I was going to make a note of this in the SF Bay Area pictures thread but decided I'd make a new one.

One Bush Street is one of the prime examples of modern architecture in San Francisco and today still seems as clean and as modern as it was when it was first constructed. Many contemporary architects look at One Bush as a model for uncompromising simplicity.

http://craphound.com/images/onebushthawk.jpg

Several days ago, an amateur photographer posted on their blog that they were prohibited from taking pictures of One Bush Street in San Francisco by a private security guard, despite the fact that he stood in a public space on a public sidewalk.

The incident is documented here: http://thomashawk.com/2005/07/one-bush.html

In response, some 20 or so people decided to flashmob One Bush Street today and took pictures of the building. (and also went ahead to do the same with other buildings in San Francisco that have photography bans like 555 California and the Transamerica Pyramid) Some of the pictures are really cool.

The pictures are here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/avantgame/sets/668574/

and also here:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/tags/onebushstreet

I understand that there are security concerns, but what harm do private photographers do by taking artful shots of a beautiful building? As photographers and skyscraper buffs, we shouldn't need to be hassled when engaging with our subjects in a public space.

^ :lol: I like that "flashmob". Great idea. I had no clue that you could restrict the photography of a building. Good luck enforcing it.

We should be allowed to photograph any building we see, I mean we do it with people, so buildings wouldn't be a strech? Then again if its a "national security issue" then don't do it. ;)

I didn't even know there's a photography ban on some SF buildings. I think it's crazy. :no:

That is the silliest and most unenforceable thing I have ever heard.

That's awful news, boybaha! :(

Actually, if you take a walk around downtown and look at the sidewalks, you may find little brass plaques embedded that say that you walk on private property and that your right to pass is at the discretion of the property owners. In the past, this was used to keep people from demonstrating in front of buildings. it's actually surprising how much of our public space in San Francisco actually have a lot of private controls. It also makes you wonder what "public space" really means.

So there really isn't a photography ban, but certain property managers/owners do not like people taking pictures of their buildings. I suppose it's a security/anti-terror measure, which is understandable. But to what lengths to we go to for this? Do we infringe on people's first amendment rights for artistic expression? Do we go after every tourist who wants a picture next to the Transamerica? And would a photo-ban be an impediment for would-be terrorists anyway?

A definite NO on your last question.

And that whole private property bit ... I didn't realize the deal about the brass plaques ... that's a shame. On the other hand, I guess the owners are entitled to control what goes on at & near their property to a certain extent. The whole thing sort of reminds me of the Regents of the U of CA! :D

That's sucks. It's really only unenforceable if you can't outrun the security.

If you are inside the building/on it's property that's one thing, however if you are on public property you are allowed to photograph whatever. The actual laws regarding this have been posted many times. Always remember that the security guard is not a police officer, therefor it is illegal for him/her to detain you. So if they try to detain you or confiscate your film (especially on public grounds), from what I understand, you can press charges for kidnapping or theft. Long story short, if they leave their area of authority and threaten you on public grounds you can always call the police...who SHOULD have a basic understanding of how the law that they enforce works.

I knew that you could not take pictures of the Golden Gate but I was not aware of that part about the buildings.... :|

I knew that you could not take pictures of the Golden Gate but I was not aware of that part about the buildings.... :|

Well that's not true. I took at ton of them when i was there in April. And I had some snapped of me and I snapped some of tourists from Algeria, the Philippines, and Ukraine. We were a sordid looking bunch and no one batted an eyelash.

Seriously? No one is allowed to take pictures of the Golden Gate anymore? Is any one still under the false impression that US is a "free" country?

You can still take pictures of the Golden Gate.

I would understand if someone would go up to building and asked for the schematics, but to just take a picture or two? :? :dunno: :crazy:

Seriously? No one is allowed to take pictures of the Golden Gate anymore? Is any one still under the false impression that US is a "free" country?

Stop trolling and read the thread...... :bash: