Anyone ever arrested for taking a photo in the U.S.?

Some agencies, like New Jersey Transit and PATH, claim that anyone
caught taking photographs of their system will be arrested. So I
wonder, has anyone ever been arrested or detained by the police for a
long period of time, for taking a photo?
Malls can be touchy about it too. With the post 9-11 paranoia going
strong, many people have claimed to be questioned or harassed by the
police.
The closest case I've heard personally of an arrest was an individual
who was taking photographs of the light rail (trolley) system in New
Jersey, HBLR, which is run by NJT. They were detained for a few hours,
and forced to either delete the photos they took, or be arrested
and/or having their cameras seized.
With law enforcement so hell bent on violating individual civil
rights, perhaps it's better to find a way to hide your camera.

No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
lens.

Phil

JohnCM wrote:

Some agencies, like New Jersey Transit and PATH, claim that anyone
caught taking photographs of their system will be arrested. So I
wonder, has anyone ever been arrested or detained by the police for a
long period of time, for taking a photo?
Malls can be touchy about it too. With the post 9-11 paranoia going
strong, many people have claimed to be questioned or harassed by the
police.
The closest case I've heard personally of an arrest was an individual
who was taking photographs of the light rail (trolley) system in New
Jersey, HBLR, which is run by NJT. They were detained for a few hours,
and forced to either delete the photos they took, or be arrested
and/or having their cameras seized.
With law enforcement so hell bent on violating individual civil
rights, perhaps it's better to find a way to hide your camera.

No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
lens.


Where and why ?

A music event in Palm Springs and I did not ask why.

Chuck wrote:
No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
lens.



Where and why ?

"Chuck" wrote in message
...
:
: No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
: lens.
:
:
: Where and why ?
:
I took my SLR to a big annual music festival in Atlanta a few years ago and
was told I couldn't use it, apparently because some performers were
concerned about people profiting from photos taken at the event. I was told
I had to surrender either my film or my batteries, or leave the camera at
the gate. I gave up the batteries (not without complaint, of course) and
proceeded to shoot anyway, using a manual shutter speed and guesstimating
exposures. Got some good shots, too. The rules are probably stricter now.

Paul

In article , Phil Wheeler
wrote:

A music event in Palm Springs and I did not ask why.

my guess would be because cameras with removable lenses are higher
quality and the users sometimes professional photographers. the photos
from them could be good enough to sell and they wanted to protect
agaisnt that from happening.

photos from consumer cameras would be unlikely to be able to zoom in
close enough, let alone even get the exposure right.

a removable lens is an overly simplistic way to differentiate between
the pros and the amateurs.

Some venues claim that a camera with a removable lens makes you a pro, and
therefore likely to be taking images for publication. I ran into this in
Balboa Park in San Diego, the Japanese Garden wanted me to pay them $500 to
photograph inside. I agreed, with the proviso that they close the gardens
to the public, since I was going to (in their eyes) use the images for
profit, I wanted the best images possible, without the interference of
tourists. They refused, so I left.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com
"Phil Wheeler" wrote in message
...
A music event in Palm Springs and I did not ask why.

Chuck wrote:
No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
lens.



Where and why ?

Phil Wheeler writes:

Chuck wrote:

No .. but I've been to events where they ban any camera with a removable
lens.

Where and why ?

A music event in Palm Springs and I did not ask why.

It's common to ban photography at public performances; presumably to
maintain their control over images of the valuable performers. This
sounds like maybe a compromise, intended to allow people snapshots of
their big fun, while still protecting the commercially usable photos.

And will no doubt become less common since there are so many
high-quality digital cameras with long-zoom fixed lenses on them :-).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, , http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/
RKBA: http://noguns-nomoney.com/ http://www.dd-b.net/carry/
Pics: http://dd-b.lighthunters.net/ http://www.dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum/
Dragaera/Steven Brust: http://dragaera.info/

I was killing time in the airport in NY one morning, shooting the empty
escalators, etc. Some Nazi-rent-a-security gave me a bunch of grief claiming
I'd be arrested if I continued...

homeland security and all...

Inside the airport is covered by the Patriot act and is illegal. It's posted
in almost every airport I've been in. Not sure what the photos would do for
you.

Tom
"JustaPawn" wrote in message
...
I was killing time in the airport in NY one morning, shooting the empty
escalators, etc. Some Nazi-rent-a-security gave me a bunch of grief
claiming
I'd be arrested if I continued...

homeland security and all...