E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
Carlos Miller tirelessly advocates for photographer rights on his blog; Photography is Not a Crime. He is particularly interested in the times when photographers intersect with what he claims are heavy-handed police tactics. I'm a reader of his blog because the topic comes up often in the photojournalism industry.
A couple days ago Carlos posted a picture of a recent Transportation Security Administration poster that he says, "…explicitly insinuate that if you are taking a picture of an airplane, you must be a terrorist and be reported to the authorities." The TSA responded on its blog yesterday by saying, "Some felt this poster didn't go far enough in distinguishing between general photography and suspicious surveillance activity. These images are simply meant to represent a number of different scenarios that are common in and around GA airfields. In fact, many photographers would be prime candidates to use such vigilance programs to report suspicious activity since they're extremely observant of their surroundings."
How do you feel? Is there something about the act of making a photograph that calls for special scrutiny? What and where is the line between personal freedoms and civic responsibility? Does security trump everything in a post-9/11 world?
Leave a Comment:
Security gained by giving up your freedoms is not worth having.
Robert,
I've been to Carlos' Website because you list it on your Blog Roll.
I read the experience a photographer had while taking photos for a contest sponsored by Amtrak, in an Amtrak Station, of Amtrak Trains. Apparantly it was illegal to do so, according to the heavy handed cops who whisked this fellow out of The Platform area and tried to take his camera.
Can you say 409.5?
That's the Civil Code in California that relates to this kind of over the top response to someone with a sealed light box with lens attached to it. I like your point on the fact that phrogs have trained eyes and are most observant, and if there is a wingnut doing something unusual, a picture can be a mghty big help to authorities.
I don't know, I'll stick to fast motorcycles, cars and other mundane subjects and avoid airports.
In a society so saturated with media it only makes sense that the boundary lines of what is and isn't acceptable in the world of photography have become blurred. What we experience on a national level alters our perception of what photography is. Within the last few decades secure information that has been exploited resulted in a national travesty more than once. With this kind of recent history it follows that seeing a person taking photos of what's behind a "keep out" fence would naturally spark some amount of concern. TSA clearly was not implying that photographers are terrorists, nor does it appear that they were implying that photography is illegal. The photo used in this particular advertisement merely depicts what "suspicious activity" near an airport might look like. A photographer is expected to obtain model release forms for shots that reveal any person's identity, etiquette would dictate that likewise the photographer clear his or her shooting in "questionable" areas in order to avoid possible conflict with management and security later on. The expected level of safety for many public areas is difficult to obtain and therefore those areas are more strict about what can and cannot be photographed. This ought to be considered and addressed properly when one is going to photograph public as well as private areas.
This is too funny. I just went to the Capital Air Show in Sacramento this weekend and they had no problems with people taking pictures of any of the military planes there (inside or out) - including B1 and B2 bombers. Yet the TSA has a problem with people taking pictures of passenger planes?!?!
@s.j. scott: "... etiquette would dictate that likewise the photographer clear his or her shooting in "questionable" areas in order to avoid possible conflict with management and security later on...."
By whose standard of "etiquette" are you espousing this nonsense? A photographer has the legal right to take photos in all public areas. By requiring the photographer to seek permission, you are in essence taking away that right. Your proposal is also impracticable and unrealistic. If I am visiting Manhattan, and taking photos of skyscrapers, am I supposed to go to each building owner for permission?
Right, right, every where a right...
What is the exact definition of "photographer," especially nowadays as almost everyone with a mobile phone is also walking around with a camera built into it?
Secondly, where precisely is it said or stated that "A photographer has the legal right to take photos..." ?
Right, right, every where a right... (kinda catchy, eh?)
Nurse dave- actually, a photo DOES have a right to take pictures. You can actually be arrested in NY for interfering with a photographer who is working, and he wants to push it. Most don't.
Anybody who is in a public area, and by that I mean OUTSIDE , on the street, or in a stadium, etc., has a right to take pictures of anything he wants to. I can stand on the sidewalk in front of your house and shoot away all day. If you interfere with my photography of your house, you can be arrested.
Now, if I take that picture and publish it with a caption of "People who live in houses like this are immoral and obviously drug addicted", THEN you have a case against me for slander, libel, invasion of privacy, etc. If I am using a telephoto and taking pictures of you inside the house, that is invasion of privacy.
If you are standing nude in the window, and I happen to take a picture with you in it, that is NOT an invasion.
One cannot usually take pictures in shopping malls or stores because those are NOT public areas. They are the property of the owner.
There is no presumption of privacy if you are walking down the street with your wife / girlfriend and I take a picture. You are in a public place.
If you happen to be a " public figure" , like a politician, actor, anybody "famous", no matter how slight, once "published" you have no presumption of privacy.
Check Amazon, or your local bookstore: "Photography and the Law"..
The person who took the picture for the poster should be reported- as long as they are being fanatical.
The only way I could see it being thought of as suspicious behavior is if it were excessively hot outside. If it's 85+ degrees outside, the the fact that he's wearing a sweatshirt and has the hood on would definitely raise my eyebrows.
In WW2 it was illegal to take pictures if you were a German residing in England and that was grounds for internment into camps. Fear can really take an ugly turn when we give up our personal freedoms for the false sense of security we gain in the name of "Safety". .
There is limits in every situation.If some idiot runs up to your wife or daughter and starts poking a camera at her,should you be proud and allow it? or wonder where these photo,s are going to show up ? Myself,I,ll take the redneck view and pay the fine for poking his camera and face.People that make their living with a camera needs to get a real job(and a life) I might add.Respect other peoples privacy and property. I was taught to be respectful as a child,some people must learn the hard way.
I remember well growing up in Minnesota and being escorted from a shopping mall in 1984 by a mall cop because I was ,"taking photos of people in public". No kidding!
I live in Japan now, and in public anything goes. Anyone in public can and does get photographed and it doesn't seem to bother anyone. For me it's a lot more pleasant.
More of our useless, idiot "close the barn door once the horses are gone" government! Yup, shut down people taking pictures of airplanes, but no one could walk across the southern border with a suitcase full of toxins or nuclear materials. NAH!
Our Congress was dutifully described in a famous cartoon..."Duh, you can't fool me..cause I'm a moron".
The TSA's job is to protect, us at our civilian airports. While, this photographer may not be a real threat, we are at war and any suspicious activity should be reported. They do not have to have a cloth rapped around their heads. The person depicked was wearing a hood jacket that concealed their face, why not inform the TSA. Let them explain why they were there, to someone that would want to know.
When cameras are outlawed, only outlaws will have cameras. And you can have it when you pry it from my cold dead fingers....
We need a vaccine for paranoia.