Comments on: Are We Not Men? http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/ ready... aim... Thu, 02 Feb 2012 15:19:00 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v= By: Mike http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-11 Mike Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:54:04 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-11 For another look at the value of pushing the envelopes of civility through photography, see here: http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/archives/2005/12/08/the-value-of-outlaw-photogrpahy/ For another look at the value of pushing the envelopes of civility through photography, see here: http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/archives/2005/12/08/the-value-of-outlaw-photogrpahy/

]]> By: Mike http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-23216 Mike Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:54:00 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-23216 For another look at the value of pushing the envelopes of civility through photography, see here: http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/archives/2005/12/08/the-value-of-outlaw-photogrpahy/ For another look at the value of pushing the envelopes of civility through photography, see here: http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/archives/2005/12/08/the-value-of-outlaw-photogrpahy/

]]> By: Mike http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-10 Mike Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:48:49 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-10 Derek: Techincally speaking, I'm not aware of any state law that criminalizes photography on private property except where it might constitute a separate crime such as harassment, threat to personal safety, and so on. An owner of private property does have the right to impose certain conditions on access to the property, and if those conditions are not met, expel the person. A person returning to private property after their permission to enter has been revoked (or intially denied, as in the case of a "No Trespass") may be committing a crime depending on state law. Under no circumstances that I'm aware of does a private property owner have the right to conficate equipment or destroy images taken. Dinah: I dunno what's wrong with the linkbox thingy. Sorry. Derek: Techincally speaking, I’m not aware of any state law that criminalizes photography on private property except where it might constitute a separate crime such as harassment, threat to personal safety, and so on.

An owner of private property does have the right to impose certain conditions on access to the property, and if those conditions are not met, expel the person. A person returning to private property after their permission to enter has been revoked (or intially denied, as in the case of a “No Trespass”) may be committing a crime depending on state law. Under no circumstances that I’m aware of does a private property owner have the right to conficate equipment or destroy images taken.

Dinah: I dunno what’s wrong with the linkbox thingy. Sorry.

]]> By: Mike http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-23215 Mike Thu, 08 Dec 2005 16:48:00 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-23215 Derek: Techincally speaking, I'm not aware of any state law that criminalizes photography on private property except where it might constitute a separate crime such as harassment, threat to personal safety, and so on. An owner of private property does have the right to impose certain conditions on access to the property, and if those conditions are not met, expel the person. A person returning to private property after their permission to enter has been revoked (or intially denied, as in the case of a "No Trespass") may be committing a crime depending on state law. Under no circumstances that I'm aware of does a private property owner have the right to conficate equipment or destroy images taken. Dinah: I dunno what's wrong with the linkbox thingy. Sorry. Derek: Techincally speaking, I’m not aware of any state law that criminalizes photography on private property except where it might constitute a separate crime such as harassment, threat to personal safety, and so on.

An owner of private property does have the right to impose certain conditions on access to the property, and if those conditions are not met, expel the person. A person returning to private property after their permission to enter has been revoked (or intially denied, as in the case of a “No Trespass”) may be committing a crime depending on state law. Under no circumstances that I’m aware of does a private property owner have the right to conficate equipment or destroy images taken.

Dinah: I dunno what’s wrong with the linkbox thingy. Sorry.

]]> By: Dinah Sanders http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-9 Dinah Sanders Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:31 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-9 ahem, like this: http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html (Seems to be an issue with the insert links functionality of this comment box toolbar) ahem, like this: http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html

(Seems to be an issue with the insert links functionality of this comment box toolbar)

]]> By: Dinah Sanders http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-23214 Dinah Sanders Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:57:00 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-23214 ahem, like this: http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html (Seems to be an issue with the insert links functionality of this comment box toolbar) ahem, like this: http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html

(Seems to be an issue with the insert links functionality of this comment box toolbar)

]]> By: Dinah Sanders http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-8 Dinah Sanders Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:56:18 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-8 I think the really critical difference between the two viewpoints might be the assumption of what you're taking pictures OF. Yes, if it's an identifiable picture of an individual, civility most certainly comes into play (and Derek has always been civil about that in my experience; hell, I've even seen him ask people before he takes a picture of their dog). But the photograph which is the teaser for the issue is a picture of a security guard trying to stop Heather from taking a picture of the front of a building. I'm sure another antecedent to this issue of the magazine is the weird encounters people had with security trying to stop photographs in a public transit station. That would be a darn shame if I had to miss photos like this: <a href="http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html" rel="nofollow"></a> I think the really critical difference between the two viewpoints might be the assumption of what you’re taking pictures OF. Yes, if it’s an identifiable picture of an individual, civility most certainly comes into play (and Derek has always been civil about that in my experience; hell, I’ve even seen him ask people before he takes a picture of their dog).

But the photograph which is the teaser for the issue is a picture of a security guard trying to stop Heather from taking a picture of the front of a building. I’m sure another antecedent to this issue of the magazine is the weird encounters people had with security trying to stop photographs in a public transit station. That would be a darn shame if I had to miss photos like this:

]]> By: Dinah Sanders http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-23213 Dinah Sanders Wed, 07 Dec 2005 16:56:00 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-23213 I think the really critical difference between the two viewpoints might be the assumption of what you're taking pictures OF. Yes, if it's an identifiable picture of an individual, civility most certainly comes into play (and Derek has always been civil about that in my experience; hell, I've even seen him ask people before he takes a picture of their dog). But the photograph which is the teaser for the issue is a picture of a security guard trying to stop Heather from taking a picture of the front of a building. I'm sure another antecedent to this issue of the magazine is the weird encounters people had with security trying to stop photographs in a public transit station. That would be a darn shame if I had to miss photos like this: <a href="http://www.hchamp.com/archives/598.html" rel="nofollow"></a> I think the really critical difference between the two viewpoints might be the assumption of what you’re taking pictures OF. Yes, if it’s an identifiable picture of an individual, civility most certainly comes into play (and Derek has always been civil about that in my experience; hell, I’ve even seen him ask people before he takes a picture of their dog).

But the photograph which is the teaser for the issue is a picture of a security guard trying to stop Heather from taking a picture of the front of a building. I’m sure another antecedent to this issue of the magazine is the weird encounters people had with security trying to stop photographs in a public transit station. That would be a darn shame if I had to miss photos like this:

]]> By: Derek Powazek http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-7 Derek Powazek Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:11:55 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-7 Thank you, Mike. I've honestly been surprised by the response to this theme. But that's good! Part of the reason we chose "Photography is Not a Crime" as our next theme was to inspire exactly this kind of debate. What are the rights and responsibilities of public photographers? Where is the line between standing up for your rights and being a jerk? The more we talk about these issues, I think, the more we might be able to come to a better understanding as a community. But the bottom line for me, as a photographer who shoots in public, is this: It is not a crime to take photos in a public place, and it almost never is (exceptions being private property and military installations). And there are lots of examples of photographers who were harassed, arrested, even jailed, simply for taking photos of things that were perfectly legal to photograph. And it's got to stop. Thanks for giving this issue an evenhanded look. Thank you, Mike. I’ve honestly been surprised by the response to this theme. But that’s good! Part of the reason we chose “Photography is Not a Crime” as our next theme was to inspire exactly this kind of debate. What are the rights and responsibilities of public photographers? Where is the line between standing up for your rights and being a jerk? The more we talk about these issues, I think, the more we might be able to come to a better understanding as a community.

But the bottom line for me, as a photographer who shoots in public, is this: It is not a crime to take photos in a public place, and it almost never is (exceptions being private property and military installations). And there are lots of examples of photographers who were harassed, arrested, even jailed, simply for taking photos of things that were perfectly legal to photograph. And it’s got to stop.

Thanks for giving this issue an evenhanded look.

]]> By: Derek Powazek http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2005/12/are-we-not-men/comment-page-1/#comment-23212 Derek Powazek Tue, 06 Dec 2005 19:11:00 +0000 http://www.perpetualbeta.com/release/?p=36#comment-23212 Thank you, Mike. I've honestly been surprised by the response to this theme. But that's good! Part of the reason we chose "Photography is Not a Crime" as our next theme was to inspire exactly this kind of debate. What are the rights and responsibilities of public photographers? Where is the line between standing up for your rights and being a jerk? The more we talk about these issues, I think, the more we might be able to come to a better understanding as a community. But the bottom line for me, as a photographer who shoots in public, is this: It is not a crime to take photos in a public place, and it almost never is (exceptions being private property and military installations). And there are lots of examples of photographers who were harassed, arrested, even jailed, simply for taking photos of things that were perfectly legal to photograph. And it's got to stop. Thanks for giving this issue an evenhanded look. Thank you, Mike. I’ve honestly been surprised by the response to this theme. But that’s good! Part of the reason we chose “Photography is Not a Crime” as our next theme was to inspire exactly this kind of debate. What are the rights and responsibilities of public photographers? Where is the line between standing up for your rights and being a jerk? The more we talk about these issues, I think, the more we might be able to come to a better understanding as a community.

But the bottom line for me, as a photographer who shoots in public, is this: It is not a crime to take photos in a public place, and it almost never is (exceptions being private property and military installations). And there are lots of examples of photographers who were harassed, arrested, even jailed, simply for taking photos of things that were perfectly legal to photograph. And it’s got to stop.

Thanks for giving this issue an evenhanded look.

]]>