May 25, 2010

A Funny Thing Happened in Omaha…

A funny thing happened in Omaha…well, not really.

I was photographing the sky scrapers of downtown Omaha, just as I had just done in Minneapolis and Des Moines, when a young security guard rode up and told me that they had observed me on the security cameras and that I couldn’t photograph the First National Bank building across the street.  I had been through this scenario before and so I forcefully told him that I was on public property and that I was free to photograph the building.  I could tell by the look on this poor guys face that he didn’t want to be in the middle of this and so I said “Look, it’s not personal, but I face this all of the time.  I am on public property and I can photograph anything that I want.  Go ahead and call it in, it’s okay.”

A few minutes later he looked up and said “she’s coming” and yes she was!  A female supervisor was marching towards me with a lot of attitude and demanded to know what I was photographing.  She then stood about 1 inch from my face and stood on my materials so that I couldn’t photograph, and insisted that I give up my camera so she could erase my images.  The situation was quite comical because as I pointed out to her, I could call up hundreds of images of the same building using my iPhone.  Because she would not let me photograph and wouldn’t allow me to me leave, I asked that she call the police to resolve the impasse.

I’ve been in this situation a number of times before both with the police and with private security guards and I’ve generally found the police to be polite and educated about our rights.  Once I was stopped while photographing a bridge in Florida because it was adjacent to a Navy base, the officer requested some information and was polite and even apologetic.  This was a positive experience.

However my experience with private security guards has not been so polite or positive.  They seem to have been given strict orders about not letting people photograph their property but they seem to lack an understanding of the law and our rights.  This can create a dangerous situation to your person, your images and to your equipment.

Some things that you can do are:

1.  Know your rights.  You can download a copy of “Photographer’s Rights” and carry it with you:  http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf

2.  Be confident, firm and cooperative.  Knowing your rights can help you be confident and firm, but you should also be cooperative and explain exactly what you’re doing; “I am a fine art photographer and I’m photographing…..”   While an explanation is not generally required by law, there can be no harm in being cooperative.

3.  Be polite.  While you may be in the right, that rent-a-cop can still hurt you (oh mamma), delete your files or damage  your equipment.  So be polite and only bring out the attitude if it’s really needed.

4.  Call the police.  If your confrontation is with a private security guard and you cannot resolve the situation, one option is to call the police and hope that they will protect your rights.  Of course it could go the other way and you may be detained until the issue is resolved.

In a post 911 world photographers are being scrutinized more than ever.  I’ve noticed that certain pieces of equipment seem to draw attention:  a large camera bag, long lenses and tripods.  Whenever I’ve used a tripod on the Mall in DC I am questioned.

I do try to appreciate both sides of this issue, the police and private security guards have their orders and their intent is honest; to prevent future attacks.  However we do have rights and it would be pretty difficult to be a photographer if you’re not allowed to photograph!  So my best advice is to know your rights, keep your cool and be polite.

Cole

P.S.  Regarding the impasse in Omaha; before the police arrived the supervisor received an urgent call and left me standing there.  As I was leaving the police arrived and asked if I was okay, I said yes and left.

 

 

28 thoughts on “A Funny Thing Happened in Omaha…

  1. Great photo, great story. I took some photos (from a public street) of an oil refinery in Billings a year or so ago. Nothing happened at the time but I received a visit at home sometime later from three FBI agents inquiring about why I was photographing the place. I’m still a free man but imagine I’m on some watch list now. Still haven’t made the no-fly list though. That would be some dubious accomplishment!

  2. Good story, love the image. And, af course, excellent advice. Its gotten tough to photograph in nearly every u.s. city it seems. I’ve been approached a few times and it can be quite intimidating…takes the wind out of your sail quickly. Isn’t this the reflection of the building too? Technically weren’t you photographing a car window?

  3. Its only going to get worst as paranoia sets in. I know its really bad in Europe. But, great job on the shot and story…Love your work and this last adventure is wonderful.

    Im no street shooter but would love to do it….Bought the new pen camera from Olympus and will give it a try.

    Cheers

    Pete

  4. Hi Cole:
    Thanks for the link it is nice and to the point.
    There is something when shoot buildings that were built after December 1, 1990.
    There building which could have a copyright to the structures design.
    But to my understand there are only a very few which fall with in the area.
    These are structures which have Art work attached or adjacent to the structure.
    In these cases, you might need permission from the copyright owner.
    Like you said it is good to have full knowledge of our rights.

    Great reminder.

    Jeff

  5. Today I was photographing downtown Denver buildings and was stopped four times, and one was an unpleasant experience. I’ve got to find a better way to deal with these security guards.

    Jeff, what’s the significance of 1990? How can a building’s image be copyrighted? If it is copyrighted, I can see how they have the right to enforce their copyright if you try to publish the image, but I cannot believe that they have the right to stop you from photographing the building.

    And how would you know if the building’s image is copyrighted?

    Anyone else have knowledge on this subject?

    Cole

  6. Wow, it’s hard to understand, but it’s true. A building can be copyrighted:

    Does copyright protect architecture?
    Yes. Architectural works became subject to copyright protection on December 1, 1990. The copyright law defines “architectural work” as “the design of a building embodied in any tangible medium of expression, including a building, architectural plans, or drawings.” Copyright protection extends to any architectural work created on or after December 1, 1990. Also, any architectural works that were unconstructed and embodied in unpublished plans or drawings on that date and were constructed by December 31, 2002, are eligible for protection. Architectural designs embodied in buildings constructed prior to December 1, 1990, are not eligible for copyright protection. See Circular 41, Copyright Claims in Architectural Works

    I read Circular 41 but it really only covers process and doesn’t tell anything to help us understand the issues.

    Can anyone help further?

    Cole

  7. Hi, Cole,

    Love the Fountainhead work.

    We have the same ‘security paranoia’ over here in England. Strange really since we have more surveillance cameras than any other country in the world. Apparently we have more cameras watching the good folk on the small Island of Shetland than you have in the whole of Florida. Yet we get stopped for taking photographs. People have been told they can’t photograph trees, people, shops, the list goes on and on.

    Interesting that buildings can be copyrighted in the US. Over here it is the opposite and they can’t. I suppose if a piece of art were to be incorporated then that particular part may be liable to copyright.

  8. Yes Kevin, I’ve been shooting in England and that is an odd dichotomy. Sometimes I wonder what would happen if everything that was technically possible, came to pass?

    If you speed, your car records this and notifies the police who mail you a ticket.

    If you say something “offensive” it is recorded and you are visited by the authorities.

    When you photograph something the images are sent via wireless to a “review board” who evaluates them for legal and social appropriateness.

    All of this is technically possible today. Some argue that “this will never happen!” but I worry that over time things like this will slowly creep into reality.

  9. Have photographed all over Omaha without incident and just returned from Europe, again without incident, although the Sistine Chapel is under a limited time frame copyright by the Japanese who are underwriting the renovation. Usually there is someone on site if there is truly an issue with copyrights and I find foreign consulates and security personnel off limits for photography for the most part, in case you are “scoping things out for future atack”. I guess being a gray haired female carries some level of innocuity. Mostly, it really is best to be firm and polite…and calling the police to settle issues is a fine idea. I like the idea of carrying a statement of rights to get the conversation mellowed. Bottom line, being “kidnapped” and held against one’s will in a public area off the building property could have netted the “lady” a complaint on her employment record.

  10. Interesting story Cole. What was the police’s response to this situation?
    I’m interested in hearing more about the copyright issue, does that mean you can’t photograph it, or that you can’t sell them in any way? Generally editorial usage allows use of an image where you would otherwise need a property release in a commercial advertising situation. I’ll ask a friend of mine more about this and report back, he was a in rights control at Getty images.

  11. By the time the cop arrived, she had split to handle a drunk. He simply asked if I was okay, and I said yes and we parted ways.

    I regret I didn’t file a complaint, not to cause trouble for her but to educate the FNB security staff.

    I think several of us would like to know more about this issue, I have the same question: can they stop you from photographing or simply from using it in a way that infringes on their copyright. Common sense (a bad gauge for legal matters) would say the latter.

    Cole

  12. Joan, one of my theories is that the more equipment we have and the more professional we look, the greater the chance of them stopping you.

    I realize that this is counter-intuitive; if I were trying to covertly scope out a property I wouldn’t want to draw attention to myself and would have a small camera and snap shots surreptitiously.

    So my question is, what equipment are you typically carrying when you don’t get stopped? I think that a tripod will almost always get you stopped!

  13. Jeff sent me this which adds an important element to the discussion;

    Hi Cole:
    Here is the answer to the copyright statement:

    This is in contrast to the legal situation regarding Copyright in architecture in the United States where USC 17 § 120 states:
       (a) Pictorial Representations Permitted. — The copyright in an architectural work that has been constructed does not include the right to prevent the making, distributing, or public display of pictures, paintings, photographs, or other pictorial representations of the work, if the building in which the work is embodied is located in or ordinarily visible from a public place.

    The key words here ‘Visible from a public place’. So I believe that takes care of copyright discussion.

    Jeff

  14. Apparently buildings can be trademarked, which doesn’t prevent you from photographing them, but does limit how you can use the images IF the primary subject in the photograph is the building. From what I understand, editorial usage is OK, but any commercial usage would require permission, and probably a hefty usage fee. Other things are trademarks, like the Hollywood sign, the transamerican building in SF etc.

  15. Nice story, had a similar experience photographing a power station here in the UK. Not so bad in Scotland but there are some real horror stories about the use of terrorism laws in London to harass photographers going about their business.

  16. thanks for sharing this story. unfortunately photographers rights are not the same here in france…they are getting sillier and sillier 😉

  17. I just came back from NY to Germany and have to say: For a photographer, there are worlds inbetween. Actually I didn’t have a confrontation with security or the police. But the law in general, allowing to photograph people without permission, made it much easier for me to get two “yes” from people: for photographing them and for publishing the photo. Over here it’s rather difficult, they are too afrait of their photo on the internet.

    Anyway, thanks a lot for the link. I’ve been searching for this bit of information for some time already.

  18. There is a rather good blog devoted to this subject published by Miami photographer Carlos Miller.

    http://www.carlosmiller.com

    It is called “Photography Is Not A Crime”. While Mr. Miller might get a little extreme at times, his site is a worthwhile and entertaining read.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *