Apparently the sidewalks around the UN headquarters in New York are a “frozen zone.” This is yet another fine example of police officers overreaching to justify trying to prohibit a legal activity. And their tool of choice? The “Patriot Act” of course. Hey, didn’t that became irrelevant along with its enabler anyway?
Perhaps this cop should go back to the academy to brush up on some laws. Federally owned sidewalk? Credentials? Signs? No asking questions? Yikes.
For an 11-point analysis of Shawn’s incident with LA Sheriffs in the Hollywood and Western Metro station back in November, check out the Magic Flute Fine Art Nudes blog. (Yes, of all places.)
Thanks to photographer/blogger Stephen Haynes for providing such a thorough and thoughtful look at the situation – where the gist is basically photography is legal and this deputy was out of line. (Warning: Photos on the site are NSFW.)
In his weekly crime column for Reason magazine, reporter Radley Balko writes about the notoriously corrupt Chicago Police Department’s efforts to block people from using the only methods available to them to hold police accountable – namely, recording encounters and filing lawsuits for misconduct. Running down all the scary cases of bad CPD behavior, Balko argues there should be a clear policy that prohibits police from interfering with audio or video recordings, which is a great idea that we wholeheartedly agree with but seems like a pipe dream at this point.
In photographer Matt Logue’s book, Empty L.A., he captures the country’s second biggest city totally and utterly desserted. The book got an honorable mention in the Photography.Book.Now competition.
To see more from the book, go to the Lenscratch blog.
Photo by Andrew Cichowski
When will photographers learn to take their stinking artsy photography someplace other than public?!
In San Jose this past weekend, photographer Andrew Cichowski writes on his blog how he was stopped for taking photos of a fence around a train station. The police wanted to know why he was “suspiciously photographing industrial stuff for.” Despite admitting that nothing about what Cichowski was doing was illegal, the two police officers ran his ID, got his social security number and took photos of him. Eventually – and after two more squad cars arrived -they determined Cichowski was not a terrorist threat, but they still copied his CF card and two flash drives onto a laptop.
Cichowski calls this a waste of time and taxpayer dollars, but we call it a scary infringement on his rights. Those cops were way out of line, and they broke so many laws with that detainment it’s mind-boggling. But, hey, always gotta be vigilant about terrorists shooting in daylight.
Also this weekend in California, blogger Mojoey writes about being told to stop taking photos of an Arco gas station in La Mirada. Which is just puzzling because what’s the reasoning behind prohibiting photos of a dumpy little gas station in So Cal? Are they trying to claim terrorism or trademark infringement or private property, or what? For good measure, Mojeoey included the Google Maps photo with his post. Yep, the photos are already out there, folks. Protesting is futile.
Articles from Redesign the World (via Photography Is Not a Crime) and Deep Thoughts
The Gherkin Photo by FromTheNorth
It seems the photographers’ rights situation in London (or lack thereof) has reached a boiling point. After years of egregious harassment and the ensuing complaints, the Metropolitan Police finally released guidelines in early December that said in effect their officers should lay off photographers shooting in public. The next week, renowned architectural photographer Grant Smith was stopped and searched for taking photos of Sir Christopher Wren’s Christ Church in City of London, the financial district.
So, Guardian reporter Paul Lewis decided to do some investigating of his own. Armed with a hidden camera, he went to photograph the Gherkin, a skyscraper and major landmark also in the financial district, and within two minutes, he was approached by a security guard. At one point they actually used the words “hostile reconnaissance.”
Five security guards and police officers later, and two photographers in the vicinity also stopped during the incident (one from the Guardian who was working with Lewis), and nothing was resolved. City of London police defended their actions in a statement that basically said under section 44 of the Terrorism Act they have every right to do this.
Watch the video here.
Article via the Guardian
West Virgina is a hotbed of photographers rights infringements lately, huh? A man whose photos of a police cruiser using two handicapped spaces resulted in a confrontation with a state trooper is suing over it.
The Charleston Gazette reports that Michael Kidd filed a lawsuit this week against the West Virginia State Police because he “suffered embarrassment, humiliation, annoyance and inconvenience while his constitutional right to be free from unreasonable search and seizure was violated.”
Ahhh, if only we could all sue for suffering annoyance.
In September, Kidd noticed the flagrant cruiser and was taking photos of it when State Trooper Jason Garnes approached. The trooper detained Kidd for 15 minutes, forcing him to stand with his hands against a wall, while he checked his ID and tried to find something on him, the lawsuit says. Trooper Garnes couldn’t find anything to detain him further, but he did warn Kidd, “I’ll be seeing you again sometime.”
As a frequent witness to the LAPD doing the same exact thing in illegal spaces, it’s not surprising. Some police officers like enforcing the law but not following it. But when will they learn an appropriate response to someone discovering their transgressions? Intimidation and harassment just backfires - like this.
Article via The Charleston Gazette
Photo by Chris Dorst/Charleston Gazette
It appears the Christmas spirit in Charleston, West Virginia, has been replaced by rabid paranoia. Scott Rensberger, a DC-based videographer, was arrested this week for battery on a police officer and resisting arrest after taking photos of the choir and Santa display at the Charleston Town Center shopping mall.
The Charleston Gazette reports that Rensberger says after he took some photos Tuesday evening, he was followed into a store by two men who told him he had taken photos of one of their children with Santa. Rensberger apologized and erased all of those photos, even showing the men his camera so they could see. The men apparently weren’t satisfied though, because they contacted mall security and the police.
After Charleston police Cpl. R.C. Basford opened with ”Why are you taking pictures of kids?” things went downhill.
Rensberger said he reached in his pocket and pulled out his camera and raised it to take a picture of the police officer. Basford grabbed the camera to prevent him from taking a picture, which is when Rensberger said he took his free hand and brought it up to the small camera because he was afraid it was going to drop on the ground. According to Rensberger, Basford said, “Don’t you touch me.” Rensberger said he told the officer he wasn’t touching him.
So, of course, Basford then did the only natural thing – he forced Rensberger to the ground and arrested him. In a shopping mall in front of all holiday shoppers and children and festivities. Right? Because it’s not as if Basford could have reacted within the context of the situation. This was a 47-year-old man who apologized and complied with an earlier request to delete the offending photos. Who, if the officer had taken the time to investigate further, he would have found out is an award winning-photographer who takes photos of buildings for the IRS and was clearly a hobbyist. Is this type of person really a threat? Whatever Rensberger’s actions were regarding the camera “scuffle,” is arrest the necessary and only outcome? Was the officer’s safety really threatened, or was he more angry that someone didn’t treat him with the proper deference?
Another weird thing about this story is that Cpl. Bansford was off-duty, moonlighting for the mall’s security staff, yet he was wearing his Charleston police department uniform. So, if he’s not officially a city police officer, how can he charge Rensberger for battery on a police officer? It just doesn’t add up.
There seems to be this school of thought out there that, whenever someone is doing something perfectly legal and is approached aggressively by the police that they need to just shut up and accept it, be polite and endure it because police officers have hard jobs. I don’t agree. I don’t think you should be harassed and suspected for doing simple, legal activities.
The Charleston police department is looking into the matter and Rensberger is considering a lawsuit. Read the whole story here. It will make you mad.
And if you think this type of thing is ridiculous and has to stop, contact the Charleston Town Center: info@charlestontowncenter.com and Charleston Police Chief Brent Webster: brent.webster@charlestonwvpolice.org.
Article via The Charleston Gazette
Do the usual laws not apply to Customs and Border Protection officers? There’s one in Tampa who thinks so. When Jay Nolan, a Tampa Tribune photojournalist, arrived at the scene of a three-car crash today and took photos, he was detained for 15 minutes and his phone was confiscated. David Tipton, the Customs and Border officer involved in the crash, wanted Nolan to assure him the photos wouldn’t appear in the newspaper. When Nolan was unable to do that, he wasn’t pleased. As Nolan explains in the Tampa Tribune:
“He told me, ‘You don’t understand. We’re not local law enforcement here. We’re the federal government. We’ll take your gear right now,’” Nolan said. “He gave me two choices: either give my assurance or be placed under arrest.”
Nolan was detained for 15 minutes, and he smartly replaced his flash drive with a blank one and retained his photos. According to the article, Gary McClelland, the agency’s port director, later apologized to Nolan and explained the situation away by saying customs and border patrol “don’t permit photographs because of the nature of their jobs, but the agency doesn’t want to hinder the media.”
OK, I get there is a security issue with these agents working the border. But couldn’t you say the same thing then applies to all people who work with gangs and violent offenders (police officers, prison guards, judges, social workers…)? It seems like a very strange policy to “not permit” someone to take photos of you (when you’re in an accident in public, no less), because really, how do you enforce something like that without illegally throwing your weight around? Oh yeah, like Tipton did.
Article from the Tampa Tribune
Photo of Buckingham Palace by madancer
The queen of England is saying off with their heads…that is, to the paparazzi who violate her family’s privacy. The Telegraph reports that Buckingham Palace is taking legal action to bar paparazzi from photographing the Royal family on their private estates. The Royal family grants public photo opportunities but want anything more to be deemed criminal harassment. Some say the Royals are just trying to prevent unflattering pictures from emerging – noting two particular photos where the queen was caught wringing a pheasant’s neck and an earl was hitting his hunting dogs. Paparazzi apparently station themselves on public roads and get intimate shots like these with their telephoto lenses.
I am firmly not in the aggressive paparazzi camp, so I have a hard time siding with people who intimidate and intrude on their subjects to the point of being sleazy and dangerous. Though, on the other hand, it comes down to public people (in this case, very public) and their reasonable expectations of privacy. Do they have any? Not to mention that it also smacks of some hypocrisy, as the article points out, when members of the Royal family are happy to sell access to their private events for some serious cash to these same “intrusive” media outlets.
|
