Incoming

On January 19, I had five minutes to present to the Hamilton Public
Library Board my view that their existing photo policy was overly
draconian, especially since I considered the library a public space.
Below is my presentation. Afterwards the Board decided not to change
its policy but to make its forms more available to the public.

Public Photography in the Library
Ladies and Gentlemen. Thank you for giving me this opportunity to
speak to you this evening.

I am presenting as a photographer, as a citizen journalist and as a citizen.

As I outlined in my letter, I recently had the experience of being
prevented from taking pictures in the Hamilton Public Library by a
librarian and a security guard.

This is, unfortunately, becoming a more frequent occurrence in Canada,
the U.S., the U.K. and worldwide. Photographers are being harassed,
prevented and questioned by security guards and police simply because
they took photographs of buildings or of citizens in public places.

This should not be the case. Photography is not a crime. In Canada
photographers, for non-commercial purposes, are free to take
photographs of whatever, whomever, whenever we like in public spaces.
Citizens in parks, on streets etc. do not have, or should not have, a
reasonable expectation of privacy. They are in public. I would argue
the same for someone at a work station in the midst of a well-lit,
glass-walled public library.

However, the library and I disagree that the Hamilton Public Library,
despite its name, public mandate and public funding, is a public
space. Let us, for the moment, set that aside.

Right now, in order to take photographs in the library a visitor must
get permission
from the communications department, outline the reason why he or she
wishes to take photos, schedule when the photo will be taken, and
indicate how the photos are going to be used.

A public space, or not, I would argue this is an overly draconian,
unproductive, outdated and ultimately unenforceable measure. I am here
to encourage you to amend it.

I say it unproductive because it requires staff time that could be
better spent elsewhere, I'm certain.

It is outdated because we have seen, in the past two years, an
explosion of mobile devices. Images from these devices are being
shared every day, in the millions, on social networks such as flickr,
twitter, facebook and many others.

For the current generation (and old folks like me), these devices and
these social networks have become a powerful means of celebrating
moments, sharing discoveries and promoting destinations and events.
Many organizations have discovered and cherish the power of
crowdsourced videos and images as a free means of brand extension and
exposure. In fact, this was precisely what I wanted to do with the
images I was prevented from shooting and sharing.

It is unenforceable because, using those same small mobile devices,
patrons are routinely taking pictures and videos in the library. They
also engage in video chats with patrons showing up behind them. And,
of course, lots of parents are snapping cellphone pictures of their
children at play. Also, two computers in the children’s area have
built in webcams and applications that have enabled patrons to take
photographs.

Many of these images will be shared on social networks. And, while you
could request the images and videos be removed, again, it would be
unproductive and would create mounting ill-will. And again, you must
have better things to do.

If you prevent only those photographers who have, say, DSLRs, then you
are enforcing a policy in an arbitrary and discriminatory manner. That
is no way to engender compliance or good will. On the other hand, if
you enforce it continually ... Well, you must have better things to
do.

The situation, right now, is a lose/lose. You miss the opportunity for
powerful social media celebration of all the library has to offer.
Your library staff will be engaged in an increasingly frustrating game
of Whack-a-Mole with patrons - a game which has not gone well for the
record industry. And patrons lose by not being able to practice their
art or cover their community with greater ease.

I would argue that the public library is a public place. The
guidelines established by the Muehl Public Library in Wisconsin, which
I provided in my letter, acknowledge the library as a public space, a
priori, and offer a brilliant and polite solution. That policy, which
I encourage you to adopt, is that photography is allowed in their
space, but that photographers show some simple courtesy when taking
pictures of patrons. According to the Public Libraries Act Section
23(4)a you have the power, as a board, to make this change. I
encourage you to do just that.

Another option, although my second choice, is the policy of the
Toronto Reference Library.

I recently visited that library and informed a librarian that I wished
to take pictures. I was directed to the security desk. I was asked to
fill out a simple form, which I have provided to you. With this signed
form in hand I was free to take pictures of the library and of
patrons, with their permission.

For the next half hour I shot panoramas of the atrium, shared those
images with my nearly 3,000 followers on Twitter and shared pictures
of the library's Sherlock Holmes room and materials. This all to the
delight of the curator and the patron I photographed after asking
permission. I got very positive feedback on Twitter, especially from
folks who had no idea there was a Sherlock Holmes room there.

In my day job I consult to universities, health care organizations and
book publishers about social media. My message to them is the same one
I am suggesting to you. Embrace the opportunity instead of resisting
the change. The ability to sample and to share our world is now in the
hands of almost everyone. We are social beings - we will share. This
is a wonderful, human response to a complex and frightening world. We
want to celebrate, to laugh together, to document, to remember and to
express ourselves freely. These are good, natural impulses amplified
by the tools that now fall so easily to hand. Find ways to use that
river of sharing to your advantage. If you continually attempt to stop
photography you will fail, you will apply rules in a discriminatory
manner and, of course, on blogs and other social media tools, tales of
your arbitrary draconian measures will appear and echo unstoppably.
That too is reality.

So, a solution? I suggest that the Hamilton Public Library follow
either the Muehl Public Library or the Toronto Reference Library's
leads. Either process is less time consuming and onerous for you and
satisfies your legal responsibilities. You get great social media
coverage and patrons have more ease when they wish to photograph and
celebrate your facility. You will find photographers, when treated
with respect, will return respect in kind to you and your patrons.

I hope you will consider my proposal seriously. I look forward to
hearing of the results.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Respectfully Submitted,
Wayne MacPhail