Update: Uncommon Grounds deleted every single comment that was left on their Facebook fan page regarding this matter (but you can read most of them below). And they have also sparked a new debate on the fan page by stating that the photographer made them feel “intimidated and threatened” with his camera. Come join the debate.
By Carlos Miller
The story on the Vermont shopping center banning a photographer from its premises has stirred a healthy debate on Photography is Not a Crime on whether or not a private venue has the right to ban somebody from its premises for the act of taking photos off their premises.
Many have taken the libertarian view that a private business has the right to ban whomever they want from their establishment as long as they are not basing their discrimination on race, religion, sex, national origin, age or disability, which is forbidden by federal law.
But this case is a little more complex than that because the Burlington Town Center is a public-private partnership which depends heavily on tax-money for improvements, including a $6 million grant from the U.S. Dept. of Transportation.
According to the FAQ section on the mall’s own website:
The Marketplace and downtown Burlington are the recipients of a $6,000,000 award from the US. Dept of Transportation under the SAFETEA LU program. These funds will be used to make improvements to a key alleyway that connects the Marketplace to a major parking garage, to upgrade the electrical infrastructure, improve crossings with the side streets to the Marketplace, increase connectivity to the waterfront, and to extend the concepts of pedestrian oriented design to the adjacent side streets.
A further breakdown on how federal and local taxes are used to improve infrastructure in the mall can be read in last December’s association meeting minutes.
Usually when people get banned from a commercial establishment, it is because they’ve created a disturbance inside the venue. But in this case, the photographer, Dan Scott, was taking pictures on public property outside the venue.
And that prompted a security guard to misinform him that he was not allowed to photograph the building, which lead to a police officer to demand his personal information, which lead to another police officer popping up at his place of employment a few days later where he grilled Scott for 45 minutes.
Isn’t it clear who is out of line here?
Meanwhile, Scott has been stating his case on Flickr, providing more details and photos of the events that led to his banning. The 32-year-old man who is married with children states that he is giving up photography because of the stigma that it has brought him.
This is how he explains the top photo:
I was using a telephoto lens that day to create a compressed perspective between foreground and background. Why? Because I thought it made for pretty pictures of the snow falling. I was far enough away from the store that I didn’t realize she was associated with it. She was outside smoking and, with the snow in the background, the scene looked timeless. So, I took the picture.
She became aware of me just after I took it. She yelled at me. Told me to stop taking her picture. She was very agitated. I simply said “ok” and then she insisted that I delete the one I had taken. I told her that I couldn’t do that. I then turned away and left. It was obvious she wasn’t interested in why I was taking pictures on the street.
Scott has been accused of being “creepy” because he photographs young woman, but a quick look through his Flickr stream shows that young woman are a small percentage of his subjects, which also include normal looking shots of his children.
This is how he explains his subjects:
The irony is that I seldom photograph young women. I’m more interested in the old and disabled. I did, however, take a photo of a fellow sitting in the window of the coffee house that has insisted on the ban. The manager saw me and came out and read me the riot act. I explained that I had done nothing wrong and tried to walk away but she followed me down the street a ways yelling at me. That was the first incident.
So it is clear that Uncommon Grounds believes it can prohibit people from photographing its employees and patrons even though they have absolutely no expectation of privacy.
They also have no problem of putting their own photos online as you can see in the photos below which had been posted on the Uncommon Grounds fan page. So it’s not like they are camera shy.
If you think they are out of line, let them know by commenting on their fan page as many of us have already done. I’ve included several screen shots below in case they start deleting the comments.
They’ve also acknowledge on their fan page that they are looking to change their name because of a trademark issue. A couple of people suggested new names, including “Commie Grounds” and “Unconstitutional Grounds.” If you have any further suggestions, post them below and I’ll be sure to forward them to the coffee shop in case they don’t stumble upon this post.
Popularity: 8% [?]
Fernandez, as I mentioned in a 
101 responses so far ↓
1 Difster // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:23 AM
Well, that changes things now doesn’t it. They got tax payer money, they’re no longer private. Just like the companies that accepted bailout money and then cry when the government pulls the strings they begged to be attached and want to regulate them further.
If nothing else, this is an object lesson of why you shouldn’t get in bed with the government and take tax money for private pursuits.
2 Tom Joad // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:36 AM
In reading about the Church Street Market, it is a public/private partnership just like the mall in Silver Springs, Maryland. There was a similar incident there, where the management company had to eat their words when the city attorney made it very, very clear, that the First Amendment did apply to the mall.
3 Matthew Lane // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:25 AM
Ok, politics doesn’t come into this at all as far as i can see, regardless of who pays for what. Its good to get some perspective on this article though.
I will say I did like that photo.
From what i can see all parties involved are in the wrong. To start with the security guard was in the wrong to inform the photographer in question that it was illegal to take photos, the photographer was in the wrong for taking somebodies photo without permission (not wrong via the law, but wrong via not being an arse… though this could be considered subjective).
The only people who are in the right are the people who own the mall who can ban anyone they want to for pretty much any reason (even really silly one). Basically it boils down to the mall being private property with public access, with public access controlled by the property manager, the owners & then the managers of individual sub-lets.
As for all the people yelling “Respect peoples rights” on the uncommon ground facebook page, just think for a second. How happy would you be if some random stranger with a telephoto lense stood on the other side of the road & took photos in through your window as you snuggled on the couch with your significant other, or as your family ate dinner. Would you be happy about that?
Finally any true photographer knows that anytime you use a photo of somebody for commercial use such as on a web site you should have a model release form (or you should if your serious about commercial photography), or at the very least verbal permission to use the photos… neither of which the photographer in question had. Which is why it perfectly fine for uncommon grounds to have up photos, but not want you taking photos of there customers.
4 Douglas // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:56 AM
@Matthew Lane : One of the guiding principle’s for any photographer shooting public subjects, (for me at least) is the question: Does the subject have a “reasonable expectation of privacy”? In the situations you describe of snuggling on a couch or eating dinner at your table, the subjects most certainly had an expectation of privacy.
But, a person on a sidewalk smoking a cigarette during the day? Legal photograph, and legal photographer..
Douglas´s last blog ..In Custody Inmate InformationPersonal InformationName: TAYLOR,…
5 artemis // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:30 AM
I like your site, but I have to disagree here. The use of tax/spend to extend government regulation and control via “well you get tax money” is the problem. The government is taxing us into slavery then using the money to get all the strings they could not get otherwise…. like the ability to tell a private business who they have to allow in their stores.
Private businesses have the right to ban photography. I’m sorry, but read the constitution again. Your rights do not extend onto other people’s private property. Did you get an EIC last year? Ever take a single dime of welfare? Perhaps take a tax credit for something? If you did, clearly that would not give me the right to come inside your home, because you were “taxpayer funded”.
Yes, this guy was not inside the store, and I wholly support the right to photograph from the sidewalk. I’m only arguing against the idea that accepting government money should end someone’s (business or individual) right to restrict access to their property.
6 Matt B // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:35 AM
Yes you are right, just accepting money doesn’t make them public. The fact that they are public run does.
The commission that runs it is chosen by the city council: “The Church Street Marketplace District Commission consists of nine members, appointed by the Burlington City Council, who serve three year terms.”
The original design and construction was paid by the city: “In August of 1977, city officials signed a $304,000 design and architectural contract with the Burlington firm Alexander and Truex to develop the new design for the project.”
Its a public place as far as I’m concerned, and he has every right to go there and take pictures, and he cannot be banned for that.
7 Matthew Lane // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:50 AM
I actually agree with you. But when you start using a telephoto lense to take photos inside the cafe (which is when the owners got pissed) i would personally consider the line crossed.
inside the cafe i would assume the people would have a “reasonable expectation of privacy.” But having said that would you be ok if someone you had never met came up and for no apparent reason started taking photos of you? Even if you did, in this day and age (a saying i’ve come to hate) of digital communication you never know where that image is going to end up or what irreponsible person is going to do with that image.
When she said i don’t want you taking photos of me & i would like you to delete the photo the photographer should have pleaded his case & if she still didn’t want it being used delete it. The photographer doesn’t have to, but just because a thing isn’t illegal doesn’t mean you should do it… in other words “just because you can doesn’t mean you should.”
That person may have many reasons not to want her photo taken, heck some may even be legal reason or safety reasons (though that is unlikely… but not impossible).
One of my guiding principles’ for photography shooting public subjects, is the question: Does the subject have a “reasonable expectation of privacy” & if i do take this photo is the subject going to be happy about it?
You can still take the photo but don’t be suprised when the person gets irrate & be ready to delete a really good shot. Of course as i pointed out before i live in a country where people are pretty darn polite & i wouldn’t have it any other way (yay for quality of living).
8 NYCPhotorights // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:53 AM
@Matthew Lane: So by your logic if I own a store and I see a republican handing out campaign literature on the corner in front of my store , I can ban him because I happen to be a democrat?
As for model releases – I suggest you do some more reading on the subject of when/if they are needed. Selling a picture does not always constitute “commercial use”. For example any picture can be used to illustrate a story in a book, magazine or newspaper without a release. It’s called editorial use and perfectly legal. Even selling prints (art prints) is not considered commercial in many states (google DiCorcia v Nussenzweig and you will see what I mean).
As for Flickr – it is a non-commercial photo sharing site. There is no difference between posting a picture on there and showing it to your friends on a slide show. Model releases are not required on that site – if they were I would think that 98.5% of the pictures there would have to be taken down. Flickr is not a portfolio site – it does not promote your services as a photographer. If the pictures were posted on sites like Model Mayhem then I would agree with you.
Finally – how happy would I be if someone took a picture of me in my house. That is nothing but a red herring – I have an expectation of privacy in my house. I do not have an expectation of privacy while sitting on a restaurant table behind a plate glass window.
9 Matthew Lane // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:55 AM
actually he can be banned… it’s happened… its like saying i don’t believe the sun will come up in the morning so i’m going to go kill everybody because its the end of the world. Ok, thats a bit hyperbolic, but the point still stands. Regardless of what you feel it has happened & no shouting into the darkness here will change that. I’m sorry it has happened but as i’ve already said no one in this is blameless.
10 Nick // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:12 AM
I disagree with you regarding your assertion that accepting taxpayer dollars suddenly deprives this business of banning someone from their facility. While I am full committed to the rights of photographers to photographing on public property, the acceptance of taxpayer dollars does not remove their rights to act as a private business.
If we were to use the “acceptance of taxpayer assistance or tax breaks” as the test of determining what was public and what was private, then there would hardly be any private property anywhere.
The government taxes everyone very heavily… more heavily is then required… and then uses special incentives to “encourage” certain politically popular actions and generously gives people and businesses back the money they took from them. A business taking advantage of this is doing the best it can to survive, and should not be punished for doing so, when the only other option is likely to fold under this excess taxation.
Think about this… do you own a home? Do you deduct your mortgage payments on your taxes? Your home is now public… please keep your doors unlocked so I may come inside and photograph you at will.
11 Tom McElvy // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:54 AM
Carlos, et al:
Perhaps we should all CALL the store and let them know in polite, but strong terms, what we think about this? I know that I was looking at having our family reunion there, but this incident has us looking at another STATE now for planning! At least here in Virginia, people know about the Constitution and the rights of photographers!
Fight the good fight, people!
Tom
Tom McElvy´s last blog ..The Blizzard of 2010
12 torgeaux // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:27 AM
As I understand it, he’s not banned from the public portion, that is, the exterior “mall” part. Rather, he’s banned from the interior of the stores. Ironic, since his photography takes place there anyway, this won’t impact his photos, just his day to day use of the stores.
13 Guy Freeman // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:50 AM
You have an expectation to a point. If you walk in front of a window naked or covered in what could be blood and someone happens to look at you, they didn’t invade your privacy.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Ladies and Gentlemen, please rise for our Corporate Anthem
14 Guy Freeman // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:52 AM
I guess I’ll say it, its a shame that such a lovely girl is smoking.
Guy Freeman´s last blog ..Ladies and Gentlemen, please rise for our Corporate Anthem
15 Santee // Mar 15, 2010 at 11:57 AM
You really don’t have a clue and do not understand the laws governing free access to public areas. At least google some fact before coveying an unispired commentary factless commentary.
16 Matt B // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:02 PM
Sorry, but the photographer IS blameless. He did nothing wrong.
Regardless of whether he can or can’t be banned (I don’t think so since this is a public place- blacks can’t be banned for instance), he SHOULDN’T have been banned. That’s the point.
17 Matt B // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:04 PM
I may have a problem with it but- and here is the thing- I CAN’T DO ANYTHING ABOUT IT. If I’m out on a public street, anybody can take my pictures. That doesn’t give me the right to get that guy banned.
And sorry, but the photo does not have to delete the photo.
18 Matt B // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:05 PM
Again, this place is run by the City. Its not private. Its public.
19 Tom Jones // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM
I saved a few of these photos and put them in an album on FB, with the note “All photos are by others in this album.”
Also recent screen-grabs.
20 NYCPhotorights // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:11 PM
They banned him but that does not mean that the Vermont law that allowed this to happen will stand up to a constitutional challenge. So far it has not been challenged because, with one exception involving an employee/employer dispute, the stores generally did not abuse the law.
However, someday the stores will apply it to the wrong person – someone with resources to take it to the Supreme Court. For one thing there is no appeals process – this law is so broad and lends itself so easily to abuse that it is just begging for a challenge.
21 Mark Kalan // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:38 PM
I’d like to know why the photographer hasn’t sued the coffee shop and mall for slander and libel.
22 Mark Kalan // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:39 PM
I’d like to know why the photographer hasn’t sued the coffee shop and mall for slander and libel. He has a case.
23 capn_amurka // Mar 15, 2010 at 12:40 PM
“if I own a store and I see a republican handing out campaign literature on the corner in front of my store , I can ban him because I happen to be a democrat?”
Yes. You can legally discriminate on the basis of political affiliation. For that matter, you can discriminate on the basis of profession, smoking preference, or almost anything else that isn’t a protected class (or linked thereto).
24 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:22 PM
It doesn’t change anything. Just because they received tax money doesn’t mean they give up rights as property owners. There are a lot of businesses and farms that get tax money. This doesn’t mean they suddenly become public property.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
25 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:26 PM
That is actually interesting information. However who now actually owns or pays rent for the space? That is the issue. Even if the govt builds something, if they rent it out, then it becomes private property under the control of the person renting.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
26 Richard Thomas // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:30 PM
This group should start passing out awards to people who zealously uphold the standards of Fascism. Inaugurating the award with the offending parties in this case (the coffee house owners and the police) is simple poetic justice. The actual trophy should be a nice jackboot. Suggestions for names for this illustrious prize?
27 Tom Joad // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:52 PM
@Matthew Lane
I also suggest you read up on when a model release is needed and the difference between editorial use, art, and commercial use.
As for asking permission to take photos in a public location, do you think the photographer’s pictures would have turned out this well if he had asked this young lady permission first? A big reason this picture is good, is that it is candid.
28 Tom Joad // Mar 15, 2010 at 1:58 PM
The mall seems to want have its cake and eat it too. Their web page states:
Church Street has always been the region’s commercial and community center, and after the Marketplace’s four blocks were converted to pedestrian mall in 1981, the newly created public space quickly became the region’s town center. It is the location for the region’s most popular events, including the Discover Jazz Festival, Key Bank Vermont City Marathon, and First Night Burlington. It is a frequent location for evening television newscasts, a popular destination for celebrities vacationing in Vermont, and a site for political figures to make major announcements. Church Street is the destination for celebrating a birth, a marriage, or graduation, to participate in a protest, people-watch, or just shop, dine or explore.
Sounds like a public forum to me. Created by the government, run by a quasi-governmental agency, accepting tax dollars to run, and given the right to eminent domain to expand if desired.
As for the individual stores, they can control photography in their individual stores, because they pay rent and are pretty free to do as they please. However, the street, and public areas of the mall would seem to be public for all of the above reasons. You can see the County Attorney’s opinion from Silver Springs, Maryland at:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/metro/daily/073007/073007_PrinceGeorges.pdf
29 Roger Krueger // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:25 PM
Except the renter didn’t ban him–the renter went to center management and got him banned from every store in the mall. Which at least subjects the decision to additional scrutiny if there’s government involvement in center management.
30 Michaelk42 // Mar 15, 2010 at 2:53 PM
“A design for Church Street was unveiled in March 1978, which encompassed a two-level scheme, with a lower level below the street level, connecting to adjacent buildings through their basements. The lower level would add 80,000 square-feet of retail space to the City’s total with no new construction, and provide 20,000 square feet of city-owned retail space. In March of 1979, the City sponsored round table discussions and both local citizens and merchants responded negatively to the idea of a two-level mall. The Steering Committee decided to drop the two-level scheme, and a new plan was devised. The new plan included bringing the street level up to the sidewalk level, resurfacing the street with brick, adding canopies and shelters, closing the street to cars on the two central blocks, and implementing the downtown bus loop which would enable buses to cross Church Street at two intersections. The one-level plan was approved by city voters later that year.”
But public property didn’t entirely become private when the city closed those streets to motorized traffic.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
31 Saint Jacque // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:40 PM
That’s true that they don’t give up their private property rights for accepting public funds, it does, however, point out the HUGE problem with giving public money to private business.
JUST SAY NO TO WELFARE, CORPORATE OR OTHERWISE.
Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
32 Saint Jacque // Mar 15, 2010 at 3:45 PM
Citation needed.
Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
33 Michaelk42 // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:06 PM
Uncommon Grounds can’t delete a tab I never closed.
Wordy bastards cut off in screenshots:
Shawn Nee Based on what you’ve done to Dan Scott, you should rename your store to Unconstitutional Grounds. If any customers of UG are supporters of the Constitution (particularly the 1st Amendment), you should read about Uncommon Grounds’ treatment of Dan Scott for taking photos in public space. Which, everyone should know, is …a completely legal act protected by the Constitution, and is also the reason why companies like Uncommon Grounds (aka Unconstitutional Ground) is legally allowed to videotape the public without our permission using security cameras. Uncommon Grounds, in this situation it appears the pot IS calling the kettle black (horrible pun intended too). What applies to you and other businesses also applies to public. For instance, photographers taking legal photos of people in public spaces.
Dan Scott’s Story:
http://www.7dvt.com/2010photographer-banned-taking-pictures-church-street
Michael Kerney Lurking? Creepy? Please. If living in a free society makes you or your customers “uncomfortable,” feel free to go somewhere where you don’t have to worry about anyone having the freedom to take pictures in public and upset your delicate sensibilities. I hear Iran, North Korea and China are nice for that. You might miss… a few human rights as a woman in those places, but at least no one (except the government) will make you feel uncomfortable with photography.
Stretch Ledford Wow. You guys really suck. And to think that you’re in VERMONT! I thought people in Vermont were pretty chill. You’re an independent business… been around for 15 years it says… how would you like it if someone suddenly decided to illegally restrict any of the many legal protections that allowed you to go into …and, indeed, stay in business? (Tweeting this info and asking a slew of journalists to retweet, btw…)
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
34 El Kabong // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:21 PM
As for all the people yelling “Respect peoples rights” on the uncommon ground facebook page, just think for a second. How happy would you be if some random stranger with a telephoto lense stood on the other side of the road & took photos in through your window as you snuggled on the couch with your significant other, or as your family ate dinner. Would you be happy about that?
That’s apples and oranges. Over your shoulder at the ATM, in the window of your living room, in the changing rooms at Sears – those places have an expectation of privacy. Standing on the streetcorner, puffing away on a fag – zero expectation of privacy. If someone snapped a photo of me on the street, more power to them.
35 Tom Jankowski // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM
Again, these people have no expectation of privacy. If Uncommon Grounds doesn’t like people taking pictures of its patrons from the street, they should close the blinds or board the windows up.
If someone stood in front of the window and picked their nose, could they ban him? I don’t think so. So a photographer shouldn’t be different.
36 discarted // Mar 15, 2010 at 4:49 PM
There are two malls in Los Angeles, that were built by developer, Rick Caruso. One is The Grove, and the other one is the Americana at Brand (which is actually in Glendale, CA). They’re both constructed with the open court yard style, and all of the stores are surrounding this space.
The paparazzi are at both of these malls on a daily basis fishing for any celebrity that appears—usually based on a tip from one of the celebrity’s “people”. You can see the videos on TMZ (the show and their website).
And there isn’t anything the shop owners, the police, or the security guards can do about them because the court yard area is public space and the paps are not going into the stores. Therefore, they aren’t breaking any laws even though some shop owner might think it’s really creepy that the paps are there some times taking creepy pictures of people.
I’m sure we can all agree that the paparazzi are likely more of a disturbance than a single man in Vermont taking pictures in a public area.
This type of behavior from the store owners would not fly in Los Angeles.
37 discarted // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:03 PM
@michael42
that’s me. i posted that remark on facebook.
38 Santee // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:20 PM
Actually, Trespassing Notices must be based on some type of Probable Cause or the Police can not issue them.
39 Carlos Miller // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:21 PM
Consumerist picked up the story and has a poll with most readers voting against the photographer.
http://bit.ly/90mY09
40 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:29 PM
You should look into what happened with the D.C. Union Station and get back to us. We’ll wait.
41 Santee // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:31 PM
I think she was scared her parents might see the photo of her smoking. Too bad she is now the epicenter of a swift moving storm cloud.
42 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:34 PM
How do you have a reasonable expectation of privacy inside a cafe, especially one that has large picture glass windows, and where anyone (assuming the owner hasn’t preemptively banned them) can come in and see you. A reasonable expectation of privacy doesn’t exist just because you’ve entered private property.
43 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:38 PM
Also, he didn’t use a telephoto lens to peer through the cafe’s window, that shot was taken at close range.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4329047952/meta/
The telephoto shot he made was of the manager out on the street. No windows involved.
44 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:41 PM
He can be banned, just like the Burlington police can violate his free speech and due process rights. Just because it can be done does not intrinsically make it lawful.
45 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:42 PM
It sounds like a violating of due process to me.
46 discarted // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:42 PM
carlos, we all know that’s typical.
the dissenters all probably people like johnny law and matthew lane
47 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:44 PM
You should really write to the mayor of Burlington and other officials about your family reunion plans. Given how important tourism is to Vermont’s economy, that’s the kind of action that can really wake people up.
48 discarted // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:45 PM
i would have to say that consumerist did a really brief and shitty summary of the situation as well.
49 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:46 PM
I guess I’ll say it, it’s a shame such a lovely girl is such a vile person.
50 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 5:49 PM
Unfortunately, pretty much everything the UCG manager said about him could be defended as mere opinion.
Don’t get me wrong, I think she’s a liar and a totally tool, but for obvious reasons, slander and libel suits are not something to throw around lightly (just look at Britain to see why).
51 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:00 PM
I’ve said it before that I think the mall overacted in this case and I don’t think a banning is appropriate. However I also think the photographer should have handled better. He wants to exercise his rights so I don’t feel bad that the mall wants to exercise there. To feel otherwise would be hypocritical.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
52 Erik G. // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:00 PM
There is also a Facebook page for the “Alumni” of Uncommon Grounds:
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=36428488284
Perhaps those “who worked for Skip & Bev ” should hear our fury?
As forUncommon Grounds owners “Skip & Bev”, their last name is Blakely and according to this article:
http://www.vermontguides.com/2009/07-jul/fp.html
Their daughter, Brenda Blakely Vinson, “has taken over daily operations”.
Why not “become” her friend:
http://www.facebook.com/people/Brenda-Blakely-Vinson/1218853684
With thanks to my research assistant Miss Google!
53 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:02 PM
She’s a vile person? Because she didn’t want her picture taken? Grow up.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
54 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:03 PM
Do the stores pay rent? Is there a lease? That makes it private.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
55 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:04 PM
Considering how slanted Consumerist’s coverage was towards the story, I can see why the poll came out that way.
They basically made the photographer out to be a creepy pervert, and barley put any effort into presenting the free speech argument.
I’m not a regular Consumerist reader, but if this is the way they cover things, I doubt I will take them seriously in the future.
56 Michaelk42 // Mar 15, 2010 at 6:11 PM
And here Johnny takes on the persona of the “White Knight,” bordering on concern troll.
He ignores the concept of “using trespass order to get back at photographer who did nothing wrong” and tries to make it appear that it’s only about her not wanting her picture taken. See what he did there?
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
57 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:13 PM
Yes. Yes they could ban him. That is the whole point.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
58 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:15 PM
LOL Man you are trying too hard.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
59 Michaelk42 // Mar 15, 2010 at 7:18 PM
And here, we find that Johnny hasn’t gotten up to that entry yet. (Also, he can’t actually argue this description isn’t apt.) His delayed internet education continues…
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
60 akagoldfish // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:00 PM
The street (where the photographer was standing at the time of the incident) is public. That’s been settled by several different sources, including a commenter who lives in the city.
You seem to have let the fact the area is referred to as a “mall” confuse you as to what we’re talking about. Perhaps if you applied some of those finely honed police officer’s investigative skills to reading everything and thoroughly you wouldn’t keep getting it wrong.
61 Josh Saint Jacque // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:05 PM
I must say I’m honored to be enshrined in one of those screen shots. =)
Josh Saint Jacque´s last blog ..HuffPo: Tea Party is “All About Race”
62 Johnny Law // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:12 PM
Once again you are posting without reading again. I am not talking about where he was standing. We all know he was outside the stores when he was taking pictures. Get it through your head that he does not have to be physically inside the store for the store to ban him.
The point I am making is that if the stores are paying rent, then that (the interior of the businesses) is private property in the eyes of the law. It doesn’t matter if George Washington built them with his own hands.
63 NYCPhotorights // Mar 15, 2010 at 9:13 PM
The photographer has said in his Flickr posts that the manager of UG was rude in her approach to him. Seems he is not the only one she is rude to:
http://www.yelp.com/biz/uncommon-grounds-coffee-and-tea-inc-burlington#hrid:yyMd75p8b9Y-QveSTj1Lcw
http://www.yelp.com/biz/uncommon-grounds-coffee-and-tea-inc-burlington#hrid:yyMd75p8b9Y-QveSTj1Lcw
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Burlington Vermont Forces Photographer to Quit Hobby
64 Michaelk42 // Mar 15, 2010 at 10:05 PM
It’s good to know the Facebook thread has brought out the Internet Tough Guys that will kick our asses.
http://michaelk42.tumblr.com/post/451065064/robert-haverly-michael-assuming-everyone-who
“Robert Haverly @Michael Assuming everyone who talks shit to you is only an “internet tough guy” could end up getting you seriously hurt.
You blissfully ignorant photographers should seriously consider that there quite a few people who will not think twice about knocking you on your ass in the middle of the road if you start snapping pictures of people and then refusing the delete it upon request.
And simple assault will not land you in jail, neither will destruction of property. You will get a ticket, and after waiting months and months for a court date, the assaulter *might* have to get you a new camera. ”
“Jason Sykes wow, you people have too much free time…..
1. If i ask you to stop taking pictures of me, it is because i do not want you to have my likeness to do whatever you want with, WITHOUT my permission.
2. If you keep taking my picture without my permission after i told you to stop, i’m taking your camera.
3. The fact that public photography is not illegal is true for the most part. however, it is up to the artist to gain consent from the person(s) they are photographing in order to use their likeness. Without that consent, the “artist” can be sued.
stop sounding like bleeding heart starving artists up on here, because it just making you sound dumb.. read the laws if you are going to try and argue them. ”
It just gets better after that with these two.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
65 anooon // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:26 AM
he has been banned from the stores but not the mall. The area is abou 4-5 blocks of closed off road. He can still go photograph there. Just can’t go into the stores.
66 anooon // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:28 AM
Johnny is a troll and should be ignored.
67 anooon // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:51 AM
Dude,
Someone posted Brendas home and cell numbers here… http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=36428488284
at the top…. just saying
68 anooon // Mar 16, 2010 at 12:54 AM
it seems by this page http://www.facebook.com/group.php?v=wall&gid=36428488284
the manager has only been in charge for the last 4 months after Skip and Bev retired.
69 Carlos Miller // Mar 16, 2010 at 1:00 AM
It doesn’t come up for me
70 Sparky // Mar 16, 2010 at 1:08 AM
I live in Burlington and am a customer of Uncommon Grounds. There are some twists to this story. Let me clear up a few things:
1)The “Marketplace” is a public street off limits to cars and managed by a “District Commission”, a special category of local government, not unlike a local Water Authority. Mr. Scott has not been “banned from the Mall” because it it’s not a “Mall” but a public street and his behavior is legal.
2) He was issued a trespass order by the coffee shop, a legal step anyone can take for any private property, for any reason, or in fact, no reason. Locally, the controversy surrounds what happened next: The “District Commission” organized an additional 67 trespass orders covering virtually all the other businesses on the street.
3) He remains free to photograph anyone, anywhere, anytime on the street. But he faces arrest if he steps inside any of the 68 businesses . . . with or without a camera!
So: he has not been banned from taking any photos. But he has been banned from many private buildings downtown because he takes them, or perhaps because of the way he takes them.
The focus should be on the local government and what it did, collectively, to the guy, by drumming up the effort to get property owners to ban him from their buildings. The coffee shop is completely within it’s rights to keep out anyone who gives employees or customers the creeps, and that is ALL it did.
I do feel bad for the photog, and the employees of the coffee shop. One or more did ask him to stop taking their photos, which, of course, they can do. He is free to ignore them. He has. He can still take their photos. He just can’t step inside the shop.
71 Jody // Mar 16, 2010 at 4:17 AM
Let’s just ban all photographers everywhere from everything, in fact, let’s ban everything! It’s the only way to keep us safe and stop us from feeling abused. Yes, like I said in previous postings this isn’t about rights, it’s about how people feel,
“you make me feel uncomfortable when you take my picture, boohoohoo.”
“Now I’m going to use the state to screw you around, hahahahaha!”
People use the government to reward their friends and punish their enemies, they always have.
The real issue is the loss of freedoms in America, a loss of freedoms that has people like Jefferson and Washington rolling over in their graves, but instead of fighting to re-gain those rights people have pointless discussions, what a surprise.
Who cares about UG anyways, they look like a bunch of hypocritical hippies and trust fund Tommy/Tammies with an inflated sense of self-importance, to hell with them. That girl who smokes, give it a year and she’ll be unemployed, a single mom and living on state benifits sucking off the tit of government or back at home living with mommy and daddy because her BA in the feminist struggles of the 1700′s doesn’t help her get a job as a government burecrat.
As for what happens when a business gets tax dollars, who gives a rats arse, why you have to pay taxes in the first place should be the question. As for the rights of the photographer in this case, if he was on public land then he can photograph whomever he wants, if they don’t like it they should have stayed at home in their basement like Michael Jackson.
Jody´s last blog ..Massachusetts: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
72 Shawn // Mar 16, 2010 at 4:20 AM
So, you’re saying that the other stores didn’t request trespass orders, and that the local government took it upon themselves to do so? Now THAT is an interesting bit of information.
73 Jody // Mar 16, 2010 at 4:39 AM
The more I find out about UG, from Flickr and the review page on YELP, the more UG looks like a front for laundering drug money, full of pot smoking hippy hypocrites. Johnny Law, I think you should investigate.
Jody´s last blog ..Massachusetts: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
74 Pinandpuller // Mar 16, 2010 at 6:00 AM
Go to Starbucks-they allow open carry.
75 torgeaux // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:45 AM
Well, you’re factually incorrect about an important point. The businesses have an agreement where signatories to the agreement will ban anyone the other businesses do. This required no additional action. When UG got him banned, as signatory to the agreement, they knew they were in fact banning him from all the other businesses in question.
Their actions are indefensible.
76 HLW // Mar 16, 2010 at 10:42 AM
Carlos –
I went looking today for their facebook page and cannot locate it…
Did they take it down?
77 HLW // Mar 16, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Never mind… found it… and said
“Cowards!
Why delete the comments people left, because they were unflattering?
I for one will ensure that not 1 dollar of my money goes to your shop.
You wrote ” One who never stated he was an artist or what he intended to do with the photographs he was taking”
It doesn’t matter; his actions were 100% LEGAL. If you don’t like it too bad!
NOT A FAN!”
78 Scudder Kelvie // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:17 AM
It’s remarkable where ignorance will take people. Learning facts from ALL sides is generally a good idea before launching into attacks and diatribes, especially when it’s so unnecessarily personalized as it has been on this forum. Fact: the photographer was asked repeatedly not to take people’s pictures. Fact: He absolutely has the legal right to take those pictures. Fact: When asked he became very defensive and would not talk about it reasonably with those who asked him not to take their pictures. Fact: This went on for some time, until he finally pissed people off one time too many. Fact: The Church St Marketplace (not the same thing as the Town Center, but why let FACTS get in the way of a good diatribe?) did not issue the trespass order. Fact: A private business did request it, and in Burlington the police are obligated to issue the order when asked to do so. Fact: The photographer in question has not been banned from public property and noone is preventing him from taking pictures. Fact: He has been lawfully ordered not to enter private businesses on the Marketplace. Fact: Businesses on the Marketplace have made a reciprocal agreement to honor each others trespass notices. Fact: As private businesses they have that right (yes, believe it or not, others also have rights). Fact: The photographer pissed people off for a long time, and they consequently took lawful action against him. Fact: When someone pisses someone else off, they should expect consequence that they may not like. Fact: Thousands of people take many thousands of photographs on Church St. every year, but this one individual is the only one who has upset a large number of people. Fact: Many people on this forum and others have no idea what they’re talking about, but again, why let a few FACTS get in the way of good diatribe.
79 Matthew Lane // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:37 AM
Actually any store owner can ban someone from their store, as long as its not based on racism or religious prejudice… so your comments about “blacks” is without merit (also its a little racist).
Also i didn’t say the photographer was wrong, i said he was “not blameless.” The difference here is primarily context. What he did was not against the law, it does mean it is right or that he was without blame in this situation. For instance if he had not taken the photo or asked for permission first would he have been blamed for taking the photo & subsequently banned… hence not blameless.
80 Matthew Lane // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:44 AM
You wrote: “Why delete the comments people left, because they were unflattering?”
um… because they were unflattering & not what they want on there corporate facebook page. Kind of a stupid question wasn’t it. Its kind of like asking “why don’t you like being punched in the face… just because it hurts… you pussy.”
“Well der,” comes to mind HLW. Now get off your soap box and utilise some common sense.
-M
81 Matthew Lane // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:51 AM
Ha ha ha ha ha ha ha ha! I’ve never heard somebody say so much without saying a darn thing.
I love how you got from picture of a woman smoking a ciggy to “be unemployed, a single mom and living on state benifits sucking off the tit of government or back at home living with mommy and daddy because her BA in the feminist struggles of the 1700’s doesn’t help her get a job as a government burecrat. ”
Thats the kind of leap of fucked up creative logic that you only get from Americans & psychopaths with parental neglect issues. LOL.
82 Florida // Mar 16, 2010 at 2:01 PM
She’s a vile person? Come on now. Maybe this is why people don’t want their photo taken, because it can be used against them when stuff completely out of their control blows up. She had the right to ask the guy to stop. I’m sorry but after looking at this guys Flicker page I can see why people complained. Supposedly the trouble started because women felt afraid, but they’re not the only ones having a bad reaction to him. What’s the caption for most of these?
Guy who doesn’t want his photo taken gets his photo taken.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4386517230/
Another guy who didn’t want to be photographed…
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4382689123/
83 Florida // Mar 16, 2010 at 2:32 PM
One more thing. Nobody really responded to this post by Art,
“Just a few thoughts from someone who, unlike the rest of you, actually lives in Burlington and knows many of the players in this.
- This has absolutely nothing to do with Dan Scott taking pictures.
- At any given time on a summer afternoon, there are a hundred or so people taking pictures on Church St, AND THE OTHER NINETY NINE OF US HAVE NOT RUN INTO ANY ISSUES.”
I can’t understand why the guy won’t stop after getting some of these reactions from people. It’s really selfish to say, YOU get to suffer for MY hobby. You don’t like it, you feel uncomfortable? Well screw you!”
I think this whole thing could’ve been avoided had the guy maybe changed his approach or style when out there taking pictures. Some of these have kind of an “ambush” feel to them, which makes me feel sorry for the subject. The caption for this one could be:
“Old lady surprised by photographer”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4374959594/
“Man surprised by having photo taken”
http://www.flickr.com/photos/38261591@N06/4349162811/
Not only is that going to be considered aggressive, but he’s defeating his whole purpose.
84 Jody // Mar 16, 2010 at 9:21 PM
Am I correct to assume you have a government job?
Jody´s last blog ..Massachusetts: 2nd Amendment does not apply to states
85 Johnny Law // Mar 16, 2010 at 11:50 PM
I’m more of a Starbucks man myself. I hate those smug hippy coffeeshops.
86 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 12:09 AM
It would make sense that the bodyguards of the rich would prefer the smug, corporate coffee chains.
(Not that I’m a big fan of either, but hell if I was going to let *that* one lie there)
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
87 Johnny Law // Mar 17, 2010 at 2:35 AM
If that means a place that is clean, incense free and has no “Free Mumia” posters, I guess so.
Johnny Law´s last blog ..For No Reason At All
88 Michaelk42 // Mar 17, 2010 at 7:14 AM
Well, at least you’re not denying being a bodyguard of the moneyed class.
Michaelk42´s last blog ..And onward we trundle
89 Sky Captain // Mar 17, 2010 at 9:27 AM
She’s a vile person because she’s dumb enough not to know that the law doesn’t apply to photographs taken outside in a public place, and dumb enough to destroy the rights of the photographer to take her picture in said place. And you’re dumb enough to agree with her.
90 genewitch // Mar 17, 2010 at 5:36 PM
so if you have/had children, they’d be in private schools, using only public transportation, be protected not by the police or fire department, but by private security, and wouldn’t use any products that were the result of work by DARPA, NASA, or any other government agency? (hint, the internet)
to get inb4 “but i pay taxes” – so does everyone else without children, cars, and the need for police and fire protection. Why should they be paying for your kids? isn’t that the spirit of welfare?
91 genewitch // Mar 17, 2010 at 5:49 PM
I know someone who will print and ship those “pin on buttons” for really cheap. We could get a case made up that have a clever phrase like 1st amendment schamendment on them and then just mail them out for $0.50 a pop whenever this happens.
92 genewitch // Mar 17, 2010 at 5:51 PM
That’s only because california law can’t decide whether to be constitutionalist, reactionary, facist, or socialist.
It’s a weird state to live in, for sure.
93 NYCPhotorights // Mar 17, 2010 at 8:53 PM
FACT: The Burlington Police intimidated and harassed this photographer by questioning him at his place of business for 45 minutes. THAT is harassment since photography is NOT a crime!
FACT: The Universal Trespass Law has been abused in the past to take vengeance upon a man who fought for and WON a back pay award against one of the stores. The message there was very clear – don’t take one of our stores to court over your paycheck or we will ban you from shopping and/or ever getting another job anywhere in this area.
The issue of the constitutionality of those universal trespass orders and the complicity of the government in enforcing them without due process is much bigger than one store vs. one photographer. THAT is the real story here.
NYCPhotorights´s last blog ..Burlington Vermont Forces Photographer to Quit Hobby
94 Matthew Lane // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:31 AM
Exactly! Those rights go both ways.
95 Matthew Lane // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:36 AM
WOW. I wouldn’t have pointed that out. Other then the fact that alot of people here are basically preforming cyber harrasment due to something that does not directly effect them.
I wouldn’t have posted that just for common sense reasons. Seriously… if someone starts harrassing them via phone because you pointed this out & they happen to be able to prove they’ve been on this site, you can get into a lot of trouble. America has some pretty harsh cyber-harassment laws in place these days. Just be careful of what you post.
Not being a bully or anything, just giving a warning, you might think its a victimless crime or that they deserve it, but you can ruin peoples lives like that & thats not cool.
96 Matthew Lane // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:42 AM
Don’t be an arse they did a pretty decent job of reporting the facts… a hell of a lot better then it was reported here… Consumerist gave both sides of the argument, even if it does focus on the malls side a bit more (which is not at all surprising considering there demographic is probably not photographers).
On reflection this Blog did not focus on anything other then “Big bad mall picking on first amendment rights of poor little photographers.”
97 Matthew Lane // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:50 AM
Not even nearly.
98 Matthew Lane // Mar 19, 2010 at 2:51 AM
But i’d be happy to see what else you want to assume. This could be a fun little game.
99 Info & Shopping Site // Jun 3, 2010 at 7:27 AM
Toby’s coffee for me, smooth, strong & creamy!
100 Personalized Dog Tags // Jun 4, 2010 at 8:14 PM
I find it very irritating that people get so worked up about their picture being taken. I mean really, what do they think people are going to do with it! Are they really that full of themselves that they think they are too cool to be photographed? Imagine what the world would be like if everyone had been like that since the invention of photographs. It would be sad, and bleak, and we would have nothing to “literally look back on!” Wow, I didn’t know I cared so much about this!
Personalized Dog Tags´s last undefined ..Response cached until Sun 6 @ 1:05 GMT (Refreshes in 23.88 Hours)
101 Steve A // Jun 11, 2010 at 12:31 AM
Great comments, you have certainly stirred passion in your readers, very helpful!
Steve A´s last blog ..Desperately seeking COBRA subsidy
Leave a Comment