+fi67 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 I know, this topic has come up several times before in the old forum. But is not happened to me, until today. I just got busted for taking pictures of a police station. Fortunately they accepted my explanations, checked the Waymarking.com site and let me go after about ten minutes. Quote Link to comment
+23Hunter Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Lol Interesting. So its forbidden to take pictures of policestations in the us? Quote Link to comment
+manchanegra Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Why am i not surprised?? That´s always a concern when we take a look at some categories that envolve places related to "Police", "Military", "Ambassies" etc... I had some close encounters with the authorities while geocaching (one of them while searching for a geocache near Barcelona Airporti thought i might get arrested but it turned out ok). While Waymarking i take some extra care (specially because most of the times i use a large reflex camera) and take some pictures from far away. Curiously i think here in Lisbon it will be easyer to take some shots at the American and Russia Ambassies than Israel. One of this day´s i think i´ll give it a try . Quote Link to comment
+manchanegra Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Lol Interesting. So its forbidden to take pictures of policestations in the us? In the US i don´t know, in Switzerland it seem´s they don´t like it that much. I must say it was one of the things i didn´t like in Switzerland, The Police. I had some troubles in the airport and they complicated more than help. Here in Portugal we normally don´t have those kind of security issues but i must agree that it´s kind of suspicious taking pictures of a police station or a military facility. But, if you have doubts why not ask? I once asked to take some pictures of an ambassy plaque (Spain, a country with terrorism problems and with known cases of ETA terrorists hidden in our country) and they didn´t place any problems. Quote Link to comment
+fi67 Posted February 20, 2012 Author Share Posted February 20, 2012 Why am i not surprised?? That´s always a concern when we take a look at some categories that envolve places related to "Police", "Military", "Ambassies" etc... I had some close encounters with the authorities while geocaching (one of them while searching for a geocache near Barcelona Airporti thought i might get arrested but it turned out ok). While Waymarking i take some extra care (specially because most of the times i use a large reflex camera) and take some pictures from far away. Curiously i think here in Lisbon it will be easyer to take some shots at the American and Russia Ambassies than Israel. One of this day´s i think i´ll give it a try . This was in Germany. It is not forbidden there, neither it is in Switzerland. But obviously this was very suspicious behavior and it is their right (and duty) to interfere and ask questions. And to make sure nothing worse happens until they have satisfying answers. I don't blame anybody. Maybe they'll try Waymarking themselves now they know about it. Quote Link to comment
+ShaunEM Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Why am i not surprised?? That´s always a concern when we take a look at some categories that envolve places related to "Police", "Military", "Ambassies" etc... I had some close encounters with the authorities while geocaching (one of them while searching for a geocache near Barcelona Airporti thought i might get arrested but it turned out ok). While Waymarking i take some extra care (specially because most of the times i use a large reflex camera) and take some pictures from far away. Curiously i think here in Lisbon it will be easyer to take some shots at the American and Russia Ambassies than Israel. One of this day´s i think i´ll give it a try . This was in Germany. It is not forbidden there, neither it is in Switzerland. But obviously this was very suspicious behavior and it is their right (and duty) to interfere and ask questions. And to make sure nothing worse happens until they have satisfying answers. I don't blame anybody. Maybe they'll try Waymarking themselves now they know about it. Why would people be taking pictures of police stations and embassies for Waymarking? Umm.. why? Shaun Quote Link to comment
+davetherocketguy Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 Lol Interesting. So its forbidden to take pictures of policestations in the us? It isn't. In the USA if you are standing on public property (such as streets, sidewalk, etc.) you can take pictures of anything you want with whatever lens you want. If I got arrested for that my next action would be to sue the bejesus out of the arresting municipality after warning them to let me go. They ought to know the law better than that. -Dave Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In the USA if you are standing on public property (such as streets, sidewalk, etc.) you can take pictures of anything you want with whatever lens you want. If I got arrested for that my next action would be to sue the bejesus out of the arresting municipality after warning them to let me go. They ought to know the law better than that. -Dave I know this is true, but still.... it scares the bejeezus out of me! Yet.... I know of a waymark that was recently archived because the business (which is listed on SEVERAL websites) complained to Groundspeak. Even though not one single person had visited the waymark, the business didn't want people taking pictures of it, even from the street! Quote Link to comment
+bpratt Posted February 20, 2012 Share Posted February 20, 2012 In the USA if you are standing on public property (such as streets, sidewalk, etc.) you can take pictures of anything you want with whatever lens you want. If I got arrested for that my next action would be to sue the bejesus out of the arresting municipality after warning them to let me go. They ought to know the law better than that. -Dave I know this is true, but still.... it scares the bejeezus out of me! Yet.... I know of a waymark that was recently archived because the business (which is listed on SEVERAL websites) complained to Groundspeak. Even though not one single person had visited the waymark, the business didn't want people taking pictures of it, even from the street! I certainly have no problem with questions being asked after all people must be safe, but I see no need for jail cells Quote Link to comment
+fi67 Posted February 21, 2012 Author Share Posted February 21, 2012 Why would people be taking pictures of police stations and embassies for Waymarking? Umm.. why? Shaun There is indeed some hidden secret behind it. But we are not allowed to speak about it to people with less than 500 waymarks. Sorry! No, seriously: You're probably right. It is completely pointless and waymarkers are just a bunch of weird folks. Just the same as geocachers, or beer bottle collectors, sky divers, football players, philatelists, you name it... Although, some waymarkes do a very good job documenting our current life and culture and the recent past for the future in elsewhere fairly uncovered areas. But this is only a positive side effect and certainly not the main motivation for the majority. Quote Link to comment
+Ianatlarge Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 @fi67 Sorry to hear that you had this experience. As Dave said, from what I read on photography websites, in the US you can photograph anything visible from public land, which of course includes police stations. I have also read on the same sites that a lot of cops don't like photographers taking such pics. What is annoying is the lack of standardisation. Some places will have no trouble with pics (in Cambodia I was invited inside to have tea and biscuits with a provincial senator), while at others you will be brusquely told to leave. To add my 2c worth, I feel that this level of control is an abuse of power. Civil servants should be serving the public not dictating. And not the biggest fan of cops. Quote Link to comment
+TheBeanTeam Posted February 22, 2012 Share Posted February 22, 2012 (edited) A great resource for Waymarkers in the US is this printable Photographer's Rights flyer. At the bottom of the page there are links to photographers information for Australia, and Portugal. The UK link doesn't work for some reason but Urban75 has a page dedicated to the issue in the UK. There is an interesting discussion on a Swiss forum that has a link to this document in German. It may have information pertaining to the OP's situation. From the Swiss forum it seems if fi67 was on public property and not harassing anyone the authorities overstepped their bounds. I may be wrong though but that is what I read. Most times if you have an issue here in the US it is with people who do not know the law and are over zealous in overstepping their authority. Basically it boils down to , if you are on public property you can photograph it. Edited February 22, 2012 by TheBeanTeam Quote Link to comment
+fi67 Posted February 22, 2012 Author Share Posted February 22, 2012 That was an interesting read. Thank you BeanTeam! But the discussion was about targeting people not buildings. Buildings are no problem in Switzerland except for military installations. Maybe some diplomatic missions could also be a problem, but I don't know. Two points: Policemen have a right to control people and ask questions, all over the world; they could not do their job without it. This can happen to anybody, in front of police station or somewhere else, with or without a camera. If you do something suspicious, they'll control extra carefully. That's what they did and this was time consuming. They did not say it was illegal and they did not want the pictures. (The waymark has been published meanwhile, btw) Second, this was in Germany and I am not so sure about the rules there. It seems to be stricter than in other countries. House owners can demand to have pictures of their property removed from Google Street View. Something they cannot in Switzerland. And it adds a liitle to the uncomfotable feelings to sit in a police station as a foreigner and see the officer walk away to another office with your passport. Even when they speak almost the same language and it is only a five minutes walk from the border. Quote Link to comment
+fathrtime Posted February 24, 2012 Share Posted February 24, 2012 Fortunately in Australia we don't find too much of this. So many times I've been somewhere looking suspicious and thought "it's amazing someone hasn't asked me what I'm doing..."! I always find the upfront approach to be the best. If I'm looking for a benchmark out front of a police station I'll just pop in first and let them know what I'm doing. Normally they say fine and shrug their shoulders. This way they aren't worried that I'm doing anything wrong (just think I have a screw loose...!). Obviously in a free country I don't have to do this but it simply saves me any awkward situations. Quote Link to comment
+manchanegra Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 A great resource for Waymarkers in the US is this printable Photographer's Rights flyer. At the bottom of the page there are links to photographers information for Australia, and Portugal. The link to the Portuguese flier is unavailable. Found this one from the Instituto Português de Fotografia (A renowned Photography institution in Portugal). http://www.ipf.pt/files/fotografar_em_publico_1a_print1.pdf Basicaly an amateur Photografer can shot almost everything. Exclusions are areas that can be envolved with national security (airports, ports, water dams, energy production facilities, military instalations, transport hubs, etc...). In some cases, taking photos can be a crime (ex: military facilities). In private property the owner can forbid photography. In any case, restrictive measures can only be taken by public authorities (Police). People have the biggest protection. Legally, no one can have their picture taken without proper writen authorization (exceptions are for public figures). In practice this doesn´t happen frequently. Professional photography needs an authorization. The authorities may arrest you in case of public crime. If a complain is needed (ie: people photography) the authorities only arrest you if a complain is filled in. The police may apprehend the cameras of photos as a mean of evidence. In most cases, people like to have their picture taken so politely ask (or ask them to move away from your subject) and no one cares what you´re doing. Im some cases the police may be suspicious and ask you what you´re doing and if you ask it will probably stay like that. Common sense from both sides will be a great help. Quote Link to comment
GT.US Posted March 7, 2012 Share Posted March 7, 2012 When I was taking pictures of a police station in India, I was asked to stop. The thing was the person asking was so quiet, I didn't really get what he was saying. My boyfriend spelled it out to me, and I stopped. Quote Link to comment
+Ianatlarge Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 Somewhat related. I read on wired.com that the us military is now asking its personnel not to take geo-tagged photos of military material. Doing so has obvious security risks. Quote Link to comment
toponym Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 The only two negative experiences I had with this were in Hawaii and California, but both involved security guards - not police. In Hawaii, there is a compass rose on the floor of the public lobby of the Immigration building. I wanted a photo. I went up to the entrance and the security guards working the metal detector denied me entrance because I had no official business there. But I could have snapped a quick photo from outside the door had they stepped aside. They wouldn't allow that either, ignorantly citing a non-existent homeland security law prohibiting the photography of federal buildings. I was upset but felt sorry for them at the same time. I stepped outside to the public sidewalk, took a nice picture of the building, and left. The other, at the Irvine Spectrum Shopping Center in California was similar. The security guard told me no photography of the buildings was allowed. Sigh. Quote Link to comment
+davetherocketguy Posted March 10, 2012 Share Posted March 10, 2012 The only two negative experiences I had with this were in Hawaii and California, but both involved security guards - not police. In Hawaii, there is a compass rose on the floor of the public lobby of the Immigration building. I wanted a photo. I went up to the entrance and the security guards working the metal detector denied me entrance because I had no official business there. But I could have snapped a quick photo from outside the door had they stepped aside. They wouldn't allow that either, ignorantly citing a non-existent homeland security law prohibiting the photography of federal buildings. I was upset but felt sorry for them at the same time. I stepped outside to the public sidewalk, took a nice picture of the building, and left. The other, at the Irvine Spectrum Shopping Center in California was similar. The security guard told me no photography of the buildings was allowed. Sigh. If you were on shopping center property though then they do have the right to say that. If you are out on the public sidewalk then you can tell them to piss off. -Dave Quote Link to comment
The D Zone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well it's stupid when people have Waymarks as police stations, etc. Also restaurants or random businesses are stupid. I hate taking pictures of these things, their not even worth seeing. I got into this to log like Historical Markers and other odd things like the sculptures in Dublin, Ohio, Urban Detroit's many gems, etc. Not these random things. It doesn't look suspicious when you are taking a picture of like the Renaissance Towers but when you are taking pictures of police stations and little kids are McDonalds, then yeah I am not surprised if someone temporarily was arrested. FWIW - I finally starting to post Waymarks and I swear I will never post a Waymark like a McDonalds unless it has historical value, like the original Arch on the front sign lol. So far it's been a Cemetery, relocated church, Navy Blue field turf, and a Red House that was also relocated... How hard is it to post honest and interesting places? Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Fortunately, waymarkers have a variety of interests. You can ignore categories you don't want to visit, and avoid posting in categories that don't interest you. It's a system that works well. I see that you have 10 visits, but of the two waymarks I checked, your name is listed for two visits on the same waymark. Just something you may want to look into. If you don't go to a waymark but wish to make a comment, you can log a comment (as opposed to a visit log). Choose categories that interest you, and avoid the ones that don't. But there's no need to refer to someone's category or waymark as "stupid" just because it doesn't interest you. 1 Quote Link to comment
+BruceS Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) Well it's stupid when people have Waymarks as police stations, etc. Also restaurants or random businesses are stupid. I hate taking pictures of these things, their not even worth seeing. I got into this to log like Historical Markers and other odd things like the sculptures in Dublin, Ohio, Urban Detroit's many gems, etc. Not these random things. It doesn't look suspicious when you are taking a picture of like the Renaissance Towers but when you are taking pictures of police stations and little kids are McDonalds, then yeah I am not surprised if someone temporarily was arrested. FWIW - I finally starting to post Waymarks and I swear I will never post a Waymark like a McDonalds unless it has historical value, like the original Arch on the front sign lol. So far it's been a Cemetery, relocated church, Navy Blue field turf, and a Red House that was also relocated... How hard is it to post honest and interesting places? Remember there are categories for many different places including historical markers, police stations and many different business type categories.. You waymark those things that interest you however please be respectful of your fellow waymarkers and refrain from referring to it as being stupid of what they choose to waymark. The only time I have been questioned was when I was taking a photo of a courthouse which was one of the most significant buildings in the town, was listed on the National Register of Historic Places and had an interesting architecture. Edited March 12, 2012 by BruceS Quote Link to comment
The D Zone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well I guess stupid was the wrong word but my point is there is nothing "interesting or unique" about a normal McDonalds. I personally think it's used to pad numbers. There is so many interesting things out here around Detroit and every search page I have shows a restaurant. Nobody is honestly interested in visiting every McDonalds in the state of Michigan? I have around 800 actual visits, including these random things but I mean I WOULD never personally submit these random restaurants as a Waymark. It would not me post under my actual Waymark account because I accidentally made 2 accounts with a similar name. If you guys want to know a REAL waymark hot spot, visit Saint Louis, Missouri. Real interesting building/structures that don't include McDonalds... I was able to log around 200-300 just on a 3 day trip, it was remarkable. Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well I guess stupid was the wrong word but my point is there is nothing "interesting or unique" about a normal McDonalds. I personally think it's used to pad numbers. Isn't that what you're doing when you visit all of those "non-interesting" waymarks? If I think a category is boring I simply ignore it, not drive around town visiting those waymarks. Quote Link to comment
The D Zone Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 Well there on popular and common roads that I drive by consistently. And no that's not what I am personally doing because I am not submitting those as Waymarks. Quote Link to comment
+BruceS Posted March 12, 2012 Share Posted March 12, 2012 (edited) If you guys want to know a REAL waymark hot spot, visit Saint Louis, Missouri. Real interesting building/structures that don't include McDonalds... I was able to log around 200-300 just on a 3 day trip, it was remarkable. I wonder how that happened? We do have a few McDonalds waymarked.... had to waymark one to get the icon and fill the grid. And someone waymarked all the Jack In the Boxes... I think they must work for them as they got them all but one (I got the one) Edited March 12, 2012 by BruceS Quote Link to comment
The D Zone Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 If you guys want to know a REAL waymark hot spot, visit Saint Louis, Missouri. Real interesting building/structures that don't include McDonalds... I was able to log around 200-300 just on a 3 day trip, it was remarkable. I wonder how that happened? We do have a few McDonalds waymarked.... had to waymark one to get the icon and fill the grid. And someone waymarked all the Jack In the Boxes... I think they must work for them as they got them all but one (I got the one) Haha yeah must be. One interesting food chain I noticed was "Saint Louis Bread" aka Panera Bread. I was like what the hell is Saint Louis bread to my friends who live there. lol. But the arch and courthouse are sweet. I walked from the train station to Busch Stadium, had around 150+ waymarks in that mile. Quote Link to comment
+Ambrosia Posted March 13, 2012 Share Posted March 13, 2012 (edited) The only place that I've been told not to take a photo is near the Senate and The House of Representatives in the Capitol Building in D.C., and in the Library of Congress. The first time I was at the Capitol Building was in 2002, and I didn't know about the picture ban. I took a picture of a stained glass skylight near the Senate, and a couple security guards rushed over to me. I assured them I was just taking a picture of the window, they looked at the pics on my camera, and let it go with a warning. I was happy that they didn't delete the photo. The next time that we were there was in 2009. By then, they had beefed up security and they make you check all electronic devices before entering the Senate and The House of Representatives area. Interestingly enough, they have a sign in the Library of Congress that says no picture taking. I missed the sign in 2002, and took pictures in the library right in front of the librarians and they didn't make a peep. I saw the sign on the way out. But in 2009, I tried taking pictures from the overlook into the library, and got angrily shut down by a tour guide who was there. There were no signs in the overlook area saying no photos, and he was over the top in his attitude. I just don't get what's wrong with taking pictures of the library? What is their reasoning? I can only guess it's to cut down on accidental flashes that would irritate the people in the library? Edited March 13, 2012 by Ambrosia Quote Link to comment
+Queens Blessing Posted March 31, 2012 Share Posted March 31, 2012 Ornith and I were stopped by local security in Texas City, TX when we were photographing a 14 1/2 mph sign, and later we received phone calls from the FBI, for the same photos. Oddly, they made me delete my photos but Ornith must have looked more innocent, because they never asked to see his camera. FYI, they were did not want us to take photos because of the oil refinery in the background. QB Quote Link to comment
+DougK Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Well there on popular and common roads that I drive by consistently. And no that's not what I am personally doing because I am not submitting those as Waymarks. Off topic: What you're doing is drive-by Waymarking - someone who posts visits with no photo, and a comment like "Seen it when when I drove by." You asked to be put on my waymark list of 1,000+ visits about a month ago. Now, a month later, you're at 1500 visits - all (most that I looked at) with no photos. Where're the photos for your 1500 visits? Stop and get your camera out to do some real Waymarking. Quote Link to comment
GT.US Posted April 3, 2012 Share Posted April 3, 2012 Well there on popular and common roads that I drive by consistently. And no that's not what I am personally doing because I am not submitting those as Waymarks. Off topic: What you're doing is drive-by Waymarking - someone who posts visits with no photo, and a comment like "Seen it when when I drove by." You asked to be put on my waymark list of 1,000+ visits about a month ago. Now, a month later, you're at 1500 visits - all (most that I looked at) with no photos. Where're the photos for your 1500 visits? Stop and get your camera out to do some real Waymarking. There is a write a note option for a waymark. You can tell the waymark creater that you appreciated their work without a picture in that way. Quote Link to comment
+Lat34North Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The strangest encounter I have had was inside a McDonalds that I had stopped at to get something to drink and use the facilities. I was not taking any pictures, but had my camera on my shoulder (sorry, I’m not leaving my expensive camera in the car, the cheap one, maybe). The manager came up to me and said I could not take pictures of the McD’s and asked me to leave (which was what I was about to do anyway). Of course, there were several people with their cell phones out. Can you even buy a cell phone without a camera today?? I did point out to her that all those cell phones had cameras, so why didn’t she ask them to leave. She did get a thoughtful look on her face about that. (I think it was size discrimination myself – LOL). I have also been told I could not take pictures of a Starbucks, even though I was on public property. I have also been told (now this one was weird) that I could not take a picture of a historic marker erected by the state and had a note from a fellow waymarker that was told he could not take pictures of a cemetery. Quote Link to comment
toponym Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 If you are on public property such as a sidewalk and you're are told by some officious official that you cannot take a photo of something (especially a public monument) ask him or her what the written code section is which prohibits this. You cannot be arrested or charged with a crime unless there is a written law against it. Where is this historic marker? I would like to go take a photo of it. Quote Link to comment
+Max and 99 Posted April 16, 2012 Share Posted April 16, 2012 The strangest encounter I have had was inside a McDonalds that I had stopped at to get something to drink and use the facilities. I was not taking any pictures, but had my camera on my shoulder (sorry, I’m not leaving my expensive camera in the car, the cheap one, maybe). The manager came up to me and said I could not take pictures of the McD’s and asked me to leave (which was what I was about to do anyway). Of course, there were several people with their cell phones out. Can you even buy a cell phone without a camera today?? I did point out to her that all those cell phones had cameras, so why didn’t she ask them to leave. She did get a thoughtful look on her face about that. (I think it was size discrimination myself – LOL). I have also been told I could not take pictures of a Starbucks, even though I was on public property. I have also been told (now this one was weird) that I could not take a picture of a historic marker erected by the state and had a note from a fellow waymarker that was told he could not take pictures of a cemetery. Stories like these scare me! I have an aversion to getting into trouble. The ban on taking a photo of a historical marker is really funny. That's just SO illogical. Quote Link to comment
+Lat34North Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I had already taken the pictures, so I just left. This is the note I included as part of the waymark (WM2T52). The markers are near a sewage treatment plant, and maybe I was on county property. NOTE: I parked on the entrance road and walked to the markers that are at least 100 yards from the fence/gate. I did not see any signs saying anything about no Photographs, but the guard at the gate told me I could not take any photographs, even of the Historical marker and that I was on City Property. Of course since I was so far from the guard house I had already taken the pictures and was actually ready to walk back to my car when she made such a big fuss over it all. I asked the guard to check and see if we were really not allowed to take the pictures of the markers but left before she found out (it was about 35 degrees). Quote Link to comment
+ShaunEM Posted April 19, 2012 Share Posted April 19, 2012 I know, this topic has come up several times before in the old forum. But is not happened to me, until today. I just got busted for taking pictures of a police station. Fortunately they accepted my explanations, checked the Waymarking.com site and let me go after about ten minutes. Arrested in this context means put in a cell. I think your definition of arrested here is misleading. I think a better word would have been "Questioned". Shaun Quote Link to comment
+Ianatlarge Posted April 26, 2012 Share Posted April 26, 2012 Connecticut (hope I spelt that correctly), is in the process of debating a Bill to hold police personally responsible for 1st amendment violations, including photographing cops. I assume if cops can be photographed then so can buildings? http://gizmodo.com/5905234/connecticut-bill-aims-to-make-cops-pay-for-first-amendment-violations Quote Link to comment
+Team Sieni Posted May 16, 2012 Share Posted May 16, 2012 The Metro (UK morning free newspaper) had a double page spread on photographers' rights this week. Linky including a cut-out-n-keep advice list. With the olympics coming up it seems that private security firms are overstepping the mark in attempting to stop people taking photographs. The advice they give (UK specific) is 1.Challenge it! Ask under what law you are being stopped. As long as you are on public land you are allowed to take as many pictures as you like. 2.If you can, record or film the incident on your mobile phone. 3.Take down the details of the officer or guard approaching you so you can make an official complaint afterwards. 4.The police cannot stop you unless they ‘reasonably suspect you of being a terrorist’ and cannot seize any equipment or photos unless it contains something which ‘the officer reasonably suspects may constitute evidence that the person is a terrorist’. If they do, they must provide paperwork detailing what has been taken. 5.Under no circumstances can any photos or footage be deleted during a search. This website is also interesting. http://photographernotaterrorist.org/ Quote Link to comment
+kJfishman Posted June 5, 2012 Share Posted June 5, 2012 I waymarked a bank for the Googie Architecture category and an employee came out and told me I couldn't take pictures of the bank. I asked why and he said I might be planning a robbery. I politely told him I wasn't staking his bank out and I was on a public sidewalk and can take photos if I want to. Funny thing is I just got done taking pictures of the police station across the street and no one said anything. It used to be a free country now everyone is paranoid, well maybe not everyone but far too many/ Have you ever read the Photographers Bill of Rights written by a lawyer? http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm Quote Link to comment
+Ddraig Ddu Posted June 24, 2012 Share Posted June 24, 2012 Arested!???! Wow the only thing ive ever been busted by in Wales is a sheep Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.