Robert Frank's Arrest in 1955 and the Current Situation

Here's an interesting read. During Robert Frank's journey across the United States to shoot photographs for one of the most influential photography books ever made, "The Americans," he was arrested, detained and extensively cross-examined by police. Robert Frank was born in Switzerland to Jewish parents and emigrated to the United States in 1946. Arkansas of 1955 was probably not a good place to be pulled over if you spoke with a German accent and if your car had a trunk full of photography equipment and 'Yankee' plates.

Here is a copy of the official arrest report by the police:
http://www.photopermit.org/?page_id=69

Here is a letter from Robert Frank to Walker Evans that described the ordeal:
http://www.photopermit.org/?page_id=70

Unfortunately, this type of thing still occurs today. A photographer who shoots in public places may have been suspected to be a communist back then. Now such photographers are often deemed as terrorists and sometimes perverts. This isn't confined to the United States either. It is happening all over the world.

Take a look at this crazy anti-photography campaign in the UK:
http://www.in-public.com/news/2008/4/odd_poster

Take a look at this video of UK police trying to prevent someone from shooting a video in a public place and the current situation for photographers and film-makers in the UK:
http://2point8.whileseated.org/2008/03/19/currenttv-on-uk-photo-restrictions/

Another film - Security guard vs. Street Photographer in the UK
http://www.flickr.com/photos/photodrift/2422740769/

Although I have never experienced such a confrontation with police, I have had a few confrontations with people who are ignorant of the laws pertaining to photography and the photographer's right to shoot in a public place.

I had a confrontation with an officer in Toronto. I was taking pictures on the street, mostly of signage and he rolled up on his motorcycle asking who I shoot for. I told him myself. He asked what I was shooting because he had received complaints, I told him signage. When I offered to show him the pictures he said "no, that's OK" and sped off.

When I got home and put the photos on the computer I noticed a police motorcycle in the parking lot of one of the restaurants I was shooting. Complaint, my ass.

Here's a blog posting by a guy who broke the "9/11 Law" in the LA Subway


Link

I've read multiple stories lately (can't find the exact URLs at the moment) of photographers being asked to stop taking shots solely based on the fact that they have a tripod with them. They'd look around and people would be taking pictures with regular point and shoots and possibly even SLRs but if handheld no questions were raised. Plop down the tripod and security/police were there right away.

There's been multiple stories and in multiple locations, the last I read was at Union Station in New York.

When it comes to tripods (and flash), its somewhat a murky area. Certainly, denying someone the ability to use a tripod in an area will prevent many photographers from taking photos, especially if they have a big SLR. Tripods and flash are banned in most historic, public buildings in Portugal for example. The reason usually stated for banning them is that the flash lights are too distracting (especially during a religious event) and that the use of a tripod may pose a safety hazard. Certainly I can see people accidentally tripping over a tripod or knocking the tripod over in Portugal since there is usually lots of people around everywhere you go. Union Station in NYC is a very busy place. I wouldn't be surpised if a tripod ban was in place for safety reasons. Of course, in a desolate place like Queen Street, setting up a tripod shouldn't be a problem.

The flash/tripod ban in historic Portuguese buildings is one of the reasons why I use rangefinders mated to fast glass. I don't need flash and I don't need a tripod. The rangefinders are also much quieter than an SLR. I can shoot as much as I want with my Leica during a mass, say, and nobody would notice the sound. If banning tripods is an issue for anyone here, I'd suggest just plunk down $50-100 or so for an old Olympus 35 SP rangefinder or something similar as a backup to an SLR.

Here's another article that I came across on Rangefinderforum.com. At least this photographer was acquitted of "interfering with police". Whatever you do, do not hand over your camera or film to the police. They have no right to destroy your photographs as they are your property!
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/headline/metro/5782987.html

There he goes with the "L" word again

How many times have you actually shot in a church in Portugal. Enough times to really count it as a reason for Leicas?

(I'm just giving you balls)

For the record, I suggested an Oly. Another solution would be to take a portable tripod to shoot from a platform or braced off the chest. Often, a bean bag would be sufficient. A monopod can also be used.

And yes, I shoot enough photographs in Portuguese cathedrals (and during mass) to justify my Leicas. It is one of my projects. I started it last year but I've been planning it for over 3 years now. My choices in camera equipment is completely influenced by the type of photography that I want to do. Dealing with low-light and also restrictions imposed on the type of equipment allowed in Portuguese churches were big factors for me. For the 90+% of the photography that I do, a rangefinder is the best camera for the job and that's what I use. I have other cameras for other ways of shooting. SLR's aren't the only cameras worth using.

The point is that nobody has the right to stop you from shooting in a public place in Canada (except in Quebec under some circumstances), the United States, or in the UK. Generally this is also true for most developed and democratic countries, however people really ought to know the relevant laws pertaining to photography in the countries where they are shooting in. In Portugal, for example, there are more restrictions than in Canada. (Yet I get hassled a lot less over there.) If a person of authority says that tripods aren't allowed and have legal reason to do so, then one may have to improvise and shoot some other way.

A few months ago, I was out with a few friends and brought along my Arax and M3. An employee at the establishment told me that there were no cameras allowed after spotting me taking a few shots with the Arax. At first she thought it was a video camera and that I was from MCTV but even after I explained to her what it was, she still said that I couldn't use it. I saw a few people with digital point and shoots at this place and pointed this out to her. Then she said, "Well.. there are no SERIOUS cameras allowed." I said, "No problem. I'll use this old M3. It's from 1953 and I'm not even sure if it works." She was ok with that. Mind you, this wasn't on public property. If I continued photographing with the Arax instead of my M3 after she told me to stop, then she could had legally charged me with trespassing.

Besides knowing the laws and your rights as a photographer, I think that showing respect, having an ability to difuse potential hostility is the key to handling the majority of these situations.

I was asked last year to stop photographing the boats at our public marina by a marina employee. After I asked him why, he told me this bizarre story of a boat owner who caught a photographer hiding up in a tree, and was concerned of having his property photographed...something about boat registration numbers being used for some illegal purpose on the internet. I left without arguing with the guy. I did mention that boat registration numbers are public as they are posted “on” the boats. I even told him that if I was doing something like that, why should I step out of my vehicle. A pair of binoculars and a note pad would do the trick a lot better then a huge camera outfit.

I was targeted because I had a tripod, Bigma, and my Canon with grip. If I had a smaller camera, the guy wouldn't have even noticed.

I asked our liaison officer at work the next day, and was told I could have been charged with trespassing on city property, as in the eyes of the law, its the Mayer who owns all city property in trust. If the employee got any more agitated, he, as a representative of the mayor, could have me charged. That was an eye opener.

I'm not going to say that the laisson officer is wrong on a public forum. I will have to review the Trespass to Property Act again but I don't recall reading anything about mayors and city property in it. There is a section on school board property though. The school board has all rights as a private owner when it comes to school and school-related sites. However, mayors having the same sort of rights on property maintained by the city doesn't ring a bell. The notion that the mayor is intrusted with ownership of all city property in trust sounds a bit crazy to me. The city for example, maintains Bellevue Park. Let's say an employee of the park tells you to stop shooting birds there and gives you some crazy or even made-up reason for it. If you keep shooting, can Mayor Roswell charge you with trespassing? I don't think so unless the reason is legitimate - for example, if the employee just sprayed dangerous herbicides in the area where you want to shoot and didn't want you walk to there. But in that example the offense itself is not shooting but walking around in that area and you should still be able to shoot from outside of the area given that you have to proper equipment to do so.

In my opinion, the ideal situation would be that if a one can see something, one can photograph it.

Well I would presume the police would know the law. I was rather surprised at his response. 99.99% of the time, you would not get hassled for being on city property, after all we all pay our taxes and have equal rights to access and be here. However, if a representative of the city wishes to make a stink about it, then yes, in the eyes of the law, that mayors representative can press charges on behalf of the city, and the police would have to follow through. Same goes for vandalism and loitering laws, etc. This is what I was given to understand.

Yes, I'd hope that the police would know the law. I think it is best for everyone to know the law.

http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php

The reason given by the munincipal employee was silly. If I were in your shoes and there was something worth photographing there, I would kindly inform the employee that I had a right to photograph (sighting the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms if I had to) and keep on shooting. Most likely though, there would be nothing worth shooting so I would probably leave and shoot something else. There are some photographers, as you know, that would argue just on principle.

Yes and a smart person would know when to argue and when not to. One should always choose their battle wisely. I decided to back off and get some professional counseling from our liaison officer incase another incident happens.

In case you are wondering, I have gone back countless times and never was once again accosted by an employee. It was a bizarre incident to say the least, and I am happy to say, and isolated one.

Yes and a smart person would know when to argue and when not to. One should always choose their battle wisely. I decided to back off and get some professional counseling from our liaison officer incase another incident happens.

In case you are wondering, I have gone back countless times and never was once again accosted by an employee. It was a bizarre incident to say the least, and I am happy to say, and isolated one.

vestidos de niña de arras
wedding gowns