"Photographers Reportedly Harassed and Detained by Mob"

As already said, regardless of arrogance, only one view is correct in the United States - that of the street photographers. This has been discussed here and elsewhere time and time again.

It really isn't important what the subject is. More importantly, there isn't a reason to suspect that a street photographer has any nefarious intentions unless something else is going on.

I am a parent of two young children. I understand the urge to protect them at all costs. However, there is a problem when parents perceive danger where there is no danger. Are you also saying that I should be breaking high resolution security cameras, because I don't know what will be done with the footage taken by them?

As a sometimes street photographer, I have had these confrontations. I have had them with police, parents, and boyfriends. I am always happy to have a civil discussion with anyone regarding something I consider a hobby and an art. Most of the time, I will even willingly delete pictures. However, I am not willing to have my rights or safety violated. In this case I would have probably called 911 and readied my pepper spray the instant someone said I wasn't going to leave.

Usually restrictions apply to high security military installations. These are few and far between, and you usually have to be on publicly accessible military property.

As for being able to see it from public, the test would be regarding the expectation of privacy. If you use an 800mm lens to see in the crack between my closed shades, that would be an intentional violation of my privacy. The difference with the NY photographer is that these were people with fully open shades that he could see from his own apartment.

magoosmc wrote in post #17497781
http://petapixel.com …ssed-and-detained-by-mob/

http://www.americanpho​tomag.com …graphers-looking-out-town

Instead of hostility, one can always legislate the 'problem' into non-existence...

https://photography-on-the.net …showthread.php?​p=17498652

[edit: After reading the full text of the bill, it appears only to reinforce commonly accepted requirement for permissions to be granted for 'commercial' purposes, but not for 'editorial' purposes. But being a poorly written confused document, it confusingly refers to a number of editorial uses as so-called 'commericial uses which are OK'!]

Photographers can skirt around the paranoia by not visiting the southeastern quarter of the USA, it would appear. The indications are that 'mad cow disease' has spread from Britain to the SE USA, as evidenced by the news article which reported about this mad cow, "At this point, the woman opened the door of the minivan, pointed to a backseat, said that she had her gun right there, and we were not leaving until the police arrived."

Individual states may pass more strict laws. Arkansas, for instance, is trying to pass a law restricting "street photography." Some states have passed laws prohibiting shooting farms from public roads.

One HUGE thing about that possible law in Arkansas, is that it applies to any photograph that can be viewed in Arkansas, regardless of where it was taken. That's just stupid. Insane, even.

Time to cut off all internet access to that state, and access to the US mail and other delivery companies.

That became a "stand your ground" moment. If someone threatens you by displaying a weapon, it is not only illegal in most states, but allows you the right to claim, "I was in fear for my life," allowing you, if you are also armed, to pull a gun and start shooting. Of course getting the locals to tell the truth afterward might not support your claim.

advaitin wrote in post #17499318
That became a "stand your ground" moment. If someone threatens you by displaying a weapon, it is not only illegal in most states, but allows you the right to claim, "I was in fear for my life," allowing you, if you are also armed, to pull a gun and start shooting. Of course getting the locals to tell the truth afterward might not support your claim.

And it could be said that the lady photographer and her travelling associate could rightfully claim 'assault' charges on the folks in the mob.

advaitin wrote in post #17499311
Individual states may pass more strict laws. Arkansas, for instance, is trying to pass a law restricting "street photography." .

After reading the full text of the bill, it appears only to be a poorly written law which reinforces what are commonly accepted requirement for permissions to be granted for 'commercial' purposes, but not required for 'editorial' purposes. But being a poorly written confused document, it confusingly refers to a number of editorial uses as so-called 'commericial' uses which are OK!

Wilt wrote in post #17499353
After reading the full text of the bill, it appears only to be a poorly written law which reinforces what are commonly accepted requirement for permissions to be granted for 'commercial' purposes, but not required for 'editorial' purposes. But being a poorly written confused document, it confusingly refers to a number of editorial uses as so-called 'commericial' uses which are OK!

What are the odds that even 10% of the legislators understand the issues addressed by this bill? I'd say about zero.

moose10101 wrote in post #17499527
What are the odds that even 10% of the legislators understand the issues addressed by this bill? I'd say about zero.

What are the odds that 90% of the general population in this country (USA) have no idea what
the general law are regarding so called street photography. For those who have stated you can
shot in any public place how about the Supreme Court.Certain places a little common sense needs
to be applied or you just might end up dead right.

The difficulty here always emerges -- do we believe we live in a free country? Well, we do if we don't mind our freedoms individually and independently controlled thru legislation. Always a sore spot with me personally, as a veteran who served this country and the freedoms it embodies.

The laws can NEVER assign every instance of certain specifics it tries to legislate. An impossibility - and why some file lawsuits and so many attorneys find employment in social argument.

Example: We once tried to write a composite of behavior for a town recreation sports activities -- explaining the league rules with regard to parent and kids behavior on sidelines and rules of 'individual equal playing time" ... We took on an impossible task we soon realized, and eventually we (the recreation committee) decided to reduce the hundred pages of specific rules down to about twenty general rules (Open to interpretation??) which many parents challenged whenever a parent thought his/her child was more special than the other kids.

Nearly every time a (USA) citizen calls a rule/law (like this street photography rule/law) into play, we'll find an equal number of citizens that disagree with its interpretation IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE ...

Where do we draw the line -- Is it age? (infant, toddler, teen) Is it level of dress? (beaches) Is it a public venue? (sports, concert) Is it a private circle within a public place? (My blanket in a park) ... the list becomes undefinable and infinite.

This is a battle photographers cannot win, but then again, neither can our opponents. The court system, however, will get rich and never solve the problem.

moose10101 wrote in post #17499527
What are the odds that even 10% of the legislators understand the issues addressed by this bill? I'd say about zero.

Well, of course. The adage:
"Those who can, Do; those who can't, Teach", has a typically unspoken continuation...

"...and those who can do Neither, are Politicians"

X2 ...

monkey44 wrote in post #17499681
Nearly every time a (USA) citizen calls a rule/law (like this street photography rule/law) into play, we'll find an equal number of citizens that disagree with its interpretation IN THAT SPECIFIC INSTANCE ...

Where do we draw the line -- Is it age? (infant, toddler, teen) Is it level of dress? (beaches) Is it a public venue? (sports, concert) Is it a private circle within a public place? (My blanket in a park) ... the list becomes undefinable and infinite.

This is a battle photographers cannot win, but then again, neither can our opponents. The court system, however, will get rich and never solve the problem.

Except in this instance, there isn't a correct interpretation to be had for those who disagree with the majority of street photographers (like this couple).

The law and courts have already defined many times what can be meant by an "expectation of privacy." Anyone in open and plain view of public property (like a park or sidewalk) does not have an expectation of privacy in the US. Just because they believe it to be true, does not make it so. The law does not make provisions for age or dress or any thing else. If you are in a public place (even private property accessible by the public) you do not have that expectation.

New laws could be written, but that isn't where we are now.

Two words....West Virginia