Negative experience with security at Hollywood Studios

[Marlton Mom]

Who is Don? I am intrigued now ... two stories.

Don is an overzealous security official from Downtown Disney. He likes to rudely demand Identification from photographers using tripods at Downtown Disney. He makes a big fuss if you ask him why he needs to see ID and he calls the dogs out on you if you explain to him that you you aren't doing anything wrong.

Technically, it could be construed that DTD is 'private' property and thus there is no 'right' to photograph it. On the other hand DTD is a "public" place and thus may not be afforded the same photographic restrictions.

See also the "Photographers rights" page http://www.krages.com/phoright.htm

The debate about who is in the right/wrong is endless, much like the refillable mug debate that flares up from time to time.

A popular and common sense approach, unfamiliar to Don and his ilk, is that the tripod will not make any significant improvements in the picture quality needed by al-Qaeda because the Taliban insist on shooting in auto mode with a small format, 1 megapixel, plastic lens, disposable camera. They are way too cheap to invest in a fine quality tripod (Manfrotto) that would undoubtedly improve the quality from the above mentioned disposable camera.

Seeing as we have not heard from Mickey 88 or the villainous Don we can only assume that one has got the other and they are locked in mortal combat, with ID's being flung like Ninja stars and tripod legs being used to parry, reposte in the ensuing battle.

Hopefully we will have "film at 11" or some such update whenever Mickey 88 is sprung from the clink by his family.

? Should we be collecting donations for the bail fund??

Marlton Mom

 

[Shutterbug]

Just another one that followed this over from the photoboard.

You know maybe it wasnt Don at all but someone else who didnt want him making waves by complaining

 

[DVC Jen]

just a lil FYI about the guy who complained about "Don" - that guy has been known to have his photos from Disney up for sale.

I was so angry for him until I dug a bit deeper into his photography and found several photos obviously taken on WDW property available - for a price.

 

[JLVermillion]

Now that i know about "Don" I am debating should I or should I not tell DBiL? He is a tripod/ camera/lens/ carry case ect. fanatic. He is also a "Why" person and will debate the answer. I love him and will probably warn him, but the whole seen could be quite entertaining ( Rubbing hands together , sinister laugh echos through the house , and eyes squinting and shifting deviously now).

 

[Pineapple Whip]

Now that i know about "Don" I am debating should I or should I not tell DBiL? He is a tripod/ camera/lens/ carry case ect. fanatic. He is also a "Why" person and will debate the answer. I love him and will probably warn him, but the whole seen could be quite entertaining ( Rubbing hands together , sinister laugh echos through the house , and eyes squinting and shifting deviously now).

I've taken all sorts of oddball pics day after day all over disney and never had any issues. I think there is more to this story like, as a PP mentioned, photos are up for sale. I'm pretty sure that any private property has policies against commercial photography without their consent, or if you photograph what could be considered private, sensitive, or proprietary stuff. If you came to my house and wanted to take pics of it from the inside for commercial purposes, or took pictures of all my valuables, or essentially documented it for a later crime, I'd throw you out too, regardless of what camera gear you were using.

Frankly, we take all sorts of strange and normal pictures. There are some however that any reasonable person would understand if security or law enforcement were concerned about. It's not everyone, or even enough to be the minority, but there are a few photogs that just plop down and set up anywhere, without any consideration for others, policies, laws, etc... If they would take a moment to consider their location and subject and how it could be interpreted... or even better, just ask an "official" first, there would be less of these threads across the internet. Contact an employee, a guard, or better yet, the media contact for the property and ask permission. Regardless of how you feel about freedom, the law is the law and private property is just that. Those are the same privacy laws that I've seen people argue when they don't want to show the "officials" their footage or taken pictures. They allow us to "reserve the right"...

If you show up and set up with pro-gear which is not something the average tourist carries, then yes, you might be considered a possible commercial photog and asked if you are such, or just taking them for personal use. If you set up in a fire lane, walking path, or blocking anything which unbeknownst to you should not be blocked, you may be asked to move. Regardless of the price of the camera, if you are seen aiming in the general direction of sensitive things, you might get questioned.

Seriously, millions of people are snapping pics all day long and we hear about the guy every so often that "got stopped for taking pics of a nuclear plant". Certain extreme cases of abuse aside, if you're on private property, or want to snap pics of a high security site, you might want to call ahead and find out their policies, or maybe ask for permission. If you have a media pass, it would work a heck of a lot better for you. Regardless of how we feel, there have been plenty of cases of criminals and terrorists casing targets with A/V gear, and some of them posing as tourists.

Now if YOU ARE STANDING ON public property (make sure you are) that's another story.