By Carlos Miller
The one sure way to get me to photograph something is to tell me I can’t photograph something.
On Saturday night, as I walked down Lincoln Road in Miami Beach, one of the most visited pedestrian walkways in the United States, I came across an area run by Camel where they were apparently giving away cigarettes.
It was one of several promotional booths lined up along the sidewalk that were catering to the Super Bowl crowd. The only reason it drew my attention was because they had hung up a sign that read “no photo or video.”
I asked if this meant inside the booth, where they were drawing pedestrians behind closed doors to charm them with their spiel, or did this “rule” apply outside the booth as well.
“Both inside and outside,” one of the vendors replied.
I immediately pulled my camera up to my face and snapped a couple of photos to rub their arrogance in their own faces.
And to my surprise, they both walked towards me as if they were going to physically stop me from taking these photos.
Then they stopped in front of me, perhaps realizing that a physical confrontation wouldn’t be the smartest thing to do.
I asked them where they got off on ordering people not to take photos from a public sidewalk.
They replied that they are “just asking people not to take photos.”
I told them that didn’t appear to be a mere suggestion but a direct order. And I asked them what they had to hide besides the obvious; which was the fact that they were trying to entice young adults into a lifelong habit of smoking cigarettes.
One of the guys muttered something about how they had to protect their “branding.”
Whatever.
Situations like this make me realize that I desperately need to get the Canon 5D Mark II which would allow me to switch immediately from still photos to video in less than a second to fully capture the intimidation tactics.
That night I had my 5D, the original version that has no video, along with my Canon TX 1, which is what I used to shoot the video from that night.
But the TX1 was tucked away in a belt pouch, which meant that I would have had to unzip the pouch, pull out the camera, open its view screen, turn the camera on, point it at my subject and begin filming.
And the fact that I first thought I was going to have to defend myself from these two Camel buffoons made it that much more inaccessible.
The best example of why the video mode is crucial when street shooting with a digital SLR comes to us from Rob Hurlbut, the San Diego man who had that run-in with those overbearing San Diego trolley guards.
This is how he explains it on his site.
Here is what I have learned from this experience. If an authority figure challenges you while taking photos or shooting video, be polite. Ask them if you are violating any law, and KEEP ROLLING during the transaction.
As a photographer, I hate to say it, but this would not have made the evening news if I wasn’t shooting video, so make sure to switch to video mode as soon as yo see an authority figure approaching you.
Now we know why video mode is important to us photographers… Not to add a bullet to your wedding photography resume, but rather to protect yourself and to show in HD quality just how your rights are being violated.
Popularity: 5% [?]
Related posts:
- Police in Ohio erase photo and video from man’s cell phone
- Slow motion video of BART shooting shows more details
- Who wants to help keep the National Police Misconduct News feed alive?
- Photographer receives apology after armed guards harass him for shooting video
- AMC Theatres employee snatches phone from woman who photographed logo
Support Photography is Not a Crime by buying your electronics through this ad.
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
Might I suggest, instead of getting an SLR with video capabilities (or in addition), a smartphone that allows you to stream video via Qik.com or Ustream.tv. The reason I say this, is video and pictures CAN and usually ARE erased if the police end up getting a hold of your device, thus erasing ANY evidence of what happened. By broadcasting live, you take away the ability for them to hide what they are doing.
I have a Samsung Moment with the Android operating system that has both qik and ustream software on it to allow live broadcasting over 3G or wifi. The iPhone also has this capability, as well as some Blackberries. I’d say if you’re choosing between an SLR, go for a smartphone instead.
Even non-slr cameras have video recording facility, possibly it’s better budget-wise to get a second smaller camera, keep it on a neckband as a “backup” and have it rolling for the duration of your shoot, acting as a video log of the time, allowing you to make verbal notes, and revisit it if you want to figure out where some photo was taken for recapture at a better time.
Your only crime was not getting the video.
Drop the dollars and get it, Carlos. You won’t regret it. It’ll make a world of difference.
Scott´s last blog ..Sativa does Loop-de-loops
At least you know your rights. Most people would scurry along.
mepsipax´s last blog ..Panic at the deli
Usually I think your articles are spot on, but these guys were just doing their job. You are the one looking like a fool here, not the “buffoons” that were being paid by Camel. Camel obviously didn’t want photography there, and those guys were being paid to go with that. It was very clearly noted that they didn’t want any photography. They approached you to discourage you, but they didn’t outright prevent you from doing anything, so whats the big deal? At this point it looks like you are the one looking for a fight.
Will´s last blog ..Stone Bank
I’m not writing about to make it look like a major incident. I’m writing about to show how some people or companies will just make up their own laws and expect all of us to follow.
The corporations already run this country. Doesn’t mean I have to listen to everything they say.
I’m sorry, I’m sick of hearing “I’m just doing my job” or “they were just doing their job”. Hey, mob enforcers are just “doing their job”. Just because Camel “obviously” didn’t want photography gives them no authority over a public space. Physical intimidation is assault in many states (not sure about Florida). While Carlos may not be a small person, other people may be pressured by such intimidation. The behaviour is just plan wrong.
You missed my point. They never impeded on his rights, so who cares? Not to mention its a shitty Camel tent, why would you want pictures of it anyways?
I understand the original point. I just don’t understand why you this is worth sharing on the internet. They never abused their power, they confronted you but didn’t care enough to actually stop you. You got your pictures, they never touched you… all that they have done is reinforced that cigarette companies are shady as fuck.
Will´s last blog ..Stone Bank
Jesus, Will, if you’re not getting the point, let me clarify it.
In this day and age when photographers are constantly being lied to about the law and are constantly getting intimidated for doing something completely legal, it is wise to invest in a DSLR where you can switch to video mode instantly.
The Camel thing itself is a joke. If it were really a big deal, I would have snapped their photos and I would have pulled out my small video camera.
Instead I took the photo to make a point, then kept walking.
Just because Carlos is not intimidated doesn’t mean that others aren’t. Going along with your reasoning, if I decided to have a big guard at the front door of my restaurant to tell all black patrons that they were not welcome at my restaurant, but didn’t actually stop them from coming in, then that would be ok? Try that and see how long it lasts. It is the same thing.
You don’t see the problem with a private corporation ordering people not to exercise their rights in a public venue?
Okay dude, have fun with that.
There’s a fine line between being an activist and a jerk.
You crossed it for this post.
If I really wanted to be a jerk, I would have stuck my camera in their faces and snapped away.
But I refrained from doing that once they went from ordering me to stop taking photos to asking me to stop taking photos.
Sometimes one is forced to be a jerk. This sort of manipulation (on the part of Camel) exploits our unwillingness to “make a fuss” or be a jerk to constrain our actions. However, I know the difference between nice and right.
The world would be a better place if we were all less concerned with having to be “polite” all the time. Jean-Jacques Rousseau warned us about the danger of “false civility” in 1750, and we’ve only gotten worse since then.
Because being nice is more important than standing up for one’s rights, I take it. Good to know you have your priorities straight.
Your’re such a trouble maker Carlos, I love it!
ines´s last blog ..Super Bowl in Miami
Carlos, once you have that video mode that is only a button press away, you really do start to feel like you can do anything.
There are definitely instances out there that a video is simply more appropriate to get a point across than a photo, so I can’t wait to see what you will present to us once you get a DSLR with video.
Rob´s last blog ..Blue Hour Photography
I think it is silly that you asked them if photography was banned. There’s no point in asking since you know what their response will be. Just shoot the photos and if confronted say they have no expectation of privacy from a public sidewalk.
I agree with this. You have every right to take the pictures but to ask them and then start snapping makes it appear you were looking for a confrontation.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..My Saturday Night
I wanted to clarify what they meant by the sign because it posted right next to the door where they were leading people inside.
I could have taken the photo and moved on, then posted it here as example of a company trying to create their own laws, when in fact, they had no intention of banning photography outside.
To get inside the structure, you needed to show your ID, supposedly to prove you’re over 18, but also to ensure they can mail you with free samples and promotions of Camel products.
So I figured you enter the structure under the agreement you don’t take photos. Otherwise, you do like me and not bother. Especially because I would never give them my mailing information.
So when I asked, I was a little surprised and a little irritated that they would think they could ban photography from a public sidewalk.
Carlos,
You are not the “jerk.” The idea that anyone believes that they have the right to prohibit photography (free speech/free press) in a public space is unreasonable.
More nonsense about being a troublemaker or a jerk just because you or anyone else asserts their constitutional rights is ridiculous. Your critics need to spend some time reviewing the US Constitution and the Federalist Papers.
Keep up the good work. I’m just sorry I missed the party.
It’s nothing against CM. I’m just irritated when people don’t know the right things to say when someone is violating your 1st amendment rights.
I’ve seen so many videos where people say dumb unintelligent things to explain that a cop(or anyone for that matter) have no right to privacy in public. It usually goes like this.
Cop: Turn that camera off
Photographer: No, you’re a public servant.
Seriously? Being a public servant doesn’t have anything to do with the 1st amendment. I can’t count how many people I’ve seen say that instead of, “I ain’t turning nothing off, we’re in public and you have no expectation of privacy.”
Carlos, you have giant brass balls. Wish I could be there with you when something like this went down. Guarantee I would drop one of those meatheads…
i think you missed the point a bit.