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!
@AC, You know nothing about what you talk about. Maybe do a little research before posting. Doesn’t really care a lot of weight huh. On the other hand if you actually shared what it is you disagree with and provide some citations it might. Until then post your drivel and the rest of us will just take it that you are Supreme Court Justice and all knowing. The same applies to Duckshots. Do you guys realize that by simply stating someone is uninformed without providing any other material other then you are uninformed just makes you look as uninformed, as ignorant, and even more of a jerk then me? All I have said is to the best of my knowledge you may not take a picture and make money off it without the owners consent. THAT IS TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE. If you have other information then SHARE IT. But from the case law I have read it is not entirely cut and dry. “an image of an individual cannot be displayed at any time or at any place without his consent” (Pavesich v. New England Life Ins. Co., 50 S.E. 68 (1905)). “whether the victim possesses a reasonable expectation of privacy that can exist regardless of whether that person is in a public or private place.” 18 U.S.C. Section 1801 (2004))Campbell v. MGN Ltd.140Did Scott break the law, it depends on several factors and ultimately how a jury would hear it. A.) He can’t photograph in a private place, the coffee shop that ultimately started the mess. So the question becomes is the outside area part of the shop or not. B.) what constitutes reasonable expectation of privacy? There is a difference between expectation in a crowd of a few hundred people on Church and 100’s of millions on the internet. C.) is it commercial? Newsworthy (the exception allowing paparazzi to do what they do) or incidental. I don’t think Scott taking a picture of Joe Smoe walking up the street is illegal and if I gave that impression, my bad. Putting it on the internet is creepy, and is sketchy under privacy laws.
It is settled case law in the United States that anyone may photograph whatever they like on public property, this includes people as subjects of the photograph, with no need for consent.It is also settled settled case law in the United States that those photographs may be displayed or sold, again without consent of any people in the photographs.Such photographs may also be used by news publications etc. (also confirmed in court cases)It is generally accepted that such photographs my not be used for commercial purposes (i.e. advertising). As I understand it, this is not because of the subjects image per se. but rather the false implication that the subject is endorsing the advertising.You do not have to like the above, but it is the law. Unless we change the constitution it will remain the law.The police stopping one law-abiding citizen from doing something they are legally entitled to do scares me much more than than any of the concerns people have raised about street photography.
@ Natalie:Thank you for reminding us about what “actually matters,” and what we can and cannot care about. And talk about.You must be really popular at the dinnertable when you tell your family to stop whining about all those stupid and unimportant things like Dad’s birthday, and the weather, and how Frannie is doing in school, and what the dog did today, and who cousin David married, etc., BECAUSE THERE ARE MORE IMPORTANT THINGS TO TALK ABOUT LIKE GENOCIDE.I think we’re still allowed to talk about whether a guy with a camera on Church Street is or is not a harasser and a jerk, if that’s alright with you?After all, in case you hadn’t noticed, this IS a thread about a guy with a camera on Church Street. Now, yes, I do realize this is Burlington, and we are therefore required BY LAW to discuss, at least once a day, with righteous indignation, all of the following: the Westboro Baptist Church/factory farming/global warming/genocide/species extinction/PETA/veganism/fair trade/racism/anti-NAFTA/single-payer/genetically-modified seeds/anti-war/death-with-dignity/dredlocks/anti-nuke/raw milk/Iraq/renewable energy/legalizing marijuana/wiccanism/spirituality/emotional intelligence/multi-national corporations/FOX News/world music/oppression/IRV voting/economic justice/right wing reactionaries/carbon footprints.But can’t we talk for a minute just about the guy with the camera? Pretty please?The factory farming/global warming/genocide/species extinction thread will be back tomorrow (and every other day in Burlington), ok?
@AC – AMEN!Also, all you people complaining about what an obnoxious jerk Scott is, check this out about the Westboro Baptist Church: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/03/02/westboro-baptist-church-w_n_830209.htmlHuh. The Supreme Court ruled it’s legal to do that? I would quit complaining about photographers who take your picture without asking, but stop as soon you express your disscomfort, and start caring about things that actually matter. Get active about factory farming, global warming, genocide, species extinction, etc..
Very sad. Now there only be me. and JCARTER, I suggest that you should heed AC. Think about how uninformed you are, a sad fact that could affect how you analyze a situation and what your opinions are.
JCarter, you have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. Maybe take ten minutes and stop commenting and do a little research.
FWIW, he wasn’t banned from taking pictures on church street, yes that was misstated. But, here’s the part that is confusing… What is he crying about? He go to Church St, he can take pictures. He got banned from going into privately owned shops and taking pictures. That’s not a freedom of expression thing at all. That’s a don’t like it stay outta my store type thing.
Frankly, I don’t know him, or his story. I do know if someone were to take a picture of me and be a jerk about it then he better be wearing his running shoes… hypothetically speaking.
A Caitlan, which part of my post wasn’t true. You said he was banned from CHurch Street. If he was banned from the establishments that is different then being banned from the street. That is false. You cited paparazzi and celebrities as your reasoning behind it’s ok to make money of other peoples images. That is also false. As it is a different legal beast. I suggest you take some of your own words of advice and stop disseminating false information.
@JCarter you are misinformed. Dan was banned from entering all Establishments on Church street for one year. (which he was not inside while taking photographs.) He was NOT banned from taking pictures or harassing people on Church street as that is not possible to do, he was not breaking any laws. Or interfering with anyone’s rights since, again, there is no right to not have your photo taken on a public street.Celebrities are often not celebrities by choice, anybody who gets famous for any reason can suddenly be a paparazzi target. BTW please do not disseminate incorrect information, everything on the internet before you posted was 100% true. 🙂