Photographer BANNED from Street!

[Wulfy]

Some place in Vermont, USA, has BANNED a photographer from it's stores... as his photographing of strangers in the street was "creeping" people out.

The article made the local news and the coffee shop at the centre of the saga (Uncommon Grounds) is being flamed on Facebook.

So... what do you guys (professional or amateurs) think of it? Personally, I think it's ridiculous! Although he doesn't appeared to have helped himself by allegedly getting a little aggressive... but I'd be pretty annoyed too!



Many apologies if this has been posted and discussed before!

[SoxAddict]

On the surface, I agree that it's ridiculous. But usually there are 3 sides to every story - his, theirs and what's really going on.

If he's being restrained in this way, then it's likely he's had many, many requests to stop taking photos. Whether or not those requests are justified or legally binding is irrelevant - if I was being harrassed to stop photographing an area, I would just move on to a different area with my camera.

Whilst it's absolutely not illegal to take candid photographs in a public place, we still have to make decisions about our actions.

[ressalg]

I would also tend to agree that this seems a bit of an extreme solution to a very simple problem. As I read it though, he's only banned from being inside certain businesses. It doesn't necessarily mean he can't take pictures while on public property. It also makes me wonder just how "aggressive" he was being in defending his rights? As Soxaddict pointed out, there's three sides to every story. I wouldn't be surprised if the "victims" are exagerating his aggressiveness and that the photographer is downplaying it... somewhere in the middle is the truth.

However, it does sound like the photographer is acting in a paparazzi manor which some people might find creepy/annoying.

[jdepould]

He's not banned from the street. He's banned from 67 business on the street (or in the area).

He can go right on doing what he's been doing (assuming he's being truthful), and there's nothing anyone can (legally) do about it.

Though I'm not sure how they're issuing a notice of trespass if he didn't actually enter the building.

[Rehesan]

I would just say one word about this: Paranoia.

[BabetteKD]

One reason why I never stay in any place more than 5 minutes when taking candids

[Jim Poor]

Looks like they've started censoring comments on their FB page now too.

[zona5101]

Originally Posted by jdepould

Though I'm not sure how they're issuing a notice of trespass if he didn't actually enter the building.

A trespass notice is at the private property owners discretion.
The property owner does not need a reason to tell someone to stay off their property. The property owner can issue a trespass warning without the police, but it makes it much easier to substantiate the warning when it is issued in the presence of LE or when the police issue it on behalf of the property owner.

Anyway, as you have pointed out, he is free to continue as long as he remains on public property.

[BCampbell]

A friend of mine is indirectly affiliated with the shop that was originally targeted as the source of the ban, before the media realized it was the entire commercial center that banned the guy. I heard about this a few days ago and have heard more of the story.

Having read a few sides, looked at the guy's flickr, and seen his comments, my thought is that he's just being a prick for the sake of being a prick. There is a right and a wrong way to take photos of strangers. While what he's doing doesn't appear to violate any laws, he's not being very decent about it. Putting up photos with the express intent of embarrassing and shaming those who confront him is not in good will. Using a telephoto to sneak on people and then feign shock when they feel creeped out is not in good will.

I don't even think his photos are that good. The guy states that he likes to take photos of the homeless, elderly, and disabled. Doing this in a "street" style is horribly exploitative and about the cheapest form of photography that can be done. I don't have a lot of respect with how he's operating, it just makes it harder for the rest of us to convince people we're legit.

[Jim Poor]

I've not seen a single embarrassing or shaming photo. His style is no different than many other street photographers.

The entire commercial center didn't ban him. The coffee shop did, but other shops in the center have a sort of "reciprocity" in place to honor one anothers' trespass orders.

Whether or not his photography is "good" is completely irrelevant to the discussion and smacks of ulterior motives.