Pixiq

Well, that changes things now doesn’t it. They got tax payer money, they’re no longer private. Just like the companies that accepted bailout money and then cry when the government pulls the strings they begged to be attached and want to regulate them further.

If nothing else, this is an object lesson of why you shouldn’t get in bed with the government and take tax money for private pursuits.

In reading about the Church Street Market, it is a public/private partnership just like the mall in Silver Springs, Maryland. There was a similar incident there, where the management company had to eat their words when the city attorney made it very, very clear, that the First Amendment did apply to the mall.

Ok, politics doesn’t come into this at all as far as i can see, regardless of who pays for what. Its good to get some perspective on this article though.

I will say I did like that photo.

From what i can see all parties involved are in the wrong. To start with the security guard was in the wrong to inform the photographer in question that it was illegal to take photos, the photographer was in the wrong for taking somebodies photo without permission (not wrong via the law, but wrong via not being an arse… though this could be considered subjective).

The only people who are in the right are the people who own the mall who can ban anyone they want to for pretty much any reason (even really silly one). Basically it boils down to the mall being private property with public access, with public access controlled by the property manager, the owners & then the managers of individual sub-lets.

As for all the people yelling “Respect peoples rights” on the uncommon ground facebook page, just think for a second. How happy would you be if some random stranger with a telephoto lense stood on the other side of the road & took photos in through your window as you snuggled on the couch with your significant other, or as your family ate dinner. Would you be happy about that?

Finally any true photographer knows that anytime you use a photo of somebody for commercial use such as on a web site you should have a model release form (or you should if your serious about commercial photography), or at the very least verbal permission to use the photos… neither of which the photographer in question had. Which is why it perfectly fine for uncommon grounds to have up photos, but not want you taking photos of there customers.

@Matthew Lane : One of the guiding principle’s for any photographer shooting public subjects, (for me at least) is the question: Does the subject have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In the situations you describe of snuggling on a couch or eating dinner at your table, the subjects most certainly had an expectation of privacy.
But, a person on a sidewalk smoking a cigarette during the day? Legal photograph, and legal photographer..
Douglas´s last blog ..In Custody Inmate InformationPersonal InformationName: TAYLOR,…

I like your site, but I have to disagree here. The use of tax/spend to extend government regulation and control via “well you get tax money” is the problem. The government is taxing us into slavery then using the money to get all the strings they could not get otherwise…. like the ability to tell a private business who they have to allow in their stores.

Private businesses have the right to ban photography. I’m sorry, but read the constitution again. Your rights do not extend onto other people’s private property. Did you get an EIC last year? Ever take a single dime of welfare? Perhaps take a tax credit for something? If you did, clearly that would not give me the right to come inside your home, because you were “taxpayer funded”.

Yes, this guy was not inside the store, and I wholly support the right to photograph from the sidewalk. I’m only arguing against the idea that accepting government money should end someone’s (business or individual) right to restrict access to their property.

Yes you are right, just accepting money doesn’t make them public. The fact that they are public run does.

The commission that runs it is chosen by the city council: “The Church Street Marketplace District Commission consists of nine members, appointed by the Burlington City Council, who serve three year terms.”

The original design and construction was paid by the city: “In August of 1977, city officials signed a $304,000 design and architectural contract with the Burlington firm Alexander and Truex to develop the new design for the project.”

Its a public place as far as I’m concerned, and he has every right to go there and take pictures, and he cannot be banned for that.

I actually agree with you. But when you start using a telephoto lense to take photos inside the cafe (which is when the owners got pissed) i would personally consider the line crossed.

inside the cafe i would assume the people would have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But having said that would you be ok if someone you had never met came up and for no apparent reason started taking photos of you? Even if you did, in this day and age (a saying i’ve come to hate) of digital communication you never know where that image is going to end up or what irreponsible person is going to do with that image.

When she said i don’t want you taking photos of me & i would like you to delete the photo the photographer should have pleaded his case & if she still didn’t want it being used delete it. The photographer doesn’t have to, but just because a thing isn’t illegal doesn’t mean you should do it… in other words “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”

That person may have many reasons not to want her photo taken, heck some may even be legal reason or safety reasons (though that is unlikely… but not impossible).

One of my guiding principles’ for photography shooting public subjects, is the question: Does the subject have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” & if i do take this photo is the subject going to be happy about it?

You can still take the photo but don’t be suprised when the person gets irrate & be ready to delete a really good shot. Of course as i pointed out before i live in a country where people are pretty darn polite & i wouldn’t have it any other way (yay for quality of living).

@Matthew Lane: So by your logic if I own a store and I see a republican handing out campaign literature on the corner in front of my store , I can ban him because I happen to be a democrat?

As for model releases – I suggest you do some more reading on the subject of when/if they are needed. Selling a picture does not always constitute “commercial use”. For example any picture can be used to illustrate a story in a book, magazine or newspaper without a release. It’s called editorial use and perfectly legal. Even selling prints (art prints) is not considered commercial in many states (google DiCorcia v Nussenzweig and you will see what I mean).

As for Flickr – it is a non-commercial photo sharing site. There is no difference between posting a picture on there and showing it to your friends on a slide show. Model releases are not required on that site – if they were I would think that 98.5% of the pictures there would have to be taken down. Flickr is not a portfolio site – it does not promote your services as a photographer. If the pictures were posted on sites like Model Mayhem then I would agree with you.

Finally – how happy would I be if someone took a picture of me in my house. That is nothing but a red herring – I have an expectation of privacy in my house. I do not have an expectation of privacy while sitting on a restaurant table behind a plate glass window.

actually he can be banned… it’s happened… its like saying i don’t believe the sun will come up in the morning so i’m going to go kill everybody because its the end of the world. Ok, thats a bit hyperbolic, but the point still stands. Regardless of what you feel it has happened & no shouting into the darkness here will change that. I’m sorry it has happened but as i’ve already said no one in this is blameless.

Let me share my experience. I was simply taking pictures of Christmas decorations at a mall when a security guard came up to me and told me to put my camera away. I wasn't doing anything wrong! I wasn't even taking pictures of people. He read me the riot act and told me that it's a "security issue". Since when is photographing Christmas lights and decorations a crime? Where does this madness end?

I think it's ridiculous that someone would prohibit you from taking photographs in public, but what can you do about it? I had a similar experience in a shopping mall. I was taking pictures of the Christmas decorations, for pete sake! Not even photographing people. A security guard came up and read me the riot act, told me to put my camera away and said that the mall "prohibits taking pictures" for "security reasons". He claimed that it's a terrorist threat. If I were really a terrorist would I have my camera out in plain view and stand in the middle of the mall not even trying to evade security? Of course not! If someone really wanted to survey for an attack they'd use covert methods and hidden equipment. They certainly wouldn't stand out in the open taking obvious pictures of the Christmas tree. People need to get a life and leave other people alone. Photography is NOT a crime!

I think it's one thing if someone behaves in a way that people perceive as threatening. We live in a very paranoid society and a lot of people are afraid of having their picture taken, particularly young women. Rightly or wrongly, they saw this man as a threat and wanted him to stop. Now I'm not siding with the store, but I am saying that I wouldn't take pictures of strange people myself, for that very reason. However, when people prohibit people from taking pictures of scenery, Christmas decorations, building structures and the like, that's going way over the top. What threat is that to anyone? None at all. If someone wants to do damage to people they'll figure out a way with or without taking pictures in public.

The limited understanding of, or outright opposition to, private property is the greatest threat to freedom. All liberties follow from the fundamental right to private property.

It might profit the disbelievers to read what James Madison had to say about property:

http://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/documents/v1ch16s23.html

I disagree with you regarding your assertion that accepting taxpayer dollars suddenly deprives this business of banning someone from their facility. While I am full committed to the rights of photographers to photographing on public property, the acceptance of taxpayer dollars does not remove their rights to act as a private business.

If we were to use the “acceptance of taxpayer assistance or tax breaks” as the test of determining what was public and what was private, then there would hardly be any private property anywhere.

The government taxes everyone very heavily… more heavily is then required… and then uses special incentives to “encourage” certain politically popular actions and generously gives people and businesses back the money they took from them. A business taking advantage of this is doing the best it can to survive, and should not be punished for doing so, when the only other option is likely to fold under this excess taxation.

Think about this… do you own a home? Do you deduct your mortgage payments on your taxes? Your home is now public… please keep your doors unlocked so I may come inside and photograph you at will.

I find it very irritating that people get so worked up about their picture being taken. I mean really, what do they think people are going to do with it! Are they really that full of themselves that they think they are too cool to be photographed? Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had been like that since the invention of photographs. It would be sad, and bleak, and we would have nothing to “literally look back on!” Wow, I didn’t know I cared so much about this!
Personalized Dog Tags´s last undefined ..Response cached until Sun 6 @ 1:05 GMT (Refreshes in 23.88 Hours)

Great comments, you have certainly stirred passion in your readers, very helpful!
Steve A´s last blog ..Desperately seeking COBRA subsidy

It’s so sad that we live in a world that makes such a huge deal out of NOTHING!
Darrell Smith recently posted..Despicable Me PS2 Game

Carlos, et al:
Perhaps we should all CALL the store and let them know in polite, but strong terms, what we think about this? I know that I was looking at having our family reunion there, but this incident has us looking at another STATE now for planning! At least here in Virginia, people know about the Constitution and the rights of photographers!

Fight the good fight, people!
Tom
Tom McElvy´s last blog ..The Blizzard of 2010

As I understand it, he’s not banned from the public portion, that is, the exterior “mall” part. Rather, he’s banned from the interior of the stores. Ironic, since his photography takes place there anyway, this won’t impact his photos, just his day to day use of the stores.

You have an expectation to a point. If you walk in front of a window naked or covered in what could be blood and someone happens to look at you, they didn’t invade your privacy.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Ladies and Gentlemen, please rise for our Corporate Anthem

I guess I’ll say it, its a shame that such a lovely girl is smoking.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Ladies and Gentlemen, please rise for our Corporate Anthem

You really don’t have a clue and do not understand the laws governing free access to public areas. At least google some fact before coveying an unispired commentary factless commentary.

Sorry, but the photographer IS blameless. He did nothing wrong.

Regardless of whether he can or can’t be banned (I don’t think so since this is a public place- blacks can’t be banned for instance), he SHOULDN’T have been banned. That’s the point.

I may have a problem with it but- and here is the thing- I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. If I’m out on a public street, anybody can take my pictures. That doesn’t give me the right to get that guy banned.

And sorry, but the photo does not have to delete the photo.

Again, this place is run by the City. Its not private. Its public.

I saved a few of these photos and put them in an album on FB, with the note “All photos are by others in this album.”

Also recent screen-grabs.

They banned him but that does not mean that the Vermont law that allowed this to happen will stand up to a constitutional challenge. So far it has not been challenged because, with one exception involving an employee/employer dispute, the stores generally did not abuse the law.

However, someday the stores will apply it to the wrong person – someone with resources to take it to the Supreme Court. For one thing there is no appeals process – this law is so broad and lends itself so easily to abuse that it is just begging for a challenge.

I’d like to know why the photographer hasn’t sued the coffee shop and mall for slander and libel.

I’d like to know why the photographer hasn’t sued the coffee shop and mall for slander and libel. He has a case.

“if I own a store and I see a republican handing out campaign literature on the corner in front of my store , I can ban him because I happen to be a democrat?”

Yes. You can legally discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. For that matter, you can discriminate on the basis of profession, smoking preference, or almost anything else that isn’t a protected class (or linked thereto).

It doesn’t change anything. Just because they received tax money doesn’t mean they give up rights as property owners. There are a lot of businesses and farms that get tax money. This doesn’t mean they suddenly become public property.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

That is actually interesting information. However who now actually owns or pays rent for the space? That is the issue. Even if the govt builds something, if they rent it out, then it becomes private property under the control of the person renting.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All

This group should start passing out awards to people who zealously uphold the standards of Fascism. Inaugurating the award with the offending parties in this case (the coffee house owners and the police) is simple poetic justice. The actual trophy should be a nice jackboot. Suggestions for names for this illustrious prize?

@Matthew Lane

I also suggest you read up on when a model release is needed and the difference between editorial use, art, and commercial use.

As for asking permission to take photos in a public location, do you think the photographer’s pictures would have turned out this well if he had asked this young lady permission first? A big reason this picture is good, is that it is candid.

The mall seems to want have its cake and eat it too. Their web page states:

Church Street has always been the region’s commercial and community center, and after the Marketplace’s four blocks were converted to pedestrian mall in 1981, the newly created public space quickly became the region’s town center. It is the location for the region’s most popular events, including the Discover Jazz Festival, Key Bank Vermont City Marathon, and First Night Burlington. It is a frequent location for evening television newscasts, a popular destination for celebrities vacationing in Vermont, and a site for political figures to make major announcements. Church Street is the destination for celebrating a birth, a marriage, or graduation, to participate in a protest, people-watch, or just shop, dine or explore.

Sounds like a public forum to me. Created by the government, run by a quasi-governmental agency, accepting tax dollars to run, and given the right to eminent domain to expand if desired.

As for the individual stores, they can control photography in their individual stores, because they pay rent and are pretty free to do as they please. However, the street, and public areas of the mall would seem to be public for all of the above reasons. You can see the County Attorney’s opinion from Silver Springs, Maryland at:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/073007/073007_PrinceGeo...

Except the renter didn’t ban him–the renter went to center management and got him banned from every store in the mall. Which at least subjects the decision to additional scrutiny if there’s government involvement in center management.

“A design for Church Street was unveiled in March 1978, which encompassed a two-level scheme, with a lower level below the street level, connecting to adjacent buildings through their basements. The lower level would add 80,000 square-feet of retail space to the City’s total with no new construction, and provide 20,000 square feet of city-owned retail space. In March of 1979, the City sponsored round table discussions and both local citizens and merchants responded negatively to the idea of a two-level mall. The Steering Committee decided to drop the two-level scheme, and a new plan was devised. The new plan included bringing the street level up to the sidewalk level, resurfacing the street with brick, adding canopies and shelters, closing the street to cars on the two central blocks, and implementing the downtown bus loop which would enable buses to cross Church Street at two intersections. The one-level plan was approved by city voters later that year.”

But public property didn’t entirely become private when the city closed those streets to motorized traffic.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

That’s true that they don’t give up their private property rights for accepting public funds, it does, however, point out the HUGE problem with giving public money to private business.

JUST SAY NO TO WELFARE, CORPORATE OR OTHERWISE.
Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

Citation needed.
Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”

Uncommon Grounds can’t delete a tab I never closed.

Wordy bastards cut off in screenshots:

Shawn Nee Based on what you’ve done to Dan Scott, you should rename your store to Unconstitutional Grounds. If any customers of UG are supporters of the Constitution (particularly the 1st Amendment), you should read about Uncommon Grounds’ treatment of Dan Scott for taking photos in public space. Which, everyone should know, is …a completely legal act protected by the Constitution, and is also the reason why companies like Uncommon Grounds (aka Unconstitutional Ground) is legally allowed to videotape the public without our permission using security cameras. Uncommon Grounds, in this situation it appears the pot IS calling the kettle black (horrible pun intended too). What applies to you and other businesses also applies to public. For instance, photographers taking legal photos of people in public spaces.

Dan Scott’s Story:

http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street

Michael Kerney Lurking? Creepy? Please. If living in a free society makes you or your customers “uncomfortable,” feel free to go somewhere where you don’t have to worry about anyone having the freedom to take pictures in public and upset your delicate sensibilities. I hear Iran, North Korea and China are nice for that. You might miss… a few human rights as a woman in those places, but at least no one (except the government) will make you feel uncomfortable with photography.

Stretch Ledford Wow. You guys really suck. And to think that you’re in VERMONT! I thought people in Vermont were pretty chill. You’re an independent business… been around for 15 years it says… how would you like it if someone suddenly decided to illegally restrict any of the many legal protections that allowed you to go into …and, indeed, stay in business? (Tweeting this info and asking a slew of journalists to retweet, btw…)
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle

As for all the people yelling “Respect peoples rights” on the uncommon ground facebook page, just think for a second. How happy would you be if some random stranger with a telephoto lense stood on the other side of the road & took photos in through your window as you snuggled on the couch with your significant other, or as your family ate dinner. Would you be happy about that?

That’s apples and oranges. Over your shoulder at the ATM, in the window of your living room, in the changing rooms at Sears – those places have an expectation of privacy. Standing on the streetcorner, puffing away on a fag – zero expectation of privacy. If someone snapped a photo of me on the street, more power to them.

Again, these people have no expectation of privacy. If Uncommon Grounds doesn’t like people taking pictures of its patrons from the street, they should close the blinds or board the windows up.

If someone stood in front of the window and picked their nose, could they ban him? I don’t think so. So a photographer shouldn’t be different.

There are two malls in Los Angeles, that were built by developer, Rick Caruso. One is The Grove, and the other one is the Americana at Brand (which is actually in Glendale, CA). They’re both constructed with the open court yard style, and all of the stores are surrounding this space.

The paparazzi are at both of these malls on a daily basis fishing for any celebrity that appears—usually based on a tip from one of the celebrity’s “people”. You can see the videos on TMZ (the show and their website).

And there isn’t anything the shop owners, the police, or the security guards can do about them because the court yard area is public space and the paps are not going into the stores. Therefore, they aren’t breaking any laws even though some shop owner might think it’s really creepy that the paps are there some times taking creepy pictures of people.

I’m sure we can all agree that the paparazzi are likely more of a disturbance than a single man in Vermont taking pictures in a public area.

This type of behavior from the store owners would not fly in Los Angeles.

@michael42

that’s me. i posted that remark on facebook.

Actually, Trespassing Notices must be based on some type of Probable Cause or the Police can not issue them.

Consumerist picked up the story and has a poll with most readers voting against the photographer.

http://bit.ly/90mY09

You should look into what happened with the D.C. Union Station and get back to us. We’ll wait.

I think she was scared her parents might see the photo of her smoking. Too bad she is now the epicenter of a swift moving storm cloud.

How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a cafe, especially one that has large picture glass windows, and where anyone (assuming the owner hasn’t preemptively banned them) can come in and see you. A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn’t exist just because you’ve entered private property.

Also, he didn’t use a telephoto lens to peer through the cafe’s window, that shot was taken at close range.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/meta/

The telephoto shot he made was of the manager out on the street. No windows involved.