Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'

from the police-as-art-critics dept

Tue, Aug 16th 2011 9:35am — Mike Masnick

Apparently the police in Long Beach, California, have a policy that says if a police officer determines that a photographer is taking photos of something with "no apparent esthetic value," they can detain them. This revelation came after photographer Sander Roscoe Wolff was taking the following photo:

The police officer somehow determined that there couldn't be esthetic value there, and thus, the photographer had to be detained and checked out. The police are defending this policy , saying that while officers don't have any specific training in what qualifies as "apparent esthetic value," they will stop anyone photographing things they don't consider to be something a "regular tourist" would photograph. I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: cameras, long beach, photographs, police

183 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Ima Fish (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:40am

"No Apparent Esthetic Value'"

I can't define it, but I knows it whens I sees it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:43am
  
  Re:
  In the "I can't define it, but I knows it whens I sees it." category is also pornography, when separate from certain works of art.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The eejit (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    Remember the Pope who had all the penises chopped off of male statues?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 7:08pm
  
  Re:
  -Potter Stewart
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:41am

Does that mean police officers have "no apparent esthetic value" since you can't film or take pictures of them?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:23am
  
  Re:
  Major typing error!
  
  Does that mean police officers have "no value" since you can't film or take pictures of them?
  
  There fixed it for you.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jeff Rowberg (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re: Social Value
  So can we start detaining and questioning LB police officers if we determine they have no social value?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Incoherent One (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:43am
    
    Re: Re: Social Value
    Do they have those dashboard video cameras?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nina Paley (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:41am

have an art show
I'd totally go to a photography exhibit called "no apparent esthetic value." Especially if the "non-esthetic" photos were displayed next to "esthetic" ones, according to the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ima Fish (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:43am

Wow, read the whole article. It gets even worse. Police can detain you for "asking about an establishment's hours of operation."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:54am
  
  Re:
  There is absolutely no reason that you should need to know when a business is open or closed. Stop spreading FUD.
  
  When can I expect my "I trolled with out_of_the_blue!" t-shirt?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - MrWilson, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    About the same time you can expect to get served for copyright, patent, and trademark violation for the unauthorized use of establish trolling practices.
    
    Unless you want to settle out of court for much less than it would cost to hire an attorney. I'm willing to discuss it...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:04am
    
    Re: Re:
    "When can I expect my "I trolled with out_of_the_blue!" t-shirt?"
    
    About the same time I get my "I outlived Angry Dude" shirt.
    
    Maybe I've just seen too much modern art, but I can totally see the artistic qualities of that photo.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:18am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Half the paintings I've done have resulted from photos I've taken of places just like that one.
      
      Decrepitude like that, for me anyway, has huge aesthetic value.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Your Friendly Neighborhood Anonymous, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:19pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Looks like a good place to photograph textures for use in CG projects. I create my own tileable texture maps all the time.
        
        What if the fact that it has no aesthetic value is what gives it aesthetic value? Mind blowing...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:20am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      That reminds me, the artwork for "I trolled with Angry Dude" is still rattling around in my head.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - angry dude, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:25am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Stop using my fucking name on this shitty little internet blog. What is wrong with you people?
      
      There is no aesthetic value in that shit. Just because some dumbass thinks he or she is a photographer does not make it so.
      
      Don't buy into Mike's anti-police rhetoric.
      
      This country is going straight to hell...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Chuck Norris' Enemy (deceased) (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:31am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It can't really be him...he typed Mike instead of little mikee.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        angry dude, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:35am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        That was Michial Thompson, dumbass.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        The Incoherent One (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:46am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        They have pills for that you know?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:10am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        For being a dumbass? Then he should take some.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Eugene (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:22am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        There's no way it's really you. It can't be. That would mean you not only constantly google yourself, but that you're constantly googling your handle "Angry Dude" - the most generic phrase ever. How many sites must you have to look through every day that *might* be calling you out but instead are just using your name in its generic form I can only guess. There can't possibly be someone in the world who's that obsessive compulsive.
        
        But in the off-chance you are the real angry dude...can I have your autograph? ;D
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        angry dude, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:58pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I just checked it on the right day I guess, unless you guys are talking about me all the time. In the second case, I'm honored I made such an impact.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Killer_Tofu (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:16pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        As well as used sentences, punctuation and capitalization.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        angry dude, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:13pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You people need to get your folks straight. I am the one who calls Mike out when he says fucked up things because he's shilling for big companies with his patent reform dreck. Thompson was the guy that called him little mikee. I remember the guy that you are talking about but can't think of his handle right now. His were mostly incomprehensible rants that didn't make enough sense to agree with or refute.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:59pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        You need to understand the difference between 'anti-police' and 'anti-rights-violation'. There is nothing wrong with taking photos in public, regardless of the subject matter of the photos.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Gracey (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Yeah, I can see the artistic qualities of that photo too.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Gwiz (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:29pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Yeah, I can see the artistic qualities of that photo too.
        
        Me too. It has even intrigued me enough to wonder what the phrase "Fresh Caustic" might mean.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:14am
    
    Achievement Unlocked!
    Yeah, Mike should add achievements for TD comments.
    
    "Congratulations! You just unlocked the "Why yes I live under a bridge. Why do you ask?" achievement."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Alanna St. Laurent, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:52am
  
  Re:
  My friends and I got a ticket for loitering by asking a police officer if a park was closed or not (the sign was not lit up and couldn't be read in the dark). It is scary to think you can't even ask a question in this day and age without having to go to court to state your case. What crap.
  
  So far, my friend's who were with us were in a separate car and written up by separate officers, with that their court date was before ours. Theirs were dropped but think of the waste of time on their part to go through all this. Our court date is tomorrow and the charges better be dropped.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulser (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:47am

Chat-downs
This reminds me a bit of the new "chat-downs" being performed by the TSA where they use "behavioral profiling" to determine if someone is acting suspicious.

http://www.npr.org/2011/08/16/139643652/next-in-line-for-the-tsa-a-thorough-chat-down

In both cases, the authorities are using a person's observed behavior rather than (or in addition to) some kind of intrusive scan or physical pat down. The key differences though is that the police don't have any formal training on esthetic value and they're doing this in public (rather than the relatively constrained environment of air travel.)

I can see where you'd want to have the police look for suspicious behavior, but at least give them some formal training. And don't base it solely on the individual's idea of "esthetic value". That's just asking for trouble.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:49am

Isn't there a UK movement... Ah, here it is

Maybe these need to start showing up in Long Beach.

Also, your HTML is borked in the last paragraph
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:49am

It's a fact
Law enforcement members make the best art critics. I can't wait to live in a world where art is policed and I'll no longer be smacked in the eye by "artwork" that looks like any cop's 4-year-old could have made it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ScytheNoire, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:54am

Police arrest man for having poor artistic taste
It's coming, police arresting people for bad taste in art. That Velvet Elvis picture is going to land you in jail. Be warned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jay (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:48pm
  
  Re: Police arrest man for having poor artistic taste
  Las Vegas would stop over night if you messed with Elvis.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JLZ, 17 Aug 2011 @ 12:19am
  
  Re: Police arrest man for having poor artistic taste
  No, "Velvet Elvis" would be considered to have esthetic value! ;-)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Doe, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:55am

I have literally taken thousands of photos with no esthetic value
I could probably serve several life sentences based on my stash of photos.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:48am
  
  Re: I have literally taken thousands of photos with no esthetic value
  But what about the children!!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DCL, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:54am
    
    Re: Re: I have literally taken thousands of photos with no esthetic value
    I think he may be worried that his stash has too much to do with children ;).... either that or they are really really really bad pictures.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Call me Al, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:57am

One of the requirements for becoming a police officer should clearly be courses in modern art, history of art and art appreciation so that they can correctly identify such an important issue as photographs with no aesthetic value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Joel, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:57am

I'm actually ok with this, after I followed the link and read the story.

He wasn't detained as in arrested or taken to the station. He was "detained" as in the cop asked him what he was doing and if he had ID.

And it wasn't obvious from the picture (at least not to me), but what he was doing was taking pictures of an oil refinery.

If he had been actually arrested or harassed by being taken into the station or having his gear confiscated, that'd be one thing.

But IMHO, a cop asking what you are doing in this case is the equivalent of hitting a road check on a friday night. They ask a question, and off you go.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:04am
  
  Re:
  Yeah, he was asked a few questions and asked to show ID then was let go. He wasn't arrested nor had his equipment taken. Taking pictures of refineries is a little odd, so some minor investigation by police IMO is fine.
  
  If police see something out of the ordinary, they should ask questions. Although the story differs somewhat, it doesn't appear as though the officer acted inappropriately towards the photographer.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    If police see something out of the ordinary, they should ask questions.
    
    �$1M Lawsuit Accuses Three Davie Cops of Brutality�, NBC Miami, Aug 14, 2011:
    
    Battery and resisting arrest charges against Matthew Lawson were deemed unlawful by the state
    
    �.�.�.
    
    [Beating victim] was initally charged with battery on an officer and resisting arrest with violence after the officers questioned him while he walked down the street and he did not stop.
    
    But the Broward State Attorney's office dismissed the charges, ruling that a person "cannot resist with violence an unlawful arrest" and there was "no reasonable suspicion of unlawful activity on the part of the defendant to justify a stop and detention of the defendant."
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:21am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I think any sane person would say that walking down the street does not constitute doing "something out of the ordinary."
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - :Lobo Santo (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:24am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Ordinary" is a word whose definition fluctuates wildly, just like "morality" it is something only loosely defined as something that everybody agrees upon, more or less, kinda sorta.
        
        So, if our police state makes it very uncomfortable and abnormal to walk down the street, then anybody walking down the street could be considered to be doing "something out of the ordinary."
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:02pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I believe many laws are vaguely defined like this in order to give police flexibility in deciding who to target. Unfortunately, with discretion comes abuse.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - DCL, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:56am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        I am pretty sure that i am sane, but I like to play hopscotch with the side walk lines and stop to examine weeds growing out of cracks in the sidewalk. Does that make me 'out of the ordinary"?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Overcast (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:26am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "something out of the ordinary."
        
        Taking pictures - when you consider just about EVERY phone has a camera on it now - and hell, half the intersections have a camera too... is "out of the ordinary"????
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      What does a beating have to do with talking to a person?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - John Evans, 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:56am
    
    Re: its ok
    Anon Coward:
    What the cop did is somewhat reasonable, but the fact that they have the authority to detain someone because it's not obvious what they are doing is seriously wrong BS.
    This country offers the liberty to everyone to do what they want, provided that it does not harm another. The police are within their duties to investigate anything, but have no right to stop or detain anyone because they (public) are not doing what 'the norm' would do.
    This goes with the pretext that 'it's the cops against the world', and 'everyone is guilty, you just have to look hard enough'.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:29pm
      
      Re: Re: its ok
      I agree, the problem is that (I believe) the guy could not have just gotten in his car and left if he didn't want to answer the cop's questions. Walking away from a police officer has become probable cause sufficient for arrest.
      
      They should be able to talk to anyone they want, but should not be able to impair anyone's liberty without real, specific, and reasonable suspicion of something illegal going on. And someone not wanting to talk to cops doesn't qualify.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 24 Aug 2011 @ 10:23am
    
    Re: Re:
    Who decides what is "out of the ordinary?" Taking a picture of anything someone can see from a public place is not strange, if the person had attempted to break into the refinery then stop and question/arrest. If a personis not breaking a law, leave them alone and go after those who are breaking the law. "Police should be after thieves, rapists, murderers etc, not photo bugs.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:11am
  
  Re:
  """I'm actually ok with this, after I followed the link and read the story."""
  
  Then you are part of the problem. Nobody should be ok with this. There are effective ways to protect strategic assets. Harassing people for taking pictures of them is not effective, and frankly only serves to draw more attention to an asset's perceived value.
  
  """They ask a question, and off you go."""
  
  So, taking the example a little further: You would have no problem with a strip search before boarding a plane flight; after all, it's just a quick lookie-loo, and then off you go.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:34am
    
    Re: Re:
    Asking questions is not the same as harassing.
    
    There is nothing wrong with a cop (gasp!) talking to you. Moreover, the headling of this article and the linked article is misleading, in that the department statements says that detainment might only occur based on further facts/circumstances, not simply taking photos without apparent aesthetic value.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:26pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Legally harassment is defined as behavior that is threatening or disturbing and perhaps I'm in the minority but when a cop stops me to question my behavior I feel that's threatening. What implication am I supposed to draw from being singled out by law enforcement like that if not "You are being detained. Now answer these questions wrong and I'll arrest you." Especially considering that's exactly what happened, the photographer was harassed and detained.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:45pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        "Legally harassment is defined as behavior that is threatening or disturbing"
        
        link?
        
        Anyway, it is my opinion that feeling threatened by a cop simply asking you some questions, is unreasonably thin-skinned.
        
        Actually detaining you (i.e., you are not free to leave) is another matter. Did this particular photographer actually get detained? Or just asked some questions?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        ArkieGuy (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:10pm
        
        Asked questions or detained?
        Assume he had chosen to leave without answering the officers questions, do you think it would have been allowed? If not, then by your definition he was detained, right?
        
        What about if he decided to leave quickly (ie, run)? I bet his detainment would have included cuffs and bruised knees.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:41pm
        
        Re: Asked questions or detained?
        "Assume he had chosen to leave without answering the officers questions, do you think it would have been allowed?"
        
        Given the police department's statement on this matter, yes, although I'm sure that would depend on all the circumstances of his departure.
        
        At any rate, I don't see the value in creating a hypothetical scenario not based on these facts to get worked up about.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 18 Aug 2011 @ 9:47pm
    
    Re: Re:
    No, not the same thing. Not even close. Logic much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 19 Aug 2011 @ 12:22am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      No, not the same thing. Not even close. Logic much?
      
      You're right. There's probably more justification for strip searching air passengers.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- John Fenderson (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:31am
  
  Re:
  Being detained isn't just being asked a few questions by the police. Being asked questions by the police is just that -- being asked questions. No rights have been abridged.
  
  It's not at the level of being arrested, but being detained is a (very mild) kind of incarceration in that you are not allowed to leave. In other words, your rights are being abridged. This should not be done without a very good reason, and simply taking pictures you are legally allowed to take (regardless of artistic merit) doesn't even come close to being a good enough reason, in my opinion.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    The statement from the police indicates that simply taking the pictures doesn't result in detention.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:09pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It depends. Just being asked questions, no rights are violated, but demanding answers, then yes your rights have been abridged.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:34am
  
  Re:
  I'm actually ok with this, after I followed the link and read the story.
  
  Oh, I totally agree.
  
  He wasn't detained as in arrested or taken to the station. He was "detained" as in the cop asked him what he was doing and if he had ID.
  
  He was lucky that's all he got. I mean, did you see that photo?
  
  If he had been actually arrested or harassed by being taken into the station or having his gear confiscated, that'd be one thing.
  
  That's what trials are for. If he wasn't doing anything wrong, then he would eventually get out and get his stuff back. It's not like the cops are just walking down the street shooting people for taking pictures, now is it? So what's the problem? This story is just another example of the Masnick whipping the freetards here into a frenzy over nothing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:17pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Did I miss something? Was the guy taking pictures from his car? Since when are you required to carry around any form of ID unless you're driving?
    
    Freetard? Most retards would probably have a hard time using the internet let alone figuring out how to use it to obtain free stuff.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - nasch (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:33pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Laws may vary by jurisdiction, but my understanding is of course you don't have to have ID with you, but you must identify yourself when asked by police, even if verbally. The problem is, how would police react if you simply decline to present your identification (but tell them your name)? My hunch is they would arrest you, even if what you did isn't illegal.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:39am
  
  Re:
  You don't see how this makes everyone LESS secure, do you? No...I guess you don't. Let me explain part of it to you, if I can manage to talk down to your level. I'll leave the rest to someone with more patience for the slow learners.
  
  First, police are already, PER POLICE, overworked. Every minute spent harrassing photographers is a minute not spent doing something useful that might, you know, actually stop or solve a crime.
  
  Second, photographers will simply work around them if necessary. They'll learn to come back when police aren't there or use concealed cameras or whatever. (Note carefully: the actual real live terrorist photographers have already learned this, so they are very unlikely to even be notice by the idiots who constitute nearly all police forces.)
  
  Third, harrassing photographers who are allegedly taking pictures of possible targets is really a very nice assist to the terrorists, as it provides them with actionable intelligence. Even the dim-witted should be able to reason out in about 30 seconds how this can be both passively and actively exploited to generate a prioritized list.
  
  Fourth, this practice suggests an excellent way to draw police attention away from the OTHER guy, who is either taking the photos that matter or doing something more kinetic involving the target.
  
  There's more -- a lot more -- but I doubt any of it will penetrate the thick skulls of the morons who support this latest stupidity, so I'm disinclined to continue. Anyone else who would like to attempt educating the feeble-minded is welcome to try.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Mike L, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: Joel
  Diagree, Joel. Giving cops the license to bother anyone with a camera is unacceptable. If someone is simply taking photos of a public area, there's not a sufficient likelihood that detaining them will uncover illegal activity. Cops have every right to attempt to talk to a photographer, and to look for illegal activity, as they do with anyone else. But they should have no right to detain a photographer (which I presume means that you're required to show ID, but I'd like clarification on this) merely for taking photos.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm
    
    Re: Re: Joel
    "Giving cops the license to bother anyone with a camera is unacceptable."
    
    WTF? You don't think a cop should be able to *talk* to anyone?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:06pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Joel
      WTF? You don't think a cop should be able to *talk* to anyone?
      
      WTH? You don't see the difference between talking to someone and stopping and interrogating them under color of authority? Typical.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- James, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:53am
  
  Response to: Joel on Aug 16th, 2011 @ 9:57am
  That's a great example, especially as sobriety checkpoints are also a violation of the 4th Amendment even though allowed to stand under Judge Renquist. He even said so in his decision.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GonzoBobH (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:28pm
  
  Re:
  "this case is the equivalent of hitting a road check on a friday night"
  
  You know that there are many who take offense to those random "road checks," where there is no probable cause to stop.
  
  Count me.
  
  GBH
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:30pm
  
  Re:
  Legally, a police detention has occurred when "a reasonable individual" in that circumstance would be believe he or she is not free to leave. That means stopping someone on the street and not informing them of their ability to leave, even when asked, constitutes detainment. So he was not "detained" he was detained. That's what happened. That's what the word means.
  
  I love that you use road checks as an example to back up your argument given that several states have ruled them unconstitutional.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:51pm
    
    Re: Re:
    ... a police detention has occurred when "a reasonable individual" in that circumstance would be believe he or she is not free to leave.
    
    Fourth Amendment Blog:
    
    Defendant ordered out of his car was not seized when he was �asked� to get out of his car and provide ID. He was still free to leave. [Oh, really?] United States v. Hernandez-Sanchez (W.D. N.C. August 4, 2011)
    
    In the circumstances presented here, the court cannot conclude that defendant was �seized� when Agent Padian parked behind him or when he was asked to exit his vehicle and provide his identification. At that time, there was only one unmarked police vehicle and two plainclothes officers present on the large lot. Neither officer had his service weapon visible, and Agent Padian did not activate his blue lights when pulling into the lot. There is no indication that Agent Padian's interaction with defendant was unpleasant, or that Agent Padian used a brusque or demanding tone of voice, or that he touched or physically detained defendant in any way. Indeed, Agent Padian's interaction with defendant was quite brief. Finally, there was nothing improper about Agent Padian's request that defendant step out his parked car and provide identification. See Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 501, 103 S. Ct. 1319, 75 L. Ed. 2d 229 (1983) (noting that it is �no doubt permissible� to ask to see and examine an individual's driver's license); cf. Pennsylvania v. Mimms, 434 U.S. 106, 110, 98 S. Ct. 330, 54 L. Ed. 2d 331 (1977) (noting the �inordinate risk confronting an officer as he approaches a person seated in an automobile�). These facts suggest that a reasonable person in defendant's situation would have felt free to terminate the encounter with Agent Padian at that time.
    
    Without having read the full opinion, just this brief extract, I can only echo the blogger's reaction:
    
    Oh, really?
    
    Quite often this hypothetical, so-called �reasonable individual� is insanely fearless, and unreasonably indifferent to reports of police beatings.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:46am
  
  Re:
  How can the police possibly justify demanding ID from a person taking photographs? It just goes to show that the cops these days are NOT there to protect citizens;they are there to find criminals and arrest them. very few cops these days subscribe to any idea that they are there to protect citizens.
  
  Never never trust a cop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Saxowar, 17 Aug 2011 @ 7:54pm
  
  Response to: Joel on Aug 16th, 2011 @ 9:57am
  Kudos, Joel.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 1:07pm
  
  Re: "Detained"
  People who are only "Detained" are often handcuffed and searched. If you object you get arrested and charged with resisting arrest and/or disturbing the peace. Cops are just looking for an excuse to harass ordinary citizens. However, then they turn around and wonder why people don't trust them and, in fact, fear them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Me, 29 Aug 2011 @ 12:44pm
  
  Re:
  It was none of the cop's business what he was taking pictures of period. You can argue all you want but there was no cause to even question him....it's people like you who think well thats not so bad and before you know it we are a police state. Just keep grazing at the trough of supposed protection that the "leaders" and law enforcement keep telling you. It's about time that people stopped putting up with this and start fighting back..no man has authority over another man and a badge and a gun doesnt change that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Beta (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:58am

fashion photography
'I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."'

Is the weather unseasonable for sunglasses and a trench coat? They say a burnouse is very comfortable in the heat. I suppose it all depends on your choice of facial hair.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 8:18pm
  
  Re: fashion photography
  This would be a wonderful time to arrange an organized a Flash Photography mob. Roaming around taking pictures of no apparent esthetic value.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bob Black, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:59am

Empty rhetoric on both sides
Mike's such a tease. You know he'd never do anything risky like take photos, it's just rhetoric as usual. Like any libertarian, he talks tough but will always go with the flow because otherwise he risks his privileged lifestyle.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- WysiWyg (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:18am
  
  Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
  You are aware of the fact that you just argued FOR Mike?
  
  The reason he mentions this is because it is troubling, and you just agreed that something that SHOULDN'T have any risks, now have them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Bob Black, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:10pm
    
    Re: Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
    I'm pointing out that his last statement ("gosh gee whillikerz, I think maybe I, Mike Masnick, might express my displeasure with this reasoning by going out and committing an act of civil disobedience") is merely empty rhetoric, just like the police chief's.
    
    If you can't understand that then, well, do us all a favour and avoid reproducing. For the children!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BeeAitch (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
      Your intent was to troll, we all know that.
      
      WysiWyg's point was that even though you are an immature, empty-headed idiot, you managed to make an inadvertent point that EXACTLY ECHOES MIKE'S.
      
      But, continue on in ignorance, please; you seem to be better at making points that way anyway (and it's very entertaining to boot).
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:01pm
  
  Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
  I love how you assume, automatically, that he's a libertarian. Has he ever claimed political affiliation? Or are you just pulling that out of your ass?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:16pm
    
    Re: Re: Empty rhetoric on both sides
    ...assume, automatically, that he's a libertarian...
    
    Awww, that's just 'cause there's history they don't teach in school.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost Anonymous (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:01am

I tried
I really did try to come up with a profound, useful comment, but the only thing that keeps running through my mind is:

HOLY SHIT, WTF, HOLY SHIT, WTF... well, you get the idea. Police are now tasked with deciding what may or may not be considered art? Correct me if I'm wrong, but does that not count as thought control? "Excuse me citizen, but you cannot take a picture of that ashtray, it has no esthetic value. Move along."

The story seems kind of silly at first, but after a couple moments reflection, this is the scariest thing I've read in many moons.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tom, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:04am

UK does the same thing
WOW, sorry guys, I have to say it again... Drum roll please... you know what's coming... Police state America!!

This is ANOTHER reason to downsize the police force. A few months after Obama took office he "hired" (provided our tax dollars for) thousands of new police officers in every state saying that, "it would help the economy and unemployment rate". Just like he tried, unsuccessfully (thank goodness), to spend your and my tax dollars hiring thousands of new IRS agents to "go after tax cheats".

More cops and more IRS agents, more "border guards", more Homeland Security agents and on and on.

Unfortunately when you hire all these new Fed, State "security" employees (with our tax dollars) it's almost IMPOSSIBLE to get rid of them. How far in debt is America again?

$14.616 TRILLION dollars and counting folks. Police state America. You asked for it.

VOTE FOR A SMALLER, SMALLER FEDERAL GOVERNMENT FOLKS!!

We're getting very, very close to being a police state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Trails (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:15am
  
  Re: UK does the same thing
  Sorry, what does Obama have to do with the story? Take your meds, buddy, your paranoia is showing.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- P3T3R5ON (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:32am
  
  Re: UK does the same thing
  I still regularly and excessivly speed on the way to and from work every day and average less than 1 ticket a year... I don't think they hired enough to even maintain safe roads let alone start a 'police state' in this country.
  
  The nationwide average ratio of police officers to citizens is still around 300 to 1... I think we are ok
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Overcast (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:22am
    
    Re: Re: UK does the same thing
    I still regularly and excessivly speed on the way to and from work every day and average less than 1 ticket a year
    
    Perhaps - but consider - that the US has *THE* largest prison population in the world - surpassing even China in raw numbers, not per capita..
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:36pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: UK does the same thing
      I'm not sure it really says much. I think that's an inevitable side effect of having the most diverse population in the world. Want no crime? Live in a completely homogeneous society like Japan.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - nasch (profile), 31 Aug 2011 @ 3:38pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: UK does the same thing
        No, it's an inevitable side effect of the war on drugs.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overcast (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:49am
  
  Re: UK does the same thing
  We're getting very, very close to being a police state.
  
  Indeed, the powers that be want a country with the productivity of the US, but the government of China.
  
  However; the problems is that the productivity in the US is due directly to the freedoms. Take those away, and innovation and productivity go with them.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Fred, 17 Aug 2011 @ 8:40am
    
    Re: Re: UK does the same thing
    Overcast: You wrote, "Take those (freedoms) away, and innovation and productivity go with them." You are so right. But, I would add what seems to be the intentional implosion of the Western world economy to "reset" the world -- so that it will accept global government -- as a key factor in our declining productivity and innovation. Europe and the USA are being taken down by design, in my opinion, and the rest of the world will collapse as a result, since all central banks are so interdependent. It will be tumultuous and hence, the heavy-handedness we are seeing today in terms of law enforcement. One would think we're already under some level of martial law here in the US, considering the over the top responses (sometimes fatal) that we see to behavior that used to be considered a little obnoxious, or suspicious -- but not criminal.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - railien, 2 Sep 2011 @ 8:07pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: UK does the same thing
      The UN is behind this globalization. They feel the Western world is 'not sustainable' and therefore must live in mud huts or concrete boxes while have only 2 gallons of water daily - period!!!
      
      Look up Regional Planning Assoc (RPA), ICLEI, GreeNR, NYC2030 and other sustainability groups. Children are being taught to be citizens of the world instead of their nation. This green stuff is treasonous!!!!
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
vilain (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:08am

kill two birds with 1 stone
bring a friend and have him video you taking photographs. When the police question you, have the friend continue to video the incident. With luck, they'll claim you were wiretapping them and you can go after their photographers policy and the "no videotapeing police" craziness. And while you're at it, do an open carry thing with an unloaded gun on your belt wearing an NRA t-shirt.

Should be a fun speaking engagement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DCL, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:20am
  
  Re: kill two birds with 1 stone
  Just make sure your friend is a professional-card carrying cinematographer so the the video is of "esthetic value" otherwise he will be asked to stop and you won't get to the wiretapping police you are after.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:11am

I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value." - I'm just as tempted. Makes me want to go there to take such photos.

Because everybody has the same tastes and thoughts of what ar is and what art is good ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- P3T3R5ON (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:26am
  
  Re:
  I'm headed to LA for vacation at the end of the month.
  
  I might join you on that one... could be fun to argue symantics with a cop over 'esthetic value'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:50pm
  
  Re:
  I think the "no apparent esthetic value" is a poor choice of words. It's not like they'll be judging the photos themselves but deciding based on what it is generally that you are photographing.
  
  I had a cop ask me to delete a photo I'd just taking, claiming that the port of Beaumont is an important strategic site and that if my photo got on the internet it could be used by some terrorist to plan an attack. I deleted it but later regretted doing so and am always thinking about going back their and re-taking it just to piss them off. Then telling them that my camera instantly uploads the photos to the internet so I can only delete it from home.
  
  It just cracks me up imagining some terrorist browsing flickr trying to find his next target. Give me a break.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
P3T3R5ON (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:15am

in other words
In other words the Police in LB want to be able to seize any form of media capture when it includes them doing there job because of all the attention to Cops vs people with cameras. This is there lame attempt to open the door to the future where police have to much power...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dfed (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:16am

If I'm shooting analog will they make me develop it on the spot and critique it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
concerned citizen, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:20am

Long Beach "Police"
When are the Long Beach police going to start wearing Nazi armbands? This is the most ridiculous excuse for protecting citizens, which is what we supposedly pay them to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Overcast (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:30am
  
  Re: Long Beach "Police"
  When are the Long Beach police going to start wearing Nazi armbands? This is the most ridiculous excuse for protecting citizens, which is what we supposedly pay them to do.
  
  I don't think it was illegal in Nazi Germany to photograph police...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - The Devil's Coachman (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:20pm
    
    Re: Re: Long Beach "Police"
    It may not have actually been codified in their "laws", but they usually made them up on the spot, so if taking a picture was considered a Crime Against The Fatherland by the individual police officer or Gestapo member, they could and probably would simply shoot you dead. It probably won't be too long before these idiots get that idea, too.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 1:14pm
  
  Re: Long Beach "Police"
  Most cops don't see their jobs as "protecting citizens", they see it as "arresting criminals".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
V, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:22am

Detaining?
Under what law are police officers able to detain photographers in public?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John Fenderson (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:25am

Could it be?
Now that we have art police, can fashion police be that far behind? Would actual fashion police be a good or a bad thing? I can't decide!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:40am
  
  Re: Could it be?
  Now that we have art police, can fashion police be that far behind? Would actual fashion police be a good or a bad thing? I can't decide!
  
  That's why we need fashion copyrights! Then the police will have a legitimate excuse to stop and investigate people for possible fashion crimes.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - G Thompson (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:51pm
    
    Re: Re: Could it be?
    Then the police will have a legitimate excuse to stop and investigate people for possible fashion crimes.
    
    Oh no, cant anybody please think of the teenagers!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hulser (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:35am

new line to an old joke
"In Heaven...
the French are the cooks
the Germans are the engineers
the British are the police
the Swiss are the managers
the Italians are the lovers

In Hell...
the British are the cooks
the French are the managers
the Italians are the engineers
the Germans are the police
the Swiss are the lovers"

...and the art critics are the Long Beach police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:42am

So, if I move to China, will I have more rights now?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- PRMan, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:35pm
  
  Re:
  "So, if I move to China, will I have more rights now?"
  
  According to the press, yes...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 6:28pm
  
  Re:
  Considering a recent large scale protest in China against a chemical plant polluting the water, resulted in the government complying and shutting it down. I would say you probably would have much more rights then you do now
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:46am

I don't use them. Someone steals from me I hurt them. If they damage my property I shoot them, if they are on my property I shoot them. If I'm not home then my dog(s) eat them.
I don't need the police. I find them to be more of a pain in the ass than a help. I got my car broken into. Do you think the Police care? Hell no!! They told me to go to the website and fill out a form. I got your forms right here (where the sun never shines).
Granny told me when I was young. Some people you can't trust because they lie for a living. The major ones are Police, Lawyers and Politicians. She said 'you are stupid and should be shot and put out of your misery if you ever believe anything they do or say.' She also added Judges to the list, but said that there were actually honest Judges. I've yet to find one. Especially in Family Court.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:58pm
  
  Re:
  One case already ruled that the police are under no legal obligation to assist the public. It's easier to understand once you realize their job is not to protect the public but to protect the government from the public.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
btrussell (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:47am

Art is beauty.

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Incoherent One (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:52am
  
  Re:
  "Art is beauty". - What if the point of the piece is to display what is ugly?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:53am
    
    Re: Re:
    Let someone else hold your eye?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:00pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Like Mick Jagger? Or Jwow?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- G Thompson (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:49pm
  
  Re:
  Beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
  
  Amazing, for years I've always thought this quote said "beer holder"... My bad
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - btrussell (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:02pm
    
    Re: Re:
    It does, on week-ends and holidays.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Scooters (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:48am

So, does this mean the Long Beach Police Department doesn't have photos of its officers?

*cough*

Besides, just how many pictures can people take of the Queen Mary anyway... the only thing to photograph in Long Beach?

Just kidding. It's my birthplace.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:58am

Slow day stealing stuff?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mike cooper, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:13am

photos
I must have had many exhibitions of things with 'no apparent aesthetic value' in that case...and my house is full of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:16am

sounds to me like LA is still trying to overcome its' inferiority complex vis a vis New York....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gracey (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:19am

Oh crap.

Does someone get to decide if the cops have any art sense?

I very often don't take photos of "touristy" things...I take pictures of old buildings, dirt, peeling paint and a variety of other weird and odd things.

Not everything has to have aesthetic value to be of use or have a value to the person taking it.

Wow. Detained...over an urban photo. Sometimes stuff just makes you crazy...this is one of them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:16pm

"�If an officer sees someone taking pictures of something like a refinery,� says [Police Chief Jim McDonnell], �it is incumbent upon the officer to make contact with the individual.� McDonnell went on to say that whether said contact becomes detainment depends on the circumstances the officer encounters."

So, both the petapizel.com and techdirt headlines are inaccurate. Simply taking a picture may result in getting asked some questions, but does not automatically justify or result in detention, according the police.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:02pm
  
  Re:
  Simply taking a picture may result in getting asked some questions, but does not automatically justify or result in detention, according the police.
  
  Unless, that is, those photos have no apparent aesthetic value in the eyes of the police.
  
  So, both the petapizel.com and techdirt headlines are inaccurate.
  
  The Techidrt headline was accurate. You fail.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jimr (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:17pm

By taking a series of photographs "No Apparent Esthetic Value" can be combined into a collection that may in fact have Esthetic Value.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Devil's Coachman (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:24pm
  
  Re:
  It would probably also get you on the government's "No Fly" list, and under 24 x 365 surveillance. Because real terrorists and criminals are too hard to catch. So you'll do nicely. "Hey, look at all the arrests we made! We're on the job! Yeehaw!"
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 12:20pm

I actually have to go down to Long Beach next month for a speaking engagement, and I'm now tempted to take a bunch of photographs that have "no apparent esthetic value."

But you won't, because you're all talk. Just as well as your new roommate would have you pillow-biting within 10 minutes of arrival at the city jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- BeeAitch (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:14pm
  
  Re:
  "Just as well as your new roommate would have you pillow-biting within 10 minutes of arrival at the city jail."
  
  Your personal experience can't automatically be extrapolated to others'.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Arbiter (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:08pm

Photos and Police
As a retired policeman and Academy instructor, I can tell you that we are not trained to judge the aesthetic qualities of art, beyond our own opinion anyway. This policy is fraught with danger for the dept and the municipality., They WILL get sued over this.

As for the the folks who feel "threatened" when stopped and asked question by police, well, TFB cry babies. As many people have told me what to do with myself when I had actual warrants and so forth and you are whining because you feel "threatened" by an officer asking you a question? Seriously? Grow up. Stamping your feet and holding your breath does not work in the real world. The officer may actually have a reason to ask you a question, or he may be telling you to not go a certain way because a bad guy will pop a cap in your thick head.

You people who scream police state are disgustingly amusing to those folks who have actually lived in a real police state. Go to Russia, or many of the third world nations and act like that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Any Mouse (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:07pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  And this is why I tell everyone: DO NOT TALK TO THE POLICE. You do NOT have to answer any questions. EVER. If they insist on taking you in, you insist on a lawyer, and if that lawyer doesn't advise you to keep your damn mouth shut, FIRE THEM.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:43pm
    
    Re: Re: Photos and Police
    Wait, how is your comment a response to The Arbiter? I don't get it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DMNTD, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  "As for the the folks who feel "threatened" when stopped and asked question by police, well, TFB cry babies. As many people have told me what to do with myself when I had actual warrants and so forth and you are whining because you feel "threatened" by an officer asking you a question? Seriously? Grow up. Stamping your feet and holding your breath does not work in the real world. The officer may actually have a reason to ask you a question, or he may be telling you to not go a certain way because a bad guy will pop a cap in your thick head."
  
  I thought you were actually going to say something cool till this drivel spewed fortheded. I don't understand your mentality of reverting people who are questioning the questioners on what subject they are being detained for, to crybabies. That's exactly why we feel threatened because your ilk is never on the beat they are always on the take.
  
  If a stranger walks up we can look at them and go ..umm you care why? If an "officer" walks up to you..detainment..PERIOD. If you shrug and walk off they FREAK out, if you say nope I don't feel the need to show you my ID, bye. THEY FREAK OUT. QUESTIONS indeed..detainment and your guilty from the take fellow. That's why we question which is perceived as threatened ..not whine. Open your brain. Or am I just one of those fangled new TEXTBOOK cases of ODD? Rubbish pure rubbish.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- chris, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:10pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  The whole "something like a refinery" part of the policy seems to have gotten lost in the debate. I think it's a dumb policy but it's not like taking any bad picture is going to draw the attention of the police. I guarantee they are not even going to look at the pictures.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:22pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  As for the the folks who feel "threatened" when stopped and asked question by police, well, TFB cry babies.
  
  Sounds like you've got some kind of chip on your shoulder, there. Why's that?
  
  ...many people have told me what to do with myself when I had actual warrants and so forth...
  
  I see. So, you feel like someone else dissed you, that bruised your ego, and then you felt a need to go take it out on others. Typical. And you were an academy instructor? That sure helps explain a lot of bad cops.
  
  You people who scream police state are disgustingly amusing to those folks who have actually lived in a real police state. Go to Russia, or many of the third world nations and act like that.
  
  And if it were up to people like you, I imagine every place would be a police state. You, sir, are not amusing, although disgusting still applies.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Thomas (profile), 20 Aug 2011 @ 1:23pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  Your attitude clearly shows you hate ordinary citizens. Since you state you are an academy instructor, it also shows why most cops hate citizens and why people fear the police. Cops used to be there to protect citizens, but now their job is to catch criminals, and if they can't find enough criminals to meet their arrest quotas, just come up with a reason to arrest innocent people.
  
  I would much rather encounter a mugger than a cop.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Me, 29 Aug 2011 @ 12:50pm
  
  Re: Photos and Police
  So your a cop eh? You've been to Russia? Good take your worthles ass back there then. We are sick of you power abusing punks who think your special because you have a shiny badge. We can monitor you now just like you do us and it kills you and your co-workers. No more beating a man to death for no reason, no more planting drugs, no more wasting tax payer money. You don't like having that camera pointed back at you do you? We the people are getting tired of you and your Nazi friends....and trust me we out number all of you....so put on your little helment...and your little shiny badge...get your shield and try to act tough.
  The people will take this country back one way or another.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:17pm

So, where is this 'I sue' button beside my pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 1:45pm

I dunno, but I find this picture having quite some aestetic value...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
crade (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 2:01pm

Whats with the "Esthetic Value"? Don't tourists usually take pictures so they can show they were there or remember their trip or see something interesting? Why does it have to be pretty?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Chromabb, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:03pm

C.A.
That chromatic aberration isn't aesthetically appealing, at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matthew Krum, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:25pm

I like the end of the article....
I like the end of the article that asks, "What if some terrorist is an awesome photographer?"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:47pm

Those satellite photos have no esthetic value either. Let's detain the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 3:47pm

Those satellite photos have no esthetic value either. Let's detain the NSA.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Gil Friend, 16 Aug 2011 @ 4:59pm

I don't know very much about art, but...
Insane, and cruisin' for a serious legal bruisin'

But that aside, it's good news for art critics, cuz poolitze departments are gonna be hiring! Get a bad review, go to jail!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
G Thompson (profile), 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:46pm

I find the spelling of Aesthetic without an A to be aesthetically questionable.

That's my subjective opinion and I'm sticking with it.
So There! ;P
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A., 16 Aug 2011 @ 9:59pm

Quick linguistic check
Probably it should be aesthetic.... with an a.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous chicken, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:16pm

The Aesthetics of Authoritarianism
You mean aesthetic? Right.. Whether or not they can spell it or not is one thing. What is certain beyond any doubt is that they can never understand the meaning if a Taser is not part of the equation.

If you really want to blow a cop's mind, throw the word acetic at them, and watch them hit overload while their puny minds try to breach the subject of control, doughy confections and incarcerations, and the concept of selflessness eats away real-time at their penal-gland. Hell, you could even do it to an educated officer...

Officer: "Sir, put down the camera, and put your
metacarpals upon your cranium immediately."

Tourist: "WTF? Are you nuts? You mean this one?"

Officer: "Sir, you may exercise your rights of Digitus Impudicus as you wish, but what you may not do is photograph anything of ascetic value."

Tourist: "But,....it's just the Virgin Mary,..and this is a public place! Or, did you mean aesthetic?"

Officer: "The latter Sir, my error; You may not photograph anything of aesthetic value." Begins to think: *Wait a minute... Was it with, or without [a]esthetic value???* "Damn!"

Tourist, observing introspection and the difficulties implied: "Officer, have you ever considered the subjective value of aesthetics? I mean, who really can say what has aesthetic value or not? I mean, a pulchritude to you may be an eye-sore to someone with proper taste...It's like how can anyone imagine steak tartare if they've only ever had McDonalds?"

Officer: Begins to shake. "ouurrghh..oooohhh,,,rfghhh,..BrrrRAHHAAAA!!" The officer is later transported to hospital, where his final days are spent on Thorazine as his authoritarian-atrophied mind futilely loops the endless torment of contemplation.

* We have pineal-glands - Cops have penal-glands.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jason, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:26pm

Eye-fi
A 4G Eye-fi card would solve this issue. Every picture goes to the cloud immediately after it's shot.."Sure officer..I'll delete this..."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh, 16 Aug 2011 @ 10:52pm

That's such a good photo though?!?!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:07pm

Fuck Da police!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vaughn, 16 Aug 2011 @ 11:20pm

RE: Aesthetic Police
We could all upload our photos to the PD for critiques. They could make a website. COPr... or maybe FUZZr?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
joe, 17 Aug 2011 @ 4:52am

arrest man for having poor artistic taste
Where was this cop when one of my college photography instructors sat us in a cement room with no furniture, one window and told us to make art, but we couldn't photograph each other or anything we carried in.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
gorehound (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:03am

The way things are going I have to wonder if this is the century when a real Revolution with violence occurs.Eventually certain people will start the fight as the Government tightens a noose around its own neck.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- btrussell (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:23am
  
  Re:
  The way things are going, I have to wonder if this is the decade...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Molly Ryle, 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:16am

Photographer's rights!!!
For your protection and awareness of your rights, I suggest all photographers, whether as a hobby or profession, print this out and carry it with your camera at all times. If you need it, you will be protected!
http://www.krages.com/ThePhotographersRight.pdf
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Larry Bartley (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:18am

No Asthetic Value?
I know many photographers in my area that are very capable of turning non aesthetic objects into works of beauty. In fact that's how some of them make a living. I once attended a walking seminar in Washington DC where the instructor really accented the concept of seeking out and photographing things that tourists normally didn't. I personally find it very fulfilling to hunt out things that most tourists miss and try to turn it into something memorable. This seems like a really offensive privacy invading practice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Legolas2112 (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 6:43am

Fresh Caustic
That's a GREAT photo, it looks like an album cover. It almost makes me want to start a rock band and call it 'Fresh Caustic' and get the rights to the photo for the band's debut release!

On that thought, should the photographer who shot all those images of the Battersea Power Station for Pink Floyd 'Animals' have been detained?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Lady, 17 Aug 2011 @ 7:49am

Get a life..
Don't they have anything else todo? There is no definition of arts. One can see things differently even taking photo of trash could be a beauty in someway. Long beach should better spend money on protecting people not art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
It's Criminal, 17 Aug 2011 @ 8:03am

It's a CRIME enforced by Criminals
Criminal Policy and anyone enforcing the criminal policy is in fact committing crime.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jim, 17 Aug 2011 @ 8:11am

They Want to Help You -- Stop Resisting Them
Many police officers I know have a degree in fine arts, are avid collectors of beautiful objects of art, and will be glad to help anyone compose an esthetically pleasing photograph, if only you ask them. I think the reason they become so upset -- practically reaching for their tasers -- when they see amateurs (and professionals who apparently don't know what they're doing) is due to their concern about all of the atrocious art that seems to be proliferating in society. I applaud the police for their stand on making the world a more beautiful place. In the future, they'll be able to read your thoughts (via their acute ability to interpret facial expressions) and will be more than happy to help you with any negativity you might be experiencing. Isn't it wonderful to live in a free country?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carl Barron_agpcuk (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 9:58am

Laws to halt proof of wrong doing
Hence this Law could stop you filming proof of that which is wrong, like Oil Spillage.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hakim W. Rashid, 17 Aug 2011 @ 10:42am

Unconstitutional Hustlers best describes Long Beach City Government
One has to pay in Long Beach arraignment Court in order to have a trial; one Must Post Bail--- they don't offer O.R.--for neither traffic violations nor infractions, ii.e. fare evasion tickets. Thus, systematically, making a trail accessible Only to those who can afford to post bail. CLEARLY, DENIAL OF DUE-PROCESS & VIOLATION OF THE 14th Amendment TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION. FILE A CLAIM WITH THE CITY CLERK; THEN, IN 60 DAYS SUE IN 9TH CIRCUIT COURT.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jill, 17 Aug 2011 @ 11:34am

What???
Everyone sees things differently- Something i think is beautiful- you may think is ugly- why should some one trained to handle robberies and such determine what i think or what i see in a rock or flower or person. Let them do their jobs and not a photographer's job. What don't they want getting photographered? what r they hiding??
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Pawlak, 17 Aug 2011 @ 3:40pm

Storm Troopers
These are the same variety of police who oppose the right of the People to "keep and bear arms"---Because they are afraid of such citizens, and should be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shutterspeed (profile), 17 Aug 2011 @ 4:01pm

Wait! Don't delete that one..
I haven't photoshopped it yet!!

So if I take pictures of something that makes no artistic sense to the officer, I can go to jail. Nice. Better be careful not to photograph my shoes accidentally. And does that mean I can't just do a few practice shots to get an exposure setting? WHAT are these people thinking??!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
chris, 18 Aug 2011 @ 1:32am

Well, the cops will now have a backup career of teaching photography.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jay, 18 Aug 2011 @ 3:30am

Same Fascism in DC and NYC and London
This is the same post 9/11 fascism toward photographers that has emerged in DC and NYC, and London. Police, or often hired security guards have blocked photography of federal buildings. This practice has been proved baseless in the courts. But, the same human gene seems to be at work in long beach. The only explanation is fascism.

If we need to stop public photography, the why the stop light cameras? Why the speed cameras? Why the cameras hanging on the corner exterior of many buildings pointed at street corners? Aren't these useless anesthetic uses of cameras? I think so.

It seems to be the concept that police can survey you, but you can't survey anything else.

Anyone who submits to this type of harassment without fighting back vigorously verbally, has a misplaced view of law enforcemment. If the guys with the guns are making up their own laws, then it's time to tell them to bugg off in a big way! Cut their budget because they are useless, we have cameras that can do that work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RayAnthony (profile), 18 Aug 2011 @ 5:08am

If a "terrorist" really wanted to study buildings and infrastructure, they could do so, so easily from the convenience of their mud huts or caves in Afghanistan using a computer with internet via Google Earth 3D.

That said, maybe Google should turn themselves in for aiding terrorist or conspiracy!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Bacon (profile), 19 Aug 2011 @ 8:14pm

Esthetics?
I'm not a photographer, I'm a musician, but I ALWAYS seek the advice of a cop as to the esthetics of the music I'm thinkin' of performing. Just as I always consider the wisdom of Obama when thinking of Freedom & Responsibility and junkies when considering responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Matt, 22 Aug 2011 @ 8:20am

simple solution
If you object, that is.

Don't go to Long Beach, and don't visit Long Beach businesses. Put the pressure on locals to change their laws and police policies. Otherwise, take your fun and money elsewhere; there are plenty of equally (if not better) options nearby.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sid, 23 Aug 2011 @ 3:55pm

Wait a minute!
Didn't we fight a major world war 60+ years ago to rid the world of the Gestapo (and the SS and all the other flavors of Nazis)?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roland M�sl, 26 Aug 2011 @ 3:44am

Never again to the USA
Last time, I was 1984 in the US. But I will never again travel to the US. It's now a very dangerouse country.

Next week I fly to China. This is a free country compared to US.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
railien, 2 Sep 2011 @ 7:57pm

Police Say They Can Detain Photographers If Their Photographs Have 'No Apparent Esthetic Value'
Police all over are committing violations of the first amendment by trying to control perceived unlawful activity, all in the name of revenue generation. Cops are just following their directives to write tickets to make money for the local government.

Sometimes, cops do what they feel they can get away with. On LI, a cop arrested someone videotaping by a freelance journalist of something the cop was at fault for. Charges were thrown out.

On Channel 11 in NY tonite, a commentator named Lionel (Michael LeBron) spoke about a Boston incident where a citizen recorded a beating by police. Charges were thrown out in local court and then Federal lawsuit was upheld by 2 courts (I don't know if the PD is appealing).

In Philadelphia, cops have been writing disorderly conduct citations to those photographing SEPTA when the policy permits photography. I don't know the disposition of this.

I've been harassed many times all over the country. I've had my fill. It seems to me they're trying to get people to overreact so they can trump up charges on you. When they ask for your id, they run your name thru the crime computer for outstanding warrants - if you have one, they've 'done their job to fight crime'.

This is such hypocrisy. Get the ACLU on their case!!!! This is your defense!!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jessica Nunemaker from little Indiana, 7 Sep 2011 @ 11:28am

This article sickens me.

Beauty is subjective. What is the world coming to?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jens jensen, 26 Sep 2011 @ 6:07pm

These "things" and "things" like this will continue to happen and will grow and flourish as long as we let them. Society is like a garden, it needs to be tendered if it is not going to grow wild, if you sit in a corner smoking ..... the bad weeds will keep growing. Somehow we must find the energy to take part and - it is a balance between selfishness and what we want for the future.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Roger Wilco, 2 Jun 2012 @ 5:39am

As an avid amateur photographer I had such an experience with the police exactly twice. Once in Teheran, Iran and once in Riyadh, Saudi Arabia. Police asking what and why I was photographing, looking at my pictures and in Teheran even deleting a couple (little did he know about "undelete" software :-))

So obviously Long Beach, CA joins this list.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
derfel cadarn, 29 Aug 2016 @ 4:39pm

Perhaps we can use the requirement of "redeeming social value" to eliminate the donuteaters altogether.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]