| Author | Thread |
|
|
01/05/2005 01:29:44 PM · #1 |
I found this an interesting read. If Walmart had not made such a fuss about the photos being taken no one would have cared.
Walmart Artical |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:32:43 PM · #2 |
Funny. That's my hometown BTW. I think there are current hagerstown residents who are members here. Maybe a good choice for "where's waldo??"
:-) |
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:34:56 PM · #3 |
Woah. They are pretty strict, its not like its illegal to look at the store from the outside, so i don't see why photography is such a concern. I definantly agree with the man in the article. Whatever is in the publics view should be able to be photographed, since everyone is seeing it any way.
|
|
|
|
01/05/2005 01:38:56 PM · #4 |
Good to see they are more concerned with photographers than with naked people walking around outside their store.
Also, kudos on the very realistic stance they are taking concerning permission needed in order to photograph breaking news. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 02:57:51 PM · #5 |
Make sure you always have this with you:
//www.krages.com/phoright.htm |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:07:23 PM · #6 |
Make sure you always have these with you:
the opinions expressed are those of thatcloudthere and do not necessarily represent guys like jacko ;0)
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 15:08:35.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:10:36 PM · #7 |
It's worth noting that the photo restrictions apply to taking photos "on their property", not "of" their property. If Walmart owns or leases the parking lot, for example, they have the right to control what happens in the parking lot, and they also have liability for what happens in the parking lot. Free-standing Walmarts certainly have that right and liability. Walmarts that share a parking lot in a mall probably do not.
They have no right to prohibit photography of their property that is accomplished from outside the property line.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:32:04 PM · #8 |
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's worth noting that the photo restrictions apply to taking photos "on their property", not "of" their property. If Walmart owns or leases the parking lot, for example, they have the right to control what happens in the parking lot, and they also have liability for what happens in the parking lot. Free-standing Walmarts certainly have that right and liability. Walmarts that share a parking lot in a mall probably do not.
They have no right to prohibit photography of their property that is accomplished from outside the property line.
Robt. |
Except they always want it both ways...
You ever see the signs where they disclaim liability for anything stolen or damaged in their parking lots? Yet, at the same time, they want to control someone's ability to take photos of the store? That's absurd.
That's hypocrisy. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:35:59 PM · #9 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
That's hypocrisy. |
Well...I see what you're saying but if somebody tripped in my house and bashed their head I wouldn't want to be liable for their clumsiness...but just because I don't want to be liable doesn't mean I want them to build a campfire in my living room either.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:46:10 PM · #10 |
Originally posted by Nelzie:
Originally posted by bear_music:
It's worth noting that the photo restrictions apply to taking photos "on their property", not "of" their property. If Walmart owns or leases the parking lot, for example, they have the right to control what happens in the parking lot, and they also have liability for what happens in the parking lot. Free-standing Walmarts certainly have that right and liability. Walmarts that share a parking lot in a mall probably do not.
They have no right to prohibit photography of their property that is accomplished from outside the property line.
Robt. |
Except they always want it both ways...
You ever see the signs where they disclaim liability for anything stolen or damaged in their parking lots? Yet, at the same time, they want to control someone's ability to take photos of the store? That's absurd.
That's hypocrisy. |
It's their property, they get to make the rules hypocritical or not. They can have it one way, both ways or three ways if they so desire. If Wally-Mart wants to make a silly rule that says "You can't wear red hats on our property.", they can and they can enforce it, making not wearing a red hat to be a condition of being on their property. By going onto their property, you are accepting their rules.
If you object so strenuously to their "hypocrisy", simply don't shop there.
You could stand on the public sidewalk wearing your red hat and taking all the pictures you want of the store, but you couldn't go into their parking lot and do so.
Rules restricting photography in places like stores, parking lots, shopping malls and the like are pretty commonplace. They can't do much legally if you are actually on publically owned property, but even there, they can approach you and "request" that you stop.
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 16:05:13.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:52:59 PM · #11 |
excuse me but I am very angry and I'm off to go take pictures in a walmart parking lot. I hope they say something to me, I want to settle this onuce and for all
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 03:58:58 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by gi_joe05:
excuse me but I am very angry and I'm off to go take pictures in a walmart parking lot. I hope they say something to me, I want to settle this onuce and for all |
You GO!
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:05:40 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If Wally-Mart wants to make a silly rule that says "You can't wear red hats on our property.", they can and they can enforce it, making not wearing a red hat to be a condition of being on their property. By going onto their property, you are accepting their rules.
|
By the same token, if they have a rule stating "You can't wear red hats on our property", then they need to post signs prominently stating "You can't wear red hats on our property". You must also understand that by inviting the public on to thier private property they have in effect waived many of the right to privacy that most property owners enjoy. In the eyes of the law Wal-Mart is a public place. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:08:47 PM · #14 |
"You ever see the signs where they disclaim liability for anything stolen or damaged in their parking lots?"
That's a different thing altogether. There are legal precedents that you can't be held responsible for damage caused by others on your parking lot unless it can be shown that you created conditions that contributed to the loss or damage. In other words, you're not required to have traffic police directing cars and plainclothesmen looking for thieves.
The disclaimer is just a reminder of that. On the other hand, they can't put up a disclaimer that "We are not responsible for damage to your automobile if you drive into one of our potholes", because they have a clear legal responsibility to maintain the lot in good condition.
And, disclaimer or not, if you can prove that they were at fault in any situation, they will be held liable.
Robt.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:12:44 PM · #15 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
It's their property, they get to make the rules hypocritical or not. They can have it one way, both ways or three ways if they so desire. If Wally-Mart wants to make a silly rule that says "You can't wear red hats on our property.", they can and they can enforce it, making not wearing a red hat to be a condition of being on their property. By going onto their property, you are accepting their rules. |
Not quite -- they are not allowed to conduct business with the public and arbitrarily discriminate without some valid health or safety reason. They can't, for example, refuse to allow you to shop only because you are female, or black, or of a certain religion. They probably can't prohibit you from wearing a red hat, unless they can prove that it somehow compromises public safety or the orderly operation of their business in a way which a blue hat would not.
They cannot prohibit you from standing in the aisle and discussing with your partner the relative merits of their product versus one from Sears.
They can probably prohibit photography of their unsold products on the shelves on the basis of preventing industrial espionage. However, if I buy (for example) a ring from them, and choose to stop and take a photo of it for insurance inventory purposes, I don't think they'd have a right to stop that.
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 16:14:53. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:20:55 PM · #16 |
Funny how the title of the article is about the naked man. And even the subtitle is about the naked man. But, the last 80% of the article is about the photographer and that situation, never returning to the naked man.
The naked man was like an opening act that got top billing.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:21:22 PM · #17 |
Originally posted by nsbca7:
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
If Wally-Mart wants to make a silly rule that says "You can't wear red hats on our property.", they can and they can enforce it, making not wearing a red hat to be a condition of being on their property. By going onto their property, you are accepting their rules.
|
By the same token, if they have a rule stating "You can't wear red hats on our property", then they need to post signs prominently stating "You can't wear red hats on our property". You must also understand that by inviting the public on to thier private property they have in effect waived many of the right to privacy that most property owners enjoy. In the eyes of the law Wal-Mart is a public place. |
Ummm, no, they don't need to post signs. If it's not posted, they can't say that you knew the rules, but once you are informed of the rules by an agent of company, you must abide by them or leave. If you refuse, then you are tresspassing. They are largely free to tell you to leave for just about any reason as long as that reasoning is not applied in a discriminatory manner. (e.g. they can't be based on things like race, religion, gender etc.)
Wal-Mart, or any other privately owned property may be open to the public, but is definitely not public property. Public property is "owned" by the public, not a corporation.
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 16:24:33.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:28:01 PM · #18 |
Guess all photographers ever considering shooting any breaking news in a Wal-Mart parking better get permission 24 hours in advance of the incident.
Wonder how that works?
Geez.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:33:50 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by BradP:
Guess all photographers ever considering shooting any breaking news in a Wal-Mart parking better get permission 24 hours in advance of the incident.
Wonder how that works?
Geez. |
Reporters need to throw chicken bones, read tea leaves, consult with the Oracle or whatever means they use to predict the future and call ahead. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me.
If they can't do that, I doubt that Wally World would say or do anything unless they thought the pictures would make them look bad.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:42:59 PM · #20 |
Just for fun try this link
Walmart photos
I guess they aren't doing all that well at keeping their stores from being photographed. |
|
|
|
01/06/2005 04:47:56 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by Spazmo99:
Reporters need to throw chicken bones, read tea leaves, consult with the Oracle or whatever means they use to predict the future and call ahead. Sounds perfectly reasonable to me. |
Nah, just go there everyday when they open and get permission for that day just in case.
Actually the Chicken Bones sounds plausible...
(and obviously jsut can't spell somedays either)...
Message edited by author 2005-01-06 18:35:03.
|
|
|
|
01/06/2005 06:23:01 PM · #22 |
Thanks Scott... I really didn't need to see that.
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/25/2024 09:06:35 AM EDT.
