Harassment of Photographers in Denver

[jim_devlin]

C E, I've been a transit and railroad enthusiast and photographer for almost 30 years now, and sadly I've had more of these types of encounters than I care to remember. Here are my thoughts on the subject.

 

First, as others have pointed out, contact the RTD to see if you can get clarification of their policy regarding photography and official permission if necessary. The RTD does not have an anti-photography reputation in the enthusiast community, but I've never visited the Denver area myself to check out the situation first-hand. Transit agencies do have the right to restrict photography on their vehicles and in station areas, so if the RTD does have a policy it is best to respect it. Worst case scenario, you can always try and photograph RTD trains and buses from public sidewalks if necessary.

 

It's never easy to deal with these encounters, but I refuse to restrict or stop my photography. I always try to be polite and civil to anyone who is polite in turn when they ask what I'm doing, and I have no problem if a police officer requests identification and questions me (I've found that it helps to carry a small album of photographs to better explain the hobby). Thus far, the officers I've interacted with have usually let me continue my photography and almost always explain that they are just doing their job and needed to check out what I was doing.

 

That said, I find I'm getting increasingly annoyed with transit and railroad employees who don't bother asking what I am doing but go right to the nonexistent 'Photography is not allowed since 9/11' law to try and get me to go away. Most of these people I simply ignore, but I tell the ones who continue to argue to call the police if they have a problem with my being there.

 

Good luck, and hang in there.

[c_e6]

Finally have time to post the resolution for the moment. I ended up working my way up the management chain, about mid way. At each step, I was told that there was no policy, law, or anything else banning photography. The final resolution is that I now have the name and number (both office and cellular) of a fairly high muckety muck who will speak with the driver when this happens again. He found the behavior of the driver completely unacceptable, BUT has limited ability to discipline the guy, the entire route (bus and all) are subcontracted (again, convenient way of limiting liability), and I'm not allowed to speak with anyone at the subcontractor ;-).

 

Hopefully I've made enough noise to get some communication going between RTD and the subcontractor ;-).

[bl.]

I know how you feel. I was working on the Streets of Tucson and found an interesting building. There were people sitting in front of it and I approached... I fixed my exposure settings and was approached by one of the people sitting(I was about fifty feet away). He gruffly asked me not to take his picture, which I respect, and continued to say things such as, " it will take my soul", I responded by saying that wasn't true. An on looker, who claimed to be a photographer as well, got involved. She told me I needed a permit or permission form. At that point the fellow who asked me not to take his picture threatened to kill me if I took it.

I've been doing street photography for about three years now and have never run into a situation like that. Nor have I ever heard of needing a permit to photograph in public. I get the feeling that people are afraid, but thats a different conversation all together.

This happened less than an hour ago.

I intend to do some research, with teachers, other photographers (the reason I joined this forum), and the law - IE - city and state statutes. I recommend you do the same.

[michaelging]

Aaron,the laws in Tucson are the same as just about every other place in the US. If you are on public property and the person you are photographing is on public property you have a legal right to photograph them as far as the law is concerned. That does not mean that a person who is living on the street, and may have mental problems, will not harm or kill you. The person who told you that you needed a form was incorrect. The only place where I have been that had exceptions to this are on Military Bases,Courthouses and Indian Reservations.If the person is on private property and they have the expectation of privacy (they are in their house,or behind a fence) then you can be sued in civil court, even if you are on public property. There are times when I , or anyone should fight for their right to take a photograph , and times when walking away is the best thing to do.You can also be in legal trouble at a later date in civil court, if you put that person in a bad light , misrepresent them, or use their photo in a commercial way to make money,with out having a signed release.

[michael s.]

Some useful general guidelines are available in pdf forum on <a href=http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf>Bert Krages' site</a>. <p>

 

When Michael Ging refers to the possibility of "legal trouble" if one uses a photo "in a commercial way to make money," I would agree with him if he's talking about a photo used without a release for commercial purposes or for trade -- such as in an advertisement or promotion.<p>

 

But I would disagree with Michael if he's referring to street photos taken of persons in public places in the U.S. where there is no reasonable expectation of privacy (e.g., the street or the sidewalk, but <i>not a public restroom stall</i>). Generally, and historically, such photos can be -- and have been -- taken, and published, and even later sold as "art" or documentary photography without releases. <p>

 

Specific situations are always best addressed by a lawyer who is both (i)licensed to practice in the jurisdiction in question; and (ii)experienced in this area of law.

[c_e6]

Aaron, I've on occasion been threatened while shooting, usually by a mentally unbalanced individual. Not much you can do about that. As far as needing a form or permission, only if you intend to use the image commercially. For documentary purposes, you don't need it (although some newspapers require name and the like, in fact all newspapers I think).

[dr._karl_hoppe]

New Jersey Transit police were stopping people from photographing even from a public highway. NJT got a lot of bad publicity andthe executive director issued a letter explaining that there is no prohibition on photographing in NJT stations, on trains, etc. Most railfan photogs I know carry a copy of that letter in their pockets just in case one of the low-level grunts gives them grief.

 

There was an incident a few years ago on Amtrak in New York City where a photog was harassed -- maybe even arrested, don't recall -- taking pictures of engines, rolling stock, etc. He was taking the pictures to enter them in an Amtrak photography competition! Talk about the left hand not knowing what the right is doing!

 

If you know you are in the right, hold your ground, demand that the police or whomever cite to you the statute or administrative regulation banning photography. If there is no statute enacted by the state legislature or an administrative rule promulgated by a state agency pursuant to an enabling statute, then you are free to take pictures, at least as regards a state transit authority. Private entities have the right to prohibit photography on their property, but the most they can do is ask you to leave or have you arrested for trespassing. No one, not even the police, have the right to seize your camera or film or make you delete the images. That is an unconstitutional deprivation of your private property without due process of law. Only a court can order seizure of camera, film, memory card or what have you, and only after a hearing with an opportunity to be heard.

 

Take names, document everything, go up the food chain, and if you still get no where, call the ACLU.

[roger_smith4]

If someone really believes that taking a photo will take their soul, do you really need the picture? Think about what you gain to what they (think) they lose. Doesn't seem like a fair trade to me as souls sell for a lot, I hear.

[chris_waller]

Increasingly in Britain a lot of overweight young men of low intelligence who are otherwise unemployable are being stuffed into ill-fitting uniforms and given the idea that they are saving the Western world from sinking into chaos as a result of terrorism. I have had this experience of harrassment but since those with the ostensible authority have insufficient intellect to understand any of the arguments, any attempt to use reason is a complete waste of time.

 

What is needed is bad publicity for the harrassers. Write to your Congressman, Senator, State Governor, national newspapers etc.

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>In Australia, the situation is like any western country that has a democratic government. You can shoot in a public place. A bus is not. Its a private conveyance, probably owned by the government.The same with trains and ferries.<br>

We get literally zillions of tourists here all taking pictures of everything...we're used to it. But you need to obey the golden rule. That is to be discreet and sensitive...not secretive. Ask first about shooting kids. Act like you have a right to be there like your subjects. Don't make eye contact and smile a lot. Use a small camera that does not say pro photographer. Preset your exposure and speed and your focus and take the shot really quickly and move on straight away. The difference between having a 39mm objective lens instead of a 77mm one pointed at someone is crucial to being unnoticed.</p>