Pixiq

In this case, the hired security guards had been physically preventing people from taking photos by grabbing their lenses.

That is what I was told.

And considering I've had that happen to me numerous times and I've written about it happening to other people numerous times, I believed it.

So I went out there to see if they would do the same to me to expose and educate them.

As you saw, they did not try to physically prevent me from taking pictures because we had two video cameras rolling and because they probably realized we weren't going to allow ourselves to be intimidated.

Putting up "no photography" signs in a public space is the same as putting up "no looking" signs. The artist is in the wrong here, not Carlos. She doesn't own the public space outside of her display. Her security guards are breaking the law by harassing photographers.

For copyright to apply the art must be in a fixed and tangible form. This work of art does not qualify for copyright therefore any photos could not be considered derivative works of a copyrighted work.

I also think you have it wrong when you say that you will think less of a photographer who causes a problem when asked not to take photos. You should thank those photographers (ie: Carlos) for sticking their necks out to make a point. If this isn't done then our rights as photographer will be eroded to the point of being nonexistent.

In a world where the right to take images seems to be wrongly challenged on a daily basis both by citizens and police I applaud those who make a stand. In the long run they will be the ones who make it possible for me to continue to photograph.

"You wouldn't expect to be able to take photos in most museums, for example."

Really Haje? You mean places like say, the Boston Museum of fine arts? Oh, that's right, they actually do allow photography there. How about say, the Smithsonian, I bet no photography allowed there right Haje? Oopppsie
From: http://americanart.si.edu/reynolds_center/faq.cfm#faq_10
"Handheld photography and video for personal use are permitted in the permanent collection galleries, and in the Luce Foundation Center, but not in special exhibitions or in the Lunder Conservation Center. No tripods are allowed. Commercial use must be pre-arranged with the museums' Public Affairs Offices."

Lets go to NYC's Metropolitan Museum of Art!! Bet they don't allow any photog riff raff there right Haje. Ohhhh, so sorry, WRONG AGAIN!
http://www.metmuseum.org/visit/plan-your-visit/visitor-tips-and-policies
"Still photography is permitted for private, noncommercial use only in the Museum's galleries devoted to the permanent collection. Photographs cannot be published, sold, reproduced, transferred, distributed, or otherwise commercially exploited in any manner whatsoever. Photography is not permitted in special exhibitions or areas designated as "No Photography"; works of art on loan from private collections or other institutions may not be photographed."

So the general rule of thumb is no flash, tripods, of photographing special exhibitions, as the museum does not own those, but YES you CAN photograph the main exhibit. Sorry again Haje, I don't have the time to check on EVERY museum, but I would say three of the most famous U.S. museums are pretty good examples. Maybe your home towns local Museum doesn't allow photography, too bad 4 U Haje.

"If we're talking first amendment rights, most of us don't graffiti walls, we don't use bullhorns at 4am in the morning, and we don't shout 'fire' in a crowded theatre."

Most of us don't take a diarrhea shit on a public street either, what the fuck does ANY of that have to do with exercising ones LEGAL 1st amendment right to take photographs in public? The examples you provided are all of illegal activities, the last potentially causing great harm to many people by the utterance of a malicious lie.
So just how is a photographer causing deaths? I would argue that by photographing police and ignoring their orders to stop, you could be SAVING someone from harm, or at the very least preventing the officers from LYING about the incident later. But you wouldn't know about that would you Haje, unlike mean old Carlos and the Copblock boyz you just slink away out of "respect" when police tell you to stop taking photos, don't you.

"To put it differently: I'm a photographer. A passionate one. But if you are the photographer who causes a huge brouhaha by deciding to take photos at an event or a location where you've been asked not to, I will think less of you. Why? Because you're making all of us look bad."

Oooooo, you will think less of me, so sad I would have cried if I didn't already hold you in the utmost contempt.

She is perfectly in her right to not want pictures taken but she's in the wrong place to expect it. No photography fine rent a private room to host your "art" and allow free admission on the policy of no cameras but she has to be in a private area. You can't say Sorry I know we're in a public area but no pictures because, I'm ________ so I'm special.

Fill in thee blank with whatever you'd like.

Her reason why she doesn't want pics doesn't matter and is of no consequence. Privacy in public area does not exist.

Haje has chosen a controversial case study to illustrate his point, but his point still stands and in reading your comments, I feel that you have missed it entirely. Yes, you do have a right to take photos in a public place. Absolutely. Completely. Utterly. Totally. This is undisputed and he is no way denying this and neither is he seeking to curtail this.

Rather, as a photographer with the right to photograph what you want, where you want, there is also a responsibility incumbent upon you to exercise caution, discretion, and respect when doing so. Just because you can take a photo anywhere it doesn't mean that you should.

There are situations when taking a photograph might be within your legal rights, but is without the realms of moral or ethical acceptability. The majority of funerals take place in public spaces, but to photograph grieving family and friends would be at best crass. At worst it is highly intrusive and desperately disrespectful. You might have a right to take a photograph, but these people also have a right to be treated in a fashion that's dignified. It's at this point when a photographer must question her or himself: 'Do I need to take this photo? At this precise point, is my right to take a photo greater than these individuals' right to dignity?'

I've already discussed the ethics of photographing dead bodies at length, and this isn't something that I wish to reproduce here. Suffice to say, it raises questions of taste and decency and respect, and these issues extend beyond the body of the deceased.

The question of live performances was one that Haje touched upon in his article. As a photographer, you wouldn't be the only person there, wanting to experience or enjoy the show. Consequently, there is an entirely reasonable expectation for you to leave your camera in your camera bag if it is going to inhibit the enjoyment of the rest of the audience or disturb the performers themselves. Again, it is the responsibility of the photographer to consider her or his rights against those of others.

Conversely, there will be occasions when the right to take a photograph is the overwhelming entitlement or even necessity. Truth, justice, freedom might depend on it and in which case other rights will be overruled.

Rights are balanced by responsibilities. In the majority of cases, photographers do have the right to photograph anything, anywhere public. There are, however, a minority of situations where this right exists, but there is a greater responsibility on the photographer to recognise that the camera is best left in the bag.

Haje's point is that those photographers who insist on taking photos just because they can, without consideration for its wider implications, give every photographer a bad name. Occasionally, it is necessary to demonstrate a modicum of restraint, and in doing so, we as photographers might find that we gain the public's respect for our work, for our art, and for our practice.

Haje,

I know you watched the video so I was hardly "getting in the way" of anybody trying to view her performance.

You don't directly say it, but I guess you think less of me as a photographer because I decided to photograph her when I heard her security guards where physically harassing and threatening photographers.

That's cool if you do, but you should just come out and say it rather than insinuate it.

Maybe it's a cultural thing. Americans, we prefer directness.

Although her security guard didn't say it, one of the reasons they prevented photography was because of the controversy surrounding her performance.

They didn't want the animal rights activists to go there, take pictures and raise hell about it.

Where there's conflict, there's a news story. And if it's over photography, I'm going to cover it.

In a way, this is my art. Exposing people who try to crack down on photography.

So why should my art take a back seat to her art?