Photographers busted for laws they didn't violate

[craig_gillette]

Why does anyone think photographers are special? O.J. wasn't a photographer and he was arrested for a law he apparently didn't break.

 

The police officers are expected to know everything about the laws (and even the legislators will tell you they don't read the laws they pass), and work in an environment with, as others have noted, little or no continuing education. Apparently it is less costly to to operate that way - which is a decision made not by the police departments but by the city councils, etc. Most are very professional and it isn't an issue. However, it isn't the officers job to determine guilt or innocence. They have to have the necessary legal grounds to make an arrest. The DAs, etc., will prosecute, judges and/or jury will determine guilt or innocence. The defense attorney will defend, and if the arrest was egregious, there are avenues to pursue a remedy.

 

The public is becoming more aware that they have no privacy rights outside the home, that anybody that wants to essentially can take pictures of their daughters in swimsuits in public (and stick it on the internet). Very few people are going to consider that in the same light that they do a camera watching a bad intersection for red-light scoflaws, or a surveillance camera outside a museum or city hall, etc.

[brandon_shahan]

This response is mostly directed at "Calico." I didn't take the time to dig through all of your posts to find where you are from but now, I am curious. I am curious as to why you are so adamat about sticking up for two "out of town" guys taking pictures of young girls? I know that cops sometimes go over the top, and yes, there are bad cops. There are also bad photographers, and bad people in what ever position, industry, you want to discuss. After reading the links to the stories published above I'll go ahead and take the side of the cops. If they looked at the type of pictures that were on these cameras and decided that there were something wrong with them, then I'll go along with them, give them the benefit of the doubt. Give the benefit of the doubt to someone that has actually had some training over someone (who at least in the links above) doesn't even claim to be a photographer, but just two perves, taking pics of young girls at some "festival. None of us has seen these pictures that were taken so we can't judge them.

 

I do not claim to be (and am not) a cop or a photographer, but this issue really makes me think of the movie "A Few Good Men."

 

Here is my favorite quote:

 

Jessep: You want answers?

 

Kaffee (Tom Cruise): I think I'm entitled to them.

 

Jessep: You want answers?

 

Kaffee: I want the truth!

 

Jessep: You can't handle the truth! Son, we live in a world that has walls. And those walls have to be guarded by men with guns. Who's gonna do it? You? You, Lt. Weinberg? I have a greater responsibility than you can possibly fathom. You weep for Santiago and you curse the Marines. You have that luxury. You have the luxury of not knowing what I know: that Santiago's death, while tragic, probably saved lives. And my existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves lives...You don't want the truth. Because deep down, in places you don't talk about at parties, you want me on that wall. You need me on that wall.

We use words like honor, code, loyalty...we use these words as the backbone to a life spent defending something. You use 'em as a punchline. I have neither the time nor the inclination to explain myself to a man who rises and sleeps under the blanket of the very freedom I provide, then questions the manner in which I provide it! I'd rather you just said thank you and went on your way. Otherwise, I suggest you pick up a weapon and stand a post. Either way, I don't give a damn what you think you're entitled to!

 

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

 

Jessep: (quietly) I did the job you sent me to do.

 

Kaffee: Did you order the code red?

 

Jessep: You're goddamn right I did!!

 

Here is my point: if you don't have anything to hide, you don't have anything to be afraid of! It really disturbs me that so many people have stuck up for two "so called" photographers, taking these pictures. I for one sleep better knowing that there are people looking out for "us."

 

Roger Krueger - The article you link to mentions "Two out-of-town men have been charged in connection with taking pictures of teenage girls at the Riverbend Festival." But then you make the leap to "Photographers busted for laws they didn't violate." Seems your title should be a little more factual, something like "Two men busted for laws they didn't violate" or "Two men busted for taking pictures of young girls." I think that any real photographer, or even someone interested in photography as I am, should make a distinction between someone interested in the art, and two unknown, random, men with a camera.

 

Just my thoughts!

 

Brandon

[roger krueger]

Calico: From what source are you inferring an expectation of privacy in a restaurant? I've

seen a case advancing this view from the UK, but nothing in the U.S.

 

Craig: The O.J. analogy doesn't fit--He was accused of a crime that definitely happened, a

violation of a real law. He just happened to be found not guilty, and only because he had

the legal team of the century. Being accused of a crime that quite obviously didn't happen

is different.

 

I do agree with your point that there's a lot of fault to spread around to people other than

the officers, most notably those responsible for deciding how much training the cops get,

and especially the DA, who, as an attorney, should have been able to see in two seconds

that no crime was committed and no charges should be filed. What, was it the mayor's

daughter in the pics?

 

Brandon: The word "photographer" doesn't presume any degree of skill or seriousness--a

civilian with a camera is a civilian with a camera as far as the law and dictionary are

concerned. As someone's signature line points out: "If you buy a camera you're a

photographer; if you buy a piano you own a piano."

 

Do I wish there was a way for the law to reliably distinguish between G-rated perverts and

serious street photographers? Sure, but that's not how things are, or could possibly be.

What the law could do, (already does in some states), is put in language that definitively

targets the "upskirters" while leaving that which is publicly visible as fair game.

 

It's not (supposed to be) up to the police to arrest people doing things they don't like.

Their job is to arrest people when laws have been broken.

[mark_gatehouse]

Brandon,

 

You seem to miss a couple of points.

 

In your (not the greatest) movie analogy Jessop and his "I for one sleep better

knowing that there are people looking out for "us." " - are the bad guys - the ones whove missed to point about freedom and justice - to which they prefer the fascistic "law & order"

 

Secondly - "Seems your title should be a little more factual, something

like "Two men busted for laws they didn't violate" or "Two men busted for

taking pictures of young girls." I think that any real photographer, or even

someone interested in photography as I am, should make a distinction between

someone interested in the art, and two unknown, random, men with a camera."

 

You might not like it, but their rights (as photogorpahers - which is what they are if they take photogorpahs - you might dislike the reasons you believe they take photogorpahs) are exactly the same as yours - rights which have then been violated.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Just my thoughts! </blockquote> </i><p>

 

With someone else's copyright.

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> think that any real photographer, or even someone interested in

photography as I am, should make a distinction between someone interested in the art, and

two unknown, random, men with a camera. </blockquote> </i><p>

 

A photographer photographs. A writer writes. a painter paints. Some are pros wo get paid

for their work, other not. There's not academy which deems who is a 'real' photographer,

and anyone who photographs is a photographer, so get over it.

[watchin]

People have come to the conclusion, however unwarranted, that they are

entitled to "an expectation of privacy" no matter the location.

 

A case in point:

 

I was practicing photographing people teeing off at a golf course. I was scheduled to shoot a golf tournament the following week and wanted to work on my timing and framing. I had talked with the course management and gotten approval to take pictures "as long as they aren't published, and you don't bother the members". Fair enough...

 

16th tee - I'm shooting with a 300mm lens and set up in the open on a

monopod. A lady tees off then runs to her golf cart, races over to me,

and demands "What do you think you are doing? This is an invasion of my privacy! I'm going to have you arrested!". No preliminaries, no coutesies, just aggression. I informed her I was there with permission, and the conditions, I also informed her that I was deleting the photos (digital camera) as we spoke. She continued to

harass me for 5 minutes until I informed her that she was close to the point of public harasment and I would call the cops if she did not stop. She actually acted shocked, but left, yelling all the way back to the tee.

 

The cops (as stupid as they can be at times) were only reflecting the

public ignorance and rudeness. If the management had not placed the "do not bother our members" restriction on me I would have discussed the photos with people before they teed off (or got teed off ;{).

 

I also believe that if people had some symbolence of common courtesy they would ask a question instead of posing a verbal attack in common situations. This would have prevented the scene above and kept things civilized.

 

Just my opinion (under my own copyright ;{)

Greg

[brandon_shahan]

Here is the definition of a <a href="http://www.hyperdictionary.com/dictionary/photographer" >Photographer</a>. <br><br>

 

Z- I guess it is a definition thing. Someone says photographer, and I think of someone getting paid to do a job, not just anyone with a camera. <br><br>

 

Mark- I didn't say photographers have any more rights than anyone else. Also, this case is still going to trial, next month some time. So in a month, if this is thrown out of court, then you all can say "I told you so."

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Did someone quote the bill of rights? I'm sorry- under George W. Bush it's now the right to "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness <i>for all straight,caucasian men of the christian persuasion.</i>"

 

<P> So, might not be the best argument, there.

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

Unless, of course your a straight, caucasian man of the christian persuasion... but if that were the case those good ole' boy cops wouldn't have ever bothered you. (or them)

[._._z]

<i><blockquote> Someone says photographer, and I think of someone getting paid to do

a job </blockquote> </i><p>

 

Someone says doctor, by statute and definition we think of a licensed practicioner of

medicine. But someone says photographer, it easily could be the drunk dude with the

camera at the house party. :-)

[erin_____grasshopper__rice]

When people ask me if I'm a "photographer" I say "No, I just like to take pictures." Then they look at me like I've just grown a second head. (or else they think I'm being sarcastic.) I guess I just think of myself as a "picture taker; with grandiose plans" Though someone asked me if I worked for the Arizona Republic yesterday..and I came awfully close to saying yes...wondering why she was so eager to know.

[craig_gillette]

Actually, the law under discussion is a real law. We don't really know what "the facts" are, that will be established to some extent in court. And as the O.J. case shows, that may not make much difference.

 

There is no discussion in the article of the race of the offenders, the race of the girls, or the race of the cops. The Bush administration is significantly more culturally diverse than the preceding yet these same tired complaints dribble around. So other than a cheap crack, it really wasn't applicable to the discussion or add much.

 

The photographic community is out of step with society as a whole if they think that there is public support for the idea that people can be photographed any time, any place, outside their home. The public certainly isn't going to equate the concept that the "street" photographer shooting for "art" is equivalent to the idea of red light cameras, security surveillance or the like. Very few people are comfortable with the concept that some guy with a camera can hang around their streets, parks and swimming pools and take pictures of their daughters with impunity. Especially with the growth of the internet where those pictures can be immediately made available to anyone who has access to a computer.

 

It doesn't take a very large group to be "offended" to get some kind of advocacy group to drive lawmakers to respond, courts to act, etc. What some photographers may call draconian, some folks will call just being left alone.

[roger krueger]

Craig: Of course the law is a real law; it is just blatantly inapplicable to the situation at

hand. If they'd been upskirting or glory-holing, the media would have made much of it.

Not that the Tennesee law appears to prohibit upskirting anyway.

 

You're spot-on about the public having no support for street photography--the huge

danger of a case like this is that the public will see media coverage of behavior they loath

proved legal, and innocent street photography--very little different in their eyes--will get

swept away in the ensuing legislative reaction.

 

Once one state passes a repugnant privacy-in-public law the others will consider it too.

Would it pass Constitutional muster? Probably not, but do you want to be the schmuck

spending years getting to know the ACLU legal team?

[jim_gifford]

Craig, I don't think you see the whole enchilada just yet. Let's think about your implication that unhappy citizens may convince lawmakers to change the laws so (for example) it is no longer permissible to take pictures from public property of girls who are swimming, dancing, clowning around or whatever.

 

The first issue is whether it is legal today to photograph anything that is in plain view, when you and your camera are on public property. So far the answer is, yes, this is legal in our dear U.S. of A. You may be hassled for doing this -- and photographers have been hassled for doing so -- but I don't know of any statute that prohibits the activity. I haven't seen the statute that applies in Tennessee, so I suspect the case at the start of this thread really will not make it to trial. It has the aroma of "motion to dismiss" about it. But we'll see. It could be fascinating.

 

The second issue (related but not identical) is whether it is legal to photograph anyone in any place where that subject does not have a reasonable expectation of privacy. So far the answer here also is, yes, this is legal. This is the turf that paparazzi prowl daily, and it also applies to some of what we call "street photography." However, this issue also includes pictures taken while the photographer is NOT on public property, so it is a little more involved. For example, in a mall or other open access area that is privately owned area, the photographer may (legally) be compelled to leave the place from which the pictures were taken.

 

Now my suggestion for your consideration is this: elected officials will NOT change these laws. They will NOT write new laws making it illegal to take pictures from public property, and they will NOT pass laws substantially changing the "reasonable expectation of privacy" provisions.

 

Why won't they?

 

Because the government itself LOVES these laws. These are the laws that allow red light cameras to make money for municipalities. These are the laws that allow security cameras to scan people on sidewalks, in stadiums, in bank parking lots... The police and FBI get permission, through that free access where privacy is not a reasonable assumption, to hunt bad guys in the wild all the time.

 

You want your law enforcement folks to be able to use that sort of technology. The price of admission for that technology INCLUDES the freedom for citizens to take photos under similar circumstances.

 

Sure I understand how one might get the creeps thinking about swimming pool shots of little Jane or Susie winding up on the Internet. That can make some people very uncomfortable. But that discomfort will not translate to laws restricting the TAKING of photos. Your government loves that right too much to mess with it.

 

We could note for some other discussion that TAKING photos is not the same thing as DISTRIBUTING or PUBLISHING photos... and there are restrictions on the latter. But for the guys arrested in Tennessee, the only complaint was that they had TAKEN photos. <sniff sniff sniff> Yep, smells like "motion to dismiss" to me.

 

Be well,

[roger krueger]

Jim: The government likes automatic weapons too, but not in the hands of you or me.

[mark_rathbone]

Hello, everyone.

 

I am one of the photographers arrested in Chattanooga. I don't do this for a living, but I am an artist in soul and spirit and I paint, first started taking photographs for artistic reference. I discovered taking photographs was an art form in itself and even though I am not a professional and have no formal training I believe in art for art's sake adn that the process of creating art is its own reward. I hooked up with my friend who actually does model photography and photographt at events and we met at the Riverbend Festival, wearing our cameras around our necks walking through the entrance and were not told we couldn't use them.

 

We took photographs for around 3 hours, and yes I admit that most of them were women, some teenagers...but is beauty synonymous with sex? I had no pornographic intentions whatsoever. But at a certain point I noticed a girl sitting on the sidewalk wearing low rise jeans and her buttcrack was exposed. Now, this fascinated me because when I was growing up you didn't see females with exposed buttcracks...only fat guys. So it occurs to me that there is a social statement here, that teeneage girls these days wear clothing that imitate pop culture icons and eeven though they risk exposure, they would rather do that than risk being out of fashion, or to be more accurate to not be dressed like all of their friends. Now, I was under the impression that anything shot on a public street was legal, and her exposure was clearly visible to anyone walking by. My mistake was doing what any aspiring photographer would do regardless of subject matter, get close and take more than one picture to ensure that one turned out right. Forgive me, I am still learning.

 

Well, to make a long story short someone saw me and complained. A jarhead cop with a buzzcut caught me by the shoulder and asked to view the pictures. I complied, honestly thinking I had not broken the law. When he saw the exposed picture he jumped on it like his mind was already made up and we were both taken to a tent and questioned for an hour and eventually arrested. We had our bail money but still spent the night in jail. Bail was $500 apiece but a fellow inmate who had assaulted his boss with a baseball bat made it out with a paltry $60.

 

I want to stress that there was ABSOLUTELY NO UPSKIRTING. I personally find that activity reprehensible. Our story was aired by at least 2 stations on the Chattanooga news and sure enough they made an upskirting link...even made a big deal about warning women at Riverbend that there were upskiters there.

 

Well that was 2 months ago, our court date was yesterday. They dismissed the case in general sessions on the grounds that they were still investigating the images on the cameras. Then they planned to take the case to a grand jury. Our lawyer informs us that this could take another 4 to 6 months, and if they decide to do this we would have to post bond yet again.

 

I did a calculation of what we were out in posting bond and what were were out in lawyers fees, assuming we had to rehire our lawyer for the jgrand jury trial....this is going to end up costing us EACH around $8000 if not more.

 

Thanks to everyone for the kind comments. I am so glad there is a place where people are intelligent to read between the lines in the popular media and not condemn us before knowing the facts.