A Brave New World (another mall photography story)

<p>I was shooting a few digital snap shots today at the 2nd largest mall in the USA (The Palisades Mall in Nanuet, NY). It is an architectural wonder of sorts , being 4 stories tall and hundreds of thousands (or maybe millions) of sq ft. This was my first visit and it's open floor plan demanded a few pics be shot.<br>

When lo and behold the mall security "caught" me while patrolling on his Segue. He asked me what I was taking pictures for? Without being too much of a smart ass, I told him it was my life long hobby.</p>

<p>He immediately called for "back up". "All photo taking is prohibited in the mall", were the words from the supervisor of security. I then asked how would a visitor know this? He then tried to tell me that there were signs at every entrance that state, "no photography". At this time I continued walking to "entrance G" where I had entered. The mall security was now calling the local police. And they demanded I delete all the pictures I took on their property. Like this is going to happen without some court order? Or handcuffs at the very least.</p>

<p> All the while I continued walking towards the exit. When the 3 security men and I arrived there. They couldn't show me the sign that prohibited photo taking, because there isn't one. As I drove off, the police arrived.</p><div></div>

<p>Were you by any chance wearing explosive underwear?</p>

<p>Cumberland Mall in Marietta, GA was a little nicer to me a year or two back. I took a few pictures with my DSLR and got stopped and asked. I said I was taking a few pictures of the post-renovations to show my Mom who was here during Katrina. It was such a mess while she was here. They seemed satisfied, but I didn't push it. I've taken a few pictures once before, but that was with a Minox 35GT camera (looks like a point and shoot) and wasn't asked then. Maybe that was a more innocent age though. I would guess the more like a toy your camera looks, the less likely you're going to have issues.</p>

<p>However, Malls aren't public property so if they do want to prohibit photography they can. One thing for sure though, I don't think you can count on common sense or reasonability from the police these days. You probably did the right thing. You would hope that staying calm and reasonable and asking to see the mall manager and talking to him about what the rules are might work, but I'm not so sure after that photographer got arrested in the mall recently (by the off-duty cop masquerading as a mall cop). Once someone overreacts, they seem to feel the need to justify their actions at all costs, and who knows what the mall owner is telling the security staff. But it would certainly be more fair to post "no photography" signs if that is their policy. Most people will follow the rules if you tell them what the rules are.</p>

<p>A real professional photographer would probably just get some kind of formal permission from the mall management or owner.</p>

<p>According to their mall poicies, you CAN take photos there:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.palisadescenter.com/content.asp?ContentId=531&inside_mall=Yes">http://www.palisadescenter.com/content.asp?ContentId=531&inside_mall=Yes</a></p>

<p>Photography is NOT specifically prohibited. This is in West Nyack -- same mall?</p>

<p>Yes ,West Nyack,NY. In all fairness, I was wearing my secret Al Qaeda decoder ring. What if a parent were shooting pix of their tykes after blowing a hundred bucks at Chucky Cheese? Security threatens them with arrest?</p>

<p> Terrorists do not need to shoot pictures of malls , bldgs , bridges, railroads or subways prior to acting out their evil deeds.</p>

<p>If only we'd caught the 911 terrorists when they were still shooting photos?</p>

<p>Do a search on this site for "mall photographer" (and photographer, and photographing, etc). You'll find many anecdotes (which is what they all are), followed by much discussion about the practical, legal, and philosophical ramifications.<br /><br />It <em>is</em> private property, and they don't need a sign up to tell you (and not the soccer mom ten feet away from you) to stop taking pictures in their business. That doesn't mean that every possible way to handle it is as good as the next one, or that every motivation for deciding when and why to stop someone is as good as the next... especially in terms of public relations. But shrewd PR isn't the same as <em>rights</em>. Those two things may overlap or bump into each other in many situations, but they are separate conversations.<br /><br />They certainly can't arrest you if you stop when they ask you to, nor can they make you surrender or delete equipment/images. The responding cops would know that. The trick is <strong><a href="../off-topic-forum/00VDsy">to not stick your camera in the cop's face</a></strong> and demonstrate your manhood by saying you'll take <em>his</em> picture, too, dammit.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> The responding cops would know that</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I'm not sure I'd bet on that one...</p><p>I suspect that if you'd been using a cell phone camera they would have ignored you. It's well known that terrorists are pixel peepers and would never be satisfied with cell phone shots.</p><p>Since it is private property I don't think they have to specifically exclude photography, but if they don't then it's less reasonable for them to get upset about it.</p>

Is there a Santa there at Christmas? For kids? No photos? I don't think so.

<p>Actually, most in-mall Santa businesses <em>don't</em> allow (or make it easy for) parents taking pictures of their hired Santa with kids. Depends on the arrangements. Regardless, it's the property managers that are setting up and making provisions for that specific activity and the vendor that's providing the set, the personnel, and probably the liability insurance for what happens in those couple hundred square feet while Santa's on the clock.<br /><br />That's simply not the same as the considerations that drive the usual no-real-photography-here policies (like, retailers not wanting expensive new displays or high-end items photographed by competition, management that doesn't want to hear from creeped-out moms that someone is photographing their kids, and other lawsuit-magnet stuff).</p>

<p>My trouble is that since age 15 or so, I've wandered around shooting photos. It might be "their" mall, but it's "my" photo studio.</p>

<p>If you really want to take photographs in a mall or shopping center (I would rather go to the dentist for a root canal) here is what you do: when you see something you would like to photograph (can't imagine what myself), look around for the rent a cops (they can't be everywhere) and if they are not around, snap away. If they ask why you are carrying a camera, tell them their parking lot security is so pathetic that you don't want to leave it in your car for fear of being stolen and that you would never even think about taking photos in a private shopping mall. Play the silly game, just be smart about it.</p>

<p>we live in an increasingly suspicious age. carry a small camera and leave that big dslr at home when going shopping. take as many pictures as you like with your point and shoot.<br>

the alternative is to write to the mall, obtain their permission and then take your large format with you!</p>

<p>". . . the mall security "caught" me while patrolling on his Segue."<br /> You would want to change that part of the story before you got to: A., the bar or B., jail.</p>

<p><a href="

you make your escape on a Hoveround?</a></p>

<p>Next time, lure that security guard into chasing you up the escalator on one of those ridiculous Segways. That would have been a good photo.</p>

<p>I have long contended that if a terrorist group wants to wreak havoc on par with the WTC disaster, they would target a shopping mall on a Saturday. I seriously doubt that the perpetrators would show up in advance and take pictures. He/she would probably just show up at lunchtime in the food court and push the button.<br /> No amount of mall cops stopping people from taking snapshots is going to prevent an action such as that. It just shows the mentality of(or lack of) "security" firms(or the people who hire them).</p>

<p>Blake: the "no pictures in the mall" policies (which were around a <em>long</em> time before 9/11) don't have much to do with securing those properties against suicide bombers. You want a <em>real</em> terrorism event? Sit in a mall property management office listening to a panicky mom talk about how her children are being photographed by a stranger with a "big" camera. Now <em>she's</em> terrifying. <br /><br />Or, have a try at photographing near the store windows of a fine jeweler in Italy. They are so anxious not to have detailed images of a new design or collection wind up prematurely in an e-mail to a Chinese knock-off fabricator that they'll literally run at you (the photographer) with a broom. Um, I had that happen, more or less.<br /><br />Terrorists casing the mall ain't what these policies are about.</p>

<p>This could lead to a new <em>start-up industry</em> . Some lucky man or lady will get the ground floor opportunity to have each and every mall shopper put their cell phone into a secure mini-locker, so no one will be able to photograph anything. the mall gets income from the mini-locker business; customer's cannot photograph while shopping.</p>

<p>Ha!</p>

 

<p>I'm interested in seeing how they think they can force somebody to erase the pictures. Unless they want to reach the level of assault, without a court order I don't see how they can do it. Not that they're above assault, however. Years ago my brother was taken prisoner by mall cops (true story) in an odd racial profiling/shoplifting case, and extracted a decent-sized settlement out of it. Stupidity costs.</p>

<p>As Ken has said, nothing in their published policy prevents photography. I have pointed out this thread to mall management through their 'contact' page, and invited a response.</p>

<p>There seems to be an epidemic of security personell making up policy on the fly.</p>

<p>Jim: Their published policies probably don't say "sitting in the middle of a mall hallway floor and eating pizza is prohibited, as is walking up to people you don' t know and saying offensive things, as is wheeling your friend around on a hand truck, as is bringing in an easel and doing an oil painting, as is whatever else <em>we</em> find to be disruptive or unsettling to our customers..." either. And those <em>customers </em>aren't the shoppers. The mall's customers are its paying tenants, who are expecting the mall to provide an atmosphere of a certain flavor in which they can attract <em>their</em> customers, and make them feel comfortable. <br /><br />Which isn't to say that someone taking snapshots is counter to that atmosphere. But the point is that it's a judgment call made by the people that own the property, based on their own sense of whether it's worth it or not. They don't need to articulate every single thing you can't do in order to allow their representative (the guard) to be able to ask you to stop it, or to leave if you won't, or to call the cops when you <em>won't</em> leave when asked. Is it better to ask the guard to distinguish between 10mp point-and-shoot cameras and a DSLR with a 12x superzoom? Does he have to wait until someone <em>does</em> spend five minutes shooting HD video up women's skirts on the escalator before asking them to stop?<br /><br />It's a judgment call, and it's theirs to make. Of course, they sound like jackasses when they tell you that every door has a sign saying "no photography," when that's actually not true. All they have to do is say, "please stop using your camera on our property," and that's the end of that.</p>

<p>Certainly they can say "stop taking pictures on our property". They can also ban gum chewing, and blue jeans. But what's the point? To become a police state? Every other person entering malls these days is carrying a camera of some sort. And their cameras are built into phones which are perfectly legal and acceptable to carry in one's hand in the mall.</p>

<p>If I knew I were breaking any laws, I would have shot with my tiny palm sized P&S digital. And I would have left my Nikon D50 in the car. In which case they wouldn't have "caught" me.</p>

<p>I was in mall in Memphis a few years ago that had rules that were plainly racist. "No over sized clothes, no backwards or sideways wearing of caps". Hmmm what demographic are they seeking to keep out?</p>

<p> As a Libertarian, I feel that federal civil rights of free speech and the right to lawful assembly etc, need to super-cede mall rules. In an open public access bldg such as mall. I acknowledge their need to enforce all laws, and to assure everyone's safety while visiting the mall. But a "no picture taking rule", is interfering with life, liberty and the pursuit of that elusive happiness.</p>

<p>Truth be told , I never shop in malls anyway. So they might as well through my useless ass out.</p>

<p>It was my impression that whether or not malls have the right to enact certain restrictions is entirely unclear. That is, to your point, while malls are private property, they may also be considered public accommodations, in which case I suspect this evokes a number of gray areas, especially with respect to constitutional rights and expression. Obviously, I don't think there are clear answers, especially when you're talking about right to freely engage in commerce vs certain disruptions inherent in public assembly, for instance.</p>

<p>Then again, if you and a bunch of friends were wearing t-shirts with teabagger slogans or say, anti-Israel t-shirts, would that be grounds for ejection from the mall? Or even a quadruple amputee whose presence is making "some people" uncomfortable. It's a pretty gray area when it comes to what constitutes a reasonable basis to eject somebody before it becomes a civil rights issue in such a massive facility designed to serve the general public, generally without restriction.</p>

<p>Just be cool and chill about it and the rent-a-cops won't find you. Works for me.</p>

<p>Don't be an obvious mark. And, if caught, tell them you are an amateur 'addicted to photography" (you are in fact). Also, if caught, learn how not to be so obvious or learn how to be chill or wary (street smart). Carry your business card too to disarm these $10/hour "security" guards.</p>

<p>And yes, <strong>I shop and spend there </strong>at these malls and shops. </p><div></div>

<p>Matt, my friend. I have neither condemned nor condoned any mall policy regarding photography. On the other hand, Mall policy regarding training of personel could very well be called into question! I feel a bit blindsided by you (especially in light of my respect for you, your knowledge, and your work) when you feel a need to read into what I have written.</p>

<p>I do, indeed, question the methods and knowledge of the security people, but have no idea why you would feel a need to defend the mall to me when all I have done is to seek enlightenment in the form of the point of view of management of a major mall regarding a subject which pops up here quite often. (wow - that was a long sentence)</p>

<p>Peace!</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Jim: I'm not defending a mall (or that mall), per se. I'm defending a property owner's right to have some (sometimes capricious-seeming) influence over how their property is used - including the need/right to make such calls on the spot and in a way that doesn't always appear consistent to everyone who observes or experiences the results.<br /><br />I think a lot of people look at this situation a bit backwardly, and forget that the only reason there's a shopping mall <em>there</em> is because some people risked a great deal of money, time, effort, and perpetual liability risk to launch and run such a facility. I suppose I took your use of the word "epidemic" as a pejorative, implying a large and new problem ... but I maintain that mall operators (and their often randomly competent hired guards!) have always been just like this: setting rules that reflect the behavior of their customers and the people that patronize them, and sometimes doing it on the fly. I'd certainly want the ability to do that in my own business, and thus get a little testy on the subject.<br /><br />In effect, I'm defending <em>myself</em> (since we're all in the same boat)<em>.</em> I suppose I skew a bit libertarian on this subject, but not in the way that some others suggest that would manifest itself. I see the mall operator as a proxy for myself - and see a push-back against their ability to say what people can do in their business as being a bit of a slippery slope. For some reason, the current zeitgeist/fashion is to treat business entities larger than a mom-and-pop operation as Genuinely Evil, and that just gets under my skin. I don't see an epidemic of anything, at the moment, other than increasing comfort at having third parties (including municipal, county, state and federal governments) have more of a hand in how businesses operate their properties.<br /><br />Jim, I sure wasn't picking on you. It's just that we seem to be perceiving two very different epidemics, I guess! Peace, to be sure.</p>

<p>Matt, I can't argue with a word you've said. Your having to say it here, though, is a bit akin to our need to often guess on legal matters, in the lack of a knowledgeable lawyer to give more clear answers. </p>

<p>I agree that <em>if </em>I owned a mall, I would also like the latitude to decide at the moment - without the interference of some group or government entity - what is the best and safest way in which to run my own business. Given the fact that we don't seem to have any mall owners or managers (including the two of us) contributing to P.N., I think it would broaden our understanding to get that point of view. </p>

<p>Before anyone points it out, I fully understand that those people are under no obligation to speak to us. It may, however, be good P.R., given the fact that malls often have camera stores, travel agencies, and many other retail entities where many of us have spent a couple of bucks now and again.</p>

<p>Thanks, Matt. Keep up the great work!</p>

<p> </p>