Do You Have A Permission For That?
June 07, 2008 @ 5:57 PM - by Deeli
...has somehow become more and more common. I get asked all the time if I have a permission to be shooting whatever I’m shooting- mostly a skater doing a trick specifically in order to be photographed. Yes, it’s come to that, sorry to break your little hearts, but a lot of the photos you see in mags aren’t just documenting someone having fun, the tricks would never have happened if it weren’t for the photo and the video clip making it happen. But we’re getting sidetracked here. The point of this entry is that because of various reasons, the omnipresent General Public has become wary of photography and the site of a camera. Last weekend, Love Eneroth wanted to one-up himself on a ledge-manual-combo we only shot a couple of weeks before the last time I was in Stockholm. So we returned to the spot and almost got the boot, not because you can’t skate there, but because you supposedly can’t film and shoot photos there. The spot is a public children’s playground. It’s surrounded by hills, perfect for getting high up above the spot for a nice birds eye view, making the whole spot look really simple and graphic. Well, when you’re up there looking down that is, from the playground I imagine the situation might look quite different. A scrubby young man hiding in the bushes pointing a long lens camera apparatus at the children playing down below. Half way into the session an angry dooschebag wanted to have a word and know whether I had a permission to take photos. I didn’t, of course, but guess what: You don’t need one. In most places, as long as you’re on public grounds, you do not need a permission to take a photo. The schmuck trying to give you the boot thinks you do because he’s heard about terrorism and paedophilia and papparazzis and celebrities and privacy and they’ve all merged into one vague idea he’s labeled permission, but the fact is that none of that matters. “Make sure there’s no faces in your photos or you might get in trouble” the guy shouted. Yawn. Love didn’t make his trick this time, so I expect to be right back in the bushes stalking the playground in the near future.
instapundit.com has a nice little thing about this on their site:
Since 9/11, there has been an increasing war on photography. Photographers have been harrassed, questioned, detained, arrested or worse, and declared to be unwelcome. We’ve been repeatedly told to watch out for photographers, especially suspicious ones. Clearly any terrorist is going to first photograph his target, so vigilance is required.
Except that it’s nonsense. The 9/11 terrorists didn’t photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid subway bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. . . .
Given that real terrorists, and even wannabe terrorists, don’t seem to photograph anything, why is it such pervasive conventional wisdom that terrorists photograph their targets? Why are our fears so great that we have no choice but to be suspicious of any photographer?
Because it’s a movie-plot threat.
