What is Digg?357 Comments
- thomashawk, on 05/14/2008, -15/+204Photography is not a crime. It's a shame that a photographer would be harassed this way in one of the most visited and historic public buildings in the United States. Union Station's website claims to have over 32 million visitors a year and yet they think it makes sense to harass someone taking photographs there. Union Station will not be one of the places that I spend my money the next time I'm in Washington DC.
- lhbaker, on 05/14/2008, -5/+168It's the Global War on Tourism
- sockpuppets, on 05/14/2008, -5/+119The security guards aren't the douchebags here, they're merely paid $8 an hour to enforce whatever policy the management has in place. The "getting arrested" part would actually have to do with criminal trespass after not leaving the property when asked to do so- ostensibly because it's "private." The photographer wouldn't be arrested for taking photos, despite whatever insinuation the security drones made.
So really the issue here is "why is there a no photography policy in this pseudo-public venue?" And we all know the answer to that, it's 9/11. To me this is just an example of how we overreacted to 9/11 and its consequence. - unfilterthought, on 05/14/2008, -1/+95Everyone knows standing around a camera and tripod is what terrorists do.
- tuzy2k, on 05/14/2008, -14/+110As a DC resident I am appalled by this. I saw Andy twittering as this was happening yesterday, and having met the guy, am even more revolted that this would happen to him. This issue needs to be passed around so as to put a stop to stupidity such as this. Photography is not a crime.
- gronne, on 05/14/2008, -2/+88Know Your Photographers Rights:
http://krages.com/phoright.htm - kbaird, on 05/14/2008, -5/+68Fight Al Qamera in America!!!
- RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -5/+69NO! No, no, no!
You should not, and DO NOT have to prove your innocence under their presumption of guilt! - superchou, on 05/14/2008, -23/+81Here is the contact information for the company who manages the site. I wonder if the people there are aware that their contacted security guards are enforcing non-existent laws
Jones Lang LaSalle Management Office
(202) 289-1908 - LegoLooney27, on 05/14/2008, -0/+56I was nearly arrested in Washington D.C. for taking a picture of the metro coming through the tunnel. I was told it might scare the passengers into thinking there was a fire or explosion or that the images could be used for illegal actions. What bull...
- roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -17/+72Firstly, It's not a public building, it's privately owned.
Second, I fight often for photographers rights, but the thing lately is that everyone with a couple hundred bucks can buy a decent SLR and think they are King ***** of ***** mountain. It's hard to fight for the rights of photographers when so many of them overstep the line. It's a private building. If you are shooting, and they ask you to stop, then you stop. Period.
This guy was being a prick about it, trying to instigate an incident so he had something to write on his blog about.
Photographers have some great rights, but with those come the responsibility to respect people around you, and respect the wishes of people/businesses that do not want you to photograph them. - underdog138, on 05/14/2008, -0/+40Absolutely. In fact, last summer when the Google Streetview car drove by my house, I shot out its tires, dragged the driver out of the car and gave him a good beating.
That's not the first run in I've had with Google though. I tracked down the bastards that licensed the usage of the satellite photos they use for Google Maps, then shot it out of the sky.
***** disrespectin' my authoritah. - wrenchone, on 05/14/2008, -8/+48He wasn't almost arrested because he was breaking a law forbidding him to take pictures -- he was threated with arrest for ignoring requests to not take pictures on private property. If you are on public ground, you can take pictures of whatever you want. When you are on private property, you are at the mercy of the property owner, and if a representative of the owner asks you to leave and stop and you don't, that's trespassing.
I'm sure that people take hundreds of pictures there a day, but not using the equipment that he was using. A tourist with a point and click digital isn't going to cause a disturbance, or be able to take high enough quality pictures to profit off of. Now, two guys standing around with camera gear, including a motorized panohead on a tripod? From a management standpoint, who knows what they're doing. Yes what they were doing was harmless, but they could have easily been taking a high quality pictures to sell later, and as a building owner you have a right to control how your building is used.
It's only polite and responsible to check with owners first if you want to use ANY kind of equipment on their property. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -4/+42Except that on private property, you can be asked to leave at any time. You can also be told no photographs.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -10/+42Are security guards given an IQ test that they must fail before being hired? Or can they have that waived if they weigh over a certain amount?
- HibikiRush, on 05/14/2008, -13/+42I thought there'd be more to this article, it underwhelmed me. Twittered it:
"reading article. quite underwhelming" - IphtashuFitz, on 05/14/2008, -2/+28From the brochure at that link: "Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. Whether you hneed permission from property owners to take photographs while on their premises depends on the circumstances. In most places, you may reasonably assume that taking photographs is allowed and that you do not need explicit permission. However, this is a judgment call and you should request permission when the circumstances suggest that the owner is likely to object. In any case, when a property owner tells you not to take photographs while on the premises, you are legally obligated to honor the request."
I know nothing about Union Station but I'm guessing that it's private property, just like virtually every store, mall, office building, etc. It likely doesn't receive public funding for the operation of the building but collects rent from any stores/vendors that it houses. As such, the property managers would have every right to kick these guys out for not obtaining permission. As an amateur photographer I think it sucks and I think these guards overreacted, especially since they refused for so long to answer the legitimate questions being asked of them. But in the end, they were in the right. - OUberLord, on 05/14/2008, -2/+29I can use a spoon to kill someone, and therefore using spoons must be a crime, right?
- underdog138, on 05/14/2008, -0/+27Anyone who thinks a camera flash is a fire or an explosion needs to lay off the acid.
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -2/+31As an aviation photographer, I am no stranger to suffering harassment from security and law enforcement personnel while pursuing my hobby. At the same time, I recognize that there are certain places that, if asked to leave, I am legally obligated to leave. People like this guy who whine about not being allowed to shoot wherever the hell they want make the rest of us look bad and do a disservice to those of us who follow the rules.
Furthermore, this likely had little to do with "homeland security" or "oppressing our rights" and more to do with simple safety rules. On New York City subways, for example, they have always (as in pre-9/11) had a policy where you can photograph anything you want, but if you want to use a tripod on their property, you need a permit. I wouldn't be surprised if they had a similar policy in Union Station. - drlha, on 05/14/2008, -1/+26Not the outside of it, no.
- roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -2/+31No, they call the cops to arrest them for trespassing. Once you're told to leave, if you stay, you're trespassing.
And they don't have to tell him why. - RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -7/+30Again, NO! I would not and WILL NOT, do this. What you are advocating is me walking into Walmart and telling the "greeter" that "I am shopping today. I am not shoplifting."
- ashfish, on 05/14/2008, -0/+20I think that'd be classified as espionage, not photography.
- OverThere, on 05/14/2008, -0/+20It is, but when publicly stated. Such as in or around the Pentagon or some military bases as they have notices stating that "unauthorized photography is prohibited". I've never seen one of those signs around Union Station though.
- yunus, on 05/14/2008, -1/+20You've got it backwards, things are legal unless there is a law against it. It's not that everything is illegal unless there is a law allowing it.
- noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -1/+19Photographing classified material IS a crime, photographing is NOT.
- gothicform, on 05/14/2008, -1/+21Yesterday at Canary Wharf in London I was told I needed a license to take photos. The guard was unable to tell me which parts were private, which parts are not, why people with camera phones were not being troubled and why there were no signs saying photography was prohibited. It seems that landowners want to create the impression of public space, but then introduce completely arbitary and unequal rules on enforcing things. Tourist with SLR = bad. Tourist with camera phone = good. Security guards and property owners = stupid.
I cant help but feel that the only real losers in this whole war on terror thing have been us, the people. The terrorists have won simply because we are losing our freedoms. - ashfish, on 05/14/2008, -1/+18They did show their press passes, but were still told to leave. Really odd, I would think they'd want the good publicity.
- noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -1/+19They showed their press passes, didn't do a damned bit of good.
- swrostmore, on 05/14/2008, -3/+20What is the relationship between 9/11 and taking photos? Is there a single documented case of "terrorists" taking photos of a building before attacking it?
- RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -0/+15OMG, Officer! Was that reflection of SUN light off your badge?! Quick! Take off all metal before the passengers panic!
- juniorb, on 05/14/2008, -3/+19The problem here is that we are setting a precedent for people in the United States to feel more and more comfortable without freedom. Do you honestly believe that in 10 years there will be any public spaces left? Look around you, practically every building and gathering place is private property now.
The fact of the matter is that as we continue to allow private entities to gobble up public space, we put ourselves in a situation where incompetent middle management decides what you or I can do. I’m not suggesting there is an easy solution; it’s a frighteningly complex dilemma, but we are fast entering a situation where the only place you are free is in your own house. That’s not the country I was raised in, that’s not the American lifestyle we continue to promote abroad, and it’s certainly not conducive to a free and open constitutional republic.
For all of you claiming “it’s private property, they can do what they want,” I hope when you’re asked to leave a mall because you’re wearing a Peace On Earth t-shirt, you finally understand how freedom is dying without even a whimper. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -2/+20The word "public property" doesnt mean what you seem to think it does.
Being in public isnt the same thing as being on pubic property, its amazing how many diggers fail to make that great leap of logic. Your local food court is clearly considered being in public, but the people that own the building (and the security they hire to protect it) can sure as ***** toss you out if they want to. - inactive, on 05/14/2008, -3/+189:00 Getting harassed
9:15 Getting into cop car
10:50 Getting ***** - faskill, on 05/14/2008, -2/+17Pictures of the outside of my house? No problem. Pictures specifically pointed in the windows? Small problem. Pictures inside the house? Different issue entirely. A home is truly private property.
A public area, accessible by the public should be allowed to be photographed. If the public are is a restaurant or a train station, the photographers should request permission before setting up shop. Had they been in a public park, this wouldn't be an issue, but they were in a publicly accessible, privately owned area. - scott88008, on 05/14/2008, -2/+16Can you be arrested for having photographic memory?
- inactive, on 05/14/2008, -1/+14So you admit your wife is your boss?
- HouseofEl, on 05/14/2008, -3/+16It took me five seconds to get this on their website. I'm not saying their in the right or wrong, but if I was going to photograph the station in the way they did? I would checked the legality in this day and age. On their front page is a link to "Photo / Film Authorization". Right or wrong, they should have done their homework. I'm from the DC area and I could have told you they would have issues with it. Not saying it's right, but you don't just assume something when it comes to major public or private places in Washington D.C.
http://www.unionstationdc.com/photo.asp - DucoNihilum, on 05/14/2008, -3/+16I don't recognize your house as a private building .It's rather large and I enjoy some of the things in it. You don't mind if I just stay in there for a few weeks, you know, without permission, right?
- sockpuppets, on 05/14/2008, -1/+13Only if you're R Kelly.
- FearFactory, on 05/14/2008, -0/+11What about the thousands of tourists coming through there everyday with cameras?
- cheviot, on 05/14/2008, -6/+18Union Station is owned by Amtrak and Amtrak is owned by the federal government. It's public property, not private.
- faskill, on 05/14/2008, -0/+11Well as long as chanop thinks it... that's all that matters. Hey chanop, can you also think up me winning the lottery and being able to fly?
- NJank, on 05/14/2008, -0/+10actually, didn't they practice on MS Flight Simulator? WAS MS IN ON 9/11 !!???!!!?!?!?!?!
- badart, on 05/14/2008, -0/+10I've worked as a location scout for commercial photo shoots for the past 20 years, and while you have the right to shoot and use pictures of public property, you don't necessarily have the right to conduct a photo shoot from any particular spot, even if it is public. There are lots and lots of permitting procedures from almost every public place you can think of once you set a tripod or any equipment on the ground. They say this can endanger public safety, damage local flora and fauna(National Parks), create a nuisance, whatever. If you are handholding a camera you can usually shoot just about anywhere. Believe me, I wish you could shot anywhere you want, it would make my life quite a bit easier, but for practical purposes, you just can't.
- biofh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+9Union Station Wash. DC is owned by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation whose board is made up wholly of state and federal governmental office including the National Railroad Passenger Corporation dba Amtrak. The site may be leased and managed by a private entity (Jones Lang LaSalle), but it is a federally owned site. Federal = me and you and the gov't system we hire to run it. This, by law, makes it a public building _especially_ as it is operated as a publicly accessible space and no restrictions on entry are present.
You can read the Wikipedia link you submitted to confirm this. - cathpah, on 05/14/2008, -1/+11While I don't agree with this practice of banning/criminalizing photography in public places (especially those that include transportation), this is FAR from uncommon. I've been hassled or threatened at many public places...and they always point to the possiblity of me planning terror attacks with my photos. Not that it should matter one way or another, but I'm a white american at that...admittedly, I'm relatively covered in tattoos and have gauged ears.
I'm a professional photographer who's spent over 2 1/2 years abroad shooting travel photography. I've NEVER experienced so much trouble with cameras as I do here in the US. In my travels I've found many significant sites that may ban cameras in general, but you can usually contact someone in charge of that and either pay a fee or smile nicely....and thats often for religious relics.
Old transportation hubs and other American monuments have been photographed for years, and there are thousands of books, postcards, and other forms of media with literally millons of pictures of these places, taken from many angles. If a terrorist/wrongdoer/villain really had to resort to photos for their planning, one would think they would be able to find all that they needed to know in tourist literature.
The law used to be relatively simple. If you can shoot it from a public place, it's your photo to shoot (can't necessarily sell that image, but you can certainly take it for personal use)
Laws/rules/regulations/***** like these are ridiculous. Authorities need to stop using the veiled threat of terrorists/ism to regulate things that ought to be out of their control. Terrorism very probably will strike again....but using it as a puppet of fear for everything down to taking pictures of famous places is ludicrous. - VitriolAndAngst, on 05/14/2008, -3/+14If I took my clothes of in Union Station -- would I have the assumption of privacy?
No. I would not.
I would be hauled off and charged with "Public Indecency." Seems that companies love to get all the benefits and none of the downsides of "having rights." Union Station gave up it's "right to privacy" when it let the public in the door -- end of story. - jbenson2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8The detail in the photograph is absolutely amazing. The zoom in shot of the Sam Adam's beer bottle was incredible.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 357 discussions
No big deal, vassever. Bruno is our latest guest for Digg Dialogg. 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is