I thought both videos were extremely interesting. I found the first video to show the proper method by the photographers in handling the situation. The second video in my opinion shows how a photographer should not act in the same situation.

He wasn't really detained. Someone called the cops on him and the office just checked his drivers license and let him continue. I wouldn't have a problem with an officer checking my license, and I think it's understandable if you're taking photos of something like a refinery.

Rules may also change due to extremists that will use "religion" to ban photos..

I'm with you on the over the top HDR shots Niko....but it's harder to take a good cat shot than you think ;>)

What I found disturbing about this,was the fact that the chief said that he didn't want anyone taking shots that were non -esthetic ,like your normal tourist would take LOL.

Under those rules....if I was shooting a portrait of my ugly girlfriend,the police could "detain" me for shooting photos with no esthetic value....that's why I called this crazy from the start!

I think it's a great idea! They SHOULD arrest anyone taking cat or over-the-top HDR photos.

I live in La and have had worse in LBC... Best to carry a copy of the law but act a little submissive keeps the officers from getting aggressive. Still unfortunate about all of this terrorist bs

Have had problems here too...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=raxSlPxTYQA

Wow, don't they have better things to do?

Seriously.

Our tax dollars at work here!

What the officer did is actually illegal as long as the photog was not on private property. The Department of Justice and Homeland Security released documents telling all law enforcement officials that they must stop cease taking cameras, film, memory cards (and the deleting of images) of anyone who is on public grounds. This includes, claiming homeland security risks. They concluded the actions of law enforcement who did were violating people's rights. This was released a few years ago.

Nothing more than ignorant cops who think they write the laws rather than enforce them.

Hi all,

As someone who has had to fill newsprint will photos, I've also had to meet guards at different times (pre 9/11) who were generally just curious as to what I was up to - generally I was able to get a free assistant out of it.

What wasn't mentioned in either article was who owned the property the photographer was standing on taking the picture, and my guess it was private. I've never had any problems in getting permission for any coverage for printing any story or for my private use.

The Homeland Security Act (while a bit of a stretch IMHO), shouldn't hinder that in _any way_ and if it ever does, I'd be the very first in line to sign up to repeal it.

My best,

Mike

Brilliant! Thanks for the video Bram.

I think this has been posted here before but you guys should really check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJH9F7Hcluo

It's a test some London photographers conducted for the London street festival, they went to take pictures at some venues to see how private security personnel and the police would react. Private security generally f*cked up and misinterpreted certain laws (such as anti-terrorism) but the police officers were really competent.

I think this issue might be blown out of proportions. Now just to clarify, by "detained" the writer of the article refers to the period where Wolff (the photog) was asked to show his identification and have it checked by Kahn (the officer).... period. Here is a link to the first article that describes what transpired in more detail:

http://www.lbpost.com/news/greggory/11971

According to the writer "Wolff also says Kahn made it clear that Wolff was welcome to remain and continue to take pictures." I am an amateur photographer myself so I know how sensitive an issue this could to other photographers but being that the USA is currently in a state of war (wether you agree with it or not and for the record I don't), being that anniversary of 9/11 is coming up and the photographer was taking pictures of a sensitive establishment (refinery), is it too much to ask when an officer asks to check your ID?

When I first looked at this post, I wondered which UK cop had decided to overstep his "stop and search" authority but then on reading the actual post, it seems this is was an L.A. officer. I am not really surprised at it being L.A. police policy (usual for them to be this bizarre about anything until they get 'corrected', usually by riot or law suit), but to do it on some random "lack of esthetic value" reason, is truly odd.

Something tells me a first amendment rights battle is on the way and I bet the lawyers are loving it already!

I suspect the same thing could also happen in the UK under our prevention of terrorism act

One bit of advice, do make sure you are familiar with you local laws
if you photograph in the UK put "UK photographer rights guide" in your favorite search engine

This is getting crazy!
http://www.lbpost.com/life/greggory/12188