Quick Tip: Don’t Shoot That Frog!

Quick Tip: Don’t Shoot That Frog!

We do know law enforcement sometimes picks on photographers. It is a widespread tendency, increasing as there are more and more people taking pictures. But not being able to shoot a frog in a public park is getting on my nerves. It is all due to having a long lens!

ptuts_shootfrog01_JA
Taking pictures of frogs may not be as quiet a labour of love as you think.

It was just me and that frog. I moved cautiously, to get the shot, checked my exposure, made sure my trigger finger had the right pressure, ready… then I heard the loud STOP!

A dark clad figure looked at me from the nearly two meters of its stature. I was on my knees, still astonished, surprised, not knowing exactly what was wrong. Then the man, hands on the hips, looked down at me and shouted: YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO PHOTOGRAPH THE FROGS HERE!

ptuts_shootfrog01a_JA
Imagine you get to your best frog spotting place and find a sign forbidding photography there. It may happen someday.

I could not believe it. A security guard forbidding a photographer to shoot a frog. I’ve seen it all in terms of how the police treats photographers, having covered street demonstrations for newspapers back in the seventies and eighties, but this was too much.

I remember I almost gulped for air. Somehow the whole situation made me feel like a kid caught taking sweets from the candy jar. Then I regained perspective of the ridiculousness of the situation and, standing up from my position, faced the man and asked, “WHAT?”


Looking for Answers

ptuts_shootfrog02_JA
For professional photographers, some nature areas are already a “no photography allowed” zone, even if there is no sign. (The sign on this image was added in the computer, as an example).

The answer kind of made me dizzy, “YOU’RE NOT ALLOWED TO PHOTOGRAPH HERE.” The words fell like thunder falling from the sky. I mentioned that there were people right beside us taking pictures of this public garden, that was the reason why I choose to go there too occasionally. So I had to ask what the security guard meant by not being allowed to shoot the frogs. I was not “shooting” them as in “shoot” but simply taking pictures.

“NO PICTURES,” the giant said. I asked under which rules and he said, “PARK RULES.” And then he continued stating that by the look of my camera and lens – I had my trusty 100-400mm from Canon – I was a professional, so I was not allowed to take any pictures that I would sell. He didn’t say it, but I felt in his eyes he wanted to add, “with a large profit.”

I tried to argue back, but he moved on to me and I felt he was a really big guy, so I decided it was really better to stop and find other ways to understand what base he had to give me that warning. I must say I never did get a proper answer to my inquiry. What I’ve found is that if you show up with a big lens or a tripod, even if you’re not disturbing people passing by, and the police see you, you’re going to be stopped from photographing at some public parks in my country.

And in other countries too, starting in good old Great Britain, that has a photographic tradition so strong they even have a Royal Photographic Society. And it is not just the law enforcement authorities, but security people, that all seem to know very well how to shout the word “forbidden,” but can never fully explain the reasons why you’re not allowed to do things as simple as shoot a frog.


Statues are Copyrighted

ptuts_shootfrog04_JA

The frog story is not the only one I’ve had. I’ve been told I could not photograph at another public park that has a lot of statues of poets and writers, because I may not photograph the statues, as they’re protected by copyright. Yes, I’ve heard that from the mouth of a few police officers there, but cannot get further explanations.

One time, while having a discussion with a police officer, I was approached by some tourists that asked me if I would take their picture, with their compact, next one of the statues. The situation was funny and I asked the police officer if I could, and he said yes, because they had a small camera, but I had a long 100-400mm lens. Well, in fact I was in the park to take pictures of small birds that abound there, not the statues! And as far as I know, birds aren’t copyrighted!

So now I know it’s a problem of size. The size of the things we use. They’re afraid of photographers with big things. I’ve tried to get answers from people responsible for some of the parks and never got a decent answer. There are some vague “park regulations,” hints of “you’re using that to make money.” Many times I am not, I am just having fun, that’s also what photography is for me.

I wrote this article out of despair, but also as a warning to photographers. The more imaging systems we have around us and the more people take pictures, the harder it seems to be free to do your photography in public places.

It’s not just street photography, using a camera and staying for a long time at a place to take photographs has, somehow, become a suspicious activity. I’ve seen photography being banned at public festivities, public parks, railways, close to airports. The way it goes, I fear that someday soon we will see signs prohibiting photography almost everywhere. Not just for professionals, but for amateurs, too. Do you also have problems in your area? How do you deal with them?

Here are some links to info about this subject that you may find interesting:

  • Diggity

    This sounds like it is just screaming for a 1st Amendment/Civil Rights Lawyer to hand these guys their collective arises. Any takers?

    • Diggity

      Arses, that is…

  • http://khurtwilliams.com/ Khürt L. Williams

    I find it ironic that while casual photography is being banned because of the use of “professional” cameras and lenses each of us is increasingly surrounded by surveliance cameras. I would subpeana the surveilance video for use in my $1 million law suit. Caving in and being passive in the face of abuse of authority is exactly how we lose our freedoms.

    • mike

      Its more about submission than making sense. Government has always attempted to see how far it can go. Hence the Hegelian Dialectic, two steps forward, one step back and eventually all your rights you used to have are now gone forever.

  • DestinS

    I see this becoming more and more common. Unfortunately a lot of the time it’s not even because it’s law but security want to demonstrate authority. Thankfully my photography is landscapes and thus don’t run into too many issues. I remember reading an interesting article on what buildings you can and cannot sell as prints. I think the Eiffel Tower lit up at night was one them.

    On the same token there are times when people taking photos is a distraction, at a restaurant for one. Where everyone seems to want to photograph their food rather than enjoy it.

  • Guest

    Jose Antunes

  • Guest

    Same thing happens here but differs in some way. Amateur photographers( with SLR kit ) are not allowed to take pictures on tourist spot especially locals. The guard could not give any decent answer, but ironically, the tourist can take picture anywhere they want.

    To my surprise, one guard told me that only professionals or tourists( caucasian ) can use SLR and I need permit in order to take photograph but I can use phone or point-and-shoot type of camera. Banging my head, what’s the difference between SLR and digital cam? I think because of the equipment size too?

    This video was taken back in 2011 in the Philippines. A silent protest from amateur photography enthusiast. 2:11 the old guy said “we always mistaken as terrorist by thee guard” LOL!

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7bb-n3Rrmg

    • http://www.facebook.com/diveactive Gary Bridger

      I got stopped in the Philippines by the police for taking photos of the taxes . crazy he asked where is my permit, they are just out for conning you out of your money. He said i have to pay. BS!

  • Anthony McLin
  • Adinfinitum

    I remember a couple of occasions where that happened.

    I was in Chichen Itza in 2005 and just after Katrina – the archeological park was almost deserted. I got up early one morning for some sunrise shots of the main Pyramid and started shooting away. At this time, there was no other person in sight. I pulled out a tripod from my bag and instantly, and I mean instantly, and from apparently nowhere 3 “officials” materialized from the surrounding bush and forbade my use of a tripod. I put it immediately away and continued shooting, using my bag and rocks for support. Later, I checked with the tourism office and discovered if I wanted to use a tripod, I was automatically considered a “professional” and there was a (IIRC) $500 license fee.

    I’ve also had similar experience in Rome, Athens and even Canberra.

  • Area0404

    Was approached by a random old lady a few month back claiming her rights to “privacy” and tell me to stop taking picture. Thing is, I have no idea who the hell she is… I went through all my pictures, she was in none of them… Furthermore, it was in the middle of a normal, common, city street.

  • http://www.facebook.com/dawnavan.foster Dawnavan Foster

    This is just another striking instance of ignorance of the law by those who are supposed to be its enforcers. In my jurisdiction and many around the world, the copyright afforded to a statue is limited mostly to its reproduction. What this means is that unless you actually stand a marble block next to a statue and begin to chip away with the aim of recreating it, you are likely NOT infringing on intellectual property, in the absence of other rules. Due to more relaxed regulation, private parks may within their rights forbid photography, whereas a public park would need to justify their stance. Even then, you can be guilty of violating park policy, but STILL not copyright!!

    By that same token, there may be a good case for violation depending on the angle from which a famous statue is shot. If a professional was commissioned by or paid to take photos of a particular landmark, reproduction from a specific angle or using a specific technique may land you in hot water.

    I personally have no issues with a fee being charged- especially if it is towards maintenance and preservation of a beautiful natural site, but would love to see more consistency and less arbitrariness regarding who is charged, and when.

  • http://www.jakestevensdesign.com Jake Stevens

    Winter Park, FL (it’s part of the larger Orlando-metro) has a city ordinance that says no one is allowed to take photographs of anything anywhere public. It’s an offense fine-able up to $500. No one listed on any of the permit information could/would tell me the reason why something so ridiculous is a) in place and b) actually enforced.

  • http://www.facebook.com/diveactive Gary Bridger

    One of the reasons I like being in malaysia, photography is loved here, unfortunately to many photographer, In England, it got to much, you cannot photograph in public places yet so many have cameras now, they you may be some sex mad crazy kid grabber or something, its the those with looks and small cameras they want to worry about, you cannot photograph buildings m Terrorist act, Or sports centres unless special permission. All because of a couple of people. Like Gary Glitter, and a few others, But I wonder If gary Glitter did such As PCs have the tendency to down load through a back door stuff you would both think of. And pace it on your hard drive. It was not until i started to repair peoples PCs and recover lost data , did I find this so. Why the hell would gary glitter send a PC in for repair if he had that kins of stuff on it, Crazy , right? you cannot photograph in most places now, And the crap is, if you have an SLR with zoom, your a criminal .And asked where your press card is, All because of USA TV AND SCUM BAG lawyers.