Unbelievable..photographer harassed at Downtown Disney for taking photos HOB

Sometimes its worth fighting and sometimes it isn't.

I think that's the key.

Mr. Beem clearly feels it was and is worth fighting in this case.

Others may not feel that, if this had happened to them, it would be worth fighting.

And I think either is fine. One person choosed not to fight in a case like this, okay. Someone else does choose to fight, okay.

Who am I to say what someone should do, or how someone should determine whether it's worth the fight?
 
I had seen the thread earlier in the week, but didn't get a chance to read it until today, so I read it all in one sitting.

Honestly.... you catch more flies with honey, right??????

Just judging by the tone of the posts from wbeem here on this thread, I find myself understanding how the situation escalated to an unreasonable level.

I hope Disney sends him an autographed Mickey picture.
 
And in my opinion, the rationale about suspecting someone who is taking pictures if there is a crime committed comes from Septermber 11th as well. We know the terrirists took a lot of pictures of buildings and I can see where the suspicion by authorities comes from even if it may not be a justified suspicion.

According to this article they didnt:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/jun/05/news.terrorism
The 9/11 terrorists didn't photograph anything. Nor did the London transport bombers, the Madrid bombers, or the liquid bombers arrested in 2006. Timothy McVeigh didn't photograph the Oklahoma City Federal Building. The Unabomber didn't photograph anything; neither did shoe-bomber Richard Reid. Photographs aren't being found amongst the papers of Palestinian suicide bombers. The IRA wasn't known for its photography. Even those manufactured terrorist plots that the US government likes to talk about -- the Ft. Dix terrorists, the JFK airport bombers, the Miami 7, the Lackawanna 6 -- no photography.

Though I am in agreement they use things like 9/11 just to keep photos from being taken of almost anything these days. Its like people been looking for an excuse to block photography and are now able to do so under the guise of anti-terrorism. :sad2:

I remember when a local newpapser photographer was shooting photos down by the local federal building, security asked him to come inside to answer a few questions. Not wanting to rock the boat and wanting to appear cooperative he did.
Once inside his ID was confiscated and he was put in a room where he was questioned fora couple hours.
 
In the end, Mr. Beem suffered a pretty trivial harm - not being able to shoot on private Disney property for an evening.

See I think its more than just that..its the being surrounded by security, its the security folloing him taking photos of him and all of this being done in front of all the other guests that were looking on. I would not call that trivial harm.

Imagine a typical guest walking through downtown disney and they come upon this scene: A guy with a camera surrounded by security.
Whats their first thought gonna be? More than likely its going to be "this guy must have been doing something bad..maybe taking pics of girls or something like" In this age of camera paranoia thats sadly going to be what most people think about this guy.
I can bet you its not going to be "Oh that photographer must have been taking unauthorized professional photos."

Then perhaps the next day one these guests spots this guy over at Universal taking pics. Again this being the age of photographic paranoia thinks "hey that guy was stopped by disney yesterday, I better let Universal security know"
Yes this last part maybe stretching it but not about what people may have been thinking in that first part.

I think what concerns William is not just not being able to take photos, its the appearance that security made this guy look like an actual threat to other guests. I can understand how he would feel humiliated by it.
 
See I think its more than just that..its the being surrounded by security, its the security folloing him taking photos of him and all of this being done in front of all the other guests that were looking on. I would not call that trivial harm.

Imagine a typical guest walking through downtown disney and they come upon this scene: A guy with a camera surrounded by security.
Whats their first thought gonna be? More than likely its going to be "this guy must have been doing something bad..maybe taking pics of girls or something like" In this age of camera paranoia thats sadly going to be what most people think about this guy.
I can bet you its not going to be "Oh that photographer must have been taking unauthorized professional photos."

Then perhaps the next day one these guests spots this guy over at Universal taking pics. Again this being the age of photographic paranoia thinks "hey that guy was stopped by disney yesterday, I better let Universal security know"
Yes this last part maybe stretching it but not about what people may have been thinking in that first part.

I think what concerns William is not just not being able to take photos, its the appearance that security made this guy look like an actual threat to other guests. I can understand how he would feel humiliated by it.

So far as I can tell, you've heard exactly one side of the story, and I have found that the person claiming they have been mistreated tend to have a skewed version of what actually happened. I doubt that the photagrapher was being as cooperative as he is claiming to be.

There's no right to be on private property, either at Disney or anywhere else, when you enter someone elses property you give up certain rights, if you don't like it then don't go onto others private property.

The guy may or may not have been right, but IMO he has handled the situation since about as poorly as one can.
 
when you enter someone elses property you give up certain rights, if you don't like it then don't go onto others private property.

What rights are you talking about?

This whole thing boils down to poor guest relations on the part of Disney IMO.
 
What rights are you talking about?

This whole thing boils down to poor guest relations on the part of Disney IMO.

The right to be there for one, you can be asked to leave at anytime for any reason. But I was mostly refering to the "being Humiliated" comment, tough, if your not cooperating, then if you get humiliated then that's on you.

I think it all boils down to 2 people puffing up their chests and being pig headed. When ID was requested, it should have been provided. I see several spots in the story I have seen where the whole situation could have been diffused by both sides.
 
How is it poor guest relations? From what I've read, Mr. Beem's own accounts security wasn't belligerent or hostile. If they handled the matter in a serious but respectful way that's not poor guest relations in my opinion.

Is security actively taking a role to protect Disney's interest poor guest relations? What if there had been threats against DTD that are not public knowledge that caused them to step up security? What if they had already seen suspicious activity that day and were on alert? What if there had been incidents recently that the public is not aware of that have compromised public safety and security tightened things up because of it?

I'm not saying any of those thing happened... but what if? Threats are not uncommon against these types of places and while most are bogus, security has to treat them as real and act accordingly when they happen. And you knwo that they have happened at some point in time. What if there was one that day or week? If triyng to protect the public and Disney's interests means checking up on every photographer who looks a little suspicious, then are they wrong to do so?

Master Mason is right when he points out that we've only heard one side of the story.
 
I had seen the thread earlier in the week, but didn't get a chance to read it until today, so I read it all in one sitting.

Honestly.... you catch more flies with honey, right??????

Just judging by the tone of the posts from wbeem here on this thread, I find myself understanding how the situation escalated to an unreasonable level.

I hope Disney sends him an autographed Mickey picture.


ROTFLMAO :lmao::thumbsup2:thumbsup2
 
Well, well, Mr. Beem sees fit to take a shot at us on his blog and misrepresents that we said in the process:
"Another group of people blamed me for shaming Disney. In their opinion, I shouldn’t have written about the harassment I received by a Disney Security Manager. I should have just complained to Disney and they would send me an autographed picture of Mickey Mouse."
Here was my reply that is awaiting moderation in case it is deep-sixed:
“Another group of people blamed me for shaming Disney. In their opinion, I shouldn’t have written about the harassment I received by a Disney Security Manager. I should have just complained to Disney and they would send me an autographed picture of Mickey Mouse.”

William, that is a gross misrepresentation of the exchanges you had with members on the Disboards Photography forum. For those of you that wish to read the exchanges in question go to: http://www.disboards.com/showthread.php?t=2442922

1) No one “blamed” you for shaming Disney. Many of us merely said that we felt that there was a likely BETTER way to handle the situation that may increase your odds of a satisfactory outcome for you.

2) We also NEVER said that you shouldn’t go “public” about your encounter. We said that a BETTER approach would have been to work with Disney’s Guest Relations staff FIRST before blasting Disney, or Don, in the blogosphere. One DIS’er summed it up this way by asking you to ask the same law enforcement friends who you consulted about this situation: “If a citizen had an issue with a police officer, would they prefer the citizen call or email the station and tell the officer in charge about the issue, or would they prefer the citizen call the local newspaper, and TV stations, before bringing the problem to the attention of the police dept.?” No one suggested that you only “just” write to Disney, as you claimed.

3) The autographed photo of Mickey comment was a “throw away” comment, which you then mocked, made by a DIS member who said that he had followed the approach of working with Disney FIRST when he had a problem during a 2006 visit. He said that Guest Relations called him personally after he wrote them, he had a good 30 minute discussion with the Disney rep., and was thanked for bringing the situation to their attention… as an aside, the poster mentioned that they also later sent him the aforementioned Mickey photo.

I understand that you generally researched the issue of how to best demand satisfaction from a company that you feel has wronged you. However, in the group that you’ve dismissed you have a group of people that have a collectively large knowledge base of how Disney works. We all agreed, IIRC, that you have a legitimate beef with Disney security over the incident, we pretty much all agreed that you had a right not to show your ID… and we pretty much all felt that you should have played your hand better. You’re right, those are opinions that may differ from yours. I’m sorry that you felt “taunted” by most of us, or “attacked” on that site, or anything else for us expressing those contrary opinions and engaging you in debate. Oh, and I did read your posts in their entirety.

In closing, I only hope that your written details of the encounter with Don & Co. are a better representation of the facts than how your encounter with me, and the others, on the Disboards have been portrayed here by you.
 
Well, well, Mr. Beem sees fit to take a shot at us on his blog and misrepresents that we said in the process:Here was my reply that is awaiting moderation in case it is deep-sixed:


Bravo to a well written reply.

While I've read this thread in its entirety, I haven't commented before. Based on the facts as given, I don't condone Disney Don for his actions. He seems to have clearly been a bit over zealous in his duties, but there was just something odd about the whole scenario as described in the original blog and here. I think both parties could have handled it better than they actually did.
 
And if he mischaracterized what was written here....

....kinda makes one wonder if there was that ever so slim chance that he was capable of mischaracterizing what happened with Don.......
 
And if he mischaracterized what was written here....

....kinda makes one wonder if there was that ever so slim chance that he was capable of mischaracterizing what happened with Don.......

I agree COMPLETELY!!!!!!!! If anyone were to read this thread, then his blog post; I think they would somewhat question what really happened in his encounter.... if they haven't already questioned what occurred.
 
And if he mischaracterized what was written here....

....kinda makes one wonder if there was that ever so slim chance that he was capable of mischaracterizing what happened with Don.......

This was EXACTLY my thought as well.
 
Well, well, Mr. Beem sees fit to take a shot at us on his blog and misrepresents that we said in the process:Here was my reply that is awaiting moderation in case it is deep-sixed:

Looks like it got through (as did your follow up to his response). Very well written response.

And if he mischaracterized what was written here....

....kinda makes one wonder if there was that ever so slim chance that he was capable of mischaracterizing what happened with Don.......

I agree completely. As I've said several times, his writing style and demeanor throughout this all have made me question whether his story is, in fact, accurate. Perhaps he even believes it to be accurate, but he is perceiving the event incorrectly. I think his misinterpretation/mischaracterization of the discourse he had with us demonstrates that it's at least possible that his story is somehow inaccurate.

great job, well written

I know I'm not quoting the exact posts, but I just wanted to say kudos to you for maintaining rationality and politeness while, in my opinion, Mr. Beem condescendingly responded to you. You made several good points that I think are well taken by members here, if not Beem himself.

...at the very least, that Mickey Mouse picture is likely to become legendary 'round these parts!

Like I said before, I really hope Disney blows him off. I don't think any answer Disney provides is going to satisfy Mr. Beem (despite any claims to the contrary) and I personally don't think the company owes him a response at this point based upon his handling of the matter. My sincere hope is that this story doesn't receive any further attention and just sort of 'goes away'.
 
I know I'm not quoting the exact posts, but I just wanted to say kudos to you for maintaining rationality and politeness while, in my opinion, Mr. Beem condescendingly responded to you. You made several good points that I think are well taken by members here, if not Beem himself.

...at the very least, that Mickey Mouse picture is likely to become legendary 'round these parts!

'.

LOL,, thanks

it amazed me that the Mickey picture was all he took out of my entire response , at that point I really wondered how much of the original story was being left out as well..
 
LOL,, thanks

it amazed me that the Mickey picture was all he took out of my entire response , at that point I really wondered how much of the original story was being left out as well..


You're gonna post a copy of that Mickey Mouse photo, right??? :rotfl:
 
Wow, Beem is now doing mental gymnastics of Olympic proportions in his responses to me. He wasn't really talking about this board in his blog post:
"I didn’t mention you, the board, or anyone else by name."
...
"I visited a number of message boards and comments on other blogs. People had various suggestions on what they would have done vs. what I did."
...
"I’m not sure why you felt the need to defend a board that I didn’t mention. It wasn’t my intention to call out members of any community at all, but rather, to give some perspective on the comments I’ve received."
...yeah, and get one more dig in about the Mickey photo! :laughing: I agree, that photo will now be legendary in the annals of the DIS Photography Board!
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!











facebook twitter
Top