Photographer Banned

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>From the photographer who has been banned</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maartyn, you shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspaper. I had hoped that the paper would have given me the chance to explain the real story. The reporter told me that he would print the picture that caused the stink and that he would print a link to my photos. He didn't do either of these things. He also didn't tell me what the coffee house was saying about me despite that I directly asked him, thus giving me no chance to refute their silly allegations.<br /><br />I am not out there sneaking around taking pictures of women. In fact, I ask permission a lot before taking pictures of many subjects. And, if you look at my stream you'll be able to see that. You should also be able to tell from my photos that I most commonly use smaller focal length lens. Specifically, I use a Zeiss 28, 35 and 50. That telephoto there talking about is a big, bad 135mm.<br /><br />I'll post below what I posted in the rangefinder forums. Please, try to keep an open mind. <br /><br />I'm the guy they banned. The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I'm more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.<br /><br />Here is the photo:<br /><br /><a href=" /><br />The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.<br /><br />She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:<br /><br /><a href=" /><br />Also, I've since learned that the woman in the photo is the same manager who confronted me the previous time. It was my error that I didn't recognize her the second time. For this I am deeply sorry. Had I realized it was the same gal I would have passed up on the shot. I need to make a correction. The person in the photo is not Mara but another worker for the coffee shop named Rose. I misunderstood the information previously provided to me. Sorry.<br /><br />The following Monday I was banned.<br /><br />Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.<br /><br />Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.<br /><br />I've put my cameras away.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>If you really think that shopkeepers should be slaves to the public (or to jerky photographers), just say it. In so many words. You'll feel much better if you can put your energy into defending - out loud - what you <em>really</em> think, rather than tap-dancing around it, and dramatically Taking Umbrage at the notion of personal liberty on one's own property.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>One's own property, can you kill some one there, can you video tape someone there while using the bathroom? As one person mentioned do I think you are Nazis, no, but you would have not had any quelms about being in the SS, at least that is what I think. Nor do I think I would have met too many of you defending the right of many us to enter stores where we were not allowed because we were bad for business. I am sayng it loud and clear do I need to put it in caps to yell it out. Many of you have labeled the photographer without knowing all the facts as a jerk or weird or creepy, why because some store owner says so. <br>

Many of you would do great on the French TV show <a href="http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Row-over-torture-on-French-TV-1879404.html">http://celebrifi.com/gossip/Row-over-torture-on-French-TV-1879404.html</a> I love you all. Today there are many more threads on the incident that happened in Vermont.</p>

[anov]

<p>I'm cool with business owner exercising this right to prevent anybody they don't want on their property (except protected class), the photographer can still roam up and down Church St making pictures, he just have to bring his own food and water and only go to public rest room, otherwise he risks being arrested.<br>

As someone pointed before there are 87 or so business included in this Universal Trespass Order. What is stopping other business to join this class? My problem is that is too easy for this group of business, owned by different parties, to gang up on this guy, granted not totally blameless, rather than 1 or 2 businesses hat have actually encountered and confronted him. What if it's not 87 but 350 businesses that is on that list? Is that still OK?<br>

BTW John H, I appreciate your responses so far.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Another monumental red herring post, Manuel (but it's clear by now that you know that). Let's see: you manage to wonder if murder is covered under privacy rights (really, you're actually asking that?) and then mention that people calling you out on this unrelated nonsense would have been members of Hitler's SS. That's going to a lot of embarassingly juvenile trouble to avoid directly answering the questions you're being asked. No surprise, since if you answered them honestly, you'd be forced to come to an actual point.<br /><br />Back to the heart of the matter: it doesn't matter what we think of the photographer. His right to shoot in public hasn't been touched, and the rights of the shop keeper to not want him in her coffee shop are also intact. What's not to like? Now (other than calling us SS goons - so constructive of you!), you're shifting to saying that it's really about "not knowing the facts." Are you willing to stipulate that the shop owner already knows all of the facts that she needs? That she simply doesn't want this guy in her store? Nothing else matters. <br /><br />The most amusing part of your rambling, Manuel, is that you're blind to the biggest irony of all. By taking the position that a person shouldn't be allowed to control who enters their property, and that whoever wants to enter it can get the government to back them up and force the shop keeper to work for that person, <em>you</em> are the one making a pitch for a statist, authoritarian society. The SS, in such a scenario, is <em>you</em>. The slave owner is <em>you</em>.<br /><br />You would use the weight of the government to force someone to tolerate repulsive behavior on their property. To put the interests of their customers behind the urges of a loudmouth solicitor, or a ranting loon, or a shirtless drunk buffoon. You would make those cretins the masters of the coffee shop, in place of the person who built it and does the work. You would use the State to subjugate a private food server to anyone who feels like staking a claim on their time, their workplace, and their peace.<br /><br />Don't you see it? You want the State to force a private individual to work against her will. The shop owner, on other hand, wants the state to be available to help her if her request that someone just <em>go away</em> is not honored. <br /><br /><strong><em>You</em>:</strong> <em>Compulsion by the State, at anyone's request, is a good thing.</em><br /><br /><strong><em>Coffee Shop Owner</em>:</strong> <em>Please leave me and my customers alone. I can't stop you from having bad manners as you take pictures outside on the street, even if it annoys everyone, but you're not welcome in my shop, and I don't want to do business with you because of how you have repeatedly behaved.</em><br /><br />You wonder why there are so many people - including photographers - who aren't happy about your take on things? It's because <em>you</em> are the one cheering on the Nanny State and clammoring for the heavy hand of government force to control personal liberty. How you're missing that is beyond me. Unless you're not, and you just can't summon the courage to say that you're a big fan of The Man, after all - it's just the Little Guy (who serves coffee) that you want to own.</p>

[mark_creamer]

<p>Making people feel threatened or uncomfortable while they're out in public is the last thing a photographer should be doing. It doesn't do any of us any good.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>You wonder why there are so many people - including photographers - who aren't happy about your take on things?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That is your take on things, I would say that the best it is split about 50/50 for your way of thinking, but more likely 75/25 on the way I think. But you are entitled to your opinion. Now guys you asked to just come out and state it and I did, yes I think you would make great SS troops.</p>

<blockquote>

<p><strong><em>Coffee Shop Owner</em>:</strong> <em>Please leave me and my customers alone. I can't stop you from having bad manners as you take pictures outside on the street, even if it annoys everyone, but you're not welcome in my shop, and I don't want to do business with you because of how you have repeatedly behaved.</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p>Is this what you are claiming she said? I have no problems with that if that is what occurred, but maybe you need to go back and read the part that he was not barred from not just from that one place he was barred from almost 70 places because of that one owner. Do you have a vested interest in that store? Fess up now, if you do. Do you know the owner personally? </p>

<p>Once again, why do I take such a position because the business owners don’t normally have a habit of doing what is right? I read that Vermont is finally requiring smoke free work places. Business owners have one thing in mind and that is making money, exceptions to the rule of course exist. <br>

 

<p >Most freedoms have not come from the majority they have come from the government in this country. But then again I guess if you lived in Afghanistan you would not want the government telling you what you could do with a daughter that committed adultery.<br>

<a href="http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Afghan-woman-killed-by-father-for-adultery/2005/04/24/1114281449569.html?oneclick=true">http://www.smh.com.au/news/World/Afghan-woman-killed-by-father-for-adultery/2005/04/24/1114281449569.html?oneclick=true</a></p>

</p>

<p> </p>

[andylynn]

<p>Matt, I don't think you can get this discussion wrapped up. The guy is like a teflon-coated brick wall that's impervious to facts. A brick wall has no memory or ability to use logic, just a predictable structure and a few tons of immobile material. And you can't possibly get a good photo of it because the mortar lines show your barrel distortion. Okay, now my analogy's broken down, but you know what I mean. Anyway, he's already lost the argument by committing reductio ad hitlerium, so anything else is just masochism, and the random points he's making are just getting more random and off topic. (Murder in the privacy of your own home, Afghan adultury - seriously? It's like a parody of Family Guy.)</p>

[matthew_newton]

<p>Manuel, you quoted the photographer from one source discussing one thing. The original news article, unless the writer/editor were lying (which I highly doubt) mention that several businesses recieved complaints about the photographer from customers. Not simply the single employee/owner of the coffee shop. It was deffinitely not a single business that had a problem with the photographer's behavior, whether it was actually a problem or not. It was several establishments that had an issue with him.<br>

So yes, all of them banned him, but it was more then a single coffee shop employee/owner who had an issue with him. It was numerous people over a considerable period of time (not mentioned, but the article leaves the impression of at least several months) and numerous bussiness received complaints or had an issue with him.<br>

I am doing my level best to ignore the ridiculous and outragous coming from you, but it is frankly a little hard. It is just too absurd.</p>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Manuel: Her adjoining businesses <em>of their own free will</em> act collectively on some matters. I imagine that they not only look out for each other's businesses when it comes to things like theft, vandalism, and trespassing, but they probably work together on seasonal marketing projects, trash collection on the street they share, and relations between them as a group, and city that provides the services they all use. It's up to them, if they want to act in concert on any of those issues. They have the <em>liberty</em> to do so.<br /><br />Since you have concluded that "the business owners don't normally have a habit of doing what is right" (really? what - <em>all </em>businesses?), perhaps you should take a different approach. Instead of suggesting that we overturn fundamental features of our constitution, why not simply promote the businesses that you think <em>do </em>do things right? I find it funny that in the same breath that you question the details of what was said or done (not that it matters, of course, since that doesn't change the store's rights), you blythely make assertions about what "most" businesses do. That sort of double standard has permeated everything you've said so far.<br /><br />If you've concluded that the "right" thing is for a shop keeper to allow people to bother their staff and customers, why not point out some better businesses, where the owners <em>do</em> allow their customers to be bothered? Maybe you're onto a marketing angle there: have your coffee and sandwich, and be just about guaranteed that kids riding skateboards, a crazy guy getting in your face about abortion, and a guy wearing nothing but a thong will make your coffee break more interesting, since the shop owner has decided it's "wrong" to stop them from bothering you.<br /><br />Doesn't matter. I'm done now, since you've decided to move on from calling me an SS Nazi goon to being sympathetic with religious fundamentalists who kill their daughters. Your compulsion, Manuel, to repeatedly reach for those childish rhetorical excesses, has robbed you of any credibility. Comparing people to racists, child murderers, and genocidal fascists doesn't help you, here, and it completely trivializes whatever remaining shred of a worthy point you might have been once thinking of making. You seem to hold the civil rigts activists of the past in high regard. They would be ashamed of you, now, as you strive to take rights away.<br /><br />In the meatime, continue to enjoy the very rights you're seeking to diminish. I'm not even resentful that as you seek to limit everyone else's rights, I'm looking out for yours. Go shoot some photos, and have a cup of coffee. I'll bet that wherever you go - just like the shop in Vermont - the proprietor will be looking to make sure you have a pleasant visit, and an undisturbed cup. <br /><br />Andrew: yes, I've just come to the same conclusion. I'm going to the Beginners Forum, where I can go back to answering questions about shooting indoor sports with kit lenses. At least there, people operating with confused notions about something complex turn out to appreciate the facts. And I'm only <em>rarely</em> called a Nazi for suggesting a 35/1.8 when shooting from under the basket. :-)</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Good guys go back to places where you can handle things, I have no problem with that.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Manuel, to repeatedly reach for those childish rhetorical excesses, has robbed you of any credibility.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those are all facts that have occurred here or else where, tell that (childish rhetorical excesses) to the relatives of people who died so that we could get equal rights in this country. Tell me the entire civil rights movement was not necessary, that shop keepers and governements would just recognize that some rights are above property rights. I still run into quite a few people that think that things should have remained the same. I have no problem calling it like I see it.</p>

<p>Oh yes, I can be dumb as a brick wall, but you guys are smart as what? I like the idea of you all going back to the beginners section, we can agree on a lot of things there.</p>

<p>Oh guys if the ACLU takes the case and they retract the universal tresspass law will you admit I was right? I will admit I am wrong if the ACLU takes the case and gets nothing. Is that a deal?</p>

[andylynn]

<p>This is sure to give me a headache, so I'm going to stop after this post.</p>

<p>Manuel, the universal trespass notice is not a law. It's a piece of paper that's issued by store owners and given to somebody to notify him that the stores in question want him to stay off their premises. Not being a law or a government action, it can not be unconstitutional because the constitution limits the government's powers, not the powers of private citizens.</p>

<p>So, whatever the ACLU might end up doing, it is impossible for the "universal trespass law" to be "retracted" as there is no such thing as the "universal trespass law". I kind of doubt the ACLU will be involved - they usually take on the government, not private citizens - and before you say something wacky about that, I will remind you that I am a member of the ACLU and I know a bit about what they do.</p>

<p>BTW, I didn't call you dumb, I called you stubborn. Also, a 35/1.8 lens would be great for close shooting indoors.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Andrew that universal trespass law is notice to the photographer he is no longer allowed to step inside any of the 67 businesses that are part of that pact plus the parking garage. The same trespass was used against a prior employee who sued one of the establishments for back pay. That person is now or was barred from stepping foot on any of the establishment, so that ex employee need not bother looking for work at any of those places. If the photographer steps foot on any of those establishment he can and very well may be arrested for trespassing. That is harsh punishment for exercising one's freedom of expression. I could maybe understand Uncommon Ground Cafe barring him but all of them barring him makes no sense. Here is the link to that employee that got barred http://www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>Andrew as to the dumb part I knew that you did not call me dumb, but a little color never hurts an argument.</p>

<p>I have learned to let things in one ear and out the other, I just think that this topic is very important for any one that does street photography. Most of my street photography is of street people and trying to make sure that they do not get violent is my biggest concern, as a large percentage of street people are sex offenders and do not want their image taken.One observation is that it is almost women that are calling man creepy and there seems to be discrimination based on gender. One place, took place in a public park, told me that I could not take photos but did not tell my daughter any thing, we were not together taking photos but both had DSLRs with big lens. That place has a lawsuit pending now because of their policy of no photography in a public place and no I did not file the lawsuit, I just kept telling people where to go that was better.</p>

[phyliss_crowe]

<p><a href="http://healthvermont.gov/prevent/tobacco/workplace_law.aspx">State of Vermont’s No Smoking in Public Places laws:</a> <br /> <br /> According to this, it is legal to smoke outside in Vermont public places; however, employees are subject to further restrictions imposed by their employer. <br /> <br /> “The law does not restrict smoking outdoors, and does not specifically address whether the employer should or should not allow smoking to occur within a certain distance of a workplace. However, the employer should not allow outdoor smoking near doorways, windows, and building air supply intakes through which tobacco smoke may readily enter the building.”<br /> <br /> And further:<br /> <br /> “Many Vermont employers have already voluntarily established smoke free campus policies or smoke free outdoor areas around the perimeter of buildings.”<br /> <br /> IMHO, this woman freaked because she got “caught on tape” willfully breaking a law ($5,000 to $10,000 fine), or at the very least severely bending it, in a location that put her boss’s business license at risk. His refusal to delete the one photo he took of her “in the act” threw gasoline on her fire and, well, Hell hath no fury…</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>I have learned to let things in one ear and out the other</p>

</blockquote>

<p>It looks like you learned that a little too soon. AFTER school age probably would have been more to your advantage.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Most of my street photography is of street people and trying to make sure that they do not get violent is my biggest concern, as <strong>a large percentage of street people are sex offenders</strong> and do not want their image taken.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This just gets better and better, doesn't it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>One observation is that it is almost women that are calling man creepy and there seems to be discrimination based on gender.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Excellent observation, Manuel. I'll remember to keep my eyes peeled for "creepy women" next time I'm out shooting on the street. After all, we can't have discrimination based on gender, not least of all in the field of sexual predation, now can we?</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>I don't know about you Hugh but I have images posted and not afraid to use my name, here are some samples of street people, certainly not all of them http://www.pbase.com/memejr1949/street_people<br>

Will you do me a favor of posting your street scenes. Is it all huff? Never ceases to amaze me people who like to chime in and have nothing posted.</p>

[hugh_j.]

<blockquote>

<p>I don't know about you Hugh but I have images posted and not afraid to use my name</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I would be, if I were you. I wonder how long it will take before someone recognizes their own face in one of your images, sees that you've referred to them as "sex offenders," and slaps you with a defamation suit.</p>

[otanslatco]

<p>I am glad to see the police is doing its job in some parts of the world, at least. Wish it would happen more in other parts as well...</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>I would be, if I were you. I wonder how long it will take before someone recognizes their own face in one of your images, sees that you've referred to them as "sex offenders," and slaps you with a defamation suit</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Let me restate a large percentage of street people are sex offenders, that is a fact, why not go and ask them some of them are easy to find. Images please. What you do have to hide? I speak to many of them and also to law enforcement officers. Some of those street people I have known for over 10 years, before I started to do street photography. Some of them have asked me not to photograph them or at least not their face and you will not see any of their faces on the images. I know many of their stories, two used to be models, see if you can identify those two. And, Hugh, if you really want to find out more about why they are on the street do a google search on sex offenders.</p>

 

[s._lee_cashman]

 

<p > </p>

<p >Ray:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer looks a little chubby. I wonder if he was more buff if some of the girls or women who are "creeped out" would instead be turned on or flattered and the issue wouldn't exist. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if you were joking there, but the moment I saw the guy's picture, the thought you expressed above was actually the very first that popped into my head. </p>

 

<p> </p>

[s._lee_cashman]

 

<p > </p>

<p >Ray:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>The photographer looks a little chubby. I wonder if he was more buff if some of the girls or women who are "creeped out" would instead be turned on or flattered and the issue wouldn't exist. </p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure if you were joking there, but the moment I saw the guy's picture, the thought you expressed above was actually the very first that popped into my head. </p>

 

<p> </p>

[mechanic]

<p>Manual,<br>

What is with you--reminds me of a cartoon where it had the saying something like this "I see your lips flapping boy but nothing is coming out." ?????????Sex preditors, Afgan issues has little if anything to do with the original message in my opion--What am I or others simply because we like to take trips on a Harley<br>

It would have been so easy to do a follow up on this providing one knows how to do a search on a computer. You will also see why the person can't go on taking pictures there.<br>

<a href="http://www.nycphotorights.com/">http://www.nycphotorights.com/</a> see the section on Burlington Vermont forces photographer to quit his hobby>>>> <strong>there is no appeals process</strong>.</p>

<p> </p>

[michael s.]

<p>Many here are broadly supportive of business owners deeply concerned that having their customers photographed <em>outside</em> <em>their shops</em> by street photographers will hurt their businesses. Fair enough.</p>

<p>How about a word of advice for those business owners -- a large and growing number it seems -- who secretly <em>photograph their own customers</em> <strong>inside</strong> <strong>their stores</strong> ... to help their businesses ?</p>

<p>This article is from today's <em>New York Times</em> :</p>

<p>http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/20/business/20surveillance.html?hp</p>

<p>As noted by Mr. Underhill, widely acknowledged as an authority in the field of "observational customer research" and the founder of Envirosell:</p>

<p><em>" ... people are taped dozens of times each day doing routine chores like pumping gas. Cameras, it seems, are pervasive. Stores are merely the latest frontier. </em><br>

<em> 'We live our lives surrounded by them,' he said." </em></p>

<p><em></em> Sorry gang, but speaking for myself, I'm far less "creeped out" by the photographer I see -- the guy out on the public street -- than I am by the awareness that I'm being secretly filmed and photographed daily by a growing number of the businesses I patronize.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

The difference is that the average shopper - rightly or wrongly - is totally indifferent to being filmed by store security cameras.

[brian_carter2]

<p>Everything else aside for a moment, I find it very repugnant that the police chose to confront and interview him at his place of work.<br>

If they were going to make an arrest, warrant in hand, that would be different. In that situation, expediency would trump decorum. But for mere questioning, in a situation where the police know a crime probably has not been committed, that is tantamount to harassment.<br>

However.. If he did surreptitiously photograph a woman smoking a cigarette, and then refused to delete her image when she asked; that is rude and creepy (and it reads like it wasn't an isolated incident). I respect people's prerogative to not be photographed - even if they are in public, under constant video surveillance.<br>

The law says he is not required to delete her photo. Just as the police were not required to interview him at his place of work. It almost seems that the police were trying to give him the message that what is strictly "legal" is not always a nice or acceptable thing to do? Golden Rule, and all that.</p>