Photography at ORD: Happy to report I was not harassed
#16
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M




Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Originally Posted by Bart
Taking photographs, even at checkpoints, is NOT, I repeat not a security issue. It is, however, a PRIVACY issue. Unless you have the consent of the person in the photo, you cannot take their picture.
You do not need to have the consent of a person to take their picture in a public place.
If the image is used for commercial gain, consent must be obtained: click here
#17
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend, In Memoriam




Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Yiron, Israel
Programs: Bates Motel Plat
Posts: 69,201
Originally Posted by Spiff
If the image is used for commercial gain, consent must be obtained: click here
Yes, if I own a business and I want to use your picture in an advertisement, I must get you to sign a release.
However, if I publish a newspaper and I use your picture in connection with a story, I do not need your permission -- even though I am selling the newspaper and making a commercial gain.
#18
Moderator: Coupon Connection & S.P.A.M




Join Date: May 2000
Location: Louisville, KY
Programs: Destination Unknown, TSA Disparager Diamond (LTDD)
Posts: 58,133
Originally Posted by Dovster
Even that is not always true.
Yes, if I own a business and I want to use your picture in an advertisement, I must get you to sign a release.
However, if I publish a newspaper and I use your picture in connection with a story, I do not need your permission -- even though I am selling the newspaper and making a commercial gain.
Yes, if I own a business and I want to use your picture in an advertisement, I must get you to sign a release.
However, if I publish a newspaper and I use your picture in connection with a story, I do not need your permission -- even though I am selling the newspaper and making a commercial gain.
Bottom line, as long as screeners' pix are not being put into book cover jacket ads or similar situations, they have no "right" not to be photographed.
#19
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
It is in the SOP, section 2.6 and says TSA does not prohibit anyone from photographing, videotaping or filming the checkpoints unless it interferes with screening or obstructs the flow of passengers.
From another thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ht=photography
The "real" concern is photographing the screening machines settings displayed on the LCDs.
From another thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ht=photography
The "real" concern is photographing the screening machines settings displayed on the LCDs.
#20


Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Near Chicago and Under the MDW and ORD Flight Paths, IL, USA
Programs: UA recovering Premier
Posts: 948
Originally Posted by MJDORD1K
The "suit" continued down the concourse and turned toward some of the offices scattered in the area between the E&F concourses.
IIRC, the Chicago Department of Aviation has its offices in there. There is an escalator upstairs (I think there used to be an observation deck up there many years ago). So you probably saw a DOA Security Police guy or some city honcho.
#21
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
It is in the SOP, section 2.6 and says TSA does not prohibit anyone from photographing, videotaping or filming the checkpoints unless it interferes with screening or obstructs the flow of passengers.
From another thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ht=photography
The "real" concern is photographing the screening machines settings displayed on the LCDs.
From another thread:
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/showt...ht=photography
The "real" concern is photographing the screening machines settings displayed on the LCDs.
#22
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
Yeah, that's the TSA. I'm sure airport security goons are the real concern here.
Your comments are uncalled for in this thread. A thread which is trying to convey information to passengers. Posts like these are detrimental to this forum and have been reported to the administrator.
#23
Founder of FlyerTalk
Join Date: May 1998
Location: Colorado Springs, CO
Posts: 6,540
Originally Posted by JS
But, as long as there are security pigs and stupid people who support their existence, I will just have to be alert and careful not to take a picture when pigs are near.
Thanks.
#24
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
Your comments are uncalled for in this thread. A thread which is trying to convey information to passengers. Posts like these are detrimental to this forum and have been reported to the administrator.
I submit that telling passengers that they may not take pictures when there is no legal basis for that action (under threat of confiscating their equipment) is goonish behavior. I'm sorry that you don't like the term (I didn't mean it in a derogatory way) but it is accurate.
#25
Join Date: May 2002
Location: In the home of the "brave"?
Programs: Whatever will get me out of Y and into C or F!
Posts: 3,748
Originally Posted by Randy Petersen
JS: I've got to say that the use of the term "pig(s)" here is quite derogatory
History of Seattle's Bacon Bowl
^
But back to the topic at hand, it seems that even that beneficiary of the First Amendment, Time-Warner Inc. tries to stop even press photographers from taking pictures of their buildings:
http://www.nytimes.com/2004/06/24/ny.../24blocks.html
But the feeling that private interests are dominating the circle was reinforced Friday when a photographer for The New York Times, Nancy Siesel, was taking pictures for this column. Although she was on the sidewalk in front of the Time Warner Center, she said two security guards, neither of whom would identify himself, insisted that she stop.
"You're not allowed to photograph the structure of the building," Ms. Siesel quoted the first guard as telling her. She showed them her press identification card, issued by the Police Department, and insisted that she was within her rights to photograph a building from the public way on assignment. But she said the second guard told her, "If you persist, I'm going to call the police." Pressed, he backed down from this threat.
Though unfamiliar with the particulars of the encounter, Mr. Himmel said, "If someone on our security force stopped a photographer from a newspaper from photographing the building, they probably overstepped."
"There should be no restrictions in terms of the public's ability to photograph the building from the outside," he said, "because it's a public space."
"You're not allowed to photograph the structure of the building," Ms. Siesel quoted the first guard as telling her. She showed them her press identification card, issued by the Police Department, and insisted that she was within her rights to photograph a building from the public way on assignment. But she said the second guard told her, "If you persist, I'm going to call the police." Pressed, he backed down from this threat.
Though unfamiliar with the particulars of the encounter, Mr. Himmel said, "If someone on our security force stopped a photographer from a newspaper from photographing the building, they probably overstepped."
"There should be no restrictions in terms of the public's ability to photograph the building from the outside," he said, "because it's a public space."
#26
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
I submit that telling passengers that they may not take pictures when there is no legal basis for that action (under threat of confiscating their equipment) is goonish behavior.
The terms like "pigs", "goons" or worse really don't need to be used in a civilized discussion.
#27
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Miami, FL
Programs: AA EXP/Marriott Plat/Hertz PC
Posts: 12,724
Originally Posted by TSAMGR
I agree with you and have posted the TSA SOP supporting your contention. It has been established that the person involved was most likely an airport person. What is disturbing is that any problem is automatically equated with the TSA. Yes we have our problems (many of you are more than happy to bring to everyone's attention), but there are many other groups in an airport.
The terms like "pigs", "goons" or worse really don't need to be used in a civilized discussion.
I hope they do change their behavior. When they do, "goon" won't be the most accurate term to describe them. Let's hope for that, okay?
#28
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: New York, NY
Posts: 1,673
Originally Posted by whirledtraveler
Which is why I called out airport security, not you.
I'm really more concerned with behavior than words. You should be too.
I hope they do change their behavior. When they do, "goon" won't be the most accurate term to describe them. Let's hope for that, okay?
I'm really more concerned with behavior than words. You should be too.
I hope they do change their behavior. When they do, "goon" won't be the most accurate term to describe them. Let's hope for that, okay?
#29
Suspended
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: GSP (Greenville, SC)
Programs: DL Gold Medallion; UA Premier Executive; WN sub-CP; AA sub-Gold
Posts: 13,393
Originally Posted by Randy Petersen
JS: I've got to say that the use of the term "pig(s)" here is quite derogatory and I really don't think that necessary to make your point about photography at airports. Any chance you could edit your comments to better reflect the spirit in which FlyerTalk was founded? Not trying to stifle your opinion, but certainly trying to make sure that FlyerTalk strives toward civil opinions and actions.
Thanks.
Thanks.
#30
Original Poster

Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: BOS and vicinity
Programs: Former UA 1P
Posts: 3,730
Originally Posted by MJDORD1K
Well studentff, it looks like you were a bit lucky in your ORD experience. Yesterday I was standing at the counter at E2A (United Express) and there was an eight year-old kid with a digital camera taking a couple of pictures of a UX plane in the "new" colors and the "sporty" red tugs that UX uses to push aircraft at this gate. Out of nowhere comes a security "suit" who appears to tell the kid to turn off the camera. Of course the kid complies. A bit later, I happened to be standing next to the kid's father and asked if the "suit" had told the boy to stop taking
Well, maybe the goons at ORD (and I use the term properly, "thug hired to intimidate"), are too afraid to pick on anyone who's not a child.
Yesterday I had 1.5 hours and ORD and time to kill, so I took some more pictures in Terminal 1 B/C and in the Terminal 2 food area and E/F gate area. Nobody said a word. I wore the camera around my neck the whole time too, just to be highly visible. I will continue to do this when I have the opportunity, 1) because I enjoy the photos of airplanes, and 2) as a show of solidarity with camera-toting 8-year-olds.
To relate to my other post in the "scooting" thread, I was looking for a confrontation at ORD yesterday. More than willing to admit it when I am. But none happened.

