June 26, 2007
SFist Photo: No Photos Permitted. Really?
Here's the scene from the sidewalk of Lombard Street: "TAKING PHOTOGRAPHS OF STUDENTS IS PROHIBITED." We can understand how parents and other people at the school could be irked by shutterbugs, especially since the well-trafficked curlicue part of Lombard is nearby. But it seems the sign is suggesting that photography is prohibited by force of law. Is that right? Some big buildings in San Francisco's Financial District have gone down that road until getting straightened out by the Boing Boing. On the other hand readers of The Photographer's Right might be led astray if they think they are on a regular public sidewalk but are actually on private land. Is it possible that photography is actually prohibited on this public sidewalk in Russian Hill? Mmmmm.
Don't get arrested but do send your best shots into the Flickr and tag them "sfist". Click!
|
There's even some food establishments around the city that won't allow you to photograph their food hanging in the window (Chinatown) or even where they cook to attract interested people.
Maybe they are trying to hide something embarrassing from the health department.
I went to a couple of open houses this weekend and was told that I couldn't take any photos by one of the realtors.
I know, this is a different deal than the ones above, because I'm inside someone's house. I get that. But, still, I couldn't figure out why this would be frowned upon. Any ideas?
Wow! Commentin' ain't easy.
Basically, you can take pictures where ever you goddam please until someone tells you not to. If that person is not a cop, it's up to you whether you ignore them or not. Cops can be a bit dickish, so the best thing is to comply, then go back when they've buggered off to the donut shop. This rule does not apply to casino tables and the corner of 19th and Capp.
what's on the corner of 19th and capp?? i don't live in sf, clue me in?
As a photographer and a parent, I wouldn't want some random strangers taking pictures of my kids either while they were at school.
Wasn't that freak John Mark Karr working at an SF school? You can never be too careful when it comes to kids.
Who would actually want it, photographer parent or otherwise? You can't outlaw every behavior you think is scary. There would be a bajillion laws and that's too many.
I can understand how a parent would freak out if someone was taking pictures of kids. A more accurate sign would say, "taking photographs of students is icky," but that somehow seems less compelling.
19th and Capp is in a neighborhood where cops are so scarce that an unwelcome photographer would probably never be seen again. There was recently an ice-picking.
It's not just the "icky" factor, MattyMatt. Some of these kids may have been relocated to get away from abusive situations. The last thing they need is for some picture that a random and not ill-intentioned person to get seen for their life to get really bad really quickly.
There are a number of reasons to keep kids' images secure (esp. at a school site), but I think that one is the most compelling.
I think the "icky" frasing is much more compelling. Who cares if something is prohibited? Sounds like a dare to me. But who wants to be told they're icky pervy?
oh my god, no I di-int just say frasing.
By Iris' reasoning, we should never take pictures of any person, ever, because we might accidentally photograph an abuse victim, leaving them vulnerable to ... um ... something.
Why post a sign? if some weirdo in a raincoat is taking pictures, just spay I mean spray him with estrogen and chili pepper juice. Putting a sign up just attracts more attention, and plants a thought that many would never have dreamed of.
If someone really wants to take fotos, they could do so from afar using a telephoto lens. If I were a perv, that's what I would do to attract miniumum attention.
I know it is not legal to show fotos or videos in media where the faces of those under 18 are visible. I think there are exceptions. Does anyone know details on that law?
Note that the sign does not reference a civil or criminal code number, so it may be bogus.