Photographer Harassed by Woman in Park

Photographer Harassed by Woman in Park

A family photographer who was in the middle of photographing young children in a public park was verbally harassed by a woman who was upset that the photographer was using the park for photo sessions earlier this week.

In the NSFW video, the woman, after a profanity-laced rant toward Nickolette Mottola, the photographer, can be heard screaming, “This is not your studio! This is a park for kids and children and people; this is not a place for you to conduct your business!” She was extremely upset by the benign family photo session taking place. The children — whom Mottola was photographing — can be heard crying in the background, presumably upset by the tantrum-throwing woman.

This incident certainly isn’t the first time a photographer has had a run-in with an angry person over photos being taken in a public space and highlights a disturbing mindset by some that photography is somehow a public nuisance. 

Reportedly, the woman seen in the video owns a home located against the park in question and has complained publicly regarding the activities that are allowed to take place in the park by the local parks department. After Mottola posted the video of the incident on Facebook, another photographer came forward in the video’s comments explaining that the week before, she and her clients had been sprayed by the same woman with a pressure washer from the woman’s backyard. The photographer said she’d obtained a permit from the parks department, which cost $12, and that the woman called the police on the photographer. The woman was angered when the police refused to do anything because the photographer had obtained the proper permitting to conduct professional business within the park. Mottola was taking photos of a friend’s children, and not conducting professional business.

Should Photographers Be Considered a Public Nuisance?

Far too often photography is lumped into park or public space rules along with other seemingly nefarious activities like skateboarding, graffiti, and drug use. Visit enough parks, and you’ll run across a “park rules” sign stating “no photography” along with the activities listed above.

Obviously, the reaction of the woman in the video above is an overreaction, but does the public really have reason to view photographers in such a negative light in regards to conducting photo sessions in public spaces, particularly if the photographer has obtained proper permission and permitting? Let us know your thoughts in the comments.

Danette Chappell's picture

Danette is a Las Vegas-based wedding and elopement photographer who's photographed over 1,500 weddings and elopements in 14 different states. She has a passion for teaching business and helping other creative entrepreneurs succeed. She also loves cats, Harry Potter, and the occasional video game.

Log in or register to post comments
133 Comments
Previous comments

Her behavior sounds abhorrent, however I'm not sure how the dots connect between her DUI and her harassment of photographers....?

A DUI is an indicator of something much worse than your typical angry rant, and it is worth noting as her mental facilities are in question. DUI's are linked to mental illnesses such as depression and BPD. As I mentioned above, it wasn't just photographers, but families that come to the park with their children, and others.

It is not your problem if too many permits have been issued. Move on and do something constructive today.

It doesn’t matter how many permits too many the city is issuing. None. It matters not one single bit. The park is a “public” space. By law everyone in that park is fair game to end up in a picture. And the people this woman is attacking are doing things by the book and getting permits. She’s the one who should be minding her business about what is going on on public property.

.
The primary purpose of the park is to cater to photographers ... because photographers are legally equal public citizens just like everyone else.

Regardless of primary and secondary and tertiary purposes -- seriously, you think there's a hierarchy of use ? -- the drunken landowner neighbor is not the arbiter of purpose, nor is assault the method of permit-enforcement.

Let's hang together as photographers, or Shirley we will all hang separately.

I got your back.

Are you there for me?
.

.
What "group" is wrong?

Can you identify any member of any group in the opening story the you consider to be "wrong"?

Thanks.
.

.
STOP RIGHT THERE:

"... where photography is allowed ..."

Photography is never "allowed"

No one has to ask "permission" to photograph anything anywhere anytime. *

Like all other First Amendment protected free speech rights, photography is NOT "allowed", photography is free speech, it is NOT a "permissioned" activity.

We the people prohibit our self-governance from prohibiting free speech.

Period.

No one needs "permission" to photograph anything anywhere anytime. *
__________

PERMIT:

The park "permit" is for "exclusive use" of whatever otherwise publicly accessible facilities the person with the permit wants to use for a prescribed time, such as when setting up a tripod and background screen, or when a movie studio cordons off a field to keep their background clear while filming.

The "permit" is NOT to "permit" photography, because photography is NOT a "permit"-required activity.

This whole "allowed" presumption is part of the problem.

We can ask people if they'd like to participate in our photography, but we do not need their permission to photography them or to photograph anyone else. *
__________

PUBLIC PHOTOGRAPHY:

Considering how they caught the Boston Marathon bomber -- reviewing public citizen's photographs -- it's time for folks to say THANK YOU whenever they see a photographer in public:

"... THANK YOU for expressing and preserving our First Amendment protected free speech rights ...".

Yeah, I look forward to hearing that one day.

Join me?

Can we in-public photographers say that to each other, out loud, in public, and set an example?

All together now:
.

"... THANK YOU for expressing and preserving our First Amendment protected free speech rights ...".
.
.
__________

* PERMISSION:

Note, according to specific federal statute ( section 18 ? ), there are 3 situations and only 3 situations where photographing itself is prohibited:

( 1 ) photographing anyone's privates in private without their permission ( in public is fine, no permission needed );

( 2 ) photographing under-age people's privates in private at all ( in public is fine, explain it to a judge if the FBI breaks down your door, Sally Mann );

( 3 ) photographing within ( not from outside ) a national security military facility that has clear signage as identified by the superior officer of that facility ( so get permission from the commanding general's office, in writing, and carry it with you ).

That's it.

See you in court to challenge those 3 if you are well prepared, go for it.

Otherwise, photograph everything everywhere all the time.
.

Head on down to your local national park, setup shop without a permit, and see how far that 1st Amendment nonsense gets you.

She's got some seriously coarse sand in her vjj ;) ;) lol

I once had a woman threaten to call the police when I was shooting some landscapes in a park. She thought that since I was shooting in the general direction of a group of kids, I must be shooting them. Why do some people assume if you're a photographer shooting in a public, you're up to something nefarious?

Well, the government DID add photography as a suspicious activity that good citizens ought to watch out for...

.
No.

Photography anywhere anytime of anything is not "reasonably suspicious".

Photography is free speech.

Please explain how free speech itself is suspicious, ever.

Thanks.
.

You should read your SCOTUS case law, Peter, photography is not always afforded First Amendment protection.

It is not fair to group photographers with bad things. With proper permits or credentials, people should back off. The woman ranting was a piece of work.

She is so unhappy with her being and life. I feel nothing but pity and sorrow.

In a town I lived in just north of New Orleans, there was a seafood festival held every year along the lakefront. A guy that was a customer of mine bought a home on the lakefront. He was an attorney and decided to sue the town to stop the festival because it disrupted the neighborhood. He took it upon himself to claim the lakefront which is owned by the city to be his own playground and not allow others to enjoy it.

Sounds very similar to this 'lady'. She has apparently decided that the park is her playground and that it shouldn't be used for anything that doesn't agree with her. Human nature is a tough thing to figure at times.

Undoubtedly a do-nothing nobody fraught with miasma over it. Should just drink more. Works for the rest of us.

Speak for yourself. Also, wine is recommended by doctors.

It was just a joke anyway, captain superserious.

.
So ... you are agreeing that more alcohol use by this woman ( to supposedly put her out of her misery ) would be a benefit to man?
.

Call the police Karen, I'll wait for them.

Unfortunately this is a very good example of territorial-ism gone mad, individuals who see photography as a threat, an intrusion into their private space.

"This is a place for children..." like a place to scare them with screaming and cursing. Was just playing Red Dead Redemption 2 and had the instinct to hogtie her and drop her with the alligators in the swamp.

My medallion's vibrating

I once took a photo of my youngest sister at an Olive Garden as she was our waitress and we were having a family meal so she could wait on a large group and get done experience. At any rate, I took her photo and the woman sitting at the table behind my sister/waitress jumped up and screamed at me, “ ARE YOU TAKING A PHOTO OF MY HUSBAND!!??” The woman was as ridiculous as this lady. If you’re in public, or if you buy a house near a public park, you’re going to experience the PUBLIC! If you don’t like that then buy a home out in the woods.

People have suggested mentally ill, maybe, but I think it may have to do with association. She lives next to the park and has subconsciously associated it with belonging to herself. I think we should all be aware of personal space and people’s relationship with it. I once parked my car on a street by the train station, totally legally, a nice street but mostly of retired professionals. In the evening my car had been key scratched all the way down the side. I told the police and he said becuause they feel the street belongs to them, they even do it on the police cars parked on the street behind the police station. Be aware of being on someone’s territory, they can be over protective and aggressive. Caveman behaviour. Legal, permit or no permit isn’t on their mind.

I think you may in fact be more right than wrong with your comment. It would make sense what you say by the manner in which she reacted to the photographer. As you said, she acted as if it was her park not a public park. Her actions suggest to me she has serious psychological issues going on here, a bit unhinged if you ask me.

.
... and what would one do with such heightened awareness that other people think they are superior and want to control others?

Ask her permission first, even though you don't need it?

If they say "no", just move on, go to another part of the park where they can't see you, just go elsewhere to enjoy your photography without spoiling it with an argument?

You are suggesting preemptive courtesy.

Great suggestion.

Though postemptive ( is that a word ? ) arrest and incarceration would help this person recognize cause-and-effect of their own actions.

Maybe someone who knows the address can print and deliver this thread to them to consider?
.

I am just saying that calling her mental is not very helpful. I am in no way suggesting that she is correct or has an superiority, she may think that. I am just suggesting that if you know why someone is mad at you then that will help you resolve it. It is not a nice thing to happen but if you have your client with you, you should be prepared to tackle the situation for them.

Remember kids, say NO to drugs.

I'm curious why the woman was not arrested for assault for turning a pressure washer on the photographer the park the week prior to this event.

Ya, just crazy...

This woman has a definite point. These days everyone is a photographer and there is a range of behaviour.

She is in the right. Bombarded by annoying exhortations of photographers who know no bounds of decency.

Once she acts like that she has no point to make. She is way outside of the norm. Keep quiet and speak rationally gets you way more than this wack job. She needs serious help and should get it.

.
I LOVE sarcasm and facetiousness.

More, please.
.

In my part of the world, the camera is the devil, especially if you are of darker complexions. The security guards always pounce at me for taking out my camera in public or tourist locations, I have been threatened by a person that they will break my camera if I take their photos,and then proceed to block every frame. And all of this is considered normal here.

.
Yes, I took a picture of a license plate on a car blocking the entrance to our apartment building so could report it to the front desk to find the owner and make them aware that they might be towed, and the apparent driver came out of nowhere and said "... in my country, I could have you killed ...".

Every culture considers photography differently, it's hard for me to imagine photography as "stealing" something from anyone, considering that they are also broadcasting their image to that tree over there, and more of it ... are they going to kill the tree, too?

Perhaps I should carry and have handed the person a burka and said "... here, put this on, it protects your image from being stolen ..."

Civilization is a lot of baby steps, with a lot of falling backwards.
.

That woman is a public nuisance. The photographer had a permit to be there.

Then perhaps instead of harassing people she should go to the Department of Parks and question them about number of those permits they issue. And while she is at it she can also explain to them her DAMAGES resulting from all those photographers minding their own business in the park. Because so far she did not state why this whole situation is bothering her. I mean, I'm annoyed by the cars making noise on my street, especially the big ones. But I'm not standing out there, stopping truck drivers and telling them to take a reroute.
So let's stop with all the pseudo-philosophy and make it clear that whenever this woman has a reason or not to be upset, she is resolving situation in a completely wrong way. And that's how she is losing credibility.

.
Are you saying that this behavior is justified for the holders of some permits beyond what you consider an appropriate number?

Permits 1 through 10, no yelling.

Permits 11 through 20, yelling optional.

Permits 21 through 40, please inform this neighbor you are entering the park so they can come outside and yell at you.

Permits 41 through 80, please start right off by yelling at yourself when you enter the park in order to save this poor neighbor from having to put down their bottle and come outside and yell at you.

Do you really see this behavior as appropriate ad hoc permit management?
.

See? This is why I don't go outside. There's crazy people out there!

.
Yes, old photographers inevitably close their careers by photographing from inside their homes, preferably through second story windows,

... see William Eugene Smith for a sad example of a photographer assaulted and battered into retirement, only taking pictures through his windows of the street below.
.

Just dont act like you own the park because you have a permit. The park exists for the public and they have first right to enjoy it. Respect from both sides

.
The permit is for exclusive use of specific park facilities while you are there doing your stated activities, legally equal to all others at the park.

And, no one needs a permit to photograph.

The permit is only for exclusive use.

There is no "both sides" -- all in the park are legally equal.
.

"The photographer said she’d obtained a permit from the parks department, which cost $12, and that the woman called the police on the photographer. The woman was angered when the police refused to do anything because the photographer had obtained the proper permitting to conduct professional business within the park. Mottola was taking photos of a friend’s children, and not conducting professional business."

If the woman is THIS worked up about something that is completely harmless and legal, she needs to move. If someone wants to do photoshoots every weekend in the same public park (especially when going through the proper channels and obtaining permits) then there should be no issue.

Going off the information provided, what she experienced was annoyance that people were taking pictures in a public place in her general area. Are you insinuating that "what she had to experience" was proportionate to her outrage? The tantrum she threw was worse than that of my 2 year old when he doesn't get his way. Civility was lost on her.

Screaming around small kids? she needs help. She should get help herself or be sectioned. Crazy and unhinged person. Should be reported!

You sick idiot! you obviously did not receive enough love as a child. Your mama hates you as well.

Reported (again). The only way to get rabid people like you too see sense. Everyone who has to unfortunately deal with your drivel needs to report you. Its as simple as that.

She's clearly mentally hinged. You should take the video down and stop shaming her for clicks..

More comments