Harassment of Photographers in Denver

I'm not sure what to do about this, but I've been working on a project of

photographs from and on and around the busses and light rail in Denver. The

first incident involved me photographing Northern Pacific engines waiting to be

refurbished at the NP yard, I happened to be close to a light rail line and, in

fact, got a rather unusual photo of two light rail trains in the station at the

same time (rare, usually only one shows up at a time). In the first, rather

minor incident, a couple of RTD security officers asked to see my ID. Knowing

that they had no right to even ASK, I also realized that arguing with them would

allow the light to get away, so I handed them the ID and a business card with an

"Well, even though you have no right to this, here. I have work to do." They

then proceeded to watch me taking pictures (no big deal, its a free

country....or so I thought).

 

Incident #2 happened about an hour ago. I was taking my usual bus home, saw an

interesting ad above an interesting passenger and shot it. At the next stop the

bus driver said "Did you know it is illegal to take photographs on busses?" To

which I replied "Nonsense." He refused to leave the stop until I got off the bus

and said "Come up here and we can *discuss* this *further*" in a very

threatening manner. I refused, so he sat at the stop. This was irritating the

gang bangers at the back of the bus, and I realized that if I DIDN'T get off the

bus, I'd have more trouble than a 40 year old photographer wanted to deal with.

So I got off the bus.

 

In the mean time, I was contacting RTD to see if they even had a POLICY on on

photography. They didn't As I was talking with the person, an RTD security car

(unmarked) screached in front of me and ordered me to hang up the phone. At that

point, the RTD rep on the line hung up on ME. They admitted that there is not

only no law, but not even a policy. It is my understanding that a public

transportation company can't HAVE a policy that would prohibit photography.

Toward the end of the conversation, I was also told "There really isn't anything

that we can do about it anyway because we've leased the bus to a sub-contractor

and the driver isn't an RTD employee." (Convenient, eh?).

 

So, I was ejected from a bus for doing nothing illegal, had RTD security again

demand ID (I refused, but gave them a business card and told them to look it

up). Anything I can do? Anyone else have a similar experience? Do I give up my

First Amendment rights in the interest of ?????. Do I give up my Fourth

Amendment rights and refuse to give ID or a business card unless under arrest?

Any ideas? I have months in to this project....

How about simply contacting someone a little farther up the food chain there, politely explaining what you're doing and that they might have an interest in the finished work... and then asking them for a document or credentials expressly designed to soothe the nerves of the people who are alarmed by what you're doing, or by what it may represent. Essentially: arrange for that system's verions of press credentials... no city transportation system can function without a press office, media contacts, and an understanding of how coverage works for and against them.

 

In the drivers' seats, we're talking about people working for a pittance, who are simply counting the hours before someone pulls a London or a Madrid in what amounts the office where they work every day. You can put them at ease by doing a little work in advance, and actually wind up with more latitude. You can make them respectful allies instead of reinforcing their initial impression that you're potentially adversarial and looking to bring their bosses down on them, or someone that would rather piss off the gang bangers in the back of the bus than honor the driver's instructions. Keeping the bus stationary is probably EXACTLY what they're told to do when they have a passenger they're not sure what to do with. That's the best way for them to get help that can find them, and reduces the chances of an accident when someone disturbed is on board. It's their default action, and it makes sense. It doesn't mean that that particular driver read you correctly, but neither does it sound like you're reading the entire munciple transporation system's personnel correctly.

 

Should the people training/managing the fleet make a clearer policy more well understood by the drivers? Sure. Would you be at ease doing their job all day long, especially considering your experience with the crew in the back of the bus? Doubtful. Few people would.

Yeah, actually, as someone who works downtown and commutes by bus/train, I'm used to the crew in the back. Have some photos of them, they are part of what I'm working on. I deal with the public 7 days a week (both in this project, and in the job that is allowing me to shoot it). This particular driver needs to find a new line of work.

 

I'm tempted to take the easy path and simply do what you suggest, get the press credentials. But. The realty is that I don't legally NEED them, and by accepting them I worry that I'm rubber stamping the de-facto ban on photography. In all honesty, I've had some good interactions with the security officers. In some ways I see their point. Security. But, no laws have changed since 2002, what they are doing was illegal then, is illegal now. I actually suspect that I WILL take the credentials (I'm a wuss, I'm 40, I have too much to get done before I kick the bucket, and maybe civil rights and the constitution isn't on that agenda...yet...many more instances like this and I may well take that up as a hobby).

 

The strange thing, I've spent over a decade shooting abroad, sometimes in nations under martial law...Thai insurgents blew up a train the last time I was there, yet I've NEVER been questioned anywhere in the world, only in the U.S.. Reminds me of the paranoia over The Russians Are Coming! during the cold war....sorta has some overtones of what people were trying to do with The House Unamerican Activities Committee

Buslines, railroads, airlines and ferries might actually have the right to limit photography, even if they can't ban it altogether, because of longstanding legal principles that impose on "common carriers" a special duty of care toward their passengers.

 

One classic case occurred here in NYC sometime in the decade *before* 9/11. A transit cop was trying to corral a stray dog that had wandered into the subway. A passenger took a flash picture of the action. The flash distracted the cop and he was bitten by the dog. He arrested the passenger who took the picture.

 

Because of the ensuing litigation, the transit authority had to reconsider its policy on photography in the subway. IIRC, photography had long been officially banned in the subway, but virtually no living person was aware of that policy and, until this incident, no one could recall an instance in which it had been enforced.

 

As a result of the incident, the transit authority was forced to reconsider its policy and adopted a new -- quite reasonable, in my opinion -- of permitting photography but banning the use of flash, as it might intefere with the police or train operators in the performance of their duties in what can be a hazardous environment.

 

Of course, after 9/11, a new policy debate began involving new considerations, but it should be remembered that photography on common carriers was an issue even before 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London.

 

Just so we can all get a clearer picture of what actually occurred, were you using flash? How far away were you from the person being photographed? Did he object (a consideration that would probably be irrelevant in the street but perhaps pertinent in the confines of a bus)?

 

Very often you need to know all the facts before reaching a conclusion.

Fascinating analysis, I could agree to some extent if this were a private bus company, but its the public transportation system, so...ermm...I'm warily skeptical.

 

No flash, not on the street. My entire purpose is to document people as they are, not to draw attention to myself. I was probably 20-30 feet away from the person being photographed, and the angle was such that the three people in the frame weren't aware that the photograph had been taken. I've been doing this a long time (which is part of my point, no problems in areas where terrorist acts regularly occur, the only place where I've had trouble is in the nation that purports to be the bastion of freedom, grrrr)...in any case, been doing this a long time, and 7 of 10 shots the subject doesn't know he/she/they is/are being photographed.

I wonder if you were a 20 year old blonde with a giggle and a cell phone camera they'd have

the same problem. It's all about personal relationships, personality, and politics. That's how

the world turns. Unless you were using flash, which understandably might be a legitimate

annoyance, it's kind of up to you how to handle it. For myself I'd work around it some way or

start a new project.

 

How photography automatically equates to pulling a Madrid is beyond me. People think in

funny ways these days.

Getting into a discussion with the peons at the scene will not help in the slightest bit. People like this have been around forever, and always will be around. All you can do is make sure that you are in the right, and let them call law enforcement. In my experience, once real law enforcement gets there, you have nothing to worry about, as they generally know the real score. If they don't, you can either swallow your pride and call it a day, or let yourself be arrested and have your day in court. If the law is on your side, it will be settled there, and you will shut people up more than you will by complaining to a manager. Just make sure you pick your battles wisely. More often than not, I'll just suck it up and try get my shots another time. Yeah, it stinks, but we have it better than it is in most of the rest of the world. Once they affect you, they are controlling you.

 

Keith

Pretty good advice, Keith. Even though I have a concealed weapon permit, I always opt for

the peaceful solution. However, a little "back-up" insurance gives me peace of mind when

it comes to unruly gang-bangers and the like.

If this project remains important to you, then I would suggest the following possibilities, some of which overlap:<P>

 

1. See whether Denver has a program that connects interested lawyers with artists -- not at the lawyers' standard hourly rates, but either on a volunteer or reduced fee basis. Many cities/communities have such programs. Also consider getting in touch with the <a href=http://www.aclu-co.org/>ACLU of Colorado</a>, which is based in Denver.<p>

 

2. Determine actual RTD policy if you can, not during a hurried phone call (your only choice at that moment), but in writing.<p>

 

3. A short search reveals that the <a href=http://www.rtd-denver.com/> RTD Board (15 members)</a> is <i>an elected body</i> whose members are actually elected by district. If you are a resident, you have a Director in your district, and you are his or her <i>constituent</i>. That's another avenue I absolutely wouldn't ignore.<p>

 

Please let us know how this works out.<p>

 

Good luck.

CE, toughen up or you will never get any project off the ground! So what if some idiots tell you not to photograph something. When you get in a situation like that again, say to yourself five times "what would W. Eugene Smith do?" - "what would W. Eugene Smith do?" ........

But Tim: <p>

 

" ... [smith's] involvement led to him being badly beaten up by men from the chemical company as the men attacked a group of demonstrators of which he was a participating photographer. He never fully recovered." <p>

 

Quote from <a href=http://www.geocities.com/minoltaphotographyw/williameugenesmith.html>this page</a>.

So Mr Smith's model, while commendable and historically important, might not be for everyone.

Hi,

 

Over here in the UK we also have had many instances of amateur photographers going lawfully about their hobby and being stopped, bullied, etc by security people, police, part time police, the general public and just about anyone who feels like throwing their weight around.

 

In the vast majority of cases, even where the police are concerned, the useage of the terms 'its a terrorist issue' is just one big cop out or downright lie, just so some over zealous, or power-crazed moron can feel a bit of power for a few minutes...and that is all it comes down to.

 

We really need to be absolutely sure of our rights so we can tell these idiots exactly where to get off...

 

cheers Steve.

Michael, if CE was getting beaten up I would tell him to say "what would Ghandi do?", "what would Ghandi do?" five times. Smith may not have totally recovered from the injuries he recieved in Japane but he did go on to take 40,000 images with an 8x10 view camera of the city of Pittsburg for a project he was doing. How many of us spoiled little brats could manage that kind of effort with a digital SLR much less an 8x10 view camera?

<< ... How many of us ... >>

 

You've got a point there.

"Smith may not have totally recovered from the injuries he recieved in Japane but he did go on to take 40,000 images with an 8x10 view camera of the city of Pittsburg for a project he was doing"

 

Where is some solid documentation of the accuracy of this number? I don't believe it.

Pittsburgh was long, long before Japan. Got the book.

In this day and age, if you are starting a project "on and around the buses and light rail in Denver" without getting some sort of permission, you are being extremely naive IMO.

It's obvious you are going to get hassled by underpaid undereducated security types.

<p>

Got any other ideas for projects?

W.Eugene Smith , whom I was lucky enough to meet and spend some time with before he died in Tucson Arizona,was a former combat photographer, who was badly wounded in WWII in the Pacific theatre on the Japanese Island of Okinawa. He was also beaten up pretty good at other times in his life besides while he was working on the Minamata book on Mercury poisoning in Japan. He was not afraid to do what was necessary to get the photos of the projects he was working on , including the Pittsburgh project. I was able to print several of his negatives and although he was a very good photographer , he was a great printer .I sometimes took him days to make the perfect print.He was the master of using Potassium ferricyanide( Farmers Reducer),which he used to lighten the darker areas of his prints.He also loved to listen to classical music as he printed, something we both shared.

 

The damage to his body brought him a lot of physical pain in his life which he tried to control with drugs and alcohol, which was a big part of why he died of a stroke at a convenience market here in Arizona. I always thought that with all the dangerous places he photographed in the world to die here in Tucson was not a way he would go out.

 

In saying that he was not afraid to get the photos, he also was smart at finding a way to do the project he wanted by any means possible .I think contacting the transit authority in Denver or even the Art council and getting some kind of official status to do your project is a better way of getting what you want. Takes some of your photos with you when you go talk to them. Maybe they will even display some of your photos at the end of your project.Here in Phoenix the RR tracts are private property that belong to the RR,but I have contacted their national offices and been able to photograph trains from their property. There is always bridges and other ways to photograph tracks and trains without being on the ground. Good Luck.

I exaggerated a bit, 17,000 appears to be the correct figure, sorry. Smith did do the Pittsburg project in the mid-fifties, well after re-cuperating from the injuries he recieved from a mortar blast on Okinawa in 1945.

Back to the issue. If you've reported it accurately here then I'm sorry, for you appear to have been subjected to unwanted harrassment. It happens a lot. Until we start to penalise /retrain people who assume responsibility they don't have or get the rules fundamentally wrong, it will continue to happen a lot. Whilst I would certainly make a written complaint, I think its difficult to interest most managements in the excesses of their subordinates and contractors. You certainly don't see many cases of security guards, park rangers, police etc getting disciplined because they've harrassed people unduly. In my view thats a pity but I'm not holding my breath.

 

In the meantime you should in general terms carry a copy of Bert Krages "photographers rights" documents. Specifically you should try and get some written statement of policy, or a letter responding to your specific queries, from the transport authorities you're working on- something to show the next idiot who makes up the rules as he goes along. Sadly, you're likely to need it.

<p>

If I were you, C E, I 'd write to one of the <a href="http://www.rtd-denver.com/TheBoard/index.html">directors of RTD</a> and let them know what happened. At the very least, it's important to lodge a complaint about what happened, and the reply to your letter might be useful in any future incidents.

</p>

<p>

The problem with situations like this is that rarely will everyone be on the same page. When I told a fellow photographer friend of mine about the lady on the subway last year who told me not to take pictures, he contacted MTA since he wanted to shoot the murals they have in the stations. He got an email back stating it was perfectly ok to photograph in the stations and the trains themselves. However, when he went down into the stations, he asked several sheriff personal who were patrolling and he got several different answeres. So all in all, it depends. I haven't done any shots in the subways for a long time, but I still carry a printout of the email my friend recieved in my camera bag just in case.

<small><i><blockquote>

 

he contacted MTA since he wanted to shoot the murals they have in the stations. He got an email back stating it was perfectly ok to photograph in the stations and the trains themselves. However, when he went down into the stations, he asked several sheriff personal who were patrolling and he got several different answeres.

 

</blockquote> </i> </small><p>

 

That was silly. He should have printed a copy of the email and kept it with him in case he got stopped. Choosing to ask permision after already having gotten it is more than perverse.

I don't think it is naive to assume that a published, award winning photog who has worked as a journalist off and on would be able to do street photography without being threatened by peons (I still am not comfortable on the 30, the drivers threats would be fine if I didn't have a bag of gear).

 

What is really troubling and upsetting is that I've shot in countries under Martial Law, I've shot in countries before and after coups. I've probably got some old film with Taiwanese military compounds (let alone the time I wandered inadvertently onto a military base in Taiwan with a model, the MPs were VERY kind in pointing out roughly where the boundary was). I've NEVER had ANY trouble, and was shooting in Thailand when a train was blown up (relatively common).

 

The only place in 30 years of photography, both professional AND for the fun of it, I've only had trouble in the U.S.. An aside, I've hung and sold nudes in numerous countries, and ONLY had them pulled from galleries in the U.S......just really bizarre.

 

Having BEEN a bit of a cowboy photog and rarely even knowing where to get permission in other countries (the U.S. is foreign to me, I've spent 1/3 of my life elsewhere), it really strikes me as bizarre that I need to ask for permission to exercise my first amendment rights in the country where I was born. But. The reality is that I do have to ask, and even then it probably won't mean much. My question is when "they" will start demanding my camera illegally, and I'll have to apply for permits to get it back. Sliperry slope idea.

 

BTW, the day after this I had some figure studies removed from a gallery because some busy body had complained of the "pornographic images." So. My tenure here may be simply to the point that my kids get through college, so the probability is that I'll take that RTD press credential, to hell with the larger implications, and simply bail in 9 years ;-).

 

Oh, and personally, I'm lovin' the side conversations, and again, I really appreciate being taken to task on my historical missteps :-).