Annoyed Subject of the Day.

<p>We could try Annoyed Persons for a forum topic.<br>

<br /> Guy: "Why you take picture of my store?"<br /> Me: "I'm shooting the signs. Seemed like a good photo for the day."<br /> Guy: "You shoot IN store."<br /> Me: "No I wasn't. It is too dark to see anything."<br /> Guy: "Point that way, not IN store."<br /> Me: <em>Grrrr.</em><br /> "I can shoot ANYTHING I want in view from here. It's public."<br /> <em>Why did I say that? </em><br /> A few more frames.<br /> Me: (insert really dumb things to say to a pissed-off guy here)</p>

<p>****<br /> Always shoot kids, puppies, and puffy clouds first thing in the morning.</p><div></div>

<p>Why didn't you ask what he was hiding in his store, or who he is hiding from?</p>

<p>I can never be a street photographer for that reason. </p>

<p>Alan, just a suggestion from someone who always feels anxiety shooting those kind of scenes and thus avoids them. There's another world you should look into capturing that is most satisfying in the morning.</p>

<p>Strap on a 3 inch extension tube and 50mm prime or macro/prime lens and wander around finding the the focus plane of the most boring things around you especially weeds, doorknobs, hinges, small screws/nuts/bolts, shrubs, pealing paint, stressed concrete, boards, piles of dried leaves, etc.</p>

<p>Carry you a small LED flashlight for fill if needed. Outdoors for me I rarely use it, but do shoot Raw. The unique compositions you'll get will surprise and satisfy. This isn't your regular run of the mill macro close-up bug shots. This is creating your own unique world of abstract and silky soft compositions from a much different perspective than your street storefront.</p><div></div>

<p>I was in line with friends yesterday to see JJ Abrams' new <em>Star Trek</em> installment (which was good clean fun), and since we were early, I set about taking some shots of that Art Deco monument that is the Uptown theater on Connecticut, NW, in DC. The place is a classic (a bit grubby, but still a classic!). <br /><br />Right next door is the interestingly named "Transcendence Perfection Bliss Of The Beyond" shop. I'm guessing that the perfectly blissful, transcendent owner of the shop was ... <em>beyond </em>for the day, and whoever was manning the shop didn't like me photographing the store's sign. Perhaps he sensed that my composition was offending the Rule Of Thirds, thus calling into question Perfection and Bliss in a really serious way. So I got The Angry Gesture Of The Transcendent before moving on. The good news? I <em>really</em> don't care, when it involves shot-from-the-sidewalk stuff like that. <br /><br />I don't like to irritate people, but I've got very little (well, <em>no</em>) sympathy for someone who sets up shop on a public street and doesn't want their transcendent sign photographed. Too bad, Blissful Dude, too bad!</p><div></div>

<p>I was actually assaulted by a store owner in the fall of 2010. He was obviously drunk (the store was closed and it was dark). He ran into my tripod and drove the camera back into my face. I squeezed off another shot for full documentation, and he retreated into his building, threatening to call the police. I was legally in the right (and not on his property), but I got out of there anyway. He knew the cops. I didn't.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>

<p>I had setup a tripod and was shooting the attached picture. Took maybe 15 minutes with my rig pointed at the Golden Arches. After this shot, I crossed to the other side and was shooting straight down that sidewalk through the golden arch for another shot. Here comes two Mickey employees out the door on a fast trot.</p>

<p>Mickey: What are you doing?<br /> Me: Photography<br /> Mickey: You know you can't take pictures of our building or our sign.<br /> Me: Yes I can. <snap, snap><br /> Mickey: It's against the law to take pictures of our building without our permission.<br /> Me: You better call the police then. snap, snap.<br /> Mickey: I'm going to have to ask you to stop.<br /> Me: Go ahead and ask.<br /> Mickey: Please stop taking pictures of the building.<br /> Me: No. I think you need to brush up on the rights of photographers. Tell your boss to Google "rights of photographers" and read carefully. You too should do it, so you won't make this mistake again.<br /> Mickey: But sir, McDonalds owns the rights to these names and signs and you can't use them without permission.<br /> Me: I'm not using them, I am photographing them, and I need no permission of any kind while on the public sidewalk. Here's my request to you: either call the police, get your boss out here, or be kind enough to step out of my light.</p>

<p>They finally walked back inside. It's a regular thing with me. I get "spoken to" at least 2 or 3 times a month when out photographing. I was taking a series of pictures of the county courthouse and the security guys hounded me for half an hour trying to convince me I was not allowed to photograph the courthouse. "You DO realize the irony you're creating here, right officer? I mean this is the people's last stop for redress - a symbol of justice throughout the land - and you are trying to bluff and bully and BS me that from the public sidewalk I can't photograph the building?" His one word response, "A$$hole."</p><div></div>

Nice shot of an Android.

<p>Oh man the shops in downtown LA are unbelievably in-your-face about this. True, there is a LOT of counterfeit goods being sold in certain areas which would explain their reaction, but even in the more legit parts shopkeepers still tend to blow their tops. One lady even told me she owns the sidewalk in front of her store, go figure. </p>

<p>The sidewalk lady might have a valid point. If someone trips and falls on that sidewalk, they could very well sue her and her business. It happens all the time.</p>

<p>To the shopkeeper in the original post: "If I win the contest, we can split the money!" </p>

<p>Last year I took a shot of a rack of hats on the sidewalk in front of a clothing store. The woman came running out screaming that I was trying to copy her hat designs. She was seriously trying to get me to delete the photo.</p>

<p>I rarely have trouble with folks but I don't do "street" photography unless on assignment. When I am spoken to I give them three answers. The first time I am polite and tell them I am PJ and working. If they persist I tell them to go away. If they still persist I take their picture and tell them I am going to put them and their store in the paper in an article about how they got arrested for disorderly conduct. That usually stops them</p>

<p>If the person annoying me is an employee I ALWAYS call their boss as soon as I can. I have never had an owner fail to apologize. </p>

<p>Love it. Reminds me of a similar situation with a man from China and his cleaning business. <br>

"Why you take picture of door?" <br>

"Because you have a cool old wooden door. Everyone else has boring glass doors."<br>

"Ok then" </p>

<p>Almost too funny. </p>

<p>I do real estate photos for commercial property on occasion.<br>

Last year, a large drugstore chain was selling property to be able to afford expansion, so I got a few gigs doing photos of their buildings locally. Nothing fancy - get 10-20 shots of the property 10-15 minutes - done. </p>

<p>As I was shooting one of the properties - from a public sidewalk - manager comes out - chest out, shoulders back, eyes of steel. </p>

<p>"WHAT IN THE BLEEP ARE YOU DOING?" - Um taking pictures of your property. <br>

"WHY??? - THIS IS PRIVATE PROPERTY!" - because I was contracted to by the company that is selling this property for your company. </p>

<p>"WHAT??? WHY WASN'T I TOLD THIS?? ARE THEY CLOSING US DOWN??" - Honestly, sir I don't know - here's my card and the name of the company I'm working for - I'll only be a few more minutes - and then I'll be gone. Oh, and by the way - I am being careful not to photograph any of your customers as they enter or leave the store. </p>

<p>"ok then - i guess I have to go make some calls" - he disappeared - came back as I was leaving and apologized. Said he had talked to his regional manager - apparently they never sent the e-mail saying that they were selling the land and buildings, but not to worry that they were signing long term leases with all of them as a part of the sale. Apparently a reverse mortgage type deal - they get the cash they need, the buyer gets an income stream for 30 years. </p>

<p>Dave</p>

<p> </p>

<p>I'm 100% with the shop owner in the first post - I wouldn't believe <em>for a second </em>that you were "only" shooting the signs either: what <em>earthly</em> merit would there be in doing that? </p>

<p>In fact, it strikes me that the shop owner was doing his best to protect his customers' privacy from - for all he knew - some sleazy Peeping Tom.</p>

<p>I make my living in privacy law, and frankly I'd make street photography of any sort illegal: you clearly have <em>no bloody clue </em>just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people. </p>

<p>Well <em>I do</em>. </p>

"you clearly have no bloody clue just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people"

 

You know what drives me nuts in public places? Children! They make ungodly amounts of irritating noise, they behave in totally irrational ways, and they present a clear hazard to traffic and other pedestrians. Little buggers should be outlawed.

<p>Keith Reeder,<br>

I must say, that was a jaw-dropping post. I'm intrigued though. A business on the street is "open to the public" unless that are a private club of some sort. When you are "open to the public" - that contains some quid pro quo. You want the public to come to give you profits, and in exchange, the public has certain rights it demands of you for the privilege of letting you have a business there. As an example, the public won't let you discriminate on what races can enter your business. Another example is that your business must meet the fire and safety codes. And finally, the public has a right to look at, and thus photograph your business from the public access afforded to your business.</p>

<p>Your position seems to say something like this: "The business has no obligations to the public whatsoever. " What's the legal theory from which you derive that position?</p>

<p>I was shooting in the Ninth Street Market in Philadelphia. Some guy must've thought I was from the Health Department, and he pointed a long-barrel .38 at me.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I make my living in privacy law, and frankly I'd make street photography of any sort illegal: you clearly have <em>no bloody clue </em>just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You must serve a lot of very suspicious and crooked people! Wow! With an attitude like that, no wonder so many of us would like a lawyer-free nation! </p>

<p>I have never done "street photography". I only shoot what's fun and interests me. I may have to reconsider...this does sound fun!</p>

<p>My second question to Keith Reeder is this:<br>

Is an artist allowed to stand on the sidewalk and DRAW the storefront?</p>

<p>"I'm 100% with the shop owner in the first post - I wouldn't believe <em>for a second </em>that you were "only" shooting the signs either: what <em>earthly</em> merit would there be in doing that? <br>

In fact, it strikes me that the shop owner was doing his best to protect his customers' privacy from - for all he knew - some sleazy Peeping Tom.<br>

I make my living in privacy law, and frankly I'd make street photography of any sort illegal: you clearly have <em>no bloody clue </em>just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people."</p>

<p>You sir, are no attorney. If the people outside didn't want to be seen, why are they outside? The Supreme Court has ruled that when you are outside in public view, you have very limited privacy rights. That includes things like being physically assaulted or harassed. Having your photo taken is not harassment. Its documentation. That's why cities and businesses can put up security cameras and not be sued for violating some privacy right. Besides, if you were an attorney in real life, you would know the 4th Amendment and would know this doesn't apply.</p>

<p>For you to presume the photographer a "peeping tom" is profiling and prejudiced. Something a good attorney, or even a not-so-good attorney would know is illegal, or bad practice. But I noticed you said you make your living in privacy law and not that you're an attorney, which leads me to believe you're a paralegal. Which would also explain this irrational post and irrational application of the law.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>you clearly have <em>no bloody clue </em>just how invasive and offensive unsolicited photography is to many people.<br>

</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Does that include any and all surveillance cameras? Because they are even more invasive than street photography.</p>

<p>People are crazy! I or someone could certainly take those pictures if using a smaller camera like the cell phone or even a spy camera and those pictures can do just about any kind of damage to their place that a nice camera can if I or someone had such an intention. But for us with big camera don't do that. We actually for the most part wanted to show their property and themselves in a good way and yet they gave us problem.</p>

<p>FYI: Keith Reeder is a British lawyer--public servant is what he calls himself (<em>bloody</em> was the clue!). So knowing the intricacies of the US Constitution may be beyond him (beneath him?).</p>