Check out this DCist article about the conflict between photographers vs. DC area security people & a developer, and what's being done about it.
Here's a little bit from the article:
" The lease signed by the county to the developers contains an easement "for public access," though it allows the private company to "enforce reasonable rules and regulations." Both of these statements seem pretty obvious: photography is allowed on Ellsworth Drive. Non-commercial photography of the area in downtown Silver Spring is not only reasonable, but it constitutes part of "public access," just like walking down Constitution Avenue.
UPDATE: Notes from the protest today, at Free Our Streets.
Related:
Baltimore Sun story
Washington Post story
- Sujewa
Here's a little bit from the article:
" The lease signed by the county to the developers contains an easement "for public access," though it allows the private company to "enforce reasonable rules and regulations." Both of these statements seem pretty obvious: photography is allowed on Ellsworth Drive. Non-commercial photography of the area in downtown Silver Spring is not only reasonable, but it constitutes part of "public access," just like walking down Constitution Avenue.
The Peterson Company has issued a laughable statement in reaction to the recent publicity over this issue, and has somehow deemed itself the authority to "give" these rights to photographers, stating in a press release, "We permit all [photography, videography and other filming at our Center]." The developer is sort of like your boyfriend who decides to "let" you go out with your girl friends one night. They're doling out rights that already exist, intending to "keep" the authority to stamp them out when they choose (as the statement continues, "We reserve the right to modify this and other policies")."
Read the rest here.UPDATE: Notes from the protest today, at Free Our Streets.
Related:
Baltimore Sun story
Washington Post story
- Sujewa
