| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/13/2006 03:34:05 PM · #26 |
livitup... Bravo to you! You behaved exemplary in the face of the mall's vague policies which they should clarified.
Everyone behaved well within their rights and the law.
Scalvert's suggestion to carry a copy of The Photographer's Rights is one we all should take to heart. I think I will from now on.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:35:11 PM · #27 |
There are laws, and then there are separate policies by particular companies that they implement to give lupo's to those laws, and that is what this is all in reference to, IMO.
Laws for photographers and what is or isn't legal, and policies within the confounds of certain properties are different. Gordan is right. They really can kick you out for ANY reason. However, on the other hand, they could plainly see you weren't from a company somewhere that was trying to steal there structure blue prints so you could build your own mall in the middle of Bum-Choo, Mazoo. In that regard, they simply could have just let you be, but many find it more prudent to show how in charge they are then to make a customer happy.
I myself was told to never bring my camera back into wal-mart again all because I took a shot of a full flowered Amarylis in the garden shop. Was I taking photos of their end-caps? Their Keosses? Their grocery set up? No. Was I taking a photo of their jewelry department so I could plan a heist? LOL...NO. I can't even imagine they would think I was trying to copy Wal-Mart's layouts, or whatever..LOL. BUT, it is their policy and not a damn thing I can do about it. AND the wording? It really doesn't matter. "Non-recreational" to them, could and will mean what they want it to mean.
They see me in Walmart so often it is pathetic, as its the only game in town here really. BUT over a simple flower. Ticked me right off. BUT, fine, and I won't be purchasing any flowers from them again either. LOL...So tit for tat. They will lose hundreds I used to spend a year in their flower department. IN that, I take solice. They could have asked to see my photos, or even escort me for the photos, to make sure I wasn't taking anything out of their policy range, but that would have been making a customer happy. For the most part, those days are really gone.
To change this subject a bit to the Singled Out Challenge, I do have a candid I did enter. It will brown, but nonetheless, it is a candid and I think it will make a few people smile. So its in. However, I don't intend to even believe I can compete with those who live in other parts of the world. So this challenge to me is not giving me any WOW factors for the entering, but it was nice to try and to stretch myself to get one, and that was my goal.
Today I even hid in the bushes to get a shot of a cop giving out a ticket, which didn't come out well as he faced the wrong way and I didn't stick around to do it again. So did I give up my fear? For the most part, yes. But am I going to get arrested in hopes of a graphic ribbon? Absolutely not. LOL....So the challenge is what it is.
I have read many threads on this now with people giving their stories of being followed and harrassed,and now, thrown out of malls over a challenge such as this - the candid. In another week it will have passed, and hopefully bail will be set low for those who need to get out of jail in order to procede to the next theme...LOL.
A lot of us don't have the opportunities that many do in other parts of the world, or those even traveling at this time. If you live in Japan, or China, a crowd is an every day occurance and basically all you have to do is look out any window onto the street and BAM, there is your shot. If you live in France, you are bound to have nude beaches - a favorite I am sure that will be entered, or any beach beauty for that matter, or even hotty for the girls..LOL. Then there will be the poor children who strive to live day to day in South East Asia entered in, to pull at the heartstrings of the voters. Let's not forget India and other similar areas, where the distinquished and sun beaten faces of the older generations surely make interesting candids.
So, given that, I am not going to put myself in joepardy trying to do a simple candid of someone eating spaghetti in a resturant and be banned from the place. I am not going to hide like the popparazzi and lie in wait in bushes in hopes of getting a bag lady who walks in front of Wal-Mart or Lowes department store, or even the local Pizza House. LOL....
The bottom line for me, in this particular challenge, is not to win a ribbon, but to have strived to break the fear of getting and taking candids, and in that, I have already acheived my goal before challenge even goes in. My score for this challenge, I have set no personal goals on.
Rose
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:44:24 PM · #28 |
| A similar thing happened to me several months ago in North Star mall in San Antonio TX, the most upscale mall in the are. I was geocaching and one of the requirments was to photo a time capsule. Well North Star Mall enclosed a time capsul in the floor in the middle of the public area of the mall. The capsule is for the city to remember and has public items enclosed. They also publicize it's presence. As I was taking a picture of the plaque the security guard did the same thing. Again I just chuckled, smiles (that mad him made I think) he expected me to be scared I guess. I politiely excused myself and went back to my car. He followed the entire way trying to say that this was due to terrorist threats. My goodness a guy who could have finished Jr High, give him a private badge and he's a terrorist expert. I'm sure a photos of a brass plaque is real important to national defense LOL. Just remember that most security guys are not well trained and are on a big head trip ... NOT all so don't flame me if you are one of the great security people that we all love and admire. ;) With over 200,000 illegail workers in San Antonio I think they need to really worry about photographers don't they LOL ... LOL. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:49:30 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by scalvert:
Always carry a copy of the Photographer's Rights with you. Then if something like this happens, you'll have something to back up your assertions. I suspect that if you contacted a lawyer, they would would have a hard time justifying their actions. |
I actually have a small copy of it in my wallet with me always. I haven't ever had to use it though. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 03:55:11 PM · #30 |
| The picture you posted looks more like you were taking pictures of a plant not the "structure" however, Next time have your family stand bracketing what you want to take a picture of, and when they stop you tell them you're taking pictures of your family. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 07:14:42 PM · #31 |
It is funny that I see mentioned several times the right of the property owners. It made me think back to when a business tried to throw me out for taking pictures.
I was down in Miami visiting my grandfather and sister, who still live there. Decided to drive up to where our old store was, that now has a new store on the land. I knew for a fact that there were some additions to the store that no permits had been pulled for, so I decided to grab some pictures for my files.
One of the store managers came up and asked what I was doing. I said taking pictures. He then proceeded to tell me that I wasn't allowed, that the owners of the property forbid it.
:D
I told him to go and call the company that he subleases from, and find out exactly who the owners of the property were and then come back again and tell me that the owners forbid it. He huffed and he puffed.
When he came back he said a name... I pulled out my identification.
You can imagine my surprise to find out that MY family had forbid the taking of photographs. NOT!
He walked away, leaving me alone. ;) |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 08:00:10 PM · #32 |
Unfortunately, none of this would've happened if were using a P/S. All the coverage of paparazzi has given the non-photographers a bad taste in their mouth for people with dSLR/professional looking cameras.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 08:12:01 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by faidoi:
Unfortunately, none of this would've happened if were using a P/S. All the coverage of paparazzi has given the non-photographers a bad taste in their mouth for people with dSLR/professional looking cameras. |
Not necessarily true. I've been asked to stop taking photos when using my Sony U10 - as small as any cellphone, with even worse resolution than some of them.
Some shopping centres around here don't have any kind of sign about not taking photos, yet I've seen them stop groups of tourists from taking photos of their family/friends. Though I was surprised to see a group of men posing for photos around a shop dummy in the middle of a large departmental store a few days ago. I didn't hang around long enough to see whether anyone stopped them, though I'd be very surprised if they weren't stopped eventually.
As far as the definition of structure is concerned, I think the security guard meant to say that anything that was part of the mall was prohibited subject matter - only photos of your family/friends were allowed. As far as I'm concerned that's fair enough.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 08:22:39 PM · #34 |
I love these stories. I find them humorous and exhilirating. I am not in the least bit worried about getting arrested for taking photographs or trespassing for that matter. These are not things I consider crimes and I am not a lawyer and in general couldn't care less what a lawyer or a court has to say about much of anything. I would be proud to have that on my record. My immediate reaction would have been to take some headshots of the security guards. I certainly try to refrain from physically or verbally assaulting anyone and I don't believe that security guards are inherently stupid or anything like that. The simple fact is that if I am doing something I feel is innocent for recreation and someone interupts me and pisses me off I'm going to interrupt what they are doing and piss them off as well. It is always best to piss people off with a smile coupled with complete indifference toward any threats they attempt to throw at you. That makes them even more nervous and makes me feel like more of a professional criminal.
Happy shooting! :) |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 08:45:01 PM · #35 |
Originally posted by JPR:
I love these stories. I find them humorous and exhilirating. I am not in the least bit worried about getting arrested for taking photographs or trespassing for that matter. These are not things I consider crimes and I am not a lawyer and in general couldn't care less what a lawyer or a court has to say about much of anything. I would be proud to have that on my record. My immediate reaction would have been to take some headshots of the security guards. I certainly try to refrain from physically or verbally assaulting anyone and I don't believe that security guards are inherently stupid or anything like that. The simple fact is that if I am doing something I feel is innocent for recreation and someone interupts me and pisses me off I'm going to interrupt what they are doing and piss them off as well. It is always best to piss people off with a smile coupled with complete indifference toward any threats they attempt to throw at you. That makes them even more nervous and makes me feel like more of a professional criminal.
Happy shooting! :) |
So basically you only care about your rights and nobody elses. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 08:55:48 PM · #36 |
I was in Boston taking pictures of the mall next to the convention center. Beautiful architectural glass ceiling. But the security guard came and told me not to take any more photos because of the terrorism issues. However, I have to say I could not argue - taking architectural photos could conceivably also be done by terrorists planning where to put their explosives. And yes, security people can not afford to take chances.
As far as law goes - a mall is private property - not public property. The mall owners have the right to allow you to photograph or not to photograph. If I want to take mall shots again, I will go to the office, show my business card, and ask permission. It is also a good idea to ask permission because then you can get them to sign a property release and you have the legal right to use your photos. (Because if you did not have permission to take the photos, they can sue you later if you publish them.)
Here is an article which has some good information as to what is legal and not. But in terms of the mall - all of the mall is private property. That limits your rights to photograph.
//www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:04:14 PM · #37 |
Originally posted by JPR:
I love these stories. I find them humorous and exhilirating. I am not in the least bit worried about getting arrested for taking photographs or trespassing for that matter. These are not things I consider crimes and I am not a lawyer and in general couldn't care less what a lawyer or a court has to say about much of anything. I would be proud to have that on my record. My immediate reaction would have been to take some headshots of the security guards. I certainly try to refrain from physically or verbally assaulting anyone and I don't believe that security guards are inherently stupid or anything like that. The simple fact is that if I am doing something I feel is innocent for recreation and someone interupts me and pisses me off I'm going to interrupt what they are doing and piss them off as well. It is always best to piss people off with a smile coupled with complete indifference toward any threats they attempt to throw at you. That makes them even more nervous and makes me feel like more of a professional criminal.
Happy shooting! :) |
Man i can't wait to see your security guard series! |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:06:18 PM · #38 |
All these "got thrown out of a mall" stories worry me. How can the mall owners have the right to throw anybody out for something as benign as photography?
A mall may well be private property, but just as mall owners have "rights" they also have responsibility. Malls are not their private kingdom. Even though malls are private property, they are just as well public place, in fact they thrive on people wanting to go there.
Just because the open spaces in a mall has a roof, I think it is unfair to class it differntly from a sidewalk.
I'm of course worried that this will spread to my country, we are still very liberal towards photographers... :)
Malls are fun places to photographs, they are indeed nothing but a big market, all this copyrights and trademarking legal mumbo-jumbo is starting to a little bit on my nerves...
/end rant
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 09:57:21 PM · #39 |
Originally posted by Mary Ann Melton:
I was in Boston taking pictures of the mall next to the convention center. Beautiful architectural glass ceiling. But the security guard came and told me not to take any more photos because of the terrorism issues. However, I have to say I could not argue - taking architectural photos could conceivably also be done by terrorists planning where to put their explosives. And yes, security people can not afford to take chances.
As far as law goes - a mall is private property - not public property. The mall owners have the right to allow you to photograph or not to photograph. If I want to take mall shots again, I will go to the office, show my business card, and ask permission. It is also a good idea to ask permission because then you can get them to sign a property release and you have the legal right to use your photos. (Because if you did not have permission to take the photos, they can sue you later if you publish them.)
Here is an article which has some good information as to what is legal and not. But in terms of the mall - all of the mall is private property. That limits your rights to photograph.
//www.usatoday.com/tech/columnist/andrewkantor/2005-12-29-camera-laws_x.htm |
I think that the rule of thumb is if you have permission to enter you have permission to shoot... Unless otherwise stated.
|
|
|
|
01/13/2006 10:23:11 PM · #40 |
| I was not thrown out of the mall, just politely asked to stop photographing. I was able to keep my shots, just told to take no more. |
|
|
|
01/13/2006 11:42:24 PM · #41 |
Originally posted by yanko:
So basically you only care about your rights and nobody elses. |
I would defend other people's rights as quickly as I would my own. Perhaps I just value my own ideas about what is right, wrong, dangerous, etc. rather than basing it on some system of irrational fear that some people subscribe to. Photographers will always be seen as criminals because of this system. Terrorists and pedophiles and shady characters...while it is so easy for actual criminals to commit crimes while security and police are out chasing recreational artists. It's all part of the illusion that they are doing something to keep us safe while there is no way for them to actually do that without violating more of our rights. I simply relish the uselessness of the whole exercise as a photographic goldmine. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 12:08:16 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by Mary Ann Melton:
...The mall owners have the right to allow you to photograph or not to photograph... |
Just to clarify, they have the right to ask you to leave but if it is open to the public then you have the right to photograph there regardless of whether they want you there or not (unless it's a military site etc).
You can be arrested for trespassing - not for taking pictures.
Likewise only an officer of the court can take your camera or film so even if you were breaking the law by trespassing they cannot take your camera or make you delete the photos. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 12:29:36 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by jonr:
All these "got thrown out of a mall" stories worry me. How can the mall owners have the right to throw anybody out for something as benign as photography? |
You think that's bad? When I lived near Albany,two gentlemen were asked to leave a mall because they were wearing a shirt--that they had just purchased in the self-same mall. The offensive verbiage on the shirt? "Give peace a chance".
One of the two, who happened to be the chief attorney in the Albany office of the Commission on Judicial Conduct, was actually arrested.
Message edited by author 2006-01-14 00:30:55. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 01:27:13 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Mary Ann Melton:
I was in Boston taking pictures of the mall next to the convention center. Beautiful architectural glass ceiling. But the security guard came and told me not to take any more photos because of the terrorism issues. However, I have to say I could not argue - taking architectural photos could conceivably also be done by terrorists planning where to put their explosives. And yes, security people can not afford to take chances. |
I would bet you that images very like the ones you wished to take have been published in magazines, in both national architectural and trade periodicals, or "Boston" magazine or it's ilk. If a terrorist wanted to plan a bomb he might use previously published shots. I have heard the terrorism angle used to curb photography, but it is rather a puzzle to me since anyone who likes can pull the plans of any building at the local building department. Where I intent on doing damage to a building a set of complete structural plans would do me more good than any photos anyone might take.
It is the right of any owner to ban photography from thier property, but sometimes the excuses they come up with to justify their desire to ban photography are pretty weak. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 02:13:39 AM · #45 |
So many people in this thread are focusing on the terrorism issue, and apparently some of the guards are, but these rules against mall photography far predate the current terrorism scare. When I was a working architectural photographer, back in the 70's and 80's, these rules were the same. The primary concern is trademark infringement and the like. The malls are filled with national chain stores, and they do not like to have their places being photographed and published willy-nilly; their PR staff want to keep control over the usage of images of their stores.
Even when we had mall management permission to shoot (we often were working FOR the mall, if not for them then for the architect) we many times were given "short lists" of stores that were NOT to appear in our shots. Many of the stores have provisions in their leases that theyhave the right to control/approve images of their stores.
This isn't a big conspiracy against photographers, it's a long-standing, contractual provision where the mall is responsible for looking out for the rights of its tenants. I wouldn't even THINK of trying to do recreational shooting in a mall, it's too frustrating.
Robt. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 02:46:58 AM · #46 |
I would also like to say that when it comes to photographing the interior of most any department store, use caution. Many if not most companies spend a significant amount of money, time, and energy into designing the space in which their merchandise is laid out... and they may not be nice about your snapping photos of it unless you have permission up front--and that may be difficult to obtain.
AS stupid as it may sound, its just business, and nothing personal. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 03:31:40 PM · #47 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wouldn't even THINK of trying to do recreational shooting in a mall, it's too frustrating.
|
I can't stand being in malls, even if I have to shop there. I can't imagine going there for fun. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 03:38:50 PM · #48 |
| While we all know that banning photography in a mall is not really keeping us safe from terrorism, unfortunately we live in the age of contingency roulette lawsuits. In the unlikely event of a terrorist or crazy random gunman striking their facility - they would surely be sued and anything they didn't do to "prevent" the event would be used against them. The photography ban is really CYA for potential lawsuits. I don't think anyone believes that it actually prevents anything. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 03:47:46 PM · #49 |
Originally posted by photodude:
While we all know that banning photography in a mall is not really keeping us safe from terrorism, unfortunately we live in the age of contingency roulette lawsuits. In the unlikely event of a terrorist or crazy random gunman striking their facility - they would surely be sued and anything they didn't do to "prevent" the event would be used against them. The photography ban is really CYA for potential lawsuits. I don't think anyone believes that it actually prevents anything. |
It doesn't have anything to do with terrorism; these rules existed back in the 70's. It's a matter of the contract the malls have with their tenants. See my earlier posts. That some mall personnel reference terrorism is neither here nor there, it's a smoke screen or an uniformed person.
R. |
|
|
|
01/14/2006 04:08:17 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Gordon:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
I wouldn't even THINK of trying to do recreational shooting in a mall, it's too frustrating.
|
I can't stand being in malls, even if I have to shop there. I can't imagine going there for fun. |
The only place I like to go in the mall is Sears, and even then, I only go for the tools. Well, that and the occasional mystery appliance shopper experiment.
|
|
