By Carlos Miller
In the latest saga between photographers and New York City police officers, a commercial photographer was intimidated into giving up his film after an irate mother complained to police that he had photographed her child in Coney Island.
Yes, Coney Island, one of the most public places in the United States. There is no law against photographing anybody in public, including children. And police for that matter.
Simon Lund said he was photographing the rides, something he does on a regular basis, and was not aware if he had photographed the woman’s child.
Nevertheless, a New York City police officer ordered Lund to either destroy his film or hand it over to the child’s mother, according to The Village Voice newspaper.
“You should destroy your film right now, or give it to her. You’ve got
to give up your film, or things are going to get much worse for you, the officer told Lund.”
Lund said he had no choice but to hand over his film to the mother. Now he plans on filing a complaint with the Civilian Complaint Review Board.
The New York Civil Liberties Union, which is looking into the matter, said incidents like this are nothing new.
The NYCLU has filed several lawsuits against the NYPD, accusing them of violating First Amendment rights in its harassment of photographers.
One of the suits, Sharma v. NYPD, was filed in January 2006, when Indian filmmaker Rakesh Sharma, who was shooting taxis in midtown, was stopped by police and detained for several hours, during which he was quizzed about “terrorist” activities. That August, the suit was expanded at the NYCLU’s request to include a slew of photographers.
Click here to see some of Lund’s Coney Island photos. Click the following links to read more about NYPD cracking down on photographers.
- New York City photographers will protest Sunday against ongoing harassment
- NYPD arrests photographer for snapping a photo on a public sidewalk
Popularity: 9% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a
21 responses so far ↓
1 mad hatter // Jun 25, 2008 at 9:29 am
Carlitos,
You who so zealously rail against glossing over the facts should re-read the first paragraph of your post. To wit: a mother complained to police about a picture that was taken of her child.
While your position that it is not illegal to take pictures of children in public places (it’s not an absolute right; there are limits to this) is technically correct, let’s not forget that the subject in the offending picture was a child and the mother did not want that picture to be taken.
You’re not a parent, so you won’t be able to relate emotionally (yes, this is a generalization, but it is an absolutely true one; you cannot relate emotionally to an issue involving a parent and his or her child if you don’t have a child yourself) but this mother was obviously alarmed when she saw someone take a picture of her child.
Who does this guy think he is to go taking pictures of a kid against the mother’s wishes? In this day and age, where nothing can be assumed to be “innocent”, the mother’s concern is justified. The mother didn’t know who this guy was. She just saw someone taking pictures of the area and including her child in a shot, or multiple shots.
I’m a parent and if it were my child and the police would not have acted, I would have personally acted in defense of my child.
This is the type of BS that liberal agitators like the ACLU love to promote. You all would rather have a pedophile surveiling an innocent child in a public place than have the police infringe on the pedophile’s sacred rights. Lund may not be a pedophile, but the mother of the child whose picture he took did not know that, she only saw someone taking a picture, or pictures, of her child.
From a public policy standpoint the danger that pedophiles, or others, will use images of minors for illicit activities far outweighs the relatively minor inconvenience of requiring an informed consent when children are involved. There oughta be a law!
Get back to debating Sudoku and the other tripe that you parade through this digital dump, but to paraphrase the words of your messiah, Barry O’: leave the family out of this.
2 Maz // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:38 am
“This is the type of BS that liberal agitators like the ACLU love to promote. You all would rather have a pedophile surveiling an innocent child in a public place than have the police infringe on the pedophile’s sacred rights. Lund may not be a pedophile, but the mother of the child whose picture he took did not know that, she only saw someone taking a picture, or pictures, of her child.”
Ah, the extremist point of view. The type that think everything should be bubble-wrapped, lest we injure ourselves. At least that’s what I derive from reading this.
I believe the process should have gone: Mother complains to police. Police approach, ask for identification, verify no prior record or complaint and then politely make the request (re: not an order) that he not take any pictures of the woman’s child.
Someone happens to include a child in a photograph, therefore they’re a pedophile. Someone happens to of Middle East descent, therefore they are terrorists.
And yes, I would rather someone without prior record or suspicion of being a pedophile be able to walk freely in America than infringe on their rights because of the unproven suspicion that they might be a pedophile. Ever see “Say Uncle?” A little far out in the field, but a decent example of what can occur if you take the “for the children” stance too far with no proof.
It is that kind of paranoia that makes me cringe. I’m very active in my half-sister’s kids’ lives and take them off her hands, and have even been approached on several occasions by authorities (re: Mall cop) because I (being half-Asian) look nothing like my blonde-haired and blue/green-eyed nephews and niece.
3 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 10:54 am
mad hatter,
I understand completely that a mother would be concerned about some stranger taking a photo of her child, but the officer was wrong in making him hand over his film.
I do a lot of street photography and I’ve been approached several times by concerned mothers.
I’m always polite, show them the picture (the guy in the story didn’t have a digital camera) hand them my business card and tell them I would be happy to send them a high-res copy of the photo.
Usually we talk for a few minutes and the mother is able to see that I am just a guy who enjoys photography and not some pedophile.
They are always very appreciative and thankful for the photo I send them.
In this case, the guy was with his wife and he agreed to follow the woman to find a cop. From what I’ve read, was trying his best to cooperate.
He could have easily and legally just walked away from the woman’s demands.
In cases like these, it is up to the police officer to be the mediator. It is also up to the police officer to be the judge.
In other words, the police officer needs to abide by and uphold the law regardless if he personally agrees with the law.
He didn’t do that.
4 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:01 am
Maz,
I find it a huge irony that some republicans - a party that’s notorious for shrinking government in a bathtub - are in full support of the government stripping our First Amendment rights in the name of “protection” and “safety”.
5 mad hatter // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:15 am
Matzoball,
Your involvement with your nephews, or half-nephews, is commendable.
You went a little far afield with your statements that: “Someone happens to include a child in a photograph, therefore they’re a pedophile. Someone happens to of Middle East descent, therefore they are terrorists.” Why didn’t you complete the retreading of racist stereotypes and include Don Imus’ view of African-Americans?
Your retreat to the cocoon of stereotypical victimization is a red herring to divert attention from the real issue: a parent’s legitimate interest in protecting her child.
Also, go read the comments on imbd.com regarding Say Uncle. Your citation of that movie almost makes the argument in my favor. However, your inclusion of that movie in your post is nothing more than the continuation of your calculated effort to divert attention from the issue at hand.
Lund was asked/told to give up his film and that’s it, end of story. He didn’t get harassed, he wasn’t kicked out of the park. He was free to go back and take other pictures of the rides at Coney Island and continue with whatever he was doing. The complaining mother didn’t lead a lynch mob against him.
Gee, what’s more important, protecting a child or protecting an intrusive photog. My vote’s with the mom.
6 torgeaux // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:32 am
Mad hatter:
“Your retreat to the cocoon of stereotypical victimization is a red herring to divert attention from the real issue: a parent’s legitimate interest in protecting her child.”
No, the mother (and you) are engaging in victimization. The child didn’t neat protection, that child was in no danger…the “apparent danger” was illusory, and the police officer over-reacted.
Further, “he didn’t get harrassed” is absurd. The police told him if he didn’t turn over the film, things would get worse for him. That’s pretty disturbing.
What’s more important, protecting first amendment rights or coddling a paranoid, over-protective mother? My vote’s with the constitution.
7 The Truth 101 // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:37 am
MR. carlos AS i said before you are part of the reason this country is heading in the wrong direction. I strongley belive i n the frist amendment, but unlike you i also belive in the protection and safety of this great nation, which people like you dont seem to care. Until something happens, then all hell breaks loose and you start crying like a little bitch, oohhh how could this happen ?? where was the police??? why why was he not stopped and seached. Everbody forgot 9-11. Its amazing to me. Mr Carlos ,one day put yourself in the shoes of these brave men and women . Wait you would never do that because you are a little coward that hides behind a little camera and call youself a hero, wow what a joke.
8 torgeaux // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:46 am
The Truth 101:
Wow. First, I’m active duty army. Second, I work on terrorism related issues as part of my current job, and have for more than 2 years. Third, your post is amazingly disturbing. How much of our first amendment rights should we give up? Who decides? I’m at a loss as to how taking photographs openly, in public (in particular at an amusement park) implicates national security or past terrorist attacks.
I wear the shoes of “these brave men and women.” Please, don’t speak for me. I took an oath to defend the constitution against all enemies, foreign AND domestic. What we are as a country is found in that document, and retreating from those personal protections because of someone’s attack on us is the exact wrong reaction.
9 The Truth 101 // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:53 am
Torgeaux, my comments were not directed at you. My comments were for the little coward behind the camara ,carlos who thinks he is a hero for taking pics. But if you are in the army i want to say thank you.
10 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 11:59 am
101,
I never said I was a “hero”. I’m just a guy who stands up for what he believes in.
I’m a guy who wants to raise awareness of an issue I feel very strongly about.
Why does everything that comes out of the mouths of republicans have to invoke 9-11?
We’re talking about photography, not terrorism.
11 Maz // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:11 pm
mad hatter,
…What was the child being protected from?
12 larry // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm
Ize from da hood and if anyones be taking pixtures of little Tyrone, they be dead. Popo or no popo, ize be busting a cap on dat muthafucka! And im a souja too!
13 mad hatter // Jun 25, 2008 at 12:48 pm
Matzo,
He was being protected from an intrusive photog.
Listen, I’ve said my piece and frankly, this discussion is stale.
Charlie, I’ll check-in to see the next injustice that you gripe about.
14 Larry // Jun 25, 2008 at 1:34 pm
Waz a matter, cats gotz your tungs? Black man on the blog ands nobody wants to pipe up. shiaaatt der betterz be no racism in dis muthafucka! Ize goz twelve inches for dat ass. Ima gonna go drink my forti now, damn, I aint been up dis early sins Obama came to overtown and gase a speesh. Dis will all be better once my negro gets elected. Yeah, Yeah. Shiaaaaatttt
15 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 1:38 pm
Larry,
Or should I say Jorge? I thought you were Cuban, not black.
16 mad hatter // Jun 25, 2008 at 2:30 pm
Wow, Carlos, and you were concerned because I wrote “jack-off”. That’s some serious level of discourse you’re maintaining here.
Larry has to be authentic. I don’t think anyone with half a brain would be able to write that badly, no matter how hard they were trying to make it look authentic.
I didn’t even know that they had Internet access over there in the Pork and Beans.
17 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 2:39 pm
mad hatter,
I wasn’t really “concerned”, I just didn’t feel like that comment deserved a response.
Today, you proved that you are able to leave comments stating your opinion without resorting to juvenile phrases.
And we actually had a decent debate.
If Larry is authentic, then he must be using the same computer as Jorge because they both have the same IP address.
18 Ms Calabaza // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:27 pm
“In cases like these, it is up to the police officer to be the mediator. It is also up to the police officer to be the judge.
In other words, the police officer needs to abide by and uphold the law regardless if he personally agrees with the law.” ~
I agree.
He didn’t do that.
19 mad hatter // Jun 25, 2008 at 3:34 pm
Carlos, don’t patronize me.
Damn Carlos, checking on people’s ip addresses? That’s very “big brother” of you. What happened to first amendment freedoms and anonymity? I guess everything has its limits, right?
20 Carlos Miller // Jun 25, 2008 at 4:07 pm
mad hatter,
It’s not about being “big brother”, it’s about confirming the accuracy and credibility of people’s comments.
Last I heard, the First Amendment doesn’t protect one from misrepresenting himself.
21 bagelman // Jun 30, 2008 at 12:51 pm
i find this to be very interesting as I am a newspaper photographer and deal with this situation quite often. Carlos is right that in a public place a photographer is guaranteed the right to photograph almost whatever he wants. if he wants to resell it for commercial purposes, model releases are needed.
Many times I’ve been making feature pics in parks and have had concerned mothers stop me and at that point it’s all about how you handle it. I am a parent and can completely empathize with a parent’s concern in this day and age. A simple, “I’m sorry it bothered you, I won’t photograph your kid anymore,” usually works fine. Kindness, understanding, and an explanation normally will solve the problem right there.
But a police officer must be held to completely different standards because he is a representative of the government and it’s laws. The first amendment guarantees that photographer the right to take pictures and the police have no right to seize film, it’s just absurd. The point of the first ammendment guarantees the people that their will be objective witnesses to what goes on in our society and goverment. I would hate to think of things likeprotest where the police get out of hand and beat down some protesters viciously, and I have caught it on film, that they could then demand my film….. it’s not far from there to the days of the soviet union my friends.
As I’ve read this post it seems a lot of the comments are very black or white, but reality is a shade of grey. As photographers, we do have the legal right to photograph who and whatever we want to in public, but that doesn’t make it okay to stop being a human being and thoughless to the feelings of our subjects.
Leave a Comment