War on Photography

NYPD Continues to Illegally Harass Subway Photographers

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 19:22:36 +0000

A subway photographer who goes by the internet name “Nilet” sent us this account of a recent encounter with a New York City Police Officer in the subway:

It’s been almost a year since the NYPD issued an operations order on April 3, 2009 explaining that photography is legal, and yet the NYPD continues to harass photographers.

On March 18, 2010 I took a photo in the 96th Street subway station of a 1 train with a sign that said 2 on it. A pair of cops standing nearby shouted that photography was illegal. This was officer Corrad, shield #7338 (if I remember correctly, as I was never given an opportunity to note it down with greater accuracy) and his partner, who never provided a name or shield number. They were clearly looking for a fight.

The two demanded to see identification. Wary after numerous stories of previous harassment as well as my own experience, the first thing I took out of my pocket was my camcorder. After numerous complaints of unknown headless lecturers in which photographers recorded their harassers only from the neck down, I elected to point the camcorder at the officer in order to obtain an accurate video of the encounter. The officer, however, grabbed the camcorder and my hand (as I have learned to keep a tight grip on the camcorder and held it in my hand-strap) and covered it with his own hand.

He repeatedly told me that I was not allowed to take photos, despite photography being specifically permitted by 21 NYCRR 1050.9(c), and despite the operations order telling him as much, and continued to demand identification. I asked him again to take his hands off my camcorder— as well as violating my right to take the video, he was also demanding that I produce identification, which required that he let go of the hand in which I was holding the camcorder, making it impossible to reach into my pocket.

I asked on what basis I was being detained. He told me I was not being detained; he was just asking for ID. I asked if I was free to go, given that he said I was not being detained. He demanded ID again, and specifically demanded a photo ID “that says you can take pictures down here,” and demanded that I show him a special photo permit. Given that photography is explicitly permitted, special photo permits are not required except for extensive commercial shoots.

Ultimately, I managed to extract my wallet from my right pocket with my left hand even though he never let go of my right hand and the camcorder. I handed him a school ID and a copy of 21 NYCRR 1050.9(c), neither of which he ever really looked at. Even after I gave them to him, he continued to accuse me of refusing to provide ID; the other showed me some odd paper of sorts, claiming that refusing to provide ID is a $25 fine. I’m not sure what that was, but refusing to provide ID is legal unless the police have reasonable suspicion of a crime.

The officer specifically asked me: “Do you have a document that says you’re a special photographer that can take pictures in the subway? Yes or no? YES OR NO? Do you have a permit that lets you take pictures in the subway?” This was while he was holding both the copy of 21 NYCRR and my ID. I told him to read the former; he asked for the latter. He also ordered me to put the camcorder down, saying: “You don’t have the right to take photos of me. That’s what you don’t have.” This statement is not true, and I corrected him. He repeated: “You need MY permission to take a photo of me, PUT THE CAMERA AWAY!” He also declared: “You can’t take photos without being identified!” Not only is this statement untrue, he was, and I repeat, holding my ID at the time he said it. He finally looked at it, noticed it was a student ID, a said: “You’re a college student… Why wasn’t it around your neck?” When I told him this was not required, he declared: “If requested, you have to produce it.” This is also not true, but I said: “I gave it to you!” Indeed I had. He said: “No you didn’t, you went on to take photos of me,” and lectured me for failing to produce it fast enough. Then, he declared without the slightest sense of irony: “You know the rules! You need to produce ID! Why were you making this so confrontational?” I pointed to my ID; he declared: “I’m asking you a question!” I told him I wasn’t going to answer that; he told me that in that case I had to leave the subway. I asked him on what basis; he said: “Refusing to produce ID,” and threatened to arrest me for “disorderly conduct,” the all-purpose contempt of cop charge. (I also asked him to refund the $2.25 fare; he said “talk to the MTA about that.”)

This is absolutely inexcusable:

1. The photographer is correct. NO PERMIT IS REQUIRED to take pictures in the NYC Subway. Everyone is entitled to take pictures under 21NYCRR1050.9(3)

2. NO PERMISION is required to take pictures or video of police officers.

Police officers were given an operations order that specifically reminded them that photography in the subway is legal – apparently these two officers are ILLITERATE !

Signs of the Times

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 16:00:07 +0000

HongKong station,
originally uploaded by jello2594.

Speaks for itself – Photography IS a crime in Hong Kong. Outrageous!

New Jersey Transit Cop Threatens Journalist

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 14:38:11 +0000

with arrest for “obstruction” for filming a newsworthy event. According to the journalists blog:

A Sgt. Lee ordered some of the kids off the train to relieve the overcrowding. And I made the – apparently in his mind arrestable mistake – of videotaping him – a public figure at work. He ordered me to turn the camera off or he’d arrest me for “obstruction.”

Interesting. These kids are tearing up the car and he threatens to arrest me.

[...]

And to the cops: You have a tough job – one that I support. But you can’t tread on another’s rights. I have the right to videotape you in a public place doing the public’s business. So do that and stop threatening people acting within their rights.

According to NJ Transit policy “photography is legal in all publicly accessible areas”. The photographer was clearly within his rights to take the pictures or video.

Thanks to Photography is Not a Crime for the heads up on this story.

This is the policy that is still in effect today:

Employer Sued for Spying on Employee

admin — Fri, 19 Mar 2010 02:13:07 +0000

Careful where you aim that camera if you are an employer. Starwood Hotels lost $3 MILLION in a civil suit filed by one of its employees because they spied on his workstation using a hidden camera.
According to the story on Gadling

Apparently, the hotel set up a hidden camera to watch 46-year-old Moises Mendez, a baker at the Westin Hotel at Times Square, following repeated complaints from Mendez that he was being discriminated by the hotel.[...]

After a month-long process, a jury found Starwood guilty of unlawful retaliation and ordered the hotel to pay Mendez $1 million for his emotional distress, pain and suffering, and $2 million in punitive damages.

In an era when employers, governments, organizations both public and private, are tightening surveillance and restrictions over our daily lives I find this verdict to be a refreshing win for freedom! THIS is an example of the type of photography that we do not condone.

Why be Accountable if You can Hide From Photographers Instead

admin — Thu, 18 Mar 2010 18:12:25 +0000

A photographer was told that he could not take pictures of private planes North Atlanta’s Peachtree Dekalb Airport (PDK). Note that he was not standing on a restricted area, nor is photography prohibited at airports with the exception of taking pictures of the security access points like metal detectors.

According to the photographer:

The manager who spoke to me wasn’t so direct, but when I repeatedly asked, “what is the threat?” he told me that the type of people who fly on private / charter jets are shy since the automakers were called before congress and suffered heavily in the media because though their companies were dying and on publicly funded life-support, they didn’t give up luxuries such as pictured here, on the apron.

I guess they figure that we can’t complain about something that we can’t see.

Burlington Vermont Forces Photographer to Quit Hobby

admin — Sun, 14 Mar 2010 03:21:12 +0000

This is a follow up of the story we reported yesterday. Intimidation, harassment and a ban on doing business have given the photographer who was the subject of the story no choice but to quit the hobby. As he states in this post on Flickr:

Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.

Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don’t have the energy to fight these people.

I’ve put my cameras away.

The photo that these businesses found so offensive can be seen here:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/

The business that allegedly requested the trespass order is Uncommon Grounds

This is precisely what we have been saying. The authorities cannot pass laws against photography yet through threats, intimidation and harassment they are succeeding in forcing photographers to quit their hobby. It is outrageous and we stand by our assertion that it is inexcusable!

It is also about time that the Vermont ACLU got involved and put the spotlight on these blanket trespass orders that are being abused for no other purpose than revenge, when certain store owners do not otherwise have the law on their side. Take this example of an employee who took his employer to court for cheating him on his paycheck. He WON his case including back pay but was rewarded with a blanket trespass order similar to the one issued to the photographer.

According to the article:

Supporters of the universal trespass policy say it’s been an effective tool for reducing petty crimes and minor disturbances, primarily shoplifting and disorderly conduct

However in this case NO CRIME HAS BEEN COMMITTED, petty or otherwise!

Furthermore:

there is no appeals process. The only recourse is if the business that originally requested the trespass order rescinds it,

So we urge photographers worldwide to contact Uncommon Grounds and demand that they rescind this order.

Uncommon Grounds
42 Church Street
Burlington, VT 05401-4643
802.865.6227
Fax: (802) 863-4643
Email:info@ugvermont.com

Burlington Vermont Declares War on Photographers

admin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:42:01 +0000

A photographer, whose work has been published in several newspapers, was harassed by police and issued an order banning him from entering any business establishment because he exercised his CONSTITUTIONAL right to take pictures on PUBLIC STREETS. According to the article in SEVEN DAYS:

For the last year or so, he’s spent many of his lunch hours shooting artsy, black-and-white photos of people on Church Street: homeless people, the elderly, families with children, anyone who catches his eye. He insists that all his photos are taken on public property, not inside stores or through the windows or blinds of private homes.

Dan Scott’s work has been featured in both the Burlington Free Press and Seven days. However he is primarily an amateur who posts most of his pictures on Flickr. Security guards and business owners who have no concept of first amendment rights or what freedom means tried to get Mr Scott to stop taking pictures. They reported his NON CRIME to the police who harassed and questioned him repeatedly. The police finally showed absolutely no respect for the constitution by issuing an order banning Mr Scott from doing business in Downtown Burlington. All this from a state which supposedly prides itself on a motto that includes the word “Freedom. How Ironic!

The article continues:

David Mindich, who chairs the journalism department at St. Michael’s College in Colchester, calls that approach “blatantly outrageous … Some guy who is exercising his First Amendment right to take pictures in a public place is being punished for it. That’s about as fundamental a right as I can imagine. I have no idea what could be the possible justification.”

Mr Scott is escalating the matter to the ACLU – we can only hope that they take up this cause and make the town of Burlington and its police force respect Constitutional Rights!

Photographers should contact the Mayor of Burlington and express support for the freedom to take pictures.

Here are the pictures Mr Scott takes: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
It is unbelievable that the town of Burlington wants to stifle what is clearly artistic expression!

Photographer Harassed at BWI

admin — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 05:30:07 +0000

BWI Airport Loop,
originally uploaded by seikoesquepayne.

A photographer was harassed, detained and questioned for over 2 hours and then illegally forced to delete his pictures by police at the Baltimore Washington International Airport. According to the photographer:

A State officer arrived on the scene 15 minutes into the ordeal. Whereas the MTA cops were willing to live and let live, the State Trooper was on a Patriotic Mission to defend his country. He sat me down for over 2 hours questioning me and running warrants, convinced that I must have been up to no good, being less than a mile from a busy Internation Airport. His reluctant release of me was matched with a firm threat that if he saw me in the area again he’d have me thrown in jail. On what charge I’d love to know.

These incidents should be reported to the local chapters of the ACLU and lawsuits filed against the police departments involved. There is no excuse for the treatment this photographer received.

Trains Magazine Rails At Amtrak Photo Policy

admin — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 22:41:46 +0000

In a recent editorial Trains Magazine is fuming over Amtrak’s photography policy which targets railfans. According to TRAINS:

However, let me say I see one very serious issue, Amtrak’s sad blunder in continuing its sad policy that railfans can’t take pictures on Amtrak open-air platforms. This accomplishes nothing and actually takes one small step in removing some of our freedoms. A platform is public unless there is a compelling reason (perhaps a chemical spill) to evacuate the area, or unless some railfan does something stupid like walking in the middle of the tracks. In those cases, there should be removals. Lets also make no mistake about it. This rule is aimed ONLY at railfans. Terrorists would never make an open spectacle of themselves, and the rule says it’s perfectly fine for passengers or their families to take photos on the platform of Aunt Jane or cousin Joe boarding the train.

[...]

At the conference, Amtrak chose its wonderful police chief John O’Connor to break the bad news to us. O’Connor is a pure civil libertarian and perhaps the best cop I’ve ever known. He cast the rule as something that Amtrak never claimed till now — a way to let Amtrak know we are there so local citizens and police can be informed we’re legitimate unthreatening photographers if someone asks. Sorry, Chief, good try and I know you mean it, and it’s true that we’ll almost never be approached if we do take platform photos. But we’re still technically banned from places that have been open to us for more than a century. Something needs to be done about that.

The photo policy only allows ticketed passengers to be on the platforms even those that have no specific barriers or restricted entrances. And even ticketed passengers are allowed to take pictures only for a few minutes while waiting to board a train or within two or three minutes of having gotten off an arriving train. The policy is very restrictive and contrary to the virtual open door that Amtrak had given railfans for many years.

Railroad photographers have been important in documenting railroad history for over 100 years. Amtrak’s policy ensures that days, months and even years of potentially historical events and equipment moves will be lost. We too urge them to reconsider this anti-railfan policy. After all railfans are their biggest supporters and should be encouraged rather than shunned.

Photographer Calls it Quits – Police Harassment Wins

admin — Tue, 09 Mar 2010 23:29:25 +0000

A Canadian photographer has decided to hang up his camera with respect to certain types of photojournalism. As we have been saying here, repeated harassment by police is taking its toll, it is having a chilling effect on public photography. We will never know how many photographers are afraid to take their cameras out in public because not all blog about it. Here is one photographer who tells his story and this paragraph is particularly moving:

The other stressor that has led to my decision to leave photojournalism is the attention I’ve received from police. Being surveilled many times over the past two years while exercising my guaranteed freedoms under the Constitution of Canada, in covering news stories for The Tyee and Megaphone Magazine, freelancing for such local NGOs as Pivot Legal Society and the BC Civil Liberties Association and supplying photos to the City of Vancouver’s Corporate Communications department, has left me with a chill. Should photojournalists who cover the underbelly of an extravagance like the Olympic Games expect to be made to feel as though we are under suspicion for … ? Regardless, I am unnerved by this enough to leave photojournalism/social justice photography behind altogether. It has a way of wearing on a person’s soul. Nice job policing the Games, VPD, but please leave the photographers alone … even those you may consider illegitimate.

While there are other reasons behind this photographer’s decision (click the link above to read the entire story), we feel that this paragraph stands out because this is precisely what the authorities want to accomplish one photographer at a time. We have seen railroad enthusiasts and bus fans hang up their cameras in the face of repeated harassment. Since they cannot pass laws against photography they are instead making life miserable for photographers with the intention of making them give up their hobby or profession. Score one for Canada’s finest.