Philip-Lorca DiCorcia, Erno Nussenzweig, 2001.Though she's dismissing the chatter as rumor, Sophie Howarth's writeup about reactions to purported restrictions on public photography in the UK is cold comfort. Not for no reason did one photographer presume, correctly, that he would be mistaken for a security threat and harassed if he took a page from Amateur Photographer and snapped away at tourist havens. And even if the dread stop-and-search slip isn't so alien stateside ("stop and search" is British for "probable cause"), it's not very familiar, either. The only American artists who wear police harassment as a badge of honor are graffiti artists* (who are, let's face it, legitimately scummy). So the Crown hasn't yet usurped a monopoly on public photography—nevertheless, it's surprising that UK authorities bother with photographers to any degree at all. (Unless the guy snapping St. Paul's with his Powershot also has a Qur'an and schematics for a dirty bomb on his person, how's a court supposed to prove that his motive isn't . . . to take pictures of St. Paul's? Unless harassment is supposed to be the deterrent.)
In the States, of course, we settle these things in the courts. Most people aren't aware, but only one year ago precedent was established by Nussenzweig v. DiCorcia, a landmark case that defined the publication and sale of street photographs without the consent of the subjects as free speech. And for much longer has papparazzi photography been protected as a press freedom. Shoot away, shutterbugs.
* It's quite a lot of harassment, too—see the This American Life episode about the vast police resources dedicated to tracking NYC graffiti artists, some of whose work is only ever seen by these police.
Posted by Kriston at February 28, 2007 11:41 AMKeeping people from taking pictures of highly advertised, postcarded tourist attractions is silly. I did agree with my dad a couple years ago when my mom wanted him to take pictures in the Munich subway two weeks after the London 7/7 attacks, and pointed out that small brown men taking pictures of major infrastructure were not currently popular in Europe.
One of my journalism students asked me about whether photography of infrastructure (bridges, etc.) could be restricted; my off-the-cuff reply was that anything visible to the public probably couldn't be banned from photography, but the city might legally require people to obtain permits.
Posted by: PG at March 2, 2007 10:06 PMDiCorcia did NOT set precedent--precedent only flows "downhill", the original decision was at the level of a trial court and has nothing below it. The appeal recently dismissed could have set precedent for New York at least, but didn't--the appeal was dismissed on statute-of-limitations grounds and the Constitutional issues were only discussed in non-binding dicta.
It's also worth noting that defending a case like this is expensive even if you're right. DiCorcia may have "won" but it still cost him, his gallery, and his publisher a lot of money.
Posted by: Roger Krueger at April 7, 2007 3:39 AMAh, I see. Thanks for clarifying, Roger.
Posted by: Kriston at April 7, 2007 2:10 PMYour Blog is so sweet! Your posts give me ideas and I start really thinking. Thank you!
Posted by: Ruben Hrbacek at March 27, 2011 1:41 PMI am very enjoyed for this blog. Its an informative topic. It help me very much to solve some problems. Its opportunity are so fantastic and working style so speedy. I think it may be help all of you. Thanks.
Posted by: Inge Ferringer at April 24, 2011 9:52 PMThanks for taking the time to discuss this, I feel strongly about it and love studying extra on this topic. If attainable, as you achieve experience, would you thoughts updating your blog with additional info? It is extremely useful for me.
Posted by: best colon cleanse at June 1, 2011 2:50 PM