Rosie Hardy (photography)
Photo: Rosie Hardy. About the image:
I got the idea for this a few days ago. I was setting up my camera in a car park near a supermarket in my town, because it had a wall I wanted to use in a 365, away from all the cars. I'd been there literally two minutes and I heard a man shout "Dissemble your camera NOW" behind me. He turned out to be from security, and told me to delete any photos I had taken infront of him so he could make sure there were none on my card. I asked him why after I had done so, and he told me that it was because of possible terrorist attacks. (...) Everywhere has gone completely public safety mad.(Via Gordon Gould)
the latest
latest episodes
Hmmm...safety nazis. I hate nazis.
Liberty is never the safest choice, eh?
Another crazy security officer raving about cameras being used for terrorism? What about all the CCTV cameras that keep us citizens paranoid that somebody is watching -- is that not terrorism?
Somebody needs to make a big deal about this. There needs to be a high-profile court case or something -- get it in the media. Make it known throughout the country (even the world) that photography is not illegal and it's not a security risk.
Ug... What kind of authority do "safety officers" have anyway? People need to stop backing down to clueless rent-a-cops.
This pix really says something about the times : (
What authority does this guard have to force anyone to delete all the photos on their card? I sure wouldn't do it. He doesn't have the right to make me delete photos I took at a birthday party that were still on the card. What happens when someone says no?
If someone says no, the rent-a-cop blusters for a minute and hopefully realizes they've got no legs to stand on.
If the rent-a-cop assaults you, defend yourself from the terrorist.
there's a simple solution to this situation. in a calm and clear voice, you politely tell the security guard to go fuck his mother. you then proceed to photograph the guard while giving him the finger with your other hand. if he attempts to apprehend you, you then kick him in the testicles in the most courteous manner possible. lastly, you apologize on behalf of God for giving you rights.
Apparently, nobody has the authority. Or at least nobody below FBI (and local equivalents) level. But since when did security guards have a clear grasp of what authority they actually have?
if you name the supermarket, people could boycott it.
It's amazing to think that the UK made it through decades of IRA terrorism with little more than signs asking people to report abandoned bags.
The entire world seems to have gone insane.
I have recently switched to using an old school Russian film SLR on a small monopod. Not only will I not be erasing photos for anyone period, the first person who tries to f*** with me about it will get their teeth rearranged by 58mm Helios.
Captcha: They're biased.
I think my reaction would have been something to the effect of, "er, you can f**k off", unless of course he had a tazer, cos they are not afraid to use those are they?
we could make this mall ninja famous.
Everyone is right about the RIGHTS involved here. But it takes more guts to actually do these things when you're in the situation, especially when the camera in question is expensive and delicate. Mall ninjas are not famous for being polite and following the rules.
I am not the world's most physically aggressive person. I'm not sure what I would do in this situation. I don't think it's all that easy to know what you'd do until you're there yourself.
Of course, the reluctance to assert your rights is exactly what these pseudo-authorities count on when enforcing their nonexistent laws.
Something I've been thinking about when I read stories like this: Most cameras use an FAT file
system and it's very easy to undelete files from
an FAT file system. A person could just delete the
files in the presence of the officer and then mount
the storage media in a computer and use a utility
to undelete the files. There are various freeware
tools that can do this. Of course it would be pretty
inconvenient if you didn't have a computer handy
and you wanted to take more pictures.
Don't curse at them until after they've cursed you, and even then it's better to be polite.
In court, you want all the witnesses to say "yeah, she was polite and bothering nobody until this raging asshole tried to mug her, then she pulverized him". That's called justified defense of life and property.
If you are vulgar in your speech you won't get any obstreperous little old ladies defending you in court, and they are the very best witnesses to have on your side.
Ha ha. Mall Patrol. Don't take crap from Mall Patrol. If their badge isn't issued by a state or federal agency, I don't take crap like that from anyone. If he had pressed the issue with me, I would have told him to call a cop and let them decide if a law was being broken.
I have the advantage of size on my side but please don't let someone bully you out of your rights. It encourages them and rewards their actions.
I Can't Believe It's Not Law Enforcement
Maybe you could point out that their security cameras are taking pictures of you, and similarly you are taking pictures of them for your own security. Or say you'd be happy to delete your pictures of them if you can watch them delete their pictures of you.
Of course I realize arguments don't work when you're faced with a gorilla who is being paid to intimidate you. That's his job, so he is naturally going to be better at it than you are. In reality, maybe the best thing to do is just say no, and take your stuff and walk away, and then report them to the police for harassment.
Takuan,
Boycott the place because of what might just be an over-zealous employee? For all you know the rent-a-cop wasn't ever even advised to do this by the owners/managers etc.
A little knee jerk, n'est pas?
Had something like this happen some time ago, on a medium-scale "pro" shoot. Security drones walk up, and start questioning me - as I'm taking the camera off its legs, being pretty well done. I turn and point, and tell the dude "See that guy over there? Talk to him, he's my producer." while I finish packing and loading.
He repeats himself, so do I, a few times.
By this time, I'm torn down and loaded into the car. We leave. With our footage.
The most they really have the right to do is have you leave private property. That's it.
Oh, and I love that they're stupid enough to not know about any sort of "undeleting" we can do with file-recovery software.
Where exactly did this happen? UK? USA? I would like to contact the store management. Ultimately, the only thing businesses care about is their bottom line. If enough photographers and our friends speak up, eventually these clueless morons will get the message.
On a side note, BEAUTIFUL photographs btw!!
#16: Judging by the artist's use of the language, I'd say she's from the UK, wouldn't you?
The store was Waitrose, in Buxton, somewhere in the UK.
Oh, even better:
http://www.waitrose.com/branches/branchdetails.aspx?uid=748
I've been in similar situations. Once, I was on a public sidewalk shooting video of the local waterfront when the cop stopped me for "infrastructure security" reasons. I pointed out that I was in a public place doing something completely legal, and that I shouldn't have to explain myself. This didn't sit well. I really wanted to stand my ground, but I was on the clock and simply didn't have the time to get myself arrested to prove my point. So I gave him my boss's number so he could check my story.
I still feel dirty.
Another time, I was shooting video of the street from the upper floor of a municipal parking garage. The security guard who approached me was significantly more polite than the one who browbeat the original poster, and I in turn politely (but firmly) informed him that I would temporarily stop shooting while he went to get his manager.
Do terrorists often attack shopping malls? I can think of that one sniper a few years ago, but other than that ... and I don't think he needed to case the place with a camera.
Um, surveillance-camera upskirt?
I still don't get why she complied to the security guards request? He has as much the right to ask her to take off her underwear, as to ask her to delete her pictures.
Beautiful pictures by the way, I really like them, it's a shame they aren't cc licensed. :>
@20
"first, you get its attention."
and yes, wonderful photographs!
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Benjamin Franklin
When a guard is looking over your shoulder (keeping a close eye on the deletion process or whatever) quickly turn towards him and 'accidentally' apply your knee, camera bag, walking stick, or whatever's handy to his groin. Apologize and explain that you were just too enthusiastic in your compliance. Sometimes, hyper-enthusiastic compliance works as a countermeasure and has the added benefit of plausible deniability.
Also, remember these three responses to any question you are asked. They are the only three you need to know to respond to any pinheads who demand anything from you and are especially handy with actual government officials (not just wannabes like private security goons).
The replies to memorize are:
1) Huh?
2) What do you mean?
3) Why?
I've never been asked a question that couldn't be "answered" with one of those three replies, often in quick succession, which also have the added advantage of making the goon think they're more intelligent than you. That's an important appearance to maintain when dealing with pinheads, tools, bureaucrats (aka pinheaded tools), and other social hemorrhoids; they reserve special hatred for people smarter than them and will show you that they are more powerful than you if you use words that are too big or that they can't understand.
@Anon/32:
SERIOUSLY considering having this etched into my flesh, so strongly do I feel about it.
Pls nt: 'm bg fn f Rs's btfl pcs. Bt cnsdr ths: http://rshrdyplgrsm.tmblr.cm/
weak, zsoltika, weak.
zsoltika, and?
i believe you can take photographs of private property as long as it is not used for commercial purposes. the guard (nor the supermarket) have legal rights to make you delete your photos. however, they can physically remove you from their property.
your script for Mall Cops:
"No. You can't ask me to disassemble my camera, nor to delete pictures from my camera. Nor are you allowed to touch my camera nor person. The sole thing you are allowed to do is ask me to leave the property. If I refuse to leave the property, then your only course of action is to call the police and report my act of tresspass. You may make reasonable contact to prevent me from leaving the property until police arrive. If you delete files from my camera during this period, you will be tampering with evidence.
So, again: NO. NO I will NOT delete my pictures nor somehow "Disassemble My Camera". You may only do the one thing you have not yet done: politely ask me to leave."
If they ask you to leave, politely, you do so with due haste. If they do not, and attempt to manhandle you, you have the upper hand, legally.
Of course, you might not get your camera back from the police, but hey... you're in the right.
The only time I've been noticed by a policeman with my camera, it was because it was dark and he didn't see that I had a camera. As soon as I told him what I was doing some moonlight photography and he saw the camera he waved and went on his way.
I've seen a printout somewhere on the net of a sheet covered with "photographers' rights", various notes explaining the laws that protect our ability to take photographs in public places.
zsoltika,
That was not creditable. It seems more like a personal vendetta site.
#39 - it's called 'the photographers right':
http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
this happens to me all the time. cops are usually fine about it; they understand the law (but if they're difficult, DON'T stand your ground - you'll maybe end up in jail for the night, even though you were in the right).
rent-a-cops are usually the problem. the key, i've found, is to remain calm: "you seem like a good guy; i'm within my rights to photograph this. please call the police if you'd like to."
good luck!
the photographers sandwich board sign (wear while working):
"Greetings! By speaking to me you hereby relinquish all rights to the use of your image for whatever purposes I see fit to put it to. etc. etc."
@Antinous #41 (and Takuan #36, MDH #37)
I don't understand why zsoltika's post was disemvowelled.
I think you're saying that the allegations in the disemvowelled link aren't credible (ie believable), but after looking at the images side by side, and reading this post, it sure looks to me like there are prima facie instances of plagiarism here.
So Kaavya Viswanathan gets crucified, but Rosie Hardy gets a free pass? What's up with that?
in my opinion?
One: style.
Two: the Law of Hospitality. Guests are Guests.
It's not public-safety-mad, it's just plain old power-mad. I could see poking buttons on a camera just to make the guy go away, if the photog wasn't doing important journalism in the first place and the bull would just bust you for trespassing if you finished your project. But he's still being a dick.
@MrFricative - A vituperative one liner linking to a vituperative blog targeting an individual, made in response to our hosts trying to share something pretty is grounds for dmv'ing.
Also, inspired by those works, or not, hers are better, imho.
Takuan, #45 --
Sorry to be obtuse, but now I'm even more confused. You think there was a problem with the style of zsoltika's post?
And you mean that Rosie Hardy is a 'guest' here whereas Kaavya Viswanathan wasn't? Or just that anyone commenting here should never say anything that might be construed as bad?
again, just my opinion; there was perhaps something lacking in zsoltika's style. People are free to say what they will, and free to bear the responsibility for what they say and how they say it.
Thanks for your responses, guys, although MDH, I don't see how you can possibly consider this to be vituperative -- "Please note: I'm big fan of Rosie's beautiful pics. But consider this: [link redacted]".
For the avoidance of doubt (as Robert Peston would say) I have no desire to get on Rosie's case. On the contrary, I'm extremely sympathetic toward creatives (as opposed to students or academics or hacks) who are charged with plagiarism. What troubles me here is that, regardless of "HarryNY's" motives (fwiw I'd guess self-publicity rather than vindictiveness, although, heck, it could even be honest-to-God righteous indignation), the evidence is pretty striking. It pertains directly to Rosie's art, and I'm not at all comfortable with the idea that this is something we shouldn't be talking about here.
I'm astounded at all the bad advice in this thread. The actions to take in this case are simple: immediately call 911. Tell them that someone is threatening you and you're scared. Ask them what you should do.
Depending on how far you want to take it, you might explain:
- they acted in a threatening manner
- they threatened you physically
- they said they were going to take/destroy your camera
- they insulted you, leered at you, made racist comments about you
- they shoved, restrained, or otherwise attacked you
etc. While some cops can sometimes be a pain in the neck, if *you* call *them* and are sufficiently deferential, they will come down fiercely on your side. Presumptuous rentacops piss them off as much as they piss you off. Just don't get in to a question of laws and liberty: all that matters is that this person approached you and frightened you, and you need the police to mediate.
The terrorism is the fear, that these tin badge guards promote. The question is who are they protecting & why is the general public so willing to accept the irrational excuses?
But wouldn't it be better to make them waste police time and money?
I had a point-and-shoot camera that could take a CF card and a memory stick simultaneously, and there was a rather subtle switch to choose between them during shooting. I always thought that, while using it, if faced with this sort of situation I could just quickly flip the switch and show the nice officer my pictures from some other location, and that I hadn't yet taken anything here, and sure I'll be glad to leave his private property if he so desired.
I wish my current camera had that, although I've yet to be faced with such douchebaggery.
Of course, that's a technological solution to a problem that should really be solved socially and politically.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/31448232/ns/technology_and_science-tech_and_gadgets/
Isn't it ironic that the sole 'terrorist' act in EVERY SINGLE ONE of these situations is from the person whose job it is to (apparently) worry about terrorism?
#50 misterfricative-In earlier posts it has been
established that only poor people plagiarise.Now we have an opinion#47MDH that plagiarism is wholly
acceptable if the results of intellectual theft
demonstrates an improvement[in the eye of the beholder]on the original inspiration.Provocative
point!Might one reasonably expect that respect and
common courtesy would assure that the "innovator'
has the responsibility to acknowledge the source of their revisionism-or mmm-expanded view? Thanks
for your post and the links,I followed up on Kaavya Viswanathan,facinating stuff,Oh what a web
she weave!and your point is well made,#35 zsoltika
did preface his 'vituperative one liner' with a
glowing comment on Ms Hardy's skill but called
into question her ethical standards.Youth cannot
be an excuse hopefully she will have the maturity
to correct herself.She is certainly very talented
and some of her work is spectacular.I am beholden
to you and zsoltika for opening yet another door
and also to the moderator who felt compelled to
caution zsoltika but did not impede my interest in pursuing substance of the accusations directed
at Ms Hardy.
A lot of photographers seem to come across this issue from time to time and it is one that we all agree is quite frankly ridiculous, and shouldn't happen. Unfortunately it does happen, and it's going to keep happening all the time we allow our governments and the media to keep is in constant fear of everything.
In the UK there is no law against photographing anyone or anything on public property providing common decency laws are not breached of course. On private property however photography is entirely at the owner's discretion.
Perhaps the best way to defeat this fear is not with indignation, confrontation and argument - all of which serve only to feed the fires - but with forethought and planning.
If you want to take photographs on private property such as a supermarket carpark, telephone or write to the owner/manager/whatever explaining what you want to do and why. Any sensible person would be accepting of this, and the idea will gradually trickle down the line that NOT everyone is a potential terrorist, and that not every place is a potential target.
Imo #51 is absolutely correct.
A while back I was filming a student film project in a commercial but open air area that also serves as a public thoroughfare. Some security guys appeared demanding that we stop filming and that this is private property etc etc. When I challenged them that this is a public space (which was an iffy proposition, I admit) which I'm entitled to photograph as a citizen and that I've already notified the police about our presence one of the goons had the nerve to say that this is not a public matter and that police have NO JURISDICTION here.
Oh well well well... you can imagine the joy I felt when I heard this. I immediately called 911 and said to the officer there "Hey, you know we're this student film crew filming at that location? Well there are some guys here threatening us and they said that you, the police, have no jurisdiction or rights here." The dispacher was completely taken aback "No jurisdiction!?! He really said that?! Where exactly are you?"
In less than 5 minutes a patrol car with 3 very pissed off policemen appeared and we continued our shoot with the security guards sulking in the shadows, not daring to show their faces. The cops were enjoying themselves immensely by intimidating the goons from the distance and even making a show of helping us with lugging equipment around. Ofc we went to a coffee with the cops afterward and it did turn out that rent-a-cops are at the very top of their hate list.
If in doubt call 911 immediately. This is usually quite enough for the jerks in question to start getting cold feet because they know that they are wrong and are just trying to bluff you into submission.
Oh and it works very well even if you're challenged by a dumb cop. Just say, with perfect calmness "I am sorry but I don't think this is right, I will check with the authorities." Take out your trusty old cell phone, dial 911 and say something along these lines "Hello, I am a concerned citizen and I am being accosted by an aggressive person claiming to be a police officer. I am in a public space and am taking photographs of city life (or whatever). Yes I am aware that some buildings cannot be photographed I am taking special care not to violate this regulation. Am I allowed to proceed with my photography?"
Ofc the answer will be positive, as you well know. And even if it isn't, you are the person controlling the information flow because the cop can't hear what is being said on the other said of the line. If you're being told to piss off just nod very seriously and say "I see, I see."
The purpose of this exercise is to put doubt into the bully's mind by appealing to his fear of authority and presenting yourself as at least equal to him in power. Additionally he will start doubting himself which is perfect for any subtle bartering late on. "Ok, I agree to leave the place without a scandal but I get to keep the pictures I made." presented subtly enough is the usual outcome of such exchanges.
(A very cold an professional demeanor is a MUST here, whatever you do DO NOT argue with the cop because that will put you firmly into inferior position in his mind. If you don't like what he is saying just ignore him and go straight to what he perceives as his superiors).
This is how "Terrorism" gets used to justify simply *ANYTHING* There's a slightly less than Zero chance of a photo ban preventing a "Terrorist" from getting a photo. There's a 100% chance of avoidable Very Bad Things from anti-photo enforcers being clueless. And scarier still? Every such event of this type brings us to the end of freedom. Freedom demands transparency. See David Brin for details...
I have one last thought to induce sweating panic attacks in us.. Zapruder would have been arrested had the present laws existed then... As in - "I need to confiscate that camera"
I actually have a transcript sent to me by my MP here in the UK of the debate in the House of Commons about this very subject and the Minister responsible says in no uncertain terms that photography in public places is NOT illegal under section 44 of the appropriate act of parliament regarding terrorism.
I always tackle my MP about any subject which causes me ire via this AMAZING web site called www.writetothem.com which hooks you up directly with your elected representatives both in the UK and in Europe and causes them to earn their money by writing you FULL and frank replies.
Interactive govenment baby!