doris_chan Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Maybe you're right Stuart. But, then again, it could be the other way round. If Mark Gatehouse isn't a pseudonym then he's left no trace of his photographic exploits on google. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_gatehouse Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 "he's left no trace of his photographic exploits on google." Hmm - you won't likely find much of my work on google - of all the thousands of photogrpahs I've taken, they generally don't get credited... I was with IFOR in Bosnia first as an investigator/SOCO doing photography and later for the ICTY and in more recent years as a Coroner. Since I retired, apart from consulting, most of my photography is purely personal, except for the odd job for a couple of artist/glassworker friends or old colleagues at the BBC (doing books from home makeover shows of all things). Funny thing was, it was meeting Don McCullin back in the 70's that started me on doing serious photography and for the first few years I did documentary/reportage work, but then changed direction Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
doris_chan Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Did you stay in touch with Steve Connors? If not, google his name plus "molly bingham" - they've been at the center of an interesting little media storm. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mark_gatehouse Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 No I haven't stayed in touch, but before Bosnia, there was a time we were both MP's far back in history Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Surely, anyone in Texas who likes to take "street" photos is in trouble here: a good proportion of street photography is gotten without consent, and just about any photo with a person in it could be sexually gratifying to somebody. Hence, followoing the letter of the law, any street photographer in Texas could be sent to gaol and it would be in breach of no law (I'd call it a miscarriage of justice though...). And I thought you Americans referred to the U.S. as the Land of the Free? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 <I>Surely, anyone in Texas who likes to take "street" photos is in trouble here:</I><P> Yes. it's shocking! Hundreds of photographers in every Texas county are being rounded up, prosecuted, and sent to prison. Daily.<BR><P> <I>And I thought you Americans referred to the U.S. as the Land of the Free?</I><P> For sure - it's a regular gulag here. Best not to even visit - odds are extremely high you'll be detained at the airport and sent to GITMO pronto. That's what I've heard... www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
neild Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Oh Brad, that's so funny - haha... I'm getting a stomach ache here, please don't make me laugh anymore! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_conrad Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 Er, Brad ... wouldn't the sarcasm better be saved for the LF :-) <p> Actually, I agree that the potential hazard to photographers inferred from this and similar incidents tends to get ridiculously exaggerated, much as were stories of permit hassles five years ago. At that time, you probably could count the number of annual incidents on one hand, yet from talking with many photographers, you might get the impression that threats of arrest for lack of a permit were a daily occurrence. <p> As several of us have suggested, the Texas law is disturbing in that it seems to be at odds with acceptable public conduct almost everywhere else, and its wording invites capricious enforcement. However, as Brad and I mentioned in previous posts, we simply don't know what happened in this situation. We have no real information on Mr. Vogel's conduct and we haven't seen his pictures. We haven't exactly seen daily arrests since the law was passed, either. <p> I don't mean to either minimize or exaggerate the implications of Mr. Vogel's arrest. My tolerance for petty police harassment probably is as low as anyone's, but we need to get the facts (if ever we can ...) before jumping to sweeping conclusions. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brad_ Posted October 23, 2005 Share Posted October 23, 2005 <i>Er, Brad ... wouldn't the sarcasm better be saved for the LF :-)</I><P> Sarcasm??? What sarcasm?<P> On my pickup truck I have a bumper sticker that says: <BR><P> <BLOCKQUOTE> <I>Come to the US, go to GITMO. It's the Law.</I></BLOCKQUOTE> www.citysnaps.net Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_conrad Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 It looks like Lt. Douglas got it wrong after all.<p>I'd be more inclined to agree with prosecutor Stallings that "the systemultimately worked because Vogel was never formally charged" if the policewere charged with unlawful restraint and kidnapping, and Mr. Vogel wereawarded a half million dollars for false arrest and intentional inflictionof emotional distress. I'm not holding my breath ...<p>The real problem still is as several of us have described--the "improperphotography" law is so poorly written that it invites arbitrary enforcementby the police. The decision not to charge in this case may discouragecapricious arrests for a while, but the prospect of petty police harassmentwill remain until the law is held void for vagueness. It doesn't look asif that will result from this incident. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jeff_conrad Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 A link to the story might help ...<a href="http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html">http://www.nbc5i.com/news/5221710/detail.html</a> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
michael s. Posted November 1, 2005 Share Posted November 1, 2005 Thanks for posting the follow-up story, Jeff. Not only do we have a dangerously poorly worded law, but it turns out that the photos themselves evidently shouldn't have aroused suspicion in the first place. An eye opener. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now