legality of street shooting-FYI

[brucecahn]

I was almost arrested today for shooting on the street, in NYC. I was using a

plastic throwaway film camera without a tripod. The local school crossing guard

asked me to wait while she called the cops. I had photographed some children. A

policeman arrived and told me that next time he would "lock me up". I called the

Mayor's office of Film Theatre and Broadcasting. They told me it is legal and I

could do it unless I used a tripod. Then a permit is required. So I have been

threatened with arrest for doing something legal. I contacted the NY Civil Liberties

Union who also said it is legal and requested a letter with the specifics.

[Matt Laur]

So, the real question is, what steps have you taken to contact the crossing guard's manager, so that that person can better educate their staff? Secondly, "I photographed some children" with a disposable camera can't be all there is to the context, here. Other people are funny about having their kids' pictures taken by strangers. All of these reactions are, of course, directly driven by that reality. Doing something legally, and doing it with some tact are not always the same thing. I'd love to have video tape of the 30 minutes that preceeds a lot of the confrontations that we hear about here, and in many cases, I'd like that video tape to be from across the street, so that the photographer can see how their body language and sometimes odd-looking behavior can appear to other people. I'm certain that many people do NOT know how they look to other people.

<br><br>

I say this as a guy whose own wife tells me that I should stop looking so scary all the time. Apparently when I'm walking along and thinking, I carry a scowl that suggests I'm up to no good. If I'm doing that while also holding a camera, and wearing sunglasses, I probably look like Police Sketch #2 of somebody's favorite villain. I'm aware of this, and make a conscious effort to come across as engaging, talkative, and never furtive when shooting in public spaces. I've never once had the sort of run-ins that a small number of people here seem to able to produce on a regular basis... and I live in the DC Metro area, which is not exactly the most relaxed place in the world when it comes to this sort of thing.

<br><br>

<a href="http://www.photo.net/photo/7271130"><b>This boy's mom</b></a> gave me a quizzical look, and we talked. All ended well. Cops and rent-a-cops were within easy shouting distance, but none of that mattered because my demeanor was positive, and I walked directly to the mom the moment I saw her giving me a once-over. Proactive, positive, open conversation and zero-chip-on-shoulder goes a long way.

[mercsadies]

Wow. I can't believe she actually asked you to wait, while she called the police. As long as you were not in the kids' faces and seeming threatening - I can't see the problem. I'm sure you just ran into an over zealous crossing guard.

[Matt Laur]

It's also very possible that some OTHER person (a kid, a parent, a teacher, etc) was the person who first mentioned something, and the crossing guard was the local face of authority ... and the crossing guard felt the need to be seeing "doing something" so that she didn't have to hear about it later from the parents or kids that she sees all year long. It sucks to be the front-end retail face of authority when parents want someone to <i>do</i> something.

<br><br>

Mostly, though, sounds like she was really just plain clueless about what's legal, and was reacting more to what she knew to be the perception of kids and parents - who all see too many episodes of 20/20 about predatory creeps. If there weren't some grain of truth to that, it would be an easier thing to brush off. It's also possible that she just wanted a police officer to go on record (for the benefit of whoever first said something about someone taking pictures of kids), and the officer showed up already irritated for having been called about it at all. I'm sure Bruce explained to her why he was taking the pictures, so this all comes down to her probably never having actually had any proper instruction on the legal issues involved.

[danielleetaylor]

<P><i>A policeman arrived and told me that next time he would "lock me up".</i></P>

<P></P>

<P>To which I would have replied in a calm but firm voice: If you ever lock me up for exercising my first amendment rights you will face a Federal 1983 civil action for deprivation of my rights. Then I would have handed him a small card with this U.S. code printed on it:</P>

<P></P>

<P>http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/42/usc_sec_42_00001983----000-.html</P>

<P></P>

<P>You need to make a big deal about this. I would have a few unpleasant conversations with people's bosses at the least.</P>

[catrike]

I am thinking of getting some cards with my photo.net and Flickr portfolio urls that I can hand out to anyone I ask to photograph on the street or who ask me what I am doing. I would just tell them they can go there to see my photos online. Hopefully, it might diffuse the kind of confrontation discussed above. Does anyone think this is a good or a bad idea?

[Matt Laur]

Dave: I don't know if you need to point them directly to portfolios, per se... just a well-conceived web site that makes it clear that you're a credible photographer (not that you have to be in order to shoot on the street, obviously). But, being willing to hand out a business card - even on that just says, "John Doe - Fine Art Photographer" or "Photojournalist" should immediately defuse the vast majority of such situations.

[lake_photography]

I can't believe a crossing guard asked you to wait while she called the police and you

waited. You hadn't done anything wrong and I can't see why you didn't just walk away.

If a police officer had asked to to wait that would have been a different story, but a

crossing guard?

[Tim_Lookingbill]

Dave,

 

I think it's a great idea. I think I'll start doing that. But usually all I have to do is tell

them to google my name which will bring up my bio, gallery and PNet postings. The

card's a way of promoting yourself as well to future clients.

 

Matt,

 

As usual you nailed the human sociology aspects of this. What did do take some

human psychology courses at one time? And what's up with that boy's mom in that

photo? What did she do walk off the set of Cats. Man! She's big and hairy!

 

Just kidding.

[bosshogg]

This is just one more example of what a sad collection of frightened and silly people now comprise this nation. Don't really want to make a political statement out of this, but this sort of thing, makes me wonder what the future holds for such a place. Brown shirts and Gestapo cannot be far off. One should not have to show proof that they are a legitimate photographer when engaged in one's constitutionally guaranteed activity. Those who suggest otherwise are simply assisting the destruction of the foundations of freedom that this country has enjoyed since its inception (unless, of course you are Japanese, 1941-1945, or black, or brown, etc. etc.).

[Matt Laur]

David M: Proof? I'm talking about courtesy. We're talking about how you deal, socially, with someone who asks you why you're taking pictures of their children. What do you say? "Buzz, off, lady. First amendment!" Or do you take a minute to explain what your interest is, and invite her to see your work? Doing it (giving her a card) or not isn't a legal issue, it's a social one.

 

Do you really imagine that - in the late 1700's, right after the birth of this nation - that a stranger studying a village's children wouldn't be confronted by parents, constables, and the like? Or that a hostile, snarky response would - back in the day - would not have resulted in something FAR uglier than a visit to the local precinct house? The folks who wrote the first amendment couldn't have imagined a "workflow" that includes snapping a digital image of someone's kid, then sitting down in Starbucks, hopping on WiFi, and over a latte, cutting and pasting that kid's face into some sort of wretched online fantasy blog. I don't care if there's only one wackadoo that does that, or it's as common as parents obviously worry that it is. It's not a constitutional issue we're talking about (since the cop, as described in the original post) was WRONG (unless we didn't get the whole story), and so says the law.

 

Has it ever occurred to you that the best way to reduce the number of frightened and silly people (when it comes to their observation of someone with a camera taking pictures of their kids) is for the photographers in question to have a quick, well-reasoned, and positive bit of communication explaining their thinking, as they take those photographs? You know the law. So, are you going to just wring your hands and complain about how scared people are, or talk instead about the best way to allay those fears and educate people? What would you say to a parent who wanted to know why a stranger was photographing kids leaving school? Can you see how a clumsy explanation and a hesitance to be clear and open about it might make some people wonder about one's motivations? If your answer is, "my motivations are my own business," then you're misunderstanding the nature of parenthood - as it was before, during, and after the writing of the first amendment.

[rascal64]

I don't know about your flickr portfolio Dave.. but you might want to fill out your pn or personal website a bit before you start advertising 8 - }

I have found that (depending) on where you live...it makes things worse for people to know that I am legit. They think that I am going to sell my street snaps to THE GAP or something and make beaucoup bucks off of their unconsenting no release signing candid selves.

[amitai schwartz]

Regarding Daniel Lee Taylor's advice about arguing with the police officer on the street and threatening a 42 U.S.C. section 1983 lawsuit, I wouldn't advise it. Take it up with his or her superior later, complain to the Mayor's office, or file a section 1983 suit later. But arguing on the street with the police is a recipe for disaster. My experience and the literature supports this experience is that most negative encounters of otherwise innocent people exercising First Amendment protected rights are caused by some provocation. This provocation is usually a challenge to authority. Simply being an outsider can sometimes be viewed as a challenge.. Threatening to sue, although constitutionally protected by a line of Supreme Court precedents, may well result in an arrest on some bogus charge. While I'm all for the exercise of First Amendment rights and challenging authority when warranted, one should use some caution and common sense as to the time and place, if you want to avoid arrest or worse.

 

That said we have rights as citizens and photographers to be in public places and take photos in public places. We should stand our ground, but avoid immediate provocations that we will regret.

[frans_waterlander]

"I contacted the NY Civil Liberties Union who also said it is legal and requested a letter with the specifics"

 

Yep, that's just what we need - get the ACLU involved. They have done such a wonderful job of defending our freedom - NOT.

[amitai schwartz]

Frans. Without the ACLU battling for many decades you probably wouldn't have a First Amendment protecting everyone's rights, including your own rights to disagree, .

[bobatkins]

There are idiots in all walks of life. Some of them are school crossing guards, some of them are policemen. Many of them belong to private security firms and like dressing up in a uniform.

 

"Rent-a-Cops" have extremely limited powers, other than to require you to leave a private area. As far as I'm aware, school crossing guards have the same legal powers of detention as you do, essentially none.

 

Next time, just walk away.

[ty_mixon]

I have a slightly different take on this.

 

I'm a cable guy, and we have a right to access our eqq, even in your backyard. I've seen some interesting things as I pass windows.

 

And I've had some ppl approach me in a very unfriendly manner. Usually I say "Hi! My name is Ty & I work for the cable company' & explain that I need to get 'over there' to do my job.

 

Most people instantly smile & often help out. Some get mad & tell me to leave. Sometimes they refuse to unlock thier gates. But the vast majority are friendly, AFTER I am friendly first.

 

Takes long practice to do this in your personal life too, but at work, you wear a different face. So make it a friendly one.

 

My opinion is worth what you paid for it.

[bosshogg]

Mr. Laur,

 

I'm not sure how you made the determination that the gentleman who started this thread was rude, intruding or generally menacing. I'm also not sure how you managed to label me with the same brush. As a matter of fact, I'm one of the shiest most reticent people around, and rarely even like to take pictures when being watched. I would not say I need a lesson in common courtesy, and I'm reasonably certain that if you asked most of the population in my small town, they would agree with that. So as far as I'm concerned, you've taken this whole thing on a tangent that is not applicable.

 

Mr. Cahn, were you rude? Were you threatening? Did you cause the arousal of suspicion. My guess is you did not, and that is why you are angered by your treatment.

 

Mr. Laur, I don't think most of us "normal" folks on Pnet are so devoid of common sense as to not know the consequences of threatening or rude behavior. The simple fact is that our constitutional rights have been under siege for a decade. They are being eroded, and once erosion commences, whether it be in soil, or human rights, it is difficult to stop.

 

Furthermore, I allude to the fact that we have become a nation of spineless and fearful people. Call a school and laughingly say there is a bomb. Instant day off for all the students. In my area this has happened four or five times this year. How many school explosions have we had in this country? Absentmindedly leave a briefcase on the bus and watch all hell break loose. Go to a ball game and get searched and have your belongings gone through. You see, the people who created this fear must be laughing very hard, since they have destroyed what they envied us for. That is our freedom and our basic belief that people don't need big brother watching over them.

[steve_levine]

Bruce, with all due respects. you really shouldn't be shooting people's kids without permission. I'd agree with you 100% about your rights etc, if your subjects were anything else. Sometimes common sense has to control one's behavior. And in today's world you'd be better off not showing interest in kids. It is unfortunately far to easy to for strangers to misinterpret your intentions.

[brucecahn]

To all who answered: Thanks for your opinions. I was not doing anything threatening, was not conspicuous by my actions and did not even look through the camera. I waited as the guard requested, because this is a neighborhood within NYC and if I did not face the situation today, I would have to face it later. I have written to the ACLU and tomorrow will write to the mayor directly. I am not angry, upset or threatened by what happened, but will insist that my (our) legal rights be upheld. I have lived in this neighborhood for 44 years and never been accused of anything at all, before this. How did this country turn into Fascist Italy? Why is it that the crossing guard forbade the children to talk to me? I am not the boogey man, just a photographer who tries to make life more interesting by shooting on the street. To Steve Levine: I will not be photographing these children any more. There was a time when show business moms paid me hundreds of dollars to photograph their children. Sometimes I shot 10 or more a week. Some of them ended up as stars. What went wrong in this country?

[Matt Laur]

David M: I didn't suggest you were rude, but I stick to the point I was actually making (regarding your comment). To wit: the fact that someone is concerned about what a stranger is doing photographing children near a school is NOT a sign (as you implied) that we're one goose-step away from Nazism. I didn't find you terribly rude in what you said, just rather over-wrought. Although, some people may indeed actually consider it rude for you to call them, as a population, a "sad collection of frightened and silly people."

<br><br>

I haven't said, either, that Bruce Cahn was rude. I said that we don't have any context for the events that he related, and my experience is that there's usually a little more to it. My comments, in broader terms, were all about how to head off the sort of uninformed reactions that he describes getting from the crossing guard. One's bearing can greatly impact those things, to the point of preventing them from ever escalating at all. It's impossible to say, from Bruce's telling, what transpired.

<br><br>

But I can tell you from following many such threads here, that some photographers practically invite such confrontations, almost as a sport. I'm not saying that's Bruce's take on things, I'm saying he didn't tell us, really, how it all played out. But it seemed like a good opportunity to mention that when we hear about these things, it doesn't seem representative of how most people experience photographing in public. The experiences of a small number of people don't, I think, add up to the Brown Shirts and the Gestapo that you invoked.

<br><br>

The day out of school from a bomb threat that you mentioned? That happened three times in my junior and senior high school career. Going on 30 years ago. Worrying about a solo briefcase on public transportation? Ask the folks in Madrid or London about that. Taking into account that there are actual people who actually do blow up people on buses isn't any different than taking into account that it's worth having a smoke detector in your house, or an airbag in your car. And it's no different than asking a person you don't know who's taking pictures of children what they're up to. A simple, pleasant, affirmative answer from the photographer is the best defense against hostility in that form - and no need, as suggested above, to threaten law suits, invoke the first amendment, and leave people wondering what your actual motivations are.

[ty_mixon]

To Steve L.: I have four children. I wouldn't stop someone from taking photo's in a public place, even if it were directly of my children. But I might ask them what they were doing, in that same friendly manner I usually use.

 

Now, if they were hiding behind a bush & taking pictures, that might be different. But I'd bet even money that I'd still be friendly.

 

More generally:

 

I love kids. I often take pictures of strangers kids. Especially babies. As my g/f says - I have baby fever. But I also talk to the parents, usually. Sometimes I just smile and wave, if I'm way off & using my 70-300. But I also don't sneak around, or hide behind things. And i don't leave if someone approaches.

 

And I've sent a few really cute pictures to some parents.

 

Also, I think Bruce did the right thing by waiting when the crossing guard asked him to. Even if it's not always true, people tend to believe that if you run (or just leave) you are guilty.

 

Bruce: What did you say to the guard? And to the cop? And what was your demeanor? Happy? Grumpy (b/c people were being stupid)? Exasperated?

 

I'm kind of impertinent. I may have offered to take the officer's photo, after explaining, cheerfully, what I was doing. And asking him why I shouldn't.

 

I ramble. :)

[bnyc]

Not to be a jerk, but your question "Why is it that the crossing guard forbade the children to talk to me?" suggests there is some context missing here... did you just casually snap a photo as if it were a perfectly normal thing to do, or did you also try to talk to some of the kids?

[ron_erwin1]

I would be more forgiving of the crossing guard for erring on the side of safety. She was probably acting out of sincere concern for the children. We can't expect every crossing guard to be a legal authority, so asking for police assistance seems reasonable to me.

 

On the other hand, I would not be forgiving of a police officer who doesn't know the law.

 

I'm making these comments based solely on your description of the events.

[frans_waterlander]

Amitai Schwartz wrote: "Frans. Without the ACLU battling for many decades you probably wouldn't have a First Amendment protecting everyone's rights, including your own rights to disagree."

 

In sofar the ACLU contributed to the First Amendment, I salute them. However, it is my opinion that nowadays the ACLU is doing more harm than good and actually is causing great damage to this country.