Photographer Banned

<p>Burlington, VT.:<br>

<a href="http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street">A Photographer Is "Banned" for Taking Pictures on Church Street</a><br>

Both sides are availing themselves of their rights, so how do you choose in this type of situation? Maybe getting in touch with King Solomon would help, although I'm not sure this is a baby that can be cleaved.</p>

<p>assuming he was on public property as he says....he has every right to take pictures. The business owners....and the police at their behest....are violating the photographers 1st ammendment rights by issueing a no trepassing edict...(he hasn't gone in any of their stores, just on public property).....in my opinion. He should definetly file a complaint with the American Civil Liberties Union.</p>

<p>If they guy really is - as many people quoted in the article suggest - acting furtive and creeping people out, he needs to change his approach. But I find the method used to make him stop (a "universal trespass" order), in the absence of any sort of charge or judicial finding, to be completely unreasonable. Alas, he needs to chase this through court, just to get <em>that</em> aspect of the matter cleared up. In the meantime, I think he really needs to work on his people skills. When local businesses hear customers complaining that there's some guy regularly taking quick pictures of them and then turning away, he's sending the wrong body language signals.<br /><br />Maybe if he stopped using the long lens, and just worked up close where people could get a better read on him, and talk to him directly, they'd feel a little less stalked.</p>

<p>How are this guy's rights being violated?</p>

<p>He has the right to take pictures in public. He's doing that. From what I read, nobody is stopping him.</p>

<p>Private business owners have the right to discriminate against non-protected classes of people being in their establishments. They've told him to stay outside.</p>

<p>Seems like there's a communication gap between the photographer and the store owners. Both are to blame for that. But I don't see any particular rights being violated.</p>

<p>Of course, this is assuming what is reported is actually true. There's a very low probability that this story is exactly as presented based on my experience with stories and real life. :)</p>

<p>Eric</p>

<p>Well, I agree with Matt that the photographers people skills and / or his body language need improvement.</p>

<p>There does seem to be room for interpretation as to whether or not he is on public property when he takes the photo. Since I have never been to the location, I looked at satellite views of the area. It appears that the coffee shop fronts what can be described as a pedestrian mall, although there is a street running adjacent to the storefront that may or may not be a public street. The mall property is large and seems to encompass both indoor and outdoor aspects and so I cannot conclude if he is on public or private property, and I think that is the crux of the issue, so once that is determined, the rest is moot.</p>

<p>WOW! another photog caught in a tar baby for not talking learning to talk guard!<br /> <br /> lets get out the ALCU, sue them, declare rights; wow it is another "situation" of harassment! :)<br>

Some folks like to get banned</p>

<p>I wonder how the police would feel if a business owner filed such a request about a policeman? Seems his behavior was suspicious -- parking illegally, questioning patrons, generally acting "creepy". Would the police issue such a unconstitutional paper against one of their own? I'm guessing NOT. I hope that case gets filed and the business owners get some consequences for this act. Seems only the rich get justice these days -- the ones who can afford good lawyers.</p>

<p>As Photo Gorilla points out - public property - they don't have a leg to stand on - Private Property - different rules apply. My best guess is that this is either a "Lifestyle Center" (Open air mall) or a city / public street that has been turned into a pedestrian area.</p>

<p>What they can't do (no matter public or private is force him to delete photos. Although if an individual asks most will willing do it without causing a fuss.</p>

<p>David - Police get a lot more complaints against them then we'll ever know - that's why they have an Internal Affairs department that is outside of the normal chain of command which investigates all complaints against them...for anything from illegal parking to harassment. If they find sufficient evidence of wrongdoing - then 99% of the time - it is turned over to a neighboring jurisdiction for prosecution, to avoid conflict of interest. I know I've seen cases of harassment and trespass filed against law officers.</p>

<p>Dave</p>

 

<p>The story suggests that various area businesses agreed to ban people from their property if one or more of the other agreeing businesses decide to ban the people involved. Police trespass warnings are often used to timely memorialize a private property owner's notice to someone that they are no longer welcome on the property. Notice that one is banned from a property is sometimes needed to prosecute trespass charges later, particularly in locations where the public is invited. In this case, its a so called universal order (or warning) on behalf of the agreeing merchants. A big issue is if the 'square' is a fully functional "public place" or are the merchants able exercise some authority in the area in question. If they are, it may explain the universal order as the merchants individually may not be able to exercise control without the acquiescence of the others.</p>

<p>Gentlepersons....</p>

<p>It seems part of the argument here comes down to minutia and technicalities in the specifics of this incident. The importance of this case isn't whether he was on public or private property. In almost any state, a business owner has the right to deny a member of the public access. The problem is that the police, a government institution, have issued an official anti-trespass order, under government authority, without allowing the named individual due process. As I understand it, they haven't even accused him of trespassing. The ability to do things like this has already started a trend, and perhaps set an unfortunate precedent, with the government itself failing to follow constitutional law.</p>

<p>Current and future problems can arise with the government exercising its foolishly-allowed incursions into civil liberties for their convenience or ease. Two years from now, the state, county or city may amend such things as licensing ordinances to exclude people who are convicted felons, convicted child molesters, have failed to pay child support in years past, have ever been accused of (but not tried) domestic violence, and people with a no-trespass order or restraining order. If you notice the first mentioned items are serious and with a conviction. The last several are not felonies, but rather misdemeanor-type offenses without conviction. They are simply made at the request of one citizen against another. A question might be asked, "since when is one presumed guilty and/or penalized solely based on an accusation or a request?" Well, the answer is, "for some time now."</p>

<p>Is this photographer going to be denied a taxi license, should he seek that occupation in these hard times, when people are losing their jobs left and right and need new jobs? It might be okay to deny a taxi license to a convicted child molester, as children are sometimes sent by adults to a location by taxi so that they are safer than being on the street. Is the person with the order going to be denied a job, as if he was a convicted child molester and therefore a danger to children? If a person, angry at him because he took a perfectly legal picture of them, recognizes him as their prospective taxi driver, they don't have to get in the car.</p>

<p>In California, restraining orders and protective orders are often used by spurned lovers, the opposite party in a lawsuit, a business rival, or someone who is in competition with you for promotion, as a way to hurt them or lessen them. They are issued upon a simple accusation or complaint. It can cost thousands to tens of thousands of dollars in attorney's fees and court costs, simply to prove the person lied about you to do you harm. Yet recourse against that person to recover those monies expended is all but impossible.</p>

<p>When bad people and/or bad governments do bad things to us, and we roll over, or even worse, accept it, we deserve what we get.</p>

<p>This isn't the country that I expected to grow old in when I served it, fairly and honestly paid my taxes to it, and contributed to it with my time, energy, talents and experience. On the other hand, I guess in the long run, I'll get the last laugh because I have more age and less health than most of you. You're the folks who are going to get stuck with what's left of America. In a way that's sad because there are some pretty decent people and stand-up guys here on Photonet. In another way, there seems like there are an awful lot of people, whether here on Photonet or in my neighborhood, my county, my state, and what I shamefacedly call my country, who have either caused or aided and abetted your somewhat dismal future. By the time you finally figure it out, it'll be too late. You won't like it.</p>

<p>When the "round up the usual suspects" will you be one? I'd be glad to come to your defense, but by then I'll be dead. </p>

<p>Already been there, already seen that,</p>

<p>A. T. Burke</p>

<p>Matt Laur wrote: "If they guy really is - as many people quoted in the article suggest - acting furtive and creeping people out, he needs to change his approach."</p>

<p>No he does not. He has a perfect right to act "furtive" if it pleases him and if people get "creeped out" then they need to take responsibility for their own feelings. They have NO REASONABLE EXPECTATION OF PRIVACY in a public place, bottom line. I've met a lot of really creepy people on the streets of towns and cities all across this country and I've never so much as HINTED they should change their behavior just because I got "creeped out".</p>

<p>Kelly Flanigan wrote: "WOW! another photog caught in a tar baby for not talking learning to talk guard!"</p>

<p>NOBODY has any obligation whatsoever to learn to speak "guard talk". The guard has a responsibility to know the law and to stay within its limits. And if its harassment then its harassment and YES legal action should be taken. If cities lose enough law suits they'll eventually get the message about constitutionally protected free speech and until that time they'll continue to enroach upon people's constitutional rights. <br /></p>

<p>It sucks for him, but it does look like the ban was issued by the property owners (and for some reason the police served the notice for them). Private property owners are allowed to ban you from their property, and it does look like they might have had reason.</p>

<p>I think the cops went a bit too far out of their way when they questioned him at his office.</p>

<p>The stores have not banned him from the street. They have not banned him from taking pictures. He has been told he may not enter the private establishments. He has been served a legal anti-trespassing order. He's gotten all the due process he is entitled to. "Being trespassed" and served notice by the police is not an unusual way of doing things.</p>

<p>Walter; the issue is a fundamental people issue; as old as man.</p>

<p>Folks that are aholes towards the guards get stuck in the manure. The more you whine and tick them off and downgrade them; the more manure you get on you. Stuff like this goes back 30,000 + years. Thus one could state one does not have "the obligation" to not be an ahole; or treat them like crap; or tick them off; or belittle them; or act like a jackass.</p>

<p>Here I go on a sales gambit; you learn their name; and do not whuss out and not show an ID or business card. Ie the non jackass approach means one often shoot in places where others get into the manure ; *WITH NO ISSUES AT ALL.* Most folks on the this thread are not mature enough yet to do this; it is more of a Jr High school lets pick a fight with the guards; it is my right; it is the law; whine whine whine.</p>

<p>Nobody wants to vist mall where a photographer causes issues; causes folks to worry about their kids; worry about a goofball photographer.</p>

<p>Several places I vist the "guards" ask about me about cameras; lenses for *their* stuff they shoot. It is not rocket science; just something called respect. Thus there is not the deep ingrained hatred, or sue them or its the law stance.</p>

<p>It is just an old fashioned way of dealing with folks; ie respect; not an ahole; as old as man. You learn to listen to the other person.</p>

<p>For other folks you seek the manure; the tar baby. You seek the fight; you seek the banning; you want to be booked by the cops; you want the negative publicity; or is it FREE publicity? :).</p>

<p>Most folks cannot fathom that somehow their own actions get them in the ditch; "it is the other chaps fault."</p>

<p>Walter: when I say he "needs" to change his approach, I'm not talking about legalities. I'm talking about as an artist. If he wants to shoot in a public space (though it's still not clear that he actually IS in a public space, as it's possible he's on a managed business property - an outdoor private mall, as seen in many places), he can. But if he doesn't want a steady stream of people complaining to the local businesses that he's acting like a creep and creating a really uncomfortable atmosphere, he can modify his approach - so that that's not how the very people he wants to photograph will perceive him.<br /><br />I realize that some photographers simply don't care, and many even take a certain delight in making other people uncomfortable, enjoying the confrontational aspect of it for some reason. But it doesn't have to be that way. It's possible to shoot on the street and to still not have a long and growing reputation among the local retailers for being "that creepy guy who freaks out our customers, especially young women." This is just basic social graces stuff. He should shoot, and be glad he's shooting, and yet he should still pursue an approach that isn't so unsettling to so many people. Not because he's legally obligated to, but because it's an important part of not eroding the reputations of photographers everywhere.<br /><br />There's a vast middle ground between not shooting at all, and coming across like a stalker. Most street shooters seem to navigate those waters just fine, and this guy seems kind of tone deaf, that's all.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>It seems part of the argument here comes down to minutia and technicalities in the specifics of this incident. The importance of this case isn't whether he was on public or private property.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yeah, its only the entire case that depends on it. Otherwise, its all minutia.</p>

<p>Well, it seems to me that people in a public place generally, have no expectation of privacy. There is no legal reason that he can't take his pictures.<br>

Private property owners also have a right to deny entrance on to their property. From a legal standpoint then, it seems that though you can't force entrance on to private property, if that property is open to the public, I don't think you can deny access based for an improper purpose such as race, religion etc. I just don't know if photographers are a protected class under the constitution. Practically, he could work on his technique, it sounds like he's creeping people out. That's one of the great delights of street shooting, the street acts a mirror, and when you start getting that sort of reaction, you may want to look at how you are going about what you do. You could be screwing up, or you may be doing something very right.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I just don't know if photographers are a protected class under the constitution.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>They are not.</p>

 

<p>A. Thomas Burke has it right. The photographer, who did nothing legally wrong, was issued an illegal document of No Trespassing (illegal because he was not arrested, tried, or convicted) based on opinions of others (this is not a country founded of opinions....but laws, and laws that (used to be) carefully thought out to protect everybody's rights). This photographer did NOTHING harmful to these people. If you say that weirding out the customers is harmful....then that means I have the right to get a piece of paper issued by the police to hand out to every mom with a double wide kiddie stroller who walks side by side with her mom friend with same....and blocks 7th ave in Park Slope Brooklyn to the point I can't walk on the side walk. Sound incredible? Why? Actually, I have more of a case against them....they actually do block public access on public property. That actually is illegal. Anyhow, I don't shop on 7th ave because of that....so the shop owners should be upset because the moms are blocking pedestrian traffic. And for the most part, the moms with strollers aren't buying anything except Starbucks but the rest of the time is just walking......and by the way, there's a giant park a block away. So, let's issue a no trepassing edict to all the baby stroller moms that frequent 7th ave Park Slope.</p>

<p>So, this photographer with this illegal piece of paper issued against him now has a "mark" against him that will followw him to his next job application. No Trespassing! Oh this guy must cause trouble. We don't hire trouble makers. Especially when there are 11 million other people out of work that we could hire.</p>

<p>This is where this sort of thing starts. Thomas is right.....by not fighting crap like this, our children, grandchildren are going to have to live in a country a whole lot less free.</p>

<p>I too am old enough to remember when things were different....and I too probably won't be alive the worse of what is to come.</p>

<p>I love this country....but I love it for what it changed over 200 years ago. The Constitution and Bill of rights this country has is unique in the world. Don't let it slowly get undermined. It would be the greatest crime in the history of the world</p>

<p>ok....now I'll shut up.....but think about it. Someday, they are going to make something you like doing a grotesque and evil endeavor......so, start fighting for the PRINCIPLE of what is going on here......not the actual subject. Put your particular love in life in place of the word Photographer in this story. Doesn't seem so good a thing then.....does it?</p>

<p>Just to give a bit of illustration of the location, I visited there a couple of times. It's a long street that is closed off for motorized vehicles and has retails and restaurants on it, some of it outdoors. I guess it's similar to Quincy Market in Boston. it's great for street photographer because there are a lot of crowds going, street performer/musician etc. There is an indoor mall on it to it that has Macy's, movie theatre, etc.<br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/9748571">http://www.photo.net/photo/9748571</a><br>

The tower in the background is the church tower, hence the street name.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>A. Thomas Burke has it right. The photographer, who did nothing legally wrong, was issued an illegal document of No Trespassing (illegal because he was not arrested, tried, or convicted) based on opinions of others (this is not a country founded of opinions....but laws, and laws that (used to be) carefully thought out to protect everybody's rights). </p>

</blockquote>

<p>No. The document was issued by the business owners. They are allowed to tell him to stay off their property, with or without cause.</p>

<p>But he isn't/wasn't on their properties!</p>

<p>I think an apt response would be for photographers to go there en-mass for a week or two. Wouldn't be good to organize it but if they just happen to show up....</p>

<p>One tactic would be to label this town as "anti-tourist", and warn readers of tourist online/magazines that they may be arrested for simple tourist photography.<br>

Keep local mayor and chamber of commerce apprised of your valiant efforts to protect the larger public.<br>

Problem might solve itself.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>But he isn't/wasn't on their properties!</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one said he was. It appears that the merchants, in effect, told him that, due to his actions on the street, they do not want him inside their establishments. Right or wrong, it is their legal right to make such a request.</p>

<p>It also appears that the police order does not prevent him from visiting the street and taking more pictures in the future, either. He just can't go into any of the stores or restaurants.</p>

<p>If the order had banned him from even walking down the street or taking photographs outside on the street, that would be a different matter. If, in fact, the street is still owned by the city and has not been turned over to a commercial developer to build one of the new, trendy, outdoor malls, then I would say that he has a right to be there. If, however, the city has privatized the street, then he may not have a legal case. As others have mentioned, owners of private property (or leasehold tenants) have a right to refuse entry to anyone, with or without a reason, except in the case of legally protected classes (racial minorities, gender, religious affiliation, etc.). Even those protected classes are not given a completely free pass. If someone were causing a disturbance, they could be banned, regardless of there protected status. I realize that this doesn't seem to apply, in this case.</p>

<p>If the court decides that the street is somehow "private property", then he's out of luck. Owners can and do excercise a lot of control. When I first got my Pentax K10D dslr, I accompanied my wife to the local mall, where I was having fun with my new toy. A couple of mall security guards came over and asked me to stop. Another time, I was downtown and wanted to shoot inside one of the big old marble banks that was built in the 1920's. I asked the guards for permission. They said okay, but to keep my camera pointed up at the architecture and not down, at the bank patrons. You can't use a camera in many casinos, either.</p>

<p>Paul Noble</p>