My run-in with security... share your stories.

[i_am_hydrogen]

I was out taking night shots and had a run-in with a rather uninformed security guard. I was attempting to photograph the lobby of 111 S. Wacker, one of my favorite buildings. As I was framing the shot, a security guard came out and questioned what I was doing and tried to tell me that I couldn't take photos of the building. I said that I had every right to photograph the building so long as I was on public property. I hated pulling the "I am an attorney" card, but I had to. Then he said: "Fine, you can take a few shots but make it really quick." I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please. From that point on, it was a full-on back and forth between us, with me finally giving up on the situation. Hell, a few people had amassed around us to listen to what was going on. He said I could still take the shots. But I told him it wasn't even worth it anymore, that the fun had been taken out of it. Yet another instance of how ill-informed of the law security guards really are. It definitely took the wind out of my sails. I never really re-gained my inspiration. I know he walked away thinking he won, but I hope that I was able to change his thinking just enough to allow him to realize that you don't simply accost people who are innocently taking photos from a public sidewalk.

[canonnoob]

honestly I think you need to chill on the bashing.. he was just doing his job...

[Jaymz]

honestly I think you need to chill on the bashing.. he was just doing his job...


And what exactly is his job description? If there was a problem that he could not resolve he should have called the police. Just because he may be doing his job doesnt mean he was right and it doesnt mean we should just 'roll over' and accept being treated that way. Also we (photographers) should not treat others like our civil rights have just been violated either. Respect goes both ways.

The situation probably could have been handled a bit more diplomatically, but then again I don't know I wasn't there. But no one gets anywhere just standing in the street arguing back and forth.

[Jaymz]

As for my "run-in with security" story...

I dont have one. I live in a smaller country (red-neck) town. I have the police called on me all the time for suspicious activity (photography). Over the years I have developed very good friendship with 2 officers and the chief.

[canonnoob]

And what exactly is his job description? If there was a problem that he could not resolve he should have called the police. Just because he may be doing his job doesnt mean he was right and it doesnt mean we should just 'roll over' and accept being treated that way. Also we (photographers) should not treat others like our civil rights have just been violated either. Respect goes both ways.

The situation probably could have been handled a bit more diplomatically, but then again I don't know I wasn't there. But no one gets anywhere just standing in the street arguing back and forth.


no your right we shouldnt roll over.. but re read the OP... he states that he even got an attitude.. whether the security guard did first or what not doesnt matter.. the OP didnt treat the officer with respect and thus didnt really get any in return, hence the yelling back and forth.. if the OP would have said poility that there isnt anything wrong with shooting the building or even asked why they didnt want photos taken.. it would have gone a different way for sure. so yes respect goes both ways and I think that the OP is at fault for it not starting out that way.. the security guard was doing his job, and his job discription probably covered the procedure that he took.

[Jaymz]

he states that he even got an attitude..

Hence this....

Also we (photographers) should not treat others like our civil rights have just been violated either. Respect goes both ways.

[canonnoob]

Hence this....
then I guess I dont understand why you are arguing then... we shouldnt just lay down.. but you have to respect who you are talking to and explain rather than just yell scream kick and whine.

[i_am_hydrogen]

Just for the record, I never raised my voice during the entire confrontation. It was a rational, mature exchange. He was just in the wrong.

[Jaymz]

Just for the record, I never raised my voice during the entire confrontation. It was a rational, mature exchange. He was just in the wrong.

Going off what you have said here. I dont see a problem with it.

[canonnoob]

I was out taking night shots and had a run-in with a rather uninformed security guard. I was attempting to photograph the lobby of 111 S. Wacker, one of my favorite buildings. As I was framing the shot, a security guard came out and questioned what I was doing and tried to tell me that I couldn't take photos of the building. I said that I had every right to photograph the building so long as I was on public property. I hated pulling the "I am an attorney" card, but I had to. Then he said: "Fine, you can take a few shots but make it really quick." I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please. From that point on, it was a full-on back and forth between us, with me finally giving up on the situation. Hell, a few people had amassed around us to listen to what was going on. He said I could still take the shots. But I told him it wasn't even worth it anymore, that the fun had been taken out of it. Yet another instance of how ill-informed of the law security guards really are. It definitely took the wind out of my sails. I never really re-gained my inspiration. I know he walked away thinking he won, but I hope that I was able to change his thinking just enough to allow him to realize that you don't simply accost people who are innocently taking photos from a public sidewalk.

Remarks like ^^^ are what put the impression that you and him really got into it.. and i dont really blame him for getting upset for saying some of the things you said

[i_am_hydrogen]

^Can I ask you what type of photography you're into? This isn't the only time this has happened to me. Situations like this art part and parcel of shooting urban subject matter. But it really doesn't have to be that way. Why all of the paranoia? Can't someone shoot a building without catching attitude and heat?

[canonnoob]

^Can I ask you what type of photography you're into?

I shoot just about everything, mostly sports (where there is alot of security FYI, if that is where you are going), urban, and portaits.. some nature/landcapes

[Jaymz]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/iamhydrogen/3640500354/

Thats a really cool shot, Kevin. I love it.

[i_am_hydrogen]

^Thanks.

I shoot just about everything, mostly sports (where there is alot of security FYI, if that is where you are going), urban, and portaits.. some nature/landcapes

No offense in what I'm about to say, but how would you feel if when you're taking sports shots someone tapped you on the shoulder and said: "You can't be doing this. You need to leave." It wouldn't make you even a tad bit defensive? All I did was attempt to shoot a building from a sidewalk and it was like "red alert! red alert!"

[canonnoob]

No offense in what I'm about to say, but how would you feel if when you're taking sports shots someone tapped you on the shoulder and said: "You can't be doing this. You need to leave." It wouldn't make you even a tad bit defensive?

dont you think that has happened.. Ive been stopped going into and through security at events... asking what I am doing, happened in many places that I have gone.. you name it, it has probably been said to me.. I politely either show my pass to get in.. and say im with (insert name of company/newspaper/etc here) and show my pass.. or if im out in public I just look at them and say well I have a job to do, and this is legal. Maybe that didnt work for you but it has always worked for me.

in fact I was at a game and I had a guard grab my shoulder and start taking my gear off my shoulder to escort me out. I didnt happen to have a pass on this one and I had to call up my supervisor.. Was I ever upset, eh not really not enough to argue or yell. I can just take care of evertyhing the way I have said and it has worked

[JamesH]

. I live in a smaller country (red-neck) town.

My grandma lives right out in Reith!!


Anyway, I haven't had any run ins with security. I try to avoid the confrontation. It's more fun to just go on shooting than to sit and argue with someone over a picture.

[Karl Johnston]

I was out taking night shots and had a run-in with a rather uninformed security guard. I was attempting to photograph the lobby of 111 S. Wacker, one of my favorite buildings. As I was framing the shot, a security guard came out and questioned what I was doing and tried to tell me that I couldn't take photos of the building. I said that I had every right to photograph the building so long as I was on public property. I hated pulling the "I am an attorney" card, but I had to. Then he said: "Fine, you can take a few shots but make it really quick." I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please. From that point on, it was a full-on back and forth between us, with me finally giving up on the situation. Hell, a few people had amassed around us to listen to what was going on. He said I could still take the shots. But I told him it wasn't even worth it anymore, that the fun had been taken out of it. Yet another instance of how ill-informed of the law security guards really are. It definitely took the wind out of my sails. I never really re-gained my inspiration. I know he walked away thinking he won, but I hope that I was able to change his thinking just enough to allow him to realize that you don't simply accost people who are innocently taking photos from a public sidewalk.
All due respect, you shouldn't have been getting lippy with him. It would've been so much easier to say "Oh sorry" and let him go on his way, then come back later and take your shot.

He's just doing his job, it's not like authority figures like cops or security are there to hassle people; think about how hard your life would be without one to go to if you're camera gets stolen or you get mugged. The irony is, as an attorney, you're an authority figure yourself.

That said, I suppose since 9/11 that people taking pictures of buildings with professional equipment may seem suspicious, especially if they walk around a lot taking shots of a specific one.

I'd rather have to deal with militaristic police than deal with another massive terrorist attack.

[Foxgguy2001]

All due respect, you shouldn't have been getting lippy with him. It would've been so much easier to say "Oh sorry" and let him go on his way, then come back later and take your shot.


As LEO myself I don't agree with this at all. The guard has the responsibility of knowing how far his duties extend. Trying to dissuade someone from doing something perfectly legal, on public property is blatantly wrong. It would have been MUCH more wrong to simply walk away and reinforce the guys notion that he controls the public property in front of his building, and end up being a pain to who knows how many people in the future...

[Picture North Carolina]

It would've been so much easier to say "Oh sorry" and let him go on his way, then come back later and take your shot.

I also disagree. This resolves nothing at all because there is always the possibility that when you come back the entire event will replay itself. Then what? Go away a second time? A third?

But I also agree the OP's attitude and manner of communication only added fuel to the fire. It's only human nature. If you're nice to people, they will tend to be nice back to you. If you angrily get into another's face, guess what? It will alienate them.

A calm, reasoned approach should have been pursued. Verbally kicking him in the nads accomplished nothing... as you saw.

[advaitin]

The answer is to contact the building management and get a clarification of their policy. It wouldn't hurt to include a sample of any decent shot you may already have of the building.

Let's face it, many people hired in the aftermath of 9/11 have marginal capabilities. I run across similar nonsense among TSA agents and security guards who simply don't read their own instructions or understand the limitations of their job. And any working photojournalist can tell you that there are plenty of fire and police officials who have an inflated idea of what they can prohibit.

The answer is to always be polite, ask to speak to a superior (and keep going up the chain until you reach someone with a reasonable attitude). Avoid trying to make a joke, what seems clever to you may make you seem like a smartass to a person, like a security agent in a German airport, who has the authority to send you off for a real search (been there, done that, to my regret).

[kjtw73]

Then he said: "Fine, you can take a few shots but make it really quick." I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please

Just curious, after he gave into you, why did you feel the need to provoke the situation in that manner? Wouldn't it have been easier to say something like "ok, I will be done in a couple minutes" or "alright, I will get my shots and move on" instead of being a confrontational? That was his way of backing out of the situation, but you wouldn't let him...that is what was wrong.

I know he walked away thinking he won, but I hope that I was able to change his thinking just enough to allow him to realize that you don't simply accost people who are innocently taking photos from a public sidewalk.

I would be willing to bet that he didn't walk away thinking he had won, he probably walked away thinking "I told the guy he could go ahead and take pictures and still, he was a jerk." Also, you may have changed his thinking however, I am sure that he didn't just tell you that because he felt like it. I would be willing to bet that it was a directive he had received from his supervisor.


In my opinion, although he was incorrect, you were the one that was in the wrong. He may have been unjustified in asking you to stop taking the photos, but it was unacceptable to have behaved the way you did after he had corrected himself.

[mortar]

Now were you shooting after hours?

Doesn't shooting after hours change your access rights of taking photos somewhat?

[FlyingPhotog]

Now were you shooting after hours?

Doesn't shooting after hours change your access rights of taking photos somewhat?

Not unless something changes regarding your access to a shooting spot.

I read that the OP was on a public sidewalk which doesn't change status simply because it's "after hours."

[bjyoder]

I'd rather have to deal with militaristic police than deal with another massive terrorist attack.


Remember this quote?:Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.

-Benjamin Franklin
I hate to pull out cliched quotes, but terrorism is out there with the intent to destroy our normal, day-to-day lives. If thinking like yours continues, they've won. Period. I'd much rather be able to not be bothered for doing something legal.

[mortar]

Oops,, Guess I didn't make it to the very last sentence. I kept waiting for that to be stated but I guess I didn't read all the way to the end. :oops::o

[nphsbuckeye]

It sounds like you were arguing for the sake of arguing, after the SG gave you the green light (you could have at least argued about what quick means:lol:).

[MagicMarker]

OP, were you standing right outside the building or were you across the street?

I don't see how someone taking photos on a public path pertains to a security guards job description.

The SG was clearly in the wrong.

[scotteisenphotography]

So i've seen ONE story here really. Lets get back to the topic, eh?

I was in Grand Central Station, probably about 3 years ago. I had a 30D and 24-70L...

I was taking photos in the station, and then made my way to the platform. It was awesome lighting, everything was perfect. i placed my camera on the ground because I can't hand hold it for the required speed. as im sittign there i turn arund and there is 2 cops I guess..one has a german shepherd and he asks "what the hell do you think you're doing?!" I said to him I was just taking a photograph. He said that it was against the law, I should be apprehended, and I'm helping the terrorists by documenting the station. I told him that you're wrong on all 3 accounts, and that I'll just leave. Luckily I got off alright haha

[bjyoder]

So i've seen ONE story here really. Lets get back to the topic, eh?

Good thought...


I was recently out shooting a band's promo pictures, and they wanted to be on a specific rail bridge with the skyline in the background. The first funny part was that the manager/bass player swore the tracks weren't in use any more. My buddy and I tried to tell him he was wrong (along with telling him it was private property), but didn't need to, about the time we tried to start, we realized the train-like sounds we were hearing was a train on those tracks...

Onto the shoot. We were shooting on the tracks, and getting some decent results. We were about 10 to 15 minutes from being done, when a Police woman appeared at the end of the bridge telling us to get off. We obliged (with some in the band asking for a few more shots... d'oh), and started walking off the bridge. I didn't want to be the first one off, so I was trying to walk more slowly. The manager/bass player kept saying - probably loudly enough for the officer to hear - "just play dumb, just play dumb."

As we got to the end of the bridge, she asked what we were doing, and we gladly told her. She said we needed to get off the bridge because there were reports, and people were worried we were going to jump or try and get run over by a train (I think she was just being nice). We thanked her for her attitude through it all, and went on our way.

As a bit of an aside, within 5 minutes of our departing the bridge, another train rolled on by.... ;)

[MagicMarker]

Good thought...


I was recently out shooting a band's promo pictures, and they wanted to be on a specific rail bridge with the skyline in the background. The first funny part was that the manager/bass player swore the tracks weren't in use any more. My buddy and I tried to tell him he was wrong (along with telling him it was private property), but didn't need to, about the time we tried to start, we realized the train-like sounds we were hearing was a train on those tracks...

Onto the shoot. We were shooting on the tracks, and getting some decent results. We were about 10 to 15 minutes from being done, when a Police woman appeared at the end of the bridge telling us to get off. We obliged (with some in the band asking for a few more shots... d'oh), and started walking off the bridge. I didn't want to be the first one off, so I was trying to walk more slowly. The manager/bass player kept saying - probably loudly enough for the officer to hear - "just play dumb, just play dumb."

As we got to the end of the bridge, she asked what we were doing, and we gladly told her. She said we needed to get off the bridge because there were reports, and people were worried we were going to jump or try and get run over by a train (I think she was just being nice). We thanked her for her attitude through it all, and went on our way.

As a bit of an aside, within 5 minutes of our departing the bridge, another train rolled on by.... ;)
Who brought the comb?

*Hope's somebody gets the reference...

[Photon Phil]

Excellent work Kevin. Being from around Milwaukee/Chicago I understand that what some may read as "rough language" on your part was simply how things are expressed in Chicago. Each region has it's own style, let's all remember that. For example, I've noted that my friends from MO are a very verbally polite group. The Aussies tend to be very friendly and jovial. The Danes, a refreshing mix of all types. I recognize that peace is really always the only winning choice but we are human and sometimes we need to wake people up a bit. Bold responses are necessesary. You saved someone else some hassle in the future.

[tonydee]

He's just doing his job, ...

You're not the first to say it, but just quoting from here anyway. This makes it sound like it's ok to do what you're employer's told you, even if it's a direct instruction to break the law (in this case by pesistently and aggressively pestering someone who's not).

Given the OP's an attorney , perhaps a creative approach is to keep a few copies of a notice to give to security guards, something along the lines: "To the building management: the security guard to whom I handed this notice had been instructed to ask me not to photograph your building. When photographing from public property, I have every right to do so. Please consider adapting your instructions to security staff to ensure you are not risking prosecution for ordering your staff to make a public nuisance of themselves. Yours, XYZ, Attorney"

Maybe it'll amuse the guard. I know I'd be amused :-).

And as you go back to that building regularly, you'd get a chance to really rub it in if they didn't change their policy.

Cheers, Tony

P.S./Edit: I did get moved on over here (Tokyo) once... but as I don't know the local laws I just went with it. Hard to research these things without reading the lingo... :-/.

[FlyingPhotog]

The thing is, the guard is just doing his job...

The guard isn't in the wrong, it's the policy he's tasked with enforcing that's wrong.

So it's really not fair to want to jam it up the working guys a** for just doing what he's told. Be nice to him/her and if you really feel slighted, take it up with comany management.

(And please, no making comparisons to German soldiers in WWII as it's nowhere near the same scale of importance...)

[pttenn]

My brother took a model, equip, etc to an outdoor area outside the county Library and city hall. It is a great area, with waterfalls, granite blocks, seats, etc. After spending time getting all set up to shoot, a security guard came and said he couldn't shoot there.
My question is WHY???? What harm is there in taking shots of an area clearly designed for beauty and spending time???
Karen

[FlyingPhotog]

My brother took a model, equip, etc to an outdoor area outside the county Library and city hall. It is a great area, with waterfalls, granite blocks, seats, etc. After spending time getting all set up to shoot, a security guard came and said he couldn't shoot there.
My question is WHY???? What harm is there in taking shots of an area clearly designed for beauty and spending time???
Karen

Was he using lights, reflectors, stands, tripod, etc...?

If so, the operative word is Liability. They're probably afraid someone would hurt themselves in a trip/fall accident and sue the county.

If all he had was just camera in hand then fie on them for being rediculously ignorant.

[Mosca]

Once the guard said, "OK, you can take your photos," the deal was done. In sales, we have a term for what happened after that; it's called talking yourself out of the close.

My own story: I was taking some photos of the steam plant at the local hospital. One of the employees came out with a bit of a chip, and asked me what I was doing. I introduced myself, told him my name and where I was from, that I was an amateur photographer, and that his workplace was very photogenic, with all the light filtering through and the colors and angles. He proceeded to tell me all about it, what everything did, and told me to take as long as I wanted.

:-? I guess I was too normal to be mistaken for a threat!

Just kidding, I know that every encounter is different. But civility and understanding is the grease of society, and sometimes a liberal application of it goes a long way.

edit: And to the OP: I LOVE that shot from the top of the Aon building, it is just fantastic!

[Rudeofus]

If so, the operative word is Liability. They're probably afraid someone would hurt themselves in a trip/fall accident and sue the county.

And that's just one possible point. Maybe this was one of the buildings where you (now or in future) can buy books with professional pictures. Maybe they are afraid that the picture might reveal imperfections in the facade or that it violates some building code or whatever.

Basically, they can't gain anything from letting you take pictures (although it's perfectly within your rights! ) but could theoretically lose a lot. That's where all these pathetic instructions come from which make security folks hassle harmless and fully legally acting photographers. Note that these instructions are against the law and harassing a photographer like Kevin's case most likely violates laws, but apparently it's too easy to chase away most photographers with less legal background.

In Kevins case I would have told the sec guard calmly that he is about to violate the law and would have asked the police to intervene at some point. Given his back ground he would have known how to remain on legal ground in such a situation so the police would probably have sided with him eventually. He may have lost his creative inspiration for the day but could have come back some time later and the sec guard would have avoided to ever bother him again.

Two more things: it p1sses me off that one has to almost study law now just to make a few decent shots of a US building and even knowing the laws doesn't always seem to help. I am glad I can still take pictures of all our historic buildings in Central Europe and that I have never been bothered by anyone yet, but I know that things come to Europe with several years of delay and we will have the same messed up situation eventually.

Secondly I specifically did not mention the threat of terrorist attacks in my list of reasons why building managers don't like photographers. Neither the folks who blew up the federal building in Oklahoma, now the guy who tried to car bomb the WTC basement, not the folks who flew planes into WTC and Pentagon needed any high resolution night shots of the affected buildings. "Preventing terrorism" is the new synonym for saying "I don't like what you do but I won't tell you why I don't like it because I may embarrass myself saying it and I'll harass you anyway until you stop". Some posters here shamefully consent to giving up their liberties not even for safety but for the convenience of some selfish and bullying building managers.

[Veemac]

Once the guard said, "OK, you can take your photos," the deal was done. In sales, we have a term for what happened after that; it's called talking yourself out of the close....
I call it "not taking 'yes' for an answer" - getting what you wanted, but then continuing to chip until 'yes' becomes 'no' again.


...My own story: I was taking some photos of the steam plant at the local hospital. One of the employees came out with a bit of a chip, and asked me what I was doing. I introduced myself, told him my name and where I was from, that I was an amateur photographer, and that his workplace was very photogenic, with all the light filtering through and the colors and angles. He proceeded to tell me all about it, what everything did, and told me to take as long as I wanted.

:-? I guess I was too normal to be mistaken for a threat!

Just kidding, I know that every encounter is different. But civility and understanding is the grease of society, and sometimes a liberal application of it goes a long way...
To add another pithy cliche - "you catch more flies with honey than you do with vinegar." I've found that to be true in about 99% of situations.

[tonydee]

The thing is, the guard is just doing his job...

The guard isn't in the wrong, it's the policy he's tasked with enforcing that's wrong.

So it's really not fair to want to jam it up the working guys a** for just doing what he's told. Be nice to him/her and if you really feel slighted, take it up with comany management.

The guard is in the wrong if he knows taking the photo is legal... but I agree you can't blame him much: he's taking the path of least resistance and wants to keep his job, and it's not a big deal (I won't bring in WWII ;-P). By giving him a document, it shows management he tried, means management should be pleased he had the maturity and sense to stop (protecting them from any legal backlash), and pressures management not to even try the bluff in future (someone can say they've delivered a notice in the past). All sounds good to me. A clever guard should be indifferent to it - no skin off his nose and means he doesn't have to pester innocent people.

[CJinAustin]

LOL, if the guard really wanted to be a dick he could have told you to take all the pics that you want,,, and then stood right in front of your camera all night. It is his right after all. lol

[neil_r]

London is pretty much public property but controlled by elected authorities that have a responsibility for many things including public safety. To date most authorities are cool with people photographing anything they like (within reason) however for many years (over 20) the use of a tripod will be a no no as it is deemed to be obstructive and unsafe on the public walkway, even at 11:00 at night.

I find it hard to get my knickers in a twist over people exceeding their supposed authority I generally find that an open conversation about the situation rather than a "I know my rights" monologue works rather well.

[Mark Vuleta]

The thing is, the guard is just doing his job...

The guard isn't in the wrong, it's the policy he's tasked with enforcing that's wrong.

Cannot see how you can make those assumptions.

Provided what the OP has told us is correct, the guard or building management have no authority to tell the OP to do anything or prevent him from doing anything. The building management have no ability, rights or obligations to direct the security guard to do anything outside the letter of the law. If they did, they are in the wrong but the security guard is also wrong as he is operating outside his bounds. He cannot be legally instructed to do anything outside of his jurisdiction or the letter of the law. He may feel that he must so to protect his job but that is no justification.

That being said, there is no point in getting into heated discussions/arguments. Either get hold of his superiors or if that is not possible at the time, do so the following day to get this sorted out, for both parties sake.

[neil_r]

Boy do the high horses come out whenever this debate is aired.

Were I responsible for the security of a building, either as the corporate head of security or the minimum wage security guard and I saw someone on public property taking a direct interest in that building or its surroundings, I would definitely go over and see what was going on. If I interfered with an innocent Photographer and held up his photo shoot for a few minutes I would be a Fascist bully. If I prevented a terrorist attack I would be a hero..... I would take that risk.

[Mark Vuleta]

Neil, go back & read the first few lines from the OP. He was told he could not photograph the building which is clearly incorrect.

I am not getting on a high horse but the guard is clearly in the wrong. He can certainly go & make polite enquiry but has no authority to tell the OP to do anything (again, on the proviso that the OP has told us everything correctly).

[neil_r]

I agree

[FlyingPhotog]

And that's just one possible point. Maybe this was one of the buildings where you (now or in future) can buy books with professional pictures. Maybe they are afraid that the picture might reveal imperfections in the facade or that it violates some building code or whatever.

I have no idea where you're going here so I'll clarify...

I meant the Library / County / Whoever is afraid of liability if someone hurt themselves tripping over the photographers equipment...

[kjtw73]

We, as photographers, know full well that when we go out and shoot, we are likely to run into someone that tells us that we can't do what we are doing, that should be no surprise. We should always be prepared to deal with that interaction in a professional manner. Every interaction we have as photographers adds to the reputation of all photographers. If it is a negative interaction, the reputation of our craft goes down. If it is a positive interaction, it goes up. Unfortunately, negative and positive interactions do not hold the same value and, as such, negative interactions cannot simply be cancelled out by one positive interaction.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with these policies that properties have regarding photography, however I can certainly understand them. Due to the nature of our sue happy society, it is in the best intrest of the property to have policies that lower the potential for liability. If they didn't have these policies in place, it could be said that they were not taking all steps possible to ensure the safety and security of the property. Yet, when they do have these policies in place, they are said to be oppressive and mean.

SCENARIO:
Jon Doe is out and about in the city. He sees a building that catches his eye. So, while standing on the public sidewalk, he lifts his camera and starts taking a few shots. He moves around the building taking shots from various angles, stopping between shots to look the building up and down.
Meanwhile, a security guard notices Jon out there taking the photos. He approaches him and asks what he is doing. Jon tells the security guard that he is a photographer and really likes the lines of the building along with the design. The security guy decides, this guy is alright, I'll let him be, and goes on his way. Jon finishes shooting and leaves the area.
Now, that sounds like a completely innocent interaction. However, the building is, in fact, a building that contains a bank. That bank ends up getting robbed a few days later. Come to find out, Jon was one of the key players in the robbery and was taking photos and doing research for the planning.
Now is where the problem comes in. A number of the people that were in the bank find out about this interaction that the security guard had with Jon a few days earlier. They contact their attorneys and file a lawsuit against the building for vicarious liability. They win because the property didn't do everything possible to provide a safe environment.
/SCENARIO

This is the exact reason why buildings and properties have these anti-photography policies. Situations like this can cost large sums of money and that kills profit. Now, if the security guard had told Jon to knock it off and leave, the guard would have been oppressive and a jerk. May it have stopped the robbery? Maybe, maybe not. Any criminal that is intent on committing a crime is going to do it one way or another. Basically it comes down to a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. Do some research, how many lawsuits were filed after 9/11 because they didn't provide adequate security?

So, it comes down to an issue of liability and lawsuits. Companies and properties want to avoid them at all costs (as does everyone else). As a result, they make policies like 'no photography.'

Just another way to think about the situation....

[Mosca]

KJtW73,

Then they should also not let anyone look at the building, or pictures of it, or Google Earth of it...?

I'm saying keep your eyes on the prize. The goal is to get the photo, not win the argument. Right and wrong are irrelevant; did you get the shot, or didn't you?

[kjtw73]

KJtW73,

Then they should also not let anyone look at the building, or pictures of it, or Google Earth of it...?

I'm saying keep your eyes on the prize. The goal is to get the photo, not win the argument. Right and wrong are irrelevant; did you get the shot, or didn't you?

However, the same property could be held liable if someone were looking at it (and was suspicious about it) and did nothing just the same. As far as Google Earth goes, that is something that is completely out of the control of the business/property owner so they cannot be expected to do anything about that...however, that being said, if they could control those things, many would do so. My whole point in the scenario was to try and explain why many places have these policies and that the lowly security personnel have no say in the policies.

Also, you are exactly right, the goal is to get the shot. That is exactly my point as well. The OP, on the other hand, seemed to want to argue with the security guy more that get the shot...which he ended up not getting as a result (even after being told he was free to do so). Once the security guard backed down and said to hurry and take a few shots, he should have gotten to it instead of continuing the debate and, more or less, insulting the guy.

[Rudeofus]

I have no idea where you're going here so I'll clarify...

I meant the Library / County / Whoever is afraid of liability if someone hurt themselves tripping over the photographers equipment...
I fully understood what you tried to say, I just wanted to attribute that first point to you instead of simply parroting it. What I tried to say was that a building manager gains nothing from photgraphers taking images of his building while potentially faces problems if the pictures reveal something illegal. Apparently building managers see this as enough of a risk that they chose to employ illegal bullying methods to prevent pictures being taken of their buildings, and the (mostly clueless) sec guards run around enforcing these unlawful instructions.

And once more to that camp which continues to spout out the "We must prevent the terrorists"-myth: Please show me one terrorist attack which was helped by pictures being taken of the target! Nobody here likes it if things get blown up and people are killed, but illegally harassing harmless photographers is not going to prevent anything.

[birdfromboat]

The OP was on public property. Thats the end of the argument about the right to shoot. I guess the security and safety of a building is served by eliminating all public view? Or by just eliminating the rights of public viewers?

I say argue, offer to call the police if the security guard feals threatened, offer to pay a visit to their boss (with him/her along) if they are " just doing the job". Too many of these security guards and police officers don't really care about the right or wrongs of shooting a building from a public sidewalk, they just don't want to lose an argument in front of an audience.

Personally, I think all photons should be free for collection, just as all other parts of the spectrum are free to collect. Would a radio have raised any eyebrows? a tape recorder? a geiger counter? This whole argument is silly.

If they are worried I might be casing the joint for a future crime, I guess that makes me suspect for the crime of possibly becoming a suspect. Oh brother.

[JWright]

We, as photographers, know full well that when we go out and shoot, we are likely to run into someone that tells us that we can't do what we are doing, that should be no surprise. We should always be prepared to deal with that interaction in a professional manner. Every interaction we have as photographers adds to the reputation of all photographers. If it is a negative interaction, the reputation of our craft goes down. If it is a positive interaction, it goes up. Unfortunately, negative and positive interactions do not hold the same value and, as such, negative interactions cannot simply be cancelled out by one positive interaction.

Now, I am not saying that I agree with these policies that properties have regarding photography, however I can certainly understand them. Due to the nature of our sue happy society, it is in the best intrest of the property to have policies that lower the potential for liability. If they didn't have these policies in place, it could be said that they were not taking all steps possible to ensure the safety and security of the property. Yet, when they do have these policies in place, they are said to be oppressive and mean.

SCENARIO:
Jon Doe is out and about in the city. He sees a building that catches his eye. So, while standing on the public sidewalk, he lifts his camera and starts taking a few shots. He moves around the building taking shots from various angles, stopping between shots to look the building up and down.
Meanwhile, a security guard notices Jon out there taking the photos. He approaches him and asks what he is doing. Jon tells the security guard that he is a photographer and really likes the lines of the building along with the design. The security guy decides, this guy is alright, I'll let him be, and goes on his way. Jon finishes shooting and leaves the area.
Now, that sounds like a completely innocent interaction. However, the building is, in fact, a building that contains a bank. That bank ends up getting robbed a few days later. Come to find out, Jon was one of the key players in the robbery and was taking photos and doing research for the planning.
Now is where the problem comes in. A number of the people that were in the bank find out about this interaction that the security guard had with Jon a few days earlier. They contact their attorneys and file a lawsuit against the building for vicarious liability. They win because the property didn't do everything possible to provide a safe environment.
/SCENARIO

This is the exact reason why buildings and properties have these anti-photography policies. Situations like this can cost large sums of money and that kills profit. Now, if the security guard had told Jon to knock it off and leave, the guard would have been oppressive and a jerk. May it have stopped the robbery? Maybe, maybe not. Any criminal that is intent on committing a crime is going to do it one way or another. Basically it comes down to a 'damned if you do, damned if you don't' scenario. Do some research, how many lawsuits were filed after 9/11 because they didn't provide adequate security?

So, it comes down to an issue of liability and lawsuits. Companies and properties want to avoid them at all costs (as does everyone else). As a result, they make policies like 'no photography.'

Just another way to think about the situation....

"The more I think about it, Old Billy was right
Let's kill all the lawyers, kill 'em tonight." Don Henley/Glen Frey

The problem in this scenario is not that the building houses a bank, or that Jon was involved in the robbery, but with the lawyers that perpetuate our litigious society...

[Rudeofus]

However, the same property could be held liable if someone were looking at it (and was suspicious about it) and did nothing just the same. As far as Google Earth goes, that is something that is completely out of the control of the business/property owner so they cannot be expected to do anything about that...however, that being said, if they could control those things, many would do so. My whole point in the scenario was to try and explain why many places have these policies and that the lowly security personnel have no say in the policies.

It is legal to take pictures on a side walk. Fact.

Forcefully trying to prevent someone from doing it is against the law. Fact.

So how can a building administrator be made liable if he/she ignores/accepts photographers on public grounds ??? Isn't this just paranoia talking?

I see a lot of lawyer bashing here but nobody has actually cited a case (apart from silly urban myths) where a property owner had to pay for fools tripping over a tripod on public ground or for criminals taking pictures of a building before robbing a commercial entity housed in that building. Did any of the lawyer haters here notice that a lawyer was harassed by the security guy for asserting his rights and did not even sue?

I can tell you what really worries building owners and administrators about pictures being taken:

The building was declared a landmark but illegal modification were made (e.g. air conditioning added, ...)
The picture of the building might end up in an article about "the evil banks"
The picture of the building might end up in a negative article about one of the companies housed in there
The picture of the building might end up in an article where poor architects or sloppy construction companies are exposed.
The picture documents violations of building safety regulations.


None of these provide a legal basis for harassment of photographers though.

[bjyoder]

It is legal to take pictures on a side walk. Fact.

Forcefully trying to prevent someone from doing it is against the law. Fact.

So how can a building administrator be made liable if he/she ignores/accepts photographers on public grounds ??? Isn't this just paranoia talking?

Take a look at the post above yours, it pretty much sums it up. The way our legal system is, you go and sue everyone that had anything to do with the situation, and hope that someone along the way settles and you get paid. My good friend's wife works as a legal secretary, and sees this behavior on a daily basis.

Although not photographically related, I was in a lawsuit where the person sued me (the guy on the bottom of the chain), my immediate supervisor, the district manager, the owner, and the franchise as a whole.

[neil_r]

Help help I am being harassed :rolleyes:

OK so this is a photography forum, so "Photographers Rights" are gong to crop up, but we in Europe and possibly even more so in the US have had some of our far more important "rights" trampled upon that this is just small beer in comparison. Fun to go to war on the web with but that's about it. (In my opinion, and of course everyone is entitled to different one ;-) )

[dgoakill]

It is illegal to photograph some buildings especially buildings related to infrastructure and finance, regardless of whether you're on public property or not. Some buildings are even copyrighted. I'm pretty sure I read that it's illegal to photograph the Eiffel tower at night because the light show is copy righted.

Bottom line is as photographer's we need to know our rights, but part of understanding our rights is also knowing the law which unfortunately differs from state to state and city to city. If your unsure it's best to check a head of time.

for example, here in Philadelphia it is illegal to photograph the Ben Franklin Bridge. You can do it, but you have to call the bridge manager's office and request permission to be given a pass for a specific time and date. There are a few other structures in the city that require the same approach.

*edited to add: I only know about the bridge because I was escorted off of it by a lovely bridge cop a few years ago and given the number of the office to obtain the proper permit.

[Rudeofus]

Take a look at the post above yours, it pretty much sums it up. The way our legal system is, you go and sue everyone that had anything to do with the situation, and hope that someone along the way settles and you get paid. My good friend's wife works as a legal secretary, and sees this behavior on a daily basis.

Funny, that's exactly what I always heard about the US. Then I spent 4 years in Silicon Valley (which was supposed to be Sue Happy Valley in the late 90ies), but never got sued once. Nothing. Not one law suit. Sounds pretty unbelievable, doesn't it?

Your wife sees a small minority of real life at her work place which doesn't represent the rest. It's like cops seeing crime everywhere, doctors seeing medical conditions on everyone or photographers seeing lines, points and areas where others see beautiful landscapes ;)

Although not photographically related, I was in a lawsuit where the person sued me (the guy on the bottom of the chain), my immediate supervisor, the district manager, the owner, and the franchise as a whole.
To be honest I prefer people suing me to settling the dispute with shot guns. You wrote "I was in a law suit" and thereby indicated that you were not found guilty of any wrong doing and/or the law suit got dismissed. As far as I have been told there are stiff penalties for frivolous law suits so it's a risky proposition to file pointless suits.


OK so this is a photography forum, so "Photographers Rights" are gong to crop up, but we in Europe and possibly even more so in the US have had some of our far more important "rights" trampled upon that this is just small beer in comparison.

But all these rights (and I agree that many are more important than taking images of a building at night) were trampled upon with the exact same "we have to stop the terrorists!" arguments, and even some folks in this thread repeated the old meme. And too many others faulted the TO for standing his ground, it's a shame!

[urbansickness]

luckily for us in the UK with have section 58 of the terrorism act.

Collection of information
(1) A person commits an offence if—
(a) he collects or makes a record of information of a kind likely to be useful to a person committing or preparing an act of terrorism, or
(b) he possesses a document or record containing information of that kind.
(2) In this section “record” includes a photographic or electronic record.

been causing a bit of a hooha.

But if a terrorist want to recce a site, theres plenty of info on the net aleady with out them having to take a photo out side the building.

back to the OP.
had plenty of run in's with security for taking photos all part of the risk of my exploring hobby, but i think the problems lies more in the security guards lack of knowledge of the law then anything else.

[bjyoder]

Funny, that's exactly what I always heard about the US. Then I spent 4 years in Silicon Valley (which was supposed to be Sue Happy Valley in the late 90ies), but never got sued once. Nothing. Not one law suit. Sounds pretty unbelievable, doesn't it?

Your wife sees a small minority of real life at her work place which doesn't represent the rest. It's like cops seeing crime everywhere, doctors seeing medical conditions on everyone or photographers seeing lines, points and areas where others see beautiful landscapes ;)

Nothing unbelieveable about someone not getting sued. Many of the people I know and talk to on a daily basis have never been in a lawsuit. Some have, and some have even initiated the suit.

I'm not trying to say it happens all the time. I'm just saying that people are over-cautious about getting sued for the very reason stated above. And I know my friend's wife sees this more often, giving a bit of a bias, but who better to talk to about legal stuff? Just as you would ask a doctor about medical stuff, and ask a photog to ruin your perfectly beautiful landscape. ;)


To be honest I prefer people suing me to settling the dispute with shot guns. You wrote "I was in a law suit" and thereby indicated that you were not found guilty of any wrong doing and/or the law suit got dismissed. As far as I have been told there are stiff penalties for frivolous law suits so it's a risky proposition to file pointless suits.

That doesn't matter much. The only people I forgot to add in who was charged was the insurance companies, with whom this should have been settled in the first place. My whole point was just to illustrate that I was caught up in something that I shouldn't have been. At the time, I was a college student with less than $5,000 to my name, but I was included in the suit because, well, that seems to be the way it works: sue everyone so you get money from at least someone.

[DennisW1]

I was out taking night shots and had a run-in with a rather uninformed security guard. I was attempting to photograph the lobby of 111 S. Wacker, one of my favorite buildings. As I was framing the shot, a security guard came out and questioned what I was doing and tried to tell me that I couldn't take photos of the building. I said that I had every right to photograph the building so long as I was on public property. I hated pulling the "I am an attorney" card, but I had to. Then he said: "Fine, you can take a few shots but make it really quick." I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please. From that point on, it was a full-on back and forth between us, with me finally giving up on the situation. Hell, a few people had amassed around us to listen to what was going on. He said I could still take the shots. But I told him it wasn't even worth it anymore, that the fun had been taken out of it. Yet another instance of how ill-informed of the law security guards really are. It definitely took the wind out of my sails. I never really re-gained my inspiration. I know he walked away thinking he won, but I hope that I was able to change his thinking just enough to allow him to realize that you don't simply accost people who are innocently taking photos from a public sidewalk.

You probably should have stopped before "I can take as long as I want". You already had him admitting, at least to himself anyway, that you had a perfect right to do what you wanted on public property. After that it was a pissing match.
And the next guy who comes along will probably get an even less friendly treatment, thats how it starts.

[DennisW1]

SCENARIO:
Jon Doe is out and about in the city. He sees a building that catches his eye. So, while standing on the public sidewalk, he lifts his camera and starts taking a few shots. He moves around the building taking shots from various angles, stopping between shots to look the building up and down.
Meanwhile, a security guard notices Jon out there taking the photos. He approaches him and asks what he is doing. Jon tells the security guard that he is a photographer and really likes the lines of the building along with the design. The security guy decides, this guy is alright, I'll let him be, and goes on his way. Jon finishes shooting and leaves the area.
Now, that sounds like a completely innocent interaction. However, the building is, in fact, a building that contains a bank. That bank ends up getting robbed a few days later. Come to find out, Jon was one of the key players in the robbery and was taking photos and doing research for the planning.
Now is where the problem comes in. A number of the people that were in the bank find out about this interaction that the security guard had with Jon a few days earlier. They contact their attorneys and file a lawsuit against the building for vicarious liability. They win because the property didn't do everything possible to provide a safe environment.
/SCENARIO



I'm sorry, but B.S.

This holds about as much water as the "you must be a terrorist because you're standing in the street with $10k worth of camera gear and attracting more attention than the landing of a 747 on main street" argument.

Someone casing a building for either terrorist or criminal purposes is NOT going to make themself so obvious. They'll buy a good quality but small P&S and blend in with the pedestrians while scouting their target and taking their surveilance photos. They don't have to be award winning quality, just able to identify doors, windows, security cameras and guards and traffic patterns in the area.

If you're going to hold to this theory you would also have to start suing Google Streets for all of the detailed neighborhood and city street images that are public domain on their website.

I will heartily agree that how we act as photographers in such situations reflects on everyone in the profession or hobby. To that end I have to disgree with the OP's responses as I believe they turned what was about to be a peacefully resolved situation into a "my (insert favorite bodily part here) is bigger than yours".

[DennisW1]

"...for example, here in Philadelphia it is illegal to photograph the Ben Franklin Bridge. You can do it, but you have to call the bridge manager's office and request permission to be given a pass for a specific time and date. There are a few other structures in the city that require the same approach.

*edited to add: I only know about the bridge because I was escorted off of it by a lovely bridge cop a few years ago and given the number of the office to obtain the proper permit....."



In other words, your were photographing ON the bridge, right? That's a bit different than saying you can't stand a hundred feet or more away and take a photograph OF the bridge, as long as you are on public property.

[hairy_moth]

Remember this quote?:Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both.-Benjamin Franklin

With all due respect to Mr. Franklin, this is hogwash. In this country we have given up the right to yell "Fire" in Movie theaters. Or to allow people to drink if they drive, or to carry weapons on public airliners, or to arm our children with automatic weapons.... (I do like to use extreme examples to make points) The point is that this is not an an absolute; we choose what freedoms we are willing to give up in order to provide reasonable public safety... And the debate continues all the time (e.g., gun laws).

I do think it was a good idea to restrict photography at obvious secondary targets after 9/11 (like the Lincoln or Holland tunnels in NY), but not at an office building (with some possible exceptions, like the sears tower or empire state).

The question is (and has always been) "Where do we draw the line?" It is not "Do we draw a line?" because every society has.

[alt4852]

[/indent]With all due respect to Mr. Franklin, this is hogwash. In this country we have given up the right to yell "Fire" in Movie theaters. Or to allow people to drink if they drive, or to carry weapons on public airliners, or to arm our children with automatic weapons.... (I do like to use extreme examples to make points) The point is that this is not an an absolute; we choose what freedoms we are willing to give up in order to provide reasonable public safety... And the debate continues all the time (e.g., gun laws).

I do think it was a good idea to restrict photography at obvious secondary targets after 9/11 (like the Lincoln or Holland tunnels in NY), but not at an office building (with some possible exceptions, like the sears tower or empire state).

The question is (and has always been) "Where do we draw the line?" It is not "Do we draw a line?" because every society has.

1. movie theaters are private property, and yelling fire when there is no fire is a direct threat to the safety of others.

2. driver's licenses are a privilege, not a right.

3. see number one.

4. minors and automatic weapons? this one is just common sense.

---

by taking it to extremes, you're missing the point. absolute freedom of will would be the state of nature. the purpose of our society is in part to protect it's citizens, but that umbrella task is also guided by common sense. you do not have a right to go on shooting sprees. you do not have a right to blow up buildings. by eroding your own freedoms by allowing government wiretaps without a warrant, instating curfews, or prohibiting photography due to the fear of terrorism, you in essence lose that which you were trying to protect.

[DennisW1]

[/indent]

I do think it was a good idea to restrict photography at obvious secondary targets after 9/11 (like the Lincoln or Holland tunnels in NY), but not at an office building (with some possible exceptions, like the sears tower or empire state).



And I'll be willing to bet you that any terrorists who have decided that they need surveilance photos of any of those places already have them. They've done their work quietly and inconspicuously without attracting any attention to themselves. With today's cell phone cameras that produce acceptable images given sufficient light, how do you police that?

The only people being singled out and hassled are hobbyist photographers and the occasional working pro who hasn't properly identified themself beforehand.

It makes as much sense as some of the restrictions placed on air travelers. I'll be the first to agree that guns should not be standard carry-on luggage, but telling my girlfriend that she cannot take her makeup bag (a small one) onboard because it contains a tiny pencil sharpener for her eyeliner pencil and that it is considered a weapon is just insane. Also I cannot take a pair of nail clippers in my pocket? Who am I going to hurt with that tiny little file? Tell you what; if someone wants to try and stab me with that little file I'm just going to pick up my laptop computer (a perfectly legal carry-on) and bash them straight over the head with it. I'll let you imagine which one of us is going to be in greater need of medical attention.

The point is, there are far, far too many post 9/11 knee-jerk restrictions and regulations that have been put into place that accomplish NOTHING to prevent such things from occuring again. Sadly for us, they have had an effect on the freedoms that photographers previously enjoyed. I'm all for being cautious and on the lookout for things that seem suspicious and out of place, but let's use some common sense along the way.

[neil_r]

From another thread, look out for loads of cheap gear flooding onto e Bay

http://photography-on-the.net/forum/showpost.php?p=7705358&postcount=14

[S.Horton]

I get questioned routinely; I shoot my son's Lacrosse, Football and B-ball.

Security just wants to be sure I'm supposed to be there. That's all.

And they're doing it because of parent-paranoia.

In all other places, no questions asked.

I rarely shoot street scenes in a metro area, though.

@OP - Sorry that happened to you. Next time, consider responding in a foreign language; that will confuse them quickly.

[3Honu]

As LEO myself I don't agree with this at all. The guard has the responsibility of knowing how far his duties extend. Trying to dissuade someone from doing something perfectly legal, on public property is blatantly wrong. It would have been MUCH more wrong to simply walk away and reinforce the guys notion that he controls the public property in front of his building, and end up being a pain to who knows how many people in the future...



As another cop I completely, and I mean COMPLETELY agree with this post.



It is illegal to photograph some buildings especially buildings related to infrastructure and finance, regardless of whether you're on public property or not. Some buildings are even copyrighted. I'm pretty sure I read that it's illegal to photograph the Eiffel tower at night because the light show is copy righted.



Bottom line is as photographer's we need to know our rights, but part of understanding our rights is also knowing the law which unfortunately differs from state to state and city to city. If your unsure it's best to check a head of time.



for example, here in Philadelphia it is illegal to photograph the Ben Franklin Bridge. You can do it, but you have to call the bridge manager's office and request permission to be given a pass for a specific time and date. There are a few other structures in the city that require the same approach.



*edited to add: I only know about the bridge because I was escorted off of it by a lovely bridge cop a few years ago and given the number of the office to obtain the proper permit.



In the words of internet thugs, "you got pwned". If you are standing on public property (i.e. sidewalk) you can take any picture you want. The problem comes in publishing that photo and making money off it. You may need a release.

[BooostedAWD]

For those who are not completely sure of their rights as photographers, this is a good site to check out.

http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

EDIT: This is useful too: http://www.kantor.com/useful/Legal-Rights-of-Photographers.pdf

[Mark_Cohran]

This thread is getting too far into the realm of politics. We need to get back on topic and to the discussion of photography and the specifics of this circumstance or, as the OP requested, if you have had similar experiences.

[tonylong]

I tend to get a kick out of these discussions because sometimes opinions start flying without perspective of the facts and the underlying issues.

For instance, in this particular case, the security guard's boundaries were the private property of the building, period. He overstepped his bounds, and tried to stop the OP from taking pictures. That would have been the end of the discussion if he had listened to the OPs claim that he was within his legal rights, but according to the OP he didn't listen until the OP produced evidence of his being a lawyer.

That could have been the end of the discussion if the guard had realized both that he was in over his head and that in fact he was out of the bounds of his job, but again he didn't. According to the OP he continued to try to exert wrongful control by telling the OP that he was limited to the time he could spend and the pictures he could take -- in other words continuing to push out of bounds.

What was the response of the OP? The fact that was reported is he sought to give the guard correct information -- that he had the legal right to take as many pictures as he wanted. The guard had no business in trying to hinder or limit him.

Now, what about this exchange showed "attitude" on the part of the OP? He did infact have good reason to be irritated, but he has stated that he never even raised his voice, he tried to be reasonable, but the security guard was obviously out of line. We have no way of knowing whether there was some company policy that applied, so that is irrelavent -- in fact, I'd question whether a company would instruct a guard to go out onto public sidewalks and harrass civilians.

I think that some people have a knee jerk reaction in criticizing photographers when there is a conflict in which the "authority" is clearly in the wrong. But before you do this, why don't you take a bit to first examine the facts and issues (misuse of power, for example), and ask yourself what you yourself would do if the guard didn't respond to your "reasonable discussion". Would you really just walk away from this scene, allowing yourself to be bullied by this guard? Would you accept without question his statement that your rights had limits as defined by this guy who was himself the only one "out of bounds", or would you counter with a statement of fact, as the OP did? Why let an irresponsible security guard get away with misuse of his "power"?

[JWright]

Take a look at the post above yours, it pretty much sums it up. The way our legal system is, you go and sue everyone that had anything to do with the situation, and hope that someone along the way settles and you get paid. My good friend's wife works as a legal secretary, and sees this behavior on a daily basis.

Although not photographically related, I was in a lawsuit where the person sued me (the guy on the bottom of the chain), my immediate supervisor, the district manager, the owner, and the franchise as a whole.

It's called the "deep pockets syndrome." The philosophy is to go after everyone because even if you couldn't pay any judgment, someone up the chain could. The lawyer is paid on contingency which means he doesn't get his money until the plaintiff does.

As LEO myself I don't agree with this at all. The guard has the responsibility of knowing how far his duties extend. Trying to dissuade someone from doing something perfectly legal, on public property is blatantly wrong. It would have been MUCH more wrong to simply walk away and reinforce the guys notion that he controls the public property in front of his building, and end up being a pain to who knows how many people in the future...

I've researched the requirements for private security officers here in California and it's very obvious they are at the bottom of the law enforcement food chain. Training requirements are minimal at best and there are even categories of private security that don't require any training at all.

[Rudeofus]

For all those who are still worried about terrorists or other criminals scoping out buildings with dslr cameras: They would most likely use something like these little pen cameras (http://www.spycameras.com/cameras,body-worn-camera,spy-pen.html), which no building security would ever detect. Without raising any suspicions you can even walk through the building and obtain a reasonable floor plan, which helps a lot if you plan a crime. You get similar sized camera pens with a radio link so you aren't limited by storage space. Yes, these spy camera pens also work as pens, in case somebody asks you, and they are a lot cheaper than DSLRs, too.

Note that most terrorists are supported by some foreign state agencies, so they have much deeper pockets and therefore much better technology than the toys I justed linked to provide.

[DennisW1]

I tend to get a kick out of these discussions because sometimes opinions start flying without perspective of the facts and the underlying issues.

For instance, in this particular case, the security guard's boundaries were the private property of the building, period. He overstepped his bounds, and tried to stop the OP from taking pictures. That would have been the end of the discussion if he had listened to the OPs claim that he was within his legal rights, but according to the OP he didn't listen until the OP produced evidence of his being a lawyer.

That could have been the end of the discussion if the guard had realized both that he was in over his head and that in fact he was out of the bounds of his job, but again he didn't. According to the OP he continued to try to exert wrongful control by telling the OP that he was limited to the time he could spend and the pictures he could take -- in other words continuing to push out of bounds.

What was the response of the OP? The fact that was reported is he sought to give the guard correct information -- that he had the legal right to take as many pictures as he wanted. The guard had no business in trying to hinder or limit him.

Now, what about this exchange showed "attitude" on the part of the OP? He did infact have good reason to be irritated, but he has stated that he never even raised his voice, he tried to be reasonable, but the security guard was obviously out of line. We have no way of knowing whether there was some company policy that applied, so that is irrelavent -- in fact, I'd question whether a company would instruct a guard to go out onto public sidewalks and harrass civilians.

I think that some people have a knee jerk reaction in criticizing photographers when there is a conflict in which the "authority" is clearly in the wrong. But before you do this, why don't you take a bit to first examine the facts and issues (misuse of power, for example), and ask yourself what you yourself would do if the guard didn't respond to your "reasonable discussion". Would you really just walk away from this scene, allowing yourself to be bullied by this guard? Would you accept without question his statement that your rights had limits as defined by this guy who was himself the only one "out of bounds", or would you counter with a statement of fact, as the OP did? Why let an irresponsible security guard get away with misuse of his "power"?


Agreed that the security guard was initially wrong, I think we've beat that fact into the ground already. Agreed we all have a perfect right to take photographs from a location of public property. That's also been established.

I will still maintain that what followed was the cause of the whole thing getting out of hand. Sorry, but the OP's comment "...I responded that I can take as many shots as I please and at whatever pace I damn well please....", while it was correct was, IMO, most likely preceived by the guard as a taunt. He probably already was feeling a bit beaten down by a lawyer challenging his authority and the added comment after the fact pushed his buttons.

These guys (and gals) aren't rocket scientists or Harvard graduates. For many of them it's a second, unplanned career after being let go from another lifestyle. They're underpaid and under-informed and have to answer to their management for anything and everything that goes on in and around their property. Yes, many of them adapt the "Barney Fife" mentality but look once again at the situation that started this whole thread. The guard was willing to admit he was mistaken and walk away while trying to save as much face as possible in a public setting.

And I'm sure the OP did change the guard's thinking just a bit, I just hope it wasn't along the lines of really getting even with the next person he saw pointing a camera at 111 S Wacker.

[neil_r]

Have posted a link to the Eminem website so he can pen a rap about our rights being dissed......

[the phelp]

I had a very similar experience to the OP. I set up my tripod on the grass next to a public sidewalk, and started shooting a commercial office building. A guard from the buliding came over and said I had to stop because they don't allow pictures. I said I was on public property and wasn't using the photos for any commercial purpose (not that commercial purpose matters (Google 17 U.S.C. 120(a), which allows photographs of copyrighted architectural works)). He said he'd have to call the police if I kept shooting, and I responded - politely - that he should go ahead and call the police because, as a lawyer, I was quite sure he didn't have any right to stop me from doing anything on public property. He seemed to falter, and instead called his supervisor. He talked to the supervisor, and then I talked to the supervisor. The supe said they didn't have any problem, as long as I wasn't going to use the photos commercially, and the guard went away. After that, it pretty much drained all the fun out of it for me - I do this for peace, not conflict. Despite winning the day, I'm sure that the guard and his supervisor didn't bother to go back and figure out exactly what their rights are.

As for some of the later posts:

Regarding:
They contact their attorneys and file a lawsuit against the building for vicarious liability. They win because the property didn't do everything possible to provide a safe environment.
...and... [/QUOTE]
However, the same property could be held liable if someone were looking at it (and was suspicious about it) and did nothing just the same.
So "everything possible" means unlawfully harassing the public? Give me a break. In fact, just the opposite is true. Creating and enforcing a bully squad with orders to unlawfully muscle the public would subject the building to liability. Simply put "everything possible" does not include "unlawful," and no court will require unlawful conduct against the public to avoid civil liability.

Regarding:
Some buildings are even copyrighted.
True, but that doesn't matter to the photographer taking shots from public property. Again, see 17 U.S.C. 120(a).

[DDWD10]

This is a great thread; I'm learning exactly what protections I have as a photographer when confronted by street-level security drones. I have to say it hasn't happened to me yet but I'm fairly new to the game here.

[fryefoto]

I live near a lake, home to some rather expensive watercraft. One time (having gained permission ahead of time) I ventured onto a marina's dock. This particular occasion I was photographing birds (that happened to be resting on one of the boats). I was approached by an employee of the marina and asked who was I and what I was doing. I gave my name, explained I was a local amateur photographer, taking pictures of the birds and had permission from so and so to be there. He said OK. Similar encounter recently as a tourist, photographing a houseboat on a river. I was approached by a man (with an authoritarian air but no uniform) and asked pretty much the same questions. Gave the same answers (minus the 'local' part) and was allowed to go on my way. I have never yet been told I could not photograph anywhere. I'd like to think I would be calm and not lose my cool, but I do not like to be bullied so I do not know.

[3Honu]

This is a great thread; I'm learning exactly what protections I have as a photographer when confronted by street-level security drones. I have to say it hasn't happened to me yet but I'm fairly new to the game here.

Just remember that as you have stereotyped them they may have done the same to you and that is why they are asking you the questions.

[Photon Phil]

street-level security drones

Funny.. yet..... terrifying.

[Photon Phil]

Somebody with a body that shoots video should be able to easily get one of these encounters on video from the hip.

THAT resulting thread would rocket the poster to stardom.

[Karl Johnston]

Ya know what's weird, scott kelby had a video on this exact scenario just recently...you think he got it from here?

[Mosca]

Ya know what's weird, scott kelby had a video on this exact scenario just recently...you think he got it from here?

But... but... Kelby shoots Nikon!