The Sidewalks Are Yours, Click Away
We've been watching the Flickr discussion boards blow up lately about the banning of photography in supposedly public places. One user has posted in every D.C. related group with his recent story, and another user, katmere, has had so many confrontations with police and security guards that she started her own group last week called DC Photo Rights, where folks are asked to "[p]ost photos that you took in 'banned' locations, or photos when you been asked to stop taking legal photos."
Flickr user chippy314's story is particularly ridiculous. He was taking pictures from Ellsworth Avenue in Silver Spring, when he was told by a security guard that photography was not allowed, despite chippy314's protestations that he was standing on a public street. Or was he? As the guard suggested, he went to the management office of Peterson Companies, the development agent contracted to rebuild the area, and was told, "Downtown Silver Spring including Ellsworth Avenue is private property, not a public place, and subject to the rules of the Peterson Companies."
No, no, no, my friends. Sidewalks and streets are paid for with taxpayer money and generally considered to be public space. The local government can make certain rules regarding these areas (e.g. shovel your walk during winter), but a private company prohibiting an act such as photography from the sidewalk outside their establishment just doesn't fly. And no, 9/11 didn't change that.
We're not talking about secure government facilities or even the Metro -- where actually, as we've already discussed, non-commercial photography is explicitly allowed -- so are these photographers just getting hassled by uniformed authority figures who bank on camera-wielding folks not knowing the law? In a couple words: hell yes.
Photo of Silver Spring establishments by katmere, who was then confronted by a security guard and told she was not allowed to take photos in Metro Plaza.
As we noted in our discussion of Metro photography, you have the right to take photos in public places, and if you need some language to back that up, print out The Photographers Right and keep it in your camera bag. Keep in mind that private entities have no right to take your camera or your film without a warrant, and this includes security guards on Ellsworth Avenue or at the Ballston Common Mall (though keep in mind that if you are inside a privately owned venue, they can prohibit the actual taking of photos and ask you to leave if you do not comply; once you've taken the photo, they need a court order to take it from you.)
Flickr itself has been in the news lately for its new "SafeSearch" filters, which can restrict viewing at three levels. Most Flickr users can change their settings to their own comfort level, but users in Singapore, Germany, Hong Kong and Korea have their filter permanetly set at the highest level. Members have expressed their outrage on message boards, both because of the general censorship, but also because Flickr's views on what's safe and what's not seems to be more than a little vague -- before I turned my filter off, it was blocking a friend's photo of a couple of women, fully dressed, holding a bra.
Though the banning of photography and the censorship of photos may be two different issues, the result is unwanted interference with our rights as citizens. The latter issue has steadily become a losing battle between the idealistic information-for-all sources that internet companies initially strove to be, and governments who threaten to cut off total access if censors are not put in place. While the former is The Man strong-arming citizens where they've not the authority to do so, and is, at least, one issue people can fight if they simply learn their rights and stand up to those who seek to curb them.