Photographer Banned

andylynn · March 18, 2010

Reasons why the employee may want the photo deleted, I forget that I have to connect the dots. The employee may have wanted them deleted because she may have violating the law or a company policy.

</blockquote>

This is actually not relevant to the rights in question, but no, it is not illegal to smoke where she was smoking in Vermont. This can easily be looked up instead of just throwing it out there.

What are you discussing? I am supporting the right of the photographer to take photos as allowed by law, and against absolute right of private property owners to bar from entering who ever they please.

</blockquote>

Those are two different things. First, right of the photographer to photograph: Yes, since he was on a public sidewalk. Second, right of the business owner to bar people from entering: Yes, they have this right. I fully support the guy's right to take photos, and I also fully support the shop owners' rights to bar him from the shops for doing so. See, it all works out and everybody has their rights.

The reason why I have such strong feeling is because that is the rationale that was used to keep Blacks, Mexicans, and others from entering "Private Places" like restaurants, and other places of business. But the churches did it also, we had them here, Mexicans go here, Whites go here.

</blockquote>

And this is why it is good that we have anti-discrimination laws. Discrimination based on race, creed and ethnicity is an ugly mark on our society and it is important that we have worked to stop it, and continue to do so. But none of this is what the photographer's case is about.

Yes, I have strong feeling about such absolute property rights, in fact a little trip to the civil war and you will find that the South objected to the taking of property “slaves” without compensation. Slaves were worth a lot of money to the owners. Yes, I have strong feeling about it and I am not ashamed about my strong feelings.

</blockquote>

Another ugly mark that we spent painful years working to correct. It was an unfortunate truth that at that time it was legal to own a person, and as such property rights were applicable. The solution was not to abolish property rights but to make it illegal to own a person, and remove their status as property. You should have strong feelings against slavery, and nobody here will deny that you are correct; however, this is not relevant to the photographer's case. Owning a store is quite a different thing from owning a person; it is legal to own a store, and property rights regarding a store that one owns are legit and enforceable.

Matt Laur · March 18, 2010

Manuel: That aspect of the Civil War wasn't about taking away the human property in the southern states. It was about establishing the fact that they weren't property in the first place. Categorizing people as property was badly, fundamentally incorrect. Just like it still is, right now, in the places around the world where it's still regularly practiced. Categorizing a person's actual property (like their home, or where they have established their business) as, well ... property ... isn't really up for debate and needing to end (as slavery was). Pretending that those two completely unrelated notions are somehow the same, and that citing them together somehow reinforces whatever point you're trying to make, is not working. That a bunch of unreformed slave-holding southern colonials had to be violently jarred into the 19th century where they could realize that holding slaves wasn't the same as holding actual property has nothing to do with the rights guaranteed to actual property holders. It only makes sense for you keep bringing that up if what you're trying to do is oh-so-slowly sneak up on the notion that people should not be allowed to own - or at least control - their property at all. The fabulous irony, there, is that by making a property owner unable to say how they and their property will be used, you're making them into slaves. Slaves to whoever claims unfettered access to their restrooms, slaves to the whims of whoever would solicit or proselytize on their property, and so on. Which is it? Does the person who owns the property dictate its use, or is that person and their property instead owned by whoever walks in the door?

johncrosley · March 18, 2010

I read above that the subject photographer 'gave up photography'.

I read a link to an article where he said he 'put away his cameras'.

Those are two entirely different things.

I would not count him out; he sounds like a dedicated street photographer.

His posted photo in 'The Consumerist' that caused the stink is hardly offensive at all -- the woman who complained would be counted as a 'crazy' in my book. (my opinion 'in quotes')

Her getting him 'banned' for having taken that photo was way overboard . . . especially in light of what he has to say about the situation.

I note that in one quote in 'The Consumerist' the photographer notes that when the subject photographer once was faced by someone jeering him presumably telling him he must delete,, he just fired away his camera, multiple frames.

The notation suggests we are somehow supposed to feel 'ill' about him because he is 'pushing the boundaries' as though he were somehow 'being 'aggressive'.

I am not so sure, actually, as I read it.

Faced with a highly controlling, yelling individual who seeks to tell me what to do, I cannot say that is not something I would rule out if otherwise I were protected (man not armed, in a public place. highly visible, man otherwise 'in control', other than yelling, outrageous behavior and maybe he 'upper or upper middle class and apparently not about to 'deck me').

Frankly no one has a right to control your behavior by coming up to you and yell and jeer at you.

There come times (however regrettably and as seldom as absolutely possible and when every escape mechanism fails you, that then you must make a stand), but my original advice still holds -- whenever such situations develop try to reason first with such individuals when possible, try the 'shoe on the other foot' argument (noted above) that I posited, try when someone doesn't push you into a corner, to exit peacefully provided that person is not trying to humiliate you publicly into doing just that . . . . . and in the end, if they are trying to do that . . . . it may help to take one or a series of photos of them and their behavior.

Most digital cameras have the modern equivalent of 'motor drive', and anyone who thinks they can control you or me by yelling at you or me when in a public place deserves to have their belligerent recorded when they tell me close up and aggressively what to do with MY photos.

At eight frames a second, though not in the face, and from a 'safe' distance, provided that person's not sticking his face into mine.

That rapid-fire photography, by the way, is not as aggressive as it may sound, at first read.

If it's clear the guy was going to take a punch at you, you'd already have ducked behind bystanders and tried to exit. And asking the bystanders for shelter and their intervention. often is a good alternative if no exit is possible; sometimes goodhearted people will intervene, especially if the other person's behavior is really outrageous or obscene.

If it appears he respects authority, then by taking a sequence of photos, you may have just made excellent evidence of outrageous behavior -- his harassing you from close range, especially if you're turning away and firing over your shoulder, or your outstretched arm is seen holding him/her off. as he/she is pursuing you or bearing down on you.

Moreover, once such a person realizes their behavior is truly memorialized and it is outrageous appearing, it generally tends to calm the harasser down . . . . even though they may completely deny that.

They may continue 'harassing' behavior, but they almost certainly will not take it any further, even if originally they were so inclined, once they know they're in a photo or series of photos shown being belligerent.

Photography of belligerents can be helpful in such situations to control the aggressive behavior of the 'social arbiter' who would control you in your peaceful quest for a telling street photo.

They may protest and threaten, but once you've got their photo showing them misbehaving against you, their behavior either will calm down or you'd best be on your cell phone dialing 911 or yelling for police at your loudest voice; maybe running if you have good sense.

Remember, in a jackpot, police can be YOUR best friend . . . they generally know what your rights are, and generally are willing to respect you if you are not being aggressive . . . . they may tell you personally and privately later they dislike what you do taking photos, but if they're professional they'll protect you and your right to take those photos.

This applies in the US, in Western Europe, and even in Ukraine. Some municipal/campus/smaller governments in the USA do not train their officers so well. Some also are havens for officers who got kicked off forces elsewhere for not 'following standards' (rogue cops) that may even have been involved in past major offenses that just avoided them having to serve prison time - even major scandals that got them booted off a force, so a US citizen and resident cannot universally say that ALL cops every time will be helpful. It's just a good general rule in the year 2010.

It was not a good rule in the year 1946 and for much of the Eisenhower years; in a number of cities, if you were black, Chinese, (or otherwise Oriental), were of one race and had a spouse of another, were of one race and were in a neighborhood predominantly occupied by those of another race -e.g., a black in Boston's Southie, etc., and lots of different Southern neighborhoods . . . . etc..

Being 'vagrant' (not having money or a 'visible' job) was often enough to get you then thrown into jail at a cop's whim. Even 'suspicion of vagrancy' was enough to send you to jail if a cop didn't like you. Often if was a smokescreen for for discrimination, or sometimes for the cop's exercising 'power' over you, if he took a dislike to you for any reason.

There were times in my lifetime that there literally were NO real constitutional guarantees for vast segments of our population unless they had a large amount of money to enforce their rights, and even then they would mostly get passed over.

Of those who might be highly educated, sometimes even wealthy, Jews could not get hired at prestigious NYC and other major city law firms, for instance, despite the best credentials from best law schools when the best law schools finely started admitting Jewish students.

Blacks could not get into law school at all, in general, and in rare instances where they did, could not get work, except privately employed, serving blacks only.

There were really no 'good old days' regarding Constitutional protections.

These are the 'good old days' to which some may look back someday, and we're under threat now.

In the US, and most Western European countries, it's a good general rule to say, it's best to turn to a cop for protection against such a harasser, and simply ask the cop for 'guidance'. Not an 'arrest' but 'guidance' and to 'keep the peace'.

The rule on the street for the 'street photographer' as I view it is to behave impeccably even if sometimes that means furtively and surreptitiously to get that shot.

Once you have that shot, you can wink or wave at a bystander who might give a wink back in approval, (or the subject,) or even approach a subject with a good to great shot, and most will shake hands, exchange information or even, surprisingly, sometimes even embrace you!

I just got back from an afternoon/evening of shooting, where I didn't start out at all feeling inspired, but was able really to stick my wide angle lens right up almost into the eyeballs of about six to eight street subjects for outdoor 'street/environmental' portraits that are simply some of the best I've ever taken.

Not one complained, and hoots of 'Sveta, (in Russian) come over here and see!'; (my captures, illuminated on my camera) were common/same from male subjects . . . . with their colleagues.

One of the best tricks is to take ONE good photo of someone who might be well known in an area, that is so close it has to have been taken with permission, get the person's name (if you speak the language) then show it to the next potential subject you want to do a close-up street shot of.

In fact, today/tonight (Thursday) it got to the point where I didn't even say anything. I would approach someone -- in one instance a man talking on a mobile phone animatedly and lighting a cigarette, mouth the word (in Russian) 'Ya photograph.' (I am a photographer) illuminate my screen, show a really really good shot from the previous ten minutes' shooting showing someone nearby, then point to him, then to my camera and say 'moishna?' which means 'may I?' as he talked away on his mobile phone with one hand and his cigarette and lighter with another.

He nodded agreement, almost imperceptibly.

I quickly composed a photo, converted it in camera to black and white and then showed it to him.

He finished his phone conversation, we shook hands, and he went away, and said on parting congratulatory words to me about the photo.

Really, in essence, only one word was spoken to get me less than a foot from this stranger's eye on which I was focusing for some of my several shots (same for almost all shots tonight).

(In others, i did some banter with individuals, and they referred me to neighbor shopkeepers, helpers, relatives, friends, observers, etc. One rule is clear, if you get in a tangle with one, the others are not your friends . . . they are near each other every day in such a place as this bazaar, and even if they personally don't like each other . . . they won't cooperate with someone a neighboring counter person has a tangle with.' Best to treat it as a 'game' and be kind and all.

IF someone declines take it with equanimity . . . not like the declined hitchhiker, who, passed by, flips you off.

Street manners take a great deal of time to build up and it is easy to 'get into a jackpot' with just one person who has a 'trick personality'.

Who knows when a photo subject had an abortion that morning (or a miscarriage) or a fight with her husband or significant other -- or her child ran away from home (or school, (or thratens to) , and finds herself (or himself) glaring at your lens, say, while smoking, trying to relieve life's pressures.

Tempers of some individuals at times (even mine at times) may have a low boiling point.

A good trick is never go on the street with anything but feelings of equanimity . . . and it seems there is no evidence our subject photographer here violated this general good tenet.

I still have not read or seen anything about this individual photographer that suggests that he was guilty of anything other than repeating his exposure to a limited area, and thus becoming a lightning rod . . . . and guess what?

Lightning predictably struck.

I'll even bet he's flabbergasted, if he was on good behavior. I'd be willing to wager he probably had 'friends' nearby he shared his captures with, too -- I would have had some.

(They would have been of no avail, as this universal trespass order has no review and no appeal.)

He told 'The Consumerist' he 'put away his cameras.'

I don't think it's 'for good' and I hope it's not. (at least based on what I've learned so far).

Based solely on what I've read (I might change my mind if I knew more . . . . . but the record is devoid of anything horrendous that might suggest he really was engaged in anything 'creepy' at all).

Anyone is free to use the word 'creepy' when describing someone whose behavior they object to.

It's a loaded word, with connotations of sexual impropriety, yet in this context, is is apparently used wrongly, there is no word in the links of any behavior that actually is 'creepy'.

Look at one of Bob Kurt's recent posts (obese man peering over sill from outdoors into window with women wearing two-piece outfits if you want to see 'creepy' behavior . . . . )

Many posters have seized on the word, (creep) to suggest that the photographer needed to work on his manners, without having first viewed the photo that started the ban.

That photo has been been linked now, and it's a photo I might easily have taken (not that I'd care to post it, but then again I take hundreds of thousands of photos and surely some are offensive to some people just due to law of averages, even though I try to be the best street representative and best citizen on the street that I can be.

I'd have to know more to hear or learn of any behavior that's supposed to be 'creepy'.

As to the word 'furtive', let's look at it.

'Furtive' is a word that best describes one part of the street photographer's grab bag of photographic devices. Not all such photos are taken 'furtively' but some are.

Some must be taken that way.

t helps if taking photos 'furtively' to enlist the help of passersby good naturedly; if you spy a wonderful situation and others might be tempted to tell the subject.

Smile widely to the passerby who might 'give you away', wink, and put a finger to your mouth (to indicate 'be quiet' and enjoy the moment -- or the humor). If you get something good, you may want to share your capture with that person (or even the subject).

One woman I implored to take her photograph today (I had to ask because I wanted to get in REAL close) declined because her 'makeup was not right', and she wanted to be photographed wearing another, prettier dress. She was a 50+ obese seller of unrefrigerated meat on a stone counter in an open-air bazaar . . . and her vanity prevented me from getting a 'true' photo of her; she wanted to be depicted as if she were a wedding guest or going to church.

That's why pure 'street' captures are best 'candid' - nearly everyone will change their expression, their behavior, often their clothes and at least straighten their hair if they could, and so on, unless they are unaware of being photographed.

It's a perpetual challenge . . . . for the true street photographer to get true, realistic 'candid' shots.

Along with such shots, I also take 'informal street portraits or environmental photos' in which subjects are aware of me, but are asked only minimally to cooperate, and otherwise to go about their business while I record it.

Some photos just are impossible to get by asking permission; absolutely impossible. If permission were ever asked, the photo would not exist, and that includes a large part of my portfolio, in part because subjects are in crowds, too far away, I don't speak their language, and myriad reasons other than trying to 'steal' the souls of my subjects.

I want to capture interesting 'life as it is' not life as others would like to project it, or censor it to me. I want to capture uncensored 'looks' and 'behavior' or it is just theater and therefore useless to me.

Most often others see the same things I see, but don't see the significance, the minutiae or have the ability to understand and/or record that thing/moment.

I try also to record those instants artfully when when I can, which calls for equipment bigger than a camera phone.

I have hard drives full of photos of 'instances' that are interesting but not artful enough to show to anyone.

There are anti-photography advocates out there, just as there are anti-smoking, anti-alcohol and anti-fur activists. They often are not organized, acting individually, but they can be highly vocal if they're in the wrong mood. I think that's what the subject photographer ran into, and in a most unusual situation.

Sometimes if the anti-photography advocates know you'll be around, they hang around and wait for you, their script at the ready, ready to fire off a complaint or 'set up a situation' of confrontation.

Best to throw off their timing by varying your shooting, and not going the same place too often or at the same time.

A benefit of this, is geographic variety often opens the street photographer's eyes.

A detriment is (1) it kowtows to those who would control the photographer's rights, and (2) it prevents orderly and artful collection documenting 'life in the XXX area or community' over 'YYY period of time' as made from a 'street' perspective.

Let's be clear, it is not always friendly to have a stranger's lens pointed at you, and as photographer I am continually aware of that.

I once gave up photography in part because I became TOO sensitive to that.

I take photos once again, and clandestinely at times (openly at others) furtively at times (not so at others), because I view it as my contribution to the world of ART. Not just some sport to annoy people but genuine ART.

I understand the Lucie Awards were announced today; a friend of mine and mentor has a Lucie Award. He keeps telling me my work is high art. It's taken him a couple of years, but now I enthusiastically agree with him, after initial doubts.

When I go out on the street, I no longer have any mixed feelings at all about what it is I do or how I go about it. I behave like a gentleman . . . photographer . . . not like stalkerazzi . . . . and do not behave in any way that would bring disrepute on photography in general in my eyes, given the exigencies of taking photos the way I do.

I think I (as well as fellow photographers such as Bob Kurt mentioned earlier) and others, make a valuable contribution to the 'art' world. (we do NOT need that as an excuse however).

We are not Alan Funts hiding out to make laughing stocks of people . . . but to illuminate others' behavior and looks for a lasting memorial for us all, of our own fallible and very interesting selves hopefully in an artistic way.

I think it's best to let people think that the photographer here has 'hung up his cameras for good' when in fact he's just 'hung up his cameras' (for the time being) - at least I hope based on what I have learned so far.

The very nature of 'street' photography means that it will be 'offensive' to a certain number of individuals, no matter what, at all times, no matter how wonderful the behavior of the 'street photographer' is.

John (Crosley)

johncrosley · March 18, 2010