Is Photography Becoming Illegal? - GoFuckYourself.com

azguy · 05-25-2005, 11:24 AM

Is Photography Becoming Illegal?
By Susan Llewelyn Leach, Christian Science Monitor
Posted on May 24, 2005, Printed on May 25, 2005
http://www.alternet.org/story/22084/

If you pull out a camera on a New Jersey train, you will have company - law enforcement company. If you size up a shot on the New York subway, you'll probably be questioned by security and told to keep the lens cap tightly on. Even if you plan to snap some innocuous bank building from a public sidewalk, you might find guards telling you it's not allowed.

"Is photography becoming illegal in the United States?" asks Jim McGee, in a column for the online photo magazine Vivid Light Photography.

Anecdotal evidence suggests that heightened sensitivities over security in the wake of 9/11 have put a crimp in photographers' freedom to shoot in public, even if the laws remain largely unchanged. News that Al Qaeda operatives canvassed targets with cameras has made taking shots of federal buildings, bridges, power plants, and the like seem less innocent.

Last year, after the Madrid train bombing, New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposed a ban on photography on its subways and buses (New Jersey already had a ban in place). Public protest was such that now, more than a year later, the proposal has stalled.

But "just because it's not law yet, doesn't mean there aren't people trying to enforce it," says Alicia Wagner Calzada, vice president of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA).

Part of the problem, she suggests, is police officers and security guards who are uneducated about the law.

The USA Patriot Act, with its broad definition of "suspicious activity," has cracked the door wider to individual interpretation.

Ms. Calzada offers the example of a small-town photojournalist in Victoria, Texas, who was taking shots of potholes for a newspaper story last year when a police officer drove by several times. Finally, the officer stopped and questioned him and, even after running an ID check, bluntly declared the photographer's actions suspicious and intimated he'd be keeping an eye on him, the photographer recalls.

In most cases where photojournalists have been accused of shooting illegally and detained, they have been released without charge, Calzada says.

If security is sometimes overzealous, the rules themselves can also be vague and ad hoc. Overlapping law enforcement agencies, new restrictions imposed by local municipalities, and beefed-up security have all added to the murkiness.

"TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and [the Department of] Homeland Security have put a whole 'nother layer of protection and concern and a level of bureaucracy to what journalists used to see as free rein," says Kenneth Irby, visual journalism group leader at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla.

In general, photojournalists have no more rights than ordinary citizens to take pictures.

If you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything the naked eye can see, explains Ken Kobre, professor of photojournalism at San Francisco State University and author of one of the seminal textbooks on the subject.

What you can't do, he says, is use a telephoto lens and take shots through office windows or into private residences, where people would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." That would be like eavesdropping or surreptitiously taping someone, he says.

But if a story is newsworthy and in the public interest, then taking photos even on private property is usually permissible, he adds.

Photographing the outside of buildings - schools, hospitals, and even government buildings - is also legal. It's when you go inside that you need permission.

In most cases, Professor Kobre says, people are evicted for trespassing rather than invasion of privacy.

What surprises him, though, is the logic behind preventing people from taking pictures of building facades. "I haven't heard of an example where it makes any sense to stop anyone," he says, "because, almost in every case, you can walk a block away and use a longer lens."

Whether the logic is compelling or not, law enforcement has knocked heads with photojournalists for decades. The apparent tightening of access during recent years is less a function of more run-ins with the authorities, says Mr. Irby, who has seen no evidence of that, than the media's increased coverage of those encounters.

"In the past, when photographers were detained and even arrested, the news organizations would likely contact the commanding officer at the precinct ... and everything would be settled," he says. Now, in a time of heavy national security and greater public interest in press freedom, "those stories become stories."

Despite that higher profile, most incidents, Irby adds, are connected less to the war on terrorism than to the standard traffic accident or homicide scene.

Other factors play a role as well. During the past 10 to 15 years, police and even bystanders have become less tolerant of photojournalists, he says. "The public really reached its apex of being fed up" with paparazzi after Princess Diana's death, he says. And the distinction between paparazzi and mainstream journalists is disappearing as celebrity journalism seeps into all areas of the media.

The bigger issue Kobre sees is privacy and the ease with which individuals can take clandestine photos with cellphone cameras.

"Before, you had to go to some trouble to hide the camera," he says. "Now you look like you're making a telephone call and boom! You've got [an embarrassing] photograph of someone." If that ends up on a blog, can the subject sue? Kobre asks.

In terms of the general public, he says, this "is going to explode as a problem."

? 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved.
View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22084/

SykkBoy · 05-25-2005, 11:27 AM

time to practice goosestepping...

azguy · 05-25-2005, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SykkBoy2

time to practice goosestepping...

sumphatpimp · 05-25-2005, 11:35 AM

if I only had a brain!!!!!!!!!!!!!

pornguy · 05-25-2005, 11:38 AM

Sounds like one more thing that BUSH allowing to happen to gain control of the people

Hinc · 05-25-2005, 11:40 AM

The world went crazy sometime last week, but noone noticed, cause we came first.

The Other Steve · 05-25-2005, 12:42 PM

It's interesting that all the authorities want to talk about is the security issues and the fact that terrorists are lurking behind every tree. What they don't talk about is the way,

What interest would a terrorist have in a pothole, why is that suddenly people interested in architecture can't photograph interesting old buildings and why can't railroad enthusiast take photos of trains (from public property) without being harrassed?

Spin is an interesting thing and why answer the hard questions when you can so easily make people believe that the harmless and sometimes eccentric are threats to the well being of every God-fearing red-blooded patriotic American.

But then all this stems from an act that uses spin in it's title so why should anyone be surprised.

05-25-2005, 11:24 AM	#1
azguy Confirmed User Join Date: Nov 2004 Location: Scottsdale, AZ Posts: 5,167	Is Photography Becoming Illegal? Is Photography Becoming Illegal? By Susan Llewelyn Leach, Christian Science Monitor Posted on May 24, 2005, Printed on May 25, 2005 http://www.alternet.org/story/22084/ If you pull out a camera on a New Jersey train, you will have company - law enforcement company. If you size up a shot on the New York subway, you'll probably be questioned by security and told to keep the lens cap tightly on. Even if you plan to snap some innocuous bank building from a public sidewalk, you might find guards telling you it's not allowed. "Is photography becoming illegal in the United States?" asks Jim McGee, in a column for the online photo magazine Vivid Light Photography. Anecdotal evidence suggests that heightened sensitivities over security in the wake of 9/11 have put a crimp in photographers' freedom to shoot in public, even if the laws remain largely unchanged. News that Al Qaeda operatives canvassed targets with cameras has made taking shots of federal buildings, bridges, power plants, and the like seem less innocent. Last year, after the Madrid train bombing, New York City's Metropolitan Transportation Authority proposed a ban on photography on its subways and buses (New Jersey already had a ban in place). Public protest was such that now, more than a year later, the proposal has stalled. But "just because it's not law yet, doesn't mean there aren't people trying to enforce it," says Alicia Wagner Calzada, vice president of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA). Part of the problem, she suggests, is police officers and security guards who are uneducated about the law. The USA Patriot Act, with its broad definition of "suspicious activity," has cracked the door wider to individual interpretation. Ms. Calzada offers the example of a small-town photojournalist in Victoria, Texas, who was taking shots of potholes for a newspaper story last year when a police officer drove by several times. Finally, the officer stopped and questioned him and, even after running an ID check, bluntly declared the photographer's actions suspicious and intimated he'd be keeping an eye on him, the photographer recalls. In most cases where photojournalists have been accused of shooting illegally and detained, they have been released without charge, Calzada says. If security is sometimes overzealous, the rules themselves can also be vague and ad hoc. Overlapping law enforcement agencies, new restrictions imposed by local municipalities, and beefed-up security have all added to the murkiness. "TSA [Transportation Security Administration] and [the Department of] Homeland Security have put a whole 'nother layer of protection and concern and a level of bureaucracy to what journalists used to see as free rein," says Kenneth Irby, visual journalism group leader at the Poynter Institute in St. Petersburg, Fla. In general, photojournalists have no more rights than ordinary citizens to take pictures. If you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything the naked eye can see, explains Ken Kobre, professor of photojournalism at San Francisco State University and author of one of the seminal textbooks on the subject. What you can't do, he says, is use a telephoto lens and take shots through office windows or into private residences, where people would have a "reasonable expectation of privacy." That would be like eavesdropping or surreptitiously taping someone, he says. But if a story is newsworthy and in the public interest, then taking photos even on private property is usually permissible, he adds. Photographing the outside of buildings - schools, hospitals, and even government buildings - is also legal. It's when you go inside that you need permission. In most cases, Professor Kobre says, people are evicted for trespassing rather than invasion of privacy. What surprises him, though, is the logic behind preventing people from taking pictures of building facades. "I haven't heard of an example where it makes any sense to stop anyone," he says, "because, almost in every case, you can walk a block away and use a longer lens." Whether the logic is compelling or not, law enforcement has knocked heads with photojournalists for decades. The apparent tightening of access during recent years is less a function of more run-ins with the authorities, says Mr. Irby, who has seen no evidence of that, than the media's increased coverage of those encounters. "In the past, when photographers were detained and even arrested, the news organizations would likely contact the commanding officer at the precinct ... and everything would be settled," he says. Now, in a time of heavy national security and greater public interest in press freedom, "those stories become stories." Despite that higher profile, most incidents, Irby adds, are connected less to the war on terrorism than to the standard traffic accident or homicide scene. Other factors play a role as well. During the past 10 to 15 years, police and even bystanders have become less tolerant of photojournalists, he says. "The public really reached its apex of being fed up" with paparazzi after Princess Diana's death, he says. And the distinction between paparazzi and mainstream journalists is disappearing as celebrity journalism seeps into all areas of the media. The bigger issue Kobre sees is privacy and the ease with which individuals can take clandestine photos with cellphone cameras. "Before, you had to go to some trouble to hide the camera," he says. "Now you look like you're making a telephone call and boom! You've got [an embarrassing] photograph of someone." If that ends up on a blog, can the subject sue? Kobre asks. In terms of the general public, he says, this "is going to explode as a problem." ? 2005 Independent Media Institute. All rights reserved. View this story online at: http://www.alternet.org/story/22084/

05-25-2005, 11:27 AM	#2
SykkBoy Jesus loves bacon Industry Role: Join Date: Feb 2001 Location: Sin City, Motherfucker Posts: 19,969	time to practice goosestepping... __________________ Support my new movie “The Second Coming”

05-25-2005, 11:38 AM	#5
pornguy Too lazy to set a custom title Industry Role: Join Date: Mar 2003 Location: Homeless Posts: 62,911	Sounds like one more thing that BUSH allowing to happen to gain control of the people __________________ PornGuy skype me pornguy_epic AmateurDough The Hottes Shemales online! TChicks.com \| Angeles Cid \| Mariana Cordoba \| MAILERS WELCOME!

05-25-2005, 11:40 AM	#6
Hinc Confirmed User Join Date: Oct 2004 Posts: 2,577	The world went crazy sometime last week, but noone noticed, cause we came first. __________________ webmaster @ adultlist. com AdultList.com - Directory Listings, Advertisements, Hardlinks Loasex.com - Directory and old school TGP - taking submits A few sales/opportunities: High Quality Guest Posts For Sale Network of Aged sites for sales. Get in touch on the email above for info.

05-25-2005, 12:42 PM	#7
The Other Steve Confirmed User Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Sunny Queensland - perfect one day and better the next. Posts: 2,106	It's interesting that all the authorities want to talk about is the security issues and the fact that terrorists are lurking behind every tree. What they don't talk about is the way, What interest would a terrorist have in a pothole, why is that suddenly people interested in architecture can't photograph interesting old buildings and why can't railroad enthusiast take photos of trains (from public property) without being harrassed? Spin is an interesting thing and why answer the hard questions when you can so easily make people believe that the harmless and sometimes eccentric are threats to the well being of every God-fearing red-blooded patriotic American. But then all this stems from an act that uses spin in it's title so why should anyone be surprised. __________________ Left intentionally blank ... just like my brain

05-25-2005, 11:35 AM	#4
sumphatpimp Confirmed User Join Date: Aug 2002 Posts: 5,235	if I only had a brain!!!!!!!!!!!!!