Mass ACLU asks Boston MBTA to lay off photographers

<p>The Boston Globe today <b><a

href="http://www.boston.com/news/local/massachusetts/articles/2006/06/13/aclu_threatens_to_sue_over_limits_to_photographing_the_t/">reports</a></b>

that the <b><a href="http://www.aclu-mass.org/">Massachussetts ACLU</a></b> has

written a <b><a

href=http://www.aclu-mass.org/news/06.11.06.MBTAPolice.PDF>letter</a></b>

requesting that the MBTA end its practice of prohibiting photographers from

taking photographs of MBTA trains and sites.</p>

<p>The Globe reported that "MBTA General Manager Daniel A. Grabauskas said the

ACLU letter was 'insulting and naive' to the T's security concerns."</p>

<p>I have on one occasion applied for and received a card granting me one

month's permission to take photos on the "T". Needless to say, before and after

the card ran out, I took a few photos...(to see 40-50 such photos, go to <b><a

href=http://www.johnsidlo.com/imagesTitles.html>http://www.johnsidlo.com/imagesTitles.html</a></b>

and scroll down to the first "Faces On The T", click it then click forward. </p>

<p>Several months ago I was informed by a driver (the first time, surprisingly)

that photography was illegal on the MBTA. I did not reply to the driver, but

for the record did take several photos - not particularly good ones,

unfortunately, so they are not found among the above list. I was surprised to

discover from the Globe article and ACLU letter that the MBTA claims it does not

even have a written policy. </p>

<p>I'll be interested in seeing how this all plays out.</p>

uffda - there are only 4 S'es in Massachusetts

Interesting and good to know. I lived in Boston for years (until 2004) and took many pictures on the T -- though usually on the subway or commuter rail platforms or empty trolley busses (e.g. http://www.photo.net/photo/1563834 ). I was lucky in that I was never challenged.

.

 

How about:

 

"Mass ACLU asks Boston MBTA to stop prohibiting photography"

 

... as the phrase "lay off" means to "fire" or separate from employment - NOT the intention of the story - the ACLU does not want Mass Transit to fire photographers now in their employ!

 

But, yes, photography is free speech, and sadly, too many people really don't believe in the freedoms they enjoy (or neglect) and so they imagine that quashing other people's freedoms is ok because they themselves don't "feel" encumbered ... at the moment.

 

When one person isn't free, no one is free. We all suffer when anyone make inroads into restricting anyone's freedoms.

 

Please, everyone, take your cameras with you everywhere, and photograph everything, all the time!

 

Photography is free speech - use it or loose it.

 

It makes so much sense for photographers everywhere to join and support the http://www.ACLU.com/ - who else is fighting for photographer's inalienable rights and protecting photographer's freedoms?

 

I am curious, though, if any photographers here have alternate viewpoints where they DO believe:

 

Other people have the right to control our photography? And if so:

 

- who,

 

- when,

 

- where,

 

- what and

 

- how?

 

I VERY seriously curious to know what limits anyone thinks are appropriate.

 

Thanks!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Photographer, Singer, Speaker, Writer, Thinker! I Breath, too - is that going to become a crime? http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

==

 

PS - Related silliness: recently on a morning walk in my neighborhood, I stopped on the sidewalk to shoot a picture of the back of someone's house which was bright yellow on one side and faded yellow on the other side of a corner - a striking composition (which I do not have at hand while writing this). The person who lives in the house immediately near the sidewalk where I was shooting from hopped in their car and drove down to the next intersection and pulled across the crosswalk, blocking traffic (though there was no oncoming traffic at the moment I approached) and as I approached, she rolled down her driver's side window and called out trying to get my attention - I of course walked around the car on the passenger's side to get around her car and continue her walk. Seeing and hearing her calling out, I presumed she was lost or something, so I circumnavigated her car. "What are you taking picture of?" she asked in what I perceived as a demanding tone, as if I better have a good reason for taking pictures or else! I was surprised at her inquiry as I expected her to ask for directions, so I snapped, "None of your business, photography is not a crime," and I walked on, ignoring her. She said, as I walked away, "Well, it's not every day you see someone photographing near your house ..." I forgot to say she was blocking traffic, and ask if she needed help. In hindsight, I could have been much more polite and engaged her: "Oh, are you a photography collector? Here's my card, perhaps you will like and want to buy some of my photography, especially if I have nice shots of your house for sale on my web site. Check it in a couple of days and see! Here's my web page and email address on my business card." That would have been both provoking and instructive to her, I suppose. Sadly, I'm sick and tired of people thinking my public photography is reason to accost me. This is why I encourage us all to carry our cameras with us everywhere, and photograph everything, all the time! If people see photography as normal, not an exception, we may all have an easier time with out hobby, passion, and profession - photography, especially public photography.

Thanks for your post, John. I also at first thought that MBTA was laying off photographers in their employ, but it was pretty clear from reading your post that "lay off" meant to stop harassing. Its always good to see your posts, I especially like your shots on the "T".

 

Peter B. M., about your "related silliness". Just as you have the right to take photographs anywhere in public (in the US, anyway), anyone else has the right to ask you what you are taking pictures of, especially if they or their property are in them. Maybe they are just curious, or they are interested in photography also. If someone was taking photos of me or my house, I'd welcome the opportunity to speak with them, just out of curiosity. From the tone of your post, it sounds like you clearly knew that this woman wasn't asking directions, and you just played stupid to create an argument. I've been stopped on the street many times by people asking "did you just take my picture". The answer "None of your business, photography is not a crime", sounds pretty defensive, to say the least. If I used that line, I'd say I deserved what I got. Just because you perceived her tone as demanding, doesn't make it so. Diplomacy and tact have worked well for me (99% of the time), and you never know what might happen, who you might meet, and what opportunities might arise.

 

Out of all the times I've been approached, I will admit there have been a couple of times where I actually had to run as fast as I can, but I don't regret having taken the time communicate with others, especially when they show an interest (either positive or negative), and I've met some interesting people that way. I've been invited into people's houses to take more photos, I've been able to take more photos of these people. If I treat people I'm photographing on the street with contempt, it is definately going to show in my photos. If thats what you want, then go for it. Usually when someone asks me why I'm photographing, and they are in the shot, I'm more than happy to show them the lcd (if I'm shooting digital), and to point them to my on line galleries, and if they wanted a print, I'd be happy to send them one for free. Think of it as good PR. Of course I try to trust my instincts, and there are times when do meet truly hostile people, but not very often. Diplomacy, tact, kindess, and respect can go a long way, and when they don't run like hell!

 

Offering to sell them a photo of their own house (at least the way it sounds in your post) sounds like it would only inflame the situation. Sometimes its better to practice "investigation prior to contempt" in these situations rather than the reverse.

 

PS. Whats with the "click, love an hugs" thing? Nothing personal, but I'm not a huggy kind of guy. Actually, it reminds me of Stuart Smalley. Maybe its just me, I could be wrong.

.

 

Earlier in this thread: "... Diplomacy and tact have worked well for me (99% of the time), and you never know what might happen, who you might meet, and what opportunities might arise ..."

 

Peter Blaise responds: Agreed. My "problem" was my own, unshared with you, previous experiences of people thinking my public photography is reason to accost me - police telling me I cannot photograph "here" on the public street because the courthouse is in view, guards telling me I cannot even carry a camera "here" in the public access spaces and open parking lots near buildings that rent space to government agencies on some of their floors, people hopping in their cars and following me to ask what the hell I'm doing taking a picture of their house for - twice so far, even assault and battery because I took pictures of assault and battery!

 

However, I'm encouraged that at least one responder here so far does NOT have an answer to my inquiry:

 

I am curious, though, if any photographers here have alternate viewpoints where they DO believe:

 

Other people have the RIGHT to control our photography?

 

And if so:

 

- who,

 

- what,

 

- when,

 

- where,

 

- how, and

 

- why?

 

I am VERY seriously curious to know what other people's limits to our photography anyone thinks are appropriate.

 

None so far.

 

Anyone else?

 

Thanks!

 

Click!

 

Love and hugs,

 

Peter Blaise peterblaise@yahoo.com Public Photographer http://www.peterblaisephotography.com/

 

PS - What does anyone care if I close with "love and hugs", other than to write, "thank you, I prefer love and hugs to the alternative"?

Thanks, John.

 

In exchange for your general good citizenship, I guess I'll forego my anonymous report to MBTA that a certain photographer might've snapped (ahem) a couple photos both before the effective date and after the expiration of his card. :-)

It's nice to see the ACLU using their resources for something worthwhile for a change. Thanks also John for the link to your website...I'm going to have fun looking at all your images.

john,

<p>

<a href="http://www.johnsidlo.com/image.php?src=FungWahBus2sm.jpg&url=imagesTitles">wow</a>

That Hexar is a sweet camera for taking photos on mass transit!

Peter, I find your post somewhat bizarre. You are expecting to debate with people who believe photographer�s rights should be limited in a Street/Documentary Forum? Does that seem likely to you?

PS Could you post a link to your work? I followed one but found only two snap-shots of somewhat dubious quality.

"It makes so much sense for photographers everywhere to join and support the http://www.ACLU.com/ - who else is fighting for photographer's inalienable rights and protecting photographer's freedoms? I am curious, though, if any photographers here have alternate viewpoints where they DO believe:

Other people have the right to control our photography? And if so:

- who, when, where, what how?"

 

In terms of supporting the ACLU, they have a very slanted political agenda. They would get far more support if they actually supported civil liberties in general, rather than just their narrow agenda.

 

Anyway, as to who has the right, etc., I think you're making assumptions that just aren't warranted. The "right to photograph" has been limited in various ways since at least WW II, quite likely WW I (if you disagree, please post some nice shots from Area 51 for us!). I think most people, photographers included, would probably be in favor of limiting photography in any case where it actually improved security against terrorism. But that's the rub, it's a pointless restriction or policy that really accomplishes nothing- one reason it's not even a written policy in the case you mention.

And I suppose that those who don't like the ACLU have no slanted, biased or misinformed agenda? Guess we should all listen to right wing talk radio where the unbiased, unslanted truth really exists, coming the mouths of pill poppers, borderline schizos and preachers with plastic hair.

Ok, my intention here isn't to start a heated personal political debate. My intention also isn't to play "devil's advocate." I just believe that the concepts of "rights" and "freedom of speech" are being tossed around a little loosely in this thread.

 

I don't believe the concept of photography is listed anywhere in the Declaration of Independance, Constitution, or the Bill of Rights.

 

Several countries throughout the world have recently started to define and re-define "image ownership." Do you, as a private citizen, own the rights to your image? Depends on the country you live in. A photographer above claimed that preventing him from taking pictures of whatever he wanted was a violation of his freedom of speach. What if I took a picture of him and used it in a VD or child molestation commercial? I am sure he would want my freedom of speech regulated somewhat then.

 

No one has the right to do whatever they want in any civilized country. Unfortunately there are laws, rules, and regulations because we as human beings have free will. Unfortunately, some use that free will with evil intentions. If you want to live in a civil society you must be prepared to abide by some laws.

 

If that means a background check to rent time in a flight simulator, a photo id to buy bulk fertilizer, or not photographing federal buildings or mass transit facilities without a permit, is that such a bad thing?

 

Again, all of the previous posts are probably right. But just take a minute and try to understad the intent of the laws and are you really that inconvenienced. As for taking pictures of someone's house, I too would be curious if I saw someone with a camera taking pictures at the back of my house while my daughter was in shower. If you aren't, then there's a lot of "freedom of speech" and "art" you haven't seen on the internet. Or, maybe you're that stalker that the neighborhood has been worried about. How do you know unless you ask...

John, you seem to assume that failure to support one group is the same as supporting the opposite extreme, but life is not quite that simple.

<I>What if I took a picture of him and used it in a VD or child molestation commercial? I am

sure he would want my freedom of speech regulated somewhat then.</I><P>

 

That's easy and already taken care of under US law. Without a release, the person

photographed could likely sue under the privacy torts of Appropriation (for commercial use

of his image) and False Light (suggesting he's a child molester).<P>

Given that most mobile phones now contain a camera, why would any intending terrorist bother with a conventional and highly visible camera?

There once was a time when photographers held a respected place in society as documentarians of life. Now, it seems we're seen as either terrorists, perverts or paparazzi.

 

"Paranoia strikes deep, step out of line, the men come and take you away" this is from an old Buffalo Springfield song.

 

I shake my head at the sad and pitiful paranoia I see in every corner of our Western world. The likes of George Bush and (now) Stephen Harper (our new right wing PM in Canada) would have us believe that everyone is out to get us. When will people get it - these guys are into this because THEY stand to benefit from keeping up afraid.

 

I say, get out into the world, travel, hug a human being from another culture, get real and out of the media hype. We're all really just people who want to live. Get a passport and go . . .

<i>Peter Blaise Monahon , jun 13, 2006; 09:46 a.m.

.<br><br>

How about:

<br><br>

"Mass ACLU asks Boston MBTA to stop prohibiting photography"

<br><br>

... as the phrase "lay off" means to "fire" or separate from employment - NOT the intention

of the story - the ACLU does not want Mass Transit to fire photographers now in their

employ!</i>

<br><br>

How about having a clue before engaging in verbal pedantry? "Lay off" for "quit bothering"

may be slang, but it's a very common usage, unlikely to confuse anyone... except you

apparently..

"I don't believe the concept of photography is listed anywhere in the Declaration of Independance, Constitution, or the Bill of Rights."

 

It does not need to be "listed". Drawings are not "listed" either. Does this mean they are not expression and can be banned? Of course not.

<div></div>

just what the thread needed - thank you Robert!

I remember \'Charlie on the MTA\'.

 

A few snaps are nothing when you imagine what a handful of coordinated crackpots could do to the new tunnels at rushtime. That notion should be scaring somebody.

FWIW- I shot about 15 rolls of film at the RNC over 2 days in MSG, Penn Station, and the LIRR station. On the way into N.Y. my train was boarded at New Haven by Federal Marshalls,CT. State Marshalls with bomb sniffing dogs, and the platforms were patrolled by National Gard troops in full swat gear carrying M16's.

 

Arriving at Penn Station the corridors were lined with NYC police, National Guard(swat/M16)Secret Service, Federal Marshalls, and State Marshalls from all over the country, and bomb sniffing dogs.

 

I shot film all the way in ,and all through the RR stations, on the street, in the Hotel across the street from MSG, and at a few of the protest rally's. No one said boo to me about taking pictures.Most of New York's finest were mugging for the camera. Maybe Bean Town should lighten up.