I was disappointed today to read a report by my friend Troy Holden, who works on the Caliber blog over a run in that he and another photographer had with a group of security guards at 555 California Street. I’ve known Troy for a while and we’ve been out shooting alot together. According to Troy, security guards there objected to him and a friend photographing the building based on “safety” issues. When challenged on the photography ban, according to Troy, one of the security guards asked him if he’d like to be punched in the face and threatened to break his f***ing camera. I’m very disappointed to read about this terrible reaction by these guards at 555 California Street. Photography is not a crime, nor should be taking exterior photographs of buildings and architecture. Furthermore the reaction by this guard was totally uncalled for and extremeley unprofessional. I hope that he is disciplined for his behavior in this case. - Thomas Hawk

Time for a walk over to 555 California. It's just about lunch time now.... - Jeremy Brooks

I'm considering a lanyard iPhone case so that I can just hang it around my neck and fire up video recording when I meet idiots like this. - Jeremy Brooks

Printing out and showing someone the "photographer's rights under the law" on a card would probably help more in a confrontational situation than shooting video of them. Security guards are unlikely to be even aware of the law as it regards photography, they're just reacting to perceived encroachment and watching their asses. - Adrian

Agreed. recording video of these incidents would help tremendously. - Adam Jackson from Yoono

Protect yourself by knowing your rights: http://www.urban75.org/photos... - Adrian

I have noticed that there has been a "shut down" of sorts on taking pictures especially where public places are concerned, Oddly, Burger King in my town has a notice posted on the drive up that you can not take a photo of the building within a certain parameter. As I analyzed this strange sign three things came to mind: 1) people in the shot who find themselves posted on social media and don't want to be and feel their rights infringed upon. 2) advertising media rights pertinent to business logos etc. 3) Security issues: Ex: The Japanese knew exactly where to strike on Pearl Harbor because of the photos taken by a Japanese tourist - Melanie Reed

Social Media has changed the playing field for a lot of things we used to take for granted - Melanie Reed

CW- I'm only reporting what I saw in my own town, not making a judgment on how effective postings like this are. I am using some deductive reasoning on why such signs (and behaviors) might be popping up more often. It portends to me, taking into account some other tangential issues raised by the Internet, that there are going to be more not less of these kind of things in the offing. - Melanie Reed

CW, I understand, but my point is that when someone tries to bully you out of your rights, the first thing they need to be made aware of is that you are in fact aware of your rights and that they are now breaking the law. You flip the script and if that doesn't work, proceed to step B... videotaping the act, confrontation, so on. - Adrian

And as long as you bring up your technology and skill, I believe this is what many celebrities have been arguing over for quite some time, is it not? The right to privacy has become a rather strange and illogical fight. On the one hand, there are some in society who argue "what's done in Taiwan, Bangkok, or other remote location, stays in that location" On the other hand, we now have technology that can hear a conversation behind closed doors clear across the street...and as you point out distance is not as safe a place for those desiring normal privacy as it used to be. Are we looking at a world, too, that does not guarantee that I can take a walk on my own without being surveillanced by the ordinary photographer? - Melanie Reed

I also want to say that I am awed by the skill of photographers and I admire much of what you create (with the exception of those who create pornography). I understand that taking a picture for many its about creating art. But then on that floor, I think of painters. Most cannot paint a portrait without being asked or seeking permission. Sketching by a remote location usually was not viewed as invasive. Even so, artists, would look to see if anyone was there and then ask. What would be wrong with just asking? - Melanie Reed

Adrian, If you have ever been involved in one of the confrontations with a security guard, you will know that about 90% of the time the SG has no idea what the law is and doesn't care. No amount of reasoning will get them to change their mind. Many are on a power trip, they are always right and you are always wrong, in their mind. - Jeff P. Henderson

Melanie, the problem here is that in the US you have a perfect right to take photographs of just about anything you want in a public place. So long as you are not taking photos in a place the people would reasonably expect to have privacy, such as a public rest room or a dressing area, or though a window into a private space. Yes it is good practice to ask people if you can photograph them in public, but legally you do not have to. On the other hand, shooting photos from public spaces of buildings, architecture, statues, roads, etc. is perfectly legal and almost never requires permission. The Burger King example is totally ridiculous because BK does not have ANY jurisdiction over what happens off of their property. You can stand on the sidewalk out side of BK and take photos of their building all day and legally there is nothing they can do about it regardless of what their ridiculous sign says. - Jeff P. Henderson

on digg here: http://digg.com/odd_stu... - Thomas Hawk

Here is a great resource which summarizes photographers rights in the US. http://www.krages.com/phorigh... - Jeff P. Henderson

Dugg. Maybe Calibersf will be getting slammed for a second day in a row. :-) - Jeremy Brooks

Jeff, I've been taking photos of future wireless telecom facility locations for a living for the past 15 years. I've shot thousands of locations and been there many many times, but taking these photos is my job, and part of that is to diffuse a situation in a professional manner. - Adrian

Jeff, thank you for the explanation. So you're saying that if someone does not want to be photographed, they really have no rights if it is a public space? What should be their response? What are my choices? It seems I don't have the right anymore to refuse to be photographed. - Melanie Reed

Melanie, I think most photographers, when asked not to take someone's photo, will honor the request so the problem for the most part is self correcting, but as I said you still can take their photo if you really want to. Most people will avoid confrontation. This is how paparazzi get away with harassing celebrities in public, the celebs have very little recourse. I am hesitant to shoot closeups of people in public, but some photographers do this on a daily basis. - Jeff P. Henderson

Adrian, yes acting professional will usually help. I also have seen that if you are a professional doing your job, you are less likely to be harassed or thought of as some sort of threat as opposed to a couple of guys wandering around the streets shooting photos. Cops and security guards seem to have a hard time grasping the concept that people actually go out and shoot photos of buildings and inanimate objects for art's sake or just for the fun of it. - Jeff P. Henderson

Melanie, in the U.S. at least people have no rights not to be photographed in public settings. See Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki... - Thomas Hawk

Jeff, so as I understand what you have said, if I really want to protect myself from the invasion of an unwanted photograph, I must either stay away from all public places or wear some kind of protection that totally disguises myself. Strange as it may seem, lots of people consider this an invasion. They do remember a time when they could walk about freely without being harassed or the possibility of being harassed. In a way, I suppose it is on the one hand just desserts for those who purchased magazines and newspapers who as you say harassed celebrities with unwanted photographs. Now it seems the tables are turning and everyone is now at risk for being photographed with or without their consent. Do you think that this will lead to the installation of public cameras on almost all streets and public accommodations? I know some places all ready do this but not everywhere. If that happens, what will happen to many jobs photographers now take for granted? They will then be automated. - Melanie Reed

Thank you Thomas. That's good to know. Now I have a question. Would any of you like to photographed all the time in the manner that you are describing that you have made clear we have no rights. in? You are usually on the other side of the lens. How do you think you would feel? would it bother you? - Melanie Reed

We *are* photographed constantly, all day, every day. There are surveillance cameras all over the place now. If somebody wants to photograph me in a public place, whatever. It doesn't bother me. I know that the same rights that apply to me apply to them. If I don't want to have my photo taken, I have the right to turn around, walk away, wear a hat and sunglasses. Rights are more important than our individual preferences. - Jeremy Brooks

Malanie, I shoot photos in public places all of the time such as fairs, the beach, amusement parks etc. which contain people in them and have rarely had anyone object. Mind you I'm not shooting close ups of people, generally my photos are of a large scene that happens to contain people. I don't think this is really that big of an issue for most people. People often do notice my rather large camera and sometimes ask questions about it or make playful comments about it's size, but rarely have I had someone ask not to be photographed. I try to be discrete when shooting in public so that people don't think I'm targeting them, i.e. I don't point my camera at groups of people for long periods of time. - Jeff P. Henderson

Good summary Jeremy. - Jeff P. Henderson

Jeff, that's a good point. We are very likely in the background (or possibly the subject of) lots of different photographs that we have no idea were taken. Visited any major cities tourist traps? Click click, welcome to somebody's family album. - Jeremy Brooks

Jeremy and Jeff, with respect, I disagree. It is the right of people not to be photographed if they don't want to be. I had a social studies teacher who introduced me to a concept:"Your rights end where another's begin" Photography like many other things is an activity, but it is not a right. - Melanie Reed

Melanie, I agree with you from a common sense and civility stand point, but according to the law you are incorrect. - Jeff P. Henderson

You can disagree, and I understand your sentiment, but in fact you are incorrect. People do NOT have the right to privacy in the United States when they are in a public location. That's the way it is. There are many things that may be irritating to us, but people have the guaranteed right to participate in those activities, and I'll say it again: Rights are more important than our individual preferences. - Jeremy Brooks

Jeremy thank you for your response. It is isn't irritating to me at all. With respect to you, It offends my very being. You invade another when you take something that does not belong to you. My image is my own. It was given to me. Indeed, there are some Indian tribes who also consider this sacred and to take a picture is to steal a little of their soul. - Melanie Reed

Melanie, are you offended when you walk into a shopping mall or into a bank, driving down the street? You are being photographed constantly in these locations and many others. - Jeff P. Henderson

Melanie, then how to you handle having your photograph taken dozens of times a day? Sorry, your image is not yours exclusively; we were given eyes. - Jeremy Brooks

Melanie, have you ever looked at the amazing photography of Robert Frank? Or Garry Winogrand? Or Lee Friedlander? Or even crazy old Bruce Gilden for that matter. Much of their work is street photography. Random and amazing art. Imagery taken of people without their permission. I think that we are richer as a society having work like this in our lives. Have you seen the videos of the Rodney King beating? How about the video of an unarmed Oscar Grant being shot in the back. I think the greater good of allowing photography of all outweighs the whims of those who prefer not to be photographed in public. - Thomas Hawk

Gentlemen, the key point here is permission. I have the right to me. And you have the right to you. - Melanie Reed

Yes, but no one asked mine or your permission to take our photos at the bank or mall. How do you account for that? - Jeff P. Henderson

except Melanie that according the U.S. constitution as interpreted by the courts, the first amendment right to free speech trumps your right to not have your image captured. The greater good of having a free and open press/speech trumps the desire by people not to be in photographs. - Thomas Hawk

I think this discussion is getting off track. The incident being described here has nothing to do with people being photographed, it is a building. I suspect these guards could care less if you stood there and took pictures of people all day. They just won't let you take a picture of a building. - Kenton

The fact that this issue is over photographing an inanimate object makes it all the more ridiculous. - Jeff P. Henderson

Jeff, that's exactly my point. We could argue all day with Melanie over people's rights vs wants, but I think if any of us was approached by Melanie and asked not to photograph her we'd all agree and not take the picture. The fact that these security guards act like this when protecting a building from having its picture taken is just ridiculous. - Kenton

Here's the reality today: I am the guy standing in the middle of the sidewalk, wearing my orange baseball cap, taking pictures of all sorts of things, in all directions. You see ME. Everybody sees ME and where my lens is pointed. But Melanie, do you see the perverts behind/below/above you, shooting with long lenses, cell phones, minicams hidden in a baby stroller or other seemingly harmless item? The shutterbugs you can see? We aren't the ones you should be worrying about. - Morgan

We know you're just the decoy Morgan. That's why we need to get you out of the way first cause you're making it hard for us to keep an eye out for the pervs. :p - ronin from iPhone