Cops versus photographers

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Hiler on February 14, 2009 at 10:39am

Earl,
I can certainly understand your thoughts. However, if there is something so sensitive that it can't (or shouldn't) be photographed, then maybe it shouldn't be seen at all--don't place it (build it) with a public view.

I would think someone planning to do harm/damage to a facility would want to keep a very low profile; thus, they probably wouldn't be standing out in public taking pictures of their intended target. They probably would use video from a moving vehicle rather than stand still in the open risking confrontation with authorities.

I don't begrudge authorities (public or private) from approaching photographers, but when they try to bully or intimidate them, I think that's uncalled for. I would hope that any photographer who's legally taking photos from public places, of items within public view who is approached by authorities, would be courteous and respectful, but not to back down from their rights.

Mike :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Earl E. Gibson on February 14, 2009 at 11:02am

Mike,

I am sure that your house is within public view. I am also sure that you would not be unhappy with a cop stopping and asking questions of someone taking photos of your house... your yard... and possibly your kids. Would you then be thinking HEY they are in public view... why are you asking questions or stopping that person? All I was trying to point out is that NOTHING is as it may appear and as such when you are taking photos, you should be aware that someone else may not see things as you do and question why you are there or what you are doing.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hiler on February 14, 2009 at 11:10am

Earl,
I agree with you completely. My only problem with any challenge is when the challenger gets abusive.

I readily acknowlege there are many varied viewpoints to everything. Without such differences, forums such as this would be quite bland!

Mike :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Earl E. Gibson on February 14, 2009 at 3:33pm

Mike,

Sure.. but again... abusive could also be in the eye of the beholder. Heck.. the photographer could have been a jerk and over reacted.... and yes.. the cop could have been a moron. One never know unless one is there at the time.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Tyrone on August 3, 2009 at 6:28am

I work often in a PRESS capacity and on a few occasions find myself in this same dilemma. I've also work in a law enforcement capacity for 17 years and understand the veiws of the officer. Although I am covered by the 1st amendment as a working professional I have to also understand the point of veiw from the officer responding.

More often, than not I come away with the pictures that I need to do a good job. And make arrangements for minor setbacks. Besides, I won't get into what can be done if you really want a picture.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by cindy bauman on February 5, 2009 at 11:55am

It's tough these days to balance civil liberties and national security. In the old days, Mr. Hawk would be absolutely, positively in the right. I was a staff photojournalists for many years and if an image could be caputured from a public standpoint, it was perfectly legal. Today, it seems, many things we used to take for granted are suspect.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hiler on February 14, 2009 at 10:43am

Cindy,
I agree with you about it being tough these days with the balancing act. I think, though, that far too many are taking the easy way out and jumping on 'national security' for far too many things. Taking photographs shouldn't be one of them.

Mike :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Anderson on February 6, 2009 at 6:09pm

The photoshop TV guys just did a spot on this regarding how photographers should act when approached by police.
Good info in there. It's more than I can write and much better.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nathan Anderson on April 30, 2009 at 12:59pm

http://www.photoshopusertv.com/?p=299

This is Ed Greenberg, appearing as a guest on PS User TV, from about 09:30 onward (I think.) Very good tips and advice.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by PhotoHand on April 20, 2009 at 1:46pm

By law, there are only two restrictions limiting us from taking photos when we feel so. You can’t take photos of the following:

- Military installations or operations.

- People who have a reasonable expectation of privacy, meaning people who are some place that’s not easily visible to the general public. Examples: if you take photos through someone’s window or when a person punches in his PIN number at the cash machine.

That’s in a nutshell. For details, consult the Photographers’ Guide to Privacy that explains the invasion of privacy standards in the 50 states and D.C. - http://www.rcfp.org/photoguide/?loc=interstitialskip

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Jesse Plummer on May 29, 2009 at 1:20pm

I think the police showing up is no problem. Vetting someone taking pictures of a potential high profile target of terrorists is not an issue with me. However, once they got there and realized he was not likely to be a terrorist, then they should have went on their way. Regardless of 9/11, we still have rights.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Iren on August 3, 2009 at 12:45pm

This is a very interesting topic. I think any place that may possibly create a major catastrophe if tampered with, should be watched closely. Just a thought, how does one decide that a person is not likely a terrorist? I am being a smart alleck when I point out that they will not wear a big sign, or a tee shirt that says "here's the terrorist". Just my two cents...

• ▶ Reply

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page