Don't take pictures of ATMs :-)

Manfr3d

http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/

aaronbrown

Manfr3d wrote:

http://iamshane.com/2009/05/09/of-atms-iphones-and-911/

Wow. I'm speechless, but unfortunately not surprised.
I hope things are eventually righted with that.

Cygnus Studios

I have seen this story several times now and it is the same old story.

Photographer chooses to argue with cops about who is right and who is wrong.
Ever notice that most end in the same way?

Why anyone chooses to photograph an open ATM is beyond me, however, not complying with a cop is going to cause more problems than not.

According to this person's own words, he was trying to tell the the security guards to go (blah) themselves.
Does anyone really think that he treated the cops any differently?

I have spoken with cops many times while out shooting, and I have been asked to leave on more than one occasion.
Right, wrong or otherwise complying with the cop will save you a lot of trouble.

Now if it was a once in a lifetime shot that would easily pay for my attorney and afterward allow me to retire, I would probably stand my ground.

Since none of the shots have fallen into that category, I simply thank the cop and move on with my life.

Manfr3d

Being polite and prudent should be rule #1. Then it should not be a problem to stand your (legal) ground. On the other hand the idea that police can (and have) arrested photographers simply for taking photos out of suspicion is frightening.

dogwood

I saw this story yesterday and my first thought was-- he's shooting photos on private property! Property owners (and their representatives) can prohibit you from taking photos while on their property. If he had been standing on a public street, it would be a different story. But he wasn't.

Would you allow a client to shoot photos of your gear cache in your studio during a portrait session? Probably not. Especially if they wanted to post them on the web.

Personally, I don't have much sympathy for the guy. You need to know your rights and your rights do not include shooting photos on private property without the permission of the property owner or representative.

Angelo

I for one would never allow anyone to tell me what to do, anywhere.

respect, cooperation and understanding of the situation is always prudent but beyond that if I'm not breaking a law I don't give a flying %^& what uniform or badge one is wearing, I owe them nothing, especially not my identification.

If for any reason a sworn police officer asks for my identification I always make a move to cooperate but at the same time ask for a specific reason and if it is not forthcoming then my wallet goes back in my pocket and I make it clear it will stay there until there's a reason to show it.

we have laws in this country and those include my right to privacy and my peaceful pursuit of happiness.

dogwood

Angelo wrote:

I for one would never allow anyone to tell me what to do, anywhere.

respect, cooperation and understanding of the situation is always prudent but beyond that if I'm not breaking a law I don't give a flying %^& what uniform or badge one is wearing, I owe them nothing, especially not my identification.

I'm with you, Angelo, but remember, this took place on private property, not public property. The photographer doesn't have to provide ID to the security guards, but they can legally stop him from shooting photos.

afmdmc

Well i'm sorry but i'll have to disagree with most of you. first off the rent a cop ( ie. security guard ) is just a private citizen, he has no authority to ask for id. and there is no crime in saying no. and standing there and arguing with him may not have been the best way to deal with it. but up to this point he has done nothing wrong. if i read this correctly the rent a cop worked for an armored car company not rei. and my bet is that the atm was not owned by rei. now had rei ask him to leave and he refused or he was told not to come back then ok i can see the tresspassing charge but as it was persented i can't see that he did any thing wrong, so what got him in trouble was being a smart ass. sorry but that's not a crime. well an less it's a cop. not sure why that should make a differince, but it does. so did he do anytjing wrong not that i can see. and the cop should be charge with making a faults arrest. as that i can see there was no crime comitted.

Just my two Cents

mbellot

afmdmc wrote:

and the cop should be charge with making a faults arrest. as that i can see there was no crime comitted.

He was not (as I read it) arrested, only detained (put in a holding cell). Subtle but important difference.

Beyond that I have to agree with dogwood, he was on private property shooting without permission. His smart-ass attitude is what landed him at the police station.

Manfr3d

I didn't read in the article that he got thrown out because he was on private property nor that anyone actually demanded he deleted the photo. So how's all that action against him justified (aside from his attitude)?

By the way here is a very nice video interview with a copyright attorney who happens to also talk about how to deal with officials, worth a click: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=119813

Art Scott

mbellot wrote:

He was not (as I read it) arrested, only detained (put in a holding cell). Subtle but important difference.

Beyond that I have to agree with dogwood, he was on private property shooting without permission. His smart-ass attitude is what landed him at the police station.

If you are put into handcuffs and taken "downtown", you are arrested....he was read his rights when cuffed, if not then he has a law suit against the cith and officer (Dad (now deceased) and brother were/are both officers...brother is a major)......they put you into a holding cell to see what charges are going to be formally placed against you.........in this case he was charged with trespassing.......if REI did not press those charges against him then he should have had a lawyer thst could have gotten the whole thing dismissed.......he probably reperesented himself..........

Back in January while shooting for a book called Wichita Visions I rant into a couple of situations where I was questioned as to why I was shooting certain buildings down town.....by rent a cops......I just smiled and asked them to move from infront of my camera or it would not be the buildings portrait I was taking but theirs.....and one had his hand on my camera.....funny when he heard the siren on my cell phone (indicating a 911 call) he removed his had and they both walked quickly back into the courthouse from where they had come.......I went back several more times for bettter lighting conditions and they just sat watching me......this all took place with me and tripod on public street median (median is more than wide enuff for pod and even has a small brick wall around it........I just do not let them get me to loose my temper any more, that is when stuff happens and you get detained......and if one reaches for me as if he/she is going to hold me I simply ask if they really want assult charges brought against them...........as long as one is calm these things work very well...............

Cygnus Studios

While this person's original actions were not against any law, it wasn't well handled afterward by this person. It seems pretty clear that his attitude and language is what got the cops called.
I am not saying that he had to comply with all the requests of the security guards, but keeping his mouth shut or asking for a cop himself may have been a better way to deal with it.

We are only reading one side of this story. How many cops have nothing better to do than arrest someone for taking pics? 99% of these stories all end with the photographer arguing with the cop prior to being arrested. Most cops just want you to leave so that they can get back to whatever they were doing before they were called out for you.

In most states failure to obey a cop is against the law. (Disorderly conduct). Now this probably doesn't carry much weight, but who wants to spend half an hour or more in a jail cell over a photo?

There seems to be a part of this story missing between the time the cops arrived and the time when this person was taken to the station.

Angelo

dogwood wrote:

I'm with you, Angelo, but remember, this took place on private property, not public property. The photographer doesn't have to provide ID to the security guards, but they can legally stop him from shooting photos.

absolutely. I agree.

but the point being made here by the OP was not about the store employees saying "Sir, we don't allow photos taken inside" it was about the ATM service people saying: "hey, come here we want your ID"

Art Scott

Cygnus Studios wrote:

In most states failure to obey a cop is against the law. (Disorderly conduct). Now this probably doesn't carry much weight, but who wants to spend half an hour or more in a jail cell over a photo?

Yes if a sworn city, county or state police officer is doing the telling.......not a private or rent a cop......they have no real authority..............

Cygnus Studios

Art Scott wrote:

Yes if a sworn city, county or state police officer is doing the telling.......not a private or rent a cop......they have no real authority..............

I certainly would not give my license to any security guard. If they insisted I would call a cop myself.
Now if a security guard asks me to leave a private business, I would leave.
On public property they would have to call a cop.
If the cop asks me to leave (if for no other reason than to satisfy the guard) I would still leave.
I know a lot of cops, and they have far more to deal with than my attitude. I can always go back and shoot at a later date.

I have spoken with many cops while out on a shoot, and the most they have ever asked was for me to leave. Only one has ever asked for my license.
The vast majority of them simply ask what I am doing and then most ask stupid photography questions.