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!
Hey, just wanted to say that after this article, Scott actually did start shooting again and was active till 2016 on Flickr.
A very nice write up “Another_Vermonter.” Compelling but not factually supported. Nowhere in any of the Seven Days coverage (this year or last) does it say that Mr. Scott took photos on private property. In fact, it says just the opposite. It says he kept his surreptitious photography to public property. The ban, if you have forgotten, is a reciprocating sort of device. It only takes one business on Church St. to get a person banned from all the participating stores. The coffee shop that insisted on the ban was Uncommon Grounds. In the original Seven Day’s article the coffee shop manager specifically says that Scott didn’t enter the coffeehouse to take pictures. You, however, state that he was banned because “he followed people when they sought refuge inside, sticking his camera in their faces and clicking away.” Now, I should think that the manager of the store that called for the ban might have mentioned this to Seven Days if it were the case. Looks like you are either flat out wrong or Seven Days didn’t get the story right. It’s my guess that you are flat out wrong. Let me tell you why using your own words.You also say, “There’s no constitutional right to stalk or harass people, camera or no camera.” Here you are 100 percent right. Stocking people is not protected by the constitution and it’s also illegal. Do you think, for one minute, that if Mr. Scott was stocking folks on Church St that the police wouldn’t arrest him or, at the very least, issue a restraining order. We know they went to visit him at his place of work and that they’ve stopped him on the street, we also know that the Burlington PD have surveillance cameras on Church St. I should think, that if he were stocking or harassing people, they would have found some actionable infraction to charge him with. But, they didn’t. So, what does that leave us with. Ah, his unsavory behavior. If it’s just his behavior that’s objectionable then, too bad. I mean, I don’t like it when I get stuck behind a guy turning left out of a gas station on Williston Rd. Obviously, the dude is being rude and inconsiderate, he should just go right and flow with the traffic. But, I don’t insist he gets banned from all the service stations on the street, I don’t even honk my horn – though I do swear at him under my breath. You should try it, works well with bosses too.
Fascinating hypothetics but what are we actually talking about? Scott was banned from entering stores on Church Street for a year, by the store owners, because he followed people when they sought refuge inside, sticking his camera in their faces and clicking away. The disinvitation to enter commercial establishments was served by police (after Scott indignantly refused to act like a civilized human being) but it wasn’t a police action; he was not arrested or charged. Only commenters here think this has anything to do with law, speech, art, intrusion or permission. Only commenters here think it has anything to do with his rights. It has to do with how best to respond to chronic obnoxiousness. Think of him as a muttering lunatic pissing down his pantleg and following people at random trying to engage them in conversation. He cares nothing about them, in his fantasy they’re just figments of his imagination existing to be engaged in conversation, or in this case captured on film. How best to deal with someone so persistently rude? You try to talk him down, wait for him to go somewhere else, or sober up; this clown was relentless. Banning him from entering stores for a year was the gentlest possible next step. We can’t let oblivious people do whatever they want, whether they’re demented, intoxicated or artistic. It doesn’t matter if they have a legal right to do it; we have a legal right not to be held hostage to it. Streetcorner preaching is protected but we have a right to walk away; collecting petition signatures is protected but we have a right to decline; taking pictures is protected but we have a right to escape. The point of the ban was to give his victims an avenue of escape (indoors) because Scott proved impervious to any and all efforts to educate him to the niceties of candid photography, which generally starts with not making the subject preoccupied with you (much less furious with you or afraid of you). Perhaps there was also the motive of waking him to the narcissistic, antisocial nature of his actions, but that was a vain hope.How to make this plain? His rights were never in question or infringed in any way. He was never beaten, arrested or forbidden to do anything except enter private property where he had demonstrated his willingness to pursue and harass people. Several informal attempts to explain that acting like an ass has consequences fell on deaf ears. He, like some here, can’t seem to grasp that doing something sanctioned does not sanction using other people as we see fit while doing it. The issue was never photographing people or displaying photographs of people, it was treating people like prey, being the sort of prick you don’t want anywhere near you. It was always and only about his being a self-important, aggressive prick. Which isn’t illegal and wasn’t prosecuted, but it is intolerable and was discouraged. It was discouraged because it needs to be discouraged. There’s no constitutional right to stalk or harass people, camera or no camera. A right to record people’s lives does not confer a right to take over their lives. Any talk about constitutional rights, chilling effect or unpopular ideas is completely irrelevant in this case. The guy is insufferable and needs to learn some manners or stay home.
When I read the first story, I was sympathetic towards the photographer because I enjoy taking pictures and want to be able to express myself. Sometime between that article and this one, I think I ran into him at least once. Now, I definitely don’t mind people taking pictures from a distance, which is what I thought the guy was doing when I read the first article. however, this guy GOT RIGHT UP IN MY FACE! And he didn’t even ask my permission, either, just Snap! I wasn’t very nice about it. Personally, I think it violates the rights of the people who are being photographed that the guy didn’t even ask. When one person’s rights gets in the way of another person’s rights is when you have trouble and need to tread carefully. At least, that’s what I believe.
Well, I’ve taken photos of people, just in taking photos of places, but I’d never point the camera at a stranger from a few feet away, or ten feet away, or even twenty feet away. It’s annoying – it’s where your right to capture an image ends and your intimidation of a stranger begins. Give this fellow a telephoto lens! I agree with both sides, in a way. But I’m from NYC, where you might get away with it forever, someone might grab your camera, or you might get a punch in the nose. It’s all free.