Go Back   b-roll.net FORUM > ENG / TV News > ENG / TV News

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #21  
Old 09-29-2010, 06:05 PM
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 518
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tom Servo is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.

Then why in the hell are you calling the cops and reporting people for taking pictures?
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-29-2010, 08:25 PM
Chicago Dog's Avatar
Chicago Dog Chicago Dog is offline
Member
There's no ketchup on a Chicago dog!
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 3,152
Thanks: 0
Thanked 1 Time in 1 Post
Chicago Dog is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by David R. Busse
Huh? Federal property? Maybe an Air Force or Navy base...but airports are typically the property of local government agencies or private parties.
That's not correct. Any airfield that has a control tower is federal property.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG
Let's see... A) In my post, I'm not taking pictures as a journalist, I'm taking pictures as someone who likes airplanes and photography.
Sam, you're starting to get confrontational, and I really don't understand why. You're presenting points, we're presenting opposing points. That's what discussion forums are all about.

It doesn't matter if you're a journalist or Joe Airplanelover taking pictures. They have the authority to tell you to stop. If you don't comply with that order and cooperate with their questioning, they'll probably end up detaining you as a suspicious person.

Their property, their rules.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG
B) I said "I guess". I said that specifically to allow for the possibility I could be wrong.
That was a weak disclaimer. Are you or are you not a photographer in the news business? You should know the differences between taking pictures on someone's property versus taking pictures from a public location.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG
C) How am I "abusing" the First Amendment?
Because I know where your argument is going. We've seen a variation of it pop up on this forum before.

You're going to claim that the First Amendment gives you the right to take pictures regardless if you're on public or private property. Somehow, you're going to draw the inference that the First Amendment gives you the ability to take pictures and somehow covers you from answering questions or otherwise cooperating with security agents.

Again, I'm not trying to start a fight, I'm trying to save you from drawing conclusions that could cost you money and your job. The station will not back you up if you're wrong. You'll end up as a liability. It's much easier -- not to mention cheaper -- for a station to eliminate liability than spend money on a fruitless battle to save that liability.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG
I set up my camera and tripod and take some pictures. Again, NOT as a journalist. Now, airport security can come ask me to stop, which I would. They can ask me my name, which I don't have to give. You say they can detain me, I ask for what... last time I checked, taking pictures is still legal.
Let's say a terrorist is doing the exact same thing. Let's say said terrorist leaves without answering questions from authorities. Should security just "let him go?"

I think your view would be much different if your plane was hijacked or blown up mid-flight.
__________________
.
"We don't need TVs! We can just use windows! Sit by the window, watching the local news unfold, 24/7, in high definition, and 3D!"
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-30-2010, 06:00 AM
SamG SamG is offline
Member
Sam Gordon
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 346
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
SamG
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
Then why in the hell are you calling the cops and reporting people for taking pictures?
huh? When did I say anything about calling cops? That was svp.
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-30-2010, 06:20 AM
SamG SamG is offline
Member
Sam Gordon
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 346
Thanks: 0
Thanked 5 Times in 4 Posts
SamG
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chicago Dog View Post
Sam, you're starting to get confrontational, and I really don't understand why. You're presenting points, we're presenting opposing points. That's what discussion forums are all about.
The problem is it seems my points are being misconstrued. For example...
Quote:
It doesn't matter if you're a journalist or Joe Airplanelover taking pictures. They have the authority to tell you to stop. If you don't comply with that order and cooperate with their questioning, they'll probably end up detaining you as a suspicious person.

Their property, their rules.
I agreed earlier I would stop taking pictures if told to do so as long as I was ON their property. However, if I am OFF their property, they shouldn't have the power to stop me.

Quote:
That was a weak disclaimer. Are you or are you not a photographer in the news business? You should know the differences between taking pictures on someone's property versus taking pictures from a public location.
So would it have made much of a difference if I said "I could be wrong" instead of "I guess"? For the record, I am no longer a photographer in news. I do understand the difference between taking pictures on public vs. private property. And I thought the general conclusion was you CAN take pictures on private property until told to stop. Which is what I said I would do.

Quote:
Because I know where your argument is going. We've seen a variation of it pop up on this forum before.

You're going to claim that the First Amendment gives you the right to take pictures regardless if you're on public or private property. Somehow, you're going to draw the inference that the First Amendment gives you the ability to take pictures and somehow covers you from answering questions or otherwise cooperating with security agents.
Actually I wasn't saying that.

Quote:
Let's say a terrorist is doing the exact same thing. Let's say said terrorist leaves without answering questions from authorities. Should security just "let him go?"
Yes. Because someone taking pictures is not against the law. If you think everyone taking pictures should be questioned, then you support these posters. Because that's exactly what the TSA wants to happen... you see someone taking pictures, let security know.

So let me ask you a question... do you find the act of someone taking pictures of an airport/airplanes "suspicious"? Why?

Quote:
I think your view would be much different if your plane was hijacked or blown up mid-flight.
Well, my view would definitely be different if my plane was blown up, I'd be dead. That aside, I don't think the government should be regulating who's allowed to take pictures vs. who isn't. If they want to make taking pictures of airports/airplanes illegal, go ahead. I disagree with it, but I'd follow the law.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-30-2010, 10:39 AM
csusandman's Avatar
csusandman csusandman is offline
Member
Mike Stephen
 
Join Date: Mar 2002
Posts: 243
Thanks: 2
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
csusandman
Default A bit of research...

...and here's what I found regarding airports as "Federal Property":

http://www.aci-na.org/index/airportsyou_ownership
http://www.faa.gov/airports/airport_...ance/overview/
http://www.faa.gov/airports/planning...ts/categories/

I know it's a lot, but I'm thinking that airports CAN be private or publicly owned. If you receive federal funds, you're not then owned federally, just under federal guidelines. I guess...


Back on topic, here in SLC there is, apparently, one of two "back-up" ATC centers, the other being in Atlanta. On federal property, behind fencing with signage saying as much and being guarded by federal security.

I had the job one day to shoot said facility but I had no idea, at the time, that it was under federal protection. A guard came out and very forcefully told me to leave the premises immediately, NO shooting of the facility either. Wow. Ok. So I went across the street and continued with no further altercation from him. Once done, and with the camera put away, I went into his office and calmly chatted with him about our interaction. He was very cool then and explained that there's to be no loittering within 25 feet of the fence line and that they have to check every Tom, Dick and Harry that does so, regardless of who they are. This, according to him, goes for EVERY federal facility. Me shooting across the street, he acknowledged, is perfectly legal and he could do nothing to stop me.

I really appreciated his candor once he saw that I wasn't trying to cause a problem for him and was simply curious as to what the rules or laws were.
__________________
"I have come here to chew bubblegum and kick ass. And I'm all out... of bubblegum." -"Rowdy" Roddy Piper (from the movie "They Live")

“Should I go down in the line of duty, I’m haunting every one of you bastards.” -Lenslinger
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-30-2010, 03:07 PM
Tom Servo Tom Servo is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 518
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Tom Servo is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SamG View Post
huh? When did I say anything about calling cops? That was svp.
My mistake. I apologize - misread the name.
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 05-23-2011, 02:56 PM
FOXPhotog911 FOXPhotog911 is offline
Member
Jason Smith
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Posts: 85
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
FOXPhotog911
Default

SVP said
Quote:
Homeland Security and the DOD add all airports to the list of buildings that are not permitted to be photographed. You can stand on a public sidewalk in Arlington, VA all you want but you still can't legally shoot the Pentagon. I've tried and had security all over me before I could level the stix and fire off ten seconds of video. I think airports are next and it won't matter if you're on a public sidewalk or not.
I've not ever heard of this one SVP, and I shoot at the Pentagon a bunch. When did his start?
FOXPhotog
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 05-25-2011, 12:21 AM
phxtvwatcher's Avatar
phxtvwatcher phxtvwatcher is offline
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 149
Thanks: 0
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
phxtvwatcher
Default

I have an unmarked news unit and was on top of the parking garage shooting planes when about 8 police and tsa people came and asked who I was and what I was doing. It freaked me at first but they were nice and called in on their radio and left. I really didn't have an issue with it. If they would have been jerks about it I would have had a different opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 05-25-2011, 07:11 AM
Ben Longden Ben Longden is offline
PRO user
Ben Longden
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 531
Thanks: 19
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
Ben Longden is on a distinguished road
Default

Your "Patriot Act" sounds rather like that of Nazi Germany.... and the freedoms for which you forgo.

I fully understand and respect the no photo zones when it comes to sensitive areas, and a little common sense will see all parties happy.

I quite often go to Melbourne Airport with the 400mm f2.8, and security is really nice to talk to at the southern end of R36. I think the guys get bored doing all the same stuff..

As a pilot, I really feel the poster could be replaced with someone trying to gain access to airside, and illegally enter the runway or aircraft.

Replace the camera totting man with someone with a gun, or climbing the fence... or better still, climbing the fence dressed as a Ninja with an RPG on his back... an image that clearly tells Cletus McTrailer that things are up to no good.
__________________
Do unto others...
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
© 1996-2009 b-roll.net

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 03:29 AM.