Thomas Hawk Digital Connection

Drew Wheelan runs the Gulf Coast Oil Spill Blog. He’s also the conservation coordinator for the American Birding Association. As part of his documentation of the problems around BP’s oil spill, he went down to Houma, LA to try and talk to a safety officer at BP. During his visit he tried to film a segment in front of BP’s offices when he was approached by a police officer who asked for his ID and “strongly” encouraged him to leave the area as BP did not like people filming their offices. He captured part of his exchange with the police officer in the YouTube video above.

While Wheelen insisted on his legal rights to film BP’s offices from off of their property, after he finished he says he was pulled over by the same police officer, this time with a BP security officer in the car.

From Mother Jones:

“It was the same cop, but this time he had company: Kenneth Thomas, whose badge, Wheelan told me, read “Chief BP Security.” The cop stood by as Thomas interrogated Wheelan for 20 minutes, asking him who he worked with, who he answered to, what he was doing, why he was down here in Louisiana. He phoned Wheelan’s information in to someone. Wheelan says Thomas confiscated his Audubon volunteer badge (he’d recently attended an official Audubon/BP bird-helper volunteer training) and then wouldn’t give it back, which sounds like something only a bully in a bad movie would do. Eventually, Thomas let Wheelan go.

“Then two unmarked security cars followed me,” Wheelan told me. “Maybe I’m paranoid, but I was specifically trying to figure out if they were following me, and every time I pulled over, they pulled over.” This went on for 20 miles. Which does little to mitigate my own developing paranoia about reporting from what can feel like a corporate-police state.”

Filming BP’s offices is not a crime and the officer involved should not have followed Wheelen or made an illegal stop and allowed him to be interrogated by BP security. Wheelen was doing nothing illegal and I’m disappointed that taxpayer money would be wasted on the police trying to play PR for BP and harassing photographers trying to legitimately document BP’s role in this horrible environmental disaster. I hope that the cop in question here is both named and disciplined over this incident.

Thanks to Nikki for the heads up!

I was very disturbed watching the video above which documents an altercation between Discarted and an Officer of the Los Angeles Police Department as documented by Discarted here.

Our ability as citizens to document the police is extremely important. Historically, citizen photography has been instrumental in documenting police abuse cases from Rodney King to the recent shooting death of Oscar Grant. To wear a badge and a gun in our society is a privilege and ought to only be afforded to those willing to enforce actual laws and not intimidate citizens by making up illegal photography rules of their own.

Thanks to Discarted for continuing to fight for photographer’s rights.

To voice your concerns regarding this officer’s behavior, contact the following individuals and offices:

Internal Affairs – Los Angeles Police Department
304 South Broadway, Suite 215
Los Angeles, CA 90013
Office: 213-485-1486
Fax: 213-473-6420

Antonio Villaraigosa, Mayor of Los Angeles
Email: mayor@lacity.org

Eric Garcetti, City Council President
5500 Hollywood Blvd., 4th Floor
Hollywood, CA 90028
Phone: 323-957-4500
Email: councilmember.garcetti@lacity.org

Tom LaBonge, Councilmember, District 4
Hollywood Field Office
6501 Fountain Ave.
Los Angeles, CA 90028
Phone: (323) 957-6415
Email: councilmember.labonge@lacity.org

Update: The Los Angeles Times is now reporting that an investigation has been launched by the LAPD into this officers conduct.

The NY Times is reporting on a case filed by the NY Civil Liberties Union regarding our right to shoot in the public plazas that surround the exterior of Federal Buildings. From the Times:

Citizens should be allowed to take photos while standing in public spaces near federal buildings, according to a lawsuit filed on Thursday by the New York Civil Liberties Union. The lawsuit challenges regulations that prohibit photography on federal property.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of Antonio Musumeci, 29, a software developer from Edgewater, N.J.

it goes on:

The lawsuit seeks a court order to bar federal officials from harassing or arresting people taking photos while standing in outdoor public areas by federal buildings. “In our society, people have a clear right to use cameras in public places without being hassled and arrested by federal agents or police,” said Donna Lieberman, the executive director of the New York Civil Liberties Union.

It’s great to see the NYCLU supporting photographer’s rights like this.

Thanks to Scott Beale for the heads up!

Photo above of the San Francisco Federal Building from my San Francisco Federal Building set.

I have to say that all of my own interactions with the Disney company have been enormously positive. I’ve shot both Disneyland and Downtown Disney in Anaheim and never had any trouble myself. When I shot Disneyland a few years back, I set up my tripod and shot several long exposure shots of the rides and was never hassled once. One time a Disney employee came up to me to ask me about my photography, but he was super pleasant and only was curious personally as to how I was making my photos. All in all I have a high regard from my own experiences of shooting on Disney property and their Magical Kingdom.

Disney does in fact allow personal photography on their various properties and goes so far as to even allow folding tripods that can fit inside a backpack (what I used when I shot at both Disneyland and Downtown Disney in Anaheim).

The Walt Disney Family Museum in San Francisco doesn’t allow photography, which kind of sucks, but the entertainment properties personally have always been pleasant for me. Of course *everyone* typically takes photos at Disneyland and Disneyworld and there are millions of photos online.

So I was very disappointed to learn today from photographer William Beem that he had a terrible experience recently while shooting Downtown Disney at Disney World in Florida. Based on his report, I’d say that Beem was treated very unfairly in light of Disney’s open photo policy and I hope that Disney issues him an apology and offers him a free pass or something to their parks.

In a post entitled, “Disney Thinks Photographers are Terrorists,” Beem chronicles in detail his frustration with Disney security officials after being confronted by them repeatedly and having them threaten to call the Sheriff’s Department on him for not providing them identification.

From Beem:

“At this point, I let Don know that I’m not comfortable providing him with more detailed information about me. He’s never told me where that information will be recorded. He’s all but directly accused me of being a terrorist and, quite frankly, I don’t see how handing him my driver’s license is going to thwart the terrorist attack he’s generated in his mind. I told Don, twice during our conversation, that I’ll be happy to leave the property if he feels I’m some sort of threat. Don tells me that if I don’t provide him with more identification that he’s going to call the Orange County Sheriff’s Office.

Once I closed the car I told them I was ready to leave, unless they planned to detain me against my will. Don said they wouldn’t do that and I was free to go. He then instructed the several security guards around me to take plenty of pictures and get everything. I found this somewhat ironic. I’m sure that I was captured on security video while on-site. Don’s guards likely took photos of me, my vehicle, my license plate and property. Then I drove off slowly and a Disney Security car followed me until I left the property.”

I hope that the Walt Disney Company looks into this poor behavior on the part of their security officers. Because hearing stories like this certainly make me seriously reconsider whether or not I want to support Disney properties in the future if I’m going to be treated like a criminal with my camera.

My Pal Carlos Miller runs what is probably the best blog in the world right now chronicling problems and issues that photographers have with legal photography, Photography is Not a Crime. Carlos regularly publishes stories about photographer harassment, arrest and other unfortunate situations in order to shed light on the important rights that we all ought to have to pursue our legal constitutionally protected right to photograph in public. He provides a valuable blog and service for all photographers.

Carlos is out of Miami and his blog is running right now in 2nd place for the South Florida Sun Sentinel newspaper’s best overall blog contest. It’s sort of a pain in the neck because you have to actually register with the Sun Sentinel in order to vote for his blog, but I did it and I hope you consider doing it to. If you care about photographer right’s his blog is doing a great service for all of us and it would be nice for him to get some recognition down in Florida from the mainstream press for it.

If you’d like to vote for his blog you can learn how to do that at this post here.

Dude from Prada thinks he owns the public sidewalk.

I was troubled today to see Starbucks take the draconian step of locking down 100% of their group threads in the Official Starbuck’s group on Flickr. All threads were locked today and a note was added to their Flickr Group reading:

“This group has helped inform us of the inconsistent experiences photographers have in our stores. We have put group discussion on hold until we have more updates on an official policy for photography in our stores. We appreciate your patience and encourage you to check back in the following months for an update.”

Censorship is never good and for a corporation to open a dialogue with their customers and then shut it down due to criticism is pretty much directly in contrast to the transparency that social media ought to be about.

In December I blogged about the difficulty that Starbuck’s was having articulating a reasonable photo policy in their Flickr group where they have been being attacked by photographers over the course of the past months. Many photographers on Flickr felt it was somewhat hypocritical of Starbucks to encourage photographers to post photos representing their “Starbuck’s experience” when so many photographers were regularly being told that they are not allowed to photograph in Starbuck’s stores.

The question about whether or not photography is or is not allowed in Starbucks stores still seems very much in the air, and from the request that photographers now check back with the group in the “months” ahead (after having this issue linger since September of last year) it doesn’t sound like they will be resolving this question anytime soon. Taking over six months to respond to photographers on this issue is a huge Starbucks FAIL. And now locking their threads to avoid continued criticism for what will likely be many more months, well, it’s obvious that Starbucks does not get social media and an even bigger FAIL.

Starbucks should apologize to the photographers who have invested many hours in this group of theirs and reopen threads. They should make it a priority to establish a reasonable photo policy and have it communicated to their stores ASAP. Of course their timing for shutting down their group threads, late on a Friday afternoon where it hopefully will get lost over the weekend on the web is also pretty obvious and weak.

There is an unlocked thread on another non-official Starbucks group about this issue here.

I haven’t been blogging much because I’m on an intensive 5 day shoot covering Nashville and Memphis as part of my project to document the 100 largest U.S. cities. I’ve been posting brief sporadic notes on my trip here.

I’ve been trying to get a good perspective and sense for what both Nashville and Memphis are about by shooting all of the major tourist destinations, as well as a lot of lesser known but interesting subjects as well (like an abandoned Federal prison in Tennessee or the Tennessee Music Valley wax museum). I got into Memphis yesterday, and in addition to shooting the Brooks Museum and Graceland (both of which have excellent open photography policies) shot some amazing blues musicians playing on Beale Street last night.

Overall my experience with shooting in Nashville and Memphis has been very positive. All of the live music venues here seem to have no problem with photography. Even the Grand Ole Opry, perhaps the biggest act in the state, allows photography (I got some great shots of Carrie Underwood and Emmylou Harris on Saturday night).

It’s going to take me a while to get all of these shots processed once I get back as I’m horribly behind on my photo processing.

But I was disappointed this morning to learn that the National Civil Rights Museum in Memphis (which is housed in the motel building where Dr. King was assassinated at) that I was going to visit this morning does not allow photography. From their website:

Cameras and Video: Photography and videotaping inside the Museum is prohibited. All cameras should be checked in with Security before entering the exhibits. Media must be credentialed 48 hours in advance and requests should be forwarded to the Office of Marketing and Communication at (901) 521-9699, ext. 292.

I can think of very few things more important to document than the Civil Rights movement in America. It is disappointing to me that the museum would prohibit photos there and prohibit people from sharing information about this movement online and as broadly across the world as possible. It looks like I will only be getting a shot of the outside of the museum today.

Of all the museums that don’t allow photography that I am aware of, this is one of the ones that I think makes the least sense. Hopefully someday they will reconsider this backwards policy and realize that allowing people to take photos there is a big part of publicizing the history and message of civil rights to the world at large.

Happy Martin Luther King Day to everyone!

Front desk of U.S. Capitol’s Exhibition Hall photo by Andertho.

I was disappointed to see a post from my friend Andertho on Flickr this morning regarding a photography ban that is in place at the Exhibition Hall of the Capitol Vistor Center in Washington DC. Of all places that ought to allow photography, Government (remember that old “by the people, for the people thingy?) ought to be the most open of all. If New York’s Metropolitan Museum of Art, the NY MOMA, the Chicago Institute of Art, the Louvre, etc. can allow photography around their priceless works of art, certainly a museum owned by the Government (really by the people though) ought to allow it.

The new museum, which opened a little over a year ago, is taking a step backwards by instituting this ban on photography. In recent years many museums have in fact begun dropping their “no photography” policies, including the SF MOMA in San Francisco and just this past fall the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago.

From Andertho:

“At first I thought, “Well maybe they don’t want terrorists conducting a photo reconnaissance of the underground space beneath the Congress—that makes sense.” But no, the non-exhibit areas are fully photographable, as this photo attests.

So why no photography in the Exhibition Hall of the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center? I really don’t know—it does not make much sense, does it? It seems like pure bureaucracy doing what it does best—not caring about the very people it is there to serve.”

It is absurd to me that U.S. Capitol Visitor Center would cite the need to “protect the documents” as a reason for the ban. This reason is just pure BS to me. Certainly the documents housed in the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center are no more valuable or more likely to be damaged by a non-flash camera than all of the important paintings in the Louvre or well, the original U.S. Constitution and Declaration of Independence, both of which are allowed to be photographed.

Rather, this ban more likely is just another example of some little self important curator, putting their own proprietary need to rule their little kingdom by creating unnecessary rules and restricting who gets access to this collection and who does not. Oh and the desire to try and sell you overpriced books in their gift shop rather than letting you take your own photographs.

This is unfortunate and I hope the U.S. Capitol Visitor Center reconsiders this backwards policy.

Please see important update below.

This is as close as I got to the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago. I only visited the exterior of their museum because of their crappy anti-photography policy in their museum.

It’s amazing to me that the Art Institute of Chicago (a mere few miles away, with a much better contemporary art collection) allows photography, while the backwards thinking Musuem of Contemporary Art does not. Further, some of the most significant contemporary art museums in the world allow photography including the MOMA in New York City and the SF MOMA in San Francisco.

As much as I would have liked to have visited the Museum of Contemporary Art while visiting Chicago, I am glad that they did not get my admission fee.

It’s terrible when museums like this put photographer unfriendly policies in place to try and sell more of their overpriced postcards and books at their bookstore.

The Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago should change this anti-photographer and unfriendly photography policy.

Update: It would appear that the MCA has changed their no photo policy. In there house rules section they used to include the following verbiage: “Photography/Filming: Photography and filming are not permitted in the galleries, this includes cell phone cameras and video cameras.”

It now appears that this verbiage has been dropped from the current house rules section on their current website. There is also a comment on the post suggesting that they have changed their policy and now allow photography in their galleries. If this is true this would be a wonderful improvement and I look forward to visiting the museum on my next trip to Chicago.