I'm a photographer, not a terrorist!

Wilt wrote in post #9121101
Nevertheless, we have heard of coaches who state "no photography", or "you can shoot, but you only if you give me copy of all the photos, and the rights to utilize the photos".

Yes, but I say again, what can he do? It's not his property, and frankly he has no fight behind his statements. He can make all the demands that he wants, but he's still using public facilities; which are there for everyone's enjoyment.

I would agree with Todd. This site is poor and (as I said before) needs some more meat behind it.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #9121105
That site badly needs some proofreading. Typos and misspellings galore.

Although I can respect the topic and fighting the good fight, I have to say that I feel that site is just making landmines out of molehills. It seems like they're just there to have a cause for a website.

I would disagree. The problem the Brits are facing is much worse than here in the states. Much worse. It is understandable their frustration level has reached a high.

On a somewhat related note, I started watching "The War on Kids": a documentary about the American school system and all the (rather insane) security procedures and rules they have. Kids being expelled for having scope (which was deemed to be a drug due to its alcohol content) is the case they are currently talking about. I think the photographers' situation is much like this one. Extremism and paranoia lead to crazy acting people and sometimes ludicrous legislation.

beeng wrote in post #9120972
Either I'd say "yea, that's my kid over there" and vaguely point in the direction of the field
Really though, I've never encountered this problem... or heard of anyone have a problem like that around here. If it's a public park though, everyone is still in the public venue and is open to photographing anyway.

edit: I think the biggest thing is to show up confident and look like you're supposed to be there. If you're off the side away from the bleachers of course people are going to be suspicious... you LOOK suspicious.

So, your solution is to either 1.) lie, 2.) tell whomever is confronting you to get stuffed, or 3.) look confident and unsuspicious, whatever that is.

Let us know how that works out.

Rick "thinking the only thing worse than hypothetical situations is theoretical responses" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #9121927
So, your solution is to either 1.) lie, 2.) tell whomever is confronting you to get stuffed, or 3.) look confident and unsuspicious, whatever that is.

Let us know how that works out.

I haven't needed to lie yet, as everyone I've come across hasn't given a crap. I don't tell them to get stuffed, I tell them that I'm just there shooting the game. They leave me alone; I would only tell them to get stuffed if they were confrontational and (generally) an ass. The third option you outlined works in all kinds of photography. If you show up to any kind of shoot looking like some imbecile who doesn't know a front element from an eyepiece, then you will definitely make everyone suspicious :P

So yes, it works out great. It seems we don't have the same issues that other regions have. Canadians are pretty social and tolerant people, which I guess helps with the whole "everyone is a pedophile!" thing.

Wilt wrote in post #9121101
Having to summon the police yourself, to deflect away "pervert" and "pedophile" claims by passing women at a public park, is another hassle that POTN members have endured. I distinctly remember one flower macro shooter being accused "you we're shooting pictures of my butt!"

Despite my post above, there really are times when "Get stuffed!" is the only appropriate response, heh, heh.

The notion of controlling photographers on the street is, to me, an outgrowth of the general desire of (mostly women, in my experience) to control the extent and manner in which their neighbors affect their quality of life, as they see it. 50 or 100 years ago, such people were called "do-gooders", often by unassailably reputable citizens. It was not a compliment.

The distortions and hypocrisies amaze me at times. If I photograph someone's house, I'm casing it for a burglary or invading their privacy. But those same people gleefully look at other people's houses on Google's Street View or aerial photos. I once put a Rubbermaid garden shed in my back yard, only to be cited--on threat of a $100/day fine--for not having it reviewed by the "Architectural Review Board". If the do-gooders weren't snooping in my yard, they wouldn't have known it was there, and if they bought their houses to live in rather to invest in, they wouldn't have cared in any case. The requirements for the submission included a survey and site plan, which if I wasn't already a civil engineer would have cost me some hundreds of dollars--all in the service of putting in a $275 box to store my lawn mower. They approved it, but that didn't mean I didn't have to spend a couple of days dealing with it. Those are small issues, but related to this topic by the desire of people to lord it over their neighbors, often with the good-sounding but really ambiguous excuse of child safety.

Terrorism is a bigger issue, but the fact is that the photos aren't the problem, bombs are the problem. Hassling photographers is a means of hopping up and down and calling it progress.

Rick "who has photographed police all around Westminster and not been hassled" Denney

beeng wrote in post #9121984
Canadians are pretty social and tolerant people, which I guess helps with the whole "everyone is a pedophile!" thing.

Not looking suspicious is like not looking like a pedophile. The first thing you have to define is what "suspicious" looks like. I'm a corporate executive and engineer and do a lot of government contracting--the very definition of upstanding. But that might not count for anything if, as a man in his fifties, I'm photographing the children of people who don't know me. Maybe being unsuspicious requires me to bring my wife. Sheesh.

Knowing how to handle the camera will have no impact on others who don't know how to handle a camera. Expertise is hard to judge by the inexpert, and nothing prevents a pedophile from being 1.) well-to-do enough to own a nice camera, and 2.) expert in using it.

And considering that nearly everyone does not live in Canada, offering advice based on what works with Canadians (which my experience, by the way, does not confirm) seems unhelpful.

Finally, refusing someone's request, however politely, is still telling them to get stuffed, if they are in the mind to receive it that way. And the people instigating these confrontations are in that mind almost by definition.

Rick "thinking it hasn't happened to you yet" Denney

rdenney wrote in post #9122156
Offering advice based on what works with Canadians seems unhelpful.

Alright, I will keep all my very Canadian opinions and experiences to myself.

Good-bye thread, I will always remember you <3

Yes, having a dog or a wife/girlfriend means you are officially "a good guy". Crazy as that logic is, it seems to work.

beeng wrote in post #9122354
Alright, I will keep all my very Canadian opinions and experiences to myself.

Good-bye thread, I will always remember you <3

Not my intent. But it does show what I have often observed--Canadian friendliness and sociability has a limit that is hard to see but sudden when it appears. (It's not just Canadians, of course.)

Please do not take that as a personal attack--it is not intended as such. The intent is to show that responding to confrontation with further confrontation, however it is delivered, is usually not a good solution, even with friendly people.

Rick "whose challenge was delivered politely but received as confrontation" Denney

Despite my best intentions of parachuting out of this thread before it goes down, you have drawn me back in. I will attempt to explain things a bit better:

rdenney wrote in post #9122434
The intent is to show that responding to confrontation with further confrontation, however it is delivered, is usually not a good solution, even with friendly people.

The medium is the message. Depending on how you say, move, or display facially changes the perceived meaning of the message. There are ways of refusing things without flat out refusing. If, for instance, the coach asked you to stop taking photos perhaps you would question why? Why is the coach so offended by you taking photos of his great and amazing team?
Like I said though, I have never run into this problem, and doubt I will anytime in the near future. There just doesn't seem to be that mentality around here. (Sorry for the very Canadian opinion based on my experiences. One might even say that your experiences are also irrelevant, as you are a citizen of but one country)
As for the looking suspicious bit, I was trying to educate people on ways of avoiding confrontation. The analogy of eye-piece to front element was just an example that everyone here (as photographers) would understand. Being out in the open, approachable, and sociable are the main points I was trying to get across... although failed miserably. It is amazing how open people are when you simply talk to them. Naturally, it would be quite impractical to go around talking to every single parent at each game; so being approachable and not hiding off in the trees is the best way to put peoples minds at ease.

My god, this post was long. Look what you've done Rick, look.

I intend to offer resistance every time authority accuses me of a crime based on my presumed criminal thoughts.
Proving a person is a pediphile or a terrorist is done in a courtroom. An arrest can be made if a person is caught in the act of breaking a law, and guilt is still not proven until it is proven in a courtroom.
The idea that someone can walk up to me while I am engaged in a legal activity and accuse me of doing something illegal based on their interpretation of my thoughts is so far from acceptable, I can't imagine ever being able to just say OK and walk away.

beeng wrote in post #9122534
My god, this post was long. Look what you've done Rick, look.

Yes, and it was quite instructive.

Rick "wishing Americans were as friendly and minded their own business as well as Canadians think they do" Denney

Just curious but when did being a GWC = Photojournalist?

I get it that the government (in the USofA) can't abridge my "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness" but just because I'm carrying a camera, I'm not above any other life form and I can be suspected or accused of something just like anyone else.

A GWC is not a member of the Media and therefore somehow entitled to additional access, protection or rights. He's just a GWC.

Do people think that photographers from the NY Times, NatGeo or SI just "show up" at locations or events and commence to shooting?

There's days, weeks, months and even years of applying, schmoozing, connecting, communicating, begging, pleading, cajoling and otherwise going through proper channels to get the necessary access to do what they do.

Most of what I read on here about people getting hassled seems to stem from really poor assumptions on the part of photographers regarding what they can / can't do with a camera and the protection(s) to which they seem to assume they're entitled.

If there's something or somewhere you really want to shoot, at the very least, go talk to someone in charge. We have an aviation photography group here in the greater Phoenix area and there's really no where we aren't welcome because we've taken the time to build relationships and earn the trust of airport managers and security people. They know us and know we aren't a threat. If anything, they know we're observant, we care about aviation and airports and we're watching for things that seem out of place.

It can (and should) be a two way street. So there's something you want to capture? What can you offer the subject or owners of the subject in return? You have to show those in charge that there's some value to what you're doing.

FlyingPhotog wrote in post #9123067
It can (and should) be a two way street. So there's something you want to capture? What can you offer the subject or owners of the subject in return? You have to show those in charge that there's some value to what you're doing.

Ah yes, this is a very important point. Going back to what we were talking about before (shooting local small-time ball games), if someone asks for the photos of their son or daughter I would be glad to email them to them (after PP of course ). I'm not a pro by any means and therefore am glad to spread my photos around as long as credit is given where credit is due. I guess this all falls under the being open point I made.