I love the article Are photographers really a threat? Bruce Schneier of the Guardian sums up the ridiculous assaults on the rights of photographers by arguing:
The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.Indeed, and yet all over the west, photographers and normal citizens taking photos and videos in public spaces are being harassed by security and police. If you have 6 minutes to spare, have a look at this video of British police harassing a man for taking a video on public property:
And, it's not just in the UK. Photographers and tourists are routinely hassled in places like Washington DC, where there is a huge list of buildings that one is not permitted to photograph - even when standing on public property. Marc Fisher has written an interesting piece about that. The comments are interesting too. Americans have the right to bear arms, and maybe it's time to add the right to bear cameras to the constitution.
In Toronto, I have read about the stories of Toronto Flickr-types being confronted by security from the American Consulate for taking photos in the area, even when standing on public property. What is really perplexing is that there are photos of the US Consulate on the web (which can be found using a Google image search), not to mention satellite views using Google Earth.
And then there's this: Police appeal for bombing footage (!) First, they harass people for taking photos, and then they want the people to hand over the photos they didn't want you to take in the first place! This is ridonkulous.
So far, I have not been harassed, but I will be sure to mention the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms when it happens.
6 comments:
That is sort of funny. I mean I know where you are coming from. But yikes if we cant take photo's anymore. Where will this all take us..
My niece was getting her engagement photos taken outside a research building in Waterloo, and the photographer stated that they may need to run if security comes.
I've been reading and watching these stories too. It's too bad I now live in Quebec since "under Quebec law a photographer can take photographs in public places but may not publish the picture unless permission has been obtained from the subject"
And I wonder what 'publish' means to the courts...does putting it in my Flickr photostream count?
This site seems to have a decent break down of the laws:
http://ambientlight.ca/laws.php
jen: I have seen that ambientlight site. There is some useful stuff there. I was recently told at U of T (Massey College, actually) that I could take photos, but that I would require permission to publish them, even on Flickr or a photoblog. I was surprised.
I've heard about the Quebec law. I assume that covers an identifiable person, but I could be wrong.
My friends and I were once kicked out of a Limited store for taking pictures. Of course, this was the store's policy and not some government thing, but it still seemed kind of odd.
Liz: Well, I can appreciate that since it would have been private property. Still...
Post a Comment