Photographer Banned

[akgraham]

<p>He knows they have a problem with his behaviour in the coffee shop so he goes out with a telephoto lens and does a "hit-and-run" photo shoot on the staff? Then gets annoyed when the press won't print his spin on the event?</p>

<p>This is unreasonable.</p>

<p> </p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>hope you guys are all happy.....the photographer in question has quit photography</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Don't blame us. The only person responsible for that is him.</p>

[boinkphoto]

<p>I'm not sure how useful this will be but...</p>

<ol>

<li>It sounds like, based on the little evidence presented, that his "bedside manner" as it were, left a little to be desired. Not illegal certainly, but also not helping.</li>

<li>Regardless of his attitude, what he was doing was patently legal. There doesn't seem to be any question about that.</li>

<li>Businesses have the rights to be whatever pricks they want. I'm not condoning it, but unfortunately that's the way the country works these days.</li>

<li>Blacklisting is ugly, but government enforced blacklisting is uglier. As noted though, he can still walk the street. </li>

</ol>

<p>#4 sort of gets to the meat of my argument though. I'm not surprised that businesses got together and banned him, and for all I know he may have been a total prick himself and deserved it (or, he may not have).</p>

<p>What concerns me however is that the police interviewed him twice and served him the ban. To me this shows an uncomfortable collaboration between business and government entities. I'm not saying it's not legal, I'm just saying there's something icky about it.</p>

<p>Businesses may not like this photographer, that's fine, but when it gets converted into a quasi-governmental edict, and the police are actively facilitating it, it gets my back up. The police are supposed to represent the photographer here as much as the business owners.</p>

<p>I wish I could put it into better words, but this business/government relationship makes me uneasy and has become far too common. That said, I'd be hard pressed, even though at a instinctive level I'd have to strongly disagree, to point to a true legal issue with what was done. The only area I would wonder is in terms of anti-competitive law, where blacklisting like this might show collusion, but I'm sure it's legal because anything pro-business, pro-authoritarian is legal these days.</p>

[photogorilla]

<blockquote>

<p>End of argument, if the shoe fits wear it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not really sure how you see that as a vindication of your point of view, but then again, not much you have advocated in this thread made much sense.</p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>....speaking of blogs doing what they want......the coffee shop in question, apparently deleted all the negative comments on their facebook fan page.....good thing someone copied it ahead of time......hmmmmmm....</p>

<p><a href="http://carlosmiller.com/2010/03/15/shopping-center-that-banned-photographer-received-at-least-6-million-in-tax-money/#more-10243">http://carlosmiller.com/2010/03/15/shopping-center-that-banned-photographer-received-at-least-6-million-in-tax-money/#more-10243</a></p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<p>

 

 

<blockquote>

<p>I wish I could put it into better words, but this business/government relationship makes me uneasy and has become far too common. That said, I'd be hard pressed, even though at a instinctive level I'd have to strongly disagree, to point to a true legal issue with what was done. The only area I would wonder is in terms of anti-competitive law, where blacklisting like this might show collusion, but I'm sure it's legal because anything pro-business, pro-authoritarian is legal these days.</p>

 

</blockquote>

 

A little bit OT, but If this makes you uneasy, wait until the church/government relationship that many think is coming down the pike.

 

</p>

[chelsea]

<p>We don't want him quitting photography. We just want him to quit using the camera in a way that creeps people out. Some simple common sense and consideration on his part would have prevented the little molehill from becoming a huge mountain. You can dissect "rights" ad nauseum into infinitessimal microscopic pieces, but the reality is he's dealing with human nature. If the girls on the street are complaining about the creepy guy with the camera, and the business owners are perceiving the complaints as a threat to their livelihood, ESPECIALLY in this economic day and age, then he shouldn't be surprised that they are going to take action in any way they can if he refuses to stop. They didn't intend to abuse anyone's "rights", they just wanted to get the message to him to stop creeping out potential customers, so they sent the message "if you're going to behave like that, we don't want you coming in to our shops".</p>

<p>If you insist on wearing a pointy black broad-brimmed hat and black clothes, own black cats, chant incantations, dance naked under the full moon and hang symbolic images on your door, then you shouldn't be surprised when the villagers show up all riled and angry with torches and pitchforks, tie you to a stake and light a fire under your toes. Your actions may be totally innocent and you have harmed no one, and their actions may be barbarically wrong, but you shouldn't be surprised that within your community where there are behavioural standards that the village people get a little perturbed. </p>

[michael s.]

<p>Why not go around to <strong>all</strong> the businesses in Burlington ? Why stop at just the 67 establishments at the Marketplace -- all of whom are evidently parties to this order ? Go to the grocery stores, too, and the gas stations, and all the restaurants. For good measure, throw in the medical building, assuming it's privately owned. Sign 'em up ... all of 'em.</p>

<p>A more comprehensive "Universal Trespass Order," such as the one I outlined, will ensure that this man -- who is gainfully employed in Burlington and not only has not committed any crime, but is <em>not even alleged</em> to have committed one or even contemplated committing one -- can be starved and run out of town.</p>

<p>Good riddance, too. After all, he takes photographs and "creeps people out." Never mind that the people whose photos he takes are out on the public street, where -- in the U.S. at least -- they have no reasonable expectation of privacy.</p>

<p>Maybe we're bothered by the person protesting against a government policy, or the one collecting money for a charity ? Maybe the one handing out religious pamphlets bothers us, too. Let's serve all of them with Orders, too. Who needs them, hanging around and "creeping people out."</p>

<p>Call me old fashioned, but this official mass blackballing, coupled with an unseemly threat of arrest by local police if one dares to enter any of 67 business premises, bothers me. I think it stinks.</p>

<p> </p>

[akgraham]

<p>Not quite - at least one of the people whose photograph he took was inside the coffee shop.</p>

<p>In the past I have had occasion to persuade pamphleteers, charity collectors and the like that they really shouldn't disseminate propaganda or collect at the cash register of my business. <strong><em>Extremely</em></strong> rarely there was somebody who simply wouldn't engage - most, as in this thread, simply hadn't considered the implications for my business and livelihood and were happy to work out an alternative.</p>

<p>The right of admission is always reserved to the property owner, and is always enforceable. Think of the ramifications for business big and small were this right to be abrogated.</p>

 

[chelsea]

<p>ALL the businesses in Burlington weren't affected, just those where this photographer was in the habit of hanging out. The other businesses in town have no motivation to worry about this guy, he wasn't hanging around in front of their shops, so they will not go to the effort of banning him. It was just a group of particular businesses he affected. His actions attracted negative attention to himself from a particular group of people, and human nature being what it is it got blown out of proportion and they took what they felt to be appropriate action. Some whole towns took action on teenagers' mode of attire, and have outlawed baggy pants that hang down low on the butt because it "creeped people out". I'm sure if a bunch of guys parked their Harleys nearby and walked around every day wearing bandanas, leather jackets with some logo and name of a group painted on the back and sporting big tattoos there would be a number of people who would shy away from the area. If a bunch of young woman wore short skirts, high heels, excessive makeup, wild hairdos and tight-bodiced low cut shirts and started leaning up against the light poles in the area they would be frowned upon as well. All of these people may be perfectly innocent and not doing a single thing to harm anyone, but the majority of the stores' customers may get "creeped out" and stop shopping, which directly affects the businesses' revenue. Hit people in the pocketbook and you get a negative response which can lead to them taking action that stinks. It's human nature, and human nature can REALLY stink. If a photographer doesn't want negative attention and its resulting consequences, all he or she has to do is recognize that constantly pointing a camera with a big lens at people in a given area over a long period time is usually perceived as "creepy", and can simply behave in a more considerate manner (i.e. stop taking pics of people who ask you not to) if they don't want to have people gang up and blackball them.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>The core issue is the use of governmental power to punish a citizen for engaging in protected conduct under the federal and state constitutions. The police power of the state was used to chill his exercise of the rights that all citizens enjoy. The commercial property owners could have sent him a post card or orally spoken to him. Instead, they sent the police, on multiple occasions, to interrogate him, to threaten him with the possibility of use of their police power. There is no indication that the police took their time and power to enforce the law for his benefit.</p>

<p>Sometimes private places or organizations become public for certain purposes. Usually when the private place surplants the purpose and function of former public places. Such as becoming the public square or the only avenue for doing business in a community. These issues are gray, and they have been litigated in the US up to the Supreme Court with mixed results historically.</p>

<p>By acting in concert, utilizing the police power of the state, to interrogate, threaten the citizen, and then the direct threat of arrest for trespass in what amounts to them major portion of Burlington, the commercial interests and police may indeed make themselves vulnerable to civil legal action.</p>

<p>Query whether federal RICO statutes have been violated. Unfair and deceptive business practices acts may have been violated. Simple tort law may have been violated.</p>

<p>And, this guy, on a personal level, does not know the difference between taking photos on Manhattan sidewalks as opposed to somebody's 18 year old college student daughter on a the arcade street of a prissy little college town on the shore of Lake Champlain. Small town politics are always dirtier than larger political entities. Most people in small towns know that one usually holds his peace in a small town, even when wronged, because you will <em>always</em> be dealing with these same persons for the rest of one's life. The photog is a Social Security Administration civil servant, and he will need to work a block or so from Church Street for the next 25 -30 years to collect his pension. The locals have just told him that he cannot ever accompany his colleagues for a cup of coffee or lunch near his office or take his wife out to dinner in the center of his own little city.</p>

<p>Rather like being shunned by some twisted little religious sect.</p>

<p>They sure showed him who is in charge.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>this shows an uncomfortable collaboration between business and government entities... ...it gets converted into a quasi-governmental edict... ...The police are supposed to represent the photographer here as much as the business owners... ...this business/government relationship makes me uneasy</p>

<p>The core issue is the use of governmental power to punish a citizen</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This may have been lost in the length of the thread...</p>

<blockquote>

<p><em>It's about using the police as your own personal army without due process of law</em></p>

</blockquote>

<p><em>Once again, this lack of due process talk is nonsense. The photographer can file a challenge in court. That IS due process. The service and delivery of legal documents, causing restrictions on people initiated by other people and businesses, by government officials occurs constantly and is used to ENSURE due process so that people have notice and opportunity to be heard to challenge the validity of the action being taken. The situation as stated above is not only incorrect, its goes so far as to be the opposite of what is stated. </em></p>

<p>There is no government edict here. The police did not "represent" the businesses. Those that are troubled by the businesses acting collectively, however, are troubled by something that actually exists.</p>

[david_ralph1]

<p>This is silly:</p>

<p><em>"Once again, this lack of due process talk is nonsense. The photographer can file a challenge in court. That IS due process. The service and delivery of legal documents, causing restrictions on people initiated by other people and businesses, by government officials occurs constantly and is used to ENSURE due process so that people have notice and opportunity to be heard to challenge the validity of the action being taken. The situation as stated above is not only incorrect, its goes so far as to be the opposite of what is stated."</em></p>

<p>Governmental power has already been used and to great effect. BTW, there was no due process rights contained that notice. The banning is a fait accompli enforced by force of public arms. Private enterprise, finalized it own private res adjudicata, enforced after the fact by their servants, the so called <em>public</em> police force of the City of Burlington. The threat of further governmental power has already occurred. The chilling of first amendment rights has already occurred. The poster suggests that deprivation of rights gets due process after the fact rather than before their imposition. It is just plain backwards. The deprivation already occurred without due process of any sort. What the merchant association got was special and undue process for their pecuniary interest.</p>

<p>The idea that police interrogations and delivery of private notices purposefully designed to threaten governmental action for exercise of first amendment rights on public thoroughfares for the benefit of private businesses is a harm that should be allowed to occur without first having due process is the "nonsense." The police did not deliver any legally authorized court summons or notice. They delivered a private message from private individuals, acting in concert for an entire business district, that the private interests were using the police powers of the state to punish him for his protected activities. It is a purely private commercial interest elevated by police participation and a relatively huge organization of merchants to restrict the public's use of public thoroughfare for the exercise of a fundamental constitutional right. Does anyone really think that mulitple interrogations, at one's place of employment was not intimidating and a threat to one's ability to work one's vocation. Many employers would sack an employee for the negative association and for the lost employee services. Sorry, but governmental and police state action to serve favored commercial interests at the cost of the populace in general is the essence of fascism.</p>

<p>This poster suggests that one must purchase expensive after the fact due process to remedy what the lack of due process has already wrought. He has the second instance correct, but he missed the boat on the first violation of substantive as well as procedural due process.</p>

<p> </p>

[thomas_sullivan]

<p>John, you obviously only read what you want to also....it has been repeatedly stated in the links that there is NO APPEAL process to a Universal Trespass order, that only the business that initiated can remove it.</p>

<p>And there are other methods of delivery....registerred mail to the photographer and some official office of the town. Or deliver it themselves to the photographer. The police should not be involved.....especially in a case where the photographer broke NO laws</p>

<p>The fact that this goes on all the time DOES NOT make it right. Everything that the United States fought for over 200 years ago had been going on all the time. This country is based on ferretting out the injustices and correcting them. This situation needs correcting in my opinion.</p>

[john_h.1]

<blockquote>

<p>there is NO APPEAL process to a Universal Trespass order</p>

</blockquote>

<p>All that means is clarification that private property owners banning someone from their property do not have have some formal subsequent internal review process. It is no different from you banning someone from your home. They don't have a right to an appeal process either. It does not mean that the photographer is deprived from challenging anything in court.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>And there are other methods of delivery....registerred mail to the photographer and some official office of the town. Or deliver it themselves to the photographer. The police should not be involved.....especially in a case where the photographer broke NO laws</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Its no different legally than a Sheriff serving a lawsuit complaint and summons. Sometimes an indifferent person can do it but the government officer service is better because its more reliable because of the procedures that are involved. The reason this type service is used for legal actions instead of the initiator is to prevent abuse and false claims about the notice being given. That's the case whether someone broke laws or not.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Governmental power has already been used and to great effect. BTW, there was no due process rights contained that notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>There was no governmental power exercised. You apparently "feel" like there was but provide no information actually showing it.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The banning is a fait accompli enforced by force of public arms.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>delivery of a notice is not a governmental enforcement activity.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Private enterprise, finalized it own private res adjudicata</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Res judicata (as its properly called) means a government judicial court has already ruled an an issue. The store owners are not a judicial body. Not only has there been no court decision, no one has apparently even asked for one.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The deprivation already occurred without due process of any sort.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>The photographer is free to continue everything he was doing. There is no deprivation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>The police did not deliver any legally authorized court summons or notice.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Those things are routinely without prior so called legal authorization and are often private notices all dealt with after delivery.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>using the police powers of the state to punish him</p>

</blockquote>

<p>No one was punished by anyone and no police powers were imposed either.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Does anyone really think that mulitple interrogations, at one's place of employment was not intimidating</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is properly related the appropriateness or lack thereof of earlier police activity but is not relevant to the legality of the ban.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>the essence of fascism</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Pure hyperbole.</p>

<p>Some here appear to be having a knee jerk reaction to the fact that police had this incidental contact and assume that must mean some quasi fascist police state situation exists here. There is no merit to that whatsoever.</p>

[mila-g]

<p>This is why this should not be tolerated. <a href="

This is the nonsense that togs occasionally have to put up with in the UK..</p>

[andylynn]

<p>You guys don't understand the term "due process". It's an English phrase meaning the process that is appropriate. In the context of a government prosecuting a crime, the due process involves a trial with certain steps taken, a jury if requested, timetable guidelines and standards of evidence, and appeals when there are grounds.</p>

<p>Because the action here is private property owners giving the guy notice that he is not permitted on their property, which is not a process covered by the same rules as a criminal trial, all that is required is a business owner to form the opinion that banishing him will be better for business, and to issue the notice. This is what happened, and <em>it is the due process</em>. The due process does not involve a jury, presentation of evidence or an appeal process.</p>

<p>The amount that gets written in here by people who either don't read the original article or don't understand the issues is pretty impressive.</p>

<p>There are two good reasons I can think of off the top of my head for having the police deliver the trespass notice:<br>

-The Vermont trespassing law states that the notice can be delivered by the police.<br>

-In order for the trespass notice to be enforced, the subject of the notice has to know about it, the police have to know about it, and the police have to be able to verify that the subject knows about it. Having the police deliver it covers all those criteria. Suppose the guy violates the order and in such a way that the business owners get annoyed enough at him to call the cops, who issue him a violation and a fine. The fine can be contested in court and if the police can't prove he received the trespass notice it won't stick.</p>

[occhicone]

<p>"calls that approach “blatantly outrageous … Some guy who is exercising his First Amendment right to take pictures in a public place is being punished for it. That’s about as fundamental a right as I can imagine. I have no idea what could be the possible justification.”<br>

i am normally on the side of the photographer but a lot of people seem to feel that it is our first amendment right to take pictures wherever we want . i am not so sure. where does it say that? I think it may pertain more to publishing things that others may find offensive. for example, i found a lot of robert maplethorpe's work rather disgusting - BUT, he is free to do it, sell it, publish it, display it, etc... i am free to see it or not, buy it or not, etc... However, he was working in his studio with willing models - not sitcking a camera in people's face in the mall. </p>

[thomas_hardy1]

<blockquote>

<p>The photog is a Social Security Administration civil servant, and he will need to work a block or so from Church Street for the next 25 -30 years to collect his pension. The locals have just told him that he cannot ever accompany his colleagues for a cup of coffee or lunch near his office or take his wife out to dinner in the center of his own little city.</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>David, I read the ban is for one year.</p>

[mike_g11]

<p >Interesting discussion to be sure! A few quick comments, I was a police officer for 7 years. Having been in the system, I have to say John Henneberger has an exceptionally accurate assessment of the legalities of the issue. John Crosley has a great laymen understanding of the situation and wonderful approach to dealing with it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Let me say that, generally, I am not interested in street photography although I do participate in it from time to time. Often, I submit my images freelance to local papers and organizations. I supplement my income with photography so I am not a full time photographer but do make money at it.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >I have, on occasion, sat in a park on a bench, and photographed just about everyone enjoying the park. A woman with 3 kids eyed me and gave me that scowl look as if to say knock it off. I smiled gently and motioned her to me. She came over with the mother bear guarding her cubs look. I reached in my camera bag and handed her my business card and showed her my PPA card. I explained that I was working on a personal project of people enjoying life. And on occasion, I submit work to local news organizations. She strongly told me to delete the images of her and her children. I smiled and said “let’s find them” (I shoot digital mostly now). As I scrolled through the images to hers she could see the feeling or mood of my work. I said, I will be happy to delete yours, but in fairness, I want to tell you that legally, I don’t have to”. I added, “but it is not ethical if you don’t want me to have them, for me to keep them.” When we got to them, she said “wow, you are talented”, but I don’t want my family’s pictures used by anyone.” One by one, I deleted the images. At a couple she smiled and exclaimed “that is so cute…”. I offered, “tell you what, give me your address and I’ll send you a 4x6 of the two you like. But I can’t do that if I delete them.” She agreed. I sent her the prints and enclosed a cover letter that thanked her, and told her I also like those prints very much as well. In the letter, I added that perhaps I may want to enter them in photography contests and if I did I would need release forms signed. I included them in the envelope. I did not expect them to return. Oddly, they did. A couple of months later I got a call from someone who I did not know. It turns out that the lady showed the 2 4x6s to a friend. That friend hired me to do portraits of her kids and that order ended up being my largest order of the year. This big order lady then referred 3 more folks to me. In addition, the “bear cub mother” ended up getting me about a dozen clients. Yet she was convinced at first glance I was a major problem/threat to her or her family. I have had a few confrontations with folks similar to the one described above, but they are VERY rare.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Was the photographer wrong? Were the businesses wrong? I ain’t going there. What I am saying is that there is a right and wrong way to deal with people and issues and often they are not the same as legal rights and wrongs.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >Some key points often overlooked and I did not see mentioned here (sorry if I missed them). Let’s pretend it was me who invoked this action upon me. Why was I taking the photos in the first place? If it is for a contest, publication, etc, they will not accept the entry without a release form. If it is for news publication, they may not require a release (many do from free lance photographers), but they will want to know the names for the caption---Jane Doe and her kids enjoying Pleasure Village (insert location). Many places (malls, schools, community centers) often require these releases as well. If I am using the photos taken, for promotion of my business, it can easily be argued that using their images is helping me to get business (call it money) and thus I could not do so without a release. The general legal term (again, I am not a lawyer) is that I cannot benefit financially from their image without their consent.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >SOOOOOO……….what good are said images, if I cannot show them, display them for anyone but myself? Yes I can take them, it is within the rules. However, if no one but me can see them (legally), what good has it done for me? Now, pretending that I am that guy who had been (allegedly) told repeatedly to stop, my natural instinct would be---hmmmm, I am giving off the wrong signals. I need to work on that. Perhaps, the photographer in question enjoys confrontation (I don’t). Lets pretend the businesses served me with said warning---I would be angry and would wish to defend myself. However, I also have tools. I can contact the press, an attorney, friends and fell workers. At the minimum, I can cause bad press for them if I was truly wronged (yes it does happen—people are wronged regularly). I then don’t have to do business with them, and can let anyone I meet know of my experience. If the businesses regularly jump to conclusions and take reckless actions then they will ultimately fail. Same with the Photographer dude. Ultimately he will do something that is actionable.</p>

<p > </p>

<p >As my grandpa told me when I was quite young, “you can’t fix stupid son. Nobody likes an idiot around. Try not to be the idiot.” Were the businesses stupid—maybe. Was the photographer stupid—probably. Is there a law against stupid behavior—nope. Simply put, use the Golden Rule—treat others as you want to be treated. I believe all works out as it should when that happens.</p>

[mila-g]

<p>And also this one <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RKl2sEN4yNM&feature=related</a></p>

 

[manuel barrera houston,]

<blockquote>

<p>If it is for a contest, publication, etc, they will not accept the entry without a release form</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Really? What a shocker, I have to inform all those people that have accepted entries to delete them. To think that I had one of a group of people on a parade route published and I did not get a release from not a one. What do those stupid people know.</p>

[akgraham]

<p>Re Mark Gordon's last link. Look at the way the photographer chose which of the two London auxiliary policeman to shoot in order to get a reaction, and how he provocatively allowed the camera to linger on his face. A perfect example of how you can do something perfectly legal in a manner that is likely to provoke confrontation.</p>

<p>If the photographer in the original post simply wanted photos he could have allayed peoples' fears by interacting with them. If his intention was to draw fire to promote discussion of his rights, he has succeeded but apparently at some cost to himself <em>and</em> the businesses he sought to confront.</p>

[manuel barrera houston,]

<p>This has nothing to do with how the photographer acted, whether it was appropriate or not. It has every thing to do with where do we draw the line on business people to bar someone. If the right of business owners is absolute why do they even need a reason to bar one individual or a group of individuals? Could I bar all white males from a store, they are not a protected class? Could I bar all mothers with children, they are not a protected class. Could I bar all hetro couples, they are not a protected class? Where do we draw the line? Can we refuse to photograph a gay marriage? Can we refuse to marry an inter-racial couple? To bar some one for exercising his freedom of expression is too arbitrary for my taste.</p>

[akgraham]

<p>Can we be barred from photographing a stranger giving birth in a public hospital? Can we be barred from photographing someone in a police station being told a loved one has just died?</p>

<blockquote>

<p>"To bar some one for exercising his freedom of expression is too arbitrary for my taste."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Are you really suggesting that there be <em>no limit whatsoever</em> on the right to take a photograph - would that really be to your taste? Or that no business should be able to stop <em>anybody</em> from occupying their premises? That would not be to my taste.</p>