http://consumerist.com/2010/04/beware-if-youre-so-bold-as-to-take-a-camera-to-downtown-disney.html
*edited only to fix link
*edited only to fix link
Beware If You're So Bold As To Take A Camera To Downtown Disney
- Thread starter goofy101
- Start date
- Status
Interesting...but as with all such incidents, there are too many unknown variables to really get the whole, wide-open story. ; One of our fellow TMIPers had an incident at DD if I remember correctly. ; I don't think any of these situations can be labeled a new policy by Disney...likely hundreds or thousands of photographers of all skill levels photograph throughout Downtown Disney on a regular basis without incident, even with huge DLRs and lenses and tripods and backpacks.
Variables: ethnicity of the photographer, bias of the guard, recent threats or situations at the location, who woke up on the wrong side of the bed, reaction to the questioning, reaction to the answers...for all we know the guard hates people wearing striped shirts and the poster was wearing one that day.
Variables: ethnicity of the photographer, bias of the guard, recent threats or situations at the location, who woke up on the wrong side of the bed, reaction to the questioning, reaction to the answers...for all we know the guard hates people wearing striped shirts and the poster was wearing one that day.
Jeff Fillmore
Member
I realize that is just one side of the story, but disturbing nonetheless. ; I wondered what set them off- maybe using a tripod during the day?
http://williambeem.com/?p=330
http://williambeem.com/?p=330
Not likely - I've used a tripod during the day many times, throughout the parks and Downtown Disney. ; As I said, too many variables. ; Even just the attitudes of either person, biases, or who knows what could have resulted in an escalation of a routine event into an incident.
I was asked one time at any Disney location if I was a professional photographer...I answered a simple no, in a friendly manner, and was greeted by the same friendliness back from the CM, and that was it. ; And I really do spend lots of time each year at Disney with all variety of lenses and tripods...including taking huge amounts of time in one spot with tripod set up waiting for crowds to clear and taking multiple frames just like Mr. Beem.
My own personal opinion...and it is just that...is that either Mr. Beem or Don the Security Guard somehow escalated or instigated a routine event into a confrontation and challenge - either one of them could have responded in just the right sarcastic tone, or with just a hint of resistance or challenge, and the other may have reacted off of that. ; It really could have just been a bad day or the wrong moment for either of them.
The most reliable brand of car can break down, the best chef in the world can make a bad dish, the best typist in the world can have a typo...none of these things is taken as a rule, just fluke incidents. ; My own personal opinion is that Mr. Beem experienced just such a fluke, and is unfortunately taking it especially hard and vengeful - as he is wont to do. ; It won't be worrying me personally to take photos at Downtown Disney as I always do.
I was asked one time at any Disney location if I was a professional photographer...I answered a simple no, in a friendly manner, and was greeted by the same friendliness back from the CM, and that was it. ; And I really do spend lots of time each year at Disney with all variety of lenses and tripods...including taking huge amounts of time in one spot with tripod set up waiting for crowds to clear and taking multiple frames just like Mr. Beem.
My own personal opinion...and it is just that...is that either Mr. Beem or Don the Security Guard somehow escalated or instigated a routine event into a confrontation and challenge - either one of them could have responded in just the right sarcastic tone, or with just a hint of resistance or challenge, and the other may have reacted off of that. ; It really could have just been a bad day or the wrong moment for either of them.
The most reliable brand of car can break down, the best chef in the world can make a bad dish, the best typist in the world can have a typo...none of these things is taken as a rule, just fluke incidents. ; My own personal opinion is that Mr. Beem experienced just such a fluke, and is unfortunately taking it especially hard and vengeful - as he is wont to do. ; It won't be worrying me personally to take photos at Downtown Disney as I always do.
He *ignores* the fact that the House of Blues building and style is privately owned, and they were concerned that he was taking pictures to either copy it or to publish it.
They had every right to ask for his ID and hassle him, sorry. ; All they wanted was someway to get back to who did it if images of the building were sold, etc. etc. or copied.
Notice that he glances over the architectural question from them as if it wasn't important. ;
"You can't have my ID" people are beginning to drive me nuts. ; "You can't scan my ID to sell me beer" blah blah blah
They had every right to ask for his ID and hassle him, sorry. ; All they wanted was someway to get back to who did it if images of the building were sold, etc. etc. or copied.
Notice that he glances over the architectural question from them as if it wasn't important. ;
"You can't have my ID" people are beginning to drive me nuts. ; "You can't scan my ID to sell me beer" blah blah blah
prettypixie
Member
Wow, insane!
Jeff Fillmore
Member
I unserstand any little thing could have triggered it- I hope you are right and it is just a fluke thing. ; I seem to remember a thread a while back (like right before Pixelmania) saying some people using tripods were questioned by Disney in one of the parks and came away feeling a little put off. ; I just hope it is not some growing tendency for them to be paranoid about photographers. ; Not quite sure how I would feel if I was taking pictures there and got the 3rd degree. ; I have been questioned by police a few times out shooting some public place at night and usually a polite exchange has been all it took- but once they did take my ID and wrote up an 'incident report' although the only incident was I was taking a picture of a tree from the side of the road. ; That made me feel kind of wierd- like now I have a 'file' or something. ; :
By the way- this shot hardly seems worth getting nussled up over- maybe he should have explained 'cheesy selective color' techniques to the guard instead of hdr.
http://williambeem.com/?p=345
By the way- this shot hardly seems worth getting nussled up over- maybe he should have explained 'cheesy selective color' techniques to the guard instead of hdr.
http://williambeem.com/?p=345
I actually came here to post a link to this blog post.
Back in '07 I was harassed by Disney Security about taking tripod pictures at Pleasure Island. ; At the time (before I joined TMIP) the guards told us that tripods = professional and it wasn't allowed.
I told him that it was news to me since I have had no issues in the parks. I was told that DTD is not the parks and has different rules.
Later a friend on another board asked his aunt who works for Disney Security what was going on and we were informed that there are no rules forbidding picture taking or the use of tripods. ;
Back in '07 I was harassed by Disney Security about taking tripod pictures at Pleasure Island. ; At the time (before I joined TMIP) the guards told us that tripods = professional and it wasn't allowed.
I told him that it was news to me since I have had no issues in the parks. I was told that DTD is not the parks and has different rules.
Later a friend on another board asked his aunt who works for Disney Security what was going on and we were informed that there are no rules forbidding picture taking or the use of tripods. ;
mSummers
Member
Without knowing all of the facts, Its impossible to know why he was hassled. ; I had a similar situation when I was there in January. ; My dad and I were both taking pictures of Main Street Station about 30 min before the park closed. ; I took several exposures to make sure I got the shot. ; While I was there, Disney security asked me if I was a professional and I politely answered that I wasn't and that photography was just a hobby. ; Dispite my politeness he still warned rather impolitely that professionals were not allowed to take photos in the parks and proceeded to stand right in the middle of my photo until I left. ; I guess I just got the guy who was having a bad day or something. ; Fortunately I was able to blend two exposures together so I could erase him.
I guess the legal situation is that the guards have the right to be <<removed>> if they want to be...
And the people they power trip on have every right to say "the heck with this, I'll be patronizing another location to spend my vacation dollars in the future".
I accept that the rule appears to be that it's private property so they can demand an awful lot of you.. for all I know they might be able to demand that you do a little dance for them or else you're out of there. ; But frankly I don't find either of these behaviors to be particularly productive. ; My suspicion is that what was done went way beyond standard policy, this sort of thing would lead to too much negative publicity. ; Even just among the fanatical photographers.
In any case I tend to think there's a fairly specific subtext at work here that goes way beyond legitimate concerns about property rights.
guard: ; I demand that you pay deference to my position of authority
photographer: ; uh.. no, I don't think so. ; By your own rules I'm doing nothing wrong, so I'll be continuing to do so.
guard: ; well then I'm calling the cops on you and will kick you off the property.
photographer: if that's what you gotta do to feel powerful, then have fun with it.
This business with "if any pictures are published we have to know who we can blame" sounds like a laughable excuse. ; If the unauthorized pictures are used then they can go after whoever publishes them. ; I really, REALLY can't see them trying to use such evidence in court. ; The idea that they could try to go to court and say that only this one person could have taken such a picture because no one else could have come through a major tourist destination with a camera and taken a picture of it is absurd.
It's a threat, not a practical precaution. ; The only function it can have is scare someone. ; I don't particularly care for Disney using such methods. ; Again, if this is their official policy, and I'm still hoping it isn't.
And the people they power trip on have every right to say "the heck with this, I'll be patronizing another location to spend my vacation dollars in the future".
I accept that the rule appears to be that it's private property so they can demand an awful lot of you.. for all I know they might be able to demand that you do a little dance for them or else you're out of there. ; But frankly I don't find either of these behaviors to be particularly productive. ; My suspicion is that what was done went way beyond standard policy, this sort of thing would lead to too much negative publicity. ; Even just among the fanatical photographers.
In any case I tend to think there's a fairly specific subtext at work here that goes way beyond legitimate concerns about property rights.
guard: ; I demand that you pay deference to my position of authority
photographer: ; uh.. no, I don't think so. ; By your own rules I'm doing nothing wrong, so I'll be continuing to do so.
guard: ; well then I'm calling the cops on you and will kick you off the property.
photographer: if that's what you gotta do to feel powerful, then have fun with it.
This business with "if any pictures are published we have to know who we can blame" sounds like a laughable excuse. ; If the unauthorized pictures are used then they can go after whoever publishes them. ; I really, REALLY can't see them trying to use such evidence in court. ; The idea that they could try to go to court and say that only this one person could have taken such a picture because no one else could have come through a major tourist destination with a camera and taken a picture of it is absurd.
It's a threat, not a practical precaution. ; The only function it can have is scare someone. ; I don't particularly care for Disney using such methods. ; Again, if this is their official policy, and I'm still hoping it isn't.
I stumbled across that blog a few days ago, too.
Beem keeps repeating that through the whole incident, he maintained a calm, friendly, non-confrontational manner. But somehow I doubt that; it's tough for anyone not to get defensive when hassled, and since he says he was hassled 4 times before Don the Magnificent called in the cavalry, my guess is that he made a snarky comment of some kind that made Don angry or genuinely suspicious, and the situation escalated from there.
I know myself well enough to know that there is no way I could refrain from getting defensive, sarcastic, and generally surly if I were hassled by Disney security for taking photos anywhere on property.
Beem keeps repeating that through the whole incident, he maintained a calm, friendly, non-confrontational manner. But somehow I doubt that; it's tough for anyone not to get defensive when hassled, and since he says he was hassled 4 times before Don the Magnificent called in the cavalry, my guess is that he made a snarky comment of some kind that made Don angry or genuinely suspicious, and the situation escalated from there.
I know myself well enough to know that there is no way I could refrain from getting defensive, sarcastic, and generally surly if I were hassled by Disney security for taking photos anywhere on property.
I'm sure that there is more to this story- why would Disney risk their reputation on some guy taking photos if the didn't have a good reason? What else did this guy do to provoke the security officer? A lot of the guys and gals Disney hires for these positions are retired police officers, military and otherwise "public safety professionals".
Scottwdw
Member
Whether all factual or not, his story is getting legs on the Internet. ; Found this blog post today: http://gerryrosser.wordpress.com/2010/04/15/the-evils-of-photography/
In December, I was questioned by Disney security at Hollywood Studios. ; In fact while I was taking the photo you see as my avatar here. ; He wanted to know if the camera I was using (with tripod and sporting the 70-200VR at the time) was mine. ; I guess if I said it wasn't it would have meant I was shooting for a news organization for something. ; Now, this was during the time of the Christmas parade filming and I wonder if there were VIPs around. ;
Anyway, I told him it wasn't and he stayed close for a bit while I keep shooting and then wandered off. ; If they wanted to stop me from bringing in such equipment, they should do that at the check point and they better have a written policy to show me when they do.
In December, I was questioned by Disney security at Hollywood Studios. ; In fact while I was taking the photo you see as my avatar here. ; He wanted to know if the camera I was using (with tripod and sporting the 70-200VR at the time) was mine. ; I guess if I said it wasn't it would have meant I was shooting for a news organization for something. ; Now, this was during the time of the Christmas parade filming and I wonder if there were VIPs around. ;
Anyway, I told him it wasn't and he stayed close for a bit while I keep shooting and then wandered off. ; If they wanted to stop me from bringing in such equipment, they should do that at the check point and they better have a written policy to show me when they do.
there are many issues that mr. beem does not address so i am not going to comment on his post other than one point that i will get to in a few moments. ; i do appreciate the support that most of you are showing to the walt disney company regarding this situation.
here is the bottom line from someone uniquely qualified to see both sides of the photographer/security argument:
the bottom line all is that disney property is the private property of the walt disney company. ; they can and have every right to ask what are you doing and ask you to not take photos of certain subjects. ; william beem is completely wrong with his assertion that they cannot. ; there are some attractions in which photography is not permitted, as clearly evidenced by the warnings they give you in the pre-show or queue areas. ; the "right to take pictures" is not a constitutionally or god-given right; how many universal studios photography communities have you visited? ; if you want a prime example of where you have no right to take pictures, try photographing a bridge, power plant, airport, etc. ; the rhetoric about the "patriot act giving security and law enforcement the right to do whatever they want" is tired and quite often misused.
we also do not know if there were any threats or intelligence about downtown disney at the time of the report by mr. beem. ; perhaps there was a report of a plot or incident at the house of blues that security received. ; they are not going to share that information with you and do not have to show you any written policies that they are acting under at the time. ; security is acting as the custodial authority of the property, and in certain circumstances they have more authority than law enforcement (detain/ban/question), because they are not bound by the same rules as law enforcement officials due to their private nature. ; of course they still need reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to take certain action but let's again remember that this is private property.
another important distinction to note is the actual definition of harassment. ; i really think some people need to get a little more thick-skinned and stop getting bent out of shape every time someone says no to them or asks them what they are doing. ;
here is the NJ definition of harassment, as defined by NJS 2C:33-4a:
[box]
Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:
a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;
b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.
A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.
d. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.443).
e. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, in committing an offense under this section, he was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.
[/box]
it is important to note that it says "with purpose to harass". ; just because someone is asking a bunch of questions that you don't like, it doesn't make it harassment.
i have had security ask me questions on several occasions and have found that speaking nicely with them and treating them as actual humans, and not the people "with guts, guns, and grudges" and "Officious police/rent-a-cops who think photography is a terrorist activity (or who just enjoy hassling people for no good reason)" as gerry rosser called them. ; i have found that many times over these situations could have been diffused quickly and easily by simple cooperation and avoiding spouting the convenient rhetoric about "my rights". ;
there are a few rouge officers just as there are rogue mcdonald's employees, photographers, bus drivers, etc. but 99% of the security and law enforcement officials are good, professional, family people who have a job to do. ; the thing about the rogue officers that most people don't realize is that fellow officers usually don't like them either.
it think we all need to step back and appreciate the fact that disney security officers are willing to do that job and put up with all that garbage for minimal pay. ; they are there to keep us safe and to allow us to enjoy our hobby and the resort and they should be worked with and not against, just for the sake of proving a simple point.
here are some suggestions:
1. ; remain calm and cooperate
2. ; treat them as actual people
3. ; be polite and respectful
4. ; understand that they have a job to do
5. ; some people actually do use photos for bad purposes. ; just because you don't, someone else might (9/11/2001).
6. ; if you feel that you have been mistreated, follow up in a professional manner after the fact.
at this time i am closing this thread, as i think we have all had a chance to make our point.
here is the bottom line from someone uniquely qualified to see both sides of the photographer/security argument:
the bottom line all is that disney property is the private property of the walt disney company. ; they can and have every right to ask what are you doing and ask you to not take photos of certain subjects. ; william beem is completely wrong with his assertion that they cannot. ; there are some attractions in which photography is not permitted, as clearly evidenced by the warnings they give you in the pre-show or queue areas. ; the "right to take pictures" is not a constitutionally or god-given right; how many universal studios photography communities have you visited? ; if you want a prime example of where you have no right to take pictures, try photographing a bridge, power plant, airport, etc. ; the rhetoric about the "patriot act giving security and law enforcement the right to do whatever they want" is tired and quite often misused.
we also do not know if there were any threats or intelligence about downtown disney at the time of the report by mr. beem. ; perhaps there was a report of a plot or incident at the house of blues that security received. ; they are not going to share that information with you and do not have to show you any written policies that they are acting under at the time. ; security is acting as the custodial authority of the property, and in certain circumstances they have more authority than law enforcement (detain/ban/question), because they are not bound by the same rules as law enforcement officials due to their private nature. ; of course they still need reasonable suspicion and/or probable cause to take certain action but let's again remember that this is private property.
another important distinction to note is the actual definition of harassment. ; i really think some people need to get a little more thick-skinned and stop getting bent out of shape every time someone says no to them or asks them what they are doing. ;
here is the NJ definition of harassment, as defined by NJS 2C:33-4a:
[box]
Except as provided in subsection e., a person commits a petty disorderly persons offense if, with purpose to harass another, he:
a. Makes, or causes to be made, a communication or communications anonymously or at extremely inconvenient hours, or in offensively coarse language, or any other manner likely to cause annoyance or alarm;
b. Subjects another to striking, kicking, shoving, or other offensive touching, or threatens to do so; or
c. Engages in any other course of alarming conduct or of repeatedly committed acts with purpose to alarm or seriously annoy such other person.
A communication under subsection a. may be deemed to have been made either at the place where it originated or at the place where it was received.
d. (Deleted by amendment, P.L.2001, c.443).
e. A person commits a crime of the fourth degree if, in committing an offense under this section, he was serving a term of imprisonment or was on parole or probation as the result of a conviction of any indictable offense under the laws of this State, any other state or the United States.
[/box]
it is important to note that it says "with purpose to harass". ; just because someone is asking a bunch of questions that you don't like, it doesn't make it harassment.
i have had security ask me questions on several occasions and have found that speaking nicely with them and treating them as actual humans, and not the people "with guts, guns, and grudges" and "Officious police/rent-a-cops who think photography is a terrorist activity (or who just enjoy hassling people for no good reason)" as gerry rosser called them. ; i have found that many times over these situations could have been diffused quickly and easily by simple cooperation and avoiding spouting the convenient rhetoric about "my rights". ;
there are a few rouge officers just as there are rogue mcdonald's employees, photographers, bus drivers, etc. but 99% of the security and law enforcement officials are good, professional, family people who have a job to do. ; the thing about the rogue officers that most people don't realize is that fellow officers usually don't like them either.
it think we all need to step back and appreciate the fact that disney security officers are willing to do that job and put up with all that garbage for minimal pay. ; they are there to keep us safe and to allow us to enjoy our hobby and the resort and they should be worked with and not against, just for the sake of proving a simple point.
here are some suggestions:
1. ; remain calm and cooperate
2. ; treat them as actual people
3. ; be polite and respectful
4. ; understand that they have a job to do
5. ; some people actually do use photos for bad purposes. ; just because you don't, someone else might (9/11/2001).
6. ; if you feel that you have been mistreated, follow up in a professional manner after the fact.
at this time i am closing this thread, as i think we have all had a chance to make our point.
- Status