Banned from Coffee Shop for taking photos and creeping people out

Overheal

Edit: Not just banned from a Coffee Shop but essentially an entire street full of Shops

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/amateur-photographer-banned-from-coffee-shop-for-creeping-people-out.html

http://consumerist.com/2010/03/photos-from-guy-banned-by-coffeeshop-for-taking-pictures-of-people.html

A coffee shop in Vermont has issued an one-year universal trespass order that bans a local amateur photographer from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace because he would not comply with repeated requests to stop photographing the patrons and employees of a coffee shop. Here's his Flickr stream.
This one should be fun. On one side you have a guy who is perfectly within his rights to hang out and photograph people in a public place. On the other hand you have a coffee shop and 66 other merchants who are sick of their customers and employees being creeped out by a guy taking pictures.
Who is right?
We join the drama after the photographer has been repeatedly asked to stop taking pictures and has refused.

“
About a month later, during a February snowstorm, Scott shot some pictures of a woman smoking a cigarette outside Uncommon Grounds on Church Street. Scott claims he was about 50 feet away when the woman, an employee of the coffeehouse, noticed his camera and asked him not to take her picture. Scott claims he backed off. But the woman also asked Scott to delete the pictures he’d already taken of her. He refused. The following Monday, March 1, a Burlington police officer again showed up at Scott’s workplace, and this time issued him a one-year universal trespass order that bans him from 67 establishments on the Church Street Marketplace. If Scott enters any of them, he could be arrested. “If I had been drunk and gone into Uncommon Grounds and created a loud scene, I can understand why they wouldn’t want me in there,” Scott says. “But I wasn’t even in the store. I wasn’t even in front of the store.”
Manager Mara Bethel tells a different story.
“We’ve had a problem with him a number of times before — taking pictures of women, specifically, on the sneaky side of things — without asking their permission,” she says. “A number of customers have come in and said, ‘There’s a guy out there taking pictures and it’s really creeping us out.’”
Bethel confirms that Scott didn’t enter the coffeehouse to take pictures, nor does she describe his pictures as “lewd.” Nevertheless, she says, Scott’s persistence and demeanor were “unsettling” to her and other employees.
“For the young women around here, it felt really uncomfortable, someone kind of lurking about, and then quickly taking their picture and turning away,” Bethel says. Moreover, when someone asked Scott what he was doing, she claims he became defensive and argumentative.
”

It seems that both parties are within their rights. The photographer can stand outside creeping people out and the coffee shop and other merchants can ban him from coming inside for whatever reason they like, he doesn't have to have committed a crime. In any case, according to the tipster who sent this story, the coffee shop is getting some backlash for the ban.

So, Internet, it's up to you. Who is right?

Now this guy wasn't a perv - just a Photographer. But you can see what the internet and 10 years of building paranoia have done to society.

So, the amateur street photographer who was banned from a coffeeshop for creeping people out? Here's his Flickr stream. And here's the picture of the girl smoking that got him banned in the first place:



It's obvious from his stream that these are not pervy upskirt shots or anything, and some of them are pretty good, but if people ask you to stop taking pictures of them and you continue, expect some backlash.



For instance, this photo is called, "You have to ask to take my picture!", the caption reads, "Being confronted for making candid photos is a frequent event for a street photographer," and a comment by the photographer says, "He caught me after I took the first shot and immediately began lecturing. So, I held the camera at chest level and kept firing away. Funny thing is, he couldn't hear my mirror slapping over his own, jeering voice, so, I had a choice pictures to choose from."
The photographer knew what he was doing and he relishes pushing the boundaries.
Here is a statement from the photographer himself:

“
You shouldn't believe everything you read in the newspaper. I had hoped that the paper would have given me the chance to explain the real story. The reporter told me that he would print the picture that caused the stink and that he would print a link to my photos. He didn't do either of these things. He also didn't tell me what the coffee house was saying about me despite that I directly asked him, thus giving me no chance to refute their silly allegations. I am not out there sneaking around taking pictures of women. In fact, I ask permission a lot before taking pictures of many subjects. And, if you look at my stream you'll be able to see that. You should also be able to tell from my photos that I most commonly use smaller focal length lens. Specifically, I use a Zeiss 28, 35 and 50. That telephoto there talking about is a big, bad 135mm.
I'll post below what I posted in the rangefinder forums. Please, try to keep an open mind.
I'm the guy they banned. The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I'm more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.
Here is the photo:
www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/



The second encounter, is described well enough in the article. I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn't realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.
She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said "ok" and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn't do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn't interested in why I was taking pictures on the street. Here's the photo:

www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517442/ link has been deleted by the host - Overheal

Also, I've since learned that the woman in the photo is the same manager who confronted me the previous time. It was my error that I didn't recognize her the second time. For this I am deeply sorry. Had I realized it was the same gal I would have passed up on the shot. I need to make a correction. The person in the photo is not Mara but another worker for the coffee shop named Rose. I misunderstood the information previously provided to me. Sorry.
The following Monday I was banned.
Yes, I made candid photos in the street. I was only trying to document the social landscape. It was my belief that posed shots or shots where they had given consent would be inauthentic. But, that being said, I did often ask for permission simply because there was no other way to get the shot.
Now, photography was a hobby. It was fun. But, I have a wife, two kids and a lot of other responsibilities that going along with family life and home ownership. I don't have the energy to fight these people.
I've put my cameras away.
”

Here's Photo that finally broke the Camel's Back.



Frankly I love these kind of Human Interest shots but up to now it hadnt occurred to me they might be dying out from a Politically Correct Plague.

magicbastarder

if he had been regularly hanging around outside the coffee shop staring at the patrons, the coffee shop would have had legitimate cause to try to make him move on; i can imagine if word got around among the patrons that they'd be subjected to this guy staring at them, they'd take their business elsewhere.

the fact that he had a camera does not make his position more tenable. in fact, it makes it less so.
sure, the law says that you are allowed take a photo while on public ground. but that's without context. what is legal done once can easily become harrassment if repeated.

Thirdfox

+1 - when photographing subjects one has to be respectful of the local culture and customs of the people. What is workable in many Asian countries (taking innocent pictures of children) doesn't seem to be allowed in the US. Similarly if you're going to be taking street photos of drug gangs in inner city Nairobi/Washington don't be surprised if you get shot. What's legal may not be moral or advisable - it all depends on the situation.

Respect and common sense - repeated photos constitute harassment if the subject is unhappy. And shops are well within their rights to revoke a license to enter just as the photographer has the right to take photos from a public place. A smile and understanding works a lot better than antagonism and stubbornly insisting on your "rights" (in which case they exercise their right to ban you from their premises).

Ghost Train

Some really good photos in his gallery, don't see anything wrong with the photos at all

Seems a bit harsh to get banned from the stores, if the people in the area think its fair or for good reason then maybe it is, but from the outside it looks like an over reaction. Especially considering its 99% photos of people on public street (but maybe there were more photo on private ground)

this made me laugh

Thecageyone

Honest opinion: Guys like this give photographers a bad name. He is part of the reason you feel a bit paranoid when harmlessly shooting street scenes. Photographer or no, it's a bit more than creepy to be sat oustide the same shops all the time taking pictures of people inside trying to mind their own business. I'd feel uncomfortable if it were me he was snapping constantly.

No doubt the viewing figures on his stream will explode after this story though.

Merrion

...and yet that same street probably has over 20 security cameras.

Borderfox

Maybe the street is like some of the shopping villages that dot the place and as such would be private property?

FruitLover

Hmm, a rare case of common sense prevailing over legal technicalities.

Merrion wrote: »

...and yet that same street probably has over 20 security cameras.

Whose images are not published on the internet for the world to see.

democrates

Maybe smoking girl is worried about a revised health insurance bill, maybe people who call in sick or cheat on their partner or are trying to escape an abusive relationship are afraid of being caught out.

Before, going out in public meant some sacrifice of privacy because a certain number of people would see you. Increasingly that can be far more public. The explosion of online photographs is like the emergence of a public surveillance society. This new power is in the hands of everyone, and far more potent if face-recognition is added to the search tool. I can't help being concerned about potential abuses but what's a fair balance of freedoms here?

Ghost Train

Borderfox wrote: »

Maybe the street is like some of the shopping villages that dot the place and as such would be private property?

sounds like public area from their website, kind of like a temple bar or something

according to their blog they had an open fashion shoot in january

Which brings me to my announcement about the next cool thing DH is up to this Friday from 5 p.m.-11 p.m.: The Open Fashion Shoot. Come experience the working photo studio! DH technicians will be on-hand giving demonstrations, answering questions, and facilitating fun. They need models, photographers and enthusiasts to get involved. Bring your friend, your kid, your dog… anyone can drop in to strike a pose or pop a flash. Image copies will be available after the shoot. Discounted studio memberships will be offered during the event!

Merrion

FruitLover wrote: »

Whose images are not published on the internet for the world to see.

Erm - yes they often are. There's even a company in the UK that allows you to view them. Citation: BBC story on them

pete4130

It's the nature of street photography and the contemporary world we live in. Years ago before the internet, digital camera, diverse digital media nobody was afraid of cameras or photographers and nobody had a problem with it....look at the photographic archive and you'll see that.

Photography is about documenting what you see around you, people, places, lives (others and your own) and if that's giving photographers a bad name then its been going on since the mid c. mid 1800's.

Photography isn't only what you see in monthly digital photography magazines, which this forum has in part, become a replication of what appears in digital photography magazines the past 12-18 months.

Photography is what you make it, not what technique came on a CD with a magazine this month or what you are not comfortable with doing/seeing.

Why bother taking a picture that's been shot a million times before. I never takes holiday photos. If I wanted a picture of the Eiffel tower I'd buy a postcard and it would be boring, just to say I'd seen it/been there.

This guys photos are great. He might seem a little unorthodox by waiting but that's what photography is....waiting for the perfect moment to capture an image, anticipating something that might happen and being there at the right time and the right place and having the balls to shoot it.

If this guy had got notoriety for his images with an exhibition peoples attitudes and opinions would be different. I'd guess more along the thinking that his images are personal, delving into the peoples emotions, questioning what they were thinking at the moment of capture rather than disagreeing and thinking its invasive/wrong/weird/creepy/stalking.

I'm not making a point that he didn't upset a particular shop/business. I'm referring to attitudes towards street photography and peoples attitudes towards it.

It'd be boring if everyones photos looked like they'd emulated the latest issue of a photography magazine (who take about 12-18 month cycles at most to repeat on themselves....)

magicbastarder

Ghost Train wrote: »

Some really good photos in his gallery, don't see anything wrong with the photos at all

probably worth emphasising the 'his' in 'his gallery'. he may have removed shots, given the case.

FoxT

This is a difficult one - As a Joe Soap I know that I am recorded by various street vidoecams whenever I go into a town centre. On the other hand - if I walk out of a coffee shop for a fag & somebody starts blazing away at me with an slr I would feel intimidated. I would not return - I'd get my coffee somewhere else. The photographer is not breaking any law that I know of - but - it does seem that people feel intimidated by what he is doing.And if people feel intimidated by his actions, then it is appropriate that he should try & alleviate the situation, or face the consequences. Ultimately, if many people like him were to persist, and many people were to feel intimidated as a result, then it is easy to envisage a situation where local authorities would start banning the use of SLRs in public places.

I am also a keen amateur photographer - so I think I can see both sides of the issue. With my photographer hat on, it really bothers me that I cannot take photos of my son learning to swim. The swimming pool people have a complete ban on photography. If I go to the park with him I always take my camera, and I take photos, but I always feel a little uncomfortable - I am just waiting for somebody to come over & accuse me of paedophilia....

Candid photography is difficult because lay people (non-photographers) have been taught by the mass media that having your photo taken is a bad, bad, thing. People are bombarded daily with media photos of celebs in various stages of undress/embarrassment. Many people buy papers/mags with this content & while they are entertained on the one hand, on the other , there is a very clear subliminal message that person with an SLR = terrorist.

Bottom line - I think the onus was on the photographer to develop some trust & goodwill, regardless of his legal rights.

pete4130

Eugene Richards.....Cocaine True, Cocaine Blue....now that's trust and goodwill and the most personal, intimate, up close, invasive (for want of a better word as they aren't invasive) images you can see/imagine.
Months spent living with murderers, crack dealers, prostitutes, addicts etc and being accepted and becoming "invisible" by everyone around him. It isn't stret photography but it is building up trust with people to shoot in certain situations. The thread is about street photography and someone being banned from an entire street......

.......imagine one of you was banned from Grafton Street for shooting photos of people in Bewleys Cafe....imagine how you'd feel your right were being infringed for shooting photos on a public street. Would you be happy not to be allowed walk up Grafton Street for 52 weeks....12 months.....1 year....for MOSTLY for taking perfectly LEGAL photos of people on the street and some in a private business.....imagine Bewleys banned you from a public street?

Where would most of your opinions be if the photographer was one of you banned from a public street in Dublin? I'd be fcuking pi$$ed off to fcuk if it was me.

sheesh

I wonder what he looks like?

I imagine he looks like most photographers, fairly ordinary and not a bit creative, so to some peoples mind it immediately screams pervert, this could all have been avoided if he took the time to grow a goatee and invested in a beret an maybe a woollen scarf.




see, looks like a joe sixpack

I will give him 10/10 for determination (repeatedly told to stop) and suffering for his art (has to make his own coffee)

Thecageyone

sheesh wrote: »

I wonder what he looks like?

I imagine he looks like most photographers, fairly ordinary and not a bit creative, so to some peoples mind it immediately screams pervert

I take offence to that! not the pervert bit, the other ...

I'm a bit of a Hunk if I do say so meself ... [I don't ... but ... I AM!]
:P

magicbastarder

pete4130 wrote: »

.......imagine one of you was banned from Grafton Street for shooting photos of people in Bewleys Cafe....imagine how you'd feel your right were being infringed for shooting photos on a public street. Would you be happy not to be allowed walk up Grafton Street for 52 weeks....12 months.....1 year....for MOSTLY for taking perfectly LEGAL photos of people on the street and some in a private business.....imagine Bewleys banned you from a public street?

Where would most of your opinions be if the photographer was one of you banned from a public street in Dublin? I'd be fcuking pi$$ed off to fcuk if it was me.

from reading the article, it seems he's banned from the coffee shops, not the street?

it's legal to take a photograph of a stranger on grafton street. it's legal to do it twice. if you did it every day, of the same stranger, it ceases to become legal if that stranger objects.

DaireQuinlan

magicbastarder wrote: »

from reading the article, it seems he's banned from the coffee shops, not the street?

it's legal to take a photograph of a stranger on grafton street. it's legal to do it twice. if you did it every day, of the same stranger, it ceases to become legal if that stranger objects.

Nope, it continues to be legal up until the point that the person takes a case against you and gets some sort of injunction or barring order against you. THAT'S the point at which it becomes illegal, not before. Mere 'objections' won't make anything magically illegal.

For really off kilter social documentary or street photography (I guess it could be categorised as either) check out the following (NSFW)
http://lenscratch.blogspot.com/2010/03/kohei-yoshiyuki.html

That series of pictures is invaluable.

magicbastarder

DaireQuinlan wrote: »

Nope, it continues to be legal up until the point that the person takes a case against you and gets some sort of injunction or barring order against you. THAT'S the point at which it becomes illegal, not before. Mere 'objections' won't make anything magically illegal.

sorry, by 'objection' i meant the whole process of 'objecting'.
but i suspect the law can retroactively deem your actions as illegal, under laws relating to harrassment which don't specifically encompass photography.