"Hey you... yeah you... with the camera. You gotta come with me. Now"

Jim Cowlin sends this link

The question of whether it is getting harder to shoot images in public places is compelling. Whether it really is or not is open for debate. I am not sure the article makes either point.

"In general, photojournalists have no more rights than ordinary citizens to take pictures.

If you're standing on public property, you can shoot anything the naked eye can see, explains Ken Kobre, professor of photojournalism at San Francisco State University and author of one of the seminal textbooks on the subject."

I was run off the property at 24th St and Camelback when shooting from the sidewalk with an 8x10 camera. I was shooting the recent installation of copper on one of the new buildings there. (1981)

I was escorted off the property at Central and Osborne when shooting an image for my portfolio of the bank building there. The uniformed cops (called by the bank security guards) told me it was illegal to shoot photographs of banks. When I challenged them to show me the statute (in a Gee Whiz- friendly manner BTW) they called in and found that it didn't really exist as a 'law' it was considered a 'suspicious activity'. We parted laughing at the stupid bank guards. (1984)

I was forcibly removed while shooting a 'street photography' exhibit at SF MOMA. You just consider the irony there for yourselves. (1984 or 1985) In addition... they were the rudest, most offensive, angry, belligerant - the most aggressively hostile folks that I ever encountered in one of these situations. Most of my dealings with those in uniform were neutral to friendly.

There have been many incidents since then. In every case it was annoying and confirmed my belief in limited Gubment, however it always ended peacefully, most of the times congenially. I don't have recurring nightmares of 'Gestapo thuggishness', nor do I feel my constitutional rights were 'stripped' from me. In most cases good people, well intentioned over-reacted in order to protect something they felt they should protect.

"Ms. Calzada offers the example of a small-town photojournalist in Victoria, Texas, who was taking shots of potholes for a newspaper story last year when a police officer drove by several times. Finally, the officer stopped and questioned him and, even after running an ID check, bluntly declared the photographer's actions suspicious and intimated he'd be keeping an eye on him, the photographer recalls.

Big deal. Is that really a 'story'? Was the photographer really that intimidated? Get over it.

In thirty years of photography I have been thrown out, asked to leave and been asked to provide ID at least a dozen times. Maybe more. None made the news. Now we have an incident where a photographer has the same thing happen to them and it makes national news.

Most of us agree that the laws / restrictions / ordinances are, uh, well... stooopid. If you were a bad guy it is doubtful that your sneaky camera of choice would be a 4x5 - on a tripod - in early morning - with a light meter and a gray card.

I think that these things are being reported more now. In the article it also mentions the fact that many regular people are getting more and more resistant to the ubiquitous camera...

"Other factors play a role as well. During the past 10 to 15 years, police and even bystanders have become less tolerant of photojournalists, Kobre says. "The public really reached its apex of being fed up" with paparazzi after Princess Diana's death, he says. And the distinction between paparazzi and mainstream journalists is disappearing as celebrity journalism seeps into all areas of the media. [Editor's note: The original version misattributed Kobre's quote.]"

I think there is going to be an interesting, and frightening, "tipping point" when citizens armed with digital cameras and camcorders start recording the events around them with more places to publish. Remember Rodney King? He may never have gotten justice if not for a citizen with a camera. At that time, there was no way to publish those videos. But now with the internet, there are more places to publish - get the word out - show the lies, corruption and more.

Politicians, media hacks and law enforcement in particular are terribly afraid of these "gotcha" tools. Politicians are reminded on influential blogs and video of what they said 5 or 10 years ago. Law enforcement is caught on video doing what it shouldn't. Reporters who used to get away with half truths, innuendo and madeup sources are being challenged as never before.

Considering the power of the above group collectively... the thought that they will capitulate and play by the rules without a fight is fairly remote to me. There are currently moves afoot to limit blogs... free speech is only for those who went to Journalism School. There are more and more restrictions on who can be photographed, where - and by whom. (Thank the papparazzi and the excesses that they wear as a badge of honor, oh, and the camera phones in locker rooms) Banks, subways, railroads... all want to be considered 'protected' for a wide variety of reasons including insurance and litigation. I am sure we will have to fight, and fight hard, in the future to be allowed to do what we do.

I hope we win.

Update: From Michael Muratore;
"I came across this link a while back. A lawyer who wrote a downloadable
brochure entitled "The Photographer's Right". Explains (basically) what
your rights are as a photographer, and what to do if you get harassed:"

"Photographers Rights"