In what appears to be becoming a daily occurrence yet another photographer was harassed in Britain. This time he was accused of being a pedophile for taking pictures of HIS OWN SON!

“A few minutes later a policeman walked in and approached me, so they must have been tracking me on the CCTV.
“He said he’d received a complaint that a man matching my description was taking pictures of children and wanted my name and address.
“I told him it was ridiculous because it was my own son. He then started asking me what I was doing in Sunderland, asked for my name and address and told me he had the right to delete my pictures.
“I got annoyed and raised my voice a bit, then he threatened me with arrest for breach of the peace.”

The rude and insensitive security guard that initiated the encounter and contacted police told the photographer that there is a big problem with pedophiles at the Bridges Shopping Center. If the problem is so big then perhaps it is time that families with children avoid going to that place.

The photographer should sue the guard, the officers and the shopping mall for defamation of character and slander!

A photographer taking pictures of smokestacks in Champaign, Illinois was harassed by three police officers because he had the nerve to pursue his hobby of public photography “In this day and age” As the photographer tells the story in his blog:

Eventually two other cops showed up, one of whom repeated the line about “this day and age” and whether I understood why they stopped me, while the other amused me by asking if I was part of any ecological student groups on campus.

What we do not understand is that comment by the officers. The law has not changed “in this day and age” – public photography is PERFECTLY LEGAL and cops have no excuse for not knowing that (ignorance of the law is no excuse officers!!). Unfortunately photographers simply complain in their blogs or on the internet instead of filing formal complaints with the local chapters of the ACLU. Legal and political pressure must be mounted against these police tactics until all harassment of photographers ends.

And the pathetic, incompetent, judges appear to be complicit in what is obviously a violation of the Photographer’s right to take picture of police. As this story illustrates, last November a photojournalist was arrested after taking pictures of Philadelphia police making arrests. According to the story:

According to the police report, Gress faulted Sasnou because he “remained on location and began to take pictures” after being ordered to leave. On Nov. 23, 2009, a community court judge found him guilty, and ordered that he pay a $148 fine and perform 24 hours of community service.

It is an absolute outrage that this incompetent person who fancies himself a “judge” completely disregarded the Constitution of the United States of America, which clearly permits freedom of the press and news-gathering activities. The article continues:

Civil rights lawyers say that Sasnou’s experience isn’t uncommon. Although there doesn’t seem to be any hard data available, anecdotal evidence suggests that citizens who document police activity with cameras are frequently arrested.

“Philadelphia police often react badly to people photographing or videotaping them,” says Mary Catherine Roper, staff attorney for the ACLU of Pennsylvania. “We’ve had a number of complaints of people arrested, held, yelled at and released and so on for taking pictures or videotaping police officers. It’s not unique to Philadelphia at all, but it is a very frequent problem. And it’s a blatant violation of people’s rights.”

Click here for the picture
Click here

Seems that some public performers at the Central Park Zoo in New York do not like their public. According to this story, which the photographer clarifies in the comments section, the performers began yelling at the photographer simply for being in possession of an SLR type camera. Of course the photographer then took a picture of these hypocrites who have no respect for the rights of photographers under the law. Seems they want the right to perform their “art” in public but want to prohibit others from exercising their rights to take pictures in public.

According to the photographer:

We were not shooting photos of those three people, instead passing by and watching the crowd of others taking pics with point and shoot cameras. The performers spotted our cameras and began screaming at us. We basically just told them we were in public and to grow up. Next, the two performers along with a friend began cursing us and flipping the bird, in front of families with young children. I only started taking pics then when the scene got interesting, so I did miss the three of them advertising their IQ numbers with their middle fingers. What is is about big cameras that enrage some people?

Unbelievable – read this story and accompanying video about a photographer who was detained for EIGHT HOURS for taking pictures of Christmas Celebrations.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/feb/21/photographer-films-anti-terror-arrest

Watch the police repeatedly harass the photographer and this completely unconscionable statement that photography is antisocial:

Patefield and his friend maintained that they did not want to disclose their details. They were stopped a third and final time when returning to their car. This time the officer was accompanied by an acting sergeant. “Under law, fine, we can ask for your details – we’ve got no powers,” he said. “However, due to the fact that we believe you were involved in antisocial behaviour, ie taking photographs … then we do have a power under [the Police Reform Act] to ask for your name and address, and for you to provide it. If you don’t, then you may be arrested.”

TOURISTS BEWARE – You will be arrested if you visit the United Kingdom and take pictures.

The New York Police Department, which arrested a photographer who was LEGALLY taking pictures of the New York Subway as specifically permitted by law (NYCRR 1050.9(c)), settled the false arrest case for $30,000

According to the story on Fox 5:

The cops whacked Robert with not one, but three summonses: One for “taking photos” even though photography is actually allowed. The second for “disobeying lawful order/impeding traffic.” And a third for “unreasonable noise.”

We asked Robert if he was being a jerk to these cops.

“No I wasn’t being a jerk, but I was standing firm,” Robert says. “I didn’t curse at them or anything. I just said ‘Well these are what the rules say.’ If anything he was being unreasonable to me. He put his hands on me and he shoves me through the door.”

Eventually, all three summonses were dismissed, and the NYPD admitted that the summons for taking pictures was issued in error.

But Robert didn’t drop it there, he hired lawyer Gerald Cohen and he sued the city. In the end, the city settled and the boneheaded move by the “picture police” cost taxpayers $30,000.

It is a well-deserved victory for the photographer. Shortly after this lawsuit was filed the NYPD issued an operations order to its rank and file members telling them that photography is legal throughout the City of New York. Yet incidents and encounters continue to occur as we have seen. Some cops continue to have a personal vendetta against photography and photographers. The city can ill-afford lawsuits like this given the current state of the economy. Unfortunately only lawsuits like this will eventually force the government officials to back down and give photography the freedom it deserves.

The government of the Unitied States appears to be continuing its war against photographers. Watch the following video:

Watch and listen to the guard say:

“It’s not totally free but it’s free enough. We’ve lost a lot of our freedoms due to terrorism”

Sorry but those freedoms that we supposedly have lost DO NOT include having lost the right to take pictures of federal buildings from public sidewalks. There is NO LAW against that.

Watch the second video:

It is obvious from these videos that simply walking down the street and taking pictures will attract unwelcome attention from authorities. These encounters were rather mild as encounters go, however they do have a chilling effect since many people shy away from confrontations with authority and many photographers have chosen to leave their cameras at home and give up their hobby rather than deal with daily hassles.

However, the most disturbing news comes from the National Archives which has BANNED PHOTOGRAPHY:

Their stated reason is:

to ensure the necessary protection for the documents from
the cumulative effects of photographic flash and to enhance the overall
visitor experience.

However professional photographers – who probably are charged exorbitant fees:

will continue to be permitted to take photographs and video footage of the
exhibits and documents on display in the NAE with special permission
and with available light, e.g. without the use of any flash or steady
light source, just as they have been allowed to do in the past pursuant
to 36 CFR 1280.52. This final rule applies only to the general public,
who are the source of most photographic flash from either accidental or
intentional action.

Banning photography does not enhance the visitor experience. I refuse to visit museums that I cannot photograph because I know that I will be frustrated and angry by the time I return home because I will not be able to recall a particular detail of something that I saw. Postcards and guidebooks are expensive and it outrageous that the United States government is doing what other private museums do by forcing people to purchase these products in order to be able to remember their visit. Besides memories fade over time. Also postcards and guidebooks may not necessarily contain the image of the item I liked or a particular detail that I would otherwise take a closeup photograph of. These federal documents belong to ALL the people of this country and taking home memories should not be limited to professional photographers and so-called professional media.

for taking a picture of the outside of the store from a public sidewalk. Ignoring the law which permits photography from public property an employee of the Banana Republic store at 67th Street in New York City emerged from her store to harass a photographer. According to the photographer the conversation went as follows:

BA – “Sir, you cant take photographs. (Louder) YOU CANT TAKE PHOTOGRAPHS>”

Me – ” Or I can.”

Ba – ” It is against our store policy to take photographs in the store.”

Me – “I’m not in the store. I’m on the sidewalk.”

Be – ” Well, it’s our policy that you can’t take photographs in our store.”

Me – “Again, I’m not in your store. I’m on the side walk. Tell you what. I’ll stop taking photographs because it’s actually not that interesting. But you should go in your store and google photographers rights. Have a good day!”

Story posted here

with arrest for “assault” if he doe not delete pictures that were taken LEGALLY from a public sidewalk. According to the photographer who posted his story here:

the police try to lecture me about taking pictures of atms and banks, saying there is a “policy”. He also tries to say that the man was muslim and it was against his religion to take photos of him. I tell the police that I did not know he was muslim, and that was after the fact that I took the photo of the atm, which is on the public street. the most important thing was I was assaulted by one of the men. the police didn’t care, they persisted in this line of reasoning saying that there is a policy against shooting atms and banks, and that the atm guys didn’t know who I was or what I was doing.

office [sic] Pryce of the 7th pct then orders me to take my camera out and delete the photos of the atm tech. I tried to explain again, but office pryce tells me that if I refuse to cooperate that he will arrest me for assault. [assault for what? for taking pictures on a public street of somebody who tells me later that he is muslim?]

Officer Pryce of the New York City Police Department is trying to enforce non-existant law. There is NO LAW against taking pictures of unattended ATM’s from public property. Similarly there are NO LAWS that prohibit the photography of people because of their religion. In fact people do not even have a civil case against the publication of their picture based on religious grounds according to the New York Court ruling in Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia. Officer Pryce is clearly aware of the operations order yet he obviously ignores it while demanding that the photographer delete pictures that were legally taken.

Furthermore the officer threatened to arrest the photographer for assault if he did not delete the pictures. This is absolutely inexcusable and Officer Pryce and the NYPD should be investigated by the NYCLU for violating consent agreements and continuing their war against photography.

In spite of the fact that federal law (17 USC 120(a)) specifically permits photography of any architecture from public streets and sidewalks, it appears that eBay has instructed its security guards to try to stop photographers from exercising those rights.

According to the photographer who took this picture:

The driver of the SUV with the orange lights on top had just stopped me and told me I couldn’t photograph the building. I pointed out that I was standing on a public sidewalk and there wasn’t a thing he could do about it.

Kudos to the photographer for standing up for his rights.