the guard are unprofessional and not how a building representative ought to treat *any* member of the public.

    Second, the plaza where the photography was taking place in was a *public* area on private property. These areas are treated differently than other private property. In order to prevent a public easement of the property and losing their private property distinction, property owners will install little plaques denoting the area as giving the public a right to pass under California Civil Code 1009 typically. While this notification preserves their ultimate property right, it also reduces the control that they have over that area.

    Specifically, the code states: “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.”

    Restricting photography there violates the public use clause in violation of California Civil Code 1009.

    http://law.justia.com/california/codes/civ/1006-1009.html

    If you are going to apply for protection from public easement, as a private property owner you lose some control over how that public area can be used.

  8. Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch Photographer in the Face and Break His F****ing Camera | Thomas Hawk | The Click says:
    October 23, 2009 at 2:46 pm

    [...] Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch Photographer in the Face and Break His F*… I was disappointed today to read a report by my friend Troy Holden, who works on the Caliber blog [...]

  9. Charles U. Farley says:
    October 23, 2009 at 6:29 pm

    Interestingly if you want to know more about the building such as how many elevators it has (38), the floor construction (Concrete slab), the load limit on the floors (80-100 lbs/square foot), entrances/exits, etc. just go here:

    http://www.555cal.com/building-features

    The management company was nice enough to list them. Safety my foot…

  10. Hank says:
    October 23, 2009 at 9:22 pm

    This is another Shorenstein building. Surprise surprise.

  11. Green tea weight loss: the connection | Real Weight Loss Reports says:
    October 23, 2009 at 10:05 pm

    [...] Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch … [...]

  12. Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch Photographer in the Face and Break His F****ing Camera says:
    October 24, 2009 at 3:03 am

    [...] 1 votes vote Security Guard at 555 California Street Threatens to Punch Photographer in the Face and Break His F*… On digg here. I was disappointed today to read a report by my friend Troy Holden, who works on [...]

  13. Ricardo Moreira says:
    October 25, 2009 at 12:03 pm

    Pictures have not been allowed at 555 Cal, and most high rise buildings since 9/11. Security guards are instructed to inform anyone taking pictures about the policy. The policy actually comes from building management who are concerned that the photos may be sold for monetary gain and Vornado won’t get their cut of the cash. Vornado may give you lip service about guards misbehaving or what not, but it’s their policy and the guards are simply the messengers. Also, these security guards are more like bellhops and customer service reps. So I find it hard to believe that there were any threats made (why you and now after eight years of this policy being in place)…

  14. Anonymous says:
    October 26, 2009 at 8:38 am

    You people (Troy, Stuart and ???) are acting like children. If you don’t get your way…you go…crying.
    But, if you get your way…everything is okay.
    How do we know that you weren’t casing the building.

  15. basegrinder says:
    October 27, 2009 at 8:30 pm

    heres my solution.

    The dollar store. costco. big, cheap gallon bottles of syrup. poured all over their steps.

    on a cold day. eff these guys

  16. basegrinder says:
    October 27, 2009 at 8:32 pm

    I’d suggest complaining to the city if I thought

    1. they’d care
    2. they’d do anything even if they did

    good resource is that public spaces article in the chronicle from a few months back

  17. whakojacko says:
    October 29, 2009 at 11:11 am

    When I was in Sf about 2 weeks ago, I got told I wasnt allowed to take pictures of 555 California. I proceeded to walk back to the sidewalk and take pictues and he didnt push it further

  18. soij says:
    November 18, 2009 at 11:46 am

    I have to say…that is an excellent photo. Tie too short, pants too long, the two meek guys hanging back while the aggressive guy plays his role. All three with head-tilts and hands in pockets. It’s a good DVD cover for “Reservoir Puppies”

Leave a Reply

«
»