A New Wrinkle in the MTA Debacle

Just when I thought this topic was dead and buried, a photographer friend of

mine took the subway today (not to take any pictures though) and decided to

ask a uniformed sheriff in one of the stations about the photography policy on

my behalf. This sheriff said that photography in the subway system was illegal

and if caught they have the right to seize the photographers camera.

 

This of course is completely opposite of what I got from MTA. So we have a

communication breakdown it looks like. Even if this is the only sheriff with

this idea, it's one too many. With my luck he'd be the one demanding I hand

over my camera. So I guess I better contact the sheriffs dept and get their

side of the matter. Looks like I'll have to carry a bigger camera bag just to

hold all the paperwork neccesary these days.

 

I did read the article in Popular Photography about this kind of issue. Nice

to see it in print that law enforcemet cannot take a photographers camera

without a court order. Too bad there still some officers uninformed about this.

 

So far, all I have is a print out of an email response from MTA Customer

Relations that states MTA allows photos to be taken of the bus and rail

systems with the restrictions that tripods are not allowed and flash is not

used when trains are pulling into or out of stations. This should be enough (I

hope) should I get hassled but perhaps a call to the sheriffs is still a good

idea.

"Too bad there still some officers uninformed about this."

 

Officers who make their own laws.

Marc, instead of just going on about it here, why don't you just contact the ACLU and see if

they would be interested in some action.

The experience you described earlier would certainly qualify as an "MTA annoyance," but calling it a debacle is greatly overstating its seriousness. If an uninformed sheriff actually smacked you in the head, arrested you, and took your camera for photographing on the MTA, that would be a debacle.

This \'debacle\' extends from some nut trying to pick you up on the subway. It\'ll be worthy news the day you\'re actually held against your will or lose personal property.

Piotr, perhaps your response was tongue-in-cheek, but, in any case, there's far less

evidence that the badged person in the earlier thread was a 'nut' hitting on Marc than that

there is evidence of a widespread epidemic of ignorance on the part of security officials

(be they sherriffs, rent-a-cops, or bureaucrats) about the legality of public photography,

especially in transit facilities. One is free to assume the former in this case (though the

latest revelation about the sherriff's attitude seems to favor the latter, instead), but such a

blasé approach strikes me as a naive and back-on-the-heels response to a potentially

serious threat to civil freedom.

<p><p>

Moreover, subway photography may indeed have been 'done do death' (though there are

no doubt compelling images yet to be made in subways) -- but so has swimming at the

beach. That is, the legality of an activity has little if anything to do with its novelty, and

those who enjoy the activity should stand up for their right to do it.

There is definitely confusion among law enforcement personnel, private security guards, on what is legal and what is not. In NY, depending on what you are shooting you may be queried by the NYPD, if someone expresses concern about your actions to a police officer. Photographing "sensitive sites" will definitely draw the PD's attention. Your stuff will not be confiscated, but you may be asked some questions. I have been questioned in a state park for the same thing, when clearly there was nothing except trees and water around to look at. The police are mostly are trying to do their job the best that they can, and unfortunately photography is one of the no - no's that they have been told to look out for (taking pictures of a powerplant, Why would anyone want to do that?, looks suspicous). The best defense is to show respect for their position, explain that this is a hobby, and perhaps some empathy for their concern. That tact should handle 99% of the queries. The other 1% probably will involve enforcement people who feel threathened, insulted or a just having a bad day. Move on and drop it. You can come back another day.

 

This is not addressed to the pro who has to make money at this. They have legitimate concerns which I don't have the experience to talk about.

Marc, at least your transit authority has the sense to realize photography is not a problem

in a public place, even if it is doing a poor job of informing law enforcement. In Boston,

the ACLU is starting to battle the MBTA's semi-secret, unwritten policy that bans some

sorts of documentary photography without a permit (and CORI criminal records check), but

allows tourists to take family snapshots.

 

Nobody's been arrested here yet, but lots of people have been made to stop taking

pictures (including me) and threatened with arrest even though there is NO Massachusetts

law against photography on trains, busses or in stations. The head of the MBTA, Dan

Grabauskas had the temerity to call the ACLU challenge to the policy "insulting and naïve"

because he thinks the photo policy improves security. Balderdash! Photography is neutral,

it's the intent of terrorists that matters, and they will use small camera phones to plan

their attacks now. Controlling artists' by permits won't do anything to deter the criminal

use of photography.

 

There is no way I'm going to submit to a criminal background check in order to pursue my

US First Amendment and Massachusetts Article 16 artistic rights. These days I carry a copy

of the ACLU-M letter to the MBTA, explaining why their policy is unconstitutional, and a

copy of Bert Krages' "Photographers Right" in my photo bag. I don't mind if a "T" official

asks me why I want to take pictures, but stopping me beyond the time it takes to answer

their questions is illegal. I feel I have to stand up for our rights, otherwise fear of terrorism

will win and paranoia will destroy our freedoms.

Being 'queried' is absolutely fine, of course. And not just by security personnel -- just as

it's legal for you to take pictures in public, it's legal for you to ask someone else why

they're taking pictures, and even to tell them you don't think they should doing so. But it's

not legal to actively try to stop someone from taking pictures in public by either

threatening them with arrest (if a paid security officer), posing as such an officer,

assaulting them bodily or directly threatening such, or tampering with their gear.

 

As to whether photography is crime-'neutral', we should, when interacting with security

folks, stress to them that their counterparts in places like London and Bali have pleaded

with the public to send in incidental photos and videos that might aid the investigation of

past terrorist acts there. On balance, my hunch is that, while the overall fraction of photos

that bear in any manner on some crime is extremely low, the chance that a given photo is

taken to facilitate a crime is lower than the chance it may help solve one.

First off apologies to those who felt "debacle" was too strong of a word. It was this or "fiasco", guess which won the coin toss.

 

The whole point to my posting about this is simply to gather info and advice from others who have experience with this and to serve as a warning of sorts to those in the LA area (like Raoul and Barry) that this may occur although I'm sure such seasoned shooters like them probably don't need me to tell them.

 

I'm not contacting the ACLU unless of course my stuff does get taken away. I just really find it a drag that this has to hang over our heads like a black cloud when we step out the door for photography in public. I hope it won't come to that but if it does...well I could use some extra money for a new car! Seriously it's not really a big deal other then the ignorance on the part of some of the law enforcment community but is there anything in life which everyone involved is on the same page? I doubt it. I have no problem if a cop wants to ask me about what I'm photographing. I will have a major problem if they demand I cease shooting or if they tell me to hand over my gear. I really don't want it to get to that point and then have to go through the headache of litigation.

Fiasco is too strong a word, as well. You had some officious busybody telling you to stop shooting, and you took her far more seriously than was necessary. You're making it sounds like a much bigger deal than it was.<P>

 

<i>I just really find it a drag that this has to hang over our heads like a black cloud when we step out the door for photography in public.</i><P>

Is this really hanging like a black cloud over the heads of people going out to photograph in public? I mean, I've had armed soldiers tell me to stop photographing near an embassy, and I've been surrounded by MPs who had concerns about me photographing them, but I don't spend my time wondering, "Gee, will someone tell me to stop if I go out shooting today." I dealt with the situations when they came up, and I'll deal with other situations when they arise (just like I do in the rest of my life). When you're in public, you're going to have to deal with other people. That's the nature of doing things in public.

The differnce is being "concerned" and being "worried". Marc is starting to worry, Mike Dixon is concerned. Worry breeds fear........concern instills protection.

 

Be concerned.........but don't worry ;o)

Concern is a passive romance euphemism for worry (the quibbles over usage are beside

the point anyway). Moreover, I suspect that active pro photographers may encounter

these hassles less often (per 'sortie') than amateurs -- partly as a matter of personal

bearing, partly thanks to experienced strategic avoidance of trouble, and partly owing to

the kind of equipment carried. E.g. photo vest and world-weary demeanor must mean pro

likely means person already has permission may mean I'd get in trouble with superiors for

bothering them, &c.

 

At any rate, poo-pooing Marc for over-reacting misses a bigger, hardly deniable point: the

misconception that public photography is illegal is too common in American officialdom.

One approach is too treat this misconception as a nuisance to be grinned-and-borne, as

long as it doesn't result in outright jailing or confiscation; an alternative is to try to

positively spread the word on photographers' behalf. At any rate, I think Marc has been

lectured enough here about cultivating a piss-off demeanor in order to elude would-be

meddlers in future. Let's talk about how we can pro-actively reduce the ignorance that

underlies such would-be meddling in the first place.

The issue is not semantics; the issue is the right of a person to take photographs in a public site, so let us not use semantics to digress from the topic. Being told to stop taking photos under the threat of having one's property taken (confiscated) is unlawful, period. Read this:

 

Amendment IV (Constitution of the United States of America)

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

 

TITLE 18, PART I, CHAPTER 13, Sec. 242. (Civil Rights)

Sec. 242. - Deprivation of Rights Under Color of Law

"Whoever, under color of any law, statute, ordinance, regulation, or custom, willfully subjects any person in any State, Territory, Commonwealth, Possession, or District to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured or protected by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or to different punishments, pains, or penalties, on account of such person being an alien, or by reason of his color, or race, than are prescribed for the punishment of citizens, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than one year, or both; and if bodily injury results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include the use, attempted use, or threatened use of a dangerous weapon, explosives, or fire, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both; and if death results from the acts committed in violation of this section or if such acts include kidnapping or an attempt to kidnap, aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to commit aggravated sexual abuse, or an attempt to kill, shall be fined under this title, or imprisoned for any term of years or for life, or both, or may be sentenced to death."

Thanks Nathaniel...you put my reason behind this last couple threads of mine better then I could. It's just an exchange of info. When I used to read about these occurances, yes I was concerned but also quite detached since I didn't experience anything like it. The bottom line is for those of us who choose street/doc as our main direction in photography we just have to keep in mind that sooner or later we'll probably run into a uninformed cop or security guard (or in my case a person pretending to be something they are not) and thus it pays to be as informed as possible. Had I been 100% sure photography was allowed in the subways I certainly would have ignored this lady who got the whole ball rolling. That's my point. Anytime you're not on the sidewalk, it just makes good sense to look into policies.

 

Anyways I just got back from shooting another four rolls. No problems and I really didn't expect any given I came this far without incident but still, how sure can anyone be? None of the sheriffs I passed by said anything. Ditto for MTA employees except one guy who called out to me "Nice camera".

 

I also went to the info booth at Union Station to ask about their photography policy and I was told I'm free to shoot as long as I don't use a tripod. Too bad it was so miserably humid in there otherwise I would have stuck around longer. Union Station I was told is owned by some business conglomerate so it is private property. Even though it's a public space and therefore legal to photograph in, I suppose the owners could prohibit photography if they choose to and they would be in their rights to ask people not to photograph or ask them to leave if they didn't comply. This is what is unclear to me at times and why I'm seeing that life just might be easier if I get the scoop on issues like this.

Have a great long weekend.

I by no means am diminishing the need to pass along information that photography in a public place is perfectly within my rights. If any of you have followed any of my comments in other posts, you will readily see that. But....I also know when someone is being "overly concerned" (ie worried). All I'm trying to do is to tell Marc to not worry about it. Mike Dixon has been doing this for years longer than I even know. I have been doing it for almost 6 years now. Yes, the first time you get approached is something that slaps you in the face. But you have to get over it and just do what you know is ok.

 

and it is not the clothes that makes the photographer look like he belongs there.......it is because he KNOWS he belongs there. Worrying about what the next cop is going to do interferes with that mental attitude. It has you looking over your shoulder, waiting for it to happen. You BELONG out there, the cops are of no concern to you, ignore them, they ain't there.............until they are in your face, and then deal with it. That's what I meant when I said worry creates fear and concern instills protection. concern has you knowing the laws and using them when you have to. Worry has you constantly expecting something to happen

 

They win if you can't ignore them. Ignore them until you can't. Meanwhile any time the situation arises.......when your're not actually taking pics.......tell people the truth about being able to take pics in publics........and why. Other than "it is legal to", or it's in the bill of rights, etc.................WHY are you allowed to take pictures in public? This is what should be discussed. There is a real basic human reason why this is a truth. does anyone know what it is.......without siting laws.

 

When you know and understand that question and answer.......you will really be ready to shoot street without fear........concern and protection yes........but not fear or worry.

Well said Thomas. I'll have to start wearing a Alfred E Numan "What me Worry" T-shirt on some of my outings lol!

You need to be crafty shooting on the street. What's on paper and what works can be

quite

different *on the street*. There will always be ill informed security personels out there

regardless of what the law is, are

you going to engage in a discussion of your rights to shoot in public with every single one

of

them every time you happened to bump into one?

 

The point Mike Dixon was trying to make *I think* was you got to be pragmatic shooting

in

the street. Deal with each situation as they come as each situation may require a different

solution.

Leslie Cheung wrote:

 

"There will always be ill informed security personels out there regardless of what the

law is, are you going to engage in a discussion of your rights to shoot in public with

every single one of them every time you happened to bump into one?"

 

In my book, not 'every' time, but most of the time, yes. If getting hassled is simply a

rare 'bad apple' phenomenon, then engaging your hassler to disabuse them of

misunderstanding the law shouldn't take too much time out of your work week. If

such misunderstanding is more widespread, then, yes, engaging each hassler will

take more time -- but each interaction will promise more headway in terms of

increasing the proportion of well-informed cops.

 

I guess this is the crux of the matter: do you simply wave off the person who hassles

you (perhaps increasing their antagonism toward photographers), or do you actively

engage them so they won't hassle the next person?

"then engaging your hassler to disabuse them of misunderstanding the law shouldn't take too much time out of your work week"

 

Has anyone here ever tried to argue with a cop? AFAIK the moment you do that you give them the excuse to verbally and possibly physically abuse the living crap out of you not to mention the interrogation. Remember those bullies from your high school days? Who do you think these people are now?

Andreas Feininger photographed the Brooklyn Bridge, O. Winston Link photographed the Norfolk and Western; today both would be arrested by one of the assorted official meatheads who seem increasingly to populate the planet.

Okay...show of hands...

 

Who here has been arrested for photographing in public?

 

Michael J Hoffman

Dan, yer painting with a really broad brush. All cops are not former bullies. Not even a majority. I've known a bunch of them and I find few who cause me genuine concern or leave me thinking "that guy just wants to push folks around."

<p>

Are there bad cops? No doubt. Bad landlords, plumbers, executive officers, etc. That's life.

<p>

The only advice I can offer is to keep shooting. Keep. Shooting. Know the law, know your rights, and stay within both. Otherwise, let the shutter slap.

<p>

Friday night, I headed out. I had no idea what I would find in this small Arkansas college town, but I needed a stretch and wanted to play with the F4S I've just acquired. As I walked along Dickson St - the main pub drag - I ran headlong into a group of men from Monette, Missouri come down to do their regular display of values and looking for "one good Christian", as the elder puts it. Bang. Something to do, I thought.

<p>

I stated that I would like to tail them for a while. Ok.

<p>

Turning back eastward, the first juke we came to was George's Majestic Lounge - a legendary club in these parts. The men took positions on the sidewalk in front of the bar, and almost immediately a man appeared from inside and began admonishing the Missourians. "Get the hell out of here!"

<p>

I grabbed a couple of frames, the men unsure about staying there... that skinny feller was kind of hot about it all. Finally, clear that that guy wasn't going to lay off them, the men and their signs picked up and began eastward again.

<p>

As we crossed the old Frisco line tracks, I asked them if they knew they were within their rights to stand back there. They seemed to indicate that they knew they were ok to do that. I think the fear of physical attack might have got them moving off to calmer spots.

<p>

<center><img src="http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/film_archives/2006/July/070106/tmz3200/10.jpg">

</center>

<p>

I am not supportive of their cause. I find their stated beliefs to be pretty poor philosophy, but they have the same civil liberties as I do, and I am not out on the street to form opinion, merely to observe and record. I must defend their rights along with my own, however, and if they had been harrassed or attacked by cop or passerby, I would defend them.

<p>

Further up the way, corner of West and Dickson, they took positions in front of a brewpub owned by two women I've known since moving here 7 years ago. I talked more with them about their mission, about their background, and they wanted to know what I was up to, and why I would waste film on them rather than on the Friday night drinking crowd. I tried to explain the connection as best I could, reminding them that folks don't much like me and my camera either.

<p>

Two of the guys, ones with shorter, stubbly beards, are from a local church. One had a small folding stool which he eventually set up on the sidewalk and stood upon; he began to preach to those walking by, and to the table of drinkers sitting in the "vanity" spot of one of the bars. The doors to the bar were opened so that folks in that area could enjoy the night air, or just to show they had cool seats, I dunno.

<p>

As the feller with the stool stood delivering his sermon, the table of folks started hollering back at him. One, the fellow on the right side of the table, began to get nasty about it, and when he caught sight of me framing from just behind the preacher, he really began to rip it up.

<p>

"And look at that fat sumbitch with the camera! You take my picture and I'll shove that thing up yer ass! I'll take yer film and beat yer ass!"

<p>

I continued to frame, popped the shot, took a step his direction, held out the camera and invited him to come take it.

<p>

<center>

<img src="http://nelsonfoto.com/mein/film_archives/2006/July/070106/tmz3200/20.jpg">

</center>

<p>

"You ain't got the right to take my picture without my permission! I better not see that thing anywhere of me drinking at this bar or I'll have your ass!"

<p>

Whatever. Folks like this don't even know their own rights, no less mine as a photojournalist.

<p>

Preacher man was now wailing about not hating one another....

<p>

This reminds me of last year's Bike Blues and BBQ festival - the fastest growing motorcycle gathering in the world, they say. Lots of good shooting, but the pinnacle of my pleasure as a photographer was an incident involving an arrest. <a href="http://nelsonfoto.com/bbbbq2005/">(buried in the pile at http://nelsonfoto.com/bbbbq2005/)</a>

<p>

The guy getting roped was pissed at me, the arresting officer got ticked because I was "too close" ("Tell me how far you want me to back off, but I'm still going to shoot"), and I was pretty tight on them, working with a 24mm that night - but the shots were great, and I'd do it again...

<p>

You have to do it. The only person or entity that can "take" your right to shoot in public is YOU. Take a camera with you everywhere. Pull it out, shake it at the world. Happy hunting.

<p>

CE Nelson - <a href="http://nelsonfoto.com/phpBB2/index.php">NelsonFoto Forums</a>

<p>

Dan wrote:

 

"Has anyone here ever tried to argue with a cop?"

 

Hmm...well, trying to convince fellow p-netters of anything has offered me some good

practice ;->

Argue a little too much and you risk a "disorderly conduct" arrest. Very bad. Life is to short to spend any of it in any part of the legal system.