Photographer threatened and "held" in a scene out of Top Gear
- Thread starter mtnbike28
- Start date
Colorado David
Explorer
Just read that the Arkansas governor vetoed the law. It's again safe to take pictures in Arkansas.
mtnbike28
Expedition Leader
Here is a good follow up:
http://www.pdnonline.com/features/W...-Locals-Turned-Ugly-in-Appalachia-13417.shtml
http://www.pdnonline.com/features/W...-Locals-Turned-Ugly-in-Appalachia-13417.shtml
dwh
Tail-End Charlie
And there's the whole thing in a nutshell...
"Jennifer Adkins was on the phone with a neighbor when her 13-year-old son walked in the front door and told her, “there was a guy out there taking pictures.” Adkins hung up the phone and immediately called 911 to report the incident."
Report WHAT incident?
SDDiver5
Expedition Leader
haha this is funny. If I saw someone taking pics I'd ignore them because all the hipsters who think they're artsy take pics all the time.
And if they don't want their kids pics to be taken they should prob get them off of FB, IG, Snapchat, even LinkedIn because anyone with any basic computer knowledge can find a picture of whoever they want with a simple search.
And if they don't want their kids pics to be taken they should prob get them off of FB, IG, Snapchat, even LinkedIn because anyone with any basic computer knowledge can find a picture of whoever they want with a simple search.
calicamper
Expedition Leader
SD many parents avoid posting pictures of their kids by design. When I say Many its still so few that your point is well taken. I have a large extended family and it seems like my cousins are all posting pictures of their kids on FB on a daily basis. My kids on the other hand are very very VERY rare to see posted anywhere which has ticked off some family because of this. Given we avoid posting pictures of our kids our dog and lots of pictures lacking people in them get posted LOL.
I think the larger issue today is that pictures get posted and then get re used and re posted all over the place and you never know what or who is using your photo of your kid. Its not like the olden days when a photographer got a few shots on film and it might be seen at a local art shop or never seen again by anyone but the photographer. Because of the Web I think people are becoming very sensitive to photos being taken of them or their kids.
I think the larger issue today is that pictures get posted and then get re used and re posted all over the place and you never know what or who is using your photo of your kid. Its not like the olden days when a photographer got a few shots on film and it might be seen at a local art shop or never seen again by anyone but the photographer. Because of the Web I think people are becoming very sensitive to photos being taken of them or their kids.
Colorado David
Explorer
We were in Paris at Notre Dame when my daughter was in high school. There was a German guy there who was taken with her and photographed her a lot. It was uncomfortable because he showed such an unusual interest in a high school girl. However, we didn't detain him or threaten him. We were in a public place and we simply looked for our opportunity to move on away from him. I understand that the author of the article is looking hard to find middle ground, but I'm afraid that there isn't a cultural justification for breaking the law. When someone detains you against your will, which Adkins admitted to, it is kidnapping plain and simple. Telling someone you have a gun, which Adkins admitted to, is aggravated assault. I'm afraid that Mrs. Adkins should go to jail regardless of how culturally justified she (and the article's author) might feel. If anything, their actions reinforced the stereotype they so fervently wish to dispel. And the Virginia State Police need some inservice training. Their handling of the situation was dismal to say the least. And just for the record, when I think of West Virginia, I don't immediately think of Appalachia and poverty. I think of George Bird Evans and Old Hemlock English Setters.
Now for a little of another as yet unmentioned side of the story. If you are photographing recognizable features of private property potentially for commercial use, which could be stock photography, documentary use, calendar publication, etc., you are required to get a signed private property release from the property owner. So the barn with the horse photo referenced by the article's author should have been photographed with a signed release in hand. It's true you can photograph from public property, but you can't use it for anything without the release. Years ago I had an assignment working on a story about the dust bowl days. I needed a shot of an old farmhouse. I had driven past an old place in the middle of a wheat field that was slowly falling into the cellar hole. I wanted to get close to shoot it, so I drove into town and asked about it at the Coop. The guys at the Coop knew exactly what I was talking about and where to send me to find the owner. I was obviously not the first photographer looking for permission to set foot on their land. I found the owners, was graciously given permission, and drove away with a signed property release.
Now for a little of another as yet unmentioned side of the story. If you are photographing recognizable features of private property potentially for commercial use, which could be stock photography, documentary use, calendar publication, etc., you are required to get a signed private property release from the property owner. So the barn with the horse photo referenced by the article's author should have been photographed with a signed release in hand. It's true you can photograph from public property, but you can't use it for anything without the release. Years ago I had an assignment working on a story about the dust bowl days. I needed a shot of an old farmhouse. I had driven past an old place in the middle of a wheat field that was slowly falling into the cellar hole. I wanted to get close to shoot it, so I drove into town and asked about it at the Coop. The guys at the Coop knew exactly what I was talking about and where to send me to find the owner. I was obviously not the first photographer looking for permission to set foot on their land. I found the owners, was graciously given permission, and drove away with a signed property release.
Last edited:
expedition4x4
Explorer
Paddle faster! I hear banjo music!
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
texascrane
Adventurer
Is this Jesse Camp the stoner from MTV?
Ivan
Lost in Space
No, it is not, on both counts.
Unlawful detainment at best on the first alleged charge, terroristic threat on the second, maybe, but I would be surprised (shocked actually) if an ADA actually filed the charge. Agg assault? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."
And the reaction from both parties was horrid. To be completely indifferent to a parents concern of a stranger taking photos of their children seems quite capricious, however it doesn't excuse the alleged threat, or insinuation, of violence from the alleged parents.
Then again, we are living in the era of "see something, say something."
/shrugs
I took several hundred photos in Arkansas over the weekend and raised the ire of not a single person. I must be doing it wrong...
Last edited:
Antichrist
Expedition Leader
Do kidnappers take lots of photos of kids, take them back some place to prioritize, then return and kidnap the one they like the best?
Yeah, if someone was following one of my kids around taking lots of photos of him then I'd be concerned, but if I watched them a bit and saw they were just randomly taking photos and my kids happened to be in one or two, no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Yeah, if someone was following one of my kids around taking lots of photos of him then I'd be concerned, but if I watched them a bit and saw they were just randomly taking photos and my kids happened to be in one or two, no, I wouldn't be concerned.
Similar threads
