DCist: Union Station Loves/Hates Photographers

16th Street Line

Mon, 02 Jun 2008 12:52:38 -0500

@badtzmaru--Actually, there was a SCOTUS case a while back. They do have the right to ask you for your ID, and you are responsible for complying. An unreasonable search, or a prohibition against photography in a public facility... those are different issues.

IMGoph

Fri, 04 Apr 2008 00:14:20 -0500

i'm in agreement with those who tend to (politely) fight back. this is a simple case of creeping authoritarianism. if you, in a representative democracy, allow those whose authority explicitly flows downstream from your vote, to have the right to get away with things that are not within the realm of reason, they will simply stretch it further every time. give the government (and it's agents) an inch, and they'll take a mile. i'm no conspiracy theorist or paultard libertarian extremist, but this just makes me want to say "keep your filthy hands off my rights"

katmere

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 21:41:41 -0500

Telecomic: Standard suburban shopping malls tend to have very active security that is accustomed to being pushy because they have to deal with issues related to kids young and old. They have an active involvement with teenagers (and others) keeping them from bothering "paying customers" and shoplifting. And they play to the interests of parents with young kids who are often very worried about people taking photos of their kids. Where as I am an incredibly strong support of photographers rights, I don't personally think the fight is worth it in a standard shopping mall. There concerns are related to security, but more along the lines of shoplifting and kidnapping. Union Station, however, is anything but a standard mall. They are a transit center, a mall, and a national historic landmark. Each would typically have different security approaches, and they have to find a way to put all three together. The most depressing part to me is not that they have trouble figuring it out, but that what they say is there policy and intention are is not what the train and put into practice.

badtzmaru

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 19:34:49 -0500

I still remember the time one of the Capitol police officers stopped me, asked for my ID and wanted to look at my pictures. I said NO to all three. They have NO RIGHT to make you do anything.

shesgone

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 18:10:14 -0500

um...telecomic? What "solid reasons" could the white house have for forbidding photography? It's one of the most recognizable and documented buildings in the world, and I can hop on over to Google satellite maps and look at the darn thing from a pretty juicy angle. (They don't, by the way, prohibit photography. Just tripod stuff, for semi-bogus reasons.)

drew in adams morgan

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:56:21 -0500

Probably not Orange Julius, but I wouldn't be surprised if something went down at Sears.

telecomic

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:41:16 -0500

Obviously, spots like the Pentagon and The White House have rules and solid reasons forbidding photography, but I've never understood how anal some malls are - especially when most of them have a Ritz or Penn Camera in it. What, are the terrorists going to war over the benefits of Orange Julius or Robeks, and start a citrus jihad?

Ian Buckwalter

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 16:18:07 -0500

Thanks, shesgone, I wasn't aware. Though I'm used to seeing people taking tripod shots of the Capitol from some distance away, so I was more imagining that scenario than someone who was right up on the grounds...

shesgone

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:49:18 -0500

Ian, the Capitol grounds are one of the half-dozen or so spots that prohibit tripod photography. Sometimes they're on top of this, sometimes not. And sometimes a nice cop will take his time coming over to you to tell you to move along, so you can get your few shots and then everyone's happy. Anything else, though, and the cops are out of bounds. And yes, Rudavis, I'm going to tell them that if/when they try to tell me otherwise. I'll be polite about it, but I will definitely engage them and get names.

Ian Buckwalter

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:43:23 -0500

"They will more than likely let you get a few more shots and then send you on your way." Are there regulations against taking pictures of the Capitol now? If not, they can't "let" you take pictures of something they have no authority to forbid you to take pictures of, nor can they "send you on your way". If you want to submit to an unreasonable search, that's your business, and so is it your business if you want to comply with a command someone has no authority to give, but "being nice" is a separate issue from rolling over when you're in the right.

RedRyder

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 15:27:59 -0500

I use a free online service that automatically uploads pictures taken with my cameraphone to Flickr and/or Picasa. If they seize my phone or make me delete the pics, they're too late! www . shozu . com But that, of course, doesn't do anything to get my phone back if they confiscate it...

drew in adams morgan

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:55:00 -0500

RUDAVIS: it is a little different though than the cause of this post. The person was a tourist taking a picture of their friends at the Arrivals/Departure area of Union Station. I am assuming with a run-of-the-mill digital camera. They weren't out there with tripod in hand, getting shots of the facade of the Capitol for a hobby. I can understand your logic and agree with your situation. But, these are tourist taking pictures of their travels. The subject in the photo was them, and not of Union Station per se. I mean seriously, who wants a picture of the Union Station Arrival pen? Such poor lighting for my delicate skin.

MB

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:40:42 -0500

The Secret Service works in large part on intimidation. They often don't have the actual authority to enforce their demands, but you'll have spent some time in jail and they'll be long gone by the time you're proven right. They kicked me off my own deck and forced my entire building to close its windows, once (campaign rally for Clinton, in 96). And this rubs off on the TSA - see http://flickr.com/photos/blacknell/2256691978/

MrTinDC

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:38:52 -0500

The irony is that the authorities, whoever they may be, are clamping down on individual photographers, while on the other hand the government is putting up more and more security, surveillance, speed and red light cameras so that we're always being filmed, but don't dare take a photo ourselves. Not good.

west

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:20:40 -0500

But if security stops hassling photographers, who will be left to marginalize them? Better yet, what will security do all damned day?

Politburo

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:19:37 -0500

rudavis - If you want to "comply enthusiastically", then by all means go ahead. Some of us have a different view of the authorities, especially when they make demands outside of the scope of their powers.

Heather Goss

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 14:00:10 -0500

Hmm, is the last paragraph not showing up on the site...? rudavis -- As for neglecting to mention "be nice," I thought that's what I meant by "don't lose your cool." Being rude and overly confrontational doesn't really get you anywhere, except maybe into a pair of handcuffs, on occasion, but it does make all photographers look bad and security guards more likely to try to beat them down.

rudavis

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:55:36 -0500

I'll admit that I did not read any of the lengthy discussions on flickr, but I imagine that they are biased toward the side of photographers. This, like many other posts i've read on this subject, neglect to mention 1 VERY important rule. BE NICE. When security approaches me at night with my camera and tripod set up aiming at the capitol, I simply explain to them that I'm a hobbyist taking pictures. When they ask me for my license or to look in my camera bag, i comply enthusiastically. Don't get defensive, don't cop an attitude, don't pull out a printed off pdf downloaded from some website, just be nice. They will more than likely let you get a few more shots and then send you on your way. No big deal. It's not like union station is going anywhere anytime soon.

OldPosterKnownAsCranky

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:36:37 -0500

Easiest way to keep Union Station photo-free: Hire Amish Ninjas as security guards. They'll shun yo asses back to the 18th century.

Heather Goss

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:29:26 -0500

Thanks guys, I also linked to the Photographer's Right in the post. :)

freshyill

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:27:34 -0500

I've got to assume that a lot of serious photographers are familiar with this, but here's a very handy reference guide to legal rights for photographers. http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm (It's linked in a PDF on that page)

Aziz

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:25:49 -0500

I always carry the "Photographers Rights" (http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm) paper with me in case situations like this arise. I've actually had to bust it out once at Union Station, not for a Security Guard or Police Officer, but from a paranoid civilian telling me I couldn't photograph them.

MrTinDC

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:21:27 -0500

I always like to point out that having more random people taking more photos of more "sensitive" locations actually makes everyone safer, so all of these photography prohibitions are stupid and counterproductive. If a major terrorist plot or attack is uncovered, there's a chance they're in the background of a tourist's photo. A dangerous structural crack may be uncovered by a photograph of a bridge posted on Flickr (and I'm sure you'd get yeled at for taking pics of the underside of a bridge). The security paranoia around here really gets on my nerves.

Disco Stu

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:20:19 -0500

Maybe take fotos while draped in an American Flag?

Politburo

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 13:15:49 -0500

There was also a recent incident in NJ where people were taking pictures of Picatinny Arsenal (from public property).. the authorities went so far as to shut down a highway for 3 hours. They ultimately decided that there were no laws broken and no reason for suspicion.

Disco Stu

Thu, 03 Apr 2008 12:55:29 -0500

I like how the WUSA9 article goes right to the ACLU quote, but also that the lawyer says ASK is the operative word. I can just picture it: Authoritative Secret Service Guy: "Sir, for national security, you are ASKED to delete that photo. Right now." Kowtowed Kitizen: "Say pretty please?? ...Simon says..." (stuffed into a bag, and thrown into a van)