Photographer Banned

[johncrosley]

<p>Paul Noble,<br>

I agree entirely that Alan Funt probably had model releases, but your post is somewhat of a non sequitur.<br>

The point was that Alan Funt made up situations to surprise and surreptitiously film (later video) strangers in order to make them laughing stocks of the public. It does not matter for their sake that his was a commercial enterprise or not. His behavior, if offensive to them, could be seen as outrageous.<br>

Although Funt was always depicted coming out of hiding, big smile, extended hand and his quarry at first disbelieving then 'getting and enjoying the joke' on them, the truth probably is he probably got decked a few times, got threatened with more than one lawsuit, probably paid out settlements to prospective litigants (and probably some people even got physically hurt from his stunts . . . .) if experience with law, people and street shooting over 40 years is any guide.<br>

That he eventually got model releases for things he 'aired' is of little relevance to the point I was making.<br>

I would never engage in such behavior on the 'street'. I document, don't set up situations. I 'observe, don't goad or entrap'.<br>

Matt Laur: As to being barred from the establishments, it turns out from the links that those merchants interviewed seemed not to know who was 'banned' and who was not, and that there was no mechanism for a merchant even knowing who was banned or why, but they engaged in 'bans' as a show of support, even though the ban was for reasons they did not even know.<br>

It appears from the one story they might have suspected such persons were 'petty thieves' (shoplifters) according to one respondent, but that person didn't really know anything at all for sure . . . . it was only conjecture about such 'banned' persons.<br>

Judges at sentencing have full authority to make 'stay away' orders for those convicted of a crime, and police are required to enforce those orders on demand, and same if a person enters an establishment and is observed as an unwanted person known to that establishment. That's quite fine; this is another situation.<br>

This scheme goes a lot further -- unknown persons are placed on a list for unknown offences and 'banned' but merchants never notified . . . . but if anyone ever gets a head of steam on for that individual and he's seen in one of these establishments, he/she can be arrested based on this blanket 'ban' which is even unknown to the merchant on whose property that person might be on. That ain't fair. The merchant might even be happily serving him as a customer, but still he's 'banned', even if the merchant doesn't know he's banned. <br>

'Alice in Wonderland' just got released in theaters, maybe they missed this scenario.<br>

It just seemed in the link (as I remember reading it) that the merchant backed up the general 'ban' on 'general principles' based on the assumption that an accusation is a pointer that someone was 'bad' and not because of any agreement that the person had engaged in genuine wrongful conduct, and the cited reference was to a belief such persons were likely shoplifters or criminals . . . .<br>

Somehow that seems a little wrong-headed.<br>

Suppose someone started screaming at you (someone on the street, very mistakenly) and somehow a merchant got your name and they 'banned' you at some establishment though your behavior was 100% impeccable, and the person then was found to have (like a trouble-maker ex-wife of mine) -- 'brain cancer' with unpredictable and dangerous behavior.<br>

You would be banned from all association members stores without appeal and no process ever to have an appeal heard, even if you had x-rays and a neurological opinion and psychiatric opinion that the complainant was neurologically and psychiatrically deranged because of a large brain tumor growing inside the person's head (it's happened to me, so don't scoff).<br>

There's something wrong-headed about such a process, especially when it's started by the police, enforced by the police and is part of policing -- our Constitution ensures us fundamental 'due process' and that involves 'fair play' which seems to be lacking.<br>

Fair play involves 'notice and a right to be heard as well as 'review'. All these are lacking here and this is 'state action' like it or not.<br>

Suppose further, the pharmacy here was a participant, and the only one that had the medicine you needed (a link said it was a participant) and they refused to give you your medicine based on the claims from someone you could prove was certifiably deranged but had no one to direct your claim to - you even had a priest, a rabbi and two board-certified doctors to testify on your behalf, but no one to present your claim to?<br>

There is no appeal from such a police issued order. If you go to the pharmacy to get your seizure medication, you will be arrested based on some woman's claim who screamed at you and was believed before you found out she was a mental patient who had a history of misbehavior, and now you've found out, but have absolutely NO way to have the ban reviewed (it's just impossible as it's set up).<br>

Are you sure that such orders are OK?<br>

I find the scheme fundamentally flawed. I think you would too, if it were you being complained against wrongfully. Such things do happen, too. <br>

Suppose further you have seizure disorder and can't drive to any pharmacy at all (with seizure disorder, you generally have your driving license lifted, and surely if you don't get your meds.)<br>

What then?<br>

You say this guy was a 'hamfisted, confrontational ass of a 'street shooter' and making matters worse for the people who do it intelligently.<br>

Have you observed him?<br>

What facts draw you to that conclusion based on things that can be called 'knowledge', such as having viewed his posted photos, talked with his friends, or people he has photographed, or having viewed his street behavior personally?<br>

Or did you rely on someone (who might have a brain tumor as my normal appearing ex-wife did), saying something about him . . . being a 'creep'.<br>

If someone says you are a 'creep' are you a 'creep', or are they ill-informed.?<br>

What if you are banned for being called a 'creep' for photographing legitimately but have no one to take your claims to, and the complainant later turns out to be an escapee from a mental institution, (but still no review for you)?<br>

What do you do, Matt?<br>

Are you then a 'hamfisted, confrontational ass of a street shooter' because you disagree, or to the contrary, maybe in my (I thought) careful reading, missed some important FACT, about this man, not some innuendo or argument or accusation.<br>

Perhaps you HAVE seen him shoot and he behaves like a creep.<br>

If so, please let us all know of your personal observations of him . . . . .<br>

Or are your thoughts a little hyperbolic . . . and need some rethinking in light of the above?<br>

As I believe.<br>

What if it turns out in the next decade or two, he's sitting on 'street shots' that are a treasure, and beyond anything any of us could reasonably shoot?<br>

Would that change your opinion?<br>

I personally know almost nothing about the man; I've never met him, don't plan to, and know of no one who has seen him shoot, so I have NO OPINION about his street behavior at all.<br>

I may later have opinions when there are FACTS on which to base them.<br>

I'm like that.<br>

I like facts on which to base my opinions.<br>

Is that asking too much?<br>

Matt, do some people observing you shoot 'street' think you're 'furtive' and 'creepy'?<br>

If so, does that make it so?<br>

Some people think all who shoot 'street' are 'furtive' and 'creepy', - I've heard them say essentially that.<br>

That didn't say 'except Mr. X on Photo.net, who's a great guy and definitely not furtive and creepy.'<br>

Matt, on a more personal level, perhaps you'll never understand unless and until (and I hope it NEVER happens) you end up married to a person with a huge brain tumor who blames you (irrationally) for causing it (I know that is deranged) then vows revenge for 'having caused it' and starts making irrational complaints against you.' <br>

I've endured that; and believe me, it's not at all hyperbolic. <br>

There are a large number of somewhat deranged people on the street willing to throw accusations based on no facts at all.<br>

Sound familiar? <br>

Luckily for me (and most of us) police are pretty good at sniffing out such individuals, but here they only act on orders of the merchants, but in doing so they make it official police action, which is forbidden.</p>

<p>John (Crosley)</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>It does not concern me if the coffee place banned him from entering it. What does concern me is the agreement to ban him from all the other places.<br>

In the body of the article is a link to another case in which a young man was banned for a year because he contested an error on his paycheck, and it escalated into an argument with his boss. Police were called; he was arrested. He was ultimately vindicated on the error, and the charges were dropped, but the ban remained.</p>

<p>The agreement allows any one shop owner to, in effect, ban someone from all shops which are parties to the agreement, without even having to prove a valid reason that that person should be banned from those other shops. The police have expressed a desire to include dozens more shops in a larger area, beyond the 87 in the area presently included in the agreement.</p>

<p>If my next door neighbor didn't like me, and banned me from a business he owned, I would consider him within his rights. If he used an agreement like that one to get me banned from scores of shops around town, I would say his rights have been extended too far. By banning me he would non-specifically imply that I would be some kind of threat to other businesses. I would consider him outside his rights if he only tried to get me banned from the shop next to his.<br>

Done maliciously, it is tantamount to defamation.</p>

<p>Under the agreement, if an Uncommon Grounds customer say, complained about his croissant one week and his coffee the next, and the owner decided to ban him from the store for it, the owner could also extend the ban to <em>every other store, for a year</em> . That's too much power.</p>

<p>The reason people can solicit petition signatures or donations to causes in front of a supermarket is because a business dealing with the public, though on private property, is a quasi-public place. The right to ban people is not unlimited. I believe the agreement should not be legal.</p>

<p>If a store wants to let other businesses know someone passed a bad check or shoplifted, there's a way to let them know in a way that is far less onerous. A merchant's association could maintain a database of those convicted of criminal behavior, which is public information, or even of those who habitually disrupt businesses.</p>

<p>In a small town, an agreement of the sort employed in the story could get a person banned from every business in town by a single business owner having a problem with him, or even just not liking him. Absent well defined reasons to the contrary, a person should be able to, on the broad scale, avail himself of the same publicly available goods and services anyone else can.</p>

<p>A business owner can and should be able to ban someone from his establishment, but should not be able to ban that person from any other, through an agreement like the one in the story or any other means.</p>

[johncrosley]

<p>Matt Laur: <br>

I just reread your original post opposing this blanket ban method, and regret anything I wrote above that suggests your thinking is contrary. I was confused by an interim post, I think (or just confused . . . I try to own up to mistakes).<br>

I apologize for anything that suggests to the contrary. <br>

Fair's fair, and I believe in being fair.<br>

It's 8:45 a.m. where I am now, it's been a long night, I'm now due some sleep.<br>

John (Crosley)</p>

 

[marco_f]

<p>This discussion just keeps going round and round and is waaay too long, in my humble opinion. Its not really about photography but about the social mores and cultural sensibilities of a particular community. This would be a non-issue in New York or Seattle. Of course Mr Scott has every right to photograph whomever he pleases on the public street. Of course the business people of that street have every right to bar from their establishments whomever they please (except on the basis of specific categories prohibited by law). Of course the good people of the community have every right to enact and enforce whatever draconian or non-draconian laws they believe will protect the citizenry from harm, real or imagined. Mr. Scott is a member of that community and subject to those laws. Maybe he should move to a more enlightened locale if he wants to pursue his hobby without fear of reprisal. I don't think that this situation has any negative implications for anyone outside of this particular community or similar communities around the country. Let them be. Go out and take some pictures.</p>

[danielleetaylor]

<p><em>He's exactly why people get weird about street shooters in the first place. I want him to stop acting like an ass so that <em>I can have the benefit of the doubt when I shoot in public</em> .</em></p>

<p>What evidence does anyone have that he was acting like an ass? This entire story boils down to "he said / she said", and all the subsequent chatter on forums like this one about how he was acting boils down to nothing more than imaginative speculation.</p>

<p>We've got a photographer who was successfully shooting this location for years without incident, which very strongly suggests that he does not act like an ass and does know how to interact with people. We've got one single reported instance of a mall security guard telling him he couldn't photograph a building <strong>which he had every legal right to photograph.</strong> We've got two reported police interviews related to that incident, but no criminal charges. Then we have one reported incident of an interaction with a woman who asked him to stop taking her picture. <strong>He did, which is certainly not the behavior of an ass</strong> . Then she demanded he delete his prior photographs, and he refused, <strong>which was his absolute right. </strong> If he was so creepy and dangerous to this woman, why did she pursue him to delete the photos as opposed to running into the coffee house? Who was really the creepy aggressive one?</p>

<p>Beyond that we have what I consider to be a tall tale from the manager of Uncommon Grounds. Why a tall tale? <strong>Because there are absolutely no specifics and no corroboration from other manages.</strong> It's no secret that people will exaggerate their side and when I see comments like hers that are completely void of any details I automatically think BS. If there was a history of multiple managers making the same statements, then there might be something. Instead there's a history of him shooting the location without incident. I'm not at all convinced his behavior is what triggered all of this. I can only guess, but more than likely the security guard incident led to police interviews with some store managers, and after that the girl gossip at Uncommon Grounds was "Oh my, did you hear there's a <strong>CREEP</strong> taking pictures? Watch out for him!"</p>

<p>Welcome to the United States of Paranoia. Single males carrying cameras are always rapists, murderers, pedophiles, or terrorists. In fact, they're most likely all of the above. Contact your local authorities immediately if you see a man with a camera but no wife and kids in tow. Tonight's movie on Lifetime will reinforce the point in case you missed it watching Oprah.</p>

<p>Oh yeah, Thomas Sullivan - excellent posts.</p>

[jeff_livacich]

<p>Marco,<br /> The community does <strong>NOT</strong> have "every right to enact and enforce whatever draconian or non-draconian laws they believe will protect the citizenry from harm, real or imagined."<br /> There is a thing called civil rights.</p>

<p>Further, the city maintains the ban is supported by state statute, so something similar can be imposed anywhere in the state to which the guy moves. And why should he have to move to a "more enlightened" locale, anyway, to escape an onerous, overreaching law?</p>

<p>Many people have had rights abrogated because others elected to "let them be." If you're annoyed by the length or circularity of the thread, well, you already gave the advice.</p>

<p> </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5657447">Zack Zoll</a>

<p>"The government is intervening in order to preserve the rights of the greatest amount of people."</p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=590467">Marco Ferrarini</a><br>

"Of course the good people of the community have every right to enact and enforce whatever draconian or non-draconian laws they believe will protect the citizenry from harm, real or imagined."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>As Manuel Barrera and Jeff Livacich accurately observed, this is not the lawful role of government in the United States. The U.S. Constitution was based on the recognition of inviolable fundamental natural rights that cannot be legislated away, even by a majority of representatives or voters. If and when this is done (and has been done, on unfortunate occasions), it has always been in violation of those natural, fundamental rights and consequently, of the Constitution. It is the very reason why a pure democracy or mob rule has been denounced as the vilest form of government, because it is an evil cleverly masquerading as a collective good.</p>

<p>The only exception is when the Constitution is lawfully amended to allow such changes, but only after due consideration and process, which includes careful consideration of whether the rights once considered inviolable and fundamental in the 18th century are still prized as highly.</p>

[patrick j dempsey]

<p>I think it's absolutely insane that we live in a world where there is a security camera on every street corner, at every bank, at many traffic lights, webcams setup outside of businesses for promotional purposes, and the list goes on and on... but when someone is open and polite about their photography... people get creeped out. I mean seriously... are these people just idiots? Maybe it's just easier to IMAGINE your privacy when their isn't a big white lens pointed at you?</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>Zack Zoll wrote:I just feel the way I do because I love the town and I don't want anyone bringing it down</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I think they did it to themselves by bringing unwanted attention to themselves. They are the business people they should think things through. After two interviews with the photographer and no charges they should have realized that nothing wrong was occurring. They chose to be bullies and are paying the price now. While going there was never on my plans, I am sure that others may now have second thoughts. Any loss of business from tourists is well deserved a lawsuit by the ACLU if won will probably result in attorney's fees for the lawyers of the ACLU, may the lawsuit if it occurs be long and costly and the photographer win. <br>

As to my being uppity, we are all entitled to opinions, "Opinions are like ass holes every one is entitled to one." source unknown. Here I been thinking that you were being uppity. "Happy shooting" Zack, source a PN member</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<blockquote>

I think it's absolutely insane that we live in a world where there is a security camera on every street

corner, at every bank, at many traffic lights, webcams setup outside of businesses for promotional

purposes, and the list goes on and on... but when someone is open and polite about their

photography... people get creeped out. I mean seriously... are these people just idiots? Maybe it's just

easier to IMAGINE your privacy when their isn't a big white lens pointed at you?

</blockquote>

<p>

You're probably right, in part. Security cameras are usually positioned to be relatively

unobtrusive, and are in any case now so common as to become part of the furniture. I think the other

part is the general assumption that they're being operated by someone in a position of trust or

authority, and so are 'safe'.

<br><br>

Obviously any private individual with an SLR is a dirty pervert and probably a terrorist to boot.

</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>freedom of expression, not taken with long lens, he posed for me</p><div></div>

[Matt Laur]

<p>Daniel: If you read the article, you'll find assertions that this isn't about one incident, or one person's discomfort with his behavior. Obviosly it's possible that people are lying about him, and that the reports of customers telling shopkeepers that his behavior is odd, and reports that he has become aggressively confrontational when asked not to photograph someone, etc., are all fabrications. I'll admit that's a possibility. <br /><br />So, how could he defuse an apparently long-term, growing sense on someone else's part that is acting in a way that's disturbing those business's customers? Does the fact that he's not legally obligated (while out on the public street) to modify his behavior relieve him of any motivation to be a bit less confrontational? To give the local shop owners what they need to tell their own customers, "Never mind, he's a perfectly harmless artist and a talented photographer - we like him!" <br /><br />This isn't about his rights, since he's still got the same ones he started with, just like Manuel's sign holding guy, above, still has 'em. This is about someone pursuing a social activity in a way that meshes rationally with the society in which he shoots on his lunch hour. This entire thing would never have erupted if he'd simply given the owner of the shop outside of which he does his hunting a little bit of social currency and good graces with which to work when patrons ask out loud why he seems to be badly attempting to hide the fact that he's photographing them.<br /><br />Of course if everyone else is lying, all bets are off.</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

<blockquote>

freedom of expression, not taken with long lens, he posed for me

</blockquote>

<p>

Am I wrong in thinking that Mr Scott still has the freedom to enter, and photograph in,

public spaces, and indeed still retains all his constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms?

</p>

[akgraham]

<p>The 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' (Niemöller quote) is spurious hyperbole and as illogical in the context of this discussion as Manuel's implication that people who disagree with him do so out of tolerance of racism or other bigotry. One poster complains of "imaginative speculation" then engages in just that.</p>

<p>The core issue that nobody seems able to contradict accurately is that the photographer's <em>legal</em> rights remain as unaffected now as they were before the ban. It seems the police had the courtesy and good sense pre-emptively to inform him that he was unwelcome in those shops and to let him know the likely enforcement outcome were he to enter.</p>

<p>His obvious delight at having his photo taken for the press in an attempt to vilify the businesses concerned seems a little premature - I wonder what he does in his lunch hour now? Everyone loses here, as so often happens when "rights-based" thinking replaces common courtesy.</p>

[chris_johnson21]

<p>I have taken all types of street/public photography, fisheye, to extreme telephoto (600mm lens with a 2x doubler)<br>

In my personal experience, when using the wide angle lenses, people could care less what I am doing, or they try to pose for the photo. When using the telephoto, I get questions from the public and police.<br>

Some of my best vacation photos are candid photos of people on the streets where I am traveling.<br>

Do I think banning this guy goes to far? Not sure, because I do not know what is public/private in the area where he was taking pictures. You can take pictures of people on private land as long as you are on a public street (I believe the restriction is telephoto through a fence, a window, over a tall fence, etc.)</p>

[15sunrises]

<p>From the article it seems like he's still allowed to take pictures on the street, but he just isn't allowed inside the stores (while it seems that he wasn't taking shots inside the stores anyways).</p>

<p>The article clearly says that he was banned "for" taking pictures on the street, not banned "from" taking pictures on the street. Seems like he still has the right to annoy people all he wants, although he'll probably face some more conflict now.</p>

<p>That being said, maybe he should expand his horizons a bit, shooting the same short strip of area so many times that you start to creep people out may stretch such an artist too thin.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>This is from the NYC Photo Rights organization <a href="http://www.nycphotorights.com/2010/03/burlington-vermont-declares-war-on-photographers/">http://www.nycphotorights.com/2010/03/burlington-vermont-declares-war-on-photographers/</a></p>

<p>....and this is the last comment from the admin in the link above</p>

<p>"<br>

Actually what I find very offensive at this point is the very existence of “Universal Trespass orders”. Read the follow up post I made to this story and you will see that they have been used against an employee who asserted his right to back pay. Also there is no appeals process. This is a bigger issue than the photography and this one photographer. The police are being used as a virtual private army without due process. If these “trespass orders” were issued by courts I would probably reconsider my position. Heck – even the no-fly list has an appeals process.<br>

Then there is the 45 minute questioning by police at his place of employment. That is inexcusable and as I have pointed out, here in NY, the NYPD has been sued for questioning photographers for as little as 20 minutes. In one case a photographer won a $31,000 settlement for 20 minutes of questioning – that’s $1,500 per minute. Photography is not a crime so I consider this type of action by police nothing more than an attempt to intimidate photographers into giving up their hobby or profession.<br>

There is much more at stake here now than just one photographer against one store."</p>

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>So the person you're quoting, Thomas, is concerned with the "very existence" of a mechanism that is in this case being delivered to a single photographer, but which is also used handle people who routinely urinate in the alleys behind a business, or won't stop soliciting for their own businesses or religious organizations on other businesses' private property, etc. Why hasn't he, for years, been proposing that Vermont (or Burlington in particular) find another way for a private property owner to go on record about how future cases of an unwanted person entering their property will be handled? Is it that he thinks that's fine, but it's only not fine when several property owners act collectively?<br /><br />Complaining about it in this context is like complaining that obviously, Burlington, Vermont Hates Photographers because photographers can be served divorce papers, or can get speeding tickets. Imagine! Photographers operating under the same legal system as everybody else! <em>Outrageous!</em> <br /><br />It's not <em>about</em> photographers, it's about property owners, running businesses, telling the guy that he's not welcome <em>in</em> their businesses because he's showing a pattern of bugging their customers out in <em>front</em> of their businesses, on the street. He could be pushing Amway soap at them, trying to save their souls from the Devil (or from caffeine, the Devil's preferred beverage, as sold by the coffee shop in question) or anything else. It doesn't <em>matter</em> what the particular behavior was. The only reason it matters here is because his being confrontational and aggressive about it just makes it harder on everyone else who goes about it with a lick of common sense. And despite all of that, nobody is telling him he can't keep right on doing it. You do get that part, right?<br /><br />This is "war on photography" or the police trying to make photographers give up their hobbies and professions? Really? That sort of shrill, hyperbolic sophistry and breathless rhetoric doesn't serve anybody. Well, except bloggers who need more page views for their Google ads.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>you only read what you want to read Matt.....It's about using the police as your own personal army without due process of law....if you don't see that, that's fine. It's your right to ignore all the principles of this country that you want to.....as wrong as you are.....you still have that right.......at least today you do.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=277227">Andrew Graham</a> <a href="../member-status-icons"><img title="Subscriber" src="http://static.photo.net/v3graphics/member-status-icons/sub10.gif" alt="" /></a>, Mar 17, 2010; 09:31 a.m.The 'Reductio ad Hitlerum' (Niemöller quote) is spurious hyperbole and as illogical in the context of this discussion as Manuel's implication that people who disagree with him do so out of tolerance of racism or other bigotry.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not quite, in fact I normally do not mention names, I do use quotes, for instance you used my name so I have no qualm about using your name, you may have infered that from a previous comment but that is notwhat was not intended. The argument that you and a few others make is that some how property rights trump other individual rights. I stated that property rights was the same argument used to keep people of color out. Your stance and a few others who believe so strongly on such property rights puts you in the same camp as the persons who used that right to keep Negros, Mexicans, Japs, out of many business establishments. I will repeat it again so there is no question as to what was previously written (reworded to make it clear), I know where you would have been in the 50s and 60s on the side of the property right advocates. Does not make you a racist? I don't know only you and your God know.<br>

By the way you have the absolute right to not want any one in your house if it is not used for a business that is open to the public.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>Am I wrong in thinking that Mr Scott still has the freedom to enter, and photograph in, public spaces, and indeed still retains all his constitutionally-protected rights and freedoms?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>You are correct, but this puts a very large burden on him if has to use a bathroom or wants to buy water, etc. This is a burden that he should not have to bear because a few people don't like what he does in public. I still do not see what he did that was so wrong and I do have a problem with the property right issue advocated by some here especially when those rights are in a private-public place such as stores, etc.</p>

[richardsnow]

 

 

<p>I haven't had the time to read all of the posts, so if I repeat anything already said, I apologize in advance. Anyways, here's my two cents.</p>

<p>Having been to Church Street on a few occasions, I can tell you that it's a street blocked off to traffic in order to accommodate shoppers/pedestrians. I do not know whether or not the town still owns Church Street, but it is very similar to Quincy Market in Boston...lots of storefronts, open air mall atmosphere.</p>

<p><em>The UNIVERSAL TRESPASS ORDER that was issued to Mr. Scott is:</em></p>

<p><em>A policy adopted by the Church Street Marketplace and the Burlington Police Department. That policy extends a criminal trespass order to all participating businesses. In effect, if you sin against one establishment, you've sinned against them all, and they don't want you there.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>In effect, one receiving a UNIVERSAL TRESPASS ORDER is banned from 87 businesses on Church Street, including the entire Burlington Town Center, for 12 months.</em><br>

<em><br /></em><br>

<em>If, after being issued a UNIVERSAL TRESPASS ORDER, you cut through the mall to the city parking garage on Cherry Street or even use its public bathrooms, you are subject to arrest for criminal trespass.</em></p>

<p>In regards to Mr. Scott's legal rights to photograph people in public places, it is my understanding that artistic and editorial use of a person's image does not require a model release in most US Jurisdictions.</p>

<p>In fact, in many jurisdictions it is fairly well spelled out.<br>

A person may be photographed in public without giving consent. That person's image may also be published and/or displayed without said person's consent, so long as the image does not appear in an advertisement. (State of New York)</p>

<p>If, in fact, Church Street is no longer owned by the City of Burlington, the businesses have every right to ban him from the street as well as their establishments. If the City of Burlington still owns Church Street, I can see the ACLU getting involved, but I'm not sure if anything will come from it as the practice of issuing UNIVERSAL TRESPASS ORDERS for Church Street seems to have been going on since late 1999. </p>

<p>HOWEVER, as I read the article, I got the feeling that Mr Scott's behavior is what is in question, not his right to photograph people in public. </p>

<p>As an example, I will site the woman who expressly asked him to delete the pictures he took of her. Where legally, he does not have to, as a good person, (or at least as someone who is not so well liked by the establishments on Church Street), he should have. </p>

<p>Again, this is just my two cents. This thread has taken on a life of it's own and I'd like to see as many perspectives as possible.</p>

<p>RS</p>

<p> </p>

 

 

[Matt Laur]

<p>Thomas: using the police to deliver that message <em>is</em> the process. If the property owner doesn't go on record and (as has been pointed out many times above) "memorialize" the fact that they will consider the guy to be trespassing in the future, then any announcement later that he is trespassing would be coming out of the blue. That would be the <em>lack</em> of any formal process. <br /><br />The police are exactly who are called upon to deal with trespassing. A business open to the public can't just point a finger at somebody who's walked in the door and say "arrest that bothersome solicitor for trespassing!" It doesn't work like that. The particulars vary from one jurisdiction to the next, but advance notice is part of the process. And a person who doesn't want to lose their business in a mountain of legal services debt because of a frivalous lawsuit is going to go on record in telling a disruptive person that they're going to be considered as a trespasser <em>in the future</em>.<br /><br />Would you rather take away the property owner's right to keep a competing business's solicitor or a hate-spouting preacher off of their property?<br /><br />Manuel: no matter how you spin it, you <em>are</em> saying that people who defend property rights are no morally different than racists. But don't you see that any business owner - no matter what color they are - has the same rights? You're deliberately using a very stale straw man argument, here.<br /><br />Property rights don't trump individual rights. <strong>Property rights <em>are</em> individual rights.</strong> Until you grapple with that, there's really no point discussing rights at all, is there? The photographer in question is not in any way having his right to shoot on the public street infringed, and it's his behavior (not his color or creed) that has repeatedly, over time, driven a property owner to give him a heads up about what will happen if he <em>leaves</em> that public space to enter the private property in question. No doubt dozens of other camera-carrying people stop in for a cup of coffee every week, and are warmly welcomed.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>here's another Universal Trespass occurance......seems the guy was owed past wages, and the store owner had him arrested for illegal trepass. They went to court and the court found in favor of the guy that was owed wages.....not the store owner. The COURTS said the guy was in his right to do what he did.......and yet................the store owners got the police to issue the Universaly Trepass order</p>

<p><a href="http://www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street">http://www.7dvt.com/2005/exile-church-street</a></p>

<p>Hmmmmmm.....cant beat them legally......ah!!!.....Universal Trespass Order to the rescue. What a bunch of Crap!</p>

[jean_yves_mead]

... which has little-to-nothing to do with this case.