About a year ago, I wrote this story on the unusual case of Dan Scott, a St. Albans amateur photographer who works a day job at the Burlington office of the U.S. Social Security Administration. Scott, who enjoyed taking candid photos of people in public places during his lunch hours, got into some legal hot water last year for his shutterbuggery, which made some of his subjects uncomfortable. He was subsequently issued a one-year no-trespass order by the Burlington PD, which barred him from entering dozens of businesses in downtown Burlington.
The story, which first appeared in print on March 10, 2010, went on to become the all-time most-read story, and third most emailed story, on the Seven Days website, garnering interest from other photographers, as well as First Amendment and free-speech advocates, the world over. Other websites subsequently picked up on the story, which only fueled the debate. In the process, Scott’s gritty, black-and-white stills got enormous exposure that he might not have otherwise received.
About a week ago, I received an email from Scott informing me that his one-year ban has officially expired. Sadly, Scott also told me that he no longer plans to take pictures on the streets of Burlington due to the hostility his work has invoked locally.
In fact, just days after his ban expired, Scott claims he had another run-in with a Burlington police officer for (legally) taking pictures of people on the street, as he’d done repeatedly in the past. According to Scott, the officer told him that he was “pissing people off” with his camera and that the officer didn’t want him to continue shooting pictures there.
File photo: Jordan Silverman.
“Perhaps a society — even one as small as Burlington — so willing to step on the rights of others — so willing to give up their own rights when they conflict with the whim of fashionable etiquette — does not deserve a champion so willing to fight for the rights of all,” Scott writes on his blog.
Love him or hate him, Scott’s pictures (including this one on the right) are definitely worth a viewing. Check out Scott’s parting shots — both in images and words — here.
This article appears in Mar 9-15, 2011.
Got something to say?
Send a letter to the editor and we'll publish your feedback in print!
Oh & he doesn’t sell the photos, not that it should matter – maybe someday he’ll have a show in a gallery and be lauded. Posting pictures to a flickr gallery is technically posting them on the internet but I fail to see how it has the creepy overtones people try to imply. He posts them to the *internet*? Well, sure. Don’t a lot of us put our pictures on our facebook page, for example? To share with all our stranger farmville friends? 🙂
You know, there have to be a hundred cameras on Church street on the ATMs and security cameras but nobody complains about those. I hate that some people jump immediately to impugning Dan’s character. Dan is neither self-important, nor a jerk. I have know him for going on thirty years and in all that time his character has been beyond reproach. He is, however, very intelligent and not easily intimidated, perhaps that is the problem. Or perhaps the problem is that he is a man. Since this thing started I’ve held that if he were a pretty young woman no one would bat an eyelash at his street photography. Asking police to diplomatically discourage someone from practicing free speech is called Tyranny people. When the police can badger away the rights of a citizenry from taking photographs on a public street the society is no longer free. Plus Dan’s photographs aren’t half bad even if his subject matter can get a little bleak. So for those who want to accuse Dan of being a creeper and therefore feel justified in banning his rights to free speech (and calling him names and maligning his character), please reconsider the case as it were a pretty young lady photographer the police were intimidating – not an intelligent, well spoken man who can speak up for himself. Or, say, just a regular guy without the distasteful adjectives you seem to immediately want to throw out there.If you have the open-mindedness to reconsider the situation with a different protagonist, do you have different feelings about protecting those rights?
JCarter, it is not illegal to sell photographs or make money from ads on the internet.
I don’t know about all this. I do agree there is no right to privacy in a public place such as the marketplace, and that in fact gives this guy the right to take the picture. From there things get sticky. By posting them on the internet, one could argue that the while there is no expectation of privacy to those on Church st, there is an expectation that they won’t be exposed to the entire world. Moreover, does he get paid from it anyway, internet ads? Sell the photographs? If so that would be illegal, if not then it is just fricking creepy.
Arrogant is the key concept here. The debate about conflicting rights, freedom of expression and expectation of privacy is well worth having but the current circumstance turns on the particulars of this case, which is that this guy is a self-important, aggressive jerk. Taking pictures isn’t the objection; taking pictures without permission isn’t the objection. I do that all the time including on Church Street without making people uncomfortable. Scott believes people are there for him and treats them like they’re shy exhibits at the zoo. People asking police to diplomatically discourage him is far better than what he asks for.
Wayne, I’m unclear on your reference to the Fourth Amendment. It reads:”The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.”As for the FIRST Amendment, the federal courts have ruled that photography is protected speech, especially in public places, not just for members of the press but all citizens.
Given that photography is not speech and that Dan is not the press, the 4th amendment would hardly apply.
There is no right to privacy in public. Anyone is allowed to photograph you at anytime when you travel in an open society. Your image, however, cannot be used for commercial gain without your approval. Part of a vibrant democracy includes tolerating views and actions that one doesn’t necessarily agree with. The thought that a police officer, while acknowledging Dan’s rights, would order him not to exercise them, would be laughable if it were not so chilling.
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.In case anyone forgot.
I have a little trouble feeling that this is a tragedy. From the beginning of this story, I have pondered where HIS right to self expression through his photography stops and peoples right not to have someone take their picture without permission starts. I can honestly see both sides. I had to stop someone from using an unauthorized photo of me in their ad once, and although the owner was appalled no one had gotten my permission and resolved the matter in good faith, it left me feeling strange..I personally find his parting quote a bit arrogant. Maybe those who were offended just deserve someone asking permission to use their image for commercial gain, even if it’s after the shot is taken to preserve the “candid”. Maybe they are indeed interested in preserving, not giving up, their rights, such as the right to privacy.