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!
” Maybe he pisses people off because he takes their picture after they’ve asked him not to and that can be seen as annoying and obnoxious.”Seen as annoying and obnoxious? It can be seen as harassment and threatening and worthy of an asswhipping. Freedom of expression does not protect you from being a jerk. You can freely express yourself until it reaches the point where you are interfering with other peoples rights. BTW, Dan was not banned from church street, he was banned from taking pictures and harassing people in church street.
@ CaptainObvious, How did you miss the fact that my example was hypothetical Question CaptainObvious ???may want to change your name.
@Caitlin, Celebrities are different from a legal standpoint. They by choice put themselves within the public domain, that is why paparazzi get away with it.
Photography is stale anyway.
@Another Vermonter If you have taken issue with the way Dan has personally taken your picture on Church street, than I cannot argue with your right to complain of his manner, appearance, obnoxiousness etc, as long as your complaints at his (perceived or actual) obnoxiousness do not escalate to having him stopped by police. Or banned from Church street. I would disagree with that only. Because any clown with a camera *has* the right to take pictures as obnoxiously as they want, on the street. However, I get the sense a lot of times that the people jumping to call him names or calling him expletives have *not* personally had any interaction. That’s the part that I find almost as offensive as the misinformed rants that people have a right to privacy on the street. The implication that after the however obnoxious & rude photo has been snapped, something nefarious will then be done with it. So I guess I can see how having your picture taken against your will can be annoying, and someone who does that can be considered rude and obnoxious. But that very behavior is protected free speech. So I guess what I’m trying to get out there is that Dan is not a pervert. Maybe he pisses people off because he takes their picture after they’ve asked him not to and that can be seen as annoying and obnoxious. But since he’s allowed to do that, and doing it is a protected activity, maybe those that are annoyed can just walk away or flip him off or whatever and not try to justify how getting the police involved is a good thing.
“some people jump immediately to impugning Dan’s character… his character has been beyond reproach”Some people don’t find his character beyond reproach. The fact that you aren’t among them doesn’t mean all those who’ve felt he richly deserves reproach are jumping to conclusions; it may only mean that he hasn’t treated you the way he treats them. But of course he wouldn’t.Let’s stop claiming candid portraiture is speech or that this has anything remotely to do with speech. The dissemination of photographs is arguably speech and protected. There’s a difference in that ideas have no intrinsic rights while people do have rights to recognizable images of themselves. But the objection isn’t to display of or profit from photographs, it’s to his behavior taking them. If an ATM security camera or a woman, or a “regular guy”, followed people around acting all paparazzo, yes, people would complain about that as well. If he took people for granted with no CF card in his camera, the complaints would be the same. Free speech is not under threat; public obnoxiousness is.Let me suggest, again, that in this particular case the police are not oppressing Scott as much as protecting him. Arrest and incarceration for having broken a law is only one legitimate police function; another is advising against behavior likely to result in breaking a law. (Assuming there’s a law against making someone eat his camera.) Security cameras and “regular guys” know better than to disrespect and harass people on Church Street. This… person is apparently too intelligent and well spoken to get that. He’s not a champion of photographer 1st amendment rights, he’s a champion of carte blanche rights for any clown with a camera. That cause apparently resonates with people who infer from a right to express themselves a right to use the rest of us to express themselves. I beg to differ.
@JCarter illegal to profit off someone’s pictures? Ever heard of Paparazzi? While I would be annoyed if someone caught me in an unattractive pose, that doesn’t mean that they don’t have the right to do it, or that I should get the police to harass them bc I was scratching my ass in public. Do you suppose that if Britney Spears had any legal recourse against having her naked bits postered all across the internet she wouldn’t have done something about it? Google earth is taking satellite pictures of all of us 24/7 from a lot closer vantage points than we get to see, shouldn’t that concern you more than a photographer you can see and avoid?
@JCarter, If you don’t want the public to see you scratch your ass, don’t scratch your ass in public…
@Gahlord, I believe making money of a persons image without their consent is illegal. If I’m wrong I apologize. @ Caitlin, I hope you see the difference between sitting on a bench on Church knowing you are in a public space and having someone put your picture up on the WWW where it will remain for ever and ever without your consent. What if it is a picture of you picking your nose or scratching your ass. You might be a little steamed about it and rightfully so.
Well… this just might be a case of ‘Just because I can doesn’t mean I should’. As a photographer myself, I still feel a personal responsibility of respect toward others. I believe that if others are uncomfortable with having their picture taken, then I have some responsibility to respect their wishes or beliefs. Where I live and commonly photograph, people are generally quite happy having their picture taken, and many are happier if they appear in the papers. Where someone is less comfortable, or unhappy with that, then I back off. It’s not just about rights in our society; it’s also about parallel responsibility to exercise those rights respectfully.