another installment in the continuing series: "You can't photograph that!"
so, yesterday, while taking my usual (almost) daily stroll around the Atlantic Yards footprint, i notice that the gate to the recently closed Carlton Avenue Bridge has been left partially open. seeing this as an opportunity to snap a few unobstructed photos of the soon-to-be-demolished bridge, i walk to a spot just outside of the gate, being careful to remain outside of the fenced-off area, and begin to shoot. ["soon-to-be-demolished" is subjective. it's been closed for over a month with no visible signs of demolition]
i manage to take about a dozen shots when i hear a shrill woman's voice yelling:
- "You can't photograph that! It's private property!!"
the following "conversation" ensues:
- me: i'm not on private property, and i can photograph here.
irate woman: no, you can't!! it's private property!
me: you're wrong. i'm not on private property. this is a public road, and i can photograph from here.
i continue to shoot until the light changes and she pulls over on to Pacific Street and gets out of her SUV. i move away from the gate and cross to the other side of Pacific Street, wanting to stay well out of her reach and avoid any possible physical encounter. she's clearly very upset and i have no idea what she might do. i assume that she's some sort of official (Forest City Ratner, Gateway Demolition, the ESDC, the MTA or some other entity related to Atlantic Yards) otherwise, i can't imagine why she would be this agitated.
- irate woman: what are you gonna do? post them on some blog?!?
- me: yeah, i will now!
by this time, the security guard, who i'm guessing was inside the fenced-off Carlton Bridge area, must have heard our "conversation" and walks out to see what's going on.
- irate woman (yelling at the guard): you left the gate open!! why's the gate open?!?
[ the security guard, clearly bewildered by the irate woman's shrieking, says something that i can't hear ]
irate woman: he was taking pictures!!
- security guard: who?
- irate woman (pointing toward me): that black guy!! you can't leave the gate open!!
at this point, a few pedestrians had stopped near me, observing this woman having an apoplectic fit. i explain to them what's going on and they quietly move on, shaking their heads.
i walk away, fully expecting her to follow me in her SUV, but she doesn't. i felt sorry for the security guard. i hope that he doesn't suffer because of this episode.
as for the legality of my photographing the closed Carlton Avenue Bridge through an open gate from a public road, i believe that i'm well within my rights. and, as i don't believe that Forest City Ratner has (yet) taken ownership of the bridge, it should still be city property, and therefore, public property. but, as with most encounters like this, it's not worth the possible hassle for me to prove my point and assert my rights, so i usually just walk away to avoid a confrontation that could escalate into something serious.
past episodes of "You can't photograph that!":
Posts
6 comments:
Aren't you allowed to photograph private property anyway... as long as you're on private property?
I meant "as long as you're on public property?"
yes, i believe you're correct in most cases. i was trying to bolster my case by making the point that i was photographing public, as opposed to private, property.
This is almost unilaterally correct; you may photograph just about anything, public or private, if you are standing on public sidewalks.
Her reaction virtually guarantees that she is a low status functionary aspiring to ascend to the halls of power.
The real playas don't dirty their fingernails with this type of stuff.
My guess is that she is associated with FCR and not the ESDC. I suppose MTA is a possibility, but I would assume given the battles over subway photography that an MTA official would be more aware of just what photographers can and can't do. Once I was photographing the trains from within the yard when the gate was open, and an MTA official gently suggested that I cease because "sometimes "they" get suspicious when people are photographing the tracks. I'd say you'd be OK if you just set up on the other side of the fence."
Yeah, I agree with 'dope on he slope'... although this wild woman is clearly an alarmist, who, by her reaction would only cause to exacerbate this non-threatening situation rather than control it, she represents many in public service who are both poorly trained and grossly emotionally incapable of confrontation.
I'm a press photog and I get this all the time. This site, Picture NY.com and the ACLU's have helped me become more educated on the do's and don't s of NY street photography.
I run into that same woman all the time - her type, that is - and I calmly let them say first why they feel there's an injustice occurring. Then, I explain to them the laws and tell them I won't be long. Depending on what kind of reaction that'll illicit, I either take my shots and quietly leave, or be forced to tell them to find an officer to clear this up (and although the cop could give a sh*t, it usually pulls their card and they typically go away or shut up).
A lot of cops know what's up with the law and tend not to bother you - just don't be a dick about it, cause they will toss your ass in and make you uncomfortable for hours while they'll receive little or no reprimand. Digital cameras are so prevalent nowadays that the police are more likely concerned they'll make more trouble than to let people snap away.
Post a Comment