Stand your ground, photographers rights.

The video speaks for itself...

http://www.youtube.com …eTeam#p/a/u/0/F​JH9F7Hcluo

old news, this has been posted here and about a million other places in the last few weeks

The really sad part is that these guys ARE breaking the law.
I refuse to believe that any of these people have signed a release and the video is used commercially. It may be on youtube, but meant to draw attention to their "organisation". And yep... That organisation is commercial in nature.

And more than half the time, they were actually on PRIVATE property.

What one should pay attention to here, is the general level of professionalism and politeness, of the police officers.

quiksquirrel wrote in post #12915434
What one should pay attention to here, is the general level of professionalism and politeness, of the police officers.

Exactly, and great point.

I must admid i have never had any problems with police when out with my camera but the hopped up little hitler security guards can be a different story lol

quiksquirrel wrote in post #12915434
What one should pay attention to here, is the general level of professionalism and politeness, of the police officers.

+1 to that

Made me laugh. Great video.

dubstylz wrote in post #12915532
I must admid i have never had any problems with police when out with my camera but the hopped up little hitler security guards can be a different story lol

I watched the first eight minutes of the video (gotta' get ready for work), and none of the private security personnel struck me as being "hopped up little hitler security guards". In fact, most of them seemed quite polite in expressing their concerns regarding photography...

no i didnt mean the guys on there are hopped up(well 1 of them is) some of the security i have personaly come across have been though.

quiksquirrel wrote in post #12915434
The really sad part is that these guys ARE breaking the law.
I refuse to believe that any of these people have signed a release and the video is used commercially. It may be on youtube, but meant to draw attention to their "organisation". And yep... That organisation is commercial in nature.

And more than half the time, they were actually on PRIVATE property.

What one should pay attention to here, is the general level of professionalism and politeness, of the police officers.

First off, I think you need to read more about the defination of "commercial." I don't think any of the video could qualify for commercial. The video itself is an editorial on "authorities" reactions to public photography. It doesn't matter if the organization is commercial, only if the video is used in a commercial way. I would call this a news piece before calling it commercial.

Also, you can photograph from private property as long as there is a reasonable expectation you are allowed to be there in the first place (think publically accessable). What you cannot do is remain on the property after being asked to leave. In every instance the photographers stepped off private property when asked. This means that they broke no laws.

I do agree with you that this video is very complementary to the actual police officers involved in the interactions. It is often security that gives us more problem than those with actual police powers.

I have seen similar videos before. You'd think there would be some sort of ethics with building owners about photographers outside your building in public areas.

I agree, the police officers were much more professional than the security personnel. I think the photographers had valid arguments. They were on public property and not getting in anyone's way.

Kudos for the photographers for standing their ground and Kudos to the police officers for knowing the law!

Great video!

I just finished watching the second half of the video and, quite frankly, no one really seemed out of line in that video. The three "police actions" (a bit of a dramatic description by the film maker) were not out of line. Security personnel had concerns, so they called the police. Some security personnel were able to resolve things with the photographer directly.

If anything, this video shows that if you maintain your composure, aren't rude, and listen to the other guy, things can usually get worked out. Unfortunately, I get the impression that some responding to this thread would react in more of an "in your face" manner, and that never accomplishes anything...

MattPharmD wrote in post #12917162
First off, I think you need to read more about the defination of "commercial." I don't think any of the video could qualify for commercial. The video itself is an editorial on "authorities" reactions to public photography. It doesn't matter if the organization is commercial, only if the video is used in a commercial way. I would call this a news piece before calling it commercial.

When used to promote a commercial organisation, the video is commercial. They even use these videos on their own site, so you can be pretty damn sure that my definition of commercial is correct.

And that is where they are clearly breaking the law.

It's also pretty clear that they were quite aware that they were on private property. It was nothing more than a cheap trick to provoke a reaction from the security guards.

It doesn't really improve their case much either, that they flat out lied on more than one occasion, when someone asked if they were being filmed. Not only did they not get releases, they also knowingly and purposefully misled the individuals they are taking advantage of.

quiksquirrel wrote in post #12917523
It doesn't really improve their case much either, that they flat out lied on more than one occasion, when someone asked if they were being filmed. Not only did they not get releases, they also knowingly and purposefully misled the individuals they are taking advantage of.

I always watch things like this with a ridiculously large grain of salt, exactly for reasons such as the one you've pointed out...

i wonder how things would have gone down if they were on public property taking pictures of peoples' kids.