And on and on it goes...
RichA
Robert Taylor was arrested February 12 after taking this photograph of
a 2 Train in The Bronx.
Last week in New York City, a fan of trains was arrested for
photographing a train. It might be funny if it didn’t keep happening.
Robert S. Taylor of Brooklyn was taking photos for fun last Thursday
in a subway station. Police saw him and cited him for unauthorized
photography, disorderly conduct/unreasonable voice and impeding
traffic.
The charge of unauthorized photography – a crime that doesn’t exist –
has already been dropped, Taylor says.
“It’s almost embarrassing,” Taylor says. “It was a waste of
everybody’s time.”
His summons reads “[Police officer] observed respondent taking photos
from the [southbound] platform of incoming/ongoing trains without
authority to do so by [the Transit Authority].” The citation cites
section 1050.9(C) of the MTA rules of conduct. Ironically, that’s the
rule that permits photography “in any facility or conveyance.”
Adding further irony, Taylor is an employee of the MTA, which operates
the New York City Subway. He was off duty at the time.
Photo advocacy groups have been complaining for years about police
harassment of photographers in public places such as train stations.
The problem surged after the 9/11 terrorist attacks and continues
today, despite several recent cases that ended in settlements for the
photographers.
“It’s not just New York City Transit, it’s across the country,” says
newspaper photographer Todd Maisel, who serves as Region 2 director
for the National Press Photographers Association and vice president of
the New York Press Photographers Association. “The problem is police
officers are not being properly trained.”
Taylor’s run-in with transit police happened Thursday afternoon.
Taylor had time to kill before a dinner date in Times Square, so he
rode the subway to Freeman Street, a lightly used elevated station in
the Bronx.
“That station comes in off at a curve. It’s a nice little shot,”
Taylor says. Taylor uses a Nikon D80 to take pictures in his spare
time for use as wallpaper on his computer and his cell phone.
After he photographed a train, a police officer on the platform asked
Taylor to stop taking pictures. “He tells me pictures aren’t allowed,
and I told him that’s not true,” Taylor says.
As they debated the rule, a second officer arrived from another
platform and supported the first. Taylor asked to speak to a
supervisor. A transit police sergeant arrived and backed up the two
other officers. “I said, ‘If I’m wrong, write the summons and I’ll
fight it in court,’” Taylor says.
The police officers were unimpressed. They handcuffed Taylor and took
him to a transit police district for processing, where he was held a
short time and released. The photography charge was dropped, but
Taylor has a court date to answer the other two charges in April.
“I’ve been stopped before, but in the previous stops everything has
gone well,” Taylor says. This time, “It’s bad. Look what I have to go
through.”
In 2004, the MTA proposed a ban on photography in the subway,
justifying it as a way to protect the subway from terrorists. The
proposal died after an outcry from photographers and the public.
From Taylor's case, it's clear photographers are still being stopped.
Taylor wrote an account his arrest on the Subchat, a message board
popular with subway fans. The story made its way to two photography
blogs, War on Photography and Photography is not a Crime, and
ultimately to The New York Times, which published a story about Taylor
on Wednesday. “I’m not used to this attention,” Taylor says.
Several photographers in New York City have collected settlements in
recent cases where they were wrongfully arrested.
One recent case concerned photographer Duane Kerzic, who was arrested
last year by Amtrak Police while taking pictures of trains on the
lower platforms of New York Penn Station.
Kerzic’s case was even the subject of a comedy sketch earlier this
month on The Colbert Report. Maisel, of the NPPA, and Kerzik were both
interviewed for the TV show.
“The day after that segment aired, Duane Kerzic got a five-figure
settlement,” Maisel says.
Last year, New York City settled a lawsuit with a student who was
detained while working on a project to photograph every subway stop,
according to The New York Times. The student, Arun Wiita, was arrested
on a public sidewalk and was the subject of a lawsuit filed with
support from the New York Civil Liberties Union.
In 2007, the NYPD paid a $14,000 settlement to filmmaker Rakesh
Sharma, who was arrested filming on a public sidewalk near Grand
Central Terminal. That case, also led by the NYCLU, led the city to
draft a set of clearer rules about when permits are required for
public photography and filming.
Daniel
news:a94f975c-d23b-4661...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
PDN:
Not that I have ever had a problem, but with the recent publicity I've been
racking my brains to try and work out why the photography restriction is
being so heavily enforced under the terrorism regulations, when Google and
Geomapping seem to do what they want. The conclusion I have come to is that
there must be a reason for it, so just co-operate, after all it's only a
photo. For me, yeah ok, it would up*ss me off, but it's not the end of the
world.
The freedom fighters will get the hump with the above statement, but
remember it's only a photo. For those people, I would urge you to consider
that it's possible that they may know something that you don't? Who knows?
But I can guarantee you that you sure won't.
C J Campbell
Only a photo? You greatly underestimate the tremendous impact even a
single photo can have on history, on society, on culture -- on just
about everything.
Take a look at the photo Eddie Adams took of the execution of Nguyen
Ngoc and tell me it is only a photo. Adams regretted taking the photo
for the rest of his life, though. Or the photo John Filo took of Mary
Ann Vecchio at Kent State -- only a photo? Kevin Karte's photo of a
starving baby crawling toward a UN refugee camp while being stalked by
a vulture -- only a photo? (Contrary to popular belief, Karte did not
commit suicide because of the photo, btw, and he did help the baby --
Karte was suffering from severe emotional problems and was despondent
over the breakup of his marriage. The crushing and unjust and
unwarranted public criticism he received over this picture probably did
not help matters, however.)
Only a photo? Matt Mendelssohn spent years searching for what happened
to his father's brother and family in the Ukraine during the Holocaust.
The only thing he had to go on was a few photos -- the family gathered
around a table, a high school portrait, etc, and a few letters that
accompanied them. The letters grew increasingly desperate as time went
on. With these photos, he and his brother and sister were able to track
down what happened to the family (they were lined up with the rest of
the Jews from the city and shot, then buried in a trench near the local
graveyard). The photos are innocuous, but they are all that is left of
what was once a great culture in a city in the Ukraine.
Each of us faces our own holocaust. We are all only one generation from
extinction. Anything can happen. We may not be rounded up and shot and
left in a ditch, but we will die. Our photos are often the best and
sometimes the only record of our lives. Who knows what seemingly
unimportant photo will bring meaning to a life generations from now?
There is no such thing as "only a photo." Photographers do not merely
document history. We are history -- possibly the only history that
anyone will ever know.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
George Kerby
On 2/26/09 10:49 AM, in article
2009022608491016807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom, "C J Campbell"
<christophercam...@hotmail.com> wrote:
Excellent observation. Thank you!
David Ruether
"RichA" <rande...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:a94f975c-d23b-4661...@m24g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
Robert Taylor was arrested February 12 after taking this photograph of
a 2 Train in The Bronx.
Last week in New York City, a fan of trains was arrested for
photographing a train. It might be funny if it didn’t keep happening.
Robert S. Taylor of Brooklyn was taking photos for fun last Thursday
in a subway station. Police saw him and cited him for unauthorized
photography, disorderly conduct/unreasonable voice and impeding
traffic.
The charge of unauthorized photography – a crime that doesn’t exist –
has already been dropped, Taylor says.
[...]
In 2004, the MTA proposed a ban on photography in the subway,
justifying it as a way to protect the subway from terrorists. The
proposal died after an outcry from photographers and the public.
[...]
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
While alone on a raised subway platform near NYC in the
late '60's, I was struck by the sight of tall, closely-spaced grave
stones in a nearby graveyard that resembled a view of a large
city with many tall buildings. I got out my 35mm camera, put
a 200mm lens on it, and while shooting a few frames, I heard
footsteps approaching. Almost immediately, I was asked to
stop taking pictures by a policeman who informed that doing
what I was doing was illegal. Hmmm, perhaps it was my use
of a compact tripod to help steady the camera what dunnit...;-)
--DR
Bob G
nefarious purpose, the last thing I'd do is use a humongous Nikon D80
openly in public for anyone to see.
This is far too complex an idea for any moron of a policeman to grasp.
Pete D
"Bob G" <mrbob...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7b503618-d7cf-4c6e...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
D80 humungous? I think not but anyway, this is a sad situation that needs to
go to court time and again until these idiots stop doing this stupid stuff,
needs to cost them big.
You know you could probably walk into any municipal offices and get the
blueprints for all these buildings in quaestion and they would have to
release them under some sort of freedom of information act.
Bob G
all the pictures he wanted unnoticed and with the greatest of ease.
We all remember the legendary Minoxes but I'm sure today's technology
has produced cameras a fraction of even their minute sizes and capable
of much better resolution.
Paul Bartram
> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote
> Excellent observation. Thank you!
I'll second that.
I know when I go, my photography - poor as it is - will be my only memorial.
Already some of my earlier shots are taking on historic significance, purely
because they are of things and people now gone. As time goes on, everybody's
shots will have cultural value to someone.
I object strongly to some untrained dweeb in a K-Mart suit telling me what I
can and cannot photograph in a public place!
Paul
Paul Bartram
> "Bob G" <mrbob...@yahoo.com> wrote
Why bother with spy cameras? Every man and his poodle has a camera phone
these days, and who notices someone with a mobile phone? They are getting
quite good too, so the shots could provide useful information for a genuine
terrorist. Uh-oh, they're going to have to ban mobiles in train stations now
(good luck!)
Paul
Get lost
> "RichA" <rander3...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Stupid sheep like you are the real problem.
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
Ο "Paul Bartram" <paul.bartram AT OR NEAR lizzy.com.au> έγραψε στο μήνυμα
news:49a77c99$0$36386$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net...
good measure a conductor in a train station, if photographing is allowed in
the station "Ist es erlaubt im Bahnhof zu photographieren?"which he answered
with"Ja", and I still got some slides of the 111 E-Lok (Electric
Locomotive), designed for pulling freight trains, and of the ICE
(InterCityExpress), 13,000 HP with two heads and with a cetenary system of
15kV,16 2/3 Hz, normal travelling speed 200km/h. What's strange, nobody from
Siemens, AEG, ABB or Krupp accused me of industrial espionage:-) (this is
the concortium of companies that built ICE). After all, I'm just about to
built a frequency control train drive, besides a 300 MW, 21kV, 10kA
alternator which I have also photographed, after asking for permission,
too:-) OTOH, I have photographed the diesel engines that the greek railway
used to use.
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
Dave Cohen
Bobby G, the guys that bombed the world trade center the first time were
caught because they returned to the truck rental place to claim their
deposit for the truck that I suppose they were claiming was stolen. Add
to that little piece of trivia those who actually believe they are going
to be sucked up to heaven where 69 virgins will await them (or perhaps
that should be a 69 year old virgin) when they blow themselves up.
Regardless, I find it hard to ascribe to your theory that we are dealing
with the brightest lights on the planet. (Note: I am aware that others
share equally ridiculous beliefs about being sucked up into heaven and
I'll leave it to the reader to figure out what I think of that bunch).
Dave Cohen
C J Campbell
Bent Attorney Esq.
That is so correct. This cat uses the term 'freedom fighters' in an
almost derogatory manner. He/she obviously enjoys his/her sheep pen.
I don't.
SMS
Back in the olden days of film, you could use this to your advantage. At
Fry's Electronics, if they caught you taking pictures in the store they
would demand your film, and they would have it developed and printed at
their expense and then return to you all photos and negatives, except
those taken in the store.
What some people started doing was to have a fully exposed roll of film
in the camera, and then pretend to take photos until they were caught,
then willingly surrender the film to them for free processing. I don't
know how they do it now with digital.
When my son was younger I used to take along my camera when I walked him
to school and I would take photos of cars that failed to stop for
pedestrians in the crosswalk. On two occasions I had drivers get
extremely upset about this and demand that I delete the photos. One
followed me home and rang my bell.
tony cooper
wrote:
>Paul Bartram wrote:
>> [Cross posting deleted]
>>
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Excellent observation. Thank you!
>>
>> I'll second that.
>>
>> I know when I go, my photography - poor as it is - will be my only memorial.
>> Already some of my earlier shots are taking on historic significance, purely
>> because they are of things and people now gone. As time goes on, everybody's
>> shots will have cultural value to someone.
>>
>> I object strongly to some untrained dweeb in a K-Mart suit telling me what I
>> can and cannot photograph in a public place!
>
>Back in the olden days of film, you could use this to your advantage. At
>Fry's Electronics, if they caught you taking pictures in the store they
>would demand your film, and they would have it developed and printed at
>their expense and then return to you all photos and negatives, except
>those taken in the store.
The last time I visited the Tower of London, when you went to the area
where the Crown Jewels were displayed there was no photography
allowed. There were reels of 35mm film pulled out and exposed hanging
as a warning. I wonder if they now hang SD cards up.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
Daniel
news:1cmgq4ld83v60bq25...@4ax.com...
> The last time I visited the Tower of London, when you went to the area
> where the Crown Jewels were displayed there was no photography
> allowed. There were reels of 35mm film pulled out and exposed hanging
> as a warning. I wonder if they now hang SD cards up.
Not been there for a while, but I've seen people taking photos in there with
flash and just get a telling off. If you're discreet and don't use flash
you could probably get away with it, although you would need to crank up the
ISO because you go past them on a moving escalator.
tony cooper
It's been longer for me. I saw them when they were on display in a
basement room of the Waterloo Barracks. They were in cases in a room,
and visitors could spend as much time as desired in front of a case.
The current Jewel House was built in the 1990s.
Daniel
news:6549853e-912b-40ce...@w35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
Well, that went down well.
Sheep? On the contrary, but sometimes communication skills are more
important than your equipment.
Chris H
Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
I think in this case the railway station is not a public place... It is
a private place that the owners let the public use as long as they obey
a whole load of rules... See conditions of travel attached to your
ticket (available on request :-)
However paranoia and fear are the main drivers in this case... he could
be a terrorist..... (without access to google maps, all the publicly
available pictures and plans and who can not remember what he sees on a
route he can travel on as often as he buys a ticket. )
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
Chris H
<tony_co...@earthlink.net> writes
As you can/could get film, photos and guidebooks about the Crown jewels
and the layout of the room they were in I think it was more of a
commercial than security reason.
You don't want people spending a lot of time taking photos as it slows
up the flow, you want people to buy the merchandise and it is possible
that the flash could in days con by affect the sensors (fire or
security)
I expect the rolls of exposed film were simply a bit of ju ju and not
from any tourists camera :-)
Chris H
<b437299c-d2d2-4f7e...@k29g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Bob
G <mrbob...@yahoo.com> writes
>A terrorist worth his salt would carry a sub-minature camera and take
>all the pictures he wanted unnoticed and with the greatest of ease.
That or a good DSLR and a long lens and take the photos from somewhere
else.
>We all remember the legendary Minoxes but I'm sure today's technology
>has produced cameras a fraction of even their minute sizes and capable
>of much better resolution.
They are called mobile phones. 5-8 MP camera and VIDEO with sound......
Time to stop anyone carrying a mobile phone on the public transport
system... :-)
Chris H
<7b503618-d7cf-4c6e...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>, Bob
G <mrbob...@yahoo.com> writes
Quite so. If you need surveillance photos you can usually use Google
maps or similar. Also places like railway stations, bridges, public
areas you can usually get the photos you need from a building close by
and not risk being seen by any CCTV on the target.
Never mind making sure you have a face to face conversation with
security who will remember you... :-)
Chris H
<2009022709501216807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> writes
http://evolution-control.com/license/
Daniel
news:llhfPVG5...@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>The last time I visited the Tower of London, when you went to the area
>>where the Crown Jewels were displayed there was no photography
>>allowed. There were reels of 35mm film pulled out and exposed hanging
>>as a warning. I wonder if they now hang SD cards up.
> As you can/could get film, photos and guidebooks about the Crown jewels
> and the layout of the room they were in I think it was more of a
> commercial than security reason.
>
> You don't want people spending a lot of time taking photos as it slows up
> the flow, you want people to buy the merchandise and it is possible that
> the flash could in days con by affect the sensors (fire or security)
>
> I expect the rolls of exposed film were simply a bit of ju ju and not
> from any tourists camera :-)
Not been there for a while, but I've seen people taking photos in there with
J. Clarke
> In message
> <7b503618-d7cf-4c6e...@r15g2000prh.googlegroups.com>,
> Bob G <mrbob...@yahoo.com> writes
>> If I were a terrorist and needed to take pictures of trains for some
>> nefarious purpose, the last thing I'd do is use a humongous Nikon D80
>> openly in public for anyone to see.
>> This is far too complex an idea for any moron of a policeman to
>> grasp.
>
> Quite so. If you need surveillance photos you can usually use Google
> maps or similar. Also places like railway stations, bridges, public
> areas you can usually get the photos you need from a building close by
> and not risk being seen by any CCTV on the target.
This assumes that you can't find the angle you need by searching flickr and
the like.
ASAAR
> Better still an Artistic License... (this one is way ahead of it's time)
>
> http://evolution-control.com/license/
But not far enough ahead. The sample license shows an expiration
date of 06-27-09 and the order form includes no way to specify a
desired expiration date. Will it require purchasing one or two
every year (at $20 each) to keep the licence from expiring? If so,
will the renewals include "Has been a member since: mm-dd-yy"?
:)
whisky-dave
"Daniel" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:mbudnTn_xY7ExzTU...@pipex.net...
yeah, threats, violence, blackmail, terrorism and sexual favours all work
well too.
>
>
>
>
C J Campbell
> In message
> <2009022709501216807-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
> Campbell
>> Carry a Photographer's Bust Card. Download it here:
>>
>> http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm
>>
> Better still an Artistic License... (this one is way ahead of it's time)
>
> http://evolution-control.com/license/
Meh. I want press credentials from The Onion.
C J Campbell
> In message <49a77b7b$0$36380$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net>, Paul
> Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>> [Cross posting deleted]
>>
>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> Excellent observation. Thank you!
>>
>> I'll second that.
>>
>> I know when I go, my photography - poor as it is - will be my only memorial.
>> Already some of my earlier shots are taking on historic significance, purely
>> because they are of things and people now gone. As time goes on, everybody's
>> shots will have cultural value to someone.
>>
>> I object strongly to some untrained dweeb in a K-Mart suit telling me what I
>> can and cannot photograph in a public place!
>
> I think in this case the railway station is not a public place... It
> is a private place that the owners let the public use as long as they
> obey a whole load of rules... See conditions of travel attached to
> your ticket (available on request :-)
>
> However paranoia and fear are the main drivers in this case... he could
> be a terrorist..... (without access to google maps, all the publicly
> available pictures and plans and who can not remember what he sees on a
> route he can travel on as often as he buys a ticket. )
I think you have confused the difference between "public place" and
"publicly owned." A public place is any place that is open to the
public -- anyplace where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
A railroad station is a public place, privately owned or not (and most
are not). A restaurant is a public place, as is a shopping mall, bar,
museum, casino, etc.
Photography in some public places may be restricted by the owner,
whether the owner is a government or private entity. However, police
and security people may not claim that photography is restricted when
in fact it is not. If push comes to shove, police and others who
wrongly try to keep you from photography where it is not specifically
prohibited can be prosecuted. No one can order you to not take pictures
of children in a park, for example, even if that park is privately
owned. People who threaten to call the police, try to confiscate your
camera or film, or who use threats or intimidation in any way to try to
stop you are violating the law and could be prosecuted. They could also
be sued.
We need to stand up for our rights as photographers and insist on them
being enforced, or we will lose them.
Chris H
<justa...@mad.scientist.com> writes
>C J Campbell wrote:
>
>[snip...]
>>
>> I think you have confused the difference between "public place" and
>> "publicly owned." A public place is any place that is open to the
>> public -- anyplace where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
>> A railroad station is a public place, privately owned or not (and most
>> are not). A restaurant is a public place, as is a shopping mall, bar,
>> museum, casino, etc.
>>
>
>from it is fair game as the subject of a photo (exceptions do apply).
Usually I would say yes but it depends where in the world you are.... I
got stopped taking photos of a nice art Deco building in Brussels by
armed police that suddenly appeared. It turned out the building I was
photographing was next to the back entrance to the National
Bank/Tresurary (all un marked) and 2 minutes later amid a couple of
armoured cars (military style) were a couple of bullion truck making a
delivery.... I can see why they did not what me photographing them or
the delivery.
>Restaurants, shopping malls, bars, casinos are definitely not PUBLIC,
>and photography is clearly prohibited in them.
You mean "often" probibited and not always "clearly" The rules are there
"just in case" like the very long list of rules that apply when you use
a railway station but 99% of the world never reads.
>Interested parties may
>wish to review the following link and/or read the following book for
>additional information: < http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm > Legal
>Handbook for Photographers (Amherst Media, 2002)...
PLEASE NOTE the jurisdiction for this... Therer are also links for the
UK and NSW Australia. Rules can vary from place to place never mind
county to county or country to country!
>> We need to stand up for our rights as photographers and insist on them
>> being enforced, or we will lose them.
>
>Perhaps... but one should do so in a manner which diffuses any potential
>confrontations, and avoid potential violence.
Very true.. Several UK photographers have stood up for their rights but
were arrested for "breach of the peace" So they got arrested and removed
from the scene and held for a few hours thus missing press deadlines as
well as any other potential pictures without actually being arrested for
taking pictures...
Chris H
<2009030208434175249-christophercampbellremovethis@hotmailcom>, C J
Campbell <christophercam...@hotmail.com> writes
>On 2009-02-28 08:00:37 -0800, Chris H <ch...@phaedsys.org> said:
>
>> In message <49a77b7b$0$36380$c30e...@pit-reader.telstra.net>, Paul
>>Bartram <paul.b...@AT.OR.invalid> writes
>>> [Cross posting deleted]
>>>
>>>> "George Kerby" <ghost_...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>> Excellent observation. Thank you!
>>> I'll second that.
>>> I know when I go, my photography - poor as it is - will be my only
>>>memorial.
>>> Already some of my earlier shots are taking on historic significance, purely
>>> because they are of things and people now gone. As time goes on, everybody's
>>> shots will have cultural value to someone.
>>> I object strongly to some untrained dweeb in a K-Mart suit telling
>>>me what I
>>> can and cannot photograph in a public place!
>> I think in this case the railway station is not a public place...
>>It is a private place that the owners let the public use as long as
>>they obey a whole load of rules... See conditions of travel attached
>>to your ticket (available on request :-)
>> However paranoia and fear are the main drivers in this case... he
>>could be a terrorist..... (without access to google maps, all the
>>publicly available pictures and plans and who can not remember what he
>
>I think you have confused the difference between "public place" and
>"publicly owned."
Not at all.
> A public place is any place that is open to the public -- anyplace
>where you have no reasonable expectation of privacy.
Maybe in your local area.
> A railroad station is a public place, privately owned or not (and most
>are not). A restaurant is a public place, as is a shopping mall, bar,
>museum, casino, etc.
Any place that is owned the owner may put restrictions on what people
using can do. For example I believe some bridges in the US have "no
photography" signs on them.
When you use the railway system the owners (be it a private company or
the state) have a whole list of rules and regulations you explicitly
accept when you enter in to the contract with them.... Contract, yes
when you buy a ticket to travel.... You will also find that if you have
no valid ticket then they can eject you from the premises etc
>Photography in some public places may be restricted by the owner,
>whether the owner is a government or private entity.
Yes.
> However, police and security people may not claim that photography is
>restricted when in fact it is not.
They may be able to depending on the terms of you being there and their
powers in that they may have the right to decide on the spot according
to your contract with the company
> If push comes to shove, police and others who wrongly try to keep you
>from photography where it is not specifically prohibited can be
>prosecuted.
Probably not. You are probably guilty of breach of contract, trespass
etc etc Also it does not have to be specifically prohibited. There are
plenty of ways around it
> No one can order you to not take pictures of children in a park, for
>example, even if that park is privately owned.
The most certainly can... This has been done and is enforced in many
jusrisdtictions.
> People who threaten to call the police, try to confiscate your camera
>or film, or who use threats or intimidation in any way to try to stop
>you are violating the law and could be prosecuted. They could also be
>sued.
Possibly. But then again possibly not. It all depends on the contract
(implied or explicit) you and they have woth the owner.
>We need to stand up for our rights as photographers and insist on them
>being enforced, or we will lose them.
I agree totally.