Right now the METRO is having their annual video contest where private people enter a contest with a 2 minute video they shot on the Metro. All the stations have signs saying what is permitted and what is not. No smoking no drinks etc. Photography is NOT listed.The bottom line is a photo does not become a criminal act until it is proven that the pictures were used to commit a criminal act. Until that occurs`there is no illegal act committed and the police need a warrant showing probable cause.
If the metro is privately owned, you do not have the right to photograph on their property without consent. By buying a ticket for their services, you legally agree to abide by their conduct policy. If that policy includes a "no photography" clause, then you're shit out of luck without written consent. Trespass is a very valid charge in this situation.
I'm a photographer, and know my rights to photography in public, but I also know I have no rights on private property unless granted them.
It always comes down to painful litigation and court rulings and precedents that affirm that while private property is just that, it, being of public accsess, is still a public environment. That being said, who wants or can fight it all that way? That's why they use the intimidation strategum: 99% of us camera weirdos won't want to dedicate that much time, money, and energy to fight it. But, let me thank those who would.
Yes, but what happens is that when law suits for these matters go to court, the photographer can argue and win the case because the judge rules that it is, while private propety, still a public space. I know it's strange, but look into it.
But seriously i get chased in ny from the beach and subway.
I dont want the police to take my portrait so i leave quickly.
We can be made a political football once they bring out the subject of terrorism and pedophilia. We are suspicious people in the mind of the right. We are retaliated against in the worst way. Then try to find a friend on your side once you are accused and dragged in the mud.
This could have been a good interview if it wasn't for the dumb tart conducting the interviews. She is more interested in seeing how she looks on camera, rather than the subject material.
Right on! These LEO's have to start focusing on enforcing actual laws instead of harassing someone who is not doing anything illegal.
I was once told by a cop, as I was stopped for just flashing my camera in an attempt to take a photo of a subway train, "Why don't you go to Central Park and take pictures of squirrels?"
When will these folks learn the laws they need to enforce are ones in the books, not made up in their minds at a moment's notice.
Right now the METRO is having their annual video contest where private people enter a contest with a 2 minute video they shot on the Metro. All the stations have signs saying what is permitted and what is not. No smoking no drinks etc. Photography is NOT listed.The bottom line is a photo does not become a criminal act until it is proven that the pictures were used to commit a criminal act. Until that occurs`there is no illegal act committed and the police need a warrant showing probable cause.
ursamajoran 3 months ago
The same thing happened to me outside the NBC building in San Diego.
Doug62Y 3 months ago
Walking around in public with a twin-lens around your neck equals "legit." In fact, a twin-lens times any other number always equals "legit."
BloatedSensations 1 year ago
Naomi is fucking HOT. I would love to see more of her!
HenryChinaski405 1 year ago
If the metro is privately owned, you do not have the right to photograph on their property without consent. By buying a ticket for their services, you legally agree to abide by their conduct policy. If that policy includes a "no photography" clause, then you're shit out of luck without written consent. Trespass is a very valid charge in this situation.
I'm a photographer, and know my rights to photography in public, but I also know I have no rights on private property unless granted them.
brobrah 2 years ago
Well that's a good point but why would the metro, a city public transportation service, be privately owned? Is it?
naomimercer 2 years ago
The METRO is privately owned but is contracted to the city. I think. Pretty sure. Ok, it just sounds right.
Funny thing is, villaragosa is a member of "the board" at METRO.
Seems like a conflict of interest to me.
HenryChinaski405 1 year ago
It always comes down to painful litigation and court rulings and precedents that affirm that while private property is just that, it, being of public accsess, is still a public environment. That being said, who wants or can fight it all that way? That's why they use the intimidation strategum: 99% of us camera weirdos won't want to dedicate that much time, money, and energy to fight it. But, let me thank those who would.
chompychomps 1 year ago
Yes, but what happens is that when law suits for these matters go to court, the photographer can argue and win the case because the judge rules that it is, while private propety, still a public space. I know it's strange, but look into it.
chompychomps 1 year ago
Shes cute/ i like to take her picture/
But seriously i get chased in ny from the beach and subway.
I dont want the police to take my portrait so i leave quickly.
We can be made a political football once they bring out the subject of terrorism and pedophilia. We are suspicious people in the mind of the right. We are retaliated against in the worst way. Then try to find a friend on your side once you are accused and dragged in the mud.
woofwoofbone 2 years ago
Hey 61862006 You need to get your facts straight.....The Metro is a PUBLIC PLACE! Private property can be and very often is a public place.
Jaysterdotcom 3 years ago 8
ok, sorry guys. really. wasn't thinking when I wrote it. cheers
61862006 2 years ago
that shit with the FBI is scary!
vkotis 3 years ago
gr8, but the metro is not a public place and is private property, therfore u should get permition
61862006 3 years ago
if the metro is a private company then it is private property, if the metro is government owned it then becomes public property.
leonardomoses 2 years ago
This could have been a good interview if it wasn't for the dumb tart conducting the interviews. She is more interested in seeing how she looks on camera, rather than the subject material.
vinspank 3 years ago
Can someone direct me to a site which lists the general rules and laws for photographers shooting in public places.
jimmytaaffe 3 years ago
krages(dot)com/ThePhotographersRight(dot)pdf
willquestion 3 years ago
right on, fuck the police state, well done for putting this together, needs to be sorted out!
O277 3 years ago 5
Right on! These LEO's have to start focusing on enforcing actual laws instead of harassing someone who is not doing anything illegal.
I was once told by a cop, as I was stopped for just flashing my camera in an attempt to take a photo of a subway train, "Why don't you go to Central Park and take pictures of squirrels?"
When will these folks learn the laws they need to enforce are ones in the books, not made up in their minds at a moment's notice.
TransferPoint9346 3 years ago 2
Very good job! Thanks for putting this together!
evaxebra 3 years ago
Great work!
Stan202021 3 years ago