This story caught my eye yesterday and, at least from a “Freedom of Speech” perspective, I found it pretty interesting.
“Scott” (no last name given in the story I read, but I’m sure it’s out there) is an amateur photographer who likes to photograph strangers in public places — mostly in and around businesses in the Burlington, Vermont district known as Church Street Marketplace, and specifically, a local coffee shop known as Uncommon Grounds. (Edit: It’s “Dan Scott”.)
Just so you get a clear picture of this, Scott stands on public property and shoots pictures of people he doesn’t know, without their permission, sometimes using a telephoto lens. This is all perfectly legal. Now in a perfect world, Scott would (A) ask permission from people to take their picture, (B) stop taking people’s picture when they asked him to, and (C) delete the pictures he has shot when people ask him to. Scott does none of these things. He repeatedly takes pictures of the same people after they have asked him to stop, he has refused to delete pictures after people have asked him to, and on at least one occasion (and I suspect many more), when one of his subjects got angry with him and physically confronted him, he continued taking pictures.
I’m not a psychologist and I wasn’t there, but from what I can tell, “Scott” is one of those people who enjoys conflict and provoking people, even though the method in which he is doing it is legal. As long as this guy is standing in the street (hopefully in traffic …) or on the sidewalk, he can take pictures of whatever, or whoever, he wants.
And, Uncommon Grounds can serve, or not serve, whoever they want. Earlier this week, the coffee house (along with 66 other businesses in the Church Street Marketplace) banned Scott from coming on to their property. This took place after Scott took place after Scott took photographs of a coffee shop employee who had already asked Scott to stop photographing him. (Scott says he did not recognize her as the same person.)
I’m not sure what the coffee house hopes to get out of their action, as Scott takes his photographs from the street. And just to clarify, few of Scott’s photos appear to be of employees; most of them are of customers, either sitting inside (taken through windows) or standing outside. I’m sure this guy is bad for business. Personally I’m pretty sure I wouldn’t return to “the coffee house where the creepy guy was taking my picture through the front window.”
Scott was within his legal right to take the pictures, and the businesses were within their legal right to ban him from their properties. So why doesn’t it feel like this story has a happy ending? If the people of Church Street Marketplace really want to get their point across, I suggest organizing a “photo-a-thon” outside this guy’s house. I’m guessing having camera flashes going off 24/7 for a week or two and capturing thousands of photographs of this guy’s family coming and going might actually get the point across …
For the record, I have only been confronted once for taking someone’s photograph. It was at Defcon 2007 (a hacker convention, held on private property). After taking a picture of a really cool t-shirt vendor’s booth, I was quickly and loudly confronted by the guy running the booth and told to “delete the picture immediately.” I was too embarrassed to admit that my camera was so old that it didn’t have the ability to delete a photo, so I just fumbled around for a minute pretending to press buttons and then told him it was deleted. I suppose I could have published it later, but as a general rule it’s a good idea not to go around making enemies at hacker conventions, so I ended up deleting it anyway when I got back home.
EDIT: It appears, at least according to the comments on Facebook, that a lot of people are backing the photographer in this deal. Interesting.
These kind of cases are difficult in which to pick a side, but I’m going to go with the coffee shop, who seems to have more at risk here: the reputation of their business and the morale of their employees both appear to be on the line. On the other hand you’ve got this photographer who can practice his “free speech” anywhere he likes, but chooses to keep returning to this local for one reason or another.
The best thing Scott the amateur photographer could do for himself is to post some samples of his alleged artwork online, even something simple like a Flickr stream. The coffee shop might respond more favorably to his presence if he could prove that he’s actually creating artwork (and assuming his work is any good). Until then he’s just a voyeur who’s harassing their customers.
I’ve said this before in other contexts, but I think we need to be less worried about things like the Patriot Act than the fact that the technical wonders of our phones and tiny cameras all now enable We The People to keep each other under a constant state of surveillance. If you slip on the floor of the mall food court and break your hip it’s probably going to be uploaded onto YouTube even before the ambulance arrives.
I know what you mean, I’m on the fence on this one as well. I think Voltaire hit this one on the head: “I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”
Here is the guy’s Flickr stream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/
Interesting. I definitely wouldn’t like to see any sort of law to stop him from doing this, but he probably could get picked up on being a nuisance, harassment, that sort of thing. Really, though are the only laws that read something like “don’t be a jerk”.
Also, it was Evelyn Beatrice Hall who wrote that quote to describe Voltaire’s thoughts.
Legal or not legal, he was being a dick for not deleting the photo when asked too.
If I was a regular in an area and some guy was creeping around taking photos of people, I’d stop going to that area. My gut says I side with the stores as this cannot be good for business. This is one of those situations where a group of people is going to be bothered by the outcome.
Along w/ being a retro-computer geek, I’m also an amateur photographer, so this discussion hits home for me.
Props, Rob, for the Voltaire quote and the sentiments behind it.
I disagree with all three “perfect world” points you outline in your post. Perhaps a majority of people would agree with you, but there’s at least one person out here (and, I’m guessing many more) who accept that being photographed in “plain view” from a public place is just a fact of living in a free society. Certainly, our public images are legally protected from being used in advertising and in libelous or slanderous ways, but I’m pretty happy with living in a world where the entire sphere of public property and those things that are in plain view (in settings, of course, where there is no assumption of privacy) can be the subject of visual art.
I take pictures of strangers in public because I enjoy the nature of candid pictures. I don’t make any attempt to be surreptitous about it, but I certainly don’t ask for permission. I’ve been confronted a few times, and its been universally upsetting and demoralizing for me. Chalk that up to my unassertive personality. I envy photographers like Dan Scott for being able to make some very nice examples of “street photography”, and for being able to put up with confrontation. I don’t know Dan, but I would strongly suspect that he’s taking the photographs because he enjoys the art he’s making, not because he enjoys confrontation.
As far a the story goes, it sounds like a “happy ending” to me. No one is having their rights infringed upon, and it didn’t end up with senseless violence or needless litigation.
It’s going to be interesting to see how society deals with progressively more technology capable of recording audio and images being thrust into public (and eventually private) spaces. As our electronic devices become extensions of our memories I suspect people are going to become less apt to comply with requests to “stop recording”.
@Zeno: I work at a company which collects and manages large amounts of “private” data, and I agree – all those privacy laws and rules affect the government, but private companies are definitely the ones we need to worry about : )
I totally support banning the guy from the premises. There’s freedom of speech like. you manage to snap some pictures of a secret government plot from the street and you refuse to hand over the camera when the MP officer tries to force you. And then there’s freedom of speech to be a total ass. I know he’s not technically breaking any laws but is it really so different from someone standing on the corner holding up signs that say “If you enter this coffee shop, your picture will be posted online”? That sounds like harassment to me, even though it’s nonviolent. In the ideal world the employee would file a restraining order and that would force him to stay a good distance away from the store!
Helluva contentious topic, Rob, very thought-provoking.
Not unlike most people who’ve taken holiday snapshots that happen to include “innocent bystanders” or have found themselves looking like a dork on the other side of a camera lens, I’m truly on the fence about this issue. A few thoughts nevertheless:
a) Dan Scott takes great photos — http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/ — really, he does, of people in their natural habitat, people going about their daily business, people that drink coffee (although a disproportionate amount of them are seen smoking). IMHO, none of these pictures could be considered as being particularly intrusive, there are certainly no up-skirts, nothing creepy about it. These people are pretty much in a public place where they can and will be seen, filmed, observed, studied, talked about, or photographed. Your freedom to come and go as you please should not come at the price of restricting my right to document it.
“I disagree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it†nails it.
b) Similarly, the café has every right to restrict or ban any person from their premises for any reason — in this case because he apparently made their patrons feel uneasy. It’s the same right that allows you to throw out an unwelcome guest from your home because you’re a (perceived) threat or your socks don’t match. No shirt, no service.
c) While it’s impossible for me to take sides (both are right in their own way), I’m not divided about manners. Manners go a long way. Dan Scott could’ve shown common courtesy and manners if he did delete the pic of the (smoking) girl who requested him to do so. He would’ve saved himself a lot of trouble had he respected her wishes and possibly even earned himself a fan if he were more “open” or forthcoming about his activities.
d) Pot + kettle = black? One also wonders if the complainants had permission to publish and advertise with (ie. for monetary gain) pictures of their customers like http://www.churchstmarketplace.com/ or http://www.uncommongrounds.com/cafes.html or http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?pid=1794352&id=86906370072 ?
This got me thinking….
If you own a coffee shop and one day a Hollywood star is going to come by, will you ban picture taking then? or line up overpriced coffee to the media photographers?
Also Google Earth was under fire from British MPs (goverment people) last week for having a virtual street view of the SAS headquaters on its application.
The British Ministary of Defence said google was doing nothing wrong since the photos were taken from a public road. However the MP’s said it was a terrorist threat? dur…
I also heard that a couple tried to sue Google for having a picture of there property on its app without their permission, again, if its able to be seen from a public road what can you do?