Archive for the 'Security Guard Harassment' Category



Caltrain Guards Need More…Training

3494923161_cff542e2a8
Photo by darthdowney

Photographer and Flickr member darthdowney was taking photos of the conductor at a Caltrain station in Mountain View, Calif., when a security guard told him it was not allowed “since the attack.” (Would that be 9/11? Swine flu?) Darthdowney tried to point out it was in fact legal, but soon gave up when he realized there was no getting through to the “goon,” as he called him.

Note to Caltrain employees: Photos of trains are perfectly legal. If you need to bone up on the law, read this.  And let’s stop with this tired old 9/11 crutch and start living according to the laws we are granted in a free society.

Read darthdowney’s account here.

DOT Headquarters a No-Photo Zone

 3115970322_b83f540920
Photo by army.arch

Stephen Miller just wanted to take photos of some vintage bicycles at the US Department of Transportation headquarters in D.C. But a security guard said that wasn’t allowed. Why, you might wonder? He couldn’t tell you that, but he knows it’s not allowed.

From Miller’s account:

“What’s going on here?” he asked.

“I’m photographing the bicycles,” I replied. He continued walking, and I rode down to the next installation — three vintage gas pumps — and began taking photos of them.

“You can’t do that here,” he told me. I asked him why not. “It’s the rules, for security,” he said. I asked him what rule prevented me from taking photographs of public art, but he said that he could not tell me the rule. I asked if he worked for DOT or a subcontractor hired for security. “I can’t tell you that,” he replied again. I asked for his name, which he also refused to tell me.

“So you can’t tell me the rule, your name, or who you work for?” I asked him.

“Nope,” he replied. Luckily, at that point I was already done taking photographs, so I wished him a good evening and continued my ride.

This is not the first time photographers have been hassled at the DOT. Flickr user urbandispute posted an incident where he was stopped and questioned three different times for taking pictures outside the DOT. As urbandispute puts it, the building was built in a run-down part of D.C. as part of revitalization efforts. It’s one block from the Washington Nationals stadium, and there are several public art installations outside for pedestrians to enjoy. Which raises the question: What the hell is their problem?

Article from Greater Greater Washington

Photographer Bullied, Berated at Tent City

3446597982_396356521f
Photo by Ted Soqui

LA photojournalist Ted Soqui was in Ontario, CA, working on a story about the homeless encampment called Tent City when he was harassed, followed, berated and assaulted by its nasty security force.  Surrounded by cyclone fencing, the landscape is adorned with tents, campers and port-o-potties. All of which, are patrolled by Securitas security guards, who apparently rule with an iron fist.

As Ted tells it:

The agents followed me street to street, even pushing my camera into my face at one point. Another person joined in to attempt to stop me from taking photographs, waiving their hands in front of my camera lens as well. They called me every name in the book and threatened to call the police, which they said they did. The police never came. It was a bizzare day, and I was told that they have my license number and are going to come over my home and harass me. 

To see more photos from his day in Ontario, go to Ted’s blog LA Photo.

Chicago to Give Security Guards More Power?

In what has to be the king of bad ideas, Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago said a proposal to give private security guards the authority to write tickets might just be a good thing for the city.

The Chicago Tribune reports that two South Side alderman proposed the idea to allow the private armed security guards that patrol their districts to have ticket-writing authority  for minor infractions, like loitering, graffiti and parking violations. They reason that that will free up the real cops to focus on violent crime.

“It’s not a bad idea,” Daley said. “The more police you have out there … I like the concept … it will help us.” Does Daley really understand the proposal? They are not proposing more police on the street. They’re proposing to give non-police more police-like authority.

In a city known the world over for its colossal corruption problem, giving what amounts to hourly contractors the authority to ticket whomever they see fit is rife with problems. Questions that immediately pop to mind…. Who are the security guards accountable to? Will they have additional training in law enforcement? What happens when the guy they’re trying to ticket for tagging pulls a gun?

It seems like, counter to the plan, you will see an uptick in violence and unrest coming from altercations with inexperienced guards and petty criminals, along with wrongful citations and claims against the city.

Thankfully the police union denounced the idea, and let’s hope the proposal doesn’t go far.  In the Chicago Sun-Times, the Fraternal Order of Police’s Greg Bella said,  “When you put somebody out there who does not know the job, it makes double work for us.”

While I am no fan of cops writing citations, I would much prefer to get one from them over a clueless power-tripping security guard with no real background in law enforcement. Can you imagine if these guys had that power?

Article from the Chicago Tribune and Chicago Sun-Times

Amtrak Forces LA Photographer to Delete Images

Despite several embarrassing incidents for Amtrak in the news recently (in NY and DC), Amtrak employees are still woefully uninformed when it comes to photographers’ rights. 

A local LA photographer, who goes by ShutterBuda, was taking photos at Union Station downtown yesterday morning for about an hour when he snapped an Amtrak employee who told him to not take photos. ShutterBuda continued shooting, when another Amtrak employee told him that he didn’t have permission to take photos. At this point, a commuter chimed in that he also objected to his picture being taken.

This guy, who claimed to be an ex-Guardian Angel, quickly became belligerent and escalated the situation into an ugly scene, yelling that ShutterBuda didn’t have permission to take his photo and threatening to “take him down” and “smash his camera.”  All three were now demanding that he delete his photos. In quick succession, the Amtrak employees called a manager over and the manager called a security guard.

amtrak-2 Photo by ShutterBuda

Not knowing how the law applied inside Union Station, ShutterBuda complied with the demands to delete the images. “Out on the street I never would have deleted those photos – I would have said no,” he says, “but I was kind of in a grey area there.” Plus, he says, they were being abusive and he didn’t want to deal with the scene.

Soon enough three LA County Sheriffs were on the scene.

If you can imagine it: Four Amtrak employees and three sheriffs for a man taking photos of commuters inside a public building.

The sheriffs backed up the Amtrak employees, with one claiming, ShutterBuda says, “that I needed permission from whoever owns Union Station and that I should comply with [the Amtrak staff] because they’re ambassadors for the law in some sense.” One sheriff asked to see the camera to check that the images were deleted – all of which ShutterBuda was able to get back later using recovery software.

amtrak-1 Photo by ShutterBuda

The issue, it seems, was not ShutterBuda being there (i.e., trespassing or security risks) but that he didn’t have permission to be there. Which is a blatant fabrication. You do not need permission to shoot handheld in a public place. And you certainly do not subject yourself to the seizure of your images if you do so. That is downright illegal and possibly a Fourth Amendment issue. A court order is required for anyone to view your photos.

There’s also the issue of whether Amtrak and the sheriffs violated copyright and intellectual property laws by deleting these images, which of course is well beyond their pay grade. They are just blindly following some order they think they have the right to enforce.

Continue reading ‘Amtrak Forces LA Photographer to Delete Images’

Rally Guards Block NYC Photographer

We posted on a pro-Palestinian rally that took place in LA a few weeks back, and there was a similar event in New York City in January. This video shows a credentialed photographer being harassed by event “security guards” (which are actually just civilians in neon vests) and knocked over the head by protesters with signs. The NYPD doesn’t seem to care either.

If you go to 7:07 of the video, a guard/thug starts grabbing the photographer and then forces him far away from the protesters. The guard/thug then lunges at the photographer for no apparent reason other than he’s a hot head on some sort of a retribution mission. NYPD are nowhere to be found. And when they do finally show up, they’re useless.

This is America. Times Square. The photographer has credentials. It’s a public rally. This shouldn’t be happening here. But what’s truly puzzling is that there doesn’t seem to be any downside to letting a photojournalist photograph your event. What are they so worried about?

US Bank Tower: The Aftermath

security
Photo by NoHoDamon

Our story is gaining steam, picked up by LAist, LA Observed, BlogDowntown, LA MetBlogs and Franklin Avenue, among others.

There has been a hearty back and forth about this issue, and that’s good. It’s getting attention for photographers’ rights, and bottom line, that’s what we’re after.

The reaction has been overwhelmingly positive, with photographers and regular folks alike chiming in about their similar experiences and outrage. But, of course, there are always those who will disagree with the mission and the method.

So, to address a few of the common complaints:

1. We didn’t pick the US Bank Tower out of the clear blue. It, along with a few other skyscrapers in downtown LA, have a history of aggressive, unwarranted harassment of photographers.

2. To those who say we didn’t accomplish anything: Universal Protective Services is actually taking this incident seriously, and one of the photographers involved is having a dialogue with executives there about their policy. There’s a good chance they’ll educate their staff better, and that’s a positive result.

002_35Photo by discarted

3. There is no federal, state or city law, code or provision that dictates that one can only photograph here or there or wherever. Some buildings have plaques or markers to signify where their private property begins. Beyond those markers, sidewalks and streets are public property. Photography is perfectly legal on public property. You do not have to ask for permission to practice your craft or your hobby, and you do not need a permit to shoot handheld in public. If your building or refinery or port is visible from a public sidewalk, deal with it. Download Bert Krages’ handy info sheet here.

4. The Patriot Act, enacted by a bully administration after a time of great tragedy (and the perfect example of Naomi Klein’s shock doctrine theory), is used to justify abuses of power and the stripping of many of our basic rights. But neither the Patriot Act or the Homeland Security Act say anything about restricting photography. It is possible terrorists are casing American sights to do harm to them, but one or two – or even six – schlubs with a camera do not really pose a threat to your building. There needs to be some case-by-case logic and thought involved in security guard and police enforcement of these blanket policies.

5. Perhaps some uncivil things were said. In the heat of the moment that happens. Overall this was a relatively pleasant encounter. (There’s been worse and…er, worser.) We realize these guys are just doing their job, but in your own profession, don’t you like to be armed with knowledge about what you’re doing and what your employers are telling you to do? These guards need to be trained better so they can react appropriately in situations like this.

017_201 Photo by discarted

6. Security Guards have no legal authority to enforce any laws whatsoever. They are citizens just like us, that’s it. They can not detain you, arrest you, harass you, threaten you, demand to see your ID, or do anything to you for that matter. They seek out the job, fill out an application and then are hired. Their job is to observe and report.

7. Did we go to the US Bank Tower looking for trouble?

No, we went there to shoot photos of the skyscrapers. Did we go prepared in case we were harassed and threatened by US Bank Tower security guards? Yes.

We knew it was very likely that we would be harassed and threatened, and we were right, because within a minute of arriving, the US Bank Tower guards were in our face. Unfortunately, our videographer showed up a little late and didn’t get the entire confrontation on tape. (Or the previous encounter that took place one a block away at another property managed by Maguire Properties.)

018_193Photo by discarted

8. Why didn’t we call the cops if we knew what we were doing was legal?

Well, we did – twice! Both times we called Officer Johnson at Central Station in downtown Los Angeles, and during both calls we were told that what we were doing was completely legal. We also asked the US Bank Tower guards during both encounters if they would speak with Officer Johnson, however, the security guards REFUSED TO SPEAK WITH A REAL COP – both times!

On top of that, David Sommars can be seen in the above photo, as well as in the video, talking to Officer Johnson. When he tells the US Bank Tower guard this, the guard responds by saying, “I don’t care because you don’t matter to me.”

US Bank Tower Guards Harass Photographers Photo by discarted

9. Why did we continue talking with the US Bank Tower guards and not ask to speak to their supervisors?

We did. When we asked Carlos, the nicer security guard out of the bunch, to speak with his supervisor, guess what? We were told that the most belligerent guard out of all of them was the swing shift supervisor.

So, to recap: The supervisor (above, with open jacket) was the guard that reached for one of our cameras, called us idiots, didn’t cared if he was fired because he had two degrees and refused to speak with law enforcement about the legality of what we were doing.

When we asked to talk to the executives above this guard, we were told they were not in – it was Sunday. (They were probably on their way back to Washington to ask for some more bailout money so they can continue paying these guys.)

024_13 Photo by discarted

10. To reiterate: We were on public property and we weren’t doing anything wrong. Know how we know? Because we weren’t charged or arrested for trespassing, nor were we ever told that we would be arrested for trespassing – just for taking photos … FROM A PUBLIC SIDEWALK!

“Wasting Breath” with US Bank Tower’s Security Team

As we previously posted, a group of NPRO members set out this past Sunday to photograph Los Angeles’s lovely downtown. This area is notorious for its excessively vigilant security personnel, and we wanted to see if we could exercise our constitutional rights and shoot the array of skyscrapers freely and openly. It turns out we couldn’t.

As we began photographing the US Bank Tower at 633 W. 5th Street, managed by Maguire Properties, we were approached almost immediately by a Universal Protective Services (UPS) security guard, and soon there were six (6!). We were told they would call the police and we would be arrested, that no pictures were allowed from their “private sidewalk,” that they actually owned the sidewalk,  and that we were idiots and jerks who should quit asking questions.

The kicker is that, when Angelo of Hollywood politely explained photographers’ rights to one of the UPS guards, he responded that that was just “differing points of view.” Yeah … except that one viewpoint is about the law, and one is not.

Please Voice Your Concerns:

US Bank Tower
633 W 5th St.
Los Angeles, CA 90071
(213) 615-6300

Be Careful What You Photograph at Santa Monica Pier

arcade-pier2
Photo by Anthony Citrano

Today, LA Weekly’s LA Daily blog has the account of Anthony Citrano, a Venice photographer who learned over the weekend that taking photos of the Pacific Park within the Santa Monica Pier, one of LA’s most popular and recognizable attractions, was not allowed.

The story is ridiculous and typical – employees try to enforce their company’s nebulous “policy” with various rules and excuses, ultimately giving up when they’re challenged and realize they don’t have a leg to stand on.

First, Citrano was told by Pacific Park staff that photos of families are okay, just not “random images.” Then people were okay, but not “things.” Then he was told the park was private property, even though it’s on public land and there are no signs posted to that effect. Then it was that he couldn’t commercially profit from the photos. And finally, an employee told him that that his equipment was so professional looking that it was understandable he was stopped.

All of which, it goes without saying, aren’t valid reasons for prohibiting a photographer. The odd thing is, these park employees never claimed it was a security issue, so that wasn’t even their concern. Their issue, it seems, is with  general photography.

But it’s a huge tourist destination, packed with thousands of people every day, nearly all of them wielding cameras. It seems futile, not to mention outrageous and, lastly, bad business, to start enforcing a no photography policy among certain photographers. Can you imagine the work that will take to identify and reprimand photographers they think are shooting just “random things”? What does the employee manual look like for that rule?

As Citrano told the LA Daily: “The first guy was used to not being challenged on the issue and was confused by my questions about policy. Look, These guys are two steps from wearing Batman underwear.”

Citrano has approached the City of Santa Monica for more information on this policy.

Article via LA Daily/LA Weekly

To see more of Anthony Citrano’s work, go here or here.

No Photos in Long Beach Port

cop-long-beach

Photo by Thomas Hawk

Thomas Hawk, a blogger and photographer from San Francisco, was stopped by police for shooting photos in Long Beach Harbor this past weekend. He writes about the incident here. Since he was approached two times by security, and a third time by law enforcement who told him he needed a permit to photograph the harbor, Hawk sought clarification from the Port of Long Beach. And today he posts the response, from spokesperson Art Wong.

In the [sic] Sunday night it seems that the officer thought you were trying to enter a private area and you were a commercial photographer. You, and other photographers, have a right a take pictures from public right-aways. But for your own safety, and for the security of the Port, we have asked our officers to be as vigilant as possible.

Hawk takes issue with Wong’s explanation that the officer claimed Hawk and his friend were trying to enter a restricted private area. Hawk is insistent, and has the photos to prove it, that he was on an overpass, on a public sidewalk.

This is typical of officers who err on the side of overzealous enforcement; they always claim a restricted area – totally irregardless of the law – was being breached when they’re called out.

To voice your complaints contact:

Art Wong, Assistant Director of Communications/PIO, (562) 590-4123, (562) 619-5665 (cell) or wong@polb.com


Spam Blocked