Harassment of Photographers in Denver

How about simply contacting someone a little farther up the food chain there, politely explaining what you're doing and that they might have an interest in the finished work... and then asking them for a document or credentials expressly designed to soothe the nerves of the people who are alarmed by what you're doing, or by what it may represent. Essentially: arrange for that system's verions of press credentials... no city transportation system can function without a press office, media contacts, and an understanding of how coverage works for and against them.

In the drivers' seats, we're talking about people working for a pittance, who are simply counting the hours before someone pulls a London or a Madrid in what amounts the office where they work every day. You can put them at ease by doing a little work in advance, and actually wind up with more latitude. You can make them respectful allies instead of reinforcing their initial impression that you're potentially adversarial and looking to bring their bosses down on them, or someone that would rather piss off the gang bangers in the back of the bus than honor the driver's instructions. Keeping the bus stationary is probably EXACTLY what they're told to do when they have a passenger they're not sure what to do with. That's the best way for them to get help that can find them, and reduces the chances of an accident when someone disturbed is on board. It's their default action, and it makes sense. It doesn't mean that that particular driver read you correctly, but neither does it sound like you're reading the entire munciple transporation system's personnel correctly.

Should the people training/managing the fleet make a clearer policy more well understood by the drivers? Sure. Would you be at ease doing their job all day long, especially considering your experience with the crew in the back of the bus? Doubtful. Few people would.

Yeah, actually, as someone who works downtown and commutes by bus/train, I'm used to the crew in the back. Have some photos of them, they are part of what I'm working on. I deal with the public 7 days a week (both in this project, and in the job that is allowing me to shoot it). This particular driver needs to find a new line of work.

I'm tempted to take the easy path and simply do what you suggest, get the press credentials. But. The realty is that I don't legally NEED them, and by accepting them I worry that I'm rubber stamping the de-facto ban on photography. In all honesty, I've had some good interactions with the security officers. In some ways I see their point. Security. But, no laws have changed since 2002, what they are doing was illegal then, is illegal now. I actually suspect that I WILL take the credentials (I'm a wuss, I'm 40, I have too much to get done before I kick the bucket, and maybe civil rights and the constitution isn't on that agenda...yet...many more instances like this and I may well take that up as a hobby).

The strange thing, I've spent over a decade shooting abroad, sometimes in nations under martial law...Thai insurgents blew up a train the last time I was there, yet I've NEVER been questioned anywhere in the world, only in the U.S.. Reminds me of the paranoia over The Russians Are Coming! during the cold war....sorta has some overtones of what people were trying to do with The House Unamerican Activities Committee

Buslines, railroads, airlines and ferries might actually have the right to limit photography, even if they can't ban it altogether, because of longstanding legal principles that impose on "common carriers" a special duty of care toward their passengers.

One classic case occurred here in NYC sometime in the decade *before* 9/11. A transit cop was trying to corral a stray dog that had wandered into the subway. A passenger took a flash picture of the action. The flash distracted the cop and he was bitten by the dog. He arrested the passenger who took the picture.

Because of the ensuing litigation, the transit authority had to reconsider its policy on photography in the subway. IIRC, photography had long been officially banned in the subway, but virtually no living person was aware of that policy and, until this incident, no one could recall an instance in which it had been enforced.

As a result of the incident, the transit authority was forced to reconsider its policy and adopted a new -- quite reasonable, in my opinion -- of permitting photography but banning the use of flash, as it might intefere with the police or train operators in the performance of their duties in what can be a hazardous environment.

Of course, after 9/11, a new policy debate began involving new considerations, but it should be remembered that photography on common carriers was an issue even before 9/11 and the bombings in Madrid and London.

Just so we can all get a clearer picture of what actually occurred, were you using flash? How far away were you from the person being photographed? Did he object (a consideration that would probably be irrelevant in the street but perhaps pertinent in the confines of a bus)?

Very often you need to know all the facts before reaching a conclusion.

Fascinating analysis, I could agree to some extent if this were a private bus company, but its the public transportation system, so...ermm...I'm warily skeptical.

No flash, not on the street. My entire purpose is to document people as they are, not to draw attention to myself. I was probably 20-30 feet away from the person being photographed, and the angle was such that the three people in the frame weren't aware that the photograph had been taken. I've been doing this a long time (which is part of my point, no problems in areas where terrorist acts regularly occur, the only place where I've had trouble is in the nation that purports to be the bastion of freedom, grrrr)...in any case, been doing this a long time, and 7 of 10 shots the subject doesn't know he/she/they is/are being photographed.

I wonder if you were a 20 year old blonde with a giggle and a cell phone camera they'd have the same problem. It's all about personal relationships, personality, and politics. That's how the world turns. Unless you were using flash, which understandably might be a legitimate annoyance, it's kind of up to you how to handle it. For myself I'd work around it some way or start a new project.

How photography automatically equates to pulling a Madrid is beyond me. People think in funny ways these days.

Getting into a discussion with the peons at the scene will not help in the slightest bit. People like this have been around forever, and always will be around. All you can do is make sure that you are in the right, and let them call law enforcement. In my experience, once real law enforcement gets there, you have nothing to worry about, as they generally know the real score. If they don't, you can either swallow your pride and call it a day, or let yourself be arrested and have your day in court. If the law is on your side, it will be settled there, and you will shut people up more than you will by complaining to a manager. Just make sure you pick your battles wisely. More often than not, I'll just suck it up and try get my shots another time. Yeah, it stinks, but we have it better than it is in most of the rest of the world. Once they affect you, they are controlling you.

Keith

Pretty good advice, Keith. Even though I have a concealed weapon permit, I always opt for the peaceful solution. However, a little "back-up" insurance gives me peace of mind when it comes to unruly gang-bangers and the like.

If this project remains important to you, then I would suggest the following possibilities, some of which overlap:

1. See whether Denver has a program that connects interested lawyers with artists -- not at the lawyers' standard hourly rates, but either on a volunteer or reduced fee basis. Many cities/communities have such programs. Also consider getting in touch with the ACLU of Colorado, which is based in Denver.

2. Determine actual RTD policy if you can, not during a hurried phone call (your only choice at that moment), but in writing.

3. A short search reveals that the RTD Board (15 members) is an elected body whose members are actually elected by district. If you are a resident, you have a Director in your district, and you are his or her constituent. That's another avenue I absolutely wouldn't ignore.

Please let us know how this works out.

Good luck.

CE, toughen up or you will never get any project off the ground! So what if some idiots tell you not to photograph something. When you get in a situation like that again, say to yourself five times "what would W. Eugene Smith do?" - "what would W. Eugene Smith do?" ........