Story   Photographer   Editor   Student/Intern   Assistant   Job/Item

SportsShooter.com: The Online Resource for Sports Photography

Contents:
 Front Page
 Member Index
 Latest Headlines
 Special Features
 'Fun Pix'
 Message Board
 Educate Yourself
 Equipment Profiles
 Bookshelf
 my.SportsShooter
 Classified Ads
 Workshop
Contests:
 Monthly Clip Contest
 Annual Contest
 Rules/Info
Newsletter:
 Current Issue
 Back Issues
Members:
 Members Area
 "The Guide"
 Join
About Us:
 About SportsShooter
 Contact Us
 Terms & Conditions


Sign in:
Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features.

Name:



Password:







||
SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board

Jet Blue menaces photographer
Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 7:39 AM on 12.27.10
->> http://www.nydailynews.com/ny_local/2010/12/27/2010-12-27_jetblue_guards_st...
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Paul Alesse, Photographer
Centereach | NY | USA | Posted: 9:25 AM on 12.27.10
->> I'm not up on law, but to refuse "to take a report and suggest they would confiscate Sunshine's NYPD-issued press card if he pushed things too far," seems like grounds for a lawsuit right there. Wow.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 10:22 AM on 12.27.10
->> Interesting, as NY/NJ PAPD acknowledges they cannot confiscate an NYPD Press Credential, and JetBlue says he was escorted out for 'other reasons' and did not display a credential.

I'd love to know what really happened.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

N. Scott Trimble, Photographer
Lake Oswego | OR | USA | Posted: 11:52 AM on 12.27.10
->> Steve, I am putting your number on speed dial, so when something nefarious happens to me in transit, I am calling you and leaving the phone on so you can hear what transpires around me! better than a 911 call! ; )
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Stinson, Photographer
Carlisle | PA | USA | Posted: 12:19 PM on 12.27.10
->> Ah, TSA, never a dull moment.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kolman Rosenberg, Photographer
Mentor | OH | USA | Posted: 12:47 PM on 12.27.10
->> When did JFK become private property??
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 12:50 PM on 12.27.10
->> Jeff,

This is not a TSA incident.

This incident is a NY Daily News freelance photographer who was escorted out of JFK Terminal 5 after shooting photos in the terminal.

The story from the photographer and JetBlue are very different, and the story from the Port Authority PD (who says its a Jet Blue issue) is slightly different. JetBlue has security footage, I am trying to find out if it can be viewed without a subpoena.

I called the Daily News, the reporter was extremely standoffish.

The original JetBlue quotes, while correct, didn't take into account the entire incident, which was not known until after that quote was given.

The photogs press card is an expired "reserve card" not an individually issues working press card ... and the story about what was happening when the photog was approached varies greatly.

Both photog & JetBlue agree that the photog deleted the images from his laptop and image card when he was asked to do so by the JetBlue employees .... not the police.

This info is all from me having spoken with the photographer, the Daily News, JetBlue and the Port Authority this morning.
 This post is:  Informative (2) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 1:10 PM on 12.27.10
->> Kolman,

While the terminals at JFK Airport are owned by the New York - New Jersey Port Authority , they are leased out to their tenants.

As JetBlue is the sole primary tenant of JFK T5 (those with concessions inside T5 are non-primary tenants and deal with the lessor not the Port Authority) , they have the right to refuse entry to their premises as "private property." This has been established and confirmed on a number of occasions.

To get around the disputes with terminals without a primary tenant, such as JFK Terminal 4, the International Air Terminal, which is owned by The Schiphol Group (as in Schiphol Airport in Amsterdam) ... although its actually not owned by the Schiphol Group making it not so straight forward since all the land, rights, infrastructure, etc is owned by Port Authority.

Hope that clears that up for you.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Kolman Rosenberg, Photographer
Mentor | OH | USA | Posted: 2:44 PM on 12.27.10
->> Clear as mud and quite a bit more complicated than appears on the surface!

Thanks Steve
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Debra L Rothenberg, Photographer
New York | NY | USA | Posted: 3:09 PM on 12.27.10
->> Steven,
NYPD JUST started renewing press cards. They all expired earlier this year and were not renewing any. All the NYPD was told that there are no expired press cards until after Dec. 31. I got mine renewed at the beginning of the month-it took over a month to get an appointment. So, if any NYC press have the "expired" card-it is still good until 12/31. So, his card was not technically expired

DLR
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 3:13 PM on 12.27.10
->> Kolman

JetBlue & T5 are fairly straight forward. The complex issues at JFK involve other terminals, such as T7, which is owned by the British Airways terminal, also occupied by United Airlines as a primary tenant ... never mind the other airlines in there.

Many associate T7 as the United Airlines terminal, although they lease their space from British Airways.

Out at SFO, out of the passenger areas is the "Super Bay" a large maintenance facility that is primarily used by United Airlines, as SFO is a major United Hub, but half the facility is used by American Airlines ... who actually owns the Super Bay, although they're not a major player at SFO and have no hub at SFO. I bring this up, because while shooting at Super Bay, for a story on United Airlines, I needed authorization from American Airlines and San Francisco International Airport a while back.

These issues pop up constantly and its rarely cut and dry.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 3:27 PM on 12.27.10
->> Deb

I am aware that the NYPD was nearly a year behind on press cards, but the fact is that an NYPD Press Credential technically does nothing at JFK or LGA. These airports are under the jurisdiction of the NY/NJ Port Authority and once you enter a terminal you're on what is deemed to be private property ... despite the land being owned by the Port Authority and terminals being build with tax money.

There are still a number of issues.

The photog states he was shooting the arrival/departure boards showing 'canceled' for flights, JetBlue states he was photographing passenger check-in kiosks where passenger data could be seen.

The photog says he was not shooting crew, in a private space (since the terminal is determined to be private property), JetBlue says he was shooting crew.

The photog says he was sitting down edting on his laptop when approached, JetBlue says it occured while he was shooting.

The photog apparently had approached a supervisor and asked if he could cross to the airside to meet a Daily News reporter at Gate 6, the Sup'v said he'd be right back and he started shooting to kill time. JetBlue is unaware of any request to get a gate pass.

The photog says that JetBlue staff stole his wifi USB dongle; JetBlue says they helped him look for a lost USB thumb drive for 40 minutes

The photog says that the Port Authority Police temporarily confiscated his NY Daily News 'Reserve Card' before returning it. Port Authority says they asked fro ID, he presented the Reserve Card, which was not publicly displayed and a Reserve Card has no name/face on it, just the nameof the publication its issued to.

Photog says JetBlue ordered him to delete all the images from his laptop and image card and threatened him with criminal charges if they saw any published; JetBlue hasn't said much on this, other than they requested he remove the images with personal passenger data.

Photog says the PAPD refused to let him file a complaint, Port Authority says that never happened.

Photog & JetBlue agree that the photog deleted the images from his laptop and camera voluntarily


Really ... I'm just waiting to see if the security footage will be available. Right now it is one guy against an airline and police agency that I do not believe are in a conspiracy to align there stories.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David A. Cantor, Photographer, Photo Editor
Toledo | OH | USA | Posted: 8:43 PM on 12.27.10
->> http://tinyurl.com/297y5vw
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Yamil Sued, Photographer, Photo Editor
Peoria | AZ | USA | Posted: 11:53 PM on 12.27.10
->> I agree with Steven

There is always three sides to an argument

One Side, The Other Side.... And the Right Side!!

IMHO, NPPA should get all facts before taking sides, this might actually look bad on them if the Photographer was partly at fault.

I've had assignments on Private Property, In one case I was escorted while shooting at a Shopping Mall, I had the Mall Cop with me at all times while I shot and he escorted me out when I was done. He was very pleasant and polite, but I was on Private Property and I was aware of it, same applies here. Being a Credentialed ANYTHING is meaningless when you are on Private Property.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

PF Bentley, Photographer
Planet Earth | HI | USA | Posted: 3:25 AM on 12.28.10
->> The interesting thing is if any of us were there at Jet Blue looking like a tourist with a little point and shoot, we could of shot the board, transmitted the pictures and be on our way.

I'm looking forward to seeing what the real story here is and how it plays out.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Frings, Photographer
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 8:06 AM on 12.28.10
->> I don't understand how a public airport paid for with taxpayer dollars, owned by a public entity, (Port Authority), and leased to companies to supply public transportation can be considered private property.
Even if it is technically "private property", it is certainly a public space, and as such there is no expectation of privacy, so you should be able to take photos of anything you can see.

Whatever the circumstances of the incident one thing is certain. No one, not the airline, or any law enforcement, can force anyone, especially a member of the press to delete photos or video. They could possibly take future legal action against you if you use the photos in some illegal way, but once you take them they're yours and no one can force you to delete them.

If the airport is indeed private property, which is debatable, they can ask you to leave, but they can't make you delete your photos. That alone seems reason enough for NPPA to get involved.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 8:28 AM on 12.28.10
->> PF,

According to JetBlue, and they claim the security footage will back them up if they are required to provide it if a law suit if pursued, the photographer was not shooting the arrivals/departures board, but photographing passenger check in screens, with some images showing passenger information, ie: name, last four digits of credit card, etc, as well as photographing crews without their permission (and since this is on private property, not cut & dry public space that is an issue) ... which is what lead them to approach the photog.

Additionally the photog was not forced to delete him images. JetBlue asked him to delete the images showing passenger personal data ... and the photographer deleted the images from both his laptop and his camera voluntarily. This has been confirmed by both the photog and JetBlue.

Being asked to delete images, and doing so, is quite different than someone forcing you to delete your images.

JetBlue acknowledges that people walk around shooting photos all day, no questions asked ... but what caught their eye was that he was approaching people and shooting passenger screens. This is not something tourists with a P&S will do.


Anyway ... I am sure the security footage will come out and then we can all see what really happened.

I have three sides to this incident, two of them line up in the portions that overlap and one side barely matches up at all.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 8:36 AM on 12.28.10
->> Jeff,

As I explained above, the airport is owned by the NY/NJ Port Authority, but it is leased out to private entities. In some cases the terminals are one by a private entity (such as JFK T4), but are on Port Authority property with Port Authority controlling the rights to the building wholly owned by a private entity.

Saying you can shoot anything you want in an airport excuse it is a public space is the same as saying you can walk into any shopping mall and shoot whatever you want because its a public space … or walk into any football stadium that was built with public funks and shoot whatever you want because they are a public space.

Also, airlines do not supply public transportation. Airlines supply private transportation. You have no protected right to fly. This has been upheld more than once and used in Supreme Court rulings that allow for the airport security procedures in place today (the laws pertaining to TSA scope of search needs to be changed by legislation or the law … but airline travel will still be private transportation)
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Chuck Liddy, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 8:54 AM on 12.28.10
->> Yamil, apples and oranges dude. Malls ARE private property....there is no gray area, where there might be with a public owned facility such as an airport. The days of wandering into a mall with your camera without getting permission and often times an escort, have been over for about 20 years.......as far as airports? as long as you contact media relations there is usually no problems if you follow the rules...geez, even those clowns at the TSA have loosened up over the years about shooting photos at the checkpoints....
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

John Germ, Photographer
Wadsworth | Oh | USA | Posted: 10:24 AM on 12.28.10
->> Steven,

Just wanted to say thanks for spending the time researching this. I think too often people want to jump to conclusions and automatically believe someone's rights are being violated without getting all the facts strait. That tends to muddy the waters and when people really do have their rights violated it gets lost. Glad to see some investigative journalism going on here instead of just interviewing a single party and going with the story because it's flashy.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 11:01 AM on 12.28.10
->> If you're a professional, you should do your homework and follow the established procedures if at all possible. If you don't, you make it a lot harder for other shooters to get their work done. Respect the profession.

That said, we all know you can walk into just about any public place with a very capable high end p&s like a G12 and come away with the images you need and most likely no one will say a word.

We all know there are ways to delete images and recover them later - or have backup copies stored on a second card and hide them with in-camera privacy functions. If you are in a situation where someone is pressuring you to delete images, you should be able to get the images out even after putting on a good show of "deleting" them. That's just knowing your gear.

The bigger issue is what happens after you publish images taken "without permission" - or after you said you deleted them.

Because every time I've taken pictures at an airport or in a mall - with "permission" - both with and without an escort - no one has ever given me a sheet of paper saying "Mr. Harpe has permission to publish photographs taken of such and such airport on such and such date...." None of my handlers have ever reviewed or "approved" my images for publication. They might make vague suggestions to me while I'm shooting like, "Don't take pictures in that direction", etc. But no one verifies that I am in fact not taking pictures in "that direction". I know this happens at military bases and such - that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about airports and shopping malls - places where a person with a cell phone camera has free reign, but if you are acting in the role of a "professional" with "professional" gear, you are supposed to get "permission".

If there are consequences for taking photos "without permission", it would seem to me you'd need paperwork to release you from such consequences when you DO have permission. Yet I have never received such paperwork and I've taken photos in numerous locations where I "needed" to get "permission".

I haven't seen this discussed here and it would be interesting to hear about any personal experiences in this regard. Have you ever ended up "in trouble" after publishing a photo from a place where you're supposed to get "permission", but didn't?

It would also be interesting to hear if anyone has heard of any situations that have wound up in court. I vaguely remember a case a long time ago where a photographer went into a shopping mall after a shooting or something and took pictures and the mall owners took the photographer or the publication to court after the photos ran, but I don't remember the outcome and I've never heard of a similar case involving an airport.

On the deleting of images - I can see a situation where if you tell a law enforcement officer you've deleted images and you knowingly did not, you could be charged with lying to the police or something to that effect - even if their request for you to delete the images has no legal basis. There are numerous cases where people being questioned in an investigation - people with no guilt with respect to the crime being investigated - end up with felony convictions simply because they lied to a police officer/FBI agent/etc. But I've never heard of such a situation involving photos and photographers, and I can't see how this would apply to someone like a mall security guard. Would be interesting to hear of any stories in this regard.

In this situation, it really sounds like the photographer was either not very smart or looking for a fight. It was unwise for the NPPA to take sides without knowing the full story.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Joe Cavaretta, Photographer
Ft Lauderdale | FL | USA | Posted: 1:57 PM on 12.28.10
->> C'mon, jeez Loiuse, a guy gets an assignment to shoot the problems at the airport caused by a blizzard, of course he's going to shoot passengers. Just look at the wire today, at photos like that from airports across the country. He was just doing the same thing that a whole lot of news photogs in every city in the NE USA was doing yesterday.
IMHO, the people handling Jet Blue's PR need a reality check.
How about turning this into a great opportunity to show how they're helping their stranded passengers, i.e, handing out blankets, water, etc?
Instead they get negative publicity about hassling a member of the media.
Just because said photographer deleted his images to avoid being arrested is not an admission of anything and should not be treated as such. Being a stringer and being a staffer bring different degrees of protection from arrest, etc.
I applaud the NPPA for standing up for the photographer.
And I'm not surprised that a blogger who has obvious connections to the airline industry is casting aspersions onto the credibility of said photographer, but I am disappointed.
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 2:45 PM on 12.28.10
->> Joe,

My coverage of the airlines and TSA is neither pro-nor con, I write about both sides. I have opinions, but more often than not I leave them out of my overall coverage because that is detrimental to providing insightful and consistent content.

When I started looking into this incident I started out thinking 'JetBlue screwed up.' However after looking into what happened and getting information from three parties, that are unrelated and two stories matching up in the overlapping sections, and one story not matching up, I needed to reevaluate my view point.

I will always give a news photog the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. In this case, I am just looking at statements of the parties involved and who knows, they may all be wrong due to a case of miscommunication.

Before you assume that my connections to the airline industry have me praising airlines, you might want to read my blog ... where I have ripped more than a few airlines for various things over the years. From Aeroflot's drunk pilot to British Airways banning surfboards, Gulf Air making two-faced comments on government funding to US Airways customer service issues ... I can go on, but you get the point.

You're a journalist Joe ... do you blindly back one side of the story because one party happens to be in the same profession you're in?

I've also spoken with the NPPA's General Counsel, who is an NPPA member, and former news photog. We both agree that the photog may have been intimidated into deleting his images and JetBlue's initial comments from media relations were fairly idiotic.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 2:49 PM on 12.28.10
->> My understanding is that, as a general rule, one can photograph in a private building or on private property that is generally open to the public (such as a shopping mall, airports, bars, ect.) unless it is explicitly prohibited by posted signs and/or the owner/manager of the property asks you to stop or leave. I'm sure there are specific exceptions but I doubt the owner/manager has much legal ground to force you to delete images you've already taken.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Sam Morris, Photographer
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 2:54 PM on 12.28.10
->> Joe, I don't think Steven is casting aspersions at all - he just laid out what is known right now. I think if the photographer had contacted the airport PIO he wouldn't have had any problem in the first place. I can't believe he was the only member of the media there.

Pre-9/11 I shot at McCarran without telling public affairs and while they weren't happy, they said please don't do it again and all I needed to do was just give them heads-up that I needed to shoot. Post-9/11 a TV station screwed everyone by not following the rules, after which no media was allowed past security, with or without an escort, for years.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 3:01 PM on 12.28.10
->> Sam,

I am not saying who is correct or incorrect. I am saying there are three sides to this story, and one doesn't jive with the rest.

From what I have been told the photog 'caught thier attention' ... however that was not elaborated on, despite asking for an elaboration more than once.

The photog also approached a supervisor in the terminal and asked to go to the post security area to meet a Daily News reporter at her arriving flight, at Gate 6,on a flight from Boston. This request was made to a customer service supervisor, not through media relations.

JetBlue says the security footage will be revealed publicly if the Daily News does press forward with its lawsuit. The paper has indicated they will press forward, while the NPPA's Counsel does not think the Daily News actually will. Should the suit be filed and the security tape be revealed, only then will we all know exactly what happened and who's truth is the correct truth.

I am actually surprised that JetBlue didn't have a media rep at JFK T5 during the blizzard, knowing that news crews tend to show up in blizzards.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 3:21 PM on 12.28.10
->> Privacy rights and the right to control the activities on one's property are completely distinct legal principles. The right to privacy is based upon the principle of "reasonable expectation of privacy." Anybody who voluntarily places themselves into a space visible to the general public has no reasonable expectation of privacy.

But privacy rights have nothing to do with a property owner (or renter) forbidding photography of any sort on their property. They don't even have to be fair or consistent about exercising that prohibition.

Photographers have to remember when they are within their rights and when they need to behave as guests.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (3) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 9:58 AM on 12.29.10
->> But privacy rights have nothing to do with a property owner (or renter) forbidding photography of any sort on their property

So let's say I go into a shopping mall and take a picture (wide shot of Christmas decorations in the courtyard, for example). The mall security folks see me, ask me to stop, then ask me to leave, which I do. I understand they are completely within their rights to do this since it's private property.

The next day, a picture I took in the mall before they asked me to leave runs on the front of B1 in my local paper. I also post it on my facebook page. No misrepresented captions - simply "Christmas decorations at Acme Mall in Kenosha."

Does the mall owner have any recourse?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Gardiner, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 11:31 AM on 12.29.10
->> David,

Like Mark points out, you are a guest at the mall. They do have recourse based on that simple fact. If you took photos of the mall from a public vantage point, then that would be a different situation. So, yes, the mall could pursue you (or paper) but it would be more of a hassle than they most likely would want to deal with. Malls would like to be seen as public places when it is advantageous to their image, but when you do something they don't like they ALWAYS have the private property trump card...

BTW I am a firm believer in the belief that it is better to ask for forgiveness rather than permission. I'm just trying to answer your "technically speaking" question.

As far as deleting images go. The camera and card and images are YOUR personal property and no one, but a court of law can determine otherwise. And that is also unlikely to occur. You could be detained, but if you go ahead and delete your images, then all you have done is saved yourself some time waiting to talk to your lawyer... And the lawyer would have probably told you that you didn't have to do anything except wast some of your time...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

David Harpe, Photographer
Denver | CO | USA | Posted: 1:22 PM on 12.29.10
->> Like Mark points out, you are a guest at the mall. They do have recourse based on that simple fact.

What recourse? What legal remedies can they extract after the picture has been taken and published? I didn't trespass - it's a public space. I left when they asked. I didn't damage property. I took a picture and reported a fact, so there is no defamation. Upon entering the mall, I signed nothing where I promised I would not take photographs. There are sometimes signs at the entrance to the mall, but not all and they are extremely easy to miss. I didn't buy a ticket with tiny writing on the back where I agree to not take photos.

It's not technically "private" property in the same context as a private home where the general public is not invited. It's an open-to-the-public space. Public space, unlike a home, obligates the owner to all sorts of rules a "normal" private space doesn't have to follow. ADA compliance, restroom minimums, fire code, etc. So legally, it's not the same as a private residence.

It's an important question. Do they really not pursue these issues because of the P.R. aspect, or is it simply because they have no legal standing?
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Gardiner, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 1:57 PM on 12.29.10
->> If they have the right to tell you to leave their property (and you are not committing a crime or nuisance as defined by the local laws) then it's not a public space. I don't know what the remedies would be, that's for the courts to decide...

I'm not really disagreeing with you, but looking at it from the extreme. I see your point in anything they do as being retroactive, but the fact is that it IS private property and you are expected to use that property for it's intended use, to spend money and feel good about it... The space follows the codes you listed because it caters to the public, but it is still a private place in the sense that it is governed by a private entity. They can close it whenever they want and deny access whenever they want.


-J

Also, you can't yell "fire!" in the mall. But guess what, there's no sign that says so.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (1) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Israel Shirk, Photographer, Assistant
Boise | ID | US | Posted: 2:57 PM on 12.29.10
->> The division you draw between "public" and "private" is not as cut-and-dry in the specific instance of shopping malls, publicly-owned airports with rented/leased areas, etc.

Asking forgiveness rather than permission leaves the opportunity for the other person to say "No," and then push for charges for file lawsuits.

Asking permission first and being informed of and abiding by the rules prevents heavy-handed responses, wasting of resources, and generally makes everyone's lives easier.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 3:21 PM on 12.29.10
->> Jon,

I think most of us has the attitude that it is better ask for forgiveness than permission ... but as professionals in this business we should know what the rules and laws are to the best of our ability before walking into a situation.

If you know the rules and laws, then choose to ask forgiveness instead of permission based on an education decision that is one thing, but to not find out the rules and laws then go in to a situation unaware of the rules and laws you may encounter more severe consequences.

As photogs we all venture along a thin line at times trying to get our shot. Sometimes we cross that line. Sometimes its subtle, sometimes its brazen and depending on the situation someone brazen is better than subtle ... but those choices need to be made based on an educated decision.

... even if that educated decision isn't as lawful as ethically possible.


As for this case, arguing that JFK T5 is not 'private' holds no water. Its been upheld more than once that the airline or corporation that leases the terminal gets to make the rules for the terminal. Of the approx US$700mil renovation of JFK T5, JetBlue paid in around $50mil of that, along with the Port Authority Financing...plus its lease payments to the Port Authority on its 10 year lease.

So argue all you want on public/private here ... in this case the property is deemed to be private. This is not including the challenges of the Port Authority being a bi-state publicly funded agency that is run essentially as a private corporation, with a Board overseeing the agency.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Mark Loundy, Photo Editor
San Jose | CA | USA | Posted: 4:26 PM on 12.29.10
->> David, Aggrieved parties always have the option of suing.

--Mark
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jon Gardiner, Photographer
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 5:47 PM on 12.29.10
->> Fish,

We are in agreement. I made the statement about forgiveness v. permission as a general and understood way of "getting the shot" but with the understanding that you reap the consequences.

Israel,

You are right, and that is what I wanted to convey. Instances like this can be a grey area, but when you get down to it, the places is private and arguing wether or not certain things are okay or not is pointless. As Mark says "Aggrieved parties always have the option of suing."

I need to be more succinct, like Mark...
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Frings, Photographer
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 9:11 AM on 12.30.10
->> Steven,
Most airports I am familiar with don't lease out the entire terminal, they lease the gates. The terminal remains property of the airport owner, almost always some public entity.
I know that airlines are private transportation but they use public facilities, (the terminal, runways, airspace), to perform that task, so the public has a right to access that system even if they don't have a right to access any particular airline.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Steven E. Frischling, Photographer
| | | Posted: 10:00 AM on 12.30.10
->> Jeff,

Some airports lease the whole terminal out to airlines, such as JFK, LGA, EWR (all NJ/NY Port Authority), LAX, MIA, ORD, NRT, CDG, LHR, DFW, etc etc.

Then there are corporations that run terminals, having purchased or leased the whole terminal from the airport authority, such as The Schiphol Group 'owning' JFK's T4 (International Air Building) , then leasing gates and space to airlines. JFK T1 is similarly 'owned.'

It's not as cut and dry as you might think at many airports.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jeff Frings, Photographer
Milwaukee | WI | USA | Posted: 10:38 AM on 12.30.10
->> Steven,
I certainly never meant to imply that it was a simple issue, but it would seem to me that the public has some "right" to be in that airport since it is paid for in large part by tax dollars. But it's good info to know in case I'm ever shooting in one of those airports.


Thanks for the education, as usual on airline issues you have the most useful information around.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Jim Colburn, Photo Editor, Photographer
McAllen | TX | USA | Posted: 10:57 AM on 12.30.10
->> "...it would seem to me that the public has some "right" to be in that airport since it is paid for in large part by tax dollars..."

About as much right to wander down to the sidelines at an NFL game to take a few pictures as most stadiums are built with public money.
 This post is:  Informative (1) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Bradly J. Boner, Photographer, Photo Editor
Jackson | WY | USA | Posted: 1:18 PM on 12.30.10
->> Jim - or, for that matter, walk into a jail or courtroom and expect to have the "right" to take pictures.
 This post is:  Informative (0) | Funny (0) | Huh? (0) | Off Topic (0) | Inappropriate (0) |   Definitions

Add your comments...
If you'd like to add your comments to this thread, use this form. You need to be an active (paying) member of SportsShooter.com in order to post messages to the system.

NOTE: If you would like to report a problem you've found within the SportsShooter.com website, please let us know via the 'Contact Us' form, which alerts us immediately. It is not guaranteed that a member of the staff will see your message board post.
Thread Title: Jet Blue menaces photographer
Thread Started By: Debra L Rothenberg
Message:
Member Login:
Password:




Return to -->
Message Board Main Index
Copyright 2022, SportsShooter.com