digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

Almost Arrested for Taking Photos at Union Station

andycarvin.com — Almost Arrested for Taking Photos at Union Station

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • 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.
    • photolarry, on 05/14/2008, -35/+10This is a common thing after 9/11 as it is sometimes perceived as a threat. Just explain to any security officer that you are a legit photographer and if possible show a press pass so they know you are not just some tourist. Hope this helps. Also remember this is DC...super political. There are laws regarding public places versus private residences. If there is a reasonable assumption of privacy, you cannot photograph. Up to you to decide what that means.
      • 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!
        • hipnerd, on 05/14/2008, -5/+12That is true, but the right to take photos is not absolute. There are at least one possible legal reason that might allow the security guards to stop them from taking photos: If Union Station is actually private property and they represent the management.

          You can take photos in any "public space" such as a mall or amusement park, but if it is on private property and the property owner asks you to stop, you have to stop. I tried looking it up and evidently Union Station is "a private/public partnership," so there is at least a possibility that they do have the right to prohibit photos.

          That doesn't mean they weren't being over-reactionary idiots, only that they may be legally entitled to be over-reactionary idiots. They do not have the authority to delete photos or confiscate cameras in any case.
          • RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Having to prove your innocence is completely different from being asked to leave, or being told to stop taking pictures. While one may lead to the other, they are not the same issue.

            Having to prove you have a right TO take pictures is very, very wrong.

          • hipnerd, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2No one asked him to prove he had a right to take photos. They own the place (it appears.) So they get to decide if he can take photos or not. Their decision-making process appears to be arbitrary and stupid, but legally, they can chose who can take photos on their property.
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7Union Station can only be considered Private Property, in a technical/legal way -- on paper. In no reality of life, can this be considered a private place. Or, are there 30 million trespassers a year?
          • shakin, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7It's just like a store. It's private property, but a publicly accessible space that you do not need permission to enter. As long as it's legally private property then you must comply if asked to leave or stop taking photographs. The photographer was being an arrogant prick. The security guards asked nicely that he leave and he refused.

            The photographer should have told the security guards that he didn't realize Union Station was private property and asked if there was someone he could talk to in order to obtain permission to take photographs.
          • lamiaconfitor, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1@shakin, yeah, but considering the situation, and the fact that the 'policy' was not clearly defined they should have more readily made contact with upper management sooner to quell the issue.
      • 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.
        • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -3/+8I m curious about "press passes" since when do you need a pass for your 1st amendment rights?
          • noahhoward, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2To have freedoms of the press you need some method of showing you're with the press.
        • DucoNihilum, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6You have no right to trespass on private property, private property owners have the right to be irrational if they please. Just because something is 'public access' does not mean you can do whatever you want, you have to follow the rules of the property owner, even if they don't appreciate photos.
          • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6This is nonsense. The government could farm out every piece of itself, and on paper -- all these functions of the public, that are subsidized and licensed by the public, could then be private. They could then say all of our Constitutional Rights are merely a courtesy, offered by the proprietors.

            ... oh yeah, that is just the sort of crap that is going on.

            If Union Station wants to be considered private property, than let's tax them more, lease out the area to competition, and then they can be liable like a private owner for any accidents and crime.
    • JK1150, on 05/14/2008, -43/+9guess you wouldn't be pissed if i took a bunch of pictures of ur house?
      • drlha, on 05/14/2008, -1/+26Not the outside of it, no.
      • 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.

        Assholes disrespectin' my authoritah.
        • Pixelante, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5You're a sissy. Don't come back until you have the little skulls of the Google crew's kids hanging from your belt, made out of their hide.
      • 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.
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6This should be considered as a Public Park.
          You can't get all the benefits of acting like a public service, and then declare yourself private. I don't notice any private memberships or club fees being handed out. They are open to the public without discretion and therefore this is a public space.

          If that isn't the law -- then it should be.
          • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1If you don't have a fence can people come in your yard and throw parties at 3am?

            I mean, its accessible to the public, right?
          • Nesh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"If you don't have a fence can people come in your yard and throw parties at 3am?
            I mean, its accessible to the public, right?"
            The difference is that Union Station is there with the expectation that it will be used in a public manner. Your yard doesn't carry the same expectation.
          • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Apparently, he has 30 million people a year walking through his yard. Either he isn't very aware of people looking in his window - or he is a proud exhibitionist.
      • lisaawesome, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8Come on over and take pictures! There are pictures of the outside already on Google, and I know I have posted photos of the inside of my house on the web. So what?
        • underdog138, on 05/14/2008, -4/+2Well to be fair, I suppose the parent comment implies his concern with why some stranger would be in your house in the first place. Never mind taking pictures.
          • lisaawesome, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6A stranger being inside my house is a very different situation than a random person inside of Union Station. As long as I gave them permission to come out (which I sorta did above) they can take all the damn pictures they want and do what they want with them. The pictures don't concern me one bit. What are they gonna show? That I have a messy kitchen? That I haven't mowed my lawn? The issue in the article was about the right of photography not the right to be inside the building. If anyone wants to come over and take pictures just let me know so I don't try to shoot you for trespassing because trespassing does bother me (which I admit the photographer was doing once the security guards asked him to leave. he should have left and called and gotten it worked out to avoid a trespassing arrest).
      • CryRightardCry, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3So you LIVE in Union Station, dumbass?
      • DontGiveADamn, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1My house's picture is on my web site. Please come over and take some pictures, I will even give you permission to put them on your web site.
    • 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.
      • cawpin, on 05/14/2008, -7/+14While I agree with you and dugg you for your intelligent delivery I have to point something out. It doesn't matter if it is a privately owned space if anyone can walk in, which you can in Union Station. It doesn't seem to me that he is trying to start anything. He just wants to know why they had to leave and they wouldn't give him an answer. A security guard doesn't have the power to physically detain you, let alone arrest you as they were told they would be.
        • 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.
          • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -19/+7And there lies the problem. They do not need a reason. THATS A PROBLEM. I do not recognize union station as a private building. its literally a historical landmark a virtual national treasure. They may privately USE it but its definitely a public building no matter what the deed says.
          • r3s0p, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7@Nerys
            lol, is that how it works?
          • 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?
          • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Nerys

            By your logic, Most of the skyscrapers in NY are public buildings. Ever been to a place like Newport, RI? The mansions are what the place is known for, they are very historic mansions, but are owned by private families and always have been. Those should be public too because they are "national treasures" or some bs?

          • Elliuotatar, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5But a subway station isn't a private residence. It's a major center through which millions of people travel every year. And this particular one is a historic building, which torusits might travel to specifically to look at the architecture. It's a crime that they should be allowed to tell people they can't photograph such a beautiful building which people are tromping through on a daily basis anyway. There's no good reason for that.
          • TopherT, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2So 'public' transportation? Does the company own the track? If not, then what is public about the transportation if they are it's gatekeepers. If they can arbitrarily refuse entrance to people, isn't this akin to putting up roadblocks on public roads? Certainly there is a law against that.
        • Metman, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6"It doesn't matter if it is a privately owned space if anyone can walk in" - They have a right regardless. Just because you are allowed to enter the private property does not make it public property. As a private business they reserve the right to exclude service and access to any person they choose - regardless of open access or not. Though I think both parties could have handled this a lot better.
      • 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.
        • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4Not at all.

          If you do the same in front of a window at your house...you get nailed for public indecency as well. You're house is no less private in that case. You're failing to recognize the difference in the meaning of "public" in its 2 different forms.
        • Darkhacker, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5IANAL, but as I understand it, storefronts have "assumed entry" where anyone is allowed to enter without explicit permission. However, you must leave upon request. It can't be compared to a public park or a private home. It's in its own category.
          • Elliuotatar, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6Won't it be fun when the government decides to privatize "public parks" so that any unwanted demonstraters can be kicked out because it's owned by a corporation and we've given the same rights to them as people have in their own private homes?
          • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah, that is next. My point exactly -- the privatization of these public INFRASTRUCTURES and then acting like they are private, are ways to cordon off our civil rights.
      • madsmith, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1It is legal, also rude, for a photographer to continue taking photos on publicly accessible private property even after asked to stop. If the photographer is asked to leave and fails to do so, he is trespassing, but continuing to take photos is still legal.

        In refusal to depart without an explanation of why the security guards did not want him to take pictures, Mr. Carvin was certainly trespassing and could have very well been arrested. Not for taking pictures because that part was legal in as far as the photography did not violate anyone's reasonable expectation of privacy.
      • JerodSlay, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Here's my understanding:
        If you are in true public (a street, etc.) you can take a picture of anything.
        If you are in/on private property (a store, union station, house, etc.) you are only allowed to photo what the own allows. They can ask you to stop photographing, and kick you out or call the cops for trespassing if you don't stop. They can never FORCE you to delete photos you've already taken, they can merely prevent your taking more. If you are allowed by the owner of the property, you can take picture of anything, similar to the public place. This includes other people because they have "no reasonable expectation of privacy in such a publicly accessible area."
        That is to TAKE photos. Publishing for profit or not adds a whole new story. This is most likely why they actually were stopped because the owner of the building has rights to the image of his building for commercial use, this also applies to people's faces.
        I wont get into the rest of post-photograph-taken stuff. Basically he was in the wrong to not stop/leave once being asked. This is purely legally speaking though. The cops were douche bags for not giving him a straight answer or letting him talk to their supervisor.
    • mm911, 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.
      • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -8/+5Except thats NOT how it was presented. They said fine go ahead. and then said your not allowed to take pictures. NOT your not allowed to use a tripod. Taking pictures is a st amendment issue. When someone asks you to stop right or wrong short of the inside of a HOME they should be required to give you a VALID reason. When they do not have to they will just demand anything they want justified or not. Thats a slippery slope I greatly fear.
        • DucoNihilum, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6The first amendment deals with the GOVERNMENT, not private individuals. I don't understand how people can have so little respect for property rights.
        • mm911, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Private property = no reason required. If someone breaks into your house, do you think you should have to explain to them why they should leave in order to get them to do so?
        • VitriolAndAngst, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Union Station is Government in every way but on paper. To take these public spaces and privatize them -- well, you can see what can happen. Now they want all sorts of rights and entitlements.

          Maybe we should just take these public spaces back from Private companies, if they want to use these things as excuses to deprive citizens of their rights.

          I'm absolutely positive that deterring people from taking photos of landmarks will do ZERO to keep them safe. I could get an image of almost anything without a guard noticing -- but these dimwits are just harassing legitimate people and tourists.
      • Tomchei, on 05/14/2008, -5/+2What kind of harassment do you get trying to photograph aircraft?

        Runways are public property, and if you're doing aerial, you obviously have to get the subjects permission.
        • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Not alot of harassment. Just like bridges and everywhere else...people who don't know what they are talking about have blown it out of proportion. There are no lack of postcards, prints, etc of the newyork skyline, its bridges, its tunnels, the golden gate bridge, aircraft, etc... 99% of the time you wont be bothered, and if you are, you simply leave and get a permit and come back...that's all. I had a cop stop me on a bridge here in VA, i was taking conspicuous shots (close ups of the supports...) I was making a set on fasteners, and shooting the huge bolts (wonderful textures and rust colors...really) .. he stopped me thinking the worst, but then i showed him some of the other (from a few hundred shots) that I was working on, he let me finish up. If I had been an ass and just started questioning him and arguing, then it would have turned out different.

      • CosmicJustice, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4Exactly. I hate it when people think they can set up a tripod any damn where they want to. If you set up your expensive rig in the middle of a busy public space then don't cry when somebody knocks it over because you're in the damn way.
        • Elliuotatar, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4Did you see the size of that space? He wasn't in anyone's way. Don't be a dick. A tripod doesn't take up any more room than a second person.
    • lordmetroid, on 05/14/2008, -10/+4It is a crime in New York since a couple of years ago.
      • mm911, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Yay for more misinformation on Digg!
        It is NOT a crime to photograph on NYC subways. A rule banning it was proposed and scrapped.
    • animeguru, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7No one except for tourists spend money at Union Station anyway, it's ridiculously expensive and most of the food tastes like *****.

      Of course, there may be a few of you out there who feel that spending $15 on a 'salad' compromised entirely of iceberg lettuce is a good deal.
    • NeoPlatonist, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7I was taking some pictures around down town Charlotte, NC where there is some really interesting architecture (housing a lot of bank headquarters). As I walked around, I was stopped by no less than 4 security guards telling me that could be arrested for taking pictures anywhere in Charlotte, public or private. One guard told me that I couldn't even take pictures of the exteriors of buildings without permission from the owners. One guard told me that if I was taking a picture of a friend in front of or in a building, it would be fine but just taking a picture of the architecture was illegal. I emailed the mayor's office and he (or some lackey writing in his name) gave me this song and dance about 9-11 this, and national security that. I was just using a nice point and shoot camera without a tripod (can't afford a DSLR).
      At the time I was walking around, I didn't know anything about photographer's rights so I didn't press the matter any.
    • bernandoo, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2money. the answer to everything.
    • protito, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1bad picture anyway ^^
    • brundlefly76, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Well, the tripod was definitely a problem (as well as being there for over 20 minutes) - you need to obtain permission before using a tripod or lights in the stations or around trains as a safety precaution. Youre experience with the staff is very common though - the rules are poorly informed to MTA from staff member to staff member. The rules also vary between MTA train areas and the interior of stations like Grand Central or Union. I have a NYC train commuter blog and deal with this all the time, I have more detailed links here. http://www.stationstops.com/2008/03/18/mta-ignored ...
  • 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.
    • BoonTobias, on 05/14/2008, -3/+189:00 Getting harassed
      9:15 Getting into cop car
      10:50 Getting *****
    • OffPiste, on 05/14/2008, -41/+5Try taking photos of classified materials and then tell me that photography is not a crime.
      • 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, -6/+6In the same vein as the comments below mine, killing someone with a spoon is a crime; using a spoon to eat is not. They call it murder, which in this case is an unauthorized use of an eating utensil.

          Bad analogy is bad.

          • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4There is no such thing as an unauthorized use of an eating utensil. it belongs to me its authorized use is any damned thing I please of it. Period. The issue is the murder. THE MEANS of the murder is irrelevant.
          • underdog138, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Simmer down buddy. Of course there's no such thing as an unauthorized use of an eating utensil. I made that up. Since you want to argue word usage, I'll rephrase:

            "In the same vein as the comments below mine, killing someone with a spoon is a crime; using a spoon to eat is not. They call it murder.

            Bad analogy is bad."

            Not sure why I'm being dugg down. The spoon argument is weak.
      • ashfish, on 05/14/2008, -0/+20I think that'd be classified as espionage, not photography.
      • noahhoward, on 05/14/2008, -1/+19Photographing classified material IS a crime, photographing is NOT.
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/14/2008, -15/+8Maybe if he wasn't twittering like a ***** bird they wouldn't have noticed him?
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -9/+12Nothing appalling. Shooting in a private building is iffy, and if you're asked to leave, you leave. He was just trying to get a story for his blog, plain and simple.
      • Elliuotatar, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4A subway shouldn't be a private building though. What if they made the roads private? And the parks? What then? A subway is a major part of a city's infrastructure.
        • GasPoweredGnome, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It shouldn't be... but it is. That's a different argument, isn't it?
    • RunWithScissors, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7I studied communications law as a journalist well before 911. You shoot on private property at your own risk, it's not legal, and it's not some big conspiracy. Any photog with a little law experience knows that privately held property is technically not legal to shoot inside of without consent, including places like private malls, even outdoor malls if the property is private. That's not to say that it's really annoying to get kicked out, but most good journalists study law so they know at what point they are crossing it, therefore, how sneaky they need to be to get the shot and quickly leave. This is just one of those places where some of America's great freedoms clash, ownership, freedom of press. But generally the law is to protect the private citizen.
    • Ninjamonkey, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4I'm also a DC native but he crossed the line. Union Station requires you fill out a form online and submit it to management before you can shoot in the building. I doubt they would have bothered him if he was hand holding a DSLR and snapping some pictures but the camera he was using is a different beast altogether and easily draws attention.
    • CosmicJustice, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4He got to hang out and take pictures for a REALLY long time using a REALLY bizarre looking rig before he was finally asked to leave. Doesn't sound too extreme to me.
  • 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
    • Lyph5, 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.
      • lisaawesome, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6If they really have a policy in the station against photography there shouldn't be so much confusion amongst the security guards. Since so many people go through there I would also expect some sort of sign indicating no photography if they truly don't want people taking photographs of the building.
        • DucoNihilum, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4They don't need to be clear or rational any more so than you need to be clear or rational in your own home. You can order somebody who is bothering you or looks funny out of your home just as they can do the same on their property.
      • aigulf, on 05/14/2008, -3/+7But there is a difference between private property and privately-managed public spaces. Privately-managed facilities (like shopping malls) are NOT private property. The article mentioned a similar incident elsewhere in DC where the courts sided with the photographer.
        • krets, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6But if they ask you to leave you still have to leave. Refusal to do so is trespassing.
      • caramba420, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0It is not private property. It is owned by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, which was established by Congress in 1981. The building is leased by Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation. Jones Lang LaSalle handles the management and day to day operational decisions. The 1981 charter states that the station is "a transportation hub first, commercial venture second" (US Code Title 40 Chapter 18). The final say as to what goes on there is in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. As such, it is in the public domain, and you can do anything that you would be able to do in any other public place.
    • umdigger, on 05/14/2008, -4/+10It's not a law. Could be a policy of the management firm. So don't go bitching about stuff you know nothing about. Is it stupid, Yes. But unfortunately there isn't much any of us can do about it.
      • superchou, on 05/14/2008, -3/+3actually you are permitted to take photographs, by law, in spaces that are public - even on private property - ie: shopping centers. The issue is that few people really realize what the law is in these circumstances.... sadly, many of them are contract security as in this case.
    • BOFH2, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4So if you can find the contact information why couldn't Andy? I am guessing if he would have called and asked there would have been no problem.
    • sylvok, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5Just called, the guy seemed nice. Although he is a bit confused at the mass amount of call made.
  • gronne, on 05/14/2008, -2/+88Know Your Photographers Rights:

    http://krages.com/phoright.htm
    • 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.
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -5/+11Doesn't apply in privately owned places. He crossed the line, not them.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 05/14/2008, -1/+5Did you even bother to read the rights posted at that link? It explicitly includes information regarding private property. "Whether you need 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."

        In a place like Union Station, a reasonable person would assume that it's ok to take photographs, especially if you're a member of the press and have a valid press pass. The only reason not to think that would be if there were "no photography allowed" signs prominantly posted. As soon as they were told it wasn't allowed they should have stopped, but up until that time they hadn't "crossed the line".
      • DucoNihilum, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Right, but that goes away when you are asked to leave.
    • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -4/+10Knowing property rights would be a better place to start on this one.

      Hint: he is clearly in the wrong.
      • IphtashuFitz, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4He was not "clearly in the wrong". Unless there were signs posted stating that no photography is allowed then it was safe for him to assume it was until the guards requested that he stopped. Up until the first guard approached he wasn't doing anything wrong at all.
        • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -3/+2AND Multiple guards stated or implied consent to taking pictures. IE they shows contradictory messages.
          • IphtashuFitz, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3That's not really the point. I could certainly understand the first guard coming up and asking what's going on then leaving. But after leaving she probably notified a superior who then told her to go back and say they couldn't. All the other guards that came up also said they couldn't from the very beginning. As soon as any one of them told them to stop they should have stopped.
  • photolarry, on 05/14/2008, -25/+16there are laws concerning photographing of public edifices. It is allowed. As mentioned, they are cautious ever since 9/11 and thus inform the stupid security officer you are an actual photographer not a tourist or terrorist :) I get stopped more often after 9/11 in museums, large buildings, so forth. Its just something we need to deal with.
    • 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?
      • chanop, on 05/14/2008, -13/+8I think the actuall Hijackers took a lot of footage of the towers months before they acted
        • swrostmore, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7What makes you think that? AFAIK they were never on the ground in NY.
        • 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 !!???!!!?!?!?!?!
    • 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."

      • serif69, on 05/14/2008, -10/+5While it is unfortunate that photographers have to prove their occupation, flying off the handle when asked to do so is only making the situation worse.
    • Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+10I wonder if it would be a problem for me to set up an easel and a canvas and paint a photorealistic painting of the space.
      • RealmDown, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2My guess is that you would get a slow trial. :-D
      • TheMidnight, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3You have talent like that and you're on Digg?
        • Nougat, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Didn't say I had any talent. I just wondered if it would be a problem.
      • mmmmmbiscuits, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1It shouldn't be a problem, unless by "easel" you mean "unsuspecting stranger's back", and "paint" you mean.......
    • ThinkIcouldburn, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Innocent until proven guilty. It's what our entire legal system is based upon. To start assuming guilt with no wrong doing is absolutely ridiculous.
      Life would be much safer wrapped in bubble wrap. Should we all be forced to wear bubble wrap suits? Giving up freedoms for the sake of safety is both idiotic and wrong. Makes me sick that people think that it's OK to be forced to stop taking pictures in a public setting because the photographer may be a terrorist.
  • kbaird, on 05/14/2008, -5/+68Fight Al Qamera in America!!!
  • AriaStar, on 05/14/2008, -27/+21Guess public property ain't so publicly-owned anymore, eh?

    ***** this god damned government. Bush joked about concern over the cost of his daughter's wedding because hes paying for it, doesn't care about the cost to us taxpayers when it comes to Iraq, torture is a valid interrogation technique, and now even photographers get harassed for taking pictures in a place the public is supposed to own.
    • punkcat, on 05/14/2008, -4/+11it was private property according to the guards, not public.
      • aigulf, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8I thought they said it was privately-managed. That's a big difference.
    • TheSwashbuckler, on 05/14/2008, -2/+7This isn't about the government, this is about an overzealous private company.
    • Bridea, on 05/14/2008, -3/+12Are you seriously going to try and redirect this to a Bush-burning tirade? Seriously?
      • hode, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1You seriously don't see the connection? Seriously?
    • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -5/+7It's private property, you tool. Fail.
      • Pstmann, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2It's not private property, it's privately MANAGED public property that was built in 1908 with public funds. Tool.
    • akamurph, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Wait, you're blaming this on Bush? You fail miserably and need to take your head out of your ass.
  • lhbaker, on 05/14/2008, -5/+168It's the Global War on Tourism
    • cscalfani, on 05/14/2008, -4/+1We've got to do whatever it takes to stop Global Warring.
    • TheMidnight, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1And all this time I was trying to figure out if Bush was mispronouncing terrorism or not. Now I know what he meant!
    • sentinel106, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2We could use that down here in Florida...
  • chicofaraby, 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?
    • Bridea, on 05/14/2008, -0/+7Security guards answer to whoever signs their paycheck.
    • Pstmann, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Security.... ( woulda been, coulda been, shoulda been) but ain't a police-man.
  • OffPiste, on 05/14/2008, -26/+8Actually photography IS a crime in many instances.
    • sockpuppets, on 05/14/2008, -1/+13Only if you're R Kelly.
    • 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.
      • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -7/+4When a guard/representitive tells you so, then after that, it is a crime.

        It's not public space. They chose not to allow him to photograph, after he was told not to, that should have been it. He was in the wrong from that point forward.
        • aigulf, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7I'm not sure it's private property, merely a privately-managed public space. The courts have repeatedly held that in publicly-accessible spaces (like shopping malls) you have the same rights to photograph as in public parks.
          • roosterjm2k2, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Case Number(s)?

            In most cases, it comes down to if there are signs. If not, it's once you're asked not to. You can't be fined/punished/forced to erase stuff from before you were told not to, but once you are asked to stop, you must stop.
        • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Crime NO never. "Policy Violation?" Yup and nothing more.
  • 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.
    • punkcat, on 05/14/2008, -13/+6the real issue was that guy was too good or above those $8 employees. his response to hearing its a private space, was to tell them what a mighty place he worked for, that is when he did bother to listen to their plea. then he makes a snarky comment about one being an ex-marine, obviously a failure and below his position.
      • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3NO you clearly can not read. He said the latest security guard came off as "ex marine" NOT himself.
        • Matt2k, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Isn't that what punkcat wrote? "then he makes a snarky comment about one being an ex-marine"
      • 007brendan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1He said he wouldn't leave until someone went on record for why they were being asked to leave. Standard procedure for a journalist actually. The response from the security guards was that they were just doing their job, and did not know why, hence the conflicting reasons.
    • WhiteIce89, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6Regardless of the reason they were asked to leave, the moment they are asked to leave and don't comply with this request, they are trespassing. That's how the law works.
    • Lavarock, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1But can anyone just be asked to leave a public transportation building for no reason?
    • Litespeed, on 05/15/2008, -1/+0It's because the management don't want to feature in a future Michael Moore film as "the management saw them taking photos and did NOTHING".
  • hermslice, on 05/14/2008, -19/+4Peoples claims that photography is not against the law but can anyone cite specific laws?? and can we get links to those?
    • 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.
      • pentalive, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6yet
        • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1I can its #1 on the list

          Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

          Want a link? No thanks go down to DC to the national archives and READ IT on the original document that GOVERNS this nation. the ULTIMATE law of this nation that NO OTHER law may violate.
        • 007brendan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Well, state law could contradict and supercede it, except that nearly all states have a constitution that is directly based off the federal one.
    • MrWhite7, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6... you want someone to cite a specific law which says photography is not ... against the law... ?
    • djheini, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6Generally you can do something unless there's a law prohibiting it. So the burden of proof for the government is to find a law that says that you can't take a photograph.

      There's no law saying that I can wear a blue tophat on Thursday afternoons, but I'm pretty sure I'm legally in the clear for that.
      • yunus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+6Fashion police might come taze your arse for it though.
    • caramba420, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0There are Supreme Court rulings that set precedent that you can photograph anything that you can see with the naked eye.
  • ElAssoWipo, on 05/14/2008, -20/+5Breaking: something interesting almost happened today.
  • beachtrader, on 05/14/2008, -29/+19I think the photographer is in the wrong. He admitted it was not public property and was private property. When asked to leave, if you don't leave it is trespassing; and you can be arrested for that. The photographer's insistence to talk to a supervisor is just b.s. If you are asked to leave my house, you have no right to try to speak to my wife and find out why--you just have to leave.

    As for the demand to erase pictures, taking pictures of the inside of the architecture could be a copyright violation if you do it without permission. This seems like someone just didn't like the fact that he couldn't do anything he wanted where he wanted.
    • Lyph5, on 05/14/2008, -1/+14So you admit your wife is your boss?
    • toastgodsupreme, on 05/14/2008, -5/+61. You can't copyright a building. How could taking pictures violate any copyright in that situation?

      2. Why wouldn't you want to see a supervisor if you were being asked to leave by some lowly rent-a-cop guard? It's only natural. Your house analogy is off completely.

      3. Nowhere on the site does it say that photography is not allowed.

      4. Prior to this, many professional and hobby photographers have taken a vast amount of pictures both inside and outside of the building. Why is this person the exception to them? Because he was doing a panoramic picture?

      5. Get off my internets with your ignorance.
      • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -8/+7What the ***** makes you think you have some right to see a supervisor? If the people that are hired to do security for a place tell you to leave for any ***** reason they please, its time to get the ***** out. You are not entitled to a second opinion.
        • kbull, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Dude, ANY request to speak to a supervisor is acceptable whatever the circumstances. Remember that next time you ask to speak to a supervisor.
        • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4No, its not. This is the real world, not bitching about a burger at Mc Ds.

          A security guard has every right to tell you to leave. Sure you can ask to speak to someone, but he can tell you to ***** off and you still have to go.

          I dont know what kind of entitlement world people think they live in, but you dont always get a second opinion.
        • kbull, on 05/14/2008, -2/+4Excuse me, mike17032, I'm a security guard here on Digg and I'm going to have to ask you to leave the site immediately.

          /sarcasm
        • Lyph5, on 05/16/2008, -0/+1kbull, you forget that Digg does ban people, and you can ask and ask to talk to a supervisor but it doesn't matter, you're banned.
      • punkcat, on 05/14/2008, -5/+4its private, same reason i cant go into your house and take pics of you or your belongings.
        and yeah if someone makes less money than you (aka rent-a-cop,) you are free to disregard anything they say. thats nice.

        get off my internets dumb *****.
        • Cerebron, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4When you have hundreds of people wander into your house and take pictures every day, then your house is not private. Dumb *****.
        • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Wrong. Its still your house, and you can still tell someone to leave.

          If I have 30 people over for a party, I can sure as ***** kick one out if I want to.
          • Cerebron, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0That is not what punkcat was arguing.
      • beachtrader, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Actually, you can copyright a building's architecture. It's a federal law now. See this: http://www.openphotographyforums.com/forums/archiv ...

        As for point two, it doesn't matter. When you are asked to leave or stop you have to. You have no rights to see a supervisor. You may want to, but hey *want* doesn't matter.

        Point three is irrelevant. You don't have to have a sign to prohibit anything. Otherwise there would be one thousand signs saying, don't spit, don't swear, don't be an idiot...

        Point four--irrelevant. As the owner of the property they can discriminate as they see fit. They could allow only women to take pictures or only idiots who don't know what they are talking about. It's their property. Why do you think you have any right to do what you want on *their* property?

        Point five. Well, I think we know who has the ignorance here.
        • TheMidnight, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1What is it with these pointy posts? My fingers are bleeding.
        • 007brendan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+11. Yes, copyrighting a building is allowed, but only if the building was built after Dec. 1990 (Union Station was built in 1907). Also, creative work before ~1938 are in the public domain now; unless you're Disney and manage to lobby for copyright extentions :)

          2. Kind of right. Yes, you have no right to request anything on private property. But Union Station is a proprietor, just like any other business. Consider Walmart, if someone at Walmart asks you to leave, and you refuse until you see a supervisor, Walmart has three choices -- they remove you by force (possibly risking a lawsuit), they inform the authorities (who remove you by force), or they produce a supervisor and avert an otherwise nasty situation. Nearly every commercial institution would choose the last scenario, especially when dealing with members of the press.

          3. Completely right, But expect to be called on it by the media if it seems discriminatory or absurd.

          4. See 3.

          5. There really is no way to defend everyone in the digg community ;)
    • dondara, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2*meow*
    • ncc74656m, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6::sigh:: Here's a cookie for missing the point.
  • 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...
    • 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!
    • underdog138, on 05/14/2008, -0/+27Anyone who thinks a camera flash is a fire or an explosion needs to lay off the acid.
      • Coffeedemon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Yeah... pity the poor fool who opens a can of pop and it makes that snapping sound. he's likely to be shot.
        • theshizzler, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Food and drink are also banned on the metro, though for reasons of 'cleanliness'.
    • Ajenthavoc, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2I've taken dozens of photos while in the metro system and at union station. No one's ever bothered me about it, but I do get eyed every once in a while.
    • Litespeed, on 05/15/2008, -0/+0See, this is the thing that pisses me off about cops and the like. You can't argue logically with them. It's comply or be tasered. If you're actually in the right, you have to sort it out later (after you've woken up).
  • HibikiRush, on 05/14/2008, -13/+42I thought there'd be more to this article, it underwhelmed me. Twittered it:

    "reading article. quite underwhelming"
    • FredFredrickson, on 05/14/2008, -15/+5Dugg down for Twitter.
      • ProjectGSX, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7Your response was lame. I twittered it: "FredFredrickson just posted something stupid on digg. I buried it."
    • Bridea, on 05/14/2008, -3/+10I lol'd
  • FearFactory, on 05/14/2008, -0/+11What about the thousands of tourists coming through there everyday with cameras?
  • unfilterthought, on 05/14/2008, -1/+95Everyone knows standing around a camera and tripod is what terrorists do.
    • punkcat, on 05/14/2008, -21/+3yep, lets let white people do whatever the ***** they want. crack down on minorities and any other "strange" looking fellows.
    • tankintheair315, on 05/15/2008, -0/+3especially the ones with NPR press passes...those terrorist will ***** you up
  • cboj, on 05/14/2008, -2/+8Scott Kelby reported a very similar incident in New York last week at a Hotel in NY http://www.scottkelby.com/blog/2008/archives/1349
  • Surefly, on 05/14/2008, -1/+4I've done this before and had a similar experience. You're also told not to take photos in subway terminals.
  • yunus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3I go through Union Station everyday. So long as your not holding up the flow of people I don't see why they should care if your taking pictures. A simple GIS of "Union Station DC" will return hundreds of photos.
  • JK1150, on 05/14/2008, -15/+17when you are asked to stop photographing a private area, you have to stop. he was asked politely and appropriately, and broke the law by not listening.
    • scubaman5000, on 05/14/2008, -5/+13which law?
      • apmtt, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3I think you must be some kind of a terrorist or something. Only a terrorist wouldn't know what law it is and ask about it.
      • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -4/+11Defiant Trespass in most states. Some even classify it as a felony under the right circumstances.

        How about if I walk into your back yard and start taking pictures of whatever I damn well please? Oh I see, your private property is somehow different than the private property in the story....
        • captainslack, on 05/14/2008, -7/+5So, you're saying a train station is private property? What can be more public than a train station, even if it is run by a private company?
        • mike17032, 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.
          • scubaman5000, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3LOL...pubic
          • Coffeedemon, on 05/14/2008, -1/+2Pubic property shines a different light on old people complaining about kids on their lawns.
          • sirhomer, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Union Station is not private property. The guards were lying and/or ignorant of this.
        • centran, on 05/14/2008, -1/+3It is somewhat different.
          To go into someones backyard and start taking pictures you would need permission BEFORE you enter their property.
          However, a train station is open to the public. It is the same thing with stores, museums, etc. That means you can freely take pictures without asking permission but if you are asked to stop then you have to comply.
      • NJank, on 05/14/2008, -2/+5the law that says if your on my private property you do what i say or I kick you the hell out.
      • scubaman5000, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
        Found the answer to my question. I really just wanted to read somewhere with a little more credibility what the law was.
      • Jforsyth89, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Trespassing.
    • billege, on 05/14/2008, -10/+7You do realize, in fact, that you're an idiot and a sheep. Right?
      Just checking.
      • MrShinra, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Neither of you have still mentioned WHICH LAW.
    • caramba420, on 05/15/2008, -0/+2Sorry for the CTRL+V but..

      It is not private property. It is owned by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, which was established by Congress in 1981. The building is leased by Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation. Jones Lang LaSalle handles the management and day to day operational decisions. The 1981 charter states that the station is "a transportation hub first, commercial venture second" (US Code Title 40 Chapter 18). The final say as to what goes on there is in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. As such, it is in the public domain, and you can do anything that you would be able to do in any other public place.
  • Yodzilla, on 05/14/2008, -8/+5maybe you should have stopped at almost submitting this story
  • umdigger, on 05/14/2008, -5/+6...and Almost had a real story to tell...
  • usgovterrorists, on 05/14/2008, -17/+21How dare you try to use a camera in Fascist America!

    The terrorist United States Government will not stand for it!!!
    • ender7074, on 05/14/2008, -8/+5Ahhh more idiocy from the village idiot. Keep spewing it out moron.
      • Snakeonastaff, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3....sorry but unfortunately every village has to have one
      • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -2/+3Yeah the scary part is how far is this idiot from the truth..... Have you READ some of the bills that have been signed in the last 8 years ?
    • TheMidnight, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1This has to be your first positively dugg post ever.
    • Jforsyth89, on 05/15/2008, -1/+2This has nothing to do with the United States Government. A private company was enforcing rules on private property.
  • ImpulseControl, on 05/14/2008, -8/+14The building is owned by Amtrak; they don't need a reason to kick him out. Now if he was on a public sidewalk taking pictures of the building, that would be a different story.
    • mbmatt, on 05/14/2008, -1/+8Incorrect. "Union Station is owned by the non-profit Union Station Redevelopment Corporation" and is leased by Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Union_Station_(Washin ... )

      If it were owned by Amtrak, it *would* be public property, because, "Amtrak... is a government-owned corporation... All of Amtrak's preferred stock is owned by the U.S. federal government." ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amtrak )
      • 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.
        • ImpulseControl, on 05/14/2008, -1/+0The funny thing is, I was basing my comment on the same Wikipedia link. Look at the side bar, it says "Owned By: Amtrak".

          Either way Government Owned != Public Property.
          • ImpulseControl, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0My Bad.

            Public Property != Unrestricted Use
          • biofh, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0That's true. The gov't agency or trust overseeing the site can put rules into place to protect the site or maintain order or whatnot. But they can't hire people to tell the owners (the public trust) that they don't, in fact, own the site and are not welcome there.

            So, in effect, I'd counter, "The building is owned by the people. They have every right to question why they're being kicked out by a private party. Now if he was on a private site taking pictures or if there were plain regulations against photography, that would be a different story."
  • FredFredrickson, on 05/14/2008, -7/+16They can video tape you from every angle when you're in a public place, but try to snap a few shots yourself, and OH NO TERRORIST!
    • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -3/+4That comment might have been worth a damn had he been somewhere public.

      He wasent.
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • ender7074, on 05/14/2008, -5/+10Exactly. A 5 minute phone call would have solved the entire issue. This guy just thinks hes entitled to take pictures whenever and where ever he feels like it. Had he just used a little common curtesy he would have probably avoided the entire incident. Instead hes pouting about some imiginary "right" that he thinks was stepped on. His whole blog sounded like a whiny 3 year old getting in trouble for being a little jerk.
      • joegibes, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1Oops, I accidentally dugg you up. It's too bad that people ARE allowed to take pictures whenever and where ever they feel like it (in public places).
    • Zomgondo, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1Actually, the rights of property owners to control your behavior are pretty much limited to kicking you off the property. You don't have to stop taking pictures if someone asks, but you DO need to leave if they tell you to get lost... but you can legally keep taking pictures even as you're being escorted out.
    • chicofaraby, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6Union Station isn't private property. It's owned by the federal government. See the post by biofh above for the details.
      • derek20la, on 05/14/2008, -0/+0it's actually owned by amtrak. which i know receives subsidies from the fed gov't, but it's still organized as a corporation- including having its own (worthless) stock.
    • Pstmann, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1A private company managing a publicly (partially) funded institution or building does not make it private.
      It's still our tax dollars (partially) at work here.
    • david76, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2All of this could have been avoided by submitting a simple form on the Union Station website, http://unionstationdc.com/photoform.asp

    • Lavarock, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1WHO KNOWS? I do. They were taking pictures of the station. That is all they could be doing. Don't try to link this to terrorist activity. Don't link it to suspicion of terrorist activity. They were taking good pictures, as opposed to "snapshots", and this perturbed the station owners.
    • caramba420, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Sorry for the CTRL+V

      It is not private property. It is owned by the Union Station Redevelopment Corporation, which was established by Congress in 1981. The building is leased by Ashkenazy Acquisition Corporation. Jones Lang LaSalle handles the management and day to day operational decisions. The 1981 charter states that the station is "a transportation hub first, commercial venture second" (US Code Title 40 Chapter 18). The final say as to what goes on there is in the jurisdiction of the Secretary of the Interior. As such, it is in the public domain, and you can do anything that you would be able to do in any other public place.
  • Kev585, on 05/14/2008, -2/+2Almost doesn't count
  • JackOpfor, on 05/14/2008, -3/+8@ Beachtrader

    No copyright laws on things that are over 75 years old especially old ass train stations.... "In the United States, all books and other works published before 1923 have expired copyrights and are in the public domain."
    • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -3/+5Private property is private property. They have every right to tell you to leave.
    • Coffeedemon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Bit more to it than that. The plans and drawings are still protected as architectural works regardless of age. Some buildings (new ones mostly) are trademarked so you can't use their design for commercial use (a personal snapshot should be fine).

      This is all moot anyway. He was on private property. They asked him to leave and eventually he did. They were in their rights to ask so much as he was within his rights to ask why.
    • sentinel106, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1How does one copyright a train station in the first place though?
    • Llanowar, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Unless I'm missing something hearing, isn't it 1933?
  • 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.
    • KaJuN4, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2Everything has been going brilliantly for the terrorists. They've sat back and watched while we give away freedoms left and right in the name of security.
    • SystemsGuy, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Interesting - I work in Canary Wharf, and not only have I taken tons of pictures (yes, using a DSLR, not a phone), but I can't think of a single day I've not seen someone taking pictures - including when it's pissing down rain.
      • gothicform, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1Yeah it puzzled me too because in eight years I have never ever been stopped. Ironic thing is I wasnt even taking pictures of the buildings there, I was taking pictures *from* Canary Wharf of the docks. The only explanation I can think of is that i was doing it when there were not many people around so they had nothing better to do. The guard even told me "if you want to take pictures again remember we're watching you from the CCTV!" Hello Big Brother!!!! There were a good half a dozen people at Westferry Circus all taking pics who were left alone.

        I was also stopped taking a photo with my phone at the Tate Modern the same day to send to my giflfriend over my phone of a new sculpture to show her as I thought she might want to come and visit. The moron guard their said they owned the copyright to everything and I was violating their copyright and the reason the gallery is free is because of this - I thought it was because I stuck ten quid in the donation thing at the entrance, because as a taxpayer I subsidised it, and because it gets money from the lottery but obviously not. As a result me and her will not be visiting the Tate Modern to view this new stuff, the Tate Modern will not get 20 quid we would have chucked in the donation thing, and will not sell a couple of books which she usually buys from their shop on each visit.

        Copyright ALWAYS resides with the photographer (they are actually breaking the law by claiming otherwise - thats a violation of moral rights) They could sue you though if you commercially exploited the work without their permission first as it is private property but that is a completely different thing to stopping tourists from taking crappy snaps with their mobile phones to say "hey this is cool, shall we go visit this together?".
  • Beestie, on 05/14/2008, -8/+2You should have called their bluff. If, in fact, it is private property then you cannot be arrested for anything that isn't also against the law on public property.

    Someone is going to have to fall on their sword to prove to these rent-a-thugs that we cannot and will not allow them to violate the free exercise of the privileges granted to us under the provisions of the Constitution and Bill of Rights.

    These stupid security officers don't even know what they are doing and they do not have the authority to incarcerate or charge you with a crime.

    I'm just waiting for my turn to take a stand.
    • mike17032, on 05/14/2008, -2/+6Listening to this idiot is a great way to end up spending the night in jail.

      Beestie, you are a god damn moron. Look up Trespassing sometime and educate yourself.
      • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Actually he was NOT violating any laws even IGNORING there demands to stop taking pictures. The sticky part is ONCE they ask you to leave things get iffy. IE until they ask you to leave YOUR GOOD to even outright ignore them (no law or posted signage against taking pictures)

        BUT once they ask you to leave now it can become trespassing That and ONLY that is now a violation of the law.. IE at that point good idea to leave and then humiliate them publicly later in the press and get them to rescind the policy.

        You can not make demands of people on your private property. You have NO such right NO such power legally or morally.

        Your ONLY power as owner of private property is to demand they vacate. THATS IT. you have NO other rights or powers over any other individual.

        SO until they demand you vacate you can tell them to stuff it (though I do not advise it honey working better than salt and all)
    • UtilityPole, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Why is it that most American Diggers think they're legal experts? if there's anything that bugs me more than power-tripping security guards, it's people who think they're Johnny Cochrane whenever a small issue pops up. "NO THEY CAN'T DO THAT IT'S ASSAULT/ENTRAPMENT/DEFAMATION I KNOW THIS MY DAD'S A LAWYER!"

      You have no ***** clue what you're talking about.
  • ashwinmudigonda, on 05/14/2008, -0/+8I sympathize with this guy. I was in Mexico and suffered the exact same sequence of events. Apparently, holding a 6000$ camera equipment in your hand is fine and makes you anything but a professional. The moment I opened my Bogen, the security were all over me saying Professionals are not allowed with permission. I said I was not a Pro, just a hobbyist. They refused to accept and beamed smiles when I shot without the tripod. Side note, no bloody way I could get my HDR's without the tripod. So I repaid the favor, Illegal Photographer!!:
    http://flickr.com/photos/ashwinmudigonda/sets/7215 ...

    Why does using a tripod make you a professional? What if I used a Gorillapod?
    • Coffeedemon, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3Probably due to the fact that people can trip over them. Of course if that was it they should have told you that.
    • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2No its nothing to do with tripping and nothing to do with professional photography or your $6000 camera (you bastard drool drool) anyway its a REVENUE issue in mexico. the TRIPOD is the single sole only issue. As long as your not using a tripod (not sure about monopods but assume there covered as well) your FINE to take any pictures you want.

      For the tripod you simple need to get a permit is all. New country there rules. They are very generous rules so support them. I LOVED it in cancun I could take pictures and video of anything I wanted no questions asked as long as there was no tripod.
  • 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.
  • banderwocky, on 05/14/2008, -4/+5I guess it's because there is just to much freedom and liberty. They had to start cutting back somewhere.
  • alphaeno, on 05/14/2008, -5/+6I wanted to say he was in his legal right to take photos, but he's not. The people taking the pictures can take pictures until they are told not to by the property owners. If they continue, then they can be asked to leave the property. Im sure if the property owners don't like the way you dress, they can ask you to leave the property as well.
    • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -1/+6You have NO right to ask someone not to take pictures inside your house. That is there absolute RIGHT period. NO discussion can continue further on that vein.

      YOU ARE HOWEVER absolutely in your right to demand they vacate your property and they are in violation if they refuse. This includes a long zoom lens into your window. thats the same thing many times legally as STANDING in your room.

      Union Station is public property. Period. I am unsure if they even have the right to ask you to leave if your are doing nothing wrong.

      Its not the same thing as a mall. a mall is public space but its also privately owned. So they can ask you to leave if they simple do not like your hair and you must comply.

      Union Station is united states government owned property. NOT privately owned.
    • alphaeno, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1I just thought the station was privately owned because of this article
      http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/artic ...
  • scott88008, on 05/14/2008, -2/+16Can you be arrested for having photographic memory?
    • Gwennyk, on 05/16/2008, -0/+0I am giggling rather loudly and my co workers are looking at me disapprovingly!
  • 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.
    • Meekus, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2"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."

      I respectfully disagree. Our constitutional republic was founded on the principles of individual liberty and property rights. The phrase, "Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" actually came from John Locke who wrote it as "life, liberty, and estate (or property)".

      Further, many of the "Enlightenment" philos, including Thomas Jefferson, believed quite heavily in individual liberty based upon property rights principles. Hence why our constitution was framed in the manner it was. Liberty and property go hand in hand.
  • cadmiumpaint, on 05/14/2008, -5/+10The lasting legacy of George W Bush....

    The American way of life will be that of paranoia and fear. Anyone doing anything in any place at any given time is possibly the evil "them" and should be suspected of terrorist activity.
  • 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
  • sidewinderaim9x, on 05/14/2008, -3/+3While I agree with everyone that there was no conceivable reason to disallow him from taking photos, the bottom line is that they have a right, as owners of private property, to do it. Photography isn't a crime, but trespassing is. Yeah, they should get negative publicity and decreased business as a result of such a stupid choice, but it's their choice; they have every right to.
    • Nerys, on 05/14/2008, -0/+3You might have a point except owning private property does not give you the right to demand things of people short of vacating that property. That is your ONLY right over other individuals. AND on top of that its NOT private property. its federally owned properly. Its by definition public property. Short of violating the law I am not even sure they are allowed to demand he leave.
  • 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.
    • thatguyfred, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1Its simple, extend the facility operators/curators some courtesy and let them know what you're going to be doing/when/why and they usually let you. No big deal.
  • levelred, on 05/14/2008, -7/+6I hate to say this but Union Station is privately owned so they can choose who they want to come in and out, in accordance to the law. The thing is that they can discriminate because of sex, race, or religion and so on. On the basis of kicking someone out. However they can kick you out because they just want to. Trust me I am the first one to say the Patriot Act is crap. However they were in the right to do so, even though it was wrong to do so.
    • levelred, on 05/14/2008, -1/+1damnit is supposed to say can't discriminate
    • ConfirmedCynic, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2This is exactly why what is effectively a public commons, with the TTC etc. hooking up there, should not be privately owned.
    • headhot, on 05/14/2008, -0/+4Its not privately owned. Its owned by Amtrak. Amtrak then leases it to a company who then hires a 2nd company for management. Last time I checked, Amtrak is part of the US government.
      • buckrogers1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1Yeah, exactly. The security guards harassing him were paid for with our tax dollars.
    • Lavarock, on 05/15/2008, -1/+1How many times do we have to tell people to read the comments above before posting
    • 007brendan, on 05/15/2008, -0/+1What if I said my religion required me to take pictures nonstop, from a tripod, or else I would go to hell?
  • da5id, on 05/14/2008, -4/+11Almost arrested? Pretty lame.This is going to be known as the generation that sat around and posted scathing Internet comments as America slid into fascism in the name of the global war on terrorism.
  • Ogre73, on 05/14/2008, -1/+7"....sweet land of liberty. For thee, I sing....."

    Oh, I'm sorry I was talking about someplace else....
  • Briandt75, on 05/14/2008, -0/+5If it makes you feel any better I too was actually handcuffed and slammed against a wall and given a ticket for simply taking photos at the Hollywood/ Vine station. The case was eventually thrown out.
  • 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.
    • cathpah, on 05/14/2008, -0/+1if it too were easy....you might be out of a job though!
  • homerj1965, on 05/14/2008, -0/+2DOn't fight the NWO.
  • colin8651, on 05/14/2008, -2/+1What about the rights of the owner of the building. Doesn't he have any rights, oh I forgot, he is rich, he should not have any rights.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 98 of 98 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.