| Author | Thread |
|
|
08/19/2008 08:27:55 AM · #26 |
| Ha ha. My daughter and her friend took a bunch of pictures of themselves cutting up in Wal-mart a couple of weeks back. Hunting in a jungle of fake plants, trying on underwear over their jeans, sleeping on a stack of mattresses, etc. It was stupid, but hysterical. (Disclaimer: I was not part of this, and had no knowledge of it, until they came home with the photos.) I'll have to see later if she put some on her myspace page. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 08:39:22 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Any property owned by a private entity is considered private property and the owners of said property may set rules of any type as long as those rules are not discriminatory in nature(Ie they cannot deny you the right to take photos based on your sex, race or religious affiliation) If Walmart does not want you taking photos they can restrict them and they can ask you to leave for failure to comply with their rules. What they cannot do is restrict you from taking photos of their store or any thing on their property visible from a public thoroughfare(a street or sidewalk owned by a municipality including sidewalks that are covered by easements such as in a city) Common areas in shopping malls are not public property unless owned by a municipality(ever seen a mall that restricts children under 18 on the weekends, same set of rules). Rules for common areas may be regulated by local government ordinance that may modify the rights of individuals visiting them but this should be covered in their rules.
|
I understand the trespassing, but what law would be broken if I were to take a picture in a mall? |
malls are, for the most part, private property whether or not they have their doors open to the public. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 08:44:46 AM · #28 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by jhomrighaus:
Any property owned by a private entity is considered private property and the owners of said property may set rules of any type as long as those rules are not discriminatory in nature(Ie they cannot deny you the right to take photos based on your sex, race or religious affiliation) If Walmart does not want you taking photos they can restrict them and they can ask you to leave for failure to comply with their rules. What they cannot do is restrict you from taking photos of their store or any thing on their property visible from a public thoroughfare(a street or sidewalk owned by a municipality including sidewalks that are covered by easements such as in a city) Common areas in shopping malls are not public property unless owned by a municipality(ever seen a mall that restricts children under 18 on the weekends, same set of rules). Rules for common areas may be regulated by local government ordinance that may modify the rights of individuals visiting them but this should be covered in their rules.
|
I understand the trespassing, but what law would be broken if I were to take a picture in a mall? |
Its not a question of breaking any law, it is a question of the owners right to restrict you from taking pictures just as you may restrict the taking of pictures upon your own property. It belongs to them and they can determine how it can be used.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 08:45:53 AM · #29 |
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Way back in the day, about 20 years ago when I managed a Blockbuster Video, we had that corporate policy too.
I think it's their right to do so, so we just have to deal with it. |
But I'm curious if a store like this is considered public or private. If it's considered private than I have no problems abiding by their rules, even if I think they're dumb. |
Yes, it is "private" property. They can prohibit photography, but must do so uniformly, not pick and choose who can take pictures. |
Why not? The government can't selectively enforce laws, but private property is just that. I can park in my yard but I don't want YOU parking in my yard. Perhaps I'll let my brother in law park in the yard, but not not my neighbor. I'll let you use the powder room but not the upstairs bathroom. My property my choice.
You can't go everywhere in the store - offices, store rooms, etc. So why should picture taking be have any more "rights"?
Some hospitals allow pics of the birthing process and others do not - public or private has nothing to do with it - usually it's insurance reasons.
My wife works for a drug rehab - there are all sorts of rules - no taking pictures of patients, no talking about last names but you can take pictures of staff.
Message edited by author 2008-08-19 08:46:04.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 08:48:25 AM · #30 |
Originally posted by Ken:
I understand the trespassing, but what law would be broken if I were to take a picture in a mall? |
No laws other than it's private propety and they don't want you to do it. All kinds of reasons, architectural intellectual property perhaps.
Here in downtown pittsburgh is a 40 floor skyscraper and you cannot take photos of it - even from the street! The building owners OWN the street! //www.michaelrighi.com/2005/06/11/my-run-in-with-ppg-security/
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 08:55:25 AM · #31 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by GeneralE:
Originally posted by Ken:
Originally posted by HawkeyeLonewolf:
Way back in the day, about 20 years ago when I managed a Blockbuster Video, we had that corporate policy too.
I think it's their right to do so, so we just have to deal with it. |
But I'm curious if a store like this is considered public or private. If it's considered private than I have no problems abiding by their rules, even if I think they're dumb. |
Yes, it is "private" property. They can prohibit photography, but must do so uniformly, not pick and choose who can take pictures. |
Why not? The government can't selectively enforce laws, but private property is just that. I can park in my yard but I don't want YOU parking in my yard. Perhaps I'll let my brother in law park in the yard, but not not my neighbor. I'll let you use the powder room but not the upstairs bathroom. My property my choice.
You can't go everywhere in the store - offices, store rooms, etc. So why should picture taking be have any more "rights"?
Some hospitals allow pics of the birthing process and others do not - public or private has nothing to do with it - usually it's insurance reasons.
My wife works for a drug rehab - there are all sorts of rules - no taking pictures of patients, no talking about last names but you can take pictures of staff. |
I think the only rules that apply(at least in the USA) are that the rules cannot be discriminatory in nature, as in Race religion sexual orientation etc. so they can choose to deny you the right to visit their store just so long as the reason is not the color of your skin, your ethnic background or other classification protected by law. Casinos do this all the time.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:18:20 AM · #32 |
So the general consensus here is that a mall is private property and they have the right to restrict photography. However, Kantor (author of paper I posted) has another article in Popular Photography stating that they cannot restrict photography in malls. If he is incorrect, I find this quite disturbing because you'd think they would get it right.
Here's a link to an article published in USA Today. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:19:43 AM · #33 |
| Someone should submit a photo of Walmart's front door from the inside for the DOORS challenge with the title "Take That Walmart!" |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:35:43 AM · #34 |
A friend of mine is the manager of a starbucks and its the same there, they dont like pictures taking inside or outside their store...... While I was at another starbucks (even though I hate starbucks) anyway I was at another one with friends and we took some pictures and the manager came to us demanding we stop taking photos and was rude about it....lol after I replied about spending $5.00 on a urine cup size of coffee your telling me we cant take photos in here of us together at the table, he kept saying we cant take photos not telling us why. So we left and went outside and took a photo he comes outside and starts up again......geeze we just laughed it off and left really made no sense to us at all.....
So after that I called my friend and asked her and she said its just their rules..........but I figure its cause they are scared of their competitors and these whole copyright rules..... but still it was just a bunch of customers having fun, what do they do to all the tourist here in NYC that take photos all the time.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:36:54 AM · #35 |
...
Message edited by author 2008-08-19 09:41:02. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 09:43:18 AM · #36 |
Originally posted by Ken:
So the general consensus here is that a mall is private property and they have the right to restrict photography. However, Kantor (author of paper I posted) has another article in Popular Photography stating that they cannot restrict photography in malls. If he is incorrect, I find this quite disturbing because you'd think they would get it right.
Here's a link to an article published in USA Today. |
Originally posted by USA Today:
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot. |
Originally posted by Photographer's Bill of Rights:
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. |
sorry, ken, but that USA Today article contradicts everything i've ever read about the matter. if it's private property, they are allowed to put whatever kind of restrictions in place that they want.
Photographer's Bill of Rights (PDF) |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:04:12 AM · #37 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
sorry, ken, but that USA Today article contradicts everything i've ever read about the matter. if it's private property, they are allowed to put whatever kind of restrictions in place that they want.
|
If it's indeed private property even though it's open to the public, then this is very poor journalism, and both USA Today and Popular Photography should know better. The Pop Photography thing says basically the same thing.
Now more food for thought - if I were to get undressed in a mall (no children present), what would I get arrested for? |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:04:59 AM · #38 |
couple years back we took our church youth group (senior high school age) drama team to Florida and stopped at Wal=Mart one night. As we all entered one of the kids was video taping it and some of his friends around, he was quickly (but politely) told that photography whether video or still was not allowed inside walmart. He was really bummed cause he was making a video of all the goings on of the trip.
It does sound crazy when you consider anyone looking to copy their ideas or displays can just walk in and see it, (or probably even do a rough sketch of it while walking around) but since the Florida trip I make sure I ask if I can take pictures no matter what store I'm in or type of camera I'm using. I even had an employee look at me like I was crazy for asking and said "sure, we got no problem with that". |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:19:03 AM · #39 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Now more food for thought - if I were to get undressed in a mall (no children present), what would I get arrested for? |
i think you're confusing the issue between the "law" (i.e. what is legally allowed) and the "property owner's rights."
murders happen on private property all of the time. they're still breaking the law.
you're not breaking the "law" if you take photographs where a property owner doesn't want you to. but if you refuse to comply with the property owner's wishes, then they can label you as trespassing which is against the law and then they can ask for help from law enforcement.
Message edited by author 2008-08-19 10:19:36. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:36:38 AM · #40 |
You know, I've never even BEEN in a Walmart... Does that make me strange (for an American, at least)?
R.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:39:16 AM · #41 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
You know, I've never even BEEN in a Walmart... Does that make me strange (for an American, at least)?
R. |
... freak |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:44:34 AM · #42 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Ken:
Now more food for thought - if I were to get undressed in a mall (no children present), what would I get arrested for? |
i think you're confusing the issue between the "law" (i.e. what is legally allowed) and the "property owner's rights."
murders happen on private property all of the time. they're still breaking the law.
you're not breaking the "law" if you take photographs where a property owner doesn't want you to. but if you refuse to comply with the property owner's wishes, then they can label you as trespassing which is against the law and then they can ask for help from law enforcement. |
I was going for the "public indecency" answer, but perhaps that's just a semantics issue and it could be called something different.
So if I go into a mall and takes photos it's ok until the owner or representative (security) tells me to stop, at which point I must?
I had an incident a while back where I was in a mall taking a photo of a flower and got harassed by security. The younger guy called the older one over and the older guy said it was ok as long as I didn't take pictures of storefronts. Of course, there were a ton of parents taking pictures of their kids on the carousel and no doubt storefronts were in their pictures.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:49:27 AM · #43 |
Originally posted by Ken:
Now more food for thought - if I were to get undressed in a mall (no children present), what would I get arrested for? |
Don't know about you, but in some cases..."Misrepresentation" comes to mind. :O)
Ray
Message edited by author 2008-08-19 10:49:58. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 10:52:25 AM · #44 |
Originally posted by Ken:
I had an incident a while back where I was in a mall taking a photo of a flower and got harassed by security. |
So a person doing his job is viewed as harassment???
Ray |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 11:06:18 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
Originally posted by Ken:
I had an incident a while back where I was in a mall taking a photo of a flower and got harassed by security. |
So a person doing his job is viewed as harassment???
Ray |
Nope. The younger guard was very rude and accused me of taking pictures of a storefront, which I was not. Even after his supervisor said photography was allowed (except for storefronts) and left the scene, he still didn't believe I was only taking a pictures of a flower and kept questioning me. I showed him my flower pictures just to get him off my back (and prove him wrong).
My point was that the two security guards were inconsistent. The younger one had a "no photography" policy and older one had a "limited photography" policy. And if you have a cellphone camera they evidently have a different photography policy. |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 11:06:59 AM · #46 |
Originally posted by Prof_Fate:
Originally posted by Ken:
I understand the trespassing, but what law would be broken if I were to take a picture in a mall? |
No laws other than it's private propety and they don't want you to do it. All kinds of reasons, architectural intellectual property perhaps.
Here in downtown pittsburgh is a 40 floor skyscraper and you cannot take photos of it - even from the street! The building owners OWN the street! //www.michaelrighi.com/2005/06/11/my-run-in-with-ppg-security/ |
You know, I took pictures of that building at Christmas one year from the street with a cop and two security guards standing right next to me and there was no fuss. They asked me to stop when I was on the sidewalk, but said the street was public when I asked. Weird. I don't remember exactly where I was though. Perhaps the streets that run through the block are owned by them? |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 11:29:54 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by muckpond:
Originally posted by Ken:
So the general consensus here is that a mall is private property and they have the right to restrict photography. However, Kantor (author of paper I posted) has another article in Popular Photography stating that they cannot restrict photography in malls. If he is incorrect, I find this quite disturbing because you'd think they would get it right.
Here's a link to an article published in USA Today. |
Originally posted by USA Today:
You can take photos any place that's open to the public, whether or not it's private property. A mall, for example, is open to the public. So are most office buildings (at least the lobbies). You don't need permission; if you have permission to enter, you have permission to shoot. |
Originally posted by Photographer's Bill of Rights:
Property owners may legally prohibit photography on their premises but have no right to prohibit others from photographing their property from other locations. |
sorry, ken, but that USA Today article contradicts everything i've ever read about the matter. if it's private property, they are allowed to put whatever kind of restrictions in place that they want.
Photographer's Bill of Rights (PDF) |
Like lots of things, this is a case of a little bit of knowledge being dangerous.
On general principlers, when entering private property (inc. a mall) you would ordinarily be entitled to take photographs BUT with the important proviso: unless and until you are informed otherwise (or should reasonably have known otherwise). You could be informed by a sign or by the owner or his representative (eg a cashier or security guard).
The article is partly wrong in this respect. It misconstrues the position as tortious when it is more likely to be analysed in contract.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 12:46:26 PM · #48 |
Originally posted by Ken:
So the general consensus here is that a mall is private property and they have the right to restrict photography. |
Actually, it depends what state you are in. In California, the Supreme Court ruled long ago that because a shopping mall is a quasi-public place, the mall owner has no right to restrict the exercise of free speech and first amendment rights, including public protests (later extended to store boycotts) on its property. Not sure whether this has been extended to photographers yet, but there are strong arguments that it would be.
|
|
|
|
08/19/2008 02:26:03 PM · #49 |
I snuck this shot as I was about to be
impaled by the crazed employee...
 |
|
|
|
08/19/2008 04:57:29 PM · #50 |
Originally posted by Ken:
I had an incident a while back where I was in a mall taking a photo of a flower and got harassed by security. |
Originally posted by RayEthier:
So a person doing his job is viewed as harassment???
Ray |
Originally posted by Ken:
Nope. The younger guard was very rude and accused me of taking pictures of a storefront, which I was not. Even after his supervisor said photography was allowed (except for storefronts) and left the scene, he still didn't believe I was only taking a pictures of a flower and kept questioning me. I showed him my flower pictures just to get him off my back (and prove him wrong).
My point was that the two security guards were inconsistent. The younger one had a "no photography" policy and older one had a "limited photography" policy. And if you have a cellphone camera they evidently have a different photography policy. |
I'll add my two cents to this is well......
I just came back from vacation in Williamsburg, Virginia.
I was in the parking lot of an outlet mall, and took a few pictures of the moon over a clock tower on top of one of the buildings.
Ten minutes or so after I had finished taking pictures, a man in a golf cart pulled up to me, and very politely addressed me, told me that he was sent by security to ask me to cease taking pictures, but that security was busy and could not be contacted 'til the following day. He indicated to me that I could talk to the security office the following day, leading me to believe that it may be possible to obtain permission.
The man was deferential and polite; at that point, I told him that I was just taking pictures of the sky, and that I was finished. He apologized for disturbing me, and that security was unavailable, and in general was quite nice. I assured him that he was most definitely not offending me in any way and that I would contact the office the following day.
The next day was an entirely different story......
The contemptible b*tch in the office, wholly ignorant of any social graces or customer relations, threw around generalizations, overastepped her authority, and general just made such an ass out of herself that I lost patience with her and told HER that if someone accosted me in the manner with which she was speaking, that *I* would call the police and file charges of harassment.
She, of course, just shrugged her shoulders indifferently and ignored me.
People are amazing.
I usually ask as I don't really want anyone uncomfortable with what I'm doing, especially if I may be obviously on someone's property, and it's a deference thing as I may want to return some time.
I was so obviously taking pictures of the sky that it was very much an obvious power trip and outrageous enforcement of arbitrary, and of dubious legal policy.
And I don't feel the need to get tangled up in a mess.
But that twit would have had both the police, and the local news on hand to see how the management/security company treats their patrons. At that point, we had already spent a few hundred dollars in their stores, and I would have made sure that the news, and cops, knew that.
|
|
