"Give Me A Good Reason Why You're Filming Here"

Saturday, 28. June 2008, 07:26:34

I am very often wearing a camera when I'm moving round and about in the city. And I'm not doing that in order to look smart - on the contrary; a guy with a camera tends to look rather stupid in most cases. No, I carry a camera because I am actually photographing things. And I do that because of some urge I have inside of me. Something to do with "capturing the moment", or "framing the fascinations of life".

But sometimes I am faced with problems doing just that. There have been incidents where individuals in the street approach me demanding of me not to take their picture and asking me to identify myself.

Now, I am generally a polite kind of man, and I do not wish to offend anyone or make anyone feel uncomfortable with what I'm doing - so in these cases I just tell people the rules about photographing in public, and after that agreeing to erase the particular photo on which the individual appears.

That is if I'm approached in a normal and polite fashion.

But at two occasions I have been abused by people who had apparently got the idea in their head that I was breaking a law or something. At these occasions I was shouted at and threatened - to which I could only respond with total unwillingness to do as told. One of them threatened me not only with destroying my camera, but also with kicking my head in. And then I was given the ultimate option - "Deliver your camera or I'll call the cops". At that time I could only tell the guy that I thought that was the only good suggestion I'd heard from him. Should I give him the number?

At that point he backed out in a cloud of four-letter words.

Maybe it would be a good idea to clarify what's right and what's wrong in these matters?

I am talking about Danish law, but could as well be talking about the way things are in most countries.

1. In a public place I am free to photograph anything I want. No limitations.

2. In a place owned either privately or by some public organisation or company but with general access for the public, I can photograph anything I like - until told otherwise by the owner or the owner's representative.

3. I am not allowed to photograph specifically what's happening in a private place not generally accessible by the public - even though I am standing in a public place.

4. I am not allowed to photograph anything on privately owned property without permission.

5. I can publish anything that I am allowed to photograph - with certain limitations. The court can give me an order not to photograph specific individuals if the court decide so.

These are the rules - but then there are ethic concerns. When I photograph, say a street, and people appear on the photo as a part of the street-life, I have no problems. But I would never photograph specific people, making them the main part of the photo - and recognizable - without asking in advance. I am cautious when publishing not to include children, since I know a lot of people have an issue with that. And for good reasons, too.

These are my personal rules - or rather guide-lines. Which I will be willing to clarify any time and any place when asked politely. And I would also like to add, that the fact that my camera is large and very visible doesn't make me more suspicious - on the contrary. It's the small camera-phones that could be used suspiciously - not my big, huge chunk of a camera.

Go on, if you'd like to see an interesting footage about this subject. Not with me in it - I found it on the 'Net - but very informative nevertheless.

This entry is also published here

Television Without ContextGood Morning

Comments

One of my friends were photographing during the night in the center of Belgrade, just about two months ago. There was a boy near one wall, making grafitti and my friend thought it would be interesting to photograph, but suddenly a car approached him, with 3 bald men inside, one of them asking him what is so interesting in taking a photos of boy writing on a wall. They looked dangerous, ready to fight and my friend was alone. He was confused at the moment and man repeated his question. Then my friend saw that what boy was writing was an offence against one of the local politicians. It was in the middle of the election campaign and walls were covered with offensive messages. My friend just told them to cool down, and left the place. He was lucky because it was 3 in the morning and no police in sight, as usual....

By gdare, # 28. June 2008, 07:48:17

I, too, have had an occasional encounter with a member of the public who turned angry when they were caught by my camera. As you do, I erase the picture if requested. In all of these cases, the person photographed was peripheral to my shot but somehow got it into their head that I was photographing them.

I think part of the response may be simply that they can identify the photographer and make some attempt to take control of the situation. As the video pointed out, particularly in England but increasingly worldwide, we are under almost constant surveillance by closed-circuit TV camera when out in public or at work, and I think this intrusion into our sense of personal space can evoke negative emotions, dwelling particularly on a sense of powerlessness. Someone who is stressed or neurotic might easily snap into anger.

I will be in England this summer with my cameras. I wonder what sort of trouble I am going to find.

By musickna, # 28. June 2008, 15:12:23

some men wear ties, others a camera!

I like a man with a camera more!

In America there are limitations of picture taking...
i.e.
no pictures of minors in a beach,
in a school yard or park.
Which I find perfectly right.
Unless there is an adult that can give a permission I hope photos of kids and sick people are protected by law.
Other than this I believe a photographer brings to life things that the rest of us might miss in our daily life and that is a gift to all of us!

A great post Allan,
thanks for sharing

By ellinidata, # 28. June 2008, 18:00:35

HI Allan,

Oddly enough I have never had that kind of experienes, I do however stick to pretty much the same rules as you do.

And then I am mostly working in suroundings where there are hardly any people to shoot:)

I really like the way you react however and I am most certainly glad you came away unharmed.

By Duplo, # 28. June 2008, 19:56:31

Darko - photographing a criminal action is hardly the most secure thing in the world to do

Richard, you'll most likely not run into any trouble at all. These incidents don't occur that often, I think.

Angeliki, here the minors are not protected by any particular law. It's up to the local authorities to announce, normally with a sign, if photographing is prohibited. E.g. in public swimming pools. And I think your remark about bringing things to life is very apt

Thomas, yeah. I was unharmed - but then again there were about a thousand people on the square, otherwise I don't think I would have been quite as cocky

Thank you all for the as always nice comments.

By ricewood, # 28. June 2008, 20:08:50

I'm sure that will be the case, Allan. It's just a shame that photographing is yet another pastime that authorities are trying to control.

By musickna, # 28. June 2008, 20:26:59

Interesting, but I would have to say that it has never happened to me. Maybe because I in general don't take that much pictures of people

By misund007, # 28. June 2008, 20:45:14

I've had some problems. Though I have to say that I have had far less problems -- and also too people much more willing for me to photograph them -- carrying my little Sony point and shoot than my SLRs. I think people associate the big cameras with professionals, and imagine their face put up all over the newspapers and magazines. But with a small camera they just think I'm some guy who likes taking pictures.

I do agree with you though, Allan -- for someone taking pictures for nefarious purposes, such as shooting children, tiny cameras are more of a problem.

By edwardpiercy, # 28. June 2008, 21:05:26

Asgeir - I'm sure that has something to do with it

And I'm sure that has something to do with it too, Edward. My huge camera scares some because it looks "professional". Some of the best street photographers use small cameras for exactly that reason.

By ricewood, # 29. June 2008, 21:26:23

I haven't had any problems but that's possibly because I am aware of all of the things mentioned here and, by a process of having to accept that we all now live in a time of great stress, paranoia and tension - even if on the surface everything appears to be 'normal' - I try to be cautious about where I point my camera, in regard to a direct-line-of-sight regarding faces and places. As a matter of fact it appears to be much less of a stress to make photographs in, say, Greece and Spain (the latter is where I have captured so many beautiful images of public buildings and street scenes) and Cuba, than in the Capital city of my own country. The UK has more CCTV cameras per population than any other country in Europe and I dare to say,in the rest of the world. I'm hardly surprised at your experience Alan; If I lived in the UK's capital city I am sure I would soon meet similar sorts of 'angry' people, like those who confronted you. How sad and paranoic things have become over the last decade. I wonder if things will ever become 'normal' again?

By lokutus_prime, # 29. June 2008, 21:27:22

good blog post allan. i've had an experience i'd like to share. i worked at a nursing facility with many nice elderly people. we were having a birthday party for one of the residents and i told the group i had my polaroid one-step. they wanted me to take pictures to remember the moment -- we were playing board games and eating cake and ice cream.

i didn't even think twice and got my camera out of the car. we had so much fun until the next day when i was repremanded for photographing the party goers by their family . . . . apparently, i didn't understand the 'rules' of the facility. no one stopped me while i was taking the pictures (no one in authority), but the family members were not happy with the posted pics on our community bulliten board in the cafeteria at the facility. give me a break! there were no negatives and the intent was to make the residents happy -- the family's concern was their inability to relate to the health-state of their aging family member and the fact that they (the family) wasn't present to participate.

i could go on and on about that situation, but my point is in our innocent attempt to enjoy ourselves (the residents and the low-level staff), we were made to feel that we offended someone who never really was a part of the whole photo session. i'm still confussed, but much more cautious -- i work in retail sales now. the resident council voted me 'best employee of the month' and i got a certificate to prove it!

By 1bluebox, # 3. July 2008, 01:38:20

I have thought for some time that I was being to laissez-faire with these matters - probably because I photograph a lot. So for me having a camera pointing right in my face is no big deal.

But I have learned that also among non-photographers there are very different approaches to this. So my conclusion is, that when asked I stick to the rules and also act understanding to the offended part.

I think I can do nothing but that.

Thank you two for your thorough comments.

By ricewood, # 3. July 2008, 05:34:36